Blast triglycerides

15. May 2009 William Davis (0)
The conventional answers to high triglycerides levels are generally: low-fat diet, a fibrate drug (Tricor, Lopid), a statin drug, and--most recently--prescription fish oil.

This is the regimen to take if you want the drug industry to get even richer and more powerful than they already are. After all, what CEO of a pharmaceutical company can stand to have his salary and benefits slashed to below $200 million this year? It's outrageous!

If you really want to blast the heck out of your triglycerides and achieve numbers like 50 mg/dl, then the regimen to consider consists of:

--Elimination of sugars, wheat, and cornstarch
--Fish oil--Sam's Club would do fine at $8 for 350 capsules, or the high-potency at $14.99 for 180 capsules (at 680 mg EPA +DHA, nearly the same potency as prescription Lovaza at 842 mg)
--Vitamin D supplementation sufficient to achieve normal blood levels (60-70 ng/ml)

Those three strategies alone can reduce triglycerides far more than any drug combination. In fact, it is rare for someone with triglycerides as high as 900 mg/dl to not reduce them to the <100 mg/dl range.

Cheerios: Prescription required?

13. May 2009 William Davis (15)
Followers of The Heart Scan Blog know my feelings about Cheerios:


Can you say "sugar"?

Cheerios and heart health


There's an interesting tussle going on between the makers of Cheerios, General Mills, and the FDA.

The FDA says that the Cheerios' package claims of:

• "you can Lower Your Cholesterol 4% in 6 weeks"
• "Did you know that in just 6 weeks Cheerios can reduce bad cholesterol by an average of 4 percent? Cheerios is ... clinically proven to lower cholesterol. A clinical study showed that eating two 1 1/2 cup servings daily of Cheerios cereal reduced bad cholesterol when eaten as part of a diet low in saturated fat and cholesterol."

constitute a medical claim, i.e., trying to promote Cheerios as a drug.

I'm glad that the FDA has come down on General Mills. But I find this entire episode laughable: The debate is over the purported health benefits of what I would regard as pure junk food, no better in my view than claiming that a cupcake has health benefits, or a carton of ice cream.

In my experience, Cheerios does not 1) reduce risk for heart disease, nor 2) reduce cholesterol.

It does, however, cause blood sugar to skyrocket and increase the small type of LDL--you know, the type that causes heart disease.

"Placebos are frequently of value"

12. May 2009 William Davis (1)
The treatment of angina pectoris, generally speaking, is unsatisfactory.

Any procedure that relieves mental tension is valuable. Since patients suffer particularly during the winter, I encourage winter vacations in a southern climate.

I insist that obese patients lose weight, and have found small doses of benzedrine, 10 to 20 mg. daily, helpful in curbing the appetite.

I generally forbid smoking. This is a particularly disturbing task for many patients to carry out. In such cases, I suggest that 3 or 4 cigarettes be smoked daily, knowing full well that regardless of what I say or recommend, the patients is going to continue to smoke.

Innumerable drugs, most of which are of questionable value, have been used to prevent attacks of angina pectoris. In fact, placebos are frequently of value.

Testosterone--The male sex hormone has been effective in my experience. Whether it acts as a vasodilator or merely by promoting a sense of well-being is not known.

Alcohol--Alcohol (whiskey, brandy, rum) has been used for many years in the treatment of angina pectoris. I have prescribed it in moderate quantity--an ounce several times a day--and while I have not made alcoholics of any of my patients, I also have not cured any of them with it. Preparations, such as creme de menthe, are of value in relieving "gas" of which so many patients complain.


From Heart Disease Diagnosis and Treatment
Emanuel Goldberger, MD
1951

Iodine is not salt

12. May 2009 William Davis (3)
I've noticed a point of confusion recently, something I hadn't noticed in my patients before: Because of the public health advice from the FDA, American Heart Association, and Surgeon General's office to reduce sodium/salt intake, people have thought this meant reducing iodine, too.

I believe that people have drawn an equation in their minds:


Sodium = iodine


Of course, they are two entirely unrelated things.

