What role cholesterol medication?

10. April 2006 William Davis (0)
A frequent conversation point among my patients, as well as participants in the www.cureality.com program, is "Are cholesterol medications really necessary?"

No, they are not. What IS necessary is to correct all manifest and hidden causes of coronary plaque. Among these causes, in my view, is LDL cholesterol of 60 mg/dl or greater. There are many other causes of coronary plaque--e.g., small LDL particles, unrecognized hypertension, Lp(a), hidden diabetic patterns, etc.--but reducing LDL to 60 mg is still an important part of a plaque-reversing effort.

Insofar as we wish to get LDL to this goal, the statin cholesterol drugs like Lipitor, Zocor, Crestor, etc. may play a role. However, they should only be considered after a full effort dietary program is pursued. Don't follow the American Heart Association's diet unless you want to fail. It's nonsense.

For a more detailed discussion of how to use nutrition and nutritional supplements to reduce LDL cholesterol, go to www.lef.org, the website for the Life Extension Foundation. I wrote an article for their magazine called "Cholesterol and Statin Drugs: Separating Hype from Reality". You'll find the article at http://search.lef.org/cgi-src-bin/MsmGo.exe?grab_id=0&page_id=1295&query=davis%20cholesterol%20natural&hiword=CHOLESTEROLA%20CHOLESTEROLS%20DAVI%20DAVID%20DAVIE%20DAVIES%20DAVIN%20DAVIO%20DAVISON%20DAVISS%20DAVIT%20NATURALBASED%20NATURALES%20NATURALIZED%20NATURALLY%20NATURALS%20NATURE%20NATURES%20cholesterol%20davis%20natural%20.)

Can your plaque-reversal efforts succeed without statin drugs? It depends on your causes. For instance, someone with small LDL and Lp(a) only may do great on our basic program and then add niacin. Unfortunately, another person with a starting LDL cholesterol of 240 mg/dl--sky high--will have more success with these drugs.

Believe me, I am no blind supporter of drug companies and their flagrantly profit-seeking practices which, in my view, are cut-throat, shoving anyone and anything out of their way to increase profits and market share. I share many of Dr. Dave Warnarowski's views on how vicious their tactics can be; see his recent Blog post at http://www.drdavesbest.com/blog/ called "I smell a rat".

Nonetheless, the deep and well-funded research of the pharmaceutical industry does yield some useful tools. You don't have to love the insect exterminator, but if your house is being eaten by termites, his services can be useful. Same thing with these drugs. Useful--not the complete answer, not even close, but nonetheless useful in the right situations. Sometimes antibiotics are necessary, even life saving. That's how cholesterol drugs are, too.

Take it all in the proper perspective. Your goal is not cholesterol reduction, per se, but plaque control, preferably reversal.

Supplement Mania!

9. April 2006 William Davis (3)
Ever hear of "polypharmacy"? That's when someone takes too many medicines. People will have lists of 15-20 prescription medicines, for instance, with crazy interactions and oodles of side-effects.

Well, how about "poly-supplments"? That's when someone takes a large number of nutritional supplements.

Let me tell you about a 45 year old man I met.

In an effort to rid himself of risk for heart disease that he felt was likely shared with his family (brother and father diagnosed with heart attacks in their late 40s), Steve followed a program of nutritional supplementation. You name it, he took it: hawthorne, anti-oxidant mixtures, vitamins C, E, B-complex, saw palmetto, 7-keto DHEA, velvet deer antler, gingko biloba, policosanol, chronium picolinate, green tea, pine bark extract, St. John's Wort, CoEnzyme Q10, papain and other digestive enzymes...He became a distributor for a nutritional supplement company to allow him to afford his own extraordinary program.

To satisfy himself that he had indeed "cured" himself of heart disease, he got himself a CT heart scan. His score: 470, in th 99th percentile. Steve's heart attack risk based on this score was around 10% per year. High risk, no question.

For weeks after his scan, Steve admitted walking around in a daze, not knowing what to do. Years of telling himself that he had effectively dealt with his heart disease risk, now all down the drain.

When we met, I persuaded him that to think that this collection of supplements would reverse heart disease was magical thinking. We trimmed his list down to the essentials and got him on the right track.

Heart disease is controllable and reversible, but not this way. Don't fool yourself into thinking that some collection of supplements will be enough to stamp out your heart disease risk. Just like taking an antibiotic when you don't have an infection achieves nothing, so does taking the wrong supplements.

What does heart scanning mean to you?

8. April 2006 William Davis (0)
CT heart scans can mean different things to different people.


What does a heart scan mean to you? There are several possibilities:

1) A way of reducing uncertainty in your future.

2) A tool to crystallize your commitment to health.

3) A device to help you track how successful your heart disease prevention program is.

4) A trick to get you in the hospital.

5) A moneymaking tool for unscrupulous physicians hoping to profit from "downstream" testing, particularly heart catheterizations.


