Fish oil in the news



Hooray for the New York Times. They ran an article pointing out the miserable and inexcusable failure of American physicians to use fish oil after heart attack.

“It is clearly recommended in international guidelines,” said Dr. Massimo Santini, the hospital’s chief of cardiology, who added that it would be considered tantamount to malpractice in Italy to omit the drug.

...in the United States, heart attack victims are not generally given omega-3 fatty acids, even as they are routinely offered more expensive and invasive treatments, like pills to lower cholesterol or implantable defibrillators. Prescription fish oil, sold under the brand name Omacor, is not even approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use in heart patients."

The article focuses on the use of fish oil only after heart attack and doesn't tackle the larger issue of how fish oil is crucial for coronary disease in general. Of course, the article doesn't address the extraordinary effects of fish oil on lipoproteins, particularly triglyceride-containing varieties like VLDL and the postprandial (after-eating) intermediate-density lipoprotein (IDL).

It also talks about prescription fish oil and just glosses over fish oil as a nutritional supplement. I know of few reasons to use the prescription form. More than 90% of the time, nutritional sources of fish oil do the trick. (That is, fish oil capsule supplements, not just eating fish which doesn't provide enough for coronary plaque reduction or control.)

Occasionally, I'll meet someone who has a severe hypertriglyceridemia (very high triglycerides), or is a Apo E 2/2 homozygote (very rare). These special instances may, indeed, do better using prescription fish oil, since it is more concentrated--one prescription capsule providing the same omega-3 fatty acid content as three conventional capsules (1000 mg fish oil, 300 mg EPA+DHA).


But for most of us, the standard fish oil supplement you buy at the health food store or department store does just fine. If you read about the impurity of fish oil supplements (likely prompted by the manufacturer of Omacor, prescription fish oil), refer to the studies by Consumer Reports and Consumer Labs, both of which found no mercury or pesticide residues in dozens of fish oil preparations tested.

Look on the bright side. The conversation is growing. Fish oil, whether prescription or my favorite, Sam's Club Members' Mark brand, is a fabulously effective supplement with benefits that, in nearly all cases, exceeds the benefits of drugs.

Fish oil is an absolute requirement for your Track Your Plaque program and for you to hope to achieve control or reduction of your heart scan score.

Nutritional approaches to homocysteine reduction


For an in-depth discussion of nutritional approaches to homocysteine reduction, see my new article, Nutritional Therapies for Managing Homocysteine , in the most recent issue of Life Extension magazine. You'll find it at:

http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2006/oct2006_report_homocysteine_01.htm

The report contains a detailed discussion of how to use foods to control homocysteine levels. Though I'm not a homocysteine-crazed fanatic like Life Extension publisher, William Falloon, I still there's some interesting aspects of homocysteine metabolism that need to be explored. I also think there's some genuine benefit to reducing homocystine, preferably with foods, secondarily with supplements.

Also see our recent update on homocysteine on the www.cureality.com website at:
http://www.cureality.com/library/fl_01-006homocysteine.asp

In the update, we tried to make sense of what the new studies on homocysteine treatment, NORVIT and HOPE-2, tell us in light of all the other studies on homocysteine that preceded them.

The American Heart Association diet guarantees you get heart disease!

Perhaps I stated that too strongly.

But the fact remains: the diet advocated by the American Heart Association is awful. The foods endorsed by their approach have no place on a list of healthy foods. Yes, you will find vegetables and fruits, etc.. But you will also find that the 2006 American Heart Association Diet and Lifestyle Recommendations dance around the issue of what foods to avoid. There's no explicit mention of how, for instance, common foods like Shredded Wheat cereal, ketchup, low-fat salad dressings, etc, among thousands of others, should be avoided.

No matter how you time your meals, mix them, combine proteins, fats, and carbohydrates, etc., you simply cannot squeeze health out of products like breakfast cereals, instant mashed potatoes, dried soup mixes, wheat crackers, etc. Yet these are the sorts of foods that are implicitly allowable in the Heart Association's diet program.

You can obtain a little insight into the motivations behind the diet design by looking at the Heart Association's Annual Report list of major supporters:

--ACH Food Companies--maker of Mazola margarine and corn oil. A contributor of between $500,000 and $999,000 to the Heart Association.

--ConAgra Foods--You know them as Chef BoyArdee, Peter Pan peanut butter, Kid Cuisine (pizza, macaroni and cheese). ConAgra contributed between $500,000 and $999,000 to the Heart Association.

--Archer Daniels Midland--Huge worldwide supplier of wheat flours, high-fructose corn syrup, and basic ingredients for manufacture of soft drinks, candies, and baked foods. ADM contributed between $1-4.9 million dollars to the American Heart Association.

Of course, the Heart Association provides many hugely positive services like funding research. But, on many official statements, you need to read between the lines. The Heart Association is funded by industry: medical device makers, drug makers, food manufacturers. Yes, some is contributed in the interest of health. But you can be sure that lots of money is also contributed in the hope of protecting specific commercial interests. Many of those decisions are made behind closed doors or on the golf course.

Be skeptical. Just because the Heart Association diet is a Casper Milquetoast version of a health program, it does not mean that you have to subscribe to their watered-down, politically correct, and downright useless nutrition recommendations.

I'm just right!

Ben is an energetic 45-year old entrepreneur. He started his own security alarm company and has, with tremendous hard work and long hours, built it into a successful local business. Despite his long hours, he found time to coach his son's football team and help with raising his 3 kids.

