Addictive Foods

25. June 2007 William Davis (3)
Kraft Foods, Inc. is manufacturer of Kool Aid, Oscar Mayer, Kraft Macaroni and Cheese, Velveeta, Honey Maid Grahams, and hundreds of other processed food products. Post cereals also falls under the umbrella of Kraft with products like Raisin Bran, Post Toasties, and Fruity Pebbles. Annual revenues in 2006 for Kraft: $34.4 billion. A big operation with enormous influence over our eating habits.

Nabisco is manufacturer of Oreos, Ritz Crackers, Chips Ahoy and many others. Like Kraft/Post, it is also a big player.

While Nabisco was owned for several years by tobacco giant RJ Reynolds, in 2000 it was acquired by Philip Morris, another big tobacco manufacturer.

More recently in Spring, 2007, Philip Morris (now called Altria--you'd change your name, too, if it was synonymous with dirt) spun off its Kraft subsidiary for a big profit. However, the management structures remain intertwined.

In other words, despite the shuffling of shares, the two industries, big tobacco and big food, are in many respects one and the same.

Is it any surprise that the same industry that made billions of dollars pushing addictive nicotine products responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people is now intimately involved with addictive products produced and marketed by the processed food industry?

If you believe that food manufacturers are innocently and honestly conducting their businesses, simply think back to the testimony provided in front of Congress during the tobacco industry hearings. Broad deception, concealed truths, and outright lies were commonplace. There was no conscience involved. This was about money--and lots of it.

Why should the processed food industry, intimate with the tobacco industry, be any different?

If you want control over heart disease and your heart scan score, buy produce and buy local. Spend your time in the produce aisle, not the cereal or chip aisle. Unprocessed food, unadorned by bright labels, cartoon animals, American Heart Association endorsements, that's what we should seek.

Heart Scan Curiosities #7

25. June 2007 William Davis (1)



Here's a situation that crops up once in a while, occurring in perhaps 2% of heart scans.

The white within the circled area represents calcium, and thereby atherosclerotic plaque, situated immediately at the "mouth", or opening, of the the right coronary artery. What is somewhat unusual is that this plaque is not principally coronary, but aortic. That is, the plaque is mostly situated in the large vessel called the aorta. The three coronary arteries arise from the aorta.

In this instance, the aortic plaque involves the mouth of the right coronary artery. (In views not shown, the plaque also extends into the artery as well.) I call this a "double whammy" because the same plaque can post risk for heart attack and stroke.

Generally, aortic plaques pose risk for stroke. When aortic plaque fragments, little bits and pieces can travel upward to the brain and block an artery, thus a stroke.

In the coronaries, disrupted ("ruptured") plaques don't generally shower debris, but permit blood clot formation, resulting in heart attack.

This plaque, however, poses the theoretical risk of both heart attack and stroke because of its strategic location.

Should a plaque like this be handled any differently? I don't think so. But it does provide another reason to take atherosclerotic plaque in any artery seriously.

The nutrition counterculture

23. June 2007 William Davis (2)
When we look back over our American nutritional history over the last 50 years, it's hard not to come to the conclusion that much of the innovation in nutrition did not come from official agencies like the Food and Nutrition Board of the Institute of Medicine, the National Academy of Sciences, the FDA, the USDA, or the AMA.

Instead, it came from the popular culture. It came from bold, extravagant claims made by maverick figures like Ancel Keys, Nathan Pritikin, Dean Ornish, and Robert Atkins. Of course, some ideas have now fallen by the wayside, dismissed in a broad American "experiment" as ineffective, impractical, or kooky. But it permitted experimentation on an extraordinary scale with millions of people following a particular strategy at a time.

The advice of the official agencies tended to be reactionary. When nutritional deficiencies (remember those?) of the early 1900s were prevalent, they issued advice on food choices to help alleviate deficiencies. When deficiency transformed into excess after World War II, "smart" food choices from food groups and "sensible eating" became the theme.

Unfortunately, the advice was always adulterated by the enormous influence of various special interests, anxious to protect their national franchise. Powerful groups like the meat industry, wheat producers, and the dairy industry all made sure they had a big hand in crafting and influencing what was told to the American people.

The result: the advice offered by official groups has always represented the compromise of what some agency wished to convey to the people and the very powerful input of industry. What if the government decided to advise us what automobile to buy? Imagine the uproar in the auto industry when Washington tells us to buy Toyota for fuel economy and reliability. How long would that advice last?

That's why almost no knowledgeable adult follows the advice of the USDA, the National Academy of Sciences, or the Food Pyramid. I believe that we all intuitively recognize that the advice is watered-down, sometimes silly, sometimes downright unhealthy.

Nonetheless, the national experiment in diet that has taken place since 1950 has led to a collective wisdom of what is good and what is bad. The most productive conversations on nutrition therefore take place outside of the USDA and Washington. It occurs, instead, in places like bookstores, websites, and the media. Of course, there's lots of misinformation and profiteering in these sectors, as well. But like the enormous force unleashed by the collective wisdom of those contributing to the Wikipedia phemonenon, we've zig-zagged to something closer to the truth than ever uttered by an official agency.

Prescription vitamin D

23. June 2007 William Davis (32)
Niacin:

Over-the-counter: $2-5 per month
Prescription: $120 per month


Fish oil:

Over-the-counter: $3-6 per month
Prescription: $120 per month


Vitamin D:

Over-the-counter: $2 per month
Prescription: $70 per month



With vitamin D in particular, the prescription form is vastly inferior to the over-the-counter preparation. This is because the prescription form is ergocalciferol, or vitamin D2, not the effective human form, vitamin D3 or cholecalciferol.