Recall that the only reason iodine is added to many (not all) salt products is because it was a public health solution to solve the substantial nationwide iodine deficiency prevalent during the 20th century. But it was a solution conceived in 1924, when the FDA thought this was the best way to get iodine into Americans. And it worked.

Unfortunately, sodium does indeed present adverse effects in some people. As a result, "get your iodine from salt" has evolved into "reduce your sodium intake." Everyone forgot about the iodine: They forgot about the large disfiguring goiters, the poor school performance in iodine-deficient schoolchildren, the mentally-impaired offspring of iodine-deficient mothers.

So don't confuse sodium with iodine. You may need less of the former, but more of the latter.

For more on this, see "Help keep your family goiter free."

"You can't reduce coronary plaque"

10. May 2009 William Davis (9)
"I told my cardiologst that I stumbled on a program called 'Track Your Plaque' that claims to be able to help reduce your coronary calcium score.

"My cardiologist said, 'That's impossible. You cannot reduce coronary plaque. I've never seen anyone reduce a heart scan score."

Who's right here?

The commenter is right; the cardiologist is wrong.

I would predict that the cardiologist is among the conventionally-thinking, "statins drugs are the only solution" group who follows his patients over the years to determine when a procedure is finally "needed." In fact, I know many of these cardiologists personally. The primary care physicians are completely in the dark, usually expressing an attitude of helplessness and submitting to the "wisdom" of their cardiology consultants.

Quantify and work to reduce the atherosclerotic plaque? No way! That's work, requires thinking, some sophisticated testing (like lipoprotein testing), even some new ideas like vitamin D. "They didn't teach that to me in medical school (back in 1980)!"

Welcome to the new age.

Atherosclerotic plaque is 1) measurable, 2) trackable, and 3) can be reduced.

We do it all the time. (Amy still holds our record: 63% reduction in plaque/heart scan score.)

Though I pooh-pooh the value of statin drug studies, there's even data from the conventional statin world documenting coronary plaque reversal. The ASTEROID Trial of rosuvastatin (Crestor), 40 mg per day for one year, demonstrated 7% reduction of atherosclerotic plaque using intracoronary ultrasound.

I have NEVER seen a heart attack or appearance of heart symptoms (angina, unstable angina) in a person who has reversed coronary plaque (unless, of course, they pitched the whole effort and returned to bad habits--that has happened). Stick to the program and coronary risk, for all practical purposes, been eliminated.

A heart scan score is not a death sentence. It is simply a tool to empower your prevention program, a measuring stick to gauge plaque progression, stabilization, or regression. Don't accept anything less.

Lethal lipids

8. May 2009 William Davis (15)
There's a specific combination of lipids/lipoproteins that confers especially high risk for heart disease. That combination is:

Low HDL--generally less than 50 mg/dl

Small LDL--especially if 50% or more of total LDL

Lipoprotein(a)--an aggressive risk factor by itself


This combination is a virtual guarantee for heart disease, often at a young age. It's not clear whether each risk factor exerts its own brand of undesirable effect, or whether the combined presence of each cause some adverse interaction.

For instance, lipoprotein(a), or Lp(a), by itself is the most aggressive risk factor known (that nobody's heard about--there's no blockbuster revenue-generating drug for it). Each Lp(a) molecule is a combination of an LDL cholesterol molecule with a specific genetically-determined protein, apoprotein(a). If the LDL component of Lp(a) is small, then the combination of Lp(a) with small LDL is somehow much worse, kind of like the two neighborhood kids who are naughty on their own, but really bad when they're together.

Interestingly, the evil trio responds as a whole to many of the same corrective treatments:

Niacin--increases HDL, reduces small LDL, and reduces Lp(a)

Elimination of wheat, cornstarch, and sugars--Best for reducing small LDL; less potent for Lp(a) reduction.

High-fat intake--Like niacin, effective for all three.

High-dose fish oil--Higher doses of EPA + DHA north of 3000 mg per day also can positively affect all three, especially Lp(a).


If you have this combination, it ought to be taken very seriously. Don't let anybody tell you that it is uncorrectable--just because there may be no big revenue-generating drug to treat it on TV does not mean that there aren't effective treatments for it. In fact, some of our biggest successes in reducing heart scan scores have had this precise combination.

