Blast triglycerides

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

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

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

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

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

Cheerios: Prescription required?

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


Can you say "sugar"?

Cheerios and heart health


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

The FDA says that the Cheerios' package claims of:

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

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

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

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

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

"Placebos are frequently of value"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


From Heart Disease Diagnosis and Treatment
Emanuel Goldberger, MD
1951

Iodine is not salt

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

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


Sodium = iodine


Of course, they are two entirely unrelated things.

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

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

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

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

"You can't reduce coronary plaque"

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

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

Who's right here?

The commenter is right; the cardiologist is wrong.

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

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

Welcome to the new age.

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

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

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

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

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

Lethal lipids

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

Low HDL--generally less than 50 mg/dl

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

"Get regressive"

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



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



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



And the new slogan: "Get regressive."



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



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

CRP House of Cards

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Enough already.

At-home blood tests

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

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

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

Our male and female hormone panels are also proving popular.

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

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





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





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

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

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

"Help keep your family goiter free"

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Image of kelp courtesy Wikipedia
Be gluten-free without "gluten-free"

Be gluten-free without "gluten-free"

9. March 2011 William Davis (23)
While I've discussed this before, it is such a confusing issue that I'd like to discuss it again.

I advocate wheat elimination because consumption of products made from modern dwarf Triticum aestivum:

--Triggers formation of extravagant quantities of small LDL and LDL particle number (or apoprotein B)
--Triggers inflammatory phenomena like c-reactive protein, increases leptin resistance, and reduction of the protective adipocytokine, adiponectin.
--Encourages accumulation of deep visceral fat ("wheat belly") that is inflammatory and causes resistance to insulin
--Increases blood sugar more than nearly all other foods--higher than a Milky Way bar, higher than a Snickers bar, higher than table sugar.
--Is being linked to a growing number of immune-mediated diseases, including celiac disease (quadrupled over past 50 years), type 1 diabetes in children, and cerebellar ataxia and peripheral neuropathies.

This last group of wheat-related phenomena are primarily due to gluten, the collection of 50+ proteins found in each wheat plant. For this reason, people diagnosed with celiac disease are advised to eliminate gluten from wheat and other sources (barley, rye, triticale, bulgur) and to eat gluten-free foods.

Gluten-free has therefore come to be viewed as wheat-free and problem-free. It ain't so.

Among the few foods that increase blood glucose higher than wheat: cornstarch, rice starch, potato starch, and tapioca starch--Yup: the ingredients commonly used to replace wheat in gluten-free foods. They are also flagrant triggers of the small LDL pattern, along with increased triglycerides, reduced HDL, increased visceral fat, increased blood pressure. In short, gluten-free foods lack the immune and brain effects of wheat gluten, but still make you fat, hypertensive, and diabetic.

I tell patients to view gluten-free foods like jelly beans: Gluten-free pancakes, muffins, breads, etc. are indulgences, not healthy replacements for wheat. It's okay to have a few jelly beans now and then. But they should not be part of a frequent or daily routine. Same with gluten-free foods.
Tags :

Comments (23) -

  • Kris @ Health Blog

    3/8/2011 10:12:04 PM |

    I think it's kind of funny sometimes reading low-carb forums and recipe sites.

    It's incredible how much time they spend on inventing all sorts of "gluten-free" or "low-carb" cakes, muffins, pancakes and all sorts of stuff that definitely doesn't look healthy even though it might technically be "gluten-free or low-carb".

    These things surely aren't the real, wholesome foods that we need to be healthy. Like you say, good as rare indulgences though.

  • Tuck

    3/8/2011 10:22:59 PM |

    This is spot-on.

  • Vick

    3/8/2011 11:08:01 PM |

    What are your latest thoughts on Einkorn flour?

  • Anne

    3/8/2011 11:23:24 PM |

    I think the paleo/primal people have it right - remove all grains and processed foods.

    Don't substitute a SAD for a GF SAD.

    I started to heal when I removed gluten, but doing even better grain free and sugar free.

