How important is high blood pressure?


Control of blood pressure is crucial for coronary plaque control and stopping your heart scan score from increasing.

Dr. Mehmet Oz (of Oprah fame and a cardiac transplant surgeon at Columbia University) made graphic point of this on the ABC TV news show, 20/20, last evening on an episode called "Our Bodies: Myths, Lies, and Straight Talk". (See a summary on the ABC News 20/20 website at http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2109291&page=1)

Although I believe he somewhat overstated the case for hypertension (proclaiming "If you're going to remember one number, if you're going to focus and fixate on one number in your entire health profile, it better be your blood pressure"), he made the point that a blood pressure of 115/75 is what you should have for optimal health.

I couldn't agree more. Unfortunately, the old advice that desirable blood is 140/90 or less is absolutely wrong. At this level, we see flagrant increases in heart scan scores. We also progressive enlargement of the thoracic aorta, the large vessel that leaves the heart and branches to provide the major arteries of the body. Growth of the aorta to an aneurysm is also common at these formerly acceptable blood pressure. (The diameter of your aorta in the chest is an easily obtainable measure on your CT heart scan.)

The blood pressure you need for halting and reversing plaque growth on your heart scan is indeed 115/75 or less. (Not so low, however, that you're lightheaded.) This is the blood pressure that you were meant to have evolutionarily. It's also the blood pressure that helps tremendously in keeping your aorta from enlarging.

Watch for an upcoming exhaustive report on blood pressure and its plaque-raising effects and how to reduce it using nutritional strategies on the www.cureality.com membership website.

Is your doctor in cahoots with the hospital?

I got a call from a doctor about a patient we've seen in past.

"I've got Tricia in the office. She's been having some kind of chest and abdominal pain. I think it's esophageal reflux, but just to be safe I'm sending her to the hospital."

I advised this physician that, given Tricia's low heart scan score, she was unlikely to be having a coronary "event" like heart attack or unstable symptoms. It wasn't impossible, but just highly unlikely.

As the patient was without symptoms at the moment and had driven herself to his office, I offered to perform a stress test immediately. (Though stress tests are of limited usefulness in people without symptoms, they can be useful provocative maneuvers in people with symptoms of uncertain significance.)

The doctor declined. Tricia was, after all, in his office and he was responsible for any decisions despite any objections I voiced. Well, Tricia was directed by her doctor to go to a local hospital, though one with an especially notorious reputation for putting virtually anyone they can get their hands on through as many procedures as possible.

As you might guess, this doctor was closely associated with this hospital. He and his colleagues obtain incentives (or are penalized) if they do not generate revenue-producing procedures for the hospital.

So, guess what? Tricia ended up with several procedures, all of which yielded nothing--except $30,000 in revenues from Tricia's insurance company.

I harp on this deplorable state of affairs because it is utterly, painfully, and shamefully TRUE. Just look at the hospital and you'd better brace yourself for a series of tests that could cost you the equivalent of a nice 3 bedroom home. If they were truly necessary after the failure of preventive and other simple efforts, fine. But, all too often, they are driven by profit motives.

Could I have stopped this somehow from occurring? After all, Tricia was reasonably aware of the way we do things around here. I fear that even this failed to serve Tricia well. But I remain hopeful that, as we build broader awareness of these issues, that more and more people and physicians will stand up and refuse to tolerate the status quo.

Where is the Track Your Plaque program going?

I spend a lot of time worrying about how people can be helped to navigate through this program.

Take, for instance, the man in rural Texas who, while traveling in Dallas, got a heart scan on a whim. His score was 990. When he took the report back to his doctor, he got a smirk--and that's all. When he came to the Track Your Plaque program, he lacked a physician advocate to help him.

Or the woman from Florida who sought opinions from two reputable cardiologists for her heart scan score of 377. Both advised her that she needed a heart catheterization--despite her lack of symptoms, her 5-day-a-week exercise program, and normal stress test. She also lacks a physician advocate who acts on her behalf, helping her achieve success, rather than just churning her for money from hospital procedures.

