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.
The five most powerful heart disease prevention strategies

The five most powerful heart disease prevention strategies

24. January 2011 William Davis (39)
You've seen such lists before: 5 steps to prevent heart disease or some such thing. These lists usually say things like "cut your saturated fat," eat a "balanced diet" (whatever the heck that means), exercise, and don't smoke.

I would offer a different list. You already know that smoking is a supremely idiotic habit, so I won't repeat that. Here are the 5 most important strategies I know of that help you prevent heart disease and heart attack:

1) Eliminate wheat from the diet--Provided you don't do something stupid, like allow M&M's, Coca Cola, and corn chips to dominate your diet, elimination of wheat is an enormously effective means to reduce small LDL particles, reduce triglycerides, increase HDL, reduce inflammatory measures like c-reactive protein, lose weight (inflammation-driving visceral fat), reduce blood sugar, and reduce blood pressure. I know of no other single dietary strategy that packs as much punch. This has become even more true over the past 20 years, ever since the dwarf variant of modern wheat has come to dominate.

2) Achieve a desirable 25-hydroxy vitamin D level--Contrary to the inane comments of the Institute of Medicine, vitamin D supplementation increases HDL, reduces small LDL, normalizes insulin and reduces blood sugar, reduces blood pressure, and exerts potent anti-inflammatory effects on c-reactive protein, matrix metalloproteinase, and other inflammmatory mediators. While we also have drugs that mimic some of these effects, vitamin D does so without side-effects.

3) Supplement omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil--Omega-3 fatty acids reduce triglycerides, accelerate postprandial (after-meal) clearance of lipoprotein byproducts like chylomicron remnants, and have a physical stabilizing effect on atherosclerotic plaque.

4) Normalize thyroid function--Start with obtaining sufficient iodine. Iodine is not optional; it is an essential trace mineral to maintain normal thyroid function, protect the thyroid from the hundreds of thyroid disrupters in our environment (e.g., perchlorates from fertilizer residues in produce), as well as other functions such as anti-bacterial effects. Thyroid dysfunction is epidemic; correction of subtle degrees of hypothyroidism reduces LDL, reduces triglycerides, reduces small LDL, facilitates weight loss, reduces blood pressure, normalizes endothelial responses, and reduces oxidized LDL particles.

5) Make exercise fun--Not just exercise for the sake of exercise, but physical activity or exercise for the sake of having a good time. It's the difference between resigning yourself to 30 minutes of torture and boredom on the treadmill versus engaging in an activity you enjoy and look forward to: go dancing, walk with a friend, organize a paintball tournament outdoors, Zumba class, plant a new garden, etc. It's a distinction that spells the difference between finding every excuse not to do it, compared to making time for it because you enjoy it.

Note what is not on the list: cut your fat, eat more "healthy whole grains," take a cholesterol drug, take aspirin. That's the list you'd follow if you feel your hospital needs your $100,000 contribution, otherwise known as coronary bypass surgery.
Tags :

Comments (39) -

  • Ty

    1/23/2011 10:27:46 PM |

    It's too bad that there is not a randomized, controlled trial to show the superiority of this strategy.  

    Aside from assimilating scattered studies with surrogate endpoints, what would it take to definitively show that this strategy actually does improve cardiovascular morbidity and mortality?  

    If Dr. Davis can convince many in the "thinking" public, surely someone in the health care industry or NIH would be interested in pursuing this.

  • Andrew

    1/24/2011 2:13:50 AM |

    Magnesium and Chromium are also important minerals.  Neither are particular common in most diets.  Perhaps, they would fit into a top 10 list.

  • revelo

    1/24/2011 2:25:11 AM |

    I think regular testing is the most important strategy. If your tests come out okay, then there is no reason for anything else. If the test show problems, then address the problems in a methodical.

