When niacin doesn't work 20. September 2007 William Davis (7) Dan had the usual collection of metabolic syndrome lipoprotein abnormalities: low HDL of 28 mg/dl, triglycerides 280 mg/dl, 90% of his LDL particles were small. Along with elimination of wheat and junk foods, exercise, and fish oil, I asked Dan to add niacin. I usually ask people to buy SloNiacin and begin at 500 mg per day with dinner, increased to 1000 mg per day at dinner after 4 weeks. Dan came back several months later. His lab results: HDL 40 mg/dl, triglycerides 76 mg/dl. (We didn't repeat the full lipoprotein analysis, so no small LDL value was available.) Better, though still some room for improvement. I urged Dan to stick to his program, lose some more weight off his 260 lb frame, exercise, be strict about the wheat products. Dan returned another few months later. Lab results: HDL 29 mg/dl, triglycerides 130 mg/dl. Dan had lost another 8 lbs and was reasonably compliant with his diet. What's going on here? Why would he backtrack on HDL and triglycerides despite sticking to his program? I asked Dan where he purchased his niacin. "I got it from Sam's Club. The pharmacist said to try this 'no-flush' kind so the hot flush wouldn't bother me."Aha! It's no wonder. "No-flush" niacin, or inositol hexaniacinate, is an outright scam. It has virtually no effect on lipids or lipoproteins in humans. It's therefore no surprise that, by replacing real niacin with the no-flush variety, Dan's blood patterns began to revert back to their original state.Let me be straight on this: No-flush niacin is a scam. It does not work: it does not raise HDL, reduce triglycerides, nor reduce small LDL. It's expensive, too, far more expensive than the real thing. It has no business being sold by stores like Sam's Club or your health food store. SloNiacin (Upsher Smith) has become our preferred preparation. (I obtain no compensation of any sort for saying so.) We buy it at Walgreen's.
Niacin and blood sugar 19. September 2007 William Davis (14) We've been engaging in a conversation on the Track Your Plaque Forum on whether niacin raises blood sugar. Yes, it does. In the vast majority of instances, however, the rise is trivial and without consequence. Typically, someone will start with a borderline elevated blood sugar of, say, 108 mg/dl. Niacin, 1000 mg per day, then raises blood sugar to 112 mg/dl. This small increase does not oblige any specific action, nor does it pose any excess risk. Blood sugars in the normal range of <100 mg/dl tend not to show this effect. Higher blood sugars, e.g., 130 mg/dl, may show a more exagerrated effect but it is also rarely of great consequence. People who take medications for adult type II diabetes, or people with childhood-onset, type I diabetes will also experience rises in blood sugar. This is a somewhat larger issue in these people. Niacin is best undertaken with a change in diet, specifically a reduction in processed carbohydrate foods, particularly evil and ubiquitous wheat products.This will often compensate for the blood sugar effect. Niacin also shares many of the benefits of weight loss: rise in HDL, drop in triglycerides and small LDL. Keep it all in perspective: If HDL is low, e.g., 30 mg/dl, or there is a significant small LDL pattern, or you have Lp(a), using niacin--vitamin B3--is quite safe and the most effective treatment we have. It's also a vitamin. Also recall the famous HATS Trial of simvastatin and niacin: simvastatin (Zocor) reduced heart attack risk 30%; adding niacin reduced heart attack risk an astounding 90%. Very few strategies can yield the enormous benefits, both as a stand-alone treatment or in combination with others, that niacin can, whether or not blood sugar creeps up a few milligrams.
Statin drugs and Coenzyme Q10 17. September 2007 William Davis (10) I am continually impressed at how few of my colleagues take advantage of a wonderful nutritional supplement, Coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10). Despite some of the recent backlash against statin agents, I do believe that they serve a role. I take issue with the pharmaceutical industry's endless advertising and force-feeding of drugs to the public and to physicians. Nonetheless, statin agents do serve a purpose. If you go to your doctor with a fever of 103 degrees, coughing up thick yellow sputum, and you are struggling to breathe, would you refuse an antibiotic for pneumonia? Probably not. But an antibiotic for a sore throat may be a different matter. So it goes with the statin drugs, too. An otherwise healthy 50-year-old woman with an LDL cholesterol of 140 mg/dl probably does not need a statin drug. A 35-year-old man with heterozygous hypercholesterolemia with an LDL cholesterol of 280 mg/dl, who will develop his first heart attack within the next 2 or 3 years, does need these drugs. The rub, of course, is deciding who in between also needs them. Let's just accept that some people do indeed need a