An exercise in optimism

Followers of the Track Your Plaque program already know that maintaining an optimistic viewpoint is important in gaining control over coronary plaque.

In fact, I believe that, in many cases, a sense of optimism may make or break your CT heart scan score-reducing efforts. Pessimists rarely drop their score, while optimists do so all the time.

This week posed a challenge to my optimism. I spent the last week on jury duty hearing the details of a murder case. For four days, I listened to blow-by-blow testimony about the totally pointless, unprovoked death of a young man by a drug-dealing thug. Much of the witness testimony was from people who shared the hopeless, violent world of the defendant.

I was, however, completely impressed by the dedication of the prosecuting attorney, a 50-some year old man who was clearly deeply dedicated to his mission and didn't once provide any indication that he was grandstanding or looking for some personal glory. He was doing his job and trying to obtain justice for the fallen victim. I was equally impressed by the judge, who seemed unfazed by the events but carefully explained why the system worked the way it did. After the trial, he provided some further insights to us jury members and I saw him as a human being who, like the prosecutor, was trying to make a small contribution to making the world better.

Though many of the witnesses who testified against the defendant shared his world, I was impressed with their courage in coming forward. They face the threat of reprisals, I'm sure, for coming forward to the law and testifying against a known career criminal. Several of them said that they were not after any reward, but simply wished to do the right thing and provide testimony that proved damning against the defendant.

I acted as the jury foreman and I was proud of how the jury members listened carefully, asked intelligent and probing questions, and then helped us render a confident and expeditious sentence: guilty.

If anything, despite the tragic circumstances, I was much heartened at how all the participants in this process played their part and justice (at least in the legal sense) was served.

Let optimism prevail, even in dire circumstances.

No need to re-invent the wheel

I seem to be repeating myself lately, but I think this does bear repeating:

There's no need to re-invent the wheel when it comes to gaining control over your heart scan score.

The Track Your Plaque program is the most powerful approach known to help you gain control over your coronary atherosclerotic plaque and CT heart scan score, bar none. While 100% of people do not drop their score, more and more people every week are doing so. (One of the admitted weaknesses of the Track Your Plaque website is our failure to list more success stories; we're working on it.)

The basic program is quite simple:

--The Rule of 60 for lipids (LDL 60 mg/dl; HDL 60 mg/dl or greater; triglycerides 60 mg/dl or less)

--Identify hidden causes of plaque, esp. small LDL, Lp(a), and IDL, followed by specific corrective action

--Fish oil--minimum 1200 mg per day of EPA + DHA

--Normal vitamin D3 blood levels (We aim for 25-OH-vitamin D3 of 50-60 ng/ml)

--Normal blood sugar (<100 mg/dl)

--Normal blood pressure (<130/80)

--An optimistic attitude



Much of the other stuff--vitamin K, matrix metalloproteinase reducing strategies, flavonoid strategies, exercise-induced hypertension, etc.--are, for the majority, fluff. Their real role is in people who may have failed in stopping the rise of their heart scan score just doing the basics of the program.

If you neglect the basics, hoping to find some magic potion, I'm afraid the overwhelming likelihood is that you will fail. I've seen it happen time and again. Someone will come to my office with an extraordinary list of supplements--hawthorne, dozens of anti-oxidants, EDTA, concentrated flavonoid preparations, and on and on. Not only is it shockingly expensive to do this, it's also unnecessary and foolhardy. This kind of unfocused, hocus-pocus in the hopes of getting it right fail time after time.

The Track Your Plaque program, while not foolproof, is the best I know of. Stick to the basics and wander off when the basics fail. But there's extraordinary power in just achieving the basics.

Are we a front for drug companies?

I was shocked recently when someone accused me and the Track Your Plaque website of being nothing more than a front for the drug industry, that we are promoting concepts with the hidden pharmacuetical agenda behind us.

Don't make me laugh. How in the world that kind of impression could be gotten from either the Heart Scan Blog or the Track Your Plaque website is beyond me.

But I occasionally do need to state explicity: We do not promote drugs, neither this Blog nor the Track Your Plaque website has ever sought nor been backed by pharmaceutical money. The only money that supports this website is our own and that from paying Track Your Plaque members.

In fact, I am quite proud of the unbiased content and commentary on both venues. I challenge anyone to point out how and where there is any suggested relationship to a hidden source of commercial backing. I assure you, there is none.

If I say a drug is worth you and your doctor considering, then I say so with a true belief in it, not because somebody or some company paid me to say so. If I say a drug stinks, I believe that too. If we use a specific supplement in the program, it's because we believe it truly adds value to a plaque-reversal program. We receive no money from drug, supplement, or other commercial interests to promote their products. Period.

What is "normal"?

When it comes to laboratory values and medical testing, a common dilemma is knowing what is "normal." Let me explain.

First of all, when you receive a laboratory result for a test, a "reference range" or "normal range" is usually provided. Where did that range come from?