When you're exposed to sun, what form of vitamin D is activated in the skin? It's all vitamin D3, no vitamin D2 whatsoever. Vitamin D3 is also far more effective than D2. People taking D3 (as long as it's oil-based) easily obtain healthy levels of vitamin D in the blood. People taking 50,000 units per day of D2 (the recommended quantity) remain miserably deficient, with minor increases in vitamin D blood levels. In short, D2 barely works at all. D3 works easily and effectively.

Moreover, D2 is the plant-based form. It is a form not found naturally in humans. D3 is the mammalian form, the same found in humans that exerts all its biologic benefits.

Then why is the prescription form of vitamin D2 (brand names Driscol and Calciferol) more expensive?

It's the same old pharmaceutical industry scam: Look for something patent protectable, regardless of whether it's superior to the non-patent protectable product, then sell it for exagerated profits. Though it is inferior and the science and clinical experience prove that it's inferior, you can still fool lots of people, including prescribing physicians. So what if you only make $50 or $100 million?

Don't fall for it. Prescription doesn't necessarily mean superior. In fact, the prescription form may be significantly inferior, as with vitamin D2. But the pharmaceutical industry carries such power and persuasion, who's going to know?

Nutrition activist Mike Adams

20. June 2007 William Davis (1)












I borrowed the above comic from the website of nutritionist, more properly nutrition activist and author, Mike Adams. His website, www.newstarget.com, was a pleasant surprise.

I was actually looking for some thoughts on pharmaceutical advertising and its pervasive and destructive effects and came across one of Adam's reports, Pharmaceutical television advertising is a grand hoax at http://www.newstarget.com/021526.html. The piece is a rant against the pharmaceutical industry's constant bombardment of the media, who have also been co-opted into their service, enticed by the enormous advertising revenues the drug industry brings.

But I was surprised to find an insightful, informative website on health issues, particularly healthy eating that rejects the manufactured food industry's intensive effort to persuade us to eat their products. While I don't agree with everything Adams has to say, his website provides some great food for thought. He also provides lots of downloadable information.

There's also some great laughs at his poke at the pharmaceutical industry with his Disease Mongering Engine at http://www.newstarget.com/disease-mongering-engine.asp, in which you get to create your own diseases. I got a real kick out of this.

CT scans and radiation exposure

19. June 2007 William Davis (8)


The NY Times ran an article called

With Rise in Radiation Exposure, Experts Urge Caution on Tests at

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/19/health/19cons.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1182254102-vQpytpx6W/Z9gvAaNPDZvA



“This is an absolutely sentinel event, a wake-up call,” said Dr. Fred A. Mettler Jr., principal investigator for the study, by the National Council on Radiation Protection. “Medical exposure now dwarfs that of all other sources.”


Where do CT heart scans fall?

Let's first take a look at exposure measured for different sorts of tests:



Typical effective radiation dose values

Computed tomography Milliseverts (mSv)

Head CT 1 – 2 mSv
Pelvis CT 3 – 4 mSv
Chest CT 5 – 7 mSv
Abdomen CT 5 – 7 mSv
Abdomen/pelvis CT 8 – 11 mSv
Coronary CT angiography 5 – 12 mSv

Non-CT Milliseverts (mSv)

Hand radiograph Less than 0.1 mSv
Chest radiograph Less than 0.1 mSv
Mammogram 0.3 – 0.6 mSv
Barium enema exam 3 – 6 mSv
Coronary angiogram 5 – 10 mSv
Sestamibi myocardial perfusion (per injection) 6 – 9 mSv
Thallium myocardial perfusion (per injection) 26 – 35 mSv

Source: Cynthia H. McCullough, Ph.D., Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN


If you have a heart scan on an EBT device, then your exposure is 0.5-0.6 mSv, roughly the same as a mammogram or several standard chest x-rays.

A heart scan on a 16- or 64-slice multidetector device, your exposure is around 1.0-2.0 mSv, about the same as 2-3 mammograms, though dose can vary with this technology depending on how it is performed (gated to the EKG, device settings, etc.)

CT coronary angiography presents a different story. This is where radiation really escalates and puts the radiation exposure issue in the spotlight. As Dr. Cynthia McCullough's chart shows above, the radiation exposure with CT coronary angiograms is 5-12 mSv, the equivalent of 100 chest x-rays or 20 mammograms. Now that's a problem.

The exposure is about the same for a pelvic or abdominal CT. The problem is that some centers are using CT coronary angiograms as screening procedures and even advocating their use annually. This is where the alarm needs to be sounded. These tests, as wonderful as the information and image quality can be, are not screening tests. Just like a pelvic CT, they are diagnostic tests done for legimate medical questions. They are not screening tests to be applied broadly and used year after year.

Always be mindful of your radiation exposure, as the NY Times article rightly advises. However, don't be so frightened that you are kept from obtaining truly useful information from, for instance, a CT heart scan (not angiography) at a modest radiation cost.



Detail on radiation exposure with CT coronary angiograms on multidetector devices can be found at Hausleiter J, Meyer T, Hadamitzyky M et al. Radiation Dose Estimates From Cardiac Multislice Computed Tomography in Daily Practice: Impact of Different Scanning Protocols on Effective Dose Estimates. Circulation 2006;113:1305-1310, one of several studies on this issue.