statin drug for one reason or another. How common are the muscle aches?In my experience, muscle aches are inevitable. The longer you take a statin drug, the more likely you will develop them. The higher the dose, the more likely. Thankfully, for most people muscle aches are more of a nuisance than a real danger. Usually, a reduced dose of the drug, periodic breaks from the drug (we often advise one or two weeks off every three months), or a change to another agent helps. However, in my view, coenzyme Q10 provides a virtual antidote to most of the muscle aches and weakness. A recent review was published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiologist that concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support the use of CoQ10 for this purpose. Obviously, the authors do not use CoQ10 in everyday practice. If they did, they would have no doubt whatsoever that CoQ10 provides the majority of people with complete relief of the muscle complaints. Time and time again, I have witnessed complete relief from muscle aches and muscle weakness from statin drugs using CoQ10. However, in our experience, a dose of at least 100 mg per day needs to be maintained. Occasionally, a higher dose will be necessary, e.g., 300 mg per day. The preparation also must--MUST--be an oil-based gelcap to work (just like vitamin D). The capsules that contain powder are so poorly absorbed that they usually fail to yield the needed effects. Pictured is the Sam's Club (Members' Mark brand) that has served us well, providing reliable effects at a reasonable price. (CoQ10 is expensive, no matter where you buy it. That's the only drawback I'm aware of.) GNC has a great preparation, as does Life Extension. Just be sure it is a gelcap, not a capsule filled with powder.There's more to CoQ10 than relief of statin muscle aches. More about that in future.
More Andy Kessler 15. September 2007 William Davis (2) I can't help but quote a few more passages from Andy Kessler's irreverent but nonetheless insightful book, The End of Medicine. I find his quotes irresistible because I believe that he is (unintentionally) describing precisely what we are doing in the Track Your Plaque program:"Maybe the jig is up on the cholesterol conspiracy. Any real scientist running studies on cholesterol drugs would not just check to see if participants in the study had a heart attack. You would scan, check for plaque, provide drugs, scan again, see if the plaque increased or decreased, repeat. Instead, we have a multibillion-dollar statin business based on vagaries and deception." Kessler cuts to the chase on that one. Except we do it with a lot of things beyond drugs. "256-slice scanners, faster than your heartbeat, just might be the magic pill of diagnosis. It's as if doctors will be saying I was blind before i could see. . . Six blind doctors feeling around an elephant and describing a wall, spear, snake, tree, fan and a rope. Looking for clues in all the wrong places. Measuring cholesterol and blood pressure is like reading the outside temperature and humidity from inside your house and guessing if it's raining. Open the window, stick your goddamn hand outside and know for sure. How much do these scans have to cost to become widespread? $500? $100? $20? It almost doesn't matter. The savings come over time. Spread the R&D over millions and you get scale. It works.. . . what if the spending was on detection instead of intervention? With some breakthrough, the economic consequences can be staggering. if medicine as we know it is replaced by health monitoring, hmmmm . . ." Get beyond his humor and you see that Kessler shares our appreciation of the futility of cholesterol testing for predicting your heart's future. He advocates early detection, no surprise. And lastly:"I go to conferences about wikis and Wi-Fis, podcasts and blogs, and I always leave with an empty feeling, bored to tears. It's all great stuff, but technology somehow seems gripped with incrementalism. It's all really neat and cool and wow, but somehow predictable. Gee, in five years we'll have cheap terabyte drives so that we can, what, watch Simpsons reruns and shop more efficiently?Forget that. It's all about taking control. One by one, industries are being democratized. Power is shifting from producers and service providers to users. . . Power to the people--everywhere except medicine . . . With the right tools, we'll all take control."Amen. He's right. Taking control of health care out of the hands of the doctors and putting it in your own hands. But you are going to need better tools, more information, and guidance. I couldn't have said it any better.