Like anything, heart scans can be used for both good and evil. How can you be sure that your heart scan is put to proper use--for your benefit and not someone else's profit?

Simple: Get educated. Understand the issues, be armed with informed questions.

If, for instance, you're a 55-year old female with a heart scan score of 90, active without symptoms, and you're told to have a heart catheterization right off the bat---run the other way. This is bad advice. A heart procedure like catheterization at this score in an asymptomatic woman is very rarely necessary. That decision can only be made after a step-by-step series of decisions are made by a truly interested, unbiased party. (A stress test is almost always required in this situation before the decision can be made to proceed with a catheterization.)

Unfortunately, in 2006, getting unbiased advice from your doctor is still a struggle. That's why we started Track Your Plaque---unbiased information, uncolored by drug or device company support, with an interest in the truth.

Coronary disease is drying up!

7. April 2006 William Davis (1)
I had an interesting conversation with a device representative this morning. He was a sales representative for a major medical manufacturer of stents, defibrillators, and other such devices for heart disease.

Since I'm still involved with hospital heart care and cardiac catheterization laboratories, this representative asked me if I was interested in getting involved with some of the new cardiac devices making it to market over the next year or two. "The coronary market is drying up, what with coated stents and such. We've got to find new profit sources."

Well, doesn't that sum it up? If you haven't already had this epiphany, here it is:

HEART DISEASE IS A PROFITABLE BUSINESS!

Why else can hospitals afford billboards, $10 million dollar annual ad campaigns, etc.? They do it for PROFIT. Likewise, device and drug manufacturers see the tremendous profit in heart disease.

The representative's comments about the market "drying up" simply means that the use of coated stents has cut back on the need for repeat procedures. It does NOT mean that coronary disease is on the way out. On the contrary, for the people and institutions who stand to profit from heart care, there's lots of opportunity.

Track Your Plaque is trying to battle this trend. Heart disease should NOT be profitable. For the vast majority of us, it is a preventable process, much like house fires and dental cavities.

Mammogram for your heart

6. April 2006 William Davis (0)
With the booming popularity of "64-slice CT scans", there's a lot of mis-information about what these tests provide.

These tests are essentially heart scans with added x-ray dye injected to see the insides of the arteries. However, to accomplish this, a large quantity of radiation is required. In addition, the test is not quantitative, that is, it is not a precise measure that can be repeated year after year.

It is okay to have a 64-slice CT coronary angiogram. It is NOT okay to have one every year. That's too much radiation. However, a heart scan can be repeated every year, if necessary, to track progression or regression. Once stabilization (zero change) or reduction is achieved, then you're done (unless your life takes a major change, like a 20 lb weight gain).

The tried-and-true CT heart scan is the gold standard--easy, inexpensive, precise, and repeatable. Not true for 64-slice angiograms.

Is your doctor using "leeches"?

4. April 2006 William Davis (0)
What if you went to your doctor for a problem and he/she promptly placed leeches on your body?

Yeccchhhh! Would you go back? I'd bet that you'd run the other way as fast as your bleeding legs could take you. Outdated health practices like "bleeding" are outdated for good reason.

Then why would you allow your doctor to approach your heart disease prevention program by checking cholesterol and then waiting for symptoms to appear? That miserable approach leads to tragedy and death all too often--ask Bill Clinton! He might as well have had leeches!

Don't allow your doctor's ignorance or disinterest impede your prevention program. Get your coronary plaque measured, then attack it from all sides by knowing all causes, hidden and obvious. That's why Track Your Plaque is such an effective program.

I often wonder why more doctors aren't using this unbelievably powerful approach to deal with heart disease. But when I see colleagues implanting stents, defibrillators, and the like for many thousands of dollars per patient, the answers are obvious. Given a choice of a rational, effective program of prevention that pays the doctor a few hundred dollars for his time, versus $2000 to $10,000 for a procedure, you can see that the temptation is irresistible for many physicians.

All in the family--What to do if there's heart disease in your family

3. April 2006 William Davis (0)
What should you do if a close relative of yours is diagnosed with coronary disease?
This question came up recently with a patient of mine. The patient--a strapping, 47 year old businessman who looked the absolute picture of health--was undergoing bypass surgery. Although I'd met him for the purposes of plaque reversal, he was already having symptoms and his stress test was flagrantly abnormal, all discovered after a heart scan score of 765. On the day after the patient's bypass, the patient's brother came to me. Understandably concerned about his own health, he asked what he should do. The answer: get a heart scan.
Measure the disease with the easiest test available. If his heart scan score is zero, great--he's at exceptionally low (near zero) risk for heart attack. A modest program of long-term prevention is all that's necessary. What if his score is like his brother, should he get in line for his bypass? No, absolutely not! But he will need two things: 1) a stress test to ascertain whether or not he's safe (60% likelihood a stress test would be normal), and 2) an effort to determine how the heck he got so much plaque. (We favor lipoprotein testing, of course, for greatest diagnostic certainty.)
Message: Learn from the lessons your own family provides. Don't let this valuable information go to waste.