Mediterranean diet vs. American Heart Association Diet

18. June 2007 William Davis (4)
In 1994, the Lyon Heart Study demonstrated a 50-70% reduction in coronary events in participants who followed a diet rich in vegetables, olive oil, fish, nuts, red wine, and enjoyed meals as a family activity. Various other studies have documented similar phenomena with less metabolic syndrome, better lipid patterns, less obesity with the Mediterranean lifestyle.

There are two fundamental differences between the Mediterranean diet and the diet advocated by the American Heart Association (AHA) for people with heart disease: the Mediterranean diet uses olive oil more liberally, such that fat calories can reach 40% of total; and, unlike the AHA diet, processed foods are not a part of the Mediterranean diet. Greeks, for instance, are far less likely to eat Count Chocula cereal for breakfast, or snack on Healthy Choice Premium Caramel Swirl Sandwich (ice cream sandwiches) or Malt-O-Meal Honey Nut Scooters. All three of these foods on listed on the AHA Heart-Check Mark heart-healthy program.

In other words, remove all the processed foods, and the AHA diet pretty closely resembles the Mediterranean diet. There are differences but they tend to be relatively small. If the only major difference is the presence of processed foods, wouldn't you therefore expect the AHA to embrace the Mediterranean diet?

Here's what their official stand on the Mediterranean diet states:

Does a Mediterranean-style diet follow American Heart Association dietary recommendations?

Mediterranean-style diets are often close to our dietary recommendations, but they don’t follow them exactly. In general, the diets of Mediterranean peoples contain a relatively high percentage of calories from fat. This is thought to contribute to the increasing obesity in these countries, which is becoming a concern.



The AHA is actually lukewarm towards the diet that was the first to show a dramatic decrease in heart attack and death. Why?

The answer is obvious, once cast in this light. To wholeheartedly endorse the Mediterranean diet might be seen as an indirect rejection of American processed foods. You know, the foods that have caused an extraordinary and unprecedented epidemic of obesity in the U.S., the foods that are manufactured by ConAgra, General Mills, Kelloggs--all also major financial contributors to the AHA, according to the AHA Annual Report.

I tell my patients: If you want heart disease, follow the American Heart Association diet. In my view, it is a diet founded on politics and money, not on health. How else could Cocoa Puffs be regarded as heart healthy?

Track Your Plaque in 50,000 BC

16. June 2007 William Davis (3)
Imagine we could send you back in a time machine to 50,000 BC.

However, our agreement: no modern tools or equipment. Just your brain, hands, and legs. And your landing spot will be tropical or semi-tropical, the same climate that humans spent much of their evolutionary time in.

Not only might you rub elbows with contemporaries like homo erectus and neanderthalensis, you'd also have to fend for your life and survival.

To eat, you will have to chase and kill wild game, all with your bare hands or crude tools crafted from sticks and stones. You will have to learn what wild berries, roots, and plants are edible and distingusih them from those that make you retch, make your bowels run, or kill you. You won't be able to cultivate grain, at least for a good long time, since you don't have a community that makes such an undertaking easier.

Instead, you are constantly on the run, from the moment you awake until you finally settle back as the sun sets, hopefully with a full stomach, but often empty and growling, anticipating the hunt and forage of tomorrow.

You are outdoors all day, except for the period when you hide in your cave or self-made shelter. You wear what little clothing you can make yourself from your kills, a skin or two. Your skin becomes a dark brown, a 5 foot 10 inch male will weigh 140 lbs, a 5 foot 5 inch woman 95 lbs. There are obvious downsides: your teeth will rot, you will be prone to infections, and predators view you as fair game.

But the result will be that many chronic diseases of modern life will no longer be worries for you. Heart disease? Highly unlikely. Do you need vitamin D? No, because you are outdoors virtually all day with most of your body surface area exposed to sun. Omega-3 fatty acids? You get those from the wild game you eat, since they have higher omega-3 content feeding in the wild, not eating corn like modern livestock. Since your body fat is minimal, just enough for survival, you don't need niacin.

In other words, many of the strategies of the Track Your Plaque program are modern necessities, responses to the "deficiencies" of modern life. Of course, I don't really have a time machine. I also doubt that you wish to hunt wild game every day, forage for plants and roots, run nearly-naked in the sun. You probably also have become accustomed to brushing your teeth and not viewing every animal as a potential threat to your life.

Nonetheless, I find this an interesting exercise for understanding the role of all the tools we use in the Track Your Plaque program for plaque control.

When pessimism wins

15. June 2007 William Davis (3)
When I first met Hank, I immediately sensed it: anger, hostility, fear. His heart scan score of 685 just made it worse.


He didn't want to be there talking to me. His wife was giving him a hard time. Work was a constant source of irritation. The receptionist at the front desk screwed up his paperwork. Our office charges were too much.


In short, Hank was a pessimist. A bad one.


All the nutrition information out there is bunk. Only he knew how he should eat right. It's stupid to take a lot of fish oil. "You want me to grow gills?"


Among the parameters we use in the Track Your Plaque program is blood pressure during exercise, which provides a surrogate measure of blood pressure during emotional stress, anxiety, etc. "No, I don't need that. I already exercise." No amount of justification could change his mind. "A guy at work had a stress test. They said everything was fine, then Bang! He drops dead. What good is that?"


