Diet by LDL

Conventional notions of heart healthy diets, such as that advocated by the American Heart Association, are largely based on observations of total and LDL cholesterol.

So, cut the saturated fat in the diet, cut the overall fat content, and replace them with polyunsaturated oils like safflower, corn, and vegetable oils and increase consumption of whole grains and total and LDL cholesterol show a modest downturn. Thus, diets like the American Heart Association Total Lifestyle Change approach advocate limiting total fat to no more 25 to 35% of calories and saturated fat to no more than 7% of calories.

Orange Cream Cookies

If you loved Creamsicles as a kid, you'll love these Orange Cream Cookies. (Sorry, no photo: We ate them up before I realized we hadn't taken the photo. And, worse, we did it twice!)

Ingredients:
2 cups almond meal
2 tablespoons coconut flour
1 teaspoon baking soda
½ teaspoon sea salt
¼ cup golden raisins
½ cup chopped pecans
Sweetener equivalent to 1 cup sugar
2 tablespoons finely-grated orange rind
1 large egg
2 tablespoons coconut oil, melted
½ cup whipping cream (or coconut milk)
1 tablespoon vanilla extract

Preheat oven to 350º F.

Combine almond meal, coconut flour, baking soda, salt, raisins, pecans, sweetener and orange zest in bowl and mix.

In separate bowl, whisk egg, then add coconut oil, whipping cream, vanilla extract and mix together. Pour wet mix into dry and blend by hand thoroughly.

Spoon onto parchment paper-lined baking pan (or oiled pan) and flatten with spoon to ½-¾ inch thickness. Bake for 20-25 minutes or until toothpick withdraws dry.

Why are heart attacks still happening?

I'm a cardiologist. I see patients with heart disease in the form of coronary artery disease every day.

These are people who have undergone bypass surgery, received one or more stents or undergone other forms of angioplasty, have survived heart attacks or sudden cardiac death, or have high heart scan scores. In short, I see patients every day who are at high-risk for heart attack and death from heart disease.

But I see virtually no heart attacks. And nobody is dying from heart disease. (I'm referring to the people who follow the strategies I advocate, not the guy who thinks that smoking a pack of cigarettes a day is still okay, or the woman who thinks the diet is unnecessary because she's slender.)

Two high-profile deaths from heart attacks occurred this week:

Davy Jones--The iconic singer from the 1960s pop group, the Monkees, suffered sudden cardiac death after a large heart attack, just hours after experiencing chest pain.

Andrew Breitbart--The conservative blogger and controversy-generating media personality suffered what was believed to be sudden cardiac death while walking.

It's a darn shame and it shouldn't happen. The tools to identify the potential for heart attack are available, inexpensive, and simple. The strategies to reduce, even eliminate, risk are likewise available, inexpensive, and cultivate overall health.

The followers of the Track Your Plaque program who

1) get a heart scan that yields a coronary calcium score (for long-term tracking purposes)
2) identify the causes such as small LDL particles, lipoprotein(a), vitamin D deficiency, and thyroid dysfunction
3) correct the causes

enjoy virtual elimination of risk.

My letter to the Wall Street Journal: It's NOT just about gluten

The Wall Street Journal carried this report of a new proposed classification of the various forms of gluten sensitivity: New Guide to Who Really Shouldn't Eat Gluten

This represents progress. Progress in understanding of wheat-related illnesses, as well as progress in spreading the word that there is a lot more to wheat-intolerance than celiac disease. But, as I mention in the letter, it falls desperately short on several crucial issues.

Ms. Beck--

Thank you for writing the wonderful article on gluten sensitivity.

I'd like to bring several issues to your attention, as they are often neglected
in discussions of "gluten sensitivity":

1) The gliadin protein of wheat has been modified by geneticists through their
work to increase yield. This work, performed mostly in the 1970s, yielded a form
of gliadin that is several amino acids different, but increased the
appetite-stimulating properties of wheat. Modern wheat, a high-yield, semi-dwarf
strain (not the 4 1/2-foot tall "amber waves of grain" everyone thinks of) is
now, in effect, an appetite-stimulant that increases calorie intake 400 calories
per day. This form of gliadin is also the likely explanation for the surge in
behavioral struggles in children with autism and ADHD.
2) The amylopectin A of wheat is the underlying explanation for why two slices
of whole wheat bread raise blood sugar higher than 6 teaspoons of table sugar or
many candy bars. It is unique and highly digestible by the enzyme amylase.
Incredibly, the high glycemic index of whole wheat is simply ignored, despite
being listed at the top of all tables of glycemic index.
3) The lectins of wheat may underlie the increase in multiple autoimmune and
inflammatory diseases in Americans, especially rheumatoid arthritis and
inflammatory bowel diseases (ulcerative colitis, Crohn's).