The End of Medicine 14. September 2007 William Davis (0) "It's not about staying young--it's about staying healthy. They say 60 is the new 50. If you stay healthy, got a good ticker lay off tobacco, are lucky enough to avoid some weird cancer, you can kick up your heels, keep running your company, or better yet, travel the world, hike a mountain, ski Zermatt--heck, Tony Randall even started a new family. But that's a big if. We pump ourselves with cholesterol-lowering drugs as if that was the magic elixir. Not so simple. Instead, our skin is getting peeled back for a quick look inside. This is the end of medicine as we know it. Don't guess that I might have hardening of the arteries. Open me up and take a look. Don't guess that I don't have cancer because I'm not spitting up blood or growing a tumor the size of a grapefruit out my side." If you can get beyond some of the frat-boy joking in the book, you will see that the author, Andy Kessler, actually acquires some pretty canny insights into the future of medicine in his book, The End of Medicine. It's a book not about the end of medicine, but about the end of medicine as we know it today: the doctor by the bedside, the treating-when-symptoms-appear approach that characterizes current practice. Instead, Kessler predicts that new technology will supplant the role of doctor-as-gatekeeper and decision-maker. Early detection is key. He picked up on that right away, as his quote above shows. Despite the sophomoric humor, I was impressed that much of the Track Your Plaque approach--online, self-empowered, based on the concept of early detection followed by practical and effective tools for correction, involving your doctor only peripherally--is what Kessler is trying to articulate. In actuality, I would not necessarily recommend his book, unless you need a light moment and some fodder for thinking about our health future. But he does have some startling insights for a guy who just invests money and has no real health background. Another excerpt:CT AnxietyI always feel a certain anxiety when I walk into the Hyatt Regency at the bottom of California Avenue in San Francisco. The cutsie Trolley car outside, the Embarcadero tile pattern on the sidewalk — they are all part of the package. But as I've done every time I've been there, I head straight into the lobby, tilt my head back and scan the Escher-like floors, starting at the top and then down and outwards to the bottom until I start feeling dizzy. I thank Mel Brooks for this. This guy was zooming through someone's brain like it was a Sunday drive. More like a Sunday afternoon video game. With my head spinning from this "High Anxiety" flashback, I stroll into the conference, half expecting to be given a barium enema by a cross between Nurse Diesel from Mel Brooks' flick and Nurse Ratched from One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest. I really gotta switch to decaf on days like this.The 7th International Multi-Detector Row Computed Tomography Symposium sounded innocuous enough. I assumed it would be a bunch of technical papers on the future of scanning, where I would read the paper in the darkened hall until lunchtime and then head off for some hot Hunan and home.Instead, the place was like a carnival for cardiologists. Kessler has, in Silicon Valley style, left a wide wake of electronic content to get a better view of his ideas. There is a podcast located on the In All posts by william-davis Toggle navigation Home Blog Home Archive Join Now Log in Wheat "debate" on CBC 11. October 2011 William Davis (29) "Many Canadians plan warm buns, stuffing and pie for their Thanksgiving meals tonight. But I'll speak with a cardiologist who thinks we have no reason to be thankful for any food that contains wheat. William Davis says our daily bread is making us fat and sick."That's the introduction to my recent interview and debate on CBC, the Canadian public radio system, aired on the Canadian Thanksgiving. Arguing the other side was Dr. Susan Whiting, an academic nutritionist. (I use the word "arguing" loosely, since she hardly argued the issues, certainly hadn't read the book, but was content to echo the conventional line that whole grains are healthy and cutting out a food group is unhealthy.) I do have to give credit to the Canadian media, including the CBC, who have been hosting some rough-and-tumble discussions about the entire wheat question despite Canada being a world exporter of wheat. I recently participated in another debate with a PhD nutrition expert from Montreal who, in response to my assertion that the genetically-altered high-yield, semi-dwarf strains have changed the basic composition of wheat, argued that the creation of the 2-foot tall semi-dwarf strain was a convenience created so that farmers could see above their fields--no kidding. I stifled my laugh. (The semi-dwarf variants were actually created to compensate for the heavy seed head that develops with vigorous nitrate fertilization that buckles 4 1/2-foot tall wheat stalk, making harvesting and threshing impossible, a process farmers call "lodging." The 2-foot tall semi-dwarf thick, stocky stalk is strong enough to resist lodging.) In short, debating the nutrition "experts" on this question has been tantamount to arguing with a school age child on the finer points of quantum physics. There has not yet been any real objection raised on the basic arguments against modern genetically-altered wheat. Modern semi-dwarf wheat is, and remains, an incredibly bad creation of the genetics laboratories of the 1970s. It has no business on the shelves of your grocery store nor on the cupboards in your home. Carrot Cake 5. October 2011 William Davis (14) This is among my favorite recipes from the Wheat Belly book. I reproduce it here for those of you who read the Kindle or audio version and therefore didn't get the recipes.I made this most recently this past weekend. It was gone very quickly, as even the 13-year old gobbled it up.