    Many people don't appear to have any problems with wheat. I'm 50 and spent perhaps 10 years in my 30's getting most of my calories from pasta, and another ten years in my 40's getting most of my calories from oats. I was never more than 10 lbs overweight and I haven't visited a doctor in 30 years, other than for an ear wax buildup about 20 years ago. My test scores recently were good and I have good glucose tolerance according to the glucose monitor I recently bought (reli-on from walmart).

    The reason I started investigating diet issues is that I felt lousy during two months on the Appalachian Trail this past fall. My diet on the trail consisted of nothing but a pound per day of instant rice and another pound of dry-roasted peanuts plus a multivitamin, and then a gallon of ice cream and a package or two of cookies and maybe some candy bars and cheese whenever I stopped off at town. Like most of the other hikers, my problem was not gaining weight but rather losing too much. Those binges on ice cream made me feel very sick afterwards. I began to have cravings for oats, which I think helps to keep the blood vessels clear. Now that I've gotten back to civilization, I've been eating lots of vegetables and oats and my blood pressure is typically under 100/70 (I bought a sphygomanometer as soon as I got home from the trail and my initial BP was 120/70). I think people who exercise as much as a typical backpacker have no problems with complex carbs. A gallon of ice cream and a full package of iced oatmeal cookies at one sitting is another story.

  • Anonymous

    1/24/2011 5:31:31 AM |

    I found this blog after a search in April 2008 because my Fasting glucose had broken 100 (105) and I was worried I would end up a type 2 diabetic like my 90 year old dad. I began following the advice here: almost no wheat or grains, little sugar/fructose, added 8000 Vit D3, 12.5mg Iodoral, 2800mg omega-3 fish oil.  Now, my fasting glucose is 97, my Vit D went from 13(!) to 75.  I quit my statin and although my LDL went from 111 to 135, my HDL went from 60 to 74 and Trig from 108 to 62.  Lost 10 lbs without trying and now need to wear a beltSmile.  The only thing I can complain about is my BP seems to stay around 130/74. Otherwise I'm convinced. Thank you, Dr. Davis.
    Jay in CA.

  • Anonymous

    1/24/2011 6:23:10 AM |

    Hi Dr. Davis

    i've looked around your blog but did not find information on buckwheat flour, chickpeas flour and water chestnut flour.

    i understand they are safe for celiacs to consume but how far are they consistent with the heart-good diet i've picked up from your blog so far? e.g. consumption amount per day if they are fine? things to watch out.

    Thanks

  • Paul

    1/24/2011 6:26:47 AM |

    revelo,

    Have you had an NMR lipo test done? By your own description, being on such a high carb diet, your LDL particle numbers might shock you.

    And don't fall into the same trap that most prototypical thin men fall into.  Just because you are thin and active does not give you a pass on following these strategies.  Look at this blog post by Dr. Davis:

    Here's the prototypical male with lipoprotein(a)

    "Several features stand out in the majority of men with lipoprotein(a), Lp(a):

    Slender--Sometimes absurdly so: BMIs of 21-23 are not uncommon. These are the people who claim they can't gain weight.

    Intelligent--Above average to way above average intelligence is the rule.

    Gravitate to technical work--Plenty of engineers, scientists, accountants, and other people who work with numbers and/or technical details are more likely to have Lp(a).

    Enjoy high levels of aerobic performance--I tell my Lp(a) patients that, if they want to see a bunch of other people with Lp(a), go to a marathon or triathlon. They'll see plenty of people with the pattern among the aerobically-elite.

  • Anonymous

    1/24/2011 9:26:11 AM |

    I would recommend Nordic walking as an exercise.

  • Tony

    1/24/2011 11:33:05 AM |

    Do you have information about the interference of wheat (or other neolithic pathogens) on thyroid-function? I would guess that either phytates hinder the absorbtion of iodine (both in humans as well as in animals we eat), or that gluten/gliadins/etc directly interfere with thyroid function, or trigger an autoimmune reaction (or all of the above...).

    And from an similar area: You don't know by chance of any papers linking wheat with adrenal-gland problems?

  • Dr. William Davis

    1/24/2011 3:00:19 PM |

    Hi, Andrew--

    In fact, I contemplated a "six strategies" that included magnesium.