In other words, if someone is not gluten-sensitive, they may still remain
sensitive to the many non-gluten aspects of modern high-yield semi-dwarf wheat,
such as appetite-stimulation and mental "fog," joint pains in the hands, leg
edema, or the many rashes and skin disorders. This represents one of the most
important examples of the widespread unintended effects of modern agricultural
genetics and agribusiness.

William Davis, MD
Author: Wheat Belly: Lose the wheat, lose the weight and find your path back to health

60-year old man dies of high cholesterol

Never saw a headline like this? Neither have I. That's because it doesn't happen.

Cholesterol doesn't harm, maim, or kill. It is simply used as a crude--very crude--marker. It is, in reality, a component of the body, of the cell wall, of lipoproteins (lipid-carrying proteins) in the bloodstream. It is used a an indirect gauge, a "dipstick," for lipoproteins in the blood to those who don't understand how to identify, characterize, and quantify actual lipoproteins in the blood.

Cholesterol itself never killed anybody, any more than a bad paint job on your car could cause a fatal car accident.

What kills people is rupture of atherosclerotic plaque in the coronary arteries. For all practical purposes, you must have atherosclerotic plaque in order for it to rupture (much like a volcano erupts and spews lava). It's not about cholesterol; it's about atherosclerotic plaque. Plaque might contain cholesterol, but cholesterol is not the thing itself that causes heart attack and death.

So why do most people obsess about cholesterol? Good question. It is, at best, a statistical marker for the possibility of having atherosclerotic plaque that ruptures. High cholesterol = higher risk for heart attack, low cholesterol = lower risk for heart attack. But the association is weak and flawed, such that people with high cholesterol can live a lifetime without heart attack, people with low cholesterol can die at age 43.The same holds true for LDL cholesterol, you know, the calculated value based on flawed assumptions about LDL's relationship to total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, and VLDL cholesterol.

A crucial oversight in the world of cholesterol: There are many other factors that cause atherosclerotic plaque and its rupture, such as inflammatory phenomena, calcium deposition, artery spasm, hemorrhage within the plaque itself, degradative enzymes, etc., none of which are suggested by cholesterol measures.

But one observation has held up, time and again, over the past 40 years of observations on coronary disease: The greater the quantity of coronary atherosclerotic plaque, the greater the risk of atherosclerotic plaque rupture. An increasing burden of atherosclerotic plaque along the limited confines of coronary arteries, just a few millimeters in diameter and a few centimeters in length, is like a house of cards: It's bound to topple sooner or later, and the bigger it gets, the less stable it becomes.

If you are concerned about future potential for heart disease and heart attack, don't get a cholesterol panel. Get a measure of coronary atherosclerotic plaque.

Back to basics: Coronary calcium

After having my attentions pulled a thousand different directions these past 6 months, with the release of Wheat Belly and all the wonderful media attention it has attracted, I've decided to pick up here with a series of discussions about the fundamental issues important to the Track Your Plaque program and prevention and reversal of coronary atherosclerotic plaque.

I fear the discussions at times have drifted off into the exotic. This is great because this is how we learn new lessons, but we can never lose sight of the basics, else we risk losing control over this disease.

Imagine you've got a beautiful new car. You wax it, gap the spark plugs, rotate the tires, etc. and it looks brand-new, just like it came off the dealer's lot. 50,000 miles pass, however, and you realize you've forgotten to change the oil. Ooops! In other words, no matter how meticulous the attention to transmission, tires, and paint job, neglect of the most basic responsibility can ruin the whole thing. We can't let that happen with heart health.

If we propose to reverse coronary atherosclerotic plaque, we've got to have something to measure. First, it tells us whether we have atherosclerotic plaque in the first place, the stuff that accumulates and blocks flow and causes anginal chest pains, and ruptures like a little volcano and causes heart attacks. Second, it gives us something to track over the years to know whether plaque has grown, stopped growing, or been reduced. Without such a measure, you will be driving without a speedometer or odometer, just guessing whether or not you've gotten to your destination.

Of course, the conventional approach to heart disease and heart attack is not to track atherosclerotic plaque in your coronary arteries, but to track some distant "risk factor" for atherosclerotic plaque, especially LDL cholesterol. But LDL cholesterol is flawed at several levels. First, it is calculated, not measured. The nearly 50-year old Friedewald equation used to calculate LDL cholesterol is based on several flawed assumptions, yielding a value that can be 20, 30, or 50% inaccurate as a rule, only occasionally generating a value close to the real value. (No point in publicizing this problem, of course: Why compromise a $27 billion annual cash cow?) It also ignores the effect of diet. (No, cutting fat does not reduce LDL for real, only the calculated value. Cutting carbohydrates, especially wheat--"healthy whole grains"--slashes measured LDL values like NMR LDL particle number and apoprotein B.)

But all risk factors are, at best, snapshots of the situation at that moment in time. They change from day to day, week to week, month to month, year to year. If you do something dramatic in health, like lose 50 pounds, you can substantially change your risk factors values, like LDL cholesterol and HDL cholesterol. But you may not modify the amount of atherosclerotic plaque in your heart's arteries.