It varies from test to test. For instance, a low potassium is easy, because low potassium levels can lead to life threatening consequences, e.g., dangerous heart rhythms. High potassium likewise, because dangerous phenomena develop when potassium generally exceeds 5.5 mg/dl or so.

But what about something like HDL or LDL. Here's where confusion reigns. Often, "normal" is obtained by taking the average and saying that any value plus or minus two standard deviations (remember that painful class?) represents normal or reference range.

If that were true, what if we applied that principle to body weight. If we weighed several thousand adult women, the average would be in the neighborhood of 172 lbs (no kidding). Does that mean that 172 lbs plus or minus two standard deviations is normal? No, of course not.

There is therefore a distinction between "normal" and "desirable". For HDL cholesterol, your laboratory report might say that an HDL cholesterol of 40-60 mg/dl is normal. But is it desirable? I don't think so. The most frequent HDL level for a male with a heart attack is 42 mg/dl--hardly desirable.

Let's take triglycerides. The average triglyceride level in the U.S. is somewhere around 140 mg/dl. For those of us who do a lot of lipoprotein testing, we can tell you that triglycerides at this level, though generally regarded as being within the normal range, are associated with flagrant and obvious excesses of several abnormal lipoprotein particles that contribute to coronary plaque growth (VLDL and often IDL; small LDL; drop in HDL and shift towards small HDL).

So, always take the so-called "normal" or "reference" values on a lab report as crude guidelines that often have little or nothing to do with health or desirability. Unfortunately, many physicians are not aware of this and will declare any value within the normal or reference range as okay. An HDL of 40 mg is not okay. A triglyceride level of 140 mg is also not okay.

What is okay? What is desirable? That depends on the parameter being examined. From a basic lipid standpoint, of course, we regard desirable as 60-60-60. Desirability from a lipoprotein standpoint we will cover in a more thorough Track Your Plaque Special Report in future.

The wisdom of the masses

My sister sent me these quotes:



"We don't like their sound, and guitar music is on the way out."

Decca Recording Co. rejecting the Beatles, 1962


"Stocks have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau."

Irving Fisher, Professor of Economics, Yale University, 1929


"Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value."

Marechal Ferdinand Foch, Professor of Strategy, Ecole Superieure de Guerre, France


"Everything that can be invented has been invented."

Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, US Office of Patents, 1899



No doubt, conventional wisdom can often be laughably (tragically?) wrong. The problem is that, as absurd as all the above sentiments seem to us now and in retrospect, they represented the view of many people years ago. These views were held by many, including many people in positions of power and decision-making responsibility.

A more relevant but nonetheless laughable and widely held belief in 2007: coronary heart disease should be treated with hospital procedures.

Why is a disease that requires 30 years to develop treated only at the final moments with a procedure? Do you only change your car's oil when the engine is on its last legs? Or, do periodic, relatively effortless oil changes during the life of the car make better sense?

I witness just how brainwashed the public has become with this crazed notion when I meet someone socially at, say a fundraiser or cocktail party. When they ask what I do, I tell them I'm a cardiologist. The invariable response: "Oh, what hospital do you work out of?"

I tell them I don't, that I take care of the majority of heart disease right from the office. 99% of the time I get a puzzled look. If we had comic bubbles above our heads revealing our internal thoughts, it would read "Yeah, right. What a kook."

The notion that coronary heart disease is something that is manageable with simple tools for the majority of us in the early stages is entirely foreign to almost everybody. The hospitals and the medical industry have so succeeded in dazzling the public with images of staff in scrubs, rushing from emergency to emergency, lights flashing, scalpels flying. . . how can you possibly accomplish this at home or anywhere outside of the high-tech world of the hospital?

Well, I'm a cardiologist and I do it every day. We all need a figurative dose of electroshock therapy to shake ourselves of this crazy notion.

How important is l-arginine?

Perhaps more than any other supplement, l-arginine causes frustration and confusion. It’s difficult to find, sometimes quite expensive, and some preparations cause loose stools.

Just how necessary is it?

L-arginine, you’ll recall, is a source of nitric oxide, or NO. Though it’s the same stuff as in car exhaust, NO provides a critical signaling role in your body’s cells that regulate a multitude of functions. Among the important roles of NO is to powerfully dilate, or relax, arteries. A constant flow of NO is required for health, particularly since each molecule persists only a few seconds.

L-arginine is the body’s source of nitric oxide. In addition, a peculiar but very effective blocker of l-arginine called asymmetric dimethylarginine, or ASDM, has recently been discovered to prevent the production of NO. Varied conditions like hypertension, diabetes, high cholesterol, excessive saturated fat or processed carbohydrate intake all lead to heightened levels of ASDM, often several-fold greater levels, and thereby effectively blocking NO production.

The “Arginine Paradox” is the name that some researchers in this field have given to the unusual property of l-arginine supplementation to “overpower” the blocking effects of ASDM. This is somewhat unusual in biologic systems in that an agent that blocks a receptor cannot usually be outmuscled by providing excess material for a reaction. Kind of like hoping that your car runs faster simply by topping up the gas tank.