(I reduced the sour cream in this version from 8 to 6 oz to reduce cooking time. Also, note that anyone trying to avoid dairy can substitute more coconut milk, i.e., the thicker variety, in equivalent quantities.)Makes 8-10 servings Ingredients:Cake:2 cups carrots, finely grated1 cup chopped pecans1 cup coconut flour1 tablespoon ground flaxseed2 teaspoons ground cinnamon1 teaspoon allspice1 teaspoon nutmeg1 teaspoon baking powder2 tablespoons freshly grated orange peelSweetener equivalent to ½ cup sugar (e.g., 4 tablespoons Truvia)½ teaspoon sea salt4 eggs1/2 cup butter or coconut oil, melted2 teaspoons vanilla extract½ cup coconut milk6 ounces sour creamIcing:8 ounces cream cheese or Neufchâtel cheese, softened1 teaspoon lemon juice1 tablespoon Truvía or 1/8 teaspoon stevia extract powder or ¼ cup SplendaPreheat oven to 325° degrees F. Grate carrots and set aside.Combine coconut flour, flaxseed, cinnamon, nutmeg, baking powder, orange peel, sweetener, and salt in large bowl and mix by hand.Put eggs, butter or coconut oil, vanilla coconut milk, and sour cream in mixing bowl; mix by hand. Pour liquid mixture into dry pecan/coconut flour mixture and blend with power mixer until thoroughly mixed. Stir carrots and pecans in by hand with spoon. Pour mixture into greased 9- or 10-inch square cake pan.Bake for 60 minutes or until toothpick withdraws dry. Allow to cool 30 minutes.Place Neufchâtel cheese in bowl. Add lemon juice and sweetener and mix thoroughly. Spread on cake. Why wheat makes you fat 1. October 2011 William Davis (32) 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. Just who is "Real Facts 2000"? 29. September 2011 William Davis (38) This is an example of what seems to be developing over at Amazon.com, posted as a "book review": The author has no credentials, no credibility, just a small cult of terribly misinformed followers. Don't be fooled by the high volume screech against wheat and grains. Allegations of "secret ingredients in wheat" to make you eat more, or comparisons to cigerettes. Seriously?! For over 8000 years wheat has sustained and grown human kind, oh and it tastes good when mixed with a little water and yeast. Every nutritionist and serious medical professional will tell you that bread is the most economical and safe source of essential nutrients. In fact, bread is handed out in natural disasters because it sustains life without food safety issues or requiring refrigeration. And now, suddenly it will kill you. Comical! This book is such a bone headed, misinformed way to just scare people into not eating. As for secret ingredients, humm, apparently the author is ignorant of the food laws that regulate everything that goes into food and on food labels. Unlike some enforcement agencies, the FDA has some serious teeth behind its enforcement. As for frankenwheat, again seriously?! Wheat, due to its ubiquitous presence in the world is treated as sacrosant from any GMO research or development. If you need real, science based information on healthy eating, check out [...] and leave this book and its cult in the compound.If you recognize the wording and tone, you will readily recognize the footprints of the Wheat Lobby here. "Terribly misinformed followers"? . . . Hmmm. "Food laws"? I didn't realize that eating more "healthy whole grains" was a . . . law?Make no mistake: There are people and organizations who have a heavy stake in your continued consumption of the equivalent of 300 loaves of bread per year. There are people and organizations (read: pharmaceutical industry) who have a big stake on the "payoff" of your continued consumption of "healthy whole grains." This is not a book review; this is part of a concerted, organized campaign to discredit a message that needs to be heard. Anybody from the media listening? Almonds are the new wheat 29. September 2011 William Davis (31) Once you eliminate this genetically-altered Frankengrain called modern wheat, the diet should center around vegetables, nuts, healthy oils like olive and coconut, fish, meats, cheese, olives, avocados and other real whole foods. This is, in fact, the diet that I have advocated in my heart disease prevention practice, as well as my online program for prevention and reversal of