Measuring the amount of atherosclerotic plaque in your heart's arteries is, in effect, a cumulative expression of the effects of risk factors up until the moment of measurement.

There are several stumbling blocks, however, in the concept of measuring coronary atherosclerotic plaque. We cannot measure all the unique components of plaque, such as fibrous tissue like collagen, or degradative enzymes like collagenases, or inflammatory proteins like matrix metalloproteinase, or the debris of hemorrhage and inflammation. We struggle to contemporaneously mix in measures of bloodborne inflammation, coagulation and viscosity, and physiological phenomena of the artery itself, like endothelial dysfunction, medial (muscle) tone, and adventitial fat.

So we are left with semi-static measures of total coronary atherosclerotic plaque like coronary calcium, obtainable via CT heart scans as a calcium "score." No, it is not perfect. It does not reflect that moment's blood viscosity, it does not reflect the inflammatory status of the one nasty plaque in the mid-left anterior descending, nor does it reflect the irritating sheer effects of a blood pressure of 150/95.

But it's the best we've got.

If anyone has something better, I invite you to speak up. Carotid ultrasound, c-reactive protein, ankle-brachial index, stress nuclear studies, myoglobin, skin cholesterol, KIF6 genotype . . . none of them approach the value, the insight, the trackability of actually measuring coronary atherosclerotic plaque. And the only method we've got to gauge coronary atherosclerotic plaque that is non-invasive and available in 2012? Yup, a good old CT heart scan calcium score.

Myocardial infraction

I've seen a few heart attacks this past year . . . but none in the people who follow this program.

I saw a heart attack in a priest, a wonderful man who was unable to say "no" to his parishioners who insisted on bringing pies, cakes, and cookies every day.

I saw an impending heart attack in a 74-year old man, a football coach who thought the whole wheat-free, low-carb thing was some wacko trend. Four stents later, he's changed his mind.

A 69-year old woman had to be hospitalized for heart failure due to partial closure of an artery. She repeatedly told me that she simply could not follow the diet because it was "too restrictive."

There were a few others. Interestingly, all felt they were eating healthy, minimizing junk foods and avoiding fatty foods. None were wheat-free nor restricted carbohydrates.

In other words, in the people who follow the basic advice of the Track Your Plaque program to do such simple things as eliminate wheat, don't indulge in junk carbohydrates, normalize vitamin D status, supplement omega-3 fatty acids, supplement iodine and correct any thyroid dysfunction . . . well, they have no heart attacks.

Diet is superior to drugs

Might-o’chondri-AL left this wonderful record of his lipoprotein experience in the comments to the last Heart Scan Blog post. It is a great example of what is achievable with diet and a few supplements . . . without drugs.


(A) Jan. 2011 1st ever NMR lipo-protein analysis was done after 4 months of consistent home food prep of pretty low fat (only olive oil and 1 tablespoon coconut oil daily) but plenty of whole wheat and half potatoes:
* LDL # of particles (P) = 1,676 in nmol/L————being a LDL cholesterol (C) reading of 139 mg/dL
* small LDL # P = 1,021 nmol/L —————yikes! you advise smLDL be less than 117 nmol/L
* HDL # of particles = 28.8 umol/L ————–being a HDL C reading of 45 mg/dL
* Triglycerides = 90 mg/dL ————– true, I never struggled with my weight

(B) May 2011 2nd NMR after another 4 months but added in more fat (1 teaspoon highly concentrated fish oil daily, 90% chocolate, handfulls of nuts, more olive oil and kept coconut oil at 1 tablespoon daily for a controlled experiment), added 500 mg Niacin 3 times a day (in stages up to1,500 mg. total daily), 6000 IU daily vitamin D, deliberately cut out all grains except for social politeness and substituted in daily Koji fermented brown rice (rustic Amazake):
** LDL # P……………= 976 nmol/L ——————————– being LDL C of 100 mg/dL
** small LDL # P …. = 96 nmol/L ——————————– nice surprise
** HDL # P ………… = 27.3 umol/L ——————————being an increase to HDL C of 64 mg/dL
** Triglycerides …… = 42 mg/dL ——————————– despite daily carbs over 150 gr. daily

(C) Dec. 2011 3rd NMR after another 7 more months thinking Doc’s advice is worthwhile I added in yet more fat (mainly daily 2 tablespoons of coconut oil, more 90% chocolate), bumped Niacin up to 1,000 mg twice a day (2,000 mg. total daily), cut out the Amazake, kept up the vitamin D adding daily vitamin K & daily ate main mid-day meal out as lunch on spicy Thai & Chinese fish/shrimp/soup/rice meals (my next control):
*** LDL # P ………. = 764 nmol/L ————— being LDL C of 107 mg/dL ( 2x coconut’s saturated fat)
***small LDL # P… = less than 90 nmol/L ——–surprised me NMR can’t count lower
***HDL # P ……… = 41.4 umol/L ——————– being an increase to HDL C of 88 mg/dL
*** Triglycerides ….= 43 mg/dL ——————- daily carbs below ~ 120 gr. & lost too much weight

Isn't that great? Spectacular job, Might!