"Get regressive"

6. May 2009 William Davis (0)
This caught my eye:



Niaspan, prescription niacin, now sold by Abbott Laboratories, is now promoting its advantages in regressing coronary plaque:



In patients with a history of coronary artery disease (CAD) and hypercholesetgerolemia, Niaspan (niacin), in combination with a bile acid-binding resin, is indicated to slow progression or promote regression of atherosclerotic disease.



And the new slogan: "Get regressive."



Interestingly, the new marketing campaign is based on relatively old data. They base this new claim on 3 studies:



1) Cholesterol-Lowering Atherosclerosis Study (CLAS)--a 1987

CRP House of Cards

4. May 2009 William Davis (15)
Lew has coronary plaque with a heart scan score of 393. At age 53, that's in the 90th percentile (higher score than 90% of men in his age group).

On our search for causes of his coronary plaque, we identify low HDL of 41 mg/dl, high triglycerides of 202 mg/dl, small LDL (83% of total), calculated LDL of 133 mg/dl, and severe vitamin D deficiency with a starting blood level of 25-hydroxy vitamin D of 19 ng/ml.

His c-reactive protein: 4.1 mg/dl--above the cut-off of 2.0 mg/dl that the pharmaceutical industry is targeting as a mandate for statin therapy, particularly given the JUPITER data.

Lew instead eliminates wheat and other small LDL-provoking foods and, as a result, loses 28 lbs in 3 months; adds omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil; supplements vitamin D sufficient to increase his blood level to 70 ng/ml.

Along with dramatic correction of his starting abnormalities, his c-reactive protein: 0.4 mg/dl--no statin drug.

In my view, increased CRP is nothing more than a surrogate for the inflammatory phenomena that arise from high-carbohydrate diets, overweight, and small LDL. Correct those and CRP drops off a cliff. In fact, it is exceptionally rare for CRP to not drop to very low levels following this formula.

I believe that CRP is one more item on the list of reasons--the house of cards--the pharmaceutical industry is building to persuade us to take more and more statin drugs. LDL not low enough? Take more statin. Diabetic with low cholesterol? Take a statin. Inflammation? Take a statin.

Enough already.

At-home blood tests

2. May 2009 William Davis (6)
Our at-home blood tests are proving a hit.

So far, vitamin D is the number one most popular test, no surprise.

Second--to my surprise--is DHEA. I would have predicted it would have been thyroid testing.

Our male and female hormone panels are also proving popular.

I've personally been using the thyroid and vitamin D testing to monitor my levels. I increased my Armour thyroid based on a low free T3 value, while my vitamin D was perfect at 77 ng/ml on 8000 units vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol) per day.

The process of performing the blood spots is straightforward. The finger pricks are virtually painless using the automatic spring-loaded finger stick devices:





The number of blots to make depends on how many tests you'd like. Just a vitamin D test requires 2 blots. If 6 or more tests are ordered at a time, then all 12 blots should be made. (Two spring-loaded lancets are provided in each kit.)





If you are interested in any of our at-home blood tests, go here.

Our own Heart Hawk has posted an editorial on about blood spot testing on Health Central:

Simple, affordable home blood testing is a real game-changer in the arena of informed, self-directed healthcare. For the first time broad access to home blood testing, on a scale similar to that enjoyed by persons who routinely test their blood sugar, is available to virtually everyone and it removes doctors as the gatekeepers of these tests. Even private insurance companies and Medicare are beginning to understand the potential for improving healthcare and decreasing costs and are slowly beginning to expand coverage of home blood testing much as they do for diabetics or persons taking anti-coagulants.

"Help keep your family goiter free"

1. May 2009 William Davis (10)
People ask, "If I need iodine, should I go back to iodized salt?"

First of all, how did this notion of iodized salt originate?

In 1924, J. Edgar Hoover was appointed head of the FBI, Marlon Brando and Doris Day were born, and Calvin Coolidge was elected President of the United States. Half of American households had a car, while 1 in 4 Americans were illiterate.



In the 1920s, cities were a fraction of their current size and a third of the U.S. population, or 36 million people, lived in small rural communities.