Hank did go along with a few pieces of advice.


A repeat heart scan 12 months after the first: 870, a 27% per year rate of increase. That's about what would happen if Hank had done nothing, had taken no action to try and stop or reduce his heart scan score.


I don't know if Hank will ever succeed in dropping his score. In fact, I suspect that he will fail, meaning that plaque will grow and he will eventually, perhaps in a year, two or three, require several stents, heart bypass, or have a heart attack. In other words, Hank's pessimism is a self-fulfilling phenomenon: If he believes he will fail, he will. If he believes the world is a rotten place, it is.


Is it possible to "cure" someone like Hank of his deeply-rooted pessimistic attitudes? I don't know of any easy solutions for someone with attitudes as deeply-ingrained as Hank's. (See my prior post, "Cure for pessimism?" at http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2007_05_01_archive.html.)

I believe it does help to make someone aware of their attitudes and that it does indeed exert ill health-effects--if they will believe it. But this is a very tough nut to crack.

Bad news on CoQ10?

13. June 2007 William Davis (8)
A review of the effects of Coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10) on the muscle aches and weakness (myopathy) of statin drug therapy was just published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

(Marcoff L, Thompson PD. The role of coenzyme Q10 in statin-associated myopathy. J Amer Coll Cardiol 2007;49(23):2231-2237.)

This is not a study, but a review of the existing scientific and clinical data available on this topic. The study authors conclude with a lukewarm statement:

". . .there is insufficient evidence to prove the etiologic [causal] role of CoQ10 deficiency in statin-associated myopathy and that large, well-designed clinical trials are required to address this issue. The routine use of CoQ10 cannot be recommended in statin-treated patients. Nevertheless, there are no known risks to this supplement and there is some anecdotal and preliminary trial evidence of its effectiveness. Consequently, CoQ10 can be tested in patients requiring statin treatment, who develop statin myalgia, and who cannot besatisfactorily treated with other agents. Some patients may respond, if only via placebo effect."

Should the media get hold of this report, be prepared for the usual "Nutritional supplement no help for drug toxicity" headlines, or "Yet another nutritional supplement shows no benefit" with parallels drawn to vitamin C or E.

There are several issue that need to be factored into the discussion:

1) This is not a study, just a review. Thus, any biases of the authors are more likely to exert themselves.

2) The understanding of CoQ10 absorption among different preparations may be an issue. I just received a mailing from Life Extension that made extravagant claims about the superior absorption of ubiquinol, to be distinguished from ubiquinone, the more common form. They claim that eight-fold increased absorption and blood levels of CoQ10 are achievable with ubiquinol. Unfortunately, virtually all the supportive data are unpublished, proprietary observations, i.e., generated by companies who make or sell it. This is as reliable as drug manufacturers who publish glowing reports on their own drugs--perhaps it's true, but it requires unbiased corroboration.

3) Despite the lack of a large, well-funded clinical trial (all are small), the issue continues to live and breathe because of the powerful anecdotal experience.

In our experience, CoQ10 does work. It doesn't work all of the time, perhaps just 80-90% of the time. It does generally require higher doses (100 mg per day, occasionally more). It very clearly must be an oil-based gelcap (just like vitamin D) to work; capsules containing powder do not work.

It's difficult to doubt when someone starts a statin drug, develops the muscle aches and weakness, begins CoQ10 and obtains distinct relief, stops CoQ10 and aches and weakness return, then only to go away again with resumption of CoQ10 . I've seen this countless times.

We do need better information on CoQ10. There's no doubt about it. For people who obtain benefit from statin therapy, I think CoQ10 remains a useful solution. A better solution would be to get rid of the offending drug. But that's not always possible--e.g., LDL cholesterol 190 mg/dl despite the best diet and "adjunctive" food effort. Then CoQ10 can be very useful.
What's for breakfast? Egg bake

What's for breakfast? Egg bake

20. August 2010 William Davis (42)
Heart Scan Blog reader and dietitian, Lisa Grudzielanek, provided this recipe in response to the post, What's for breakfast?

Lisa, by the way, is one of the rare dietitians who understands that organizations like the American Dietetic Association have made themselves irrelevant. She therefore advocates diet principles that work, not just echoing the idiocy that emanates from such organizations, often driven by economics more than science. Lisa works in the Milwaukee area and has proven a useful resource person for my patients who have required extra coaching in the Track Your Plaque diet principles.

Egg Bake
My favorite breakfast is what I call an "egg bake." Others may refer to it as a "quiche."

Take a variety of fresh vegetables. This time of year is great for farmers' markets.

I typically use fresh chopped organic spinach, bell peppers, red & white onions, scallions, broccoli, mushrooms, cherry tomatoes halved and, if desired, meat (nitrite-free ham or leftover chicken breasts).

1) Chop veggies and place in casserole dish.
2) Add meat and handful of cheese of your choice.
3) Scramble 8 eggs & little bit of milk & pepper.
4) Add to casserole dish and mix/coat veggies with egg mixture.
5) Put in oven at 450 degress for 30 minutes.