MIght achieved values that are superior to that achievable with, say, a high-dose statin strategy. Statins only reduce total LDL particles, reducing small LDL in a non-selective way. And, of course, this diet does not cause muscle aches, memory loss, nor liver problems.

Something to consider: As the diet has become so effective, we can reduce our reliance on niacin. In fact, the benefits of niacin diminish substantially, as small LDL is reduced, HDL increased, triglycerides decreased, and postprandial lipoproteins subdued with the diet only.

Low-carb is heart healthy

Anybody following the discussions in these pages know that: Limiting carbohydrate intake reduces risk for coronary heart disease and heart attack.

First of all, why do conventional diets advocate restricting saturated and total fat? From the standpoint of surrogate markers of cardiovascular risk, cutting saturated and total fat reduces total cholesterol; reduces calculated LDL cholesterol; and may reduce c-reactive protein modestly (an index of inflammation). It also increases blood sugar and HbA1c (reflecting the prior 60 days blood sugars), increases glycation of the proteins of the body leading to cataracts, arthritis, and hypertension.

Problem: Total cholesterol is a combination of HDL cholesterol, an estimate of VLDL cholesterol (triglycerides), and LDL cholesterol. It is a composite of both "good" things (HDL) and "bad" things (LDL and VLDL). Cutting saturated and total fat results in reduced HDL, increased VLDL/triglycerides, and a reduction in calculated LDL. Pretty weak stuff. The last item, i.e., reduction in calculated LDL, is not even a real phenomenon. In fact, the net effect in most genotypes (genetic types) may be negative: increased heart disease risk.

In contrast, what is the effect of reducing carbohydrate without restricting fat? (In the approach I use, we start with elimination of the most destructive of carbohydrates, wheat, followed by reducing exposure to other carbohydrates, especially cornstarch and corn products, sugar, and oats.) If, say, we cut carbohydrate intake into the range of a truly low-carbohydrate diet of 10-15 grams per meal ("net" carbs, or total carbohydrates minus fiber), then we witness a number of metabolic transformations:

Reduced fasting triglycerides and VLDL
Reduced postprandial (after-eating) triglycerides, chylomicrons, and chylomicron remnants
Increased HDL and shift towards large HDL particles (presumably more protective)
Reduced small LDL particles
Reduced glycation and oxidation of small LDL particles
Reduced hemoglobin A1c
Reduced c-reactive protein and other inflammatory markers
Reduced blood pressure

By slashing carbohydrates, we also witness weight loss from visceral fat, reversal of pre-diabetes and diabetes, and reduced phenomena of glycation. And, if the wheat-free part of low-carb is maintained, you can also see marked improvement in gastrointestinal health, relief from joint pains, relief from leg edema, relief from migraine headaches, improved behavior and ability to concentrate in children with impaired learning, ADHD, and autism, better mood, deeper sleep. You will see multiple inflammatory and autoimmune diseases improve or completely relieved, such as rheumatoid arthritis and ulcerative colitis.

Having personally gone down the diabetic path and back by cutting the fat in my diet, now maintaining a HbA1c of 4.8% with fasting glucose 84 mg/d; (without medications), there should be no remaining doubt: Low-carb diets, especially if wheat-free, dramatically reduce the factors leading to heart disease; low-fat diets worsen the factors leading to heart disease.

Mocha Walnut Brownies

Richer than a cookie, heavier than a muffin, brownies are ordinarily an indulgence that leaves you ashamed of your lack of restraint. Have one . .  . or two or three, and you will surely pack on a pound of belly fat.

But these mocha walnut brownies, as with other recipes I provide, will not pack on the pounds. With no wheat to trigger appetite, nor any readily-digestible carbohydrate to generate blood sugar highs and lows, you can have a nice brownie or two or three and nothing bad happens: You don’t send blood sugar sky-high, don’t trigger formation of small LDL particles and triglycerides, you don’t trigger appetite, you don’t gain a pound of belly fat. You simply have your brownie(s) and enjoy them.

Serve these brownies plain or topped with cream cheese, natural peanut or almond butter, or dipped in coffee.


Ingredients:
8 ounces unsweetened baking chocolate (100% chocolate)
4 tablespoons coconut oil or butter, melted
2 large eggs, separated
½ cup coconut milk (or sour cream)
2 teaspoons vanilla extract
2 cups ground almonds
2 tablespoons coconut flour
1 cup chopped walnuts
¼ cup unsweetened cocoa powder
2 teaspoons instant espresso
Sweetener equivalent to 1 cup sugar or to taste (e.g., liquid stevia, Truvía, erythritol)


Preheat oven to 350º F.