Goiters were also wildly prevalent in 1924. Up to a third of the population in some areas of the country, particularly the Midwest, suffered from goiters, thyroid glands that enlarged due to lack of iodine.

Goiters were not only unsightly, but sometimes grotesque, causing a visible bulge in the front of the neck. Occasionally, they would grow so big that it compressed adjacent structures, like the trachea, and would have to be surgically removed. Goiters were commonly associated with thyroid dysfunction, especially low thyoid or hypothyroidism, that resulted in low IQ's in schoolchildren, debilitation in adults. Women of childbearing age delivered retarded children.

So iodine deficiency in early 20th century America was a big problem. How to solve this enormous public health problem in a large nation without television, few radios, no internet, with a largely rural and often illiterate population?

Thus was iodized salt born, a simple, technologically available solution that could be implemented on a large scale nationwide at low cost. The FDA chose this route in 1924, figuring that it was the best way to ensure that most Americans could obtain sufficient iodine through liberal use of iodized salt. Public health officials urged Americans to use salt. Morton's salt label proudly bore the slogan "Help keep your family goiter free!"

It worked. Goiters largely became a thing of the past.

How about today? The American Heart Association recommends limiting salt, recently announcing that they would like to limit intake to 1500 mg per day. The American Medical Association has been lobbying the FDA to set lower salt limit guidelines. The FDA has been clamping down on food manufacturers to reduce the quantity of salt in processed foods.

Why limit salt? The concern is that there are segments of the population (not all) that are salt sensitive, particularly African Americans, people with certain genetic forms of high blood pressure, conditions that cause water retention, and any degree of heart or kidney failure. Salt in these peoplem, in fact, can be disastrous.
So adding iodine to salt was the solution to epidemic goiter. And it worked.

But salt is not a perfect solution, just one that served its purpose back in 1924. What we need is a 21st century solution.
You will find that in the various iodine supplements at your health food store. My favorite is kelp--inexpensive, available, and a form that mimics the way Japanese people obtain iodine (though by eating seaweed, rather than with tablets).


Image of kelp courtesy Wikipedia
Why do morphine-blocking drugs make you lose weight?

Why do morphine-blocking drugs make you lose weight?

10. November 2010 William Davis (24)
Naloxone (IV) and naltrexone (oral) are drugs that block the action of morphine.

If you were an inner city heroine addict and got knifed during a drug deal, you'd be dragged into the local emergency room. You're high, irrational, and combative. The ER staff restrain you, inject you with naloxone and you are instantly not high. Or, if you overdosed on morphine and stopped breathing, an injection of naloxone would reverse the effect immediately, making you sit bolt upright and wondering what the heck was going on.

So what do morphine-blocking drugs have to do with weight loss?

An odd series of clinical studies conducted over the past 40 years has demonstrated that foods can have opiate-like properties. Opiate blockers, like naloxone, can thereby block appetite. One such study demonstrated 28% reduction in caloric intake after naloxone administration. But opiate blocking drugs don't block desire for all foods, just some.

What food is known to be broken down into opiate-like polypeptides?

Wheat. On digestion in the gastrointestinal tract, wheat gluten is broken down into a collection of polypeptides that are released into the bloodstream. These gluten-derived polypeptides are able to cross the blood-brain barrier and enter the brain. Their binding to brain cells can be blocked by naloxone or naltrexone administration. These polypeptides have been named exorphins, since they exert morphine-like activity on the brain. While you may not be "high," many people experience a subtle reward, a low-grade pleasure or euphoria.

For the same reasons, 30% of people who stop consuming wheat experience withdrawal, i.e., sadness, mental fog, and fatigue.

Wouldn't you know that the pharmaceutical industry would eventually catch on? Drug company startup, Orexigen, will be making FDA application for its drug, Contrave, a combination of naltrexone and the antidepressant, buproprion. It is billed as a blocker of the "mesolimbic reward system" that enhances weight loss.

Step back a moment and think about this: We are urged by the USDA and other "official" sources of nutritional advice to eat more "healthy whole grains." Such advice creates a nation of obese Americans, many the unwitting victims of the new generation of exorphin-generating, high-yield dwarf mutant wheat. A desperate, obese public now turns to the drug industry to provide drugs that can turn off the addictive behavior of the USDA-endorsed food.