Yummy, ready to eat breakfast that is so easy for the work week.
Tags :

Comments (42) -

  • Jonathan

    8/20/2010 3:17:30 PM |

    I took 7 eggs, spinach leaves torn up small, cut up green and blond peppers, and dropped them all in my cast iron pan on the stove top with some bacon grease.  It would have got some sausage, bacon, ham, and/or onion but I didn't have any.  I called it an omelet but I think it would taste a lot like the quiche here.  (ate it all by myself so needless to say, i'm not hungry and wont be eating lunch)

  • Matt B

    8/20/2010 6:02:55 PM |

    I always shy away from this type of thing, thinking of the oxidation that is occurring with the cholesterol in the eggs.   Is this unreasonable to consider, when contemplating eggs that have been in my fridge, scrambled, for days?   Same reason, I don't eat scrambled eggs on hotel buffet lines - also with those there is a higher likelihood that the eggs were made from powdered, also oxidized, fats.

  • n

    8/20/2010 7:07:04 PM |

    I'm with Jonathan. fried eggs > baked eggs. baking eggs makes them spongy.

    Matt B - I'm not sure I follow. Surely sealing the eggs away from the air in a tight container fixes this.

  • DogwoodTree05

    8/20/2010 10:00:00 PM |

    My favorite breakfast: deconstructed omelet

    1-2 eggs
    finely diced veggies
    spices
    butter or lard
    water or broth

    Melt 2T butter or lard in a fry pan on medium heat.
    Add spices and let cook for a couple minutes to bring out the flavor.  If you have minced onion or garlic, add these now.
    Add enough water or broth to cover the bottom of the pan, about 1/8 to 1/4 cup.  
    Add the veggies and cook for 2-5 minutes, until just softened and the color bright.
    Push the veggies to the side of the pan, add a little water, broth, or cooking fat if necessary and drop 1-2 eggs in the middle of the pan.  Cover and the eggs should set in 2-4 minutes.  
    Layer the veggies on the bottom of a plate and top with the eggs or serve them side by side.

    If you don't want to bother with veggies, eggs cooked in chicken broth and/or lard are delicious!  The egg whites soak up the flavor of the cooking liquid.

  • Anonymous

    8/21/2010 2:37:51 PM |

    Eggs got a bad rap in the 80s and 90s for having too much cholesterol. Should we not worry about ingestion of cholesterol as much as creation of cholesterol in the liver? I could eat eggs 4x a day, and lots of them each time if it doesn't spike my numbers.

    -- Boris

  • Matt B

    8/21/2010 6:11:56 PM |

    @n, I believe some oxidation would occur with the exposed yolks.  It's never going to be air tight.  Are my concerns totally unfounded?  

    http://www.cheeseslave.com/2009/08/28/what-passes-for-food-in-america/  

    @Boris, I am all for consuming cholesterol, just not oxidized cholesterol.  My breakfast many days is 3 hard boiled eggs with butter Smile

    If I pre-cook eggs, I only do it hard boiled.   fried eggs >>>>> baked eggs, but when I'm trying to get out the door by 5:30, fried don't work so well Smile

  • Tom

    8/21/2010 6:29:02 PM |

    Hi,
    Would someone please explain the "oxidation" your speaking of?
    Thank you.
    Tom

  • Tom

    8/21/2010 6:32:09 PM |

    I just tried the recipe with most of the same ingredients .... delicious!
    I think this will work with most any veggies.  I'm looking forward to experimenting.
    One note: I baked it in an uncovered dish.  It was just a bit watery on the bottom.  I think it would have been more so in a covered dish.

  • PAl

    8/21/2010 7:20:26 PM |

    hi dr davis.

    you've done amazing coverage for wheat. would you consider exploring the murky world of milk as well?

    it will be great to have some clarification on that too!

  • Anonymous

    8/22/2010 12:55:54 AM |

    For convenience, we bake them in mini-muffin pans and freeze them in single serving bags.

  • Anonymous

    8/22/2010 5:29:31 AM |

    has this turned into a recipies site?

  • Anonymous

    8/22/2010 11:54:26 AM |

    Sally Fallon says scrambling eggs does NOT oxidize the cholesterol:

    http://kellythekitchenkop.com/2009/05/oxidized-cholesterol-sally-fallon-answers-a-reader-question.html

  • Anonymous

    8/22/2010 3:12:19 PM |

    According to F. Guadiola et el in the book "Cholesterol and Phytoisterol Oxidation Products: Analysis Occurance, and Biological Effects." pg 129, Eggs that are fried and boiled have been reported to have oxidized cholesterol.

    You can preview this in google books.

  • Anonymous

    8/22/2010 7:48:44 PM |

    I guess I'm a little lost.  I just signed up for TYP to read articles and forum posts, with many of the articles alluding that it is best to keep saturated fat low, but these blog posts seem to contradict that?

    Changing or evolution of ideas?

  • Jonathan

    8/22/2010 10:23:27 PM |

    Most health advice says to lower Sat. fat intake.  That was based on some really crappy science and number fudging.  Books such as ones by Uffe Ravnskov and many others tear that science to bits.  The more cholesterol and Sat. fat you eat, the less the body makes.  It's pretty well regulated.  The reason it goes up in the first place is because it is protective.  It's used to repair the body.  It went up because wheat consumption and too many carbs raised the abrasive sugar in you veins and caused inflammation for which the cholesterol has to fix.  Fixing the inflammation lowers the cholesterol.
    Eating sat fat (most of the fats we use as replacements are high in inflammation causing Omega 6) also helps raise you HDL while the LDL will go down or at least change to a fluffy pattern.  Totals shouldn't be 200 or less like they say now.  240 is quite normal and people with 600 live really long normal lives.