Pre-diabetes: An explanation for explosive coronary plaque growth

1. June 2006 William Davis (0)
Art's first CT heart scan in March, 2006 yielded a concerning score of 1336. He felt fine--no chest discomfort, no breathlessness, etc.

Art agreed to take the statin cholesterol drug his primary care doctor prescribed. He also agreed to take the fish oil, niacin, and some of the nutritional supplements that we advised. But Art just couldn't bring himself to make the commitment to lose weight.

At the start of his program, Art--at 5 ft. 8 inches--was 40 lbs overweight (212 lb). This was important since his blood sugar wavered in the pre-diabetic range, going as high as 130 mg. (The American Diabetes Assn. defines diabetes as a blood glucose of 126 mg or greater.)

One year later, Art's lipid and lipoprotein values were corrected to perfection. But he still weighed in at a hefty 209 lbs--essentially no change. His blood sugar likewise hovered in the 120's.

I felt Art need to be prodded, so I asked him to undergo another heart scan. His score: 1935--a 600 point increase, or 45%!

Only now has Art begun to comprehend to power of diabetes and pre-diabetes to fan the flames of plaque growth. Recent published data, in fact, show that the majority of recently diagnosed diabetics already have well-established coronary artery disease.

Don't let this happen to you. Do not dismiss diabetic patterns as they will catch up to you. If Art can lose the 30-40 lbs in the abdominal weight that is creating the diabetic pattern, he will likely succeed in stopping plaque growth. Otherwise, it's just a matter of time before his heart attack, stent, or bypass.

Who cares if you're pre-diabetic?

31. May 2006 William Davis (0)
Marta is a smart lady. She's worked in hospital laboratories for the last 23 years and knows many of the ins and outs of lab tests and their implications.

After years of being told that her cholesterol was acceptable, she needed to undergo urgent bypass surgery after experiencing severe breathlessness that proved to be a small warning heart attack at age 57. But this made Marta skeptical of relying on cholesterol to identify heart disease risk.

I met Marta two years after her bypass surgery when she was seeking better answers. And, indeed, she proved to have several concealed sources of heart disease: small LDL particles, Lipoprotein(a), intermediate-density lipoprotein (IDL--a very important abnormality that means she is unable to clear dietary fats from her blood), among others. But she was also mildly diabetic with a blood sugar of 131 mg (normal < or = 100 mg). This had not been previously recognized.

As I'm a cardiologist and our program focuses on reversal and control of coronary plaque, I asked Marta to return to her primary care doctor to continue the conversation about diabetes. She was a bit frightened but followed through.

"Well, you're not urinating excessively. And your long-term measure of blood sugar, hemoglobin A1C, is still normal. I wouldn't worry about it. We'll just watch it."

I guess I should know better. What the poor primary care doctor doesn't know is that pre-diabetes and mild diabetes are potent risks for heart disease. In fact, some of the most explosive rates of plaque growth occur when these patterns are present. It's well established that risk for heart attack in a diabetic is the same as that of someone who's already suffered a prior heart attack--very high risk, in other words.

Marta's primary care doctor's advice would be like inquiring about cancer and the doctor says "Let's just wait until it's metastatic--then we'll start to worry." Of course, this is insane.

Pre-diabetes and mild diabetes should not be ignored or just "watched". Even though the blood sugar itself may not be high enough to endanger you, the hidden patterns underlying your body's unresponsiveness to insulin creates a torrent of hidden coronary risk.

For better answers, Track Your Plaque members can read "Shutting Off Metabolic Syndrome" at http://www.cureality.com/library/fl_dp001metabolic.asp on the www.cureality.com website. ("Metabolic syndrome" is the name commonly given to the constellation of abnormalities associated with pre-diabetes and diabetes.)

Don't get smug!

31. May 2006 William Davis (2)
It may sound silly, but after someone succeeds in stopping their heart scan score from increasing or reduces their score, I warn them to not get smug. Let me explain.

I'll tell you about Jack. I met Jack a few years ago after he had a heart scan at age 39. His score: 1441! A score this high at his age obviously puts him in the 99th percentile. Also recall that a score >1000 carries a 25% annual risk for heart attack.

This captured Jack's attention. At the start, his lipoproteins were disastrous with numerous abnormal patterns. Jack committed to the program. After one year, his lipoproteins were around 80-90% corrected towards perfection. He'd lost 27 lbs, was exercising six days a week, and felt great.

Jack's repeat score one year later: 1107--over a 300 point drop! A huge success. He was ecstatic.

Unfortunately, work and life in general distracted him. Jack allowed himself to drift back to old habits, indulging in fast food 2 or 3 times a week, slacking on exercise such that it became sporadic, half-hearted efforts, and regained 15 lbs. He even failed to show up for appointments and we lost contact for two years.