Melt chocolate using double boiler method or in 15-second increments in microwave. Stir in melted coconut oil or butter.

In small bowl, beat egg whites until frothy. Add egg whites, egg yolks, coconut milk, and vanilla extract to chocolate mixture and mix thoroughly by hand.

In separate bowl, combine ground almonds, coconut flour, walnuts, cocoa powder, espresso, and sweetener. Mix thoroughly.

Add dry mix to chocolate mix and mix together thoroughly. If dough is too stiff, add additional coconut milk, one tablespoon at a time.

Place mixture in 9-inch baking pan and bake for 25 -30 minutes or until toothpick withdraws dry.
Normal cholesterol panel . . . no heart disease?

Normal cholesterol panel . . . no heart disease?

I often hear this comment: "I have a normal cholesterol panel. So I have low risk for heart disease, right?"

While there's a germ of truth in the statement, there are many exceptions. Having "normal" cholesterol values is far from a guarantee that you won't drop over at your daughter's wedding or find yourself lying on a gurney at your nearest profit-center-for-health, aka hospital, heading for the cath lab.

Statistically, large populations do indeed show fewer heart attacks at the lower end of the curve for low total and  LDL cholesterol and the higher end of HDL. But that's on a population basis. When applied to a specific individual, population observations can fall apart. Heart attack can occur at the low risk end of the curve; no heart attack can occur at the high risk end of the curve.

First of all, to me a "normal" lipid panel is not adhering to the lax notion of "normal" specified in the lab's "reference range" drawn from population observations. Most labs, for instance, specify that an HDL cholesterol of 40 mg/dl or more and triglycerides of 150 mg/dl or less are in the normal ranges. However, heart disease can readily occur with normal values of, say, an HDL of 48 mg/dl and triglycerides of 125 mg/dl, both of which allow substantial small oxidation-prone LDL particles to develop. So "normal" may not be ideal or desirable. Look at any study comparing people with heart disease vs. those without, for instance: Typical HDLs in people with heart attacks are around 46 mg/dl, while HDLs in people without heart attacks typically average 48 mg/dl--there is nearly perfect overlap in the distribution curves.

There are also causes for heart disease that are not revealed by the lipid values. Lipoprotein(a), or Lp(a), is among the most important exceptions: You can have a heart attack, stroke, three stents or bypass surgery at age 40 even with spectacular lipid values if you have this genetically-determined condition. And it's not rare, since 11% of the population express it. How about people with the apo E2 genetic variation? These people tend to have normal fasting cholesterol values (if they have only one copy of E2, not two) but have extravagant abnormalities after they eat that contribute to risk. You won't know this from a standard cholesterol panel.

Vitamin D deficiency can be suggested by low HDL and omega-3 fatty acid deficiency suggested by higher triglycerides, but deficiencies of both can exist in severe degrees even with reasonably favorable ranges for both lipid values. Despite the recent inane comments by the Institute of Medicine committee, from what I've witnessed from replacing vitamin D to achieve serum 25-hydroxy vitamin D levels of 60-70 ng/ml, vitamin D deficiency is among the most powerful and correctable causes of heart disease I've ever seen. And, while greater quantities of omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil are associated with lower triglycerides, they are even better at reducing postprandial phenomena, i.e., the after-eating flood of lipoproteins like VLDL and chylomicron remnants, that underlie formation of much atherosclerotic plaque--but not revealed by fasting lipids.

I view standard cholesterol panels as the 1963 version of heart disease prediction. We've come a long way since then and we now have far better tools for prediction of heart attack. Yet the majority of physicians and the public still follow the outdated notion that a cholesterol panel is sufficient to predict your heart's future. Nostalgic, quaint perhaps, but as outdated as transistor radios and prime time acts on the Ed Sullivan show.

 

Comments (19) -

  • Might-o'chondri-AL

    6/15/2011 4:14:41 PM |

    I  was surprised that in order to get my  vitamin D25 level to 58.3 ng/mL  this winter in southern California I had to take 6,000 IU daily  of vitamin D3;  as was outside in short sleeves a fair spell every day.   This was first time where could test,  and my first time supplementing as well;  now am using at least 7,000 IU daily of vitamin D3 and it's summer months.

    Set my blind trial dose,   as a precaution, on low side based on info read here (from T. Hutchinson) suggesting 1,000 IU D3 for every 25 pounds body weight;  I had no clue what my baseline D3 was . Used  glycerin drops from Vitality Works out of New Mexico,  where 5 drops = 2,000 IU D3 ;  I've no financial interest in this.

    All males on my paternal side died from heart related problems before their late 50's so went ahead and tested my Lp(a) a while back;  I got clued in to Lp(a) by reading Doc's posts here . Was pleased and relieved to see a Lp(a) reading of just 2 , since lab gives less than 20 Lp(a) as normal.