Ben's life took a detour when he had urgent bypass surgery at age 39. Just three years later, the chest pains and fatigue he'd experienced before bypass returned. Another heart catheterization revealed that all of his bypass grafts except one had closed. Three stents were implanted to salvage his original coronary arteries.

That's when I met Ben. Shockingly (perhaps I should know by now!), Ben was taking Lipitor and had been advised to follow a low-fat diet. That was the full extent of his heart disease prevention program. The burning question that I wanted answered was "Why did a 39-year old man have heart disease?".

Our analysis uncovered a smorgasbord of hidden patterns. You name it, Ben had it: postprandial (after-eating) patterns like IDL, low HDL, and, most notably, small LDL and lipoprotein(a). That's why Ben had heart disease as a 39-year old man--plain and simple.

We proceeded to correct all of his patterns. But the one aspect of his program that he struggled with: weight. At 5 ft 9 inches, Ben started at 285 lbs before bypass. He did manage to get to 270 after his surgery. I told him that, if he was going to get full control of his small LDL pattern, he needed to get to <210 lbs, perhaps even lower. Without substantial weight loss, he would never seize full control over coronary plaque.

Ben was satisfied that we had identified the hidden causes of his heart disease. But he remained skeptical that that magnitude of weight loss was necessary. Built like a football player, he looked stocky but not outright fat. He got down to 240 lbs but then he decided that he looked too skinny and just went right back up to 250-260 in weight.

At a weight of 250, this puts Ben's BMI (body mass index) at around 37, way over the cut-off of 30 for obesity. Now, the BMI can be misleading in people with larger frames and more muscle. But Ben undeniably had a generous abdomen, encasing the visceral fat that drives small LDL.

Unfortunately, Ben remained skeptical until I put three more stents into his right coronary artery last evening.

Small LDL is a powerful activator of lipoprotein(a). In other words, there's something peculiarly evil about the combination of small LDL and lipoprotein(a) that brings out the worst in both. You can't correct just one or the other. You've got to correct both. Don't learn this lesson the hard way.

I think (hope) that Ben is on track to get to around 200 lbs.

Prevention: Bad news in bits and pieces

Jan clearly did not want to talk about her heart scan. Her score of 502 came as a shock to her. After all, she'd survived breast cancer just a year earlier, having been through dozens of radiation treatments, chemotherapy, not the mention the emotional upheaval.

Now I was telling Jan that she had a very high heart scan score with a heart attack risk of 5% per year. Then we got to her lipoprotein patterns: Jan had several striking abnormalities, including a misleading LDL cholesterol that underestimated her true LDL by nearly 100% (LDL particle number), small LDL, and the dreaded lipoprotein(a).

"I can't handle this! Why did I get the stupid scan in the first place?!"

Giving her a chance to collect her emotions, I discussed how, even though this business can be frightening, it's far--FAR--better than the alternative: heart attack at 3 am, rush to the hospital, stents, bypass surgery, etc. Or, death for the >30% of people who don't make it to the hospital in time.

That's why I often tell people that prevention of disease is bad news in bits and pieces. But it's a lot more manageable this way. Coronary plaque is a controllable process. You don't have much control in the midst of a heart attack.

A second chance

Stewart had a CT heart scan in 2004. Score: 475.

As always in the Track Your Plaque program, Stewart had his lipoproteins assessed. Among his patterns were LDL 157 mg/dl, severe small LDL, and the (post-prandial, or after-eating) IDL. Stewart was also "pre-diabetic" with a blood sugar of 123 mg/dl. Blood pressure was also a major issue. Although initially concerned, life and distractions got in the way, and Stewart's attentions drifted away.

Two years of a lackadaisical effort and Stewart's heart scan score was 600, a 26% increase. Not as bad as it could have been doing nothing (i.e., 30% per year), but still far from great. But, even with the increase in score, we still really didn't get Stewart's attention. He went about his business with a very lax dietary program, overindulging in breads, crackers, goodies, hot dogs, etc., and following a virtually non-existent exercise program except for playing golf once or twice a week.

Unfortunately, Stewart started having pains in his chest with very minimal efforts like climbing a single flight of stairs. His stress test proved abnormal. Stewart then received a stent in his left anterior descending coronary and another in his circumflex. His right coronary artery had a 40-50% blockage, close to requiring a stent.

I stressed to Stewart that this had been preventable. Should motivation remain unchanged, the next step would be bypass surgery.

I think I finally succeeded in getting Stewart's attention. He found the prospect of a bypass operation a lot more concrete than the idea of progression or regression of coronary plaque. So Stewart is being given a second chance. Unfortunately, we will no longer be able to track Stewart's plaque very effectively, since two of three arteries now contain stents, and only the right coronary remains scorable.

I hope Stewart succeeds. But I sure wish he had done this earlier. He had realistic hopes of never requiring stents or bypass surgery.

Learn from Stewart's mistakes. Attention to your program requires vigilance. You can't ignore the causes of your coronary plaque for any length of time without it catching up to you. But seize your first and best chance.

Are you a skinny fat person?

AT 186 lbs. and 5 feet 10 inches, Doug did not regard himself as overweight. Sure, he had a little extra "love handles", a small bulge in the belly and a waist of 34 inches. But he was by no means fat, particularly compared to most of his friends, neighbors, and co-workers, many of whom were 50-100 lbs heavier.

But examine Doug's lipoprotein patterns and, if you didn't know what he looked like, you'd guess that he's at least 50 lbs or more overweight. His prominent patterns included low HDL, small LDL, high triglycerides, the after-eating IDL, and borderline high blood sugar of 116 mg/dl. His blood pressure usually ranged around 138/82.