    I agree: magnesium is indeed near the top of the list for heart health.

  • Dr. William Davis

    1/24/2011 3:04:33 PM |

    Hi, Jay--

    Good news: With the favorable changes you've witnessed, the calculated (or what I call "fictional") LDL cholesterol increases, while the genuine measurement (e.g., NMR LDL particle number or apo B) drops.

    Of course, don't count on your friendly drug company to tell you this.


    Hi, Tony--

    The only connection I know of between wheat (gluten, in this case) and thyroid disease is that wheat exposure can activate (or at least be associated with) Hashimoto's thyroiditis, i.e., thyroid gland inflammation.

  • Anonymous

    1/24/2011 3:14:03 PM |

    dr davis,

    are you saying wheat mainly, that other carbs could be eaten and still some benefit could be had from just omitting wheat from diet?

  • Eric

    1/24/2011 5:16:37 PM |

    What kind of magnesium is best for those who have the old "Phillips Milk of Magnesia" effect with normal magnesium supplements?

  • Flavia

    1/24/2011 6:26:14 PM |

    This is craaaaazy!!! Four days ago my BP was 150/100- I took your recommendations to hear, along with other supplements (whey, blueberries, coQ10, magnesium, olive leaf) + low carb + exercise and my blood pressure has dropped to 129/90. I cannot believe this.

    What is most incredible is that all docs said my BP was 100% genetic and there was nothing I could do (probably b/c i'm thin and young).

    I am blogging my progress. The goal is to get off that goddamn atenolol once and for all.

    Here's a rundown of what I am doing. Any advice from anyone would be super welcome.

    http://superhighbloodpressure.blogspot.com/p/details-of-experiment.html

  • Flavia

    1/24/2011 6:28:45 PM |

    BTW the one thing I am NOT doing is supplementing with iodine. Is this necessary? How does one know if thyroid function is wack? Any recommendations on what type of iodine to take?

  • David M Gordon

    1/24/2011 8:21:32 PM |

    You ever tire of your Sisyphean struggles, Dr D? Many people in the medical industrial complex simply do not give credence to your findings.

    For example, I shared your point #1 (re wheat) with a research pathologist friend -- yes, the same fellow whose knowledge you believe might be circa 1985 Smile -- and he said...
    "The statements that you list are at best applicable under select circumstances.  I doubt there is any scientific evidence (study in a peer reviewed journal) to support your claims. If you stop eating, your triglycerides, weight, and  LDL will go down, nothing to do with stopping wheat. Similarly, in >99% of individuals, CRP levels are not related to diet, especially wheat eating. The only time eating wheat would make a difference is if you cannot tolerate wheat for any reason."

    Which brings me back to my opening question. "Peer reviewed journal"...? I mean, c'mon, that is akin to waiting until everyone is bullish and owns a stock before you finally buy.

  • Tony

    1/24/2011 9:44:40 PM |

    I found this abstract (with relation to celiac disease patients - poor bastards):

    The American Journal of Gastroenterology (2001) 96, 751–757; doi:10.1111/j.1572-0241.2001.03617.x
    Prevalence of thyroid disorders in untreated adult celiac disease patients and effect of gluten withdrawal: an Italian multicenter study
    http://www.nature.com/ajg/journal/v96/n3/abs/ajg2001173a.html

    OBJECTIVES:
    Many afflictions have been associated with celiac disease, but chance associations may exists. The aim of this study was to establish, by means of a multicenter prospective study, the prevalence of thyroid impairment among adult patients with newly diagnosed celiac disease and to evaluate the effect of a 1-yr gluten withdrawal on thyroid function.

    METHODS:
    A total of 241 consecutive untreated patients and 212 controls were enrolled. In 128 subjects a thorough assessment, including intestinal biopsy, was repeated within 1 yr of dietary treatment. Thyroid function was assayed by measuring the levels of TSH, free T3, free T4, thyroperoxidase, and thyroid microsome antibodies.