  • Jimmy

    6/16/2011 12:07:56 AM |

    Then how is Lp(a) best treated?
    I am 36 and have had high Lp(a) for 16 years now. It sits near 100. That with low HDL and high LDL I feel like a walking time bomb. My father passed at 44 and mom at 46 and all uncles on mom's side dead prior to 50 of heart disease. Father was adopted, so do not know his side. What is worse, is that I have just relocated to Toronto, Canada (from the US) and I cannot find a doctor who even acknowledges what Lp(a) is. Nor can I find one (and I have been searching for 2 years) who thinks my cholesterol is high enough to "worry about".  It's even worse here than in my small town back in the US as far as getting decent lipid testing and advice Frown     Sorry to rant.

  • Lora

    6/16/2011 1:33:58 AM |

    I'm glad that you are warning people with normal cholesterol panels not to be complacent about their arterial status. My  cholesterol totals from age 40 to 52  ranged between 114 and 132.  My HDLs in my late 40s/early 50s were 64, 58, 53; LDLs 55, 56, 48; triglycerides 66, 49, 70.  The cholesterol totals on the latter two panels were below the normal range, which I've read can be problematic, though that's a topic that it is very difficult to find info about. What a surprise to get an severely infected blister on my foot, complicated by poor circulation, and to subsequently be found to have "mild arteriosclerotic changes" in my lower extremities.  I wonder about the mildness b/c now I perceive the dramatically decreased amount of hair on my legs as an indicator of poor circulation.

  • Dr. William Davis

    6/16/2011 11:54:41 AM |

    Jimmy-

    Please do not accept the advice offered by many of my colleagues that there is no treatment for Lp(a), or that the only treatment is to reduce LDL to less than 80 mg/dl with statins. All nonsense.

    Undoubtedly, the science behind Lp(a) is still unfolding and is proving to be more complex than initially thought. For instance, newer observations are suggesting that the atherogenic (plaque-causing) potential of Lp(a) may be largely due to its oxidized phospholipid and phospholipase A2 content.

    Nonetheless, I urge you  to participate in our discussions on the Track Your Plaque website, where you will find extensive reports and discussions on what to do with Lp(a). Our current first treatment of choice is high-dose fish oil, i.e., 6000 mg per day EPA + DHA.

  • Dr. William Davis

    6/16/2011 11:56:51 AM |

    Hi, Lora--

    Clearly, your answers won't be found in cholesterol values. This is far more common than often thought.

    Look for Lp(a), small LDL, vitamin D deficiency, and consider omega-3 fatty acid supplementation. Consider unappreciated hypertension and endogenous glycation, i. e, high HbA1c.

  • James

    6/16/2011 8:22:33 PM |

    When I got my in-office lipid panel results, my doctor was pleased by the results (I was too):

    Trigs: 50
    Total Chol: 198
    HDL-C: 70
    LDL-C: 118 (slightly elevated)

    That gives me a TC/H of 2.8, which I assume is excellent.

    BUT, I also got a NMR LipoProfile test, and here were those results:
    LDL-P: 1410 (High)
    Small LDL-P: 613 (High)
    Vit D: 31.4 (Low)

    I was surprised that the NMR test revealed some risk, while my standard panel did not. My doctor now wants to test me again in 4 months.

  • kenneth

    6/17/2011 1:39:19 PM |

    I've never been able to get my HDL above 36 (it's as low as 25). Triglycerides in me and my brother run 400-500 uncontrolled (neither of us is at all obese). I'm at 8 grams of fish oil now, 1 g of IR niacin and I've bumped up my Vitamin D to 8,000 a day, and I'm hoping that makes a difference at least with the HDL. My LDL and total cholesterol numbers are "normal" although god knows what a VAP or NMR would reveal. Would I be crazy to think about adding a bit of statin to this mix, ie 10 mg/day of atorvastatin or simvistatin? Has anyone had any luck with sytrinol or anything else? I'm not wheat free I know, but I have cut way down.

  • Anand

    6/17/2011 4:23:50 PM |

    Dr. Davis,
    What is your take on the AIM-HIGH trial ?
    My Lpa, measured at Berkeley is extremely elevated at 190 mg/ dl. Their assay is supposed to be isoform insensitive. I am on 20 mg crestor and 2 g niaspan along with 2g carnitine, 2500 IU vitamin d (level is 36) and 3 g EPA plus DHA.
    I do follow a low carb diet.
    I also have FH. Untreated my TC was 300 with LDL over 200.  I already have one stent in mid LAD despite being thin (BMI 23).
    I am wondering how to monitor my coronary arteries besides the standard stress test.