In other words, Doug is among the 5-10% of people who have most of the features of the so-called "metabolic syndrome", but don't look the part. They usually (though not always) have a modest excess of visceral abdominal fat. While some people have to be 100 lbs overweight before they express these patterns, someone like Doug could do it with minimal excess weight, sometimes as little as 5-10 lbs.

Several specific genetic patterns can account for this exagerrated sensitivity to weight, but the solutions remain much the same. Heightened sensitivity to processed carbohydrates, particularly those containing wheat, is commonly present. A sharp reduction in processed carbohydrates like breads, breakfast cereals, and pretzels yields a huge benefit. Reduction in weight, of course, can also yield marked improvement in these patterns. This means that Doug should consider achieving his truly ideal weight of <175 lbs and become a truly skinny skinny person. Though his patterns might not be fully corrected, he will see substantial improvement across the board.

These patterns are also potent triggers for coronary plaque growth. Correction of low HDL, small LDL, etc. is crucial if you are to seize hold of your heart scan score.

Heart disease "reversal" gives health a bad name

Put the search phrase "reverse heart disease" into your internet search engine, and you'll uncover an astonishing range of sites, all making extravagant promises.

The treatment programs offered range from the bizarre (colonic irrigation, magnetism, etc.), to centers using conventional approaches like statin drugs and low-fat diets, to sites that make lofty predictions with few unique tools (slash the fat and heart disease dissolves).

95% or more of the sites you turn up are clearly pandering to the unknowing, the unsophisticated, the hopeless, or other helpless niche groups. Homeopathic preparations, chelation, magnical combinations of herbals, you name it, you'll find it attached to claims for heart disease reversal.

I've seen people use many of these treatments. Is there any effect on the rate of increase of the heart scan score? Do they impact on the 30% per year expected rate of increase? Absolutely not.

Unfortunately, this gives anyone practicing truly effective methods to reverse coronary plaque a bad name. Just associating with this suspect group of "practitioners" can make us look bad--guilt by association.

Whenever someone claims to have the secret of heart disease reversal, I ask "Can you prove it?" Show me some evidence. It doesn't necessarily have to be $30 million drug company sponsored study, but some evidence of effectiveness should be available. The only thing we should take on faith is our religion, not our health care.

Our growing number of people who have, indeed, reversed their heart scan scores--reversed heart disease--to me is persuasive evidence of the value of the Track Your Plaque approach. Not foolproof, not 100%, but the best damned approach I'm aware of, by a long shot.

Trans fats to be banned

Sometimes good may come from legislation.

The City of New York is contemplating a ban on trans-fat use by restaurants, bakeries, and other food establishments in preparation of their foods. (Trans-fats are also known as hydrogenated fats.)

At this point, I believe it's unclear, should this pass, what the response will be. If food preparers turn to butter, that's not much better. (Don't get fooled by the non-sensical argument of which is better, butter or margarine--they're both terrible.) Subtracting hydrogenated fats will no doubt cause major disruption of food preparation habits. It may even increase the cost of food slightly.



I believe that the true positive effect of this situation, however, will be the tremendously heightened awareness it will raise in the public, both in New York and elsewhere, on just how bad and pervasive trans-fats are. It may increase awareness that foods like donuts and pastries are not just about excessive quantities of sugars, but also trans-fat content.

If you're already a Track Your Plaque follower, you already know that the easiest way to dodge trans-fats in your diet is to minimize your use of processed foods--the cellophane-wrapped, pulverized, dried, just-add-water, microwavable and ready-to-eat foods that line supermarket shelves. Trans-fats are purely man-made. You won't find them--not a stitch--in green peppers, lettuce, olive oil, almonds. . .unprocessed foods. Watch for an in-depth report on trans-fats on the Track Your Plaque website in which we will detail the scientific evidence behind this movement, how to recognize when foods contain trans-fats, etc.

Back to basics!

Harold is energetic and highly motivated. His heart scan score of 997 really threw him for a loop: his view of himself as a healthy, slender, 58-year old clearly needed revision.

So Harold set himself on a quest to find new ways to help him deal with his heart disease risk. He enrolled in the Track Your Plaque program. Unfortunately, he skimmed through the information but didn't really put much of it to use.

Instead, he wanted the "secret" information that other people didn't know about, "insider" information that couldn't be found in magazines, wasn't know by doctors.

He'd read that hawthorne was useful for opening coronary arteries, so he bought hawthorne at the health food store. He read that coenzyme Q10 was a little know way to strengthen the heart, so he added that. A Chinese doctor in town was advertising chelation therapy that "dissolved plaque". He subscribed to a once-a-week intravenous infusion at the doctor's holistic clinic of Eastern medicine. He'd heard that testosterone opened up arteries, so he purchased a preparation of chrysin, horny goat weed, yohimbine, and saw palmetto. He was suspicious of many conventional medicines, but he didn't want to ignore his LDL cholesterol of 172 mg/dl. So he added guggulipid and a combination cholesterol-reducing product that contained about 10 ingredients.

Harold pursued his quest, often adding new agents that came with promising stories. One year later, Harold eagerly got another heart scan, certain that his extraordinary efforts were sure to yield a dramatic drop in his heart scan score. The score: 1372, a 37% increase.

Harold was therefore several thousand dollars poorer and several steps closer to taking the plunge, allowing a potentially fatal disease to cut his life short.

The message: There's no need to re-invent the wheel. There are no top-secret ways to reverse atherosclerotic plaque.