One day, Jack simply decided to see where he stood, so he got himself another heart scan. The score: 2473--over a doubling from his reduced score.

The message: Long-term consistency is key, even after you've achieved control over your score. Stick with your program--and don't get smug!

Holidays are dangerous!

29. May 2006 William Davis (0)
If you're on holiday from work today, make sure you're not on holiday from your health, too.

Too often, people come back to the office telling me that the holidays simply got out of hand--cookouts, picnics, family gatherings, etc.--and they simply couldn't avoid overeating, overdrinking, sitting around--and gaining 3-5 lbs in a weekend. (Our record is 10 lbs in a weekend!)

I don't want to harp on this issue and ruin your holiday, but I can't stress how important it is that you don't allow this to happen to you. Weight gained in a brief space of time has exceptionally destructive effects. Ever see the movie "Super Size Me"? It's an entertaining and well-done yet graphic portrayal of the damaging effects of rapid weight gain.

Enjoy your time off. Relax, enjoy your family and friends--but continue to pay attention to choosing the right foods, don't overeat, take time out to do something (or several things) physical. It'll pay off hugely in the long run.

More on carotid plaque...

29. May 2006 William Davis (1)
Although not a perfect test, carotid ultrasound is an exceptionally easy and accessible test. Using high-frequency sound, clear images are available for most people.

I say it's not perfect because the way it's done in 2006 makes it a non-quantitative test. It is a qualitative test. In other words, you may find out that there's a 30% blockage ("stenosis"), at the far end of the common carotid artery on the right side. Unfortunately, this gives you an isolated measure of diameter of the plaque compared to the artery. What it does not tell you is what the volume of the entire plaque is. That's a far more accurate measure (and one that is incorporated into your heart scan score, by the way).

Nonetheless, carotid ultrasound is easy, very safe, and available in most hospitals and many clinics. One difficulty: most insurance companies will not allow you to go through a carotid ultrasound scan as a "screening" procedure, i.e., a test just to see if you have a carotid plaque. They will generally pay if you're having symptoms of a stroke or "mini-stroke" (transient ischemic attack, or "TIA"), have an abnormal sound in your carotid ultrasound detected by your doctor (a carotid "bruit"), or some other unusual indications. Sometimes, a resourceful physician will muster up a diagnosis based on something in your history (e.g., left arm numbness, a common and often benign complaint that can also signal stroke).

Another option are the mobile scanners or some hospital services that offer carotid screening, usually for a very modest price. Drawback: Sporadic availability, difficulty in obtaining serial scans, and imprecise reporting since it's viewed as a screening test. But it's better than nothing.

My hope is that, as screening services using safe imaging techniques like ultrasound propagate and increase in direct availability to the public, you'll be able to circumvent the obstacles imposed by your insurance company and even, sometimes, your doctor. But try your doctor first.

Carotid plaque can be shrunk

28. May 2006 William Davis (1)
Rose, a 64-year old woman, just had a 70% carotid blockage identified by a screening ultrasound. When the result was given to her doctor, he prescribed Lipitor and told Rose that an ultrasound would be required every year. She would need carotid surgery, an "endarterectomy", if the blockage worsened.

"Can't I reduce the amount of blockage I have?" asked Rose.

"No. Once you've got it, it doesn't get any better."


Is this true? Once you've got carotid plaque, you can only expect it to get worse and it can't be reduced?

This is absolutely not true. In fact, compared to coronary plaque, carotid plaque is easier to reduce!

Of course, the Track Your Plaque program is designed to help you control or reduce coronary plaque. But, in our experience, people who have both coronary and carotid plaque will show far greater and faster reduction of carotid plaque. Dramatic reductions are sometimes seen. I've personally seen 50-70% blockages reduced to <30% on many occasions.

The requirements to achieve reduction of carotid plaque are very similar to the approach we use to reduce coronary plaque. One difference is that hypertension may play a more important role with carotid plaque and needs to be reduced confidently to the normal range before carotid plaque is controlled.

I find it shocking that the attitude like the one provided by this physician continue to prevail. Unlike coronary plaque, which has a relatively small body of scientific literature documenting how it can be reduced, carotid plaque actually enjoys a substantial clinical literature. Part of the reason is that the carotids are more easily imaged using ultrasound. (Heart structures can be seen with ultrasound, but not the coronary arteries.)

Numerous agents have been shown to contribute to reduction of carotid plaque: statin drugs, niacin, fish oil, the anti-diabetic "TZD" drugs (Actos, Avandia), several anti-hypertensive drugs, vitamin E, pomegranate juice, and several others.

It outrages me to hear stories like this. Rose is not the only one.

Don't accept the flip dismissals or the over-enthusiastic referral for carotid procedures. Insist on a conversation about plaque regression.