For people like this and for others, I see the Track Your Plaque program evolving in several directions:

1) An online clinic--You enter and we take your "hand" and lead you step by step through the process, not only at the beginning, but over the months and years. This would help clear up some of the confusion and zigzags that some people experience trying to navigate through the program.

2) Develop physician and non-physician partners--The woman in Florida, for instance, could be referred to a doctor nearby who understands the program and is able to assist her. At present, this is virtually impossible because of the bias towards heart procedures, drugs as the sole treatment for heart disease risk, and the superficial physician-patient relationship. The majority of practicing physicians just don't understand the program despite the fact that it is based on sound clinical and experimental data. But it will in time.

Looking back, we've come a long way. I remember first having patients undergo heart scans 10 years ago. My colleagues laughed or called it "silly". The general public didn't know what they meant.

Now we're talking about how to broadcast the most powerful heart disease prevention program available in the world to a larger audience, but making it easier and more accessible. Mass media like Oprah's two hour-long spots helped, but we need to make the next leap. Not just identifying hidden heart disease to feed the hungry cardiovascular hospital procedure monster, but to educate/inform/empower the public on what to do with the scan once they've had it.

Who cares about triglycerides?

Walter's triglycerides were 231 mg. His LDL cholesterol was "favorable" at 111 mg, HDL likewise at 49 mg.

"Everything looks good," his doctor declared.

"Do you think the triglycerides are okay, too?" Walter asked.

"Well, the guidelines do say that triglycerides should be less than 150, but I believe you're close enough. Anyway, triglycerides don't really cause heart disease."


When I met Walter, I made several comments. First of all, in light of his heart scan score of 713, none of his numbers--HDL, LDL, or triglycerides-- were acceptable. But the triglycerides were glaringly and terribly too high.

Why? What exactly are triglycerides?

Triglycerides are a basic fat particle that, though they do not cause heart disease directly, trigger the formation of an array of abnormal lipoprotein particles in the blood that are among the most potent causes of heart disease known.

These abnormal lipoprotein particles include small LDL, VLDL, and IDL (intermediate-density lipoprotein--a really bad pattern). Excess triglycerides also cause HDL to drop. They also cause a distortion of HDL structure, causing the particles to become abnormally small. Small HDL is also useless HDL, unable to provide the protection that HDL is designed to do.

So Walter's elevated triglycerides are, in reality, a substantial red flag for an entire panel of abnormal particles that contribute to the growth of his coronary plaque.

So, if you get this kind of commentary on your triglycerides, ask for another opinion. (Track Your Plaque Members: Also see Triglycerides: Mother of meddlesome particles at http://www.cureality.com/library/fl_dp002triglycerides.asp.)

Total cholesterol and heart scans

Andy was fearful of heart disease in his life. At age 52, he'd already had four CT heart scans--one each year on or near his birthday.

Yet, when I looked at Andy's scans, his scores had been increasing 20-24% per year. Each and every score was greater by 20% or more over the previous.

So I asked Andy what steps he had taken to stop this relentless progression. "Well, I've always been real health conscious. But ever since my first scan, I really started sticking to a healthy diet, exercising nearly every day, and I take a bunch of supplements."

"What did your doctor advise?" I asked.

"Well, Dr. ---- said that nothing needed to be done, since my total cholesterol was always below 200."



Men's Health magazine's fabulous story about the folly of using total cholesterol to gauge heart disease risk.




Aaaauuuggghhh!! Wrong!

This man was, in fact, at rapidly escalating risk for heart attack. This rate of growth simply can't continue forever without igniting this bomb.

A total cholesterol below 200 is meaningless, as Andy's increasing coronary plaque proved. For instance, you can have a total cholesterol of 165 mg but with an HDL cholesterol of 27 mg. This would constitute very high risk for heart disease despite the low total cholesterol. The low HDL pattern is among the most common reasons for a misleading total cholesterol. Small LDL, high triglycerides, and lipoprotein (a) are other frequent reasons.