Don't neglect the basics. You can't do calculus until you learn how to add, subtract, and divide. From a heart scan score reducing perspective, achieving 60-60-60 in basic lipids, normalizing blood pressure and blood sugar, identifying any hidden lipoprotein patterns like small LDL and Lp(a), losing weight to your ideal weight, taking fish oil, normalizing vitamin D blood levels to 50-70 ng/ml--these are the necessary prerequisites to achieve control over your coronary plaque and stop the increase in your heart scan score.

You don't need to waste your time with the rants of some supplement-hawker eager to sell you the next cure for heart disease. I'm often amazed at the number of people who do so yet have never even taken care of someone with heart disease. Would you allow someone to try and repair your car if they've never actually laid their hands on an engine before? Then why would you entrust such a person with your health?

The Track Your Plaque approach is not fool-proof, but it's the best there is by a long shot.
Why wheat makes you fat

Why wheat makes you fat

How is it that a blueberry muffin or onion bagel can trigger weight gain? Why do people who exercise, soccer Moms, and other everyday people who cut their fat and eat more "healthy whole grains" get fatter and fatter? And why weight gain specifically in the abdomen, the deep visceral fat that I call a "wheat belly"?

There are several fairly straightforward ways that wheat in all its varied forms--whole wheat bread, white bread, multigrain bread, sprouted bread, sourdough bread, pasta, noodles, bagels, ciabatta, pizza, etc. etc.--lead to substantial weight gain:

High glucose and high insulin--This effect is not unique to wheat, but shared with other high-glycemic index foods (yes: whole wheat has a very high-glycemic index) like cornstarch and rice starch (yes, the stuff used to make gluten-free foods). The high-glycemic index means high blood glucose triggers high blood insulin. This occurs in 90- to 120-minute cycles. The high insulin that inevitably accompanies high blood sugar, over time and occurring repeatedly, induces insulin resistance in the tissues of the body. Insulin resistance causes fat accumulation, specifically in abdominal visceral fat, as well as diabetes and pre-diabetes. The more visceral fat you accumulate, the worse insulin resistance becomes; thus the vicious cycle ensues.

Cycles of satiety and hunger--The 90- to 120-minute glucose/insulin cycle is concluded with a precipitous drop in blood sugar. This is the foggy, irritable, hungry hypoglycemia that occurs 2 hours after your breakfast cereal or English muffin. The hypoglyemia is remedied with another dose of carbohydrate, starting the cycle over again . . . and again, and again, and again.

Gliadin proteins--The gliadin proteins unique to wheat, now increased in quantity and altered in amino acid structure from their non-genetically-altered predecessors, act as appetite stimulants. This is because gliadins are degraded to exorphins, morphine-like polypeptides that enter the brain. Exorphins can be blocked by opiate-blocking drugs like naltrexone. A drug company has filed an application with the FDA for a weight loss indication for naltrexone based on their clinical studies demonstrating 22 pounds weight loss after 6 months treatment. Overweight people given an opiate blocker reduce calorie intake 400 calories per day. But why? There's only one food that yields substantial quantities of opiate-like compounds in the bloodstream and brain: wheat gliadin.

Leptin resistance--Though the data are preliminary, the lectin in wheat, wheat germ agglutinin, has the potential to block the leptin receptor. Leptin resistance is increasingly looking like a fundamental reason why people struggle to lose weight. This might explain why eliminating, say, 500 calories of wheat consumption per day yields 3500 calories of weight loss.

And, as in many things wheat, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Despite all we know about this re-engineered thing called wheat, eliminating it yields health benefits, including weight loss, that seem to be larger than what you'd predict with knowledge of all its nasty little individual pieces.

Comments (32) -

  • Dee Miles

    10/1/2011 4:30:14 PM |

    I'm very interested in the leptin research and hope that it can help people figure out how to overcome their hurdles to weight loss. In your experience can someone correct the leptin resistance with diet? I've been grain and sugar free for 11 weeks and have even energy all day. No more cravings and eat pretty much only when I'm hungry (4-5 hours between meals). The weight loss is slow but I realize that being 43, hormones probably play a role as well.

    Thanks for doing what you do to help educate others on this topic.

  • Frank Hagan

    10/1/2011 6:04:31 PM |

    Great post, Dr. Davis.

    I blogged on leptin resistance at http://goo.gl/4lHbi, but my primary interest was the effect of high triglycerides due to a "standard American diet". There is some evidence that the high triglyceride levels block leptin from crossing the blood brain barrier and therefore prevent it from signaling that you have had enough to eat. In my own experience, going low carb eliminated the constant hunger I faced when I was 40 pounds heavier (and my trigylcerides were at 440).  Going low carb meant that I effectively eliminated wheat, as I eliminated nearly all bread, etc., and focused on animal protein and  green veggies exclusively. The effect happened very quickly, within a week, so I wonder if the wheat lectin was a factor here as well.

  • Howard Lee Harkness

    10/1/2011 9:52:54 PM |

    When I eliminated wheat from my diet in 1999 as part of my low-carb liftestyle chage, my arthritis went away (that alone provided more than enough motivation to stick with the diet for over a decade now), and I dropped 100 lbs with practically no effort. The problem is that I needed to lose *150* lbs, and that last 50 lbs refuses to budge, even on a low-carb diet. I'm beginning to wonder if I have permanently damaged my metabolism. I've noticed that I can drop about 10 lbs, and my morning body temperature goes below 80F, and eventually, I gain the 10 lbs back.