Concrete observable benefits have been made for l-arginine in clinical trials, such as arterial relaxation that results in arterial enlargement (which can actually be seen in the cath lab); anti-inflammatory effects; reduction of blood pressure; enhancement of insulin responses, etc. All of these effects can be connected to beneficial properties that may facilitate atherosclerotic plaque regression and, indeed, there are limited data to document that this is true.

Drug companies may be greedy, but they’re not stupid. They’ve been vigorously pursuing this line of research for some years, a research path that led inadvertently to the erectile dysfunction agent, sildenafil (Viagra), and all its subsequent competitors. (Erectile dysfunction is another expression of endothelial dysfunction, since male erections are driven by the ability to dilate penile arteries.) The wonderful properties of NO enhancement continue to occupy research labs around the world.

Wow. So what’s the reluctance? In the early years of the Track Your Plaque program (meaning just a short 7-8 years ago), I was thoroughly convinced that l-arginine was a crucial, necessary part of a plaque regression program. Without it, you would rarely succeed. With it, the odds were tipped in your favor.

However, something curious has emerged recently. I’ve seen more and more people dropping their heart scan scores. Not just a little bit, but a huge amount. Witness our most recent record holder, Neal, who dropped his score 51% in 15 months. Just five years ago, this magnitude of reversal was unimaginable. Granted, Neal is our record holder, but others are obtaining 10, 18, 24, 30% drops in scores all the time. Many have done it without l-arginine.

Now, how about the people who have failed to stop a rising score? Would they do better with l-arginine as part of the mix? I believe so, but sometimes we never quite know except in retrospect. It has been a great dilemma for us trying to predict from the starting gate who will or who won’t drop their heart scan score.

My view from the trenches is that l-arginine packs its greatest atherosclerosis-fighting punch in the first year or two of use, when “endothelial dysfunction” is likely to be present (abnormal artery constriction). But as all other strategies take hold—fish oil, correction of lipid and lipoprotein abnormalities, weight loss (big effect), vitamin D (another very big effect), etc.—endothelial behavior improves over time. Perhaps l-arginine becomes a less necessary component over time.

There’s no doubt that uncertainty still surrounds the use and science surrounding l-arginine. However, if you’re interested in stacking the odds in your favor, particularly during the first year or two of your plaque-reducing efforts, I think that l-arginine is worth considering. It is cumbersome, it can be expensive, some preparations may even be foul. But in the big picture of life, with hospitals trying every possible ploy to get your body on a table for a procedure, doctors perverting their mission by signing employment contracts with hospitals and agreeing to usher you into the hospital as a paying patient whenever possible, and drug companies viewing you and me as a market for medications which may or may not be helpful, l-arginine is surely not that big a burden.

Track Your Plaque and non-commercialism

If you're a Track Your Plaque Member or viewer, you may know that we have resisted outside commercial involvement. We do not run advertising on the site, we do not allow drug companies to post ads, we do not covertly sponsor supplements. We do this to main the unbiased content of the site.

We've seen too many sites be tempted by the money offered by a drug company only to see content gradually drift towards providing nothing more than cleverly concealed drug advertising. I personally find this deceptive and disgusting. Ads are ads and everyone knows it. But when you subvert content, secretly driven by a commercial agenda, that I find abhorrent.

That said, however, I do wonder if we need the participation of some outside commercial interests to help our members. In other words, many (over half) of the questions and conversations we have with people is about what supplement to take, or what medication to take. While we cannot offer direct medical advice online (nor should we) because of legal and ethical restrictions, I wonder if could facilitate access to products.

Many people struggle, for instance, with trusted sources for l-arginine, vitamin D, fish oil. Other people struggle with finding a heart scan center because of the changing landscape of the CT scanning industry. Could we somehow provide a clear-cut segment of the website that clearly demarcates what is commercial and non-Track Your Plaque-originated, yet at least provides a starting place for more info?

Ideally, we would have personally tried and investigated everything there is out there applicable to the program. But that's simply impossible at this stage.

I feel strongly that we will never run conventional ads on the site. Nor will we ever permit any outside commercial interest to dictate what and how we say something. The internet world is full of places like that. Look at WebMD. I find the site embarassing in the degree of commercial bias there. We will NEVER sell out like that, regardless of the temptation. People with heart disease are all conducting a war with the commercial forces working to profit from them--hospitals, cardiologists, drug companies, medical device companies (yes, even they advertise to the public, e.g., implantable defibrillators--no kidding). Genuine, honest, unbiased information is sorely needed and not from some kook who either knows nothing about real people with real disease, or has a hidden agenda like selling you chelation.

I'd welcome any feedback either through this Blog or through the contact@cureality.com.

The nattokinase scam

A conversation about vitamin K2 commonly leads to confusion. Several people have asked about something called nattokinase.