  • Batang Regla

    3/9/2011 12:26:42 AM |

    When i read the ingredients of a shampoo and hair styling products i saw wheat protein. Is this safe applying to my hair?

  • Patty

    3/9/2011 12:38:40 AM |

    I started a Paleo/Primal version of tastespotting and while most people have submitted Paleo friendly recipes, I was really surprised at how many recipes we have had to reject because they were Paleo or Primal remakes of some kind of dessert or bread.

  • Dr. William Davis

    3/9/2011 1:49:36 AM |

    Hi, Kris--

    I agree. A return to real, whole food is the right path.

    Interestingly, I was recently strongly encouraged by an editor of a forthcoming book I'm working on to develop wheat-free, low-carb recipes. I also walked down this path, having to develop recipes that mimicked wheat-containing dishes.

    After a 3-month exercise in cooking, cooking again, with several disasters along the way, I continue to believe that these wheat-free, low-carb dishes like "breads" and "muffins" are, at best, meant to be occasional indulgences.


    Hi, Tuck-

    Thanks.


    Hi, Vick--

    I continue to believe that einkorn is an interesting replacement for wheat for some, but not all, people.

    It raises the question: Are humans meant to consume wheat at all, regardless of form? I believe that most people can get away with occasional consumption of einkorn, but that the majority of people cannot safely consume modern dwarf Triticum aestivum.

    I classify einkorn not too far from gluten-free foods: it lacks many of the immunogenic properties of modern wheat, but it still a carbohydrate.

    Ideally, I continue to believe that the ideal diet is something close to what Anne is articulating.

  • Ari

    3/9/2011 1:50:34 AM |

    Doctor,
    How often is "now and then"?

    Personally, I eat a one or two small bread rolls on the Sabbath and that's the extent of my wheat consumption.  Does that count as "now and then"?

  • Richard A.

    3/9/2011 2:30:10 AM |

    There are recipes for flax bread made from flax seed meal. Here is one example --
    http://lowcarbdiets.about.com/od/breads/r/flaxbasicfoc.htm

  • Amber

    3/9/2011 1:53:49 PM |

    I started using Coconut or Almond flour for the occasional dessert type dish with excellent results.

    Problems though with making a sauce since there isn't a real substitute that thickens correctly. I rely more on home made-legal marinades for flavor.  

    Now that I have been grain free since May, I find any exposure will cause intense illness that lasts for hours.

  • Dr. William Davis

    3/9/2011 3:52:05 PM |

    Hi, Ari--

    Provided you have no abnormal celiac markers to wheat, occasional consumption likely has no adverse consequences beyond the "re-exposure syndromes" of gastrointestinal distress, asthma, joint paints/arthralgias, and transient behavioral effects.

    There is no threshold to stay below except to individualize your exposure tolerance by such things as blood glucose control, expression of small LDL, triglycerides, etc. Most people can get away with one a month or so exposure.

  • Misty

    3/9/2011 9:11:18 PM |

    Long time "listener" first time "caller". Dr. Davis, thank you so very much for all the info you provide here. I am a 42 yr old 4th generation Type 2 diabetic. Six months ago I largely gave up wheat (still have pizza on occasion) and it is the ONLY thing that has EVER dropped my A1c since diagnosis 7 years ago - despite adding medications, etc. It dropped from 6.9 to 6.6. I am currently under an endo's care and am shooting for 6.0 with some tweaking and fine-tuning. As a younger diabetic, I plan to live a long life with this disease so good control is vital to me.

    I also wanted to thank you for the info on Vit D. I requested that test and found out I'm deficient - at 20 and 28 is the cutoff to normal. I know now that I had some pretty major symptoms of a deficiency - odd muscle pains, unexplained bone pain around January every year, etc. Not a huge surprise I'm deficient since I live in South Dakota and now coat myself in sunscreen thanks to basal cell carcinoma. My GP wanted me on the VitD2 horse pills to correct the deficiency but I refused. I raised it 8 points in 4 weeks by taking 1000iu/day of Vit D3 gelcaps (I metabolize meds extremely quickly so started small). Nobody could believe it. I did Smile I am taking 2000iu/day now and shooting for a much higher, normal number.