heart disease. But what if you'd like a piece of cheesecake or a nice slice of dessert bread---but you don't want to gain two pounds, spend 48 hours in the bathroom suffering with diarrhea and cramps, 3 weeks of joint pains and leg swelling, wade through mental "fog," anxiety, and rage just because you had that momentary indulgence---as you would with wheat? That's why I've been focusing on recipes that allow you to have something familiar, e.g., chocolate coconut bread or biscotti, but using ingredients that will not generate the metabolic contortions triggered by wheat. On perusing these recipes, you will notice that there are recurring ingredient themes. Many of the same ingredients pop up time and again. Among the most frequent, versatile, user-friendly, and tasty: Almonds. You can use almonds as ground whole almonds, ground blanched almonds for a finer texture, ground roasted almonds, almond butter (though, for maximum health benefits, I prefer the ground whole almonds). Ground almonds allow you to recreate muffins, breads, scones, pizza crust, pie crust, biscotti, and cookies with health benefits that exceed that of whole wheat---but with none of the downside: no weight gain, no high blood sugar, no triggering of small LDL particles (#1 cause of heart disease in the U.S.), no accumulation of visceral fat, no appetite stimulation. In short, you just have your chocolate almond biscotti or mocha cupcake and enjoy it, no health price to pay. So I call almonds the new wheat, except better. Being regular is dangerous to your health 25. September 2011 William Davis (21) No, I'm not referring to your daily morning ritual in the bathroom. I'm talking about heart rate.Counterintuitively, a perfectly regular heart rate is a marker of poor health. People with perfect regularity of heart rate have more heart attacks, for instance.Regularity of heart rate occurs more commonly in people with hypertension and other metabolic derangements, and it signals increased risk for both heart attack and death. A perfectly regular heart rate, i.e., no variation in the time interval from beat to beat, suggests that the parasympathetic nervous system, the component of automatic ("autonomic") nervous system control that is associated with the relaxation response, feelings of well-being, quiet, and relaxation, is weak. It also means that the opposing sympathetic nervous sytem that regulates the "fight or flight," adrenaline-like response is allowed to be dominant. Dominance of the sympathetic over the parasympathetic system generates regularity of heart rate. Heart rate also tends to be faster, e.g., 85 beats per minutes rather than 55 or 60 beats per minute. So perfect regularity, as well as increased rate, is undesirable.What we want is irregularity of heart rate. But not irregularity that occurs chaotically with no rhyme or reason. More precisely, we want variability in heart rate. And we want variability to occur in synchrony with breathing, i.e., the respiratory cycle.The ideal response is:1) increase in heart rate with inspiration2) decrease in heart rate with expiration.Heart rate in healthy people typically varies 15-20 beats per minute within the respiratory cycle, e.g., 60 bpm at end-exhalation, 80 bpm at end-inspiration. Restoration of increased heart rate variability is associated with reduced blood pressure, reduced blood sugars (HbA1c), reduced inflammatory markers and cortisol (associated with stress), even an increase in DHEA levels. Feelings of well-being and calm also develop. Among the strategies to consider to restore heightened heart rate variability and slowed heart rate include:--Omega-3 fatty acid supplementation--Exercise--Weight loss--Deep breathing exercises--Meditation, prayer, and biofeedbackFor our Track Your Plaque purposes, we are folding in the HeartMath strategies, i.e., use of a heart rate monitor that calculates heart rate variability in the context of respiratory cycle. If you've not already done so, take a look at the two Special Reports devoted to this topic on the Track Your Plaque website. You mean weight loss is hazardous to your health? 23. September 2011 William Davis (11) In my last Heart Scan Blog post, What is this wacky thing called weight loss?, I discussed how weight loss is associated with distortions in cholesterol and blood sugar values that can be very confusing, often leading your doctor to wrongly and unnecessarily prescribe drugs--since he/she likely rarely sees weight loss.Blog reader, Donald K., posted his enlightening story: I experienced this very thing. After losing serious weight from the eliminating wheat, processed, and sugary foods (1 year in total) I lost 130 pounds. When I was nearly finished I went to see my doctor. He wanted to put me on statins. I explained to him how the data does not support application to me (no evidence of heart disease) and I got the mantra about standards of practice, etc, etc. I held my ground and decided I am