    Your advice?

  • Dr. William Davis

    10/2/2011 2:39:14 PM |

    Hi, Howard--

    This sounds an awfully lot like a thyroid issue. While I doubt that your temperature actually drops to 80 degrees F (since that is fatal), low temperatures can signal hypothyroidism. This can easily throw you off your weight plateau.

  • Dr. William Davis

    10/2/2011 2:40:55 PM |

    Hi, Frank--

    The wheat lectin-leptin connection would indeed explain many things, especially why hunger drops and weight drops so quickly when wheat is eliminated, far larger effects than can be accounted for simply by wheat's carbohydrate content.

  • Dr. William Davis

    10/2/2011 2:43:07 PM |

    Thanks for the feedback, Dee!

    Yes, you can correct leptin resistance with diet, though the effects are highly variable. In general, however, weight correlates quite cleanly with leptin serum levels.

    A tougher question is how to deal with leptin resistance that somehow causes a weight loss effort to stall. A discussion for another day!

  • Olga

    10/2/2011 4:07:23 PM |

    Hi Dr. Davis:
    Have you seen this new study?
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21943927

  • Geoffrey Levens, L.Ac.

    10/2/2011 8:02:23 PM |

    So what the heck does this mean?  Eating wild caught and pastured meats and non starchy veg as almost my only food (added coconut and olive oil), rarely a piece of fruit, I weighed 138 lbs.  As soon as I switched to an all plants, whole intact grains and potatoes and sweet potatoes based diet my weight dropped to 125 with zero change in activity level.  I have since switched most of the grains and potatoes for legumes and by more strenuous working out seem to have lost "hidden" fat and converted it to muscle.  Still at 120 but much more muscular...  This seems to be the opposite of what you espouse as  eat approximately 280 grams of carbs/day though probably 800 or so calories less than when I was eating meat, fat, and non starchy veg... Am I just an anomaly?

  • harlan

    10/3/2011 1:24:20 PM |

    Is it possible that eliminating proteins resulted in the loss of muscle?

  • Kim D

    10/3/2011 7:33:40 PM |

    A question for you Doc,

    Hoping you can give me some clarity on the genes issues of Celiac disease.  I have long suspected that I was wheat intolerant.  I suffered severe constipation since my teens, was laxitive dependant for lots of year taking handfuls a night just to be "regular".  I was able to get off the laxitives after 20 years by grinding my own wheat (and other grains).  It made all the difference in the world getting off pre-packaged foods, and dairy ( I am EXTREMELY dairy intolerant).  However, I never got "better".  I now know from your book that switching from a bad thing, to a less bad thing is not the answer, is advantagous, but still not the best .

    I have known deep down inside that something was wrong with wheat because I am like a heroin addict when I eat it... I cannnot get enough, but since it did help me get off the laxitives, I kind of argued with myself over it my having "real" systemic issue with it.  My other health issues.. skin rash (chronic) which looked and felt like DH, dermititis herpetiformus.  Dermatologist said biopsy was not going to be 100% sure to diagnose it, so I should just get the gene test to see if I had DQ2 or DQ8.  My tests came back negative to both... but I still had a terrible chronic rash for going on 15 years on my legs, lower back and occasionally my torso, like a mirror, effecting both sides of my body in the same areas.  Dermatologist just shrugged and said he couldnt tell me what it was, but he put me on dapsone, and it cleared.  I finally had relief for the first time in a long time, but couldnt stay on the dapsone, due to liver enzyme issues.

    Now, years later, and more health issues like osteoarthritis in my hands and spine and rib joints, BTW, I am only 43!!  I wind up back to questioning the wheat!!  When I found that you had written Wheat Belly, I thought, "maybe he knows something about wheat that I have been unable to find out"!?  After I read it (2 weeks ago) I immediatly changed my diet to a totally gluten free one.   ( we do not eat GMO's, and eat lots of veggies, green smoothies ect.. but I didnt realize just HOW genetically altered our wheat was.)

    I am NOT an "undiagnosed" celiac for sure, as I do NOT have the DQ genes.  The biggest change I feel from being off the wheat is less drive to eat like a maniac.  I have not had any "health" changes, but it has only been 2 weeks.  I unfortunately am noticing the constipation creeping back up though, when I am off the milled wheat.

    In your book, you seem to be speaking largely to people who have been told they do not have Celiac disease due to being misdiagnosed, or told they were NOT celiac due to false blood test results, or lack of proper biopsies...  What is y our opinion of serious immune system/ health issues happenning to folks like me, who are DQ2,DQ8 negative?  I know people WITH those genes can be reactiing (immune system) to wheat even if they are NOT actively in a Celiac disease state... but what about those of us who are not even ever going to get celiac?

    I hope my questions dont sound stupid, perhaps I need to read the book again, or I just missed this specific issue of  where we, who are without the celiac genes, fit into this picture.  Could it be that there are other genes that we dont know about?  Or, are the genes simply irrelevant, due to the fact that the gluten content, and other harmful proteins and lectins are just so out of proportion to natural unmodified wheat?
    I know for sure that my addiction is real, and has caused me much yo yo dieting in the past, never able to lose this pesky 30lbs, because once I eat a slice of toast, or a whole wheat muffin, I become like ravenous beast, who cant stop eating!!  I do know also, that to only be 43, and have such health issues already, that something has to be wrong...  Perhaps years of laxitives have injured my system... glad to have been off of them for 5 years now, but I really think your book has surely pointed me in the right direction of getting off the dwarf wheat!