    An and

  • Lora

    6/17/2011 8:32:43 PM |

    Thank you for the information. My HbA1c when checked was 5.6. I had already started cutting back significantly on carbs a couple of weeks before that. I think endogenous glycation has been a significant factor for me. I've avoided white sugar for many years, but I used to quite frequently eat beans and whole grains, including whole grain oatmeal every morning. I discovered with a OneTouch UltraMini glucose monitor that my BG went into the 170s after eating that!  I haven't found any other food that sends my BG so high.  (And  I used to frequently eat the oatmeal along with fruit!) An hour after the drink in a glucose tolerance test my BG was 138 (then went to 79 an hour later).  My vitamin D when checked was 43.6 so not terrible, but showing room for improvement. I'ave been taking Member's Mark fish oil (which I read about on this web site) for quite awhile, but I’d been somewhat erratic with it before realizing my problem. I have a variant of "white coat" hypertension, which I've read is probably more harmful than it was once thought to be. Normally my BP is on the low side but stressful situations sometimes cause it to spike dramatically. My BMI has been 20 for years, used to be lower. I've never smoked. I wonder about carnitine b/c my diet has been largely, though not entirely, vegetarian for years. I definitely haven’t been getting enough exercise. Also, I've come across journal articles about Type D personality traits and think they may be a factor.  I have to get Lp(a), small LDL, and other sub-elements checked.    

    Thanks again! I have learned a lot from this web site.

  • Helen

    6/20/2011 7:11:33 PM |

    Lora -

    Yikes!  You sound almost exactly like me.  I don't really know what to do about the glucose spikes.  Low carb didn't help me.  I'm not trying to burst Dr. Davis' bubble or anything, just saying what was true for me.  Fish oil and niacin make my blood sugar spike more.  My blood pressure and resting heart rate are low, though.  Only occasionally do I get the white coat hypertension thing.  But otherwise, my cholesterol panel and blood sugar experiences mirror yours pretty well.

  • Lora

    6/22/2011 7:43:10 PM |

    Helen,

    Fortunately, decreasing or avoiding certain carbs does help me control my blood glucose. I bought a glucose monitor, as suggested by Dr. Davis. Ironically, I have discovered that some of the foods I used to make it a point to eat for health reasons (oatmeal, apple) spike my blood sugar the most.

  • SK

    6/25/2011 2:27:20 PM |

    We are big fans of fish oil.

    BUT, now we read this: "our findings are disconcerting as they suggest that ω-3 fatty acids, considered beneficial for coronary artery disease prevention, may increase high-grade prostate cancer risk, whereas trans-fatty acids, considered harmful, may reduce high-grade prostate cancer risk. " ???
    http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/173/12/1429.full

    thoughts???

  • SK

    6/25/2011 2:31:28 PM |

    OOopps,

    my mistake. let me post this at the right blog topic....

  • Gregory

    6/27/2011 1:34:08 AM |

    Lora,

    I too: a cup of muesli and fruit for breakfast for years. One day I tested: 179 after 1 hour. I now try to aim for 1 hr post prandial 110. No more muesli and fruit for breakfast!

  • Dr. Hasitha Dissanayake

    7/1/2011 5:02:37 PM |

    Dr. Davis, you have nicely described the high lipid levels and its impact on heart disease. Yes, as you have described the hight lipid level is not the only cause for heart diseases. Other major risk factors include smoking, hypertension and  diabetes. Further there are also number of minor risk factors for heart diseases as well, such as family history, sedentary life style, male gender etc.

    We should not make our minds by looking only at normal cholesterol panel. As you have described already vitamin D in important to produce more HDL and Omega-3 fatty acids. Any way vitamin A, C and E act as anti oxidants and also reduce the cancer risk. Visit http://agelag.blogspot.com

    Nice blog Dr. Davis... Keep on writing...

