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 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