    RESULTS:
    Thyroid disease was 3-fold higher in patients than in controls (p < 0.0005). Hypothyroidism, diagnosed in 31 patients (12.9%) and nine controls (4.2%), was subclinical in 29 patients and of nonautoimmune origin in 21. There was no difference regarding hyperthyroidism, whereas autoimmune thyroid disease with euthyroidism was present in 39 patients (16.2%) and eight controls (3.8%). In most patients who strictly followed a 1-yr gluten withdrawal (as confirmed by intestinal mucosa recovery), there was a normalization of subclinical hypothyroidism. Twenty-five percent of patients with euthyroid autoimmune disease shifted toward either a subclinical hyperthyroidism or subclinical hypothyroidism; in these subjects, dietary compliance was poor. In addition, 5.5% of patients whose thyroid function was normal while untreated developed some degree of thyroid dysfunction 1 yr later.

    CONCLUSIONS:
    The greater frequency of thyroid disease among celiac disease patients justifies a thyroid functional assessment. In distinct cases, gluten withdrawal may single-handedly reverse the abnormality.

  • Anonymous

    1/25/2011 8:14:25 AM |

    You want to know, how to make exercise fun: check this one out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lXh2n0aPyw

  • Gillian

    1/25/2011 10:36:27 AM |

    Dr Davies

    What do you think about consuming the Swedish innovation Oatly (trademark) that is a special  oatmilk with an elevated amount of betaglucans?
    Professor Rickard Öste has developed this type of oatmilk.

  • Tom T

    1/25/2011 11:08:00 AM |

    Thank you for your efforts and blog.

    RE Omega 3s, you recommend fish oil.  Is that preferable to getting Omega 3s from walnuts and ground flaxseed, both of which I understand to also provide Omega 3s?  Is there a benefit to fish oil vs. these other options?

    Thank you.

    Tom

  • Dr. William Davis

    1/25/2011 12:50:15 PM |

    Hi, David--

    Great points.

    Perhaps your pathologist friend should consider spending some time with the living.


    Tom--

    Those are two different things. Walnuts and flax do NOT provide the same effects as the omega-3s from fish, just as the oil in your car's engine cannot be used to be put in the gas tank. Two different, though related, things.

  • Oatlover

    1/25/2011 1:07:50 PM |

    Ok, got'ca on the wheat, but what about oats? Same deal, or are they OK? I can cut out wheat without any problems, but I do like my oat porridge... ;)

  • Steve

    1/25/2011 2:08:24 PM |

    Niacin was near the top  of your protocol list earlier.  Has this fallen out of favour?  Or is it just the insurance abuse which keeps it off the list?

    I have recently been diagnosed with wheat & gluten IgE sensitivity.  So I will finally stop resisting the #1 rec.  After 4 days I am seeing some changes in eosinophilic esophaghitis, gingivitis, and rhinitis.

  • Dr. William Davis

    1/25/2011 10:49:43 PM |

    Oatlover?

    Oats are an entirely different issue. They cause blood sugar to skyrocket.


    Steve--

    The newer focus on strict elimination of wheat, cornstarch, and sugars has reduced reliance on niacin considerably.

  • Anonymous

    1/26/2011 5:59:41 AM |

    I'd put a caution note for the fish oil, we now know some of us get very bad opposite effect.

  • Oatlover

    1/26/2011 8:41:08 AM |

    Okay, I'm not really that hung up on oats. Smile But oat porridge is a main staple of mine. I'll take your advise and cut out wheat and oat for at least a few weeks and see what it's like.
    I'm healthy and have no heart problems or blood sugar issues of any kind, but as I'm not getting any younger (about to turn 40), I'm hoping to prevent any future problems by finetuning my diet.

  • Onschedule

    1/26/2011 11:33:01 PM |

    @Oatlover,

    I had been eating oats as part of what I thought was a "healthy diet," but stopped when I started tracking my blood glucose and watched it consistently soar afterwards. I found oat bran had the same effect on my blood glucose. Since giving them up, I no longer get the light-headed tired hunger that used to force me to take lunch early. Since giving up wheat as well, I've never felt better.