    Heart disease is the cancer in both sides of my family so your blog is a Godsend to me. Thank you so very much for the information you provide on this blog.

  • Jeanne

    3/9/2011 9:13:55 PM |

    How do you feel about arrowroot as a thickener to replace cornstarch, etc.?

  • Prachi

    3/10/2011 9:36:39 PM |

    Hi doc

    I have vit d level of 16 but blood calcium of 10. How much milk can i drink daily and what should be my starting dose for vit d

  • Anonymous

    3/10/2011 11:23:56 PM |

    Prachi: Try
    D3(IU) = Weight(lbs) * 40
    For example, a 150 lb person would take 6000IU D3 per day. Works well for many people.

  • ShottleBop

    3/11/2011 3:10:30 PM |

    I have heard from others (on Dr. Bernstein's diabetes discussion forum) that Konjac flour works well as a thickener, without affecting blood glucose levels.

  • Dr. William Davis

    3/11/2011 10:07:44 PM |

    Hi,Jeanne--

    Way too much carbohydrate in arrowroot.

    Shottle makes a good suggestion: konjac root, similar to that used to make shirataki noodles.

  • Anonymous

    3/12/2011 3:13:33 PM |

    I've got a question..it's not really germane to the blog post but here goes:  I've given up grains, only using natural organic products when possible, take CLO, and a myriad of vitamins including magnesium and all the rest.  I just started taking MK-7 about a week ago and noticed within 24 hours my blood pressure dropped substantially, my energy surged, and my mood has increased a ton.  Can I attribute this to the MK-7 or am I just experiencing a quasi-manic / placebo effect state?

  • Vick

    3/13/2011 2:58:59 AM |

    Dr. Davis:

    I see einkorn as a great choice when you feel you have a need for that slice of bread or waffle.  When you slip and feel you need a grain... choose einkorn.

    I make a small loaf of bread that is sliced and then frozen.  It lasts my wife and I a minimum of 2 weeks.  

    We treat as a good choice when we are going to fall off the wagon.

  • reikime

    3/15/2011 5:04:06 AM |

    Hi Dr.D,
    In your reply to Ari, you mention "re-exposure" syndromes. IMHO, these represent gluten or wheat intolerance and certainly excludes gluten in those testing positive for celiac.
    However, even in the non-celiac gluten sensitive population, new studies show damage occuring to joints, increased risks of lymphoma,neurological changes, just as if the person was diagnosed celiac.

    Cutting edge wisdom believes if you have any symptoms or re-exposure symptoms you should eliminate it before you either : 1. become celiac 2. develop an autoimmune disease, or 3. neurological damage.

    BTW, I agree wholeheartedly with avoiding the gluten free food traps. SO many fall headfirst into them.

    More people from the Celiac sites should read this post.

  • WereBear

    4/30/2011 1:12:05 PM |

    I've found this to be a highly pertinent article for me, gluten-free for four and a half months now. We recently got a new supermarket in town with a big gluten-free section, and bless their hearts, I had several friends tell me about it.

    But going there and reading the labels reveals they are very high in sugar and starch; so as a happy low carber, they do me no good at all!

    I've gotten a new mixer and am exploring the many ways of Rev Rolls, instead.

  • Shoiley

    5/6/2011 4:07:34 PM |

    Tried to go wheat-free several times, but the withdrawls including insomnia, constipation, head buzz and brain fog, were hell and I gave up. Each time I ate gluten-free breads. Has anyone else experienced this?

  • Gluten Intolerance

    5/10/2011 11:58:41 PM |

    I saw lots of people who are getting better after how many days because of gluten free diet and even sugar free. Most people are following the most recommended diet and its gluten free and dairy free.

Add comment

Loading