  • John

    7/21/2011 6:16:28 PM |

    WOW! all these numbers/letters and i've not a clue what most of them mean! i'm aware of the hdl/ldl numbers/levels , though not of the others. i happened across this site/blog from another nd/md's blog and i find this stuff to be mind-boggling! my health challenge: Late Nov. 2010, i had a stent placed in a major artery that i'm told was 90-95% blocked. while recovering in cath lab, i almost bled to death with a hemotopa ( ? ) the size of an orange, i was told upon my discharge by the nurse who saw it and literally saved my life. i've since been on plavix 75mg, 1x/day in which i've chosen to cut these in half and now take 1/2 pill at 12+ hours intervals or when i suddenly feel tired, pains and get scared. i should also tell you i've been diagnosed w/ peripheral neuropathy and experience many different types of stinging/pinching pain in various parts of by body. doing alot of computer work ( i work from home on the internety ) with one=finger hunt-n-pek typing also causes numbness and pain in my right hand. the very first day after the procedure,  i was given 7 - yes, 7! - plavix75mg. needless to say, the ensuing 4 weeks was hell for me and out of fear, i was back and forth to a heart hospital about 4 different ocassions. my entire right leg, groin, testacles and penis was purple/bluish and bruised. Now, i have not felt good since this stent was put in. i feel that the other type stent could have been used instead of the drug-alluding stent. I was also prescibed a statin of which I've NOT taken since finding out how ineffective and dangerous they are and that we actually need cholesterol especially for prpoer brain functioning. as i type now, i'm in discomfort. i recently started drinking a organic magnesium supplement called Natural Calm but aside from it cleaning me out, i feel no better at this point. I NEED HELP! i'm depressed and very irritable over the smallest things, at times. I have attempted to follow Dr. D'adamo's Eat right For your Blood type diet, but, since these supplements can be quite expensive ( i'm on a S.S. disability for Tourettes Syndrome ) i don't take them as often as i should so i really can't say whether or not they help. i've eaten breads my entire life and pizza as and still is my favorite ( i'm italian of course-Smile basically, i've been eating all foods my entire life that i shouldn't have been. i'm driving my wife and myself crazy and she does return the "favor' quite often. so now i read all this info. about vit. D and fish oils and i'm more confused than ever. being in NY, i'm aware of the vit. d ( lack of ) in relation to depression or SAD, etc.  i'm praying i find some nd/md who is willing and able to work with me to get me off this plavix and gabapentin 300mg ( 3 caps, 2x per day or as i feel they are needed ). my cardi says that after 1 year he'll be able to take me off the plavix, but, honestly, i feel this drug is killing me. oh...i also have the beginnings of Barretts Esophagus ( very small, i'm told ) and my gastro and cardi feel the combination of Plavix 75mg, Protonix 40mg, enteric coated Reg. strength aspirin ( of which i take 1-2  Baby aspirin instead, very rarely ),
    gabapentin 300mg is safe for me and outweighs the 30% or so possibility of having a blood clot at the stent. I've also thin blood to begin with ( type 0+ ) and i'm just feeling miserable! i do have a good day here and there, but mostly my days are spent very uncomfortable, irratable, depressed, tired and angry. I used to be healthy and exercised but now if i get out to walk a while, that's about it. i've never weighed in at more than 185 with much of my life weighing between 155-170. i am 5'7" and had always been considered to have broad shoulders and was husky as a young child. i'm hoping to get some relief and my good health back. i thank you for reading this and letting me vent. i apologize for any typos and the inconsistencies.

  • Lawrence

    9/30/2011 12:38:03 PM |

    Dear Dr William Davis
    In May of 2009 my wife had a brain aneurism and stroke.  (Then 52)
    Two years on she is extremely well due to a very skilled neurosurgeon. It has come to light that my wife has type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure and high cholesterol.
    Her medications are 1000mg of Metformin twice daily with meals.
    160mg of Diovan  mornings.
    25 mg HCTZ mornings.
    We are supplementing her meds with 1000mg of fish oil and now 2000iu of Vitamin D.
    A month ago we started using the Heart Technology Heart Tech formula two scoops  a day.
    Approx one month after starting the Heart Tech Formula my wife has had some blood work done.
    The results are as follows:
    A1C 7.1
    Lipoprotein A 23 nmol/L
    Vitamin D, 25 Hydroxy (vd25)  33ng/ml.
    C-reactive Protein HS 0.80 mg/dl.
    Cholesterol 236 md/dl.
    HDL 48 mg/dl.
    Triglyceride  181 mg/dl.
    VLDL  36 mg/dl.
    LDL 152 mg/dl.
    Non –HDL  188
    LDL/HDL ratio 3.17.
    My wife was originally taking Simvastain 25mg per day but our PCP stopped this due to some nasty side effects, he has since suggested we start  Lipitor, but after reading so many worrying articles regarding Lipitor and other statin usage  we are very reluctant to start using the Lipitor.
    I wonder if you would mind discussing our options and what you would consider my wife’s risk of Heart Attack and stroke are and if you feel the use of vitamin C, lysine etc in the Heart Tech will help with her risk.  I am new to the site so have not found my way around yet.
    Thank you.
    Lawrence

  • Dr. William Davis

    10/1/2011 2:04:52 PM |

    Hi, Lawrence--

    I would strongly urge you and your wife to 1) read the many posts on this blog about the exact situation your wife is experiencing and, 2) if interested in more information, consider going to the Track Your Plaque website, where many discussions are conducted on these issues every day.

    Your wife's pattern is a clear-cut example of carbohydrate excess and/or genetic susceptibility and vitamin D deficiency. All of this is readily, easily, and safety correctable with no drugs.

  • Lawrence

    10/1/2011 9:33:03 PM |

    Dear Dr William Davis
    I suppose in some ways being diagnosed with type 2 has been a good thing, in spite of my wife mild brain damage she is starting to realize that she has to cut out all the rapid acting carbohydrates that she used to exist on. It has taken me some time to find the right approach to helping control her BG, but she is now starting to see the better BG reading so is responding to the good feedback. We are increasing our dose of Vitamin D3 to 10000 IU.  We plan to continue with the Heart Tech, my feeling is her LPa would have been much higher if she had not had a month of the Heart Tech formula prior to her blood draw.
    I will certainly log in to Track Your Plague, thank you for taking the time to respond to my questions, it’s very reassuring that you feel she will respond to the Track Your Plaque.
    Lawrence

Loading