There is no question that wheat has addictive properties. You will soon be able to take a drug to block its effects. That way, the food industry profits, the drug industry profits, and you pay for it all.
Tags :

Comments (24) -

  • praguestepchild

    11/10/2010 3:49:28 PM |

    A doctor friend of mine was telling me about this, junkies hate it because it makes them instantly sober. Interesting that it would block the same receptors involved in wheat addiction.

  • Anonymous

    11/10/2010 4:29:57 PM |

    Thank you for explaining/exposing this.  For years I've wondered how food addictions work, especially wheat.  That our representative government is serving profit seeking corporate interests no longer surprises me though.

  • Anonymous

    11/10/2010 4:30:30 PM |

    Thesis + antithesis = synthesis.

  • arnoud

    11/10/2010 7:12:13 PM |

    Thank you for these interesting insights.  

    Now I also know why I couldn't just eat one cookie - - had to continue and eat the whole box.

    Now, without that first cookie, I totally don't care about them at all.

  • Anonymous

    11/10/2010 7:32:04 PM |

    BTW, naltrexone is also used to treat alcoholism in protocol known as The Sinclair Method.  You take the naltrexone an hour before drinking and then drink normally.  The naltrexone blocks the opoid receptors in the brain and the endorphins released by the drinking find no room at the inn.  Over time, the addiction is extinguished.

  • terrence

    11/10/2010 7:35:08 PM |

    I do not think I could have made up something like this! If I could I would be very rich, and maybe own a Big Pharma company or two.

    BTW, awhile ago, I read about a clinical study done in the UK. It had three groups of heron addicts - one group stayed on heroin, another was given methadone, the third was given a placebo (that they were told was methadone).

    Not surprisingly, the first group remained addicted to heroin, and the second group remained addicted to Methadone. The third group ALL got over their previous addiction to heroin, and with NO withdrawal symptoms, NONE, not one of them.

    Some commentators pointed out that The Heroin Establishment has a very large financial interest in keeping the story alive that heroin is hard to stop.

    I also know someone who was addicted to heroin. But, he realized that he was messing up his life (lost his wife, kids, etc). So, just stopped taking it - NO withdrawal issues, NONE.

  • Steve Cooksey

    11/10/2010 7:59:52 PM |

    Smile

    I love it when you rant against the MACHINE!!!  (in a dignified manner of course) Smile

    I'm a Type 2 Diabetic, with normal blood sugar and I take -0- drugs , -0- insulin.

    I follow a Very Low Carb, Gluten Free "Primal" meal plan....and I LOVE IT!

  • Dr. William Davis

    11/10/2010 11:04:21 PM |

    It's not clear to me how much of this is intentional, i.e., is wheat now a ubiquitous component of processed food precisely because of its addictive potential?

    Regardless, wheat stands apart from all other foods for this effect on humans.

  • mrfreddy

    11/11/2010 12:41:41 PM |

    interesting!

    and to think, the Ornishes, Furhmans, and Campbells of the world would have us believe that meat is addictive. Ha!

  • Anonymous

    11/11/2010 2:52:43 PM |

    Naltrexone..really?  Do some research on this drug and you will find that used over a long period of time it will cause changes to the receptors so that we feel no euphoria ever!  Bad Bad news.

  • Chet

    11/11/2010 6:13:47 PM |

    Eating wheat bread by itself is not very addicting but if sugar is thrown in the mix, you can get a nice mood lift.  This is because sugar(along with the wheat) spike insulin which drives tryptophan into the brain, where it converts to serotonin, the feel good neurotransmitter.

  • Kevin

    11/11/2010 9:58:03 PM |

    I may experiment.  I have some naltrexone that is about to expire.  I might give myself an injection and see if it makes me less interested in bread.  At the most I might eat two slices of whole wheat once or twice a week.  Would it work for other carbs like potatoes?

  • Dr. William Davis

    11/12/2010 1:32:06 AM |

    HI, Kevin--

    I'm impressed that you've got naltrexone! Please let us know what becomes of the experiment.