    I think baking them doesn't make them spongy as much as the whisking them before you put them in there.  I still prefer them skillet scrambled.

  • Anonymous

    8/23/2010 12:00:51 AM |

    Thanks for the insight Jonathan.  I'm an ER/ICU nurse of 15 years with a few years of Nutrition studies before I went to nursing school.  Unfortunately, my brain is now just ridding itself of it's current dogma as I research this new 'trend' and approach.  

    I've been spending about 7 hours a day (I'm working in a slow ER;)) reading this site, and others like it.  Great resource and amazing how we got lead down the wrong path for the last 30 some odd years.

  • Anonymous

    8/23/2010 12:03:43 AM |

    I've been eating low carb for the last months, and I started experiencing realy bad muscle aches teh day after workouts. Like I feel my triceps and chest are burning under the skin.
    So after last workout I added some extra carbs and aches are gone.
    so the question is... how do you deal with muscle aches on a low carb diet?

  • kellgy

    8/23/2010 5:54:54 AM |

    The Egg bake looks like an interesting recipe. I just bought two dozen eggs and am readying the kitchen. Can't wait to try it. Thanks for the post and Lisa for the idea!

  • Anonymous

    8/23/2010 9:45:19 AM |

    Dear Dr. Davis,

    This blog is full of statements and advice that seem to seek to debunk conventional, established thinking about heart issues. Given that we are talking about extremely serious matters, do you not think that the least you can do is to let us know whether:

    1. You have published research backing the advice you give on your blog,
    2. Your work has been peer reviewed and
    3. Where to find them.

    By not doing so, every reader of your blog will feel entitled to utter totally unsubstantiated statements such  as these two in this post: "That was based on some really crappy science and number fudging" (Jonathan) or "my brain is now just ridding itself of it's current dogma" (Anonymous).

  • Pal

    8/23/2010 10:48:00 AM |

    ^^^^

    we are all the peers of each other here and have reviewd this advise by testing it on ourselves.

    you are welcome to be a 'peer reviewer' yourself and 'report' your 'findings' through a simple comment on this blog.

    lets keep the bureaucracy and red tape out, and figure out for ourselves what works.

    learn to listen to your body, that is the best peer review!

  • Jonathan

    8/23/2010 2:31:33 PM |

    Muscle aches.  Hmm...  I get sore after HIT but always though I was supposed to.  I only lift once a week though so I have plenty of time to replenish stores of glucose.  You my want to add some fruit like a peach or apple post work out (shouldn't need much) along with some post workout protein.

    Conventional thinking has to be right because it is conventional.  So a drug manufacturer sponsors a trial, they work the numbers to match what they thought it should say, hand this screwed up data to a peer panel that never tested this stuff themselves, and now it is accurate "peer reviewed" advice to give to 100% of the people on this planet.
    I'll stick to thought that God knew what he was doing when we were created and that our bodies have cholesterol for a reason.  If saying I believe in God makes me unscientific, I don't care.  I know what works for me (lost 70 lbs and counting, sugar is under control, can do 5+ mile hikes in the mountains even though I'm still 285 lbs, no longer take Prilosec at all, and feel strong as an ox).
    If it was two of us low-carbers finding improvements in health then maybe there would be room for dispute but we are thousands strong.
    Why is it the people how actually find what works have to prove themselves and the people who push ideas that haven't worked in 40 years get to stand and point fingers.  I believe in what I learn myself, not what is forced upon me.

  • Anonymous

    8/23/2010 3:21:15 PM |

    Really!...Do you subscribe to Pal & Jonathan statements, Dr. Davis?

  • Dr. William Davis

    8/23/2010 3:42:10 PM |

    I find it odd that requests for publications and references comes in a recipe post.

    Point taken. This is also a blog, not an encyclopedia. While I try to point out the science where it exists and is appropriate, much of what I say here is based on personal observations, not always quantified. That's why I call it The Heart Scan Blog, not The Heart Scan Encyclopedia.

  • n

    8/23/2010 4:03:54 PM |

    The Guadiola book from 2002 referred to by anon above is very interesting.

    From the table on p125 of cholesterol oxidation product in egg products:

    pasturized, uncooked egg - 3 ug/g
    fried 1 min - 84
    fried 3 min - 124
    boiled 3 min - 128
    boiled 10 min - 203

    I wonder what effect temp has on these numbers. That is, cooking at a temp lower that boiling or what you'd trypically fry an egg at.

  • Anonymous

    8/23/2010 5:11:07 PM |

    My point exactly, Dr. Davis. If your blog were about recipes and cookery, I wouldn't have even bothered to raise the issue. As far as I know, cookery has not reached the status of science ...not yet anyway!

    According to your own profile in this blog, you practise cardiology, and so one imagines that both your writings and opinions are informed by scientific methods. And when that is not the case, and when what you are providing is an opinion, even if it is an informed opinion, it is your professional duty to let your readers know that what you are saying is, in your own words, based on personal observations.

    And that is perfectly legitimate, you are of course entitled to your own opinions. But when what you write about and the comments you make might have a impact on the health of those readers who trust your opinions, because you are a practising cardiologist, then your opinions must adhere to scientific principles. And if what you say and write about has not been scientifically demonstrated, then you should expressed it unambiguously.

    I have a serious heart condition, and believe you me, when it comes to life or death matters, I do not consult the cookery pages. Nor do I seek advice from an astrologer either.