Note: Although I am a vigorous advocate of atherosclerotic plaque regression, this does not mean that if you have a severe (70% blockage or greater), or if there are symptoms from your carotid disease, that you should engage in a program of reversal. You must always take the advice of your doctor if your safety is in question.

Vitamin D--A coronary risk factor

27. May 2006 William Davis (1)
Look up "coronary risk factors" in any text and you'll find high cholesterol, smoking, diabetes, and high blood pressure listed. You won't find deficiency of vitamin D listed.

Ask 99% of physicians if a deficiency of vitamin D is a coronary risk factor and you'll get rolling eyes and a sigh.

Yet, in the Track Your Plaque experience, vitamin D is emerging as a very important factor in coronary plaque development. We have observed that there are a substantial number of people whose lipids and lipoproteins are not abnormal enough to fully explain their heart scan score. In other words, there seems to be something else necessary to satisfactorily explain the magnitude of coronary plaque.

I believe that severe vitamin D deficiency is at least one of the most important factors. We've seen many people with blood levels of vitamin in the range of severe deficiency (<20 ng/ml of 25-OH-Vitamin D3) yet bland lipids and lipoproteins.

Correcting vitamin D blood levels to 50 ng/ml also seems to be among the required factors in stopping coronary plaque growth, or stopping your heart scan score from increasing.

Keep your eye on this extremely important and exciting issue. Sadly, it won't be propelled into the media like the conversation about cholesterol or high-tech procedures, since no company stands to profit from it. But you and I don't have to play that game.

Cholesterol is dead!

26. May 2006 William Davis (0)
I saw a patient in the office yesterday. He came to me for an opinion regarding his high heart scan score of 525, putting him in the 90th percentile (5% annual risk of heart attack).

His doctor had been puzzled because his LDL cholesterols had ranged from 110 to 131 mg--actually below average. (The average LDL for the U.S. is 132 mg.) Likewise, HDL was a favorable 63 mg.

Lipoprotein analysis told the story loud and clear. His LDL particle number, a far more precise measure of LDL, was 2448 nmol/l. This means that his true LDL was more like 240-250 mg! (You can get a sense for what the true LDL is from LDL particle number by dropping the last digit: 2448 becomes 244.) Conventional LDL was therefore inaccurate by over 100 mg.

He also had a severe small LDL particle pattern. The cause of his coronary plaque was a large excess of small LDL particles. LDL cholesterol (and total cholesterol, likewise) didn't even hint at this pattern. Nor did his favorable HDL.

Think of LDL particle number as an actual count of LDL particles per volume, e.g., number of particles per cc of blood. This makes it easier to conceptualize. LDL particle number is the measure you get when you have an NMR lipoprotein profile, our preferred method of lipoprotein testing. If this is unavailable to you, apoprotein B is a reasonable second choice, though not as accurate in my view. More info on NMR is available at their website, www.lipoprofile.com.

How to make a $1 million in cardiology

26. May 2006 William Davis (0)
Want to make a $1,000,000 as a cardiologist in the next year? It's easy. All you have to do is:

1) Perform heart catheterizations or other procedures on anybody you can, even if it's not necessary. Perform them even if the patient has no symptoms and the stress test is normal.

2) Perform heart catheterizations if the patient is too timid or ill-informed to object.

3) Insert coronary stents in blockages, even when they're minor and it's not necessary.

4) Turn every heart procedure into a revenue-producing stream by looking for other profit opportunties, such as minor kidney artery blockages.

5) Heart disease is frightening. Scare the heck out of patients by exagerrating the dangers so they'll go through testing and procedures gratefully.


Sound absurd? Well, it would be if these weren't all true.

These are real examples, as awful as it sounds. I've witnessed all these behaviors. Not just occasionally, but with regularity.

Just today, I encountered a colleague who performs heart catheterizations routinely (up to several per day) when any symptom is present and the stress test is entirely normal. This is grossly inappropriate.

Your protection is being better-informed and avoid being sucked into the vast and frightening cardiovascular machine of revenue-yielding procedures. Part of your protection is to get a CT heart scan, then engage in a program of heart disease prevention.

Doctor, do I have lipoprotein (a)?

25. May 2006 William Davis (0)
I met Joyce today for a 2nd opinion. She told me about this conversation she'd had with her cardiologist:

"Doctor, do you think I could have lipoprotein (a)? I read about how it can cause heart attacks even when cholesterol is controlled."

"What does it matter? Even if you have it, there's nothing we can do about it. There's no treatment for it."

Joyce was understandably groping for some means to prevent her coronary disease from causing more danger. At 56, she'd already survived a heart attack that resulted in two stents to her left anterior descending. Around 9 months later, she received a 3rd stent to another artery.

Her doctor had put her on Pravachol and said that was enough. "We know that cholesterol causes heart disease and the Pravachol reduces it. Why do we need to know anything more?"