The scientific data on the potential role of vitamin K2 deficiency in causing both osteoporosis and vascular calcification is fascinating. Along with vitamin D3, vitamin K2 may be an important factor in regulation of calcium metabolism. Supplementation may prove to be a major strategy for inhibition of vascular calcification.

Obtaining K2 in the diet is tricky, since it's present in just a handful of foods: egg yolks, liver, traditional cheeses, and natto. This is where the confusion starts.

Natto is a Japanese fermented soy product. I've had it and it's quite disgusting. Nonetheless, Japanese who eat natto experience less fracture. (A parallel study in heart disease has not been performed.) Natto is also a source of another substance called nattokinase.

Advocates (otherwise often known as supplement distributors) claim that nattokinase is a "fibrinolytic", or blood clot-dissolving, preparation that "improves blood flow, protects from blood clots, and prevents heart attacks and strokes."

Don't you believe it. This is patent nonsense. There are several problems with this rationale:

--Any oral fibrinolytic agent is promptly degraded in the highly acid environment of the stomach. That's why all medically used fibrinolytics are given intravenously. Drug companies have struggled for years to encapsulate, modify, or somehow protect protein (or polypeptide) products taken orally from degrading this way. They've never succeeded. That's why, for instance, growth hormone (a polypeptide) remains an injection, not an oral agent. An oral growth hormone, by the way, would sell like mad, so the drug companies would very much like to figure out how to bypass the degradative effects of stomach acid. One of the "researchers" behind the nattokinase claims boasts that he has single-handedly figured out how to protect the nattokinase molecule in the gastrointestinal tract. However, he won't tell anybody how he does it. Right.

--Fibrinolytic agents are extremely dangerous. In years past, we used to treat heart attacks with intravenous fibrinolytic agents like tissue plasminogen activator, urokinase, streptokinase, and others. They have fallen by the wayside, for the most part, because of limited effectiveness and the unavoidable dangers of their use. Fibrinolytics are "dumb": they dissolve blood clots in both good places and bad. While they might dissolve the blood clot causing your heart attack, they also degrade the tiny clot in your cerebral (brain) circulation that was protective. That's why fatal brain hemorrhages, bleeding stomach ulcers, and blood oozing from strange places can also occur with fibrinolytic administration. Believe me, I've seen it happen, and I've watched people die from them.

The idea that a small dose taken orally is healthy is ridiculous. Even if nattokinase worked, why the heck would you take an agent that has known dangerous and very real consequences?

Don't let this idiocy reflect poorly on the K2 conversation, which, I believe, holds real merit and is backed by legitimate science. This is symptomatic of a larger difficulty with the supplement industry: Insane and unfounded claims about one supplement erodes credibility for the entire industry. It gives regulation-crazed people like the FDA ammunition to go after supplements, something none of us need. You and I have to sift through the nonsense to uncover the real gems in this rockpile, real gems like vitamin D3, omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil, and, perhaps, vitamin K2. But not nattokinase.

Blood pressure with exercise

Here's a frequently neglected cause for an increasing CT heart scan score: High blood pressure with exercise. Let me explain.

Paul's blood pressure at rest, sitting in the office or on arising in the morning, or at other relatively peaceful moments: 110/75 to 130/80--all in the conventional normal range.

We put Paul on the treadmill for a stress test. At 10 mets of effort (on the protocol used, this means 3.4 mph treadmill speed at 14 degree incline), Paul's blood pressure skyrockets to 220/105. That's really high.

Now, blood pressure is expected to increase with exercise. If it doesn't rise, that's abnormal and may, in fact, be a sign of danger. Normally, blood pressure should rise gradually in a stepwise fashion with increasing levels of exercise. But any blood pressure exceeding 170/90 is clearly too high with exercise. (Not to be confused with high blood pressures not involving exercise.) A handful of studies have suggested that a "breakpoint" of 170/90 also predicts heightened risk of heart attack over a long period.)

I see this phenomenon frequently--normal blood pressure at rest, high with exercise. This also suggests that when Paul is stressed, upset, in traffic congestion, under pressure at work, etc., his blood pressure is high during those periods, as well. I wouldn't be surprised to see other phenomena of underappreciated high blood pressure, like abnormally thick heart muscle (left ventricular hypertrophy), an enlarged thoracic aorta (visible on your heart scan), left atrium, perhaps even an abnormal EKG or abnormal kidney function (evidenced by an elevated creatinine on a standard blood panel).

Unfortunately, the treatments that reduce blood pressure are "stupid," i.e., they have no appreciation for what you are doing and they reduce blood pressure all the time, whether or not you're stressed, exercising, or sleeping.

Blood pressure reduction should begin with weight loss, exercise, reduction of saturated fats and processed carbohydrates (esp. wheat), magnesium replacement, vitamin D replacement. Think about CoQ10. After this, blood pressure medication might be necessary.

The message: Watch out for the blood pressures when you have a stress test. Or, if you have a friend who is adept at getting blood pressures, get a blood pressure immediately upon ceasing exercise. It should be no higher than 170/90.