    Well wishes for your trial!

  • Anonymous

    1/27/2011 1:36:26 PM |

    Dr Davis,

    What you mean by: The newer focus on strict elimination of wheat, cornstarch, and sugars has reduced reliance on niacin considerably?
    What is the relationship between wheat/corn starch and sugar and niacin dosage?
    Is a lower dose of niacin efficient when wheat/corn and sugar are eliminated?

    Stelucia

  • Steve

    1/27/2011 7:13:16 PM |

    Here is the conventional wisdom of max 1,000 IU Vitamin D via the NYT: LINK

  • Anonymous

    1/29/2011 2:23:44 PM |

    BALANCED DIET

    Some time ago, I decided to try to understand the origin of the phrase "Balanced Diet". After a lot of Google searching, I landed on a page that sketched out the use of the term, and have since lost the link.

    The term became popular, evidently, in about the 1920's and it was associated with the rapid discovery of many vitamins in foods. At that time, vitamin discoveries would seemingly pop up out of the blue.

    One writer, the first in a chain, remerked that "under the circumstances (unknown vitamins lurking in the food supply), we should therefore eat as broadly as possible so as to take in as many potential vitamins as possible."

    "Balanced Diet", under this interpretation, arose out of dietary ignorance, not dietary fact.

  • Kevin Kleinfelter

    2/2/2011 8:01:31 PM |

    I understand that you don't like wheat and other grains.  Are beans good or bad?  

    Yes, they are carbohydrate, but they're low glycemic index.  Are they a food which both anti-grain and USDA pyramid can agree are good, or do they have a down-side (other than gas)?

  • Ari

    2/2/2011 9:49:57 PM |

    Could you replace wheat with oats or other grains?

  • Ari

    2/2/2011 11:49:35 PM |

    For that matter, how about quinoa or polenta?

    Thanks.

  • Dr. William Davis

    2/3/2011 3:06:30 PM |

    Hi, Ari--

    No, no, no, and no.

    These grains increase blood sugar to high levels in the majority of adults.

    I will be discussing such grains in an upcoming post.

  • Rob

    4/30/2011 8:29:37 PM |

    Hello DR WD.

    Today I have for the first time read  "The Heart-Scan Blog" and was interested to read of your recommendations as to the five most powerful heart disease prevention strategies.  In my case "prevention" is a little late in the day since I was diagnosed with severe Congestive Heart Failure  in the autumn of 2008. My EF at that time was just 15% to 20% and a considerable area of the heart muscle was  a-kinetic.   Although the usual heart drugs were prescribed,   after a few months of feeling lack-lustre and devoid of energy, I decided to stop taking them and instead changed my diet and supplemented,  primarily with Ubiquinol. From barely being able to shuffle 20 metres or so I now readily walk about 4 miles a day. The diet  has seen one or two changes along the way but has  for the best part of the last two years been grain free. Lean and fatty meats and eggs by the dozen  are consumed  each and every week  as are lots of vegetables  and  oily fish.  Coconut oil, natural sea salt,  apple cider vinegar,  turmeric, cayenne pepper and Italian tinned tomatoes  all go into delicious home-made salsas that spice up the blandest of vegetables.   Processed oils are avoided but raw butter enjoyed without any restriction whilst  British, French and Swiss unpasteurised cheeses   figure strongly on my menu. All I can add is that on that diet I feel wonderfully reinvigorated.

  • Zeal

    7/10/2011 9:08:00 AM |

    Now we know who the sesinlbe one is here. Great post!

  • Fleta

    7/10/2011 9:11:03 AM |

    I had no idea how to approach this before—now I’m locked and leoadd.

  • Darrance

    7/11/2011 5:21:05 PM |

    I found just what I was needed, and it was entertianing!

  • Margaretta

    7/11/2011 9:12:42 PM |

    Alaakzaam—information found, problem solved, thanks!

Add comment

Loading