  • Pal

    8/23/2010 5:36:36 PM |

    ^^^

    you have a serious heart condition because of your trust in 'scientific principles' which is how it should be.

    but sir what do you mean by that phrase? just complex sounding gibberish stretched and distorted through endless loops of political and monetary  interets called the 'peer review' process?

    you are welcome to unravel the heart mysteries here yourself but do let Dr Davis share his observations without choking this channel for others by your demands for your version of the 'peer review' process!

    i like the simple and effective approach here!

    Thanks!

  • n

    8/23/2010 5:46:11 PM |

    Anon said "I have a serious heart condition, and believe you me, when it comes to life or death matters, I do not consult the cookery pages. Nor do I seek advice from an astrologer either."

    Last time I checked this wasn't the doctor's office.

    Either you're a troll or you haven't grasped the concept of a blog.

  • Tom

    8/23/2010 7:45:56 PM |

    @Anonymous:

    You obviously have a need for "authoritarian" documentation to sooth your inability to think for yourself.  Why do you continue to post here other than to stir up contoversy and post snide Ad Hominums?
    Clearly you are trolling, and that says all that needs be said about your pompous and officious personality.
    I for one will now ignore you and I hope that everyone else will also.
    Take your pathetic and disengenuous comments somewhere with your own kind where you can all feed on each other's tiny egos, and mean and nasy outlooks on everything.
    No one asked you to come here, so leave.  You bring nothing of value to the discussions here.

  • Anonymous

    8/23/2010 9:47:29 PM |

    I have nothing against the blog. You are free to think whatever you want and your beliefs are not my concern. Just do not try to present as a fact what is just an opinion. At least Jonathan, one of your neighbours a couple of comments before yours, is more candid when he says: "I'll stick to thought that God knew what he was doing when we were created and that our bodies have cholesterol for a reason." I rest my case.

  • Tommy

    8/24/2010 2:24:04 AM |

    Jonathan said:
    "Eating sat fat (most of the fats we use as replacements are high in inflammation causing Omega 6) also helps raise you HDL while the LDL will go down or at least change to a fluffy pattern. Totals shouldn't be 200 or less like they say now. 240 is quite normal and people with 600 live really long normal lives."

    Dr. Davis said in an older post:

    "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."

    Dr Davis also mentioned somewhere (can't find it at the moment) that saturated fat causes inflammation.

    So I'd say that there is still conflicting reports out there and moderation again wins the day.

    Meanwhile in this post we have the suggestion to consume large amounts of eggs which contain saturated fat. Safe for everyone?

  • Kristen B

    8/24/2010 3:02:50 AM |

    I am curious: just what consists of a typical day of  meals for you? And what is causes "oxidized ldl"?

  • Anonymous

    8/24/2010 12:34:28 PM |

    About the muscle aches...

    A little bit of soreness is to be expected, especially after a hard workout, change of routine, or starting a routine after a long break.  That said, if you're not consuming adequate calories, your body will use the protein for fuel instead of for repairing/rebuilding your muscles.  Carbohydrate will spare the protein (again, assuming adequate calories are consumed) as well as replace glycogen stores.  Try just bumping up your calories, but if you want to continue the carbs just make sure you consume a carb/protein snack within an hour of your workout and don't overtrain.

  • Jonathan

    8/24/2010 2:36:03 PM |

    First off, LDL is not the horrible guy everybody thinks of it as.  You have to have it.  It has a job to do.  LDL helps fight infections as well as transport needed fuel through the blood.  You just want the bigger size pattern so it doesn't oxidize as quickly.
    Sat fat consumption doesn't fix the pattern directly.  It allows for less calories from carbs which helps fix the pattern.  It does seem to help raise HDL no matter how the person's genetics create LDL.  Along with the less carbs causing lower Trig, the HDL to Trig ratio is much improved.
    Your body stores excess as a high % of sat fat to burn later.  Which means in order to use those stores, you have to release it into the blood stream.  What's the difference in that and eating it?
    As for inflammatory, I've not seen anything on it.  Doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  It might not be scientific and I'm just a layman, but if you put sugar on your tongue and rub it around it will get real sore.  Put some coconut oil on there and rub it around it will feel better.  So my opinion is that fat/cholesterol didn't cause the inflammation in the arteries, it's responding to it to fix it.

    Dr. Davis is just one man with an opinion too.  He blogs those current thoughts.  They may change.  This site isn't a medical text book (and I still wouldn't 100% trust it if it were).  We can take away from him what we want to learn and believe.  We can read other people's opinions.  We can discuss; don't have to agree.  Knowledge only advances through disagreement.

    If you want to attack my religion, fine by me.  Only tells me you have nothing to dispute my ideas with so you grasp at anything discrediting instead.  Why not call me fatty or dumb?  Bet you would think Albert Einstein as a good scientist but how many discredited him in their minds because he was weird or had strange hair.  Believe what you want to believe but think for yourself.

  • LynneC

    8/24/2010 3:16:01 PM |

    Well, I don't think Dr Davis was recommmending that you eat the entire 8 egg casserole at one sitting! Here's a link to eggs as it relates to heart disease.  You will need to copy and paste the link into your browser.  Full PDF available for free...
    http://www.jacn.org/cgi/content/full/23/suppl_6/596S

  • Jonathan

    8/24/2010 3:24:52 PM |

    Thanks for the link.  I got stuck on this part:
    "However, population-based studies examining the association between egg consumption and serum cholesterol levels show either no association, or, paradoxically, an inverse association"

  • Anonymous

    8/24/2010 6:21:19 PM |

    Jonathan, Jonathan. Your logic beggars belief. Now that you mention Einstein, he once said that there are two things that are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and that he wasn't sure about the universe.