Vitamin D2 vs. vitamin D3

An interesting question came up on the Track Your Plaque Member Forum about vitamin D2 vs. vitamin D3. This often comes up among our patients, as well.

Vitamin D is measured in the blood as 25-OH-vitamin D and is distinct from 1,25-diOH-vitamin D, a kidney measure, a test you do not need unless you have kidney failure.

The human form of vitamin D is cholecalciferol and is usually obtained via activation of a precursor molecule in the skin on activation by the sun. You can also take cholecalciferol and it increases blood levels of 25-hydroxy vitamin D reliably.

However, there is a cheap, plant-sourced, alternative to vitamin D3, called vitamin D2, or ergocalciferol. D2 has far less effect in the body. Taking D2 or ergocalciferol orally is an extremely inefficient way to get D. Unfortunately, it's the form often used in milk and many supplements, even the prescription form of D. About half the multivitamins and calcium supplements I've looked at contain ergocalciferol rather than cholecalciferol.

Taking vitamin D2 yields very little conversion to the effective D3. This particular issues is maddening, as the USDA requires dairy farmers to add 100 units of vitamin D to milk, and D2 is often used. In other words, the D in many dairy products barely works at all. There are many children who rely on D from dairy products who are at risk for rickets and are not getting the D they need from dairy products because of this cost-saving switch. Do not rely on milk for vitamin D for your children.

D2 or ergocalciferol is often included in the blood measures of vitamin D along with vitamin D3. The only reason it's checked with blood work is to ensure "compliance,", i.e., see whether or not you're taking a prescribed ergocalciferol. Beyond this, it has no usefulness.

25-OH-vitamin D3, or cholecalciferol, is both the blood measure and the supplement you need. This is the one that packs all the punch. Keep in mind also that it is the oil-based gelcap you want, with more consistent and efficient absorption. Tablets usually barely work at all, even if it contains cholecalciferol. Most people who take calcium tablets with D, or multivitamin with D, not only are getting a powdered form of D, but also in trivial doses. It's the pure vitamin D3, cholecalciferol, in gelcap form you want if you desire all the spectacular benefits of vitamin D.
Genetic incompatibility

Genetic incompatibility

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments (29) -

  • Anonymous

    1/10/2011 5:57:47 PM |

    How do you test for it?

    Nina

  • Anonymous

    1/10/2011 7:35:25 PM |

    I am APOE 3/4.

    1. When you say fat is not good, do you mean all fats, or does the research indicate that MUFA's are helpful? Or PUFA's

    2. Does Niacin affect the negative impact of the APOE 4?

    3. Is it wise with APOE 4 to eat low fat, high carb? And take the niacin, and increase exercise? Or better to stay low carb higher fat and use the niacin?

    Thank you.

  • Anonymous

    1/10/2011 8:35:06 PM |

    General question. For the past year I've been trying to correct my lipid levels. One thing i've done for lunch every day is to make a shake with an apple, banana and orange, plus add a scoop of protein powder from Sam's Club. My triglycerides have skyrocketed even with taking 2 grams fish oil, healthy diet, etc. Should I not each so much fruit every day? Thanks.

  • David

    1/10/2011 9:30:59 PM |

    Anon,

    That's a lot of fruit. Add it up, and assuming that you're eating medium/average sizes of those three fruits, you're drinking down almost 50 grams of sugar at every lunch (not including the starch in the banana, which also breaks down into glucose). The fructose alone adds up to about 24 grams, which is excessive, in my view, and I don't think there's any mystery as to why your triglycerides have skyrocketed. Back off on the fruit. Eat it only occasionally, and/or pick low-fructose varieties like berries.

    David

  • David

    1/10/2011 9:38:32 PM |

    P.S. As a point of reference, a can of Coca-Cola has 23 grams of fructose.

  • Travis Culp

    1/10/2011 10:40:45 PM |

    If those were the only carbs that he's eating for the entire day, it's not that bad, although I would split it up so that he's eating a piece of fruit with each meal. There's no way someone would go from the SAD to paleo with 3 pieces of fruit and have triglycerides shoot up as a result. It would be a dramatic decrease in average blood glucose and carb intake.

  • Dr. William Davis

    1/10/2011 11:23:05 PM |

    Nina--

    Apoprotein E needs to be specified, usually (though not necessarily) with lipoprotein analysis.


    Anonymous with apo E questions--

    We will be covering this issue in more detail on the Track Your Plaque website near-future (www.trackyourplaque.com).

  • Patricia

    1/11/2011 3:12:40 AM |

    @Travis Culp

    Concerning Anonymous you say, "If those were the only carbs that he's eating for the entire day, it's not that bad."

    Apparently for Anonymous it *is* that bad or his trigs would not have "skyrocketed."  Clearly what he means by "healthy diet" is suspect if he believed a fructose bomb for lunch was a good idea whilst "trying to correct my lipid levels."  So, perhaps he is eating oatmeal and whole wheat bread as part of the "healthy diet" as well, thus contributing even more to said skyrocketing triglycerides.  