  • Dr. William Davis

    10/4/2011 2:44:29 AM |

    Hi, Kim--

    There is plenty more to this thing called wheat than "just" immune phenomena. I believe it is pure folly to believe that all potential adverse effects of wheat can be identified via HLA DQ markers or celiac blood markers. There are just too many undesirable components of this thing that are not identified with currently available blood tests.

    You could be HLA DQ2 or DQ8 negative, with negative celiac markers, yet still have life-threatening disease reversed with wheat elimination.

  • Dr. William Davis

    10/4/2011 2:47:01 AM |

    Interesting, Olga.

    If we were to extrapolate this to us hairless mice, it means that an extreme low-carb restriction makes it MUCH harder to express diabetes.

  • smgj

    10/4/2011 1:49:57 PM |

    1) Only rectal temperature readings should be considered accurate. With other types of readings you have a certain heat loss - most for armpit readings, less for under tongue.
    2) You should look into euthyroid sick syndrome/reverse T3 which is a possibility if you drop the carbs all the way...? Some research suggests that we should leave about 50g carbohydrates in the daily allowance to avoid this possibility.

  • Barb

    10/4/2011 6:07:06 PM |

    Hi Dr. Davis!

    First of all, I have to say that I love your book! The information is a God-send and the way that it is presented is clear with just enough humor to be riveting (at least, for a nerd like me).

    I have a question tho’, and I hope that I am not being repetitive or redundant. All I hear and read is that by cutting wheat from the diet, a person can expect weight loss. I have read wonderful testimonials from people who have cut wheat and have lost 50 pounds in 6 months without doing anything else (exercise or caloric restriction).

    But, this does not work for me. My diet is quite strict paleo since last spring (a la Robb Wolf). I eat NO grains (including quinoa or buckwheat or other “grain-ish” items). No dairy with the exception of cream in coffee (about 3 to 4 cups per day). No peanuts, legumes or beans. No rice, potatoes, corn or peas.  No fruit (again, at Robb Wolf’s suggestion that people who need to lose should eschew fruits until their goal is reached). Of course, nothing processed, no sugar and artificial sweeteners are kept to a minimum. I drink water as needed.

    I eat nuts and seeds, eggs, all meats, fish and seafoods, green and colourful vegetables as well as coconut products (oil, milk and meat), avocados, fish oil and olive oil.

    I am 43, and feel great as long as I eat this way. I am not celiac and have not been diagnosed with any medical problems by my doctor (MD). I do however have a strong family tendency towards DMT2. So far, I seem to be OK there, but do suspect insulin resistance due to physical features. I do notice that eating grains results in stomach upsets, water retention, RAPID weight gain, mood swings and a wicked distended belly (I have been congratulated on my pregnancy... LOL!)

    I am very careful about my food intake, so I know that there are no hidden grains, sugars, etc. slipping in. This is very easy when you don’t eat anything processed. I take in, on average, about 1500 calories daily, and currently work out with weights 3 times per week. In the past, I have tried doing tremendous amounts of cardio... Again, no real results.

    I also see an ND, and he has recently requested a saliva panel to check my adrenal hormones, notably AM DHEA’s, Cortisol Curve = C1,C2, C3,C4. I am 5’6” tall and weigh 190 pounds and gain weight mostly in the mid section. I obviously need to lose weight, but everything I try results in a small weight loss (< 10 pounds), followed by a frustrated week or 2 off of my diet, which only results in a big weight gain. Seriously... I went to Mexico for 10 days a year ago. I ate and did the same as everyone else. I GAINED 15 POUNDS. Everyone else’s weight stayed the same, or showed a very small gain... only about 3 pounds.

    My regular doctor, when presented with this information shrugged his shoulders and said, “Weight loss is hard.” I am getting seriously stressed about this... This can’t possibly be normal. Close family and friends have observed and made comments like, “The way you eat and work out, you should have a near perfect body!”
    I know that you would require much more detailed information about me, but is there anything that is striking to you, or have you encountered this before? Any info that I can pass along to my MD or my ND would be so much appreciated!

    Barb

  • Roberto

    10/4/2011 6:23:32 PM |

    Dr. Davis,

    Mat Lalonde gave a speech at the ancestral health symposium called "An Organic Chemist's Perspective on Paleo" - it was mostly about bad science circulating in the Paleo community. In his speech, he mentions an interesting study that demonstrates that wheat germ agglutinin is completely destroyed in the cooking process - literally not a trace is detectable. I can't provide you a reference, because none was given, naturally, during the speech. Perhaps you could get in touch with him and get the reference. I will try myself, and get back to you if I am able to. But if that is true, I seriously doubt WGA is relevant to weight gain, because I can't think of a single wheat product that people eat raw.

    Nor do I believe that the high glycemic index of wheat is a cause of weight gain in people with healthy metabolisms. Numerous cultures have been found in great health eating high glycemic index carbohydrates such as potatos. So I find it a little hard to believe that the glycemic index of wheat initiates metabolic derangement and weight gain.

    As far as your 'cycles of satiety and hunger' and 'high glucose and high insulin' points, those too would indicate a problem with carbohydrate in general, not just wheat. So I would think 'carb belly' would be a more intellectually honest title to your book. Especially, when one considers that you improve most of your patient's health with a low-carb diet - not too mention the supplements and exercise you recommend.