So Joyce came to me for another view. I explained to her that there are, in fact, several ways to deal with lipoprotein(a). It is, without a doubt, among the more difficult patterns to manage--but not impossible. In fact, we have a growing list of participants in the Track Your Plaque program who have stopped or reduced their heart scan scores.

I continue to be horrified at the level of ignorance that prevails among my colleagues, the cardiologists, and the primary care community. If your doctor gives you advice like this, get a new doctor.
The best fish oil

The best fish oil

29. January 2011 William Davis (30)
The best fish oils available are the liquid forms. Contrary to many people's expectations, the best liquid fish oils have no fishy odor or taste.

I use a lot of liquid fish oils because of the higher doses we use in the Track Your Plaque program, as well as our strategy of high-dose fish oil to reduce lipoprotein(a). Women, in particular, don't like taking the oodles of capsules required to achieve the higher doses we need. So the ladies really like the liquid forms.

The best liquid fish oils are non-fishy, highly-concentrated, and come in the better absorbed triglyceride form. Many capsules, including prescription Lovaza, are the less well-absorbed ethyl ester form. Several studies, such as this one, have now demonstrated that the naturally-occurring triglyceride form yields higher blood (RBC) levels of omega-3 fatty acids, likely due to more efficient digestion via pancreatic lipase.

While there are many good forms of fish oil and only a few bad, these are the best of the best:

Pharmax
The Pharmax Finest Pure Fish Oil with Essential Oil of Orange contains 1800 mg EPA + DHA per teaspoon. This is the preparation I've been taking.

Nordic Naturals
The Nordic Naturals lemon-flavored ProOmega Liquid contains 2752 mg EPA + DHA per teaspoon, the most concentrated of any fish oil I've seen.

(This list is not exclusive. These are just two brands I've used extensively with good results.)

These highly-concentrated, triglyceride forms are more expensive, due to their concentrated nature. 1 teaspoon Pharmax fish oil, for example, provides an equivalent quantity of omega-3 fatty acids as 6 standard fish oil capsules on a milligram for milligram basis, but more like 8 to 9 capsules when absorption efficiency is factored in. The triglyceride form is also more laborious to manufacture. On our Track Your Plaque Marketplace, our Pharmax 500 ml runs $58.95 list. (500 ml provides 100 teaspoons or 600-capsule equivalent.)

Note that, minus the protection of the capsule, liquid fish oils will oxidize if not refrigerated. So be sure to keep your liquid fish oil in the fridge.
Tags :

Comments (30) -

  • Christopher

    1/29/2011 4:17:37 PM |

    Dr. Davis, would like your thoughts on the Trader Joe's brand Omega-3 Fatty Acids:
    1200 mg Fish Oil
    400mg EPA
    200 DHA
    Thanks,
    Chris O

  • Anonymous

    1/29/2011 4:23:39 PM |

    I use Pharmax Finest Pure Fish Oil with Essential Oil of Orange from the TYP Marketplace.  I take 1 tablespoon per day to help reduce Lp(a).  Is it better to take this dose at one time or divide it through the day?

  • Kristjan Mar

    1/29/2011 4:53:10 PM |

    In Iceland where I come from we have a really high quality fish oil called Lysi.

    In my opinion liquid form is the only real way to take it, with caps you have to take a ridiculous amount to reach the same amount as in a tablespoon.

    Plus you have no way of knowing if the fish oil caps are spoiled except to chew them, often they're not even refridgerated in the supermarket.

  • Anonymous

    1/29/2011 5:02:21 PM |

    I remember from an earlier thread that spacing the dose out over the day works better than a big dose once daily. That makes sense, given that you are trying to alter some liver metabolism that goes on around the clock. I've been using the Life Extension capsules, six a day, for several years with pretty good results. It gets my TG from 400+ to about 170. I'm hoping the gram a day of regular niacin I've been taking for a few months helps further and gets my HDL out of the sewer (27). I'll know that in a few days...

  • Might-o'chondri-AL

    1/29/2011 6:43:34 PM |

    Nice tasting Liquid fish oil brand, 1 teaspoon=
    1,500 mg EPA
    + 750 mg DHA
    ----
    = 2,250 mg EPA + DHA
    +   380 mg other Omega 3
    -------
    = 2,630 mg. Omega 3/teaspoon
    (out of a total fish oil content of 4,400 mg./tsp.)

    Canada made "Natural Factors",
    "Dr. Michael Murray recommended pharmaceutical grade" says label; extracted
    from anchovy/sardine/mackerel;
    1 teaspoon stateside cost works out to less than US$1 a teaspoon; each teaspoon has 40 calories, 15 mg cholesterol, total fat 4.5 gr. (being 3.5 gr. polyunsaturated), natural vitamin E and natural orange flavor, no heavy metals/environmental toxins ... I've no financial interest in the product.