    However, given what he actually wrote, IMHO David's comments are spot on.

    Fruit is often and easily given a pass as "healthy" when it is definitely not, particularly vis-a-vis triglycerides.

  • Anonymous

    1/11/2011 3:56:06 PM |

    This last post by Dr. Davis leads to a question about the genetic profile of our blog community?

    And I would love to be wrong about my logic.

    Here we go.

    Fats are apparently not good for APOE 4's which Dr Davis offers is about 19 per cent of general population. Fats make an APOE 4 worse.

    But isn't the reader of this blog more likely to be an APOE 4 than 1 in five, since they are far more likely to have lipid disorders and heart plaque?

    Is it not more likely our blog population has a higer percentage of APOE 4's or 2's than the general population?  So, the advice should tilt toward those genetics not the cardio protected 3/3 who should eat more fats?


    Is this blog's "eat more fats, more nuts"  advice  targeted at the least likely patients to be here--meaning the APOE 3/3 who really dont have as much plaque? The ones who lipids genetics are normal and cardio protective anyway.

    So should not the advice be tilted the other way around, and not toward the rarer reader and blogger who is normal 3/3 who should eat more fats? But toward the rarer (in general population) but more likely reader in a lipid disordered population who should not eat more fats?

    Would it be more helpful to presume that the reader is a APOE 4or AOPE 2?

    And shouldn't every one here get tested because if we are APOE 4 then we could be making ourselves worse by eating more fats? Our attempts at self protection could be hurting us badly?

    Is this a good question? Or two?

    Does this make sense?

  • Onschedule

    1/11/2011 5:10:52 PM |

    @Anonymous regarding APOE 4 and this blog population:

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

    I would expect the population of Dr. Davis blog readers who have this genetic incompatibility to be less, not more, than this ratio. Certainly Dr. Davis's patients are "more likely to have lipid disorders and heart plaque" than the more random pool of readers. Dr. Davis's patients are his patients because they have heart-related issues. The population of blog readers, on the other hand, likely includes people interested in avoiding future heart problems, people with a general interest in health, etc. - all of which would tend to lower the ratio of people with these genetic incompatibilities who read this blog...

  • Anonymous

    1/11/2011 6:05:26 PM |

    Dear Onschedule:

    But if 19 per cent have APOE 4 and it causes plaque issues, why would Dr Davis have only  5 patients in many years in such a huge patient population?  

    Why wouldn't he have at least 19 per cent? 1 in 5?

    Why would it be rare in a heart doctor's office...... and 19 per cent, which is not rare at all, in the general population?

    Am I misunderstanding this?

    Does Dr. Davis test every patient for APOE ?  

    If APOE 4 causes lipids issues and plaque, I tend to think there would be lots of heart patients with APOE 4 genes, not less in his pool.  But either way, at least somewhere near 19 per cent, right?

    Unless I misunderstand the math?

  • Anonymous

    1/11/2011 6:13:49 PM |

    OOPS

    I amend my own comment about how common the "APOE 4 dont eat fats" patients ought to be in this blog population. It is even less rare than we thought !

    I was thinking that the APOE 4 was at 19 per cent....but Dr. Davis actually states 21 per cent.

    So, my argument has more weight, not less, with the corrected percentage. APOE 4 is not rare if 21 per cent have it.

    Now I am confused by this.

    Any help?

    Why wouldnt this reader blog have the same 21 per cent as the general population, and actually more if we figure that lipid disorders ( very high in APOE 4's) drive more to this site than general.

    " Peter also has another gene for Apo E4, another genetically-determined pattern shared by 19% of Americans. (Another 2% of Americans have two "doses" of Apo E4, i.e., they are homozygotes for E4.)"

  • David

    1/11/2011 6:57:16 PM |

    Dr. Davis wasn't saying that he only has 5 patients who are ApoE4. He was saying that he only has 5 patients who have the specific combination of ApoE4 with this particular kind of Lp(a) pattern.

  • Gene K

    1/12/2011 4:50:46 AM |

    I would like to hear what other people with ApoE 4 have to eat. I am now both low carb and low fat. Still consuming a handful of almonds a day, hummus, and natto - these are not low-fat foods, so my next NMR won't be pretty. Also, should fish oil be counted towards daily fat intake?

  • Anonymous

    1/12/2011 6:49:30 PM |

    Gene asks a great question.

    I too would love to know what ApoE 4's should eat. Pufa, mufa, no fats?

    No carbs?

    Does post exercise mitigate the harm after eating offending foods?

    Thanks

  • Gene K

    1/13/2011 5:04:58 AM |

    My understanding is that PUFA or MUFA makes no difference in this case as long as it is fat (I am talking about those with ApoE 4 here). I would rather see somebody more qualified to comment on this, though.

    As to mitigating the effect of offending foods after exercise, you'll have to prick your finger to find out. At least it is what I have gathered from posts and discussions on this blog.