    Also, Stephan Guyenet recently wrote a post outlining why insulin levels have nothing to do with fat mass.
    http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/08/carbohydrate-hypothesis-of-obesity.html
    He presents very convincing arguments. Having read it, I personally am not swayed by your claim that wheat promotes weight gain by greatly increasing insulin levels - I dount anyone one who read that article is. He presents far more evidence that insulin levels are not relevant to weight gain than you do claiming they are. Given your claims, I think you are obligated to respond to this article.

    This post offers nothing to single wheat as a unique cause of weight gain.

  • Roberto

    10/4/2011 6:54:46 PM |

    Also...
    I recently had a debate with Tom Naughton regarding the validity of your claims. I made the following points: You claim that wheat is the greatest cause of weight gain, and removal of it from your patient's diets has yielded incredible results. But you don't treat your patients with simply a wheat-free diet. You place your patients on a low-carb, vegetable oil free, refined sugar free, processed food free diet. You also prescribe very important supplements, like omega-3 and vitamin-d, which have been shown to be beneficial independent of other changes. There are innumerable uncontrolled variables in your lifestyle recommendations - far beyond wheat removal - that could be bringing these results.

    Tom's response to me was that you have had an undisclosed (by him) number of your patients try eliminating wheat alone. Apparently, you still saw improvements. Once again, the level of improvement remained undisclosed by Tom. I would like to know how many of your patients you had advised to just eliminate wheat, and what improvements you saw. Of all the patients you've treated, if 99% have undergone your complete recommendations, it is absurd to use their improvements as a case against wheat when you have left countless uncontrolled variables.

    If you have seen improvements with strictly wheat elimination, that too cannot be effectively used as a case against wheat. Eliminating wheat creates far-reaching changes in ones diet that go beyond simply eliminating wheat. The vast majority of highly-palatable, engineered, processed junk food becomes inaccesible. No more doughnuts, no more McDonalds, no more cake. That alone is very significant. Also, when you advise your patients to eliminate wheat alone, I seriously doubt they carried on eating wheat-free junk food like deep-fried factory farm chicken wings, ice cream, and french fries in abundance. They likely embraced a healthier diet altogether that happened to disclude wheat.

  • Dr. William Davis

    10/5/2011 1:37:23 AM |

    No doubt, Roberto. The majority of real world patients in my clinic, as well as the online experience, have followed more than a wheat-free diet. Anecdotally, the people who have followed low-carb yet included wheat continued to experience issues like acid reflux, persistent small LDL, high HbA1c, etc. But anecdotal experiences cannot be used as sole proof.

    If you've read the book, you will see that there is much more to this argument than my anecdotal experience. The fact that overweight celiac patients, for instance, lose on average 26 pounds in the first six months while not restricting calories, fats, polyunsaturates, etc. is among the arguments that are consistent with this proposition, that wheat underlies many health problems, including overweight.

    No doubt: We need more data to fully document the full range of health effects of this incredibly unhealthy creation of geneticists.

  • Dr. William Davis

    10/5/2011 1:39:33 AM |

    Noted. I disagree.

    Do one thing: Eliminate wheat. Do not limit calories or portion size.

    Weight drops, usually at the rate of one pound per day. I can speculate why and I believe it is partly due to the unusually high glycemic index/insulin triggering. It might be the effects of wheat lectin on leptin receptors. But it is a very real effect.

  • Dr. William Davis

    10/5/2011 1:42:41 AM |

    Hi, Barb-

    The most common weight confounder I see is low free T3 values, i.e., low T3 thyroid hormone.

    Assess this by checking free T3, as well as reverse T3, along with TSH and free T4. I aim to keep TSH, by the way, 1.0 mIU or lower to maximize weight control, and keep free T3 and free T4 in the upper half of the quoted range, higher for T3 if reverse T3 is high.

    The cortisol curve can also uncover high cortisol levels that can counteract the effects of your otherwise excellent diet.

  • Roberto

    10/5/2011 3:49:21 AM |

    "Weight drops, usually at the rate of one pound per day."

    I'm having a very tough time envisioning that, especially if a person eliminates wheat without altering calorie intake and portion size. Let's assume the average sedentary obese person requires 2500 calories a day - a reasonable estimate I would say. If they stopped eating completely, a 2500 calorie deficit would amount to less than 3/4 of a pound weight loss per day. So how could they possibly maintain portion size and lose an entire pound per day? Perhaps if wheat was causing them sever water retention, and avoidance of wheat remedied that and led to massive amount of weight loss from water. But I doubt that is what you meant.
    Did you mean to say a pound per week?

  • Barb

    10/5/2011 6:09:05 AM |

    Thank you so much Dr. Davis!
    I will take this information in to my docs... I have a feeling that I will get further with my ND than I will with my MD.

    Thanks so much, and do not be discouraged by the naysayers. Cognitive dissonance can be a very unpleasant thing!

    Barb

  • Dr. William Davis

    10/5/2011 12:11:19 PM |

    Nope. Literally a pound per day. I know it sounds crazy.

    I don't know why. It certainly defies the "calorie in, calorie out idea." Calorie intake drops, on average, only 400 calories per day, so why would someone lose the equivalent of 3500 calories? It is definitely partly water weight, but there is a visible loss of abdominal fat for most people.

    It's not everyone, of course, but a substantial proportion of people.