Andy, run the other way! Do not heed this doctor's advice! You need a solid answer to the question: Why exactly do I have coronary plaque in the first place?

Then, agree on a treatment program that corrects your specific causes.

Cardiologists out of touch

This weekend, I'm fulfilling some responsiblities I have every so often to some of the local hospitals. It gives me a chance to interact with many of my colleagues who are likewise "on call" for the weekend.

I tried to strike up several conversations with colleagues about how they were managing heart disease prevention. I received blank stares, puzzled looks, indifference. One colleague declared that 80 mg of Lipitor is all you need to know.

These same colleagues are the ones scrambling for the heart attack patients in the emergency room, climbing over one another for consultation in the hospital for patients with chest pain and heart failure. They're consumed with expanding the range of procedures they can perform.

Carotid stenting is hot. So is stenting of the leg arteries. Defibrillators have been a financial bonanza. Opportunities abound on how to add these procedures to a cardiologist's abilities.

But heart disease prevention? How about heart disease reversal?

Frankly, I'm embarassed by my colleagues' lack of interest. Imagine we had a cure for breast cancer--not a palliative therapy that just slows the disease down or prolongs life, but actually cures it once and for all. I would hope that all physicians and oncologists would learn how to accomplish this. What if instead they focused on learning new ways to remove breasts, administer new toxic chemotherapies, etc. but ignored the whole idea of cure?

This is what is happening with coronary plaque reversal. The answer is right in front of them, but the vast majority (99%) of cardiologists choose to ignore it. After all, prevention and reversal simply don't pay the bills.

That means that, in 2006, you simply cannot rely on your cardiologist to counsel you on how to achieve regression or reversal of coronary plaque. How about your internist, family physician, or primary care doctor? Well, they're busy doing pneumovax injections, Pap smears, managing knee and hip arthritis, low back pain, diarrhea, headaches, sinus infections and . . yes, dabbling in heart disease prevention.

And, for the most part, doing a miserable job of it. What you generally get echoes the drug manufacturers pitch: Take a statin drug, cut the fat in your diet.

Until the majority of doctors catch on, you're going to have to rely on sources like the Track Your Plaque program for better information.

What if your lipoproteins are perfect?



Sandy is a 56-year old woman--fit, slender, physically active, with no bad habits. A retired teacher, she has time to devote to her health. She bikes several days per week, mountain bikes, walks, and takes fitness classes. In short, she's the picture of perfect health.

Her heart scan score was not terribly impressive: 41. However, at her age, this modest score placed her in the 77th percentile. This suggested a heart attack risk of around 2-3% per year.

So we measured Sandy's lipoproteins. They were shockingly normal. In fact, Sandy is among the very rare person with absolutely no small LDL particles. All other patterns were just as favorable, including an HDL in the 80s.

This may seem like good news, but I find it disturbing. People are often initially upset by seeing multiple abnormal lipoprotein patterns. But lipoprotein abnormalities are the tools that we use to gain control over coronary plaque.

So what do we do when there are no abnormalities?

There are several issues to consider:

1) Your heart scan score reflects the sum total of your life up until that point. What if you were 20 lbs heavier 10 years earlier and your lipoproteins were abnormal during that period? Or you smoked until age 45 and quit? As helpful as they are, lipoproteins and related patterns are only a snapshot in time, unlike the heart scan score.

2) You have a vitamin D deficiency. This is unusual as a sole cause of coronary plaque. Much more commonly, it is a co-conspirator.

3) The heart scan is wrong--highly unlikely. Heart scans are actually quite easy, straightforward tests. (The only time this tends to happen is when scoring that appears in the circumflex coronary artery is actually in the nearby mitral valve. This really occurs only when there's very minimal calcium in the valve.)

4) There's a yet unidentified source of risk. Probably very rare but conceivable. For instance, there's an emerging sense that phopholipid patterns may prove to be coronary risks. One clinically available measure that we've not found very useful is phospholipase A2, known by the proprietary name "PLAC" test. (See http://www.plactest.com for more information from the manufacturer/distributor of the test.) But there's probably lots of others that may prove useful in future.