    In my pre-TYP life, I absorbed all existing advice on diet and exercise for people with risk factors for heart disease. It is commonly believed that there is a 30-40 min-long carbohydrate window after an intensive exercise session, during which you can and should consume carbohydrates. I am not qualified to argue this point, but to know your specific response, you should check your BG.

    For one, I checked my BG to see whether I can eat a spaghetti squash dinner. One night (I), I did it after gym, and next night (II) without gym, but after a 25-min walk from the train station. The meal was the same both nights. Results:

    (I) Before dinner: 84, 1hr PP: 114
    (II) 88 and 129 respectively.

    My conclusion: Although exercise helps, I should avoid this food.

  • Anonymous

    1/13/2011 2:27:53 PM |

    Wow! anonymous of Jan 11, 2011.  I totally get you! I was thinking the same.  I have had high cholesterol since my eary 20's (now in my 40's)at times >350 with my ldl always high triglycerides never too bad. That puzzled my doctors.  All my doctors have said that I need to take statins or I will die basically. Thought I ate well.  But now I know I could have been eating wrong all these yrs!? Tried a McDougall 2 months ago, but thought it was way too much carbs. No nuts, oils or fish. Felt ok then, crappy as time went on.. Put fish/nuts back in my diet and Surprise, I felt better. But now, after reading @ that APOE stuff, I wonder should I go back to strick vegetarian or not?? I guess I have to get some test first to determine what my break down is, right? I have always wondered since my 20's if this is going to b the year of the big one?  I have a 2 yr old and want to b around for a long time.  My grandfather and Great grandfather live into 90's. Grandma, @78-80. But on my other side, My mom 1st husband(my biological dad) had quadrupal bybass at 42. What test should i get it seems you could be screwed either way you eat, depending on your genetics. thanks

  • Anonymous

    1/13/2011 6:09:09 PM |

    Dear Anon Said:

    With high levels so early, a good idea to ask MD about niacin, statins dont work on ApoE 4.s very well. I dont take them.

    I do exercise after meals, and use pysillium, 1k niaspan, and increase vegetable sources of Omega 3, since some research says that fish oil is not as useful with ApoE 4's either, but I still take fish 2k, and D3 2k daily. Ground flax seed is good source of veg omega3.

    My brother is not just 4/3 but 4/4.

    Would love to see others comment, since we are 21per cent of population.

    Good luck,

    Thanks.

  • Anonymous

    1/13/2011 9:14:07 PM |

    Thanks. In my 20s...My Dr said he had never seen someone so young with my #'s.  Said he would not give Statins because they didnt know the effects on young persons.  
      In 30's...Have been on Lipitor in the past. My Drs said Niacin wouldnt lower it enough.  Lipitor did not do much. It < my ldl at first then it started to lower my hdl too. Remember my triglycerides were never high normal or lower even.  I felt weird/achy on it with brain fog or general stupor feeling. I stopped in my 30's.  Felt better. Found tons of info against statins on internet.
      Also told them a long time ago, my great aunt, my mother and my uncle(moms bro)had a < thyroid.  But as long as my numbers come out ok, thats as far as they go here.  I think I have always been "tweeked" a bit low. Have cold hands/feet, dry hair/skin, hard to very lose weight,tired ect...

    In my 40's...Had my daughter @2yrs ago and Drs wanted me to try Crestor after delivery. I Said No. I know there is a better way. So, I have been trying to do a cross between Asian/Medittarean/Jen's common sense. Here it is...

      I eat fruit/veggies with almost fish exclusively. Occasionally some turkey/chicken real lean.
      Stopped all coffee, drink tea black/green brewed only.
      Stopped all the phoney crap.No artificial sweetners. No hydrogenated oils ect..
      Stopped eating quick oats yrs ago, now trying coarse grind or the steel cut. I mix it with barley adn rye flakes. Use lots of flaxseed in anything I can.
      For a snack I eat a handful of nuts w/o salt mixed with fruit like raisens/cranberries no sugar or the least I can find.
      In the process of stopping wheat products. Almost impossible to find though. Switched to rice/potatoes but exclusively but now I am confused, Dr. Davis says that might b taboo too? Thought rice is a staple in Japan? Hmm..
      Take 1 fishoil High omega3 Sams club daily. And 2-3 times a week starting this winter, a couple 1-3tsp of cod liver oil every other day.
       Bought a bottle of Sloniacin to try if all this doesnt work. I just have to find a doc that will do the right test for lipids. That is the APOE Correct?? Please tell me if I am wrong.  They don't do particle size, always just the basic cholesterol test.  
      Jen in Minnesota

  • sailormom

    1/14/2011 1:53:18 AM |

    very interesting!  My endo thinks I have some genetic cause for high ldl  (ldl particle # > 2000, but HDL  is 90 and trig around 40).  On low carb high fat diet and my ldl just goes up and dr wants me on a statin.  so far I have resisted as I want to try diet/exercise (my weight is at the high range of normal).  I have no wheat, potatoes, rice, sugar etc -- basically fish, fowl, vegetables and dairy (minimal fruit) and nothing proocessed but have not seen any change in lipid profile.  lp(a) is normal so does this sound like  an APOE variant?  What is the best diet?