  • Anonymous

    1/29/2011 8:48:35 PM |

    What about Carlson's?



    http://www.amazon.com/Carlson-Finest-Liquid-Omega-3-Orange/dp/B001LF39S8/ref=wl_it_dp_o?ie=UTF8&coliid=I27QWKFK5P760T&colid=1J0P20X13IM7F

  • NatureDoctor

    1/29/2011 9:04:42 PM |

    What are your thoughts on Chris Masterjohn's research regarding very low requirements of polyunsaturated fats in the human diet?  High amounts of fish oil would certainly contravene this hypothesis.  I am referring to his position paper, How Essential Are The Essential Fatty Acids?

  • O Primitivo

    1/29/2011 9:18:37 PM |

    The best fish oils should be, as expected, in fish. Eat more fish!!!;))

  • David M Gordon

    1/29/2011 9:33:40 PM |

    "1 teaspoon Pharmax fish oil, for example, provides an equivalent quantity of omega-3 fatty acids as 6 standard fish oil capsules on a milligram for milligram basis, but more like 8 to 9 capsules when absorption efficiency is factored in."

    Color me confused, Dr D. At the moment, I ingest 6 (3, 2x/day) Sam's Club Omega 3 capsules (the ones you recommended in a long-ago post) to obtain the 6 Grams of total DHA and EPA/day. Does your comment I quote above mean that, with the liquid form, I can take less than the equivalent of 6G/day  because of its absorption efficiency? And how much, if yes?

    Really, I am sufficiently befuddled that I think even my question is not clear...

    Help!

  • Hannu K.

    1/29/2011 9:45:43 PM |

    Where can I check if the fish oil is trigyleride form?

  • reikime

    1/29/2011 11:20:55 PM |

    uh.. off topic.. when I clicked on my bookmark, to the Heart Scan Blog all of the website except these comments are in what looks like Russian!!  nothing else on my computer is corrupted...anyone else?.. and how do I fix this?  I am on an IMac.

    Thanks,
    Jeanne

  • reikime

    1/30/2011 12:36:45 AM |

    Fixed it!  funny that it was only this website.

    on topic- I am very intolerant to anchovies, will Krill oil help me?  can't take ANY fish oil with anchovy.

    Thanks

  • Might-o'chondri-AL

    1/30/2011 12:57:33 AM |

    Seeing some confusion here: the ideal active ingredients in fish oil are the EPA mg. & DHA mg. omega 3's. Lables indicate there are other omega 3 oils, plus other non-omega 3 oils in all products and together these are the mg of "fish oil" (product may specify yet another blending oil). Companies make their EPA mg. & DHA mg. concentrations different, incur production costs to make it higher doseage and our purchase price reflects that.

    If you have a theraputic goal for intake: it is not so much how much fish oil, but how much you need to take of any one specific product a day to meet your target for total EPA mg. & DHA mg. Omega 3 fatty acids. For a name brand product Doc recommended and gave his daily dose (whether capsule or liquid)he apparently did the math.

  • Anonymous

    1/30/2011 1:28:06 AM |

    Unfortunately I am illergic to fish oils and react badly to them. Not a good way for me to get my omegas so I need an alternative.

    Udo' Oil does do a 369 oil that has no fish oils. So far that is the only one I have been able to find I can handle.

  • Vlado

    1/30/2011 1:44:27 AM |

    best fish oil is no fish oil. Certainly if anyone knew how fish oils were made , they would not take them. It's interesting how dr. Davis says fish oil with no odor are best but those are simply sterilized and deodorized and for a reason so that the taste of smell would not be repulsed. Trust your own gut instead of anyone else I guess. Ray Peat has chronicled data and science behind the dangers and lipid peroxidation of fish oils. Brian Peskin makes a case that these derivative oils are a huge burden for the cells and should never be taken. Naturally such oils are protected by vitamin E and saturated fat but not in these fish oils. Most other literature documents effects of omega 3 on cancer metastasis, just google it.

  • Paul

    1/30/2011 6:16:26 AM |

    Now Foods Omega-3 Fish Oil 16.9 fl. oz.
    Serving Size: 1 tsp (5 ml)
    Servings Per Container: 100
    EPA: 740 mg
    DHA: 475 mg
    Other Omega-3 Fatty Acids: 185 mg
    Total Omega-3 Fatty Acids: 1,400 mg

    Cost: $19

    100% triglyceride form **

    ** Now Foods 16.9 fl. oz. is the brand I use and I can confirm this is the TG form after a polystyrene test.  (Take a styrofoam cup, place a small amount of fish oil at the bottom of the cup, wait ten minutes, and if it eats through the bottom it's the EE form.)  

    I can also attest that I do not suffer from "fish burps" that the EE form is known to cause.

  • Dr. William Davis

    1/30/2011 2:41:17 PM |

    Anonymous about Lp(a)--

    We have no formal data on dosing regimens, but I have been advising dividing dose in two, a.m. and p.m. This appears to be working well.