  • tammy

    10/8/2011 10:14:48 PM |

    I was diagnosed with PreDiabetes in August and having a rough time Changing from eating Carbs, like that Bagel you referred to or a few cookies a day, to High Fat and High Protein. I am underweight and Still have around 7 pounds to gain  before I am at my goal. I have only My Diabetic MD who by the way is Diabetic Herself, Promoting me to Give Up the Grains and roots. All other MD's on my team have been against this saying that I am on the Cusp of Prediabetes at 5.7 and should not worry about it. I want to PREVENT being Diabetic, not come to them AFTER the fact. By the way, I have very HIGH cholesterol, so what you are saying sure seems to go right along with my Diabetic. MD. I feel torn because I know I need to gain weight and How Possibly DO I GAIN WHEN I LEAVE OFF FOODS THAT WILL HELP ME GAIN? Please respond if ANYONE has any advice. I am OPEN TO LISTEN.  I also dont feel the best after eating Sugars, but Crave them. Once I eat them, then I feel worse. CYCLE BEGINS AGAIN.

  • Dr. William Davis

    10/9/2011 11:03:38 PM |

    Hi, Tammy--

    Tough situation.

    While slashing carbs will reduce HbA1c and blood glucose, the fact that you are underweight yet still diabetic raises some unique issues. This may not be the run of the mill diabetes, but another condition such as the so-called late-onset diabetes of adulthood, a form of diabetes with features that overlap with type 1. So the comments directed at the very common overweight type 2 may not fully apply to you.

    Let us know what you learn.

  • Andrew

    11/3/2011 2:51:27 PM |

    Dr D

    I was wondering when you advise to eliminate wheat, does the same go for oats and oat bran too? Does this effect prediabetics the same way as wheat. I am very interested in your response.
    thank you

    Andrew

  • Dr. William Davis

    11/4/2011 12:49:57 PM |

    Hi, Andrew--

    The problem with oats is somewhat different: It is a blood sugar and carbohydrate issue.

    If you were to check a blood sugar 1-hour after a bowl of unsweetened whole oats, you would see sky-high blood sugars. So we do not include oat products in any form in the diet.

  • Andrew

    11/4/2011 2:29:36 PM |

    Here I was thinking that oat bran for breakfast was a good choice. Thanks Doctor D for the response

  • N

    11/7/2011 4:26:30 AM |

    Hi Doc,

    While I've significantly reduced the amount of carbs/wheat I eat, I often still find myself in situations where I can't avoid it (out with coworkers, and the run, etc).

    My resting blood glucose was a little high on my last physical (105), so I want to keep an eye on things.

    My question is this:   If you are stuck eating a meal that is going to spike your blood sugar, when would be the best time to take a 15-30min walk to try to help your muscles absorb some of the glucose?  I know insulin peaks around 90min afterwards or so.

    Would I be better off walking immediately after eating (to start the glucose absorption right away), or delaying around an hour and then walking?

  • David German

    11/16/2011 4:07:33 AM |

    Could there be a beneficial increasing metabolic rate accounting for at least some of this weight loss? I used to be able to eat untold numbers of calories when I was (much) younger, without gaining weight. Quite a typical situation.
    Now, if I could just get that quicker metabolism again  Smile

  • David

    11/16/2011 4:57:06 AM |

    Question - so, if I eliminate the modern wheat you are talkiing about, what about some of
    the other grains that are being used? For example:
    "Ancient grains", such as kamut and spelt. They taste great and if they are truly ancient grains
    they wouldn't have the integral problems.

  • Gary Mullennix

    3/8/2013 1:46:27 PM |

    I've lost 52# and maintained the loss for 16 months. My total cholesterol went from 243 to 285. My HDL went from 58 to 91. Doctor wanted to put me on a statin. I said no because I don't tolerate them (muscle pain and very poor test results) and wanted a diagnosis of CHD if I was to undergo medical treatment for that condition. A coronary calcium scan showed 0 in 2, a 100 in one and 329 in the left anterior descending. Cardiologist ordered nuclear and treadmill stress tests with neither showing any restrictions in flow or supply to the heart. So, he says to exercise vigorously 5x week/1hr daily and exercise is 70% of my treatment, diet 20% and medication would be 10% if I took the statin which I am not.  Neither my Doc or the Cardiologist knew what the VAP scores of the fractionated LDL scores meant (117 1-2, 43 3-4) but the both recommended a low fat diet and the cardiologist told me to buy and follow Dean Ornish's newest book Spectrum.
    1. Are all fractionated LDL tests of the same quality or is there one best?
    2.  Why is this called a disease and not a condition?  How am I to know if any treatment is proceeding successfully other than I'm not dead?  
    3. Years ago a physician put me on a synthetic Throid supplement to eliminate the possibility of thyroid cancer since he thought he could feel the thyroid and I had been treated with X-Ray to the head in 1946 for ringworm. My TSH scores have remained within the boundaries pretty well although my T4Free was 244.  Any comment.
    4. I was diagnosed 33 years ago as being hypoglycemic and carried sugar with me to treat low blood sugar while exercising etc.  my CRP score is just over 1, well within the test limits of the tests I take. But that is 2x your recommendation of no more tham .5. BTW, since low carb, I've not had low blood sugar event and my tested glucose runs 90.  Is it likely that this hypoglycemic condition related to inflammation and arteriosclerosis?
    5.  I'm taking antioxidant supplements, lumbrokinase, L-Carnitine, no flush Niacin, Vit D3 (6000 IU)
    6.  I'm 73, no illnesses of consequence, blood pressure of 105/65.  I live in Naples FL. There are no cardiologistts I've heard of down here willing to discuss any regimen other than low fat and statins along with exercise. Do you have a colleague within 200 miles?  

    Thank you for your work. I think my promoting your work along with Gary Taubes has caused a 500 lb weight loss for me and our friends and a nice, fat increase in HDL.

Loading