    Wheat stands apart for this effect. The only other foods that have been shown to exert a morphine-like effect are dairy products ("caseomorphin"), though the potency is many times less than that exerted by wheat.

  • Anonymous

    11/12/2010 3:09:49 AM |

    I eliminated grains, switched to Almond milk, cut out coffee and all artificial sweeteners.

    I started LDN in June and have easily lost 23 pounds, a feat almost unheard of in a Hashimoto's patient.

    Just a small amount of some protein and veggies will satisfy me but so could a handful of unsalted nuts.
    My appetite is no longer an issue.
    I would say I don't really have an interest in food anymore.
    I no longer have any blood sugar swings but those disappeared when I eliminated grains. I just feel LDN was helping in the appetite area, now your post confirms what I had been feeling.

    Now that my thyroid medication has been switched ( Armour to Synthroid due to manufacturing issues) and adding Cytomel plus LDN, I feel better.

    I am waiting of lab results to see where my Vit. D level is ( was at 42 aiming for 60) and to see what impact 6 months of no grains has done to my cholesterol.
    I am hopeful!  And that's another thing about LDN, depression is a thing of the past.
      
    My holistic MD thinks because the dosage is so small, LDN is acting in a homeopathic manner.  
    Many Hashimoto's patients have to decrease the amount of hormone they take because of LDN's effect on the thyroid.  
    I should know if my thyroid is happier by the end of the month. It might even be too happy.

  • Anne

    11/12/2010 3:28:40 AM |

    Chet - you say wheat is not addicting. My experience is not proof but when I gave up wheat I had about 3 days of withdrawal symptoms.  I felt really terrible and I was still eating sugar and high carb foods. A few years later I gave up the sugars. Although it took a while to lose the cravings for sweets, I did not have a period of feeling ill like I did when I gave up wheat.  

    Giving up wheat eliminated my depression. The tiniest amount of accidental wheat causes my mood to drop for a few days.

  • Anonymous

    11/12/2010 6:22:05 AM |

    Wrong explanation. By antagonizing opioid receptors, naltrexone disrupts flow in reward circuit. Which we know is central to the development of addiction. Wheat or no wheat. The weight loss appears to be at least in part something else. In combination with buproprion (AKA Zyban, an effective quit smoking drug) it significantly reduces food intake (by blocking hunger signal and reducing cravings). Again, wheat or no wheat.

  • Peter

    11/12/2010 5:40:16 PM |

    I'm trying to understand trade-offs.  Since quitting meat my weight hasn't changed, my blood sugar has improved, and my LDL is worse.

  • Kevin

    11/12/2010 7:35:40 PM |

    I took a closer look.  It's naloxone, not naltrexone.  Very rarely I see a dog that's ingested opiates.  That's why I have it but as I said, the dozen vials have reached the expiration date.

    kevin

  • Sue

    11/13/2010 3:22:52 AM |

    Sorry, completely off topic but did you see the article in HeartWire re reducing LDL even more.
    http://www.theheart.org/article/1145175.do

  • ilaçlama

    11/13/2010 11:03:45 AM |

    Thanx For subject

  • Anonymous

    11/13/2010 1:55:04 PM |

    ANNE
    I suffer from depression and would like to know more about how giving up wheat has helped you. Do u mind emailing me? If you don't scooby43215@yahoo.com. Thanks in advance.

  • Denny Barnes

    11/17/2010 8:50:40 AM |

    The diabetes guru Dr. Bernstein has written about low dose naltrexone therapy (LDN) to help diabetics lose weight.  Have you used LDN with your patients?  I understand that a low dose of naltrexone taken at night at first inhibits endorphin release and then stimulates it.  Presumably, increased endorphins eliminates the need for addictive foods and lowers inflammation.  Your thoughts?

  • elpi

    11/18/2010 1:30:57 AM |

    I just need to exercise and a healthy diet for me to lose weight. .That's all

  • Rene Sugar

    11/29/2010 6:25:35 PM |

    There is a Scientific American article that says negative emotions and pain-induced negative emotion are processed in the same brain areas so pain medication also relieves emotional pain.

    If wheat has opiate like effects, it might explain "emotional eating".

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-pain-can-make-you-fee

Add comment

Loading