  • Dr. William Davis

    1/30/2011 2:43:35 PM |

    David--

    You may be confusing fish oil dose with dose of EPA+ DHA.

    Check your label to see EPA + DHA content. This is what you use to dose your fish oil.

  • SVinay

    1/30/2011 3:37:25 PM |

    Readers

    Is Carlsons fish oil the Triglyceride form one?

  • Anonymous

    1/30/2011 4:19:39 PM |

    SVinay:  Carlsons Super Omega-3 Fish Oil is the ethy ester form.

  • Marie-Anne

    1/30/2011 4:42:23 PM |

    I am currently taking Heart Health Omega-3 1000mg by Swiss Natural Sources.EPA 300 and DHA 200.  I take three capsules daily.  I have also purchased Jamieson's Omega-3 Select with the same EPA DHA content as the Swiss.  The Jamieson's is less fishy smelling and I will switch back to it when I finish the Swiss.  
    Canned boneless herring fillets are usually a part of my lunch.  Omega-3 2g.  I also found some canned cod liver.  I'll try it in an egg bake.

  • Anonymous

    1/30/2011 11:15:49 PM |

    For the poster who had a question about Carlson's... the liquid and low-dose caps are natural triglyceride. Their higher concentrate capsules are ethyl ester.

    I currently like Barlean's, as it's triglyceride and relatively inexpensive. Their higher concentrates are ethyl ester though, so go for the lower conc. ones if you want the trig form.

    I do disagree with Dr. Davis as far as preferring liquid however, due to oxidation issues. I'd recommend the caps instead, and simply chew them, if swallowing capsules bothers you. The caps do offer some extra oxidation protection.

  • Might-o'chondri-AL

    1/30/2011 11:31:16 PM |

    Hi Vlado,
    I think so-called
    "pharmaceutical" grade fish oil is distilled to seperate out concentrated gradients of "x"% DHA & "x" % EPA in a product. Yes, fish scraps that the oil is extracted from first gets heated, but so is cooked fish. Solvent residues concievably might be in some products; you can inform me of other compounds resistant to purifying out.

    1 teaspoon oil = 5 mL. = 200 pharmaceutical size droplets = 4.54 grams .... I, for example, weigh 79,379 grams (175 pounds/79.4 Kg.) and assume a daily teaspoon dose of 4.5 grams fish oil can be metabolized safely. If you've details on how the omega 3's are noxious when added into the diet please explain.

    Is my fish oil already peroxidized and/or are ingested omega 3 lipids peroxidized to my detriment at this level? My math shows that one teaspoon for me is 5.7 hundred-thousandths of my body weight; multiplying 0.000057 x 79379 grams that I weigh = 4.5 grams in teaspoon of oil.

  • Daniel A. Clinton, RN, BSN

    1/31/2011 5:57:57 AM |

    Is there any data guiding recommendations on the ratio of EPALaughingHA? I've never come across any primary data on the subject. To the best of my knowledge, the ideal intake and ratio of EPA and DHA remain unknown and a point of contention. I've noticed many fish oils have a 3:2 ratio of EPALaughingHA, but I don't know where that is coming from. I'd love to know your thoughts, Dr. Davis.

  • imwendym

    1/31/2011 4:17:13 PM |

    I love the brand from www.strongerfasterhealthier.com
    They make 5 flavors with zero fish oil taste. My kids ask for it, so it's a big win in our house. The concentration of EPA and DHA towered over even barleans.

  • Anonymous

    1/31/2011 9:32:48 PM |

    Carlson's Super DHA Gems and EPA Gems concentrate capsules are TG form.

  • Anonymous

    2/3/2011 12:07:55 AM |

    Dear Dr Davis

    I am looking for a Kosher liquid omega 3 fis oils
    I find nutri supreme research
    Calories   40

    Calories from Fat   40

    Total Fat   4.5g    7%**

    Cholesterol   18mg   6%**

    EPA   950 mg   *

    DHA   475 mg   *

    Other Omega 3   325 mg   *

    Total Omega 3 Fatty Acids   1750 mg

    is this ok? or there is something Kosher better?---------------------------------------------

  • Anonymous

    2/23/2011 12:46:07 PM |

    Check out Ascenta! All their fish oil is in triglyceride form.

    ascentahealth.com

  • Dawn

    5/6/2011 9:37:55 PM |

    What is your opinion of Krill Oil?

  • Sandra

    2/27/2012 1:16:03 PM |

    Dr. Williams, I am wondering what you think of only taking high doses of EPA? See the following article:
    http://igennus-hn.com/omega-3-epa-treatment-for-a-heart-condition-news-release/

    As I have M.E. (post viral fatigue syndrome) as well as astronomical total cholesterol (great tryglycerides), I''m interested in trying this protocol. Would love your input.

Add comment

Loading