  • Tom

    8/24/2010 6:45:32 PM |

    Is it possible to have this troll who calls himself "anonymous" removed?
    He's here only to stirr up trouble.

  • Tommy

    8/24/2010 7:06:07 PM |

    Jonathan, I'm not being argumentative, This is a serious inquiry. I learn a lot from this blog but I also learn a lot from sites and blogs that are in complete opposition, I take from everything. Personally the more information I get from all sides the more I end up middle of the road on my own path.

    You said:
    Sat fat consumption doesn't fix the pattern directly. It allows for less calories from carbs which helps fix the pattern.

    Is this because the more fat/sat fat you consume the more satiated you become and it's just less room for carbs due to lack of hunger? If so then that doesn't work for everyone. I am at a good weight....maybe even thin...but I have a huge appetite. A person like me would could eat loads of sat fat and still consume a lot of carbs. What about a huge plate of pasta smothered in high fat meat sauce? Finish that meal with Italian pastries (nice cannolis) and fruit and I'd say that's a high fat and high carb disaster. The fat in that meal doesn't squeeze out the carbs then....does it?

    I don't buy into the whole saturated fat nonsense and personally don't run and hide from saturated fat. I drink whole fat milk, I have Olive oil, I don't buy non fat products etc but at the same time I don't go crazy eating too much either. What is too much? I don't know but I just try not to get too crazy. But I also don't consume any processed refined carbs. No bread, wheat or sugar, no flour. Actually it would be hard for me to think of a food I eat that even has an ingredient label!! But I do eat brown rice and quinoa. Not huge amounts, but I eat them.

    Thanks

  • Jonathan

    8/24/2010 8:47:41 PM |

    Awesome.  Anonymous called me stupid.  

    Tommy, I'm not meaning to attack you either.  I think you a prime example of why the government has no business giving dietary guidelines.  No one diet plan can fit 100% of the people.  You have to do what works for you.
    What I meant is that if you drop calories in carbs you'll replace them in protein and fat.  I simply choose to eat more sat and the rest in mono and not increase protein.  The first time I tried Atkins I just focused on lowering carbs and I didn't make it too long.  This time around, I focused on low to now carb and increasing natural sat fat and trying to keep protein moderate.  I feel great now and have for the last 8 months.
    Your high metabolism is interesting.  It's like you are very active athlete who may need some extra carbs to keep going.  Not saying grains are a good place to get them.  I would be curious how active you really are and I would be curious what a 70-80% fat content over a few weeks would do for your hunger (say your body releases insulin faster than others to protein or something).  Have you tried checking your blood sugar on an interval for a day?  Once my sugar stabilized (too me a couple of months to get real stable) my hunger when way down.  I guess I'm just mentally stuck on insulin being the normal culprit for messing with fat and sugar storage/usage and ultimately hunger causing.  I guess I should add my idea of high fat would be a day like: 4 eggs and bacon for breakfast and a cup of coffee with heavy cream, a salad with olive oil or left over pork chops or 4 hotdogs or fasting for lunch, and an untrimmed 7-9oz steak with butter on top and broccoli or asparagus sauteed in butter/coconut oil for supper.  I feel extra hungry sometimes and will have some cheese or more steak or something at supper.  I also try to vary the amount I eat like fasting some days and gorging others.  Eating carbs makes me more and more hungry (sometime delayed an hour); fat at the least doesn't make me more hungry.
    Just my observations of what is working for me.

  • Tommy

    8/24/2010 9:22:40 PM |

    Here's the funny thing. If not for reading things on the internet I'd probably keep going thinking I was doing fine. I mean, basically I am. My weight is excellent. My bodyfat is good. I feel good, I'm in shape. My bloodwork is good and all is well. I could just leave it at that and keep going but the internet leaves me with questions all the time.  You know, I can get someone looking to lose weight and probably ask them "how they would like to do it." "Do you like carbs? There is a site that is very successful in their members losing weight consuming high carbs (Matt Stone). Do you like meat? There is a site that has huge numbers of followers losing weight eating lots of meat and animal fat (Mark Sisson). Do you like low fat? there are low fat diets that some swear by also.  How about high protein? (Michael Eades), What about traditional and middle road? (Sally Fallon)."
    Then you have Atkins and like minded and McDougal and like minded. Everyone has followers who claim all the same beifits as the next guy on the opposite end. Weight loss, better numbers in bloodwork, more energy, less cavities, no joint aches and on and on.

    There really are a lot of choices out there and a lot of conflicting information. I think my worst move was to gain a little knowledge...lol.

    Thanks...interesting info.

  • Vicki Huckabee Dixon

    8/25/2010 4:34:09 PM |

    I for one eat LOTS of saturated fat and my labs are all the proof I need to know they don't cause inflammation.  In fat, they definitely seem to lower it.  I don't follow anything on blind faith. "The proof is in the pudding".  And I dear friends, have never been healthier in my life.  Nor has my cholesterol and inflammation been lower.  Nay say all you want, but try it out and have a good hard look at your labs for the proof you need.

  • Laura

    8/30/2010 7:25:35 PM |

    Thank you, Dr. Davis for reposting this so we can all view it more easily.

Add comment

Loading