  • Onschedule

    1/14/2011 1:56:09 AM |

    @Jen in Minnesota

    Have you had a recent heart scan? If not, getting one would give you a baseline with which to compare the effects of future dietary strategies. It will also give you peace of mind when you find that your calcium score (if any) is holding steady or decreasing. Tracking lipids without the scan, IMHO, is less satisfying and less useful.

  • Dr. William Davis

    1/14/2011 3:08:33 AM |

    I hear the several frustrated comments here.

    The key is to:

    1) be armed with information when talking with your healthcare provider. Just asking about apo E raises the bar considerably.

    2) Start to think about individualized health, i.e., diet fine-tuned to your genetic susceptibilities. There is not a true one-size-fits-all diet approach. Some tweaking is required for various genetic patterns, largely determined by apo E genetic type.

  • Anonymous

    1/14/2011 5:24:19 PM |

    Thanks all, and Dr. Davis...
       It's convincing the Docs that you should get specific tests, beyond the basics. (like total thyroid breakdown, APOE lipids testing, heart scan, Vit D testing).
      At a University Hosp I asked my gp 2-3 yrs ago if I could get a scan to clear up all this cholesterol business to check 4 plack? Said hosp wouldnt allow it. I would have had to private pay everything,(& u can't get one w/o recommendation anyway). Asked the same thing over 10 yrs ago to my clinic dr. Said same thing. It depends if your insurance will cover too. Cant get on partners insurance for family coverage, so I have to pay for all tests w/a high deductable too.
      No big deal though...It is great u can get tests on your own now. Will look into that more, maybe I will save up or join something like "Track your Plack".  Looks like I can maybe get some sort of test for lipids.
    If my breakdown comes out good, and I eat well already, plus take Vit D; then maybe they have had me worried unecessarily for 20 yrs!!HaHa...
    Take care Jen in Mn

  • Kurt

    1/16/2011 4:14:22 PM |

    You've written in the past about the failure of low fat diets to reduce plaque, so I was surprised to read that 19% of people benefit from eating less fat (assuming they don't replace fat with grains). I believe I'm one, because through trial and error - and multiple cholesterol tests - I've found that the less fat I eat, the lower my LDL reading.

  • Anonymous

    1/18/2011 2:01:10 AM |

    Kurt: and then Gene:

    Just wanted to point out---it's not 19 percent, it is 21. That means 1 in 5 should not follow the "increase your fats diet." And they may in fact not be harmed by diets that harm other gene profiles.

    Sure would like to know if niacin balances this all out?

    Keep in mind that ApoE 4 is a very controversial gene test---it is sometimes called the Alzheimers gene, mistakenly; and there is a lot of debate about the ethics of such a test for fear of marking people for a certain fate. Would suggest maybe discuss and research before checking, but it too is a rock and hard place choice.

    "Peter also has another gene for Apo E4, another genetically-determined pattern shared by 19% of Americans. (Another 2% of Americans have two "doses" of Apo E4, i.e., they are homozygotes for E4.)"

    Gene: Thank you so much for posting, I am grateful for freeback and input on this. Suggest trying the exercise after not before you eat. The science says the benefits are about post prandial exercise. I would love to see your results.

  • Lucy

    1/18/2011 2:26:36 AM |

    28 y/o ApoE 3/4 here.  Haven't been tested for Lp(a) yet, but my mom has it and she's also a 3/4.  Definitely frustrated with all the back and forth on whether I should do LC/HF or veg.  Started taking niacin last year, but I'd really like to know what to do with the diet.

    Dr. Davis-  Do you recommend ApoE 4's take fish oil, and if so how much?  I've heart conflicting info.

  • Anonymous

    1/18/2011 2:34:08 PM |

    Lucy:

    Great question !

    Thank you for asking Dr. Davis about fish oil and ApoE 4's. I too take fish oil and wonder if I am making it worse.

  • Gene K

    1/23/2011 5:37:08 AM |

    @Anon

    The science says the benefits are about post prandial exercise.

    Immediate benefits will depend on the kind and amount of food consumed, the type, duration, and intensity of the exercise, and how soon after eating you exercise.

    There are also long-term benefits from regular exercise, and I am not sure you can reduce them to whether you eat and then exercise or exercise and then eat.

    I prefer to have a light meal within 1hr before a workout, and a good meal with lots of protein after my workout. My typical workout includes 30 min cardio + strength resistance the slow burn style.

    Disclaimer. The opinion is my own, and I am not an exercise scientist.

  • Dr. Daniel Chong

    1/24/2013 5:31:02 PM |

    In a case like this, I would continue on a plant based, low fat diet to combat Apo E4, then add in the following to combat the Lp(a) issue:
    Vitamin C titrated to bowel tolerance
    Proline
    Lysine
    Guggul
    Niacin

Loading