How often does it happen that someone fails to show any identifiable source for their coronary plaque? I can count the number of instances on two fingers--very unusual. (Thank goodness!)

Sandy's case is therefore quite unique. How should we approach her coronary plaque? In this unusual circumstance, lacking a cause, we tend to introduce therapies that may regress plaque independent of any measurable lipoprotein parameters. But that's a whole new conversation.

Fly to India for a bypass operation?


In the June 19, 2006 issue of People Magazine, there's an article called "The Doctor is in . . .INDIA". The report talks about how, with health care costs in the U.S. spiralling out of control, more and more Americans are leaving the country to have their procedure performed.

They tell the story of Mr. Carlo Gislimberti of New Mexico and cite these numbers:

Heart Surgery
Cost in U.S.: $200,000

Cost in India: $10,000


Mr. Gislimberti opted to have his coronary bypass operation in India for cost reasons.

But the People magazine report left out one other option: The Track Your Plaque program: $39.00

Do your part to save ballooning health care costs: Engage in a truly powerful program of heart disease prevention like the Track Your Plaque program. The cost difference is laughably huge. And you won't require a 12-inch chest incision.

Follow conventional guidelines and guess what? You're going to have a heart attack. Follow the American Heart Association diet and you'll have heart disease.

Cut to the chase. The only program that is able to detect, track, and control coronary plaque better than any other process I know of is this program.

Note: I am not proposing that a heart disease prevention program like Track Your Plaque can replace a procedure like coronary bypass when a dangerous situation has developed. The Track Your Plaque program is designed to be implemented in the years before heart surgery is required. That's when you have the greatest control over your fate.

Surprise: Heart scan score reversal

Gene is a jovial, fun-loving railroad worker who didn't take anything too seriously--including his heart scan score of 767.

This score placed Gene solidly in the 99th percentile (in the worst 1%). It came as no surprise to Gene. After all, his father died at age 36 of a heart attack and Gene's brother died at 60 of a heart attack. So Gene took life as it came and long ago decided not to fret about his fate.

But Gene's wife prodded him and prodded him to get the heart scan. That's when I met him.

Of course, Gene had been prescribed Lipitor by his doctor for a somewhat high LDL cholesterol. Our assessment uncovered several additional patterns including lipoprotein (a), small LDL, a pre-diabetic tendency, and a severe deficiency of vitamin D.

At 224 lb and 5 ft 6 inches in height, I felt that Gene was at least 40 lbs overweight.

One year later and with reasonable correction of all his patterns except weight loss and Gene's heart scan score was 590--a reduction of 23%!

Gene was thrilled, as was I. But, frankly, I was also surprised. Dramatic regression of coronary plaque tends to not occur so readily as long as pre-diabetic patterns persist and weight is not controlled.

The lesson: Often the only way to tell if you've achieved control or regression of coronary plaque is to have another heart scan. The tremendous variation in human responses never ceases to amaze me.

Call me when you're having chest pain


I met a patient, Anna, yesterday. She was quite frustrated and frightened.

At age 50, Anna suffered a heart attack and received a stent to her left anterior descending coronary artery. What she found upsetting is that, because several members of her family had suffered heart attacks in their 40s (Dad--heart attack at age 45, paternal uncle--heart attack age 40, and even another uncle with heart attack in his late 20s), she had repeatedly asked her doctor whether she was okay.

She received the usual array of false assurances: "You're feeling fine, right? Then don't worry about it." "Look. Your cholesterol is in the normal range. Even your cholesterol/HDL ratio is fine." "Women don't get heart disease until later in life."

All proved absolutely false. As we talked, Anna exclaimed, "I think what I've been told all along is that we'll take you seriously when you finally have a heart attack!"

She's exactly right. The vast majority of times, heart disease is discovered by accident, usually because of an "event" like heart attack. This is like changing the oil in your car when it finally breaks down--it's too late.

CT heart scan, followed by lipoprotein testing and associated values, then correction of your specific causes. It's that simple.
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