much happier eating dairy, eggs, grass fed beef, wild caught fish, and as much raw foods (nuts, veggies, fruits) as my body desires to treat my health parameters. Maintaining weight, it is easy. My BMI (23 down from 40) has remained constant for a few months now. You are right: metabolic processes definitely change. I no longer have sensations of glucose fluctuations or an uncontrolled appetite. I can only imagine the improved hormone regulation and metabolic communication going on inside my body. The symptoms from obesity, all gone. Goodbye sleep apnea, hypertension, hemorrhoids, arrhythmias, gastroinestinal disruptions, smelly body, chaffing thighs, and others not mentioned. The positive effects are just as dramatic, but I don’t want to ramble on. Weight loss? What is it? Getting your life back!Brace yourself: If you are following the nutrition advice posted here and in the Track Your Plaque program, or the discussion I've initiated in Wheat Belly, then you may find yourself in the very same health predicament as Donald. Arm yourself to protect yourself against the drug-wielding ways of doctors. No, weight loss to achieve ideal weight is definitely not bad for health. But your doctor's misinterpretation of its effects can be! What is this wacky thing called "weight loss"? 20. September 2011 William Davis (41) I've discussed this before, but it has proven such an (encouragingly!) frequent issue that I thought it was worth discussing once again.What happens when you lose weight?The process of weight loss is characterized by multiple shifts in metabolic patterns that can be confusing. To the uninitiated eye, weight loss can look like a disastrous distortion in metabolism. The naive doctor on seeing your lab values, for instance, might insist you take a statin drug, a fibrate like Tricor (to reduce triglycerides or increase HDL), or simply berate you for your bad health habits--when it's actually a good thing you've accomplished.So when you lose weight, say, 30 pounds in 3 months, what have you accomplished?Energy stored as fat, especially from visceral fat stores, is mobilized into the bloodstream. It floods the bloodstream as fatty acids and triglycerides. These fatty acids and triglycerides don't occur in isolation, but interact with other particles and metabolic patterns. The resulting blood patterns include:--Increased triglycerides--An increase in triglycerides, for instance, from 90 mg/dl to 200 mg/dl in the midst of weight loss is common.--Reduced HDL--The flood of triglycerides leads to increased degradation of HDL, thus a drop. A drop in HDL from, say, 40 mg/dl to 27 mg/dl--very frightening to people--is exceptionally common.--Increased blood sugar--The flood of fatty acids and triglycerides results in insulin resistance, leading to higher blood sugars. It is not uncommon for someone with pre-diabetes to develop diabetic-range blood sugars, or a non-diabetic to show pre-diabetic blood sugars.--Increased small LDL particles--Though small LDL is highly variable during weight loss. When it does happen, it's probably from the interaction of VLDL (triglycerides) with LDL particles and the reaction that overloads LDL particles with triglycerides and conversion to small LDL particles.So why don't doctors often recognize these patterns when a patient loses weight? Because they rarely see it. Most of my colleagues are accustomed to having patients come back with weight gain, getting heavier and heavier each time. Lose weight? Impossible! So they just don't recognize weight loss effects when they see it. As followers of The Heart Scan Blog know, a frequent conversation around here is "Am I too skinny?" or "How do I stop losing weight?"The solution: Be patient. Be patient and wait about two months after a weight plateau has been achieved. That's when the numbers "settle down" and you see marked drops in triglycerides, increases in HDL, drops in blood sugar, reductions in small LDL.As with many things, it's all about timing. Why small LDL particles are the #1 cause of heart disease in the US 15. September 2011 William Davis (77) Ask your doctor: What is the #1 cause of heart disease in the US?Let's put aside smoking, since it is an eminently modifiable risk and none of those crazies read this blog anyway. What will your doctor say? Most like he or she will respond:High cholesterol or high LDL cholesterolToo much saturated fatObesityPfizer, Merck, AstraZeneca and their kind would be overjoyed to know that they can add your doctor to their eager following.I'd tell you something different. I would tell you that small LDL particles are, by far and away, the #1 cause for heart disease. I base this claim on several observations:--Having run over 10,000 lipoprotein panels (mostly NMR) over the past 15 years, it is a rare person who does not have a moderate, if not severe, excess of small LDL particles. 50%, 70%, even 90% or more small LDL particles are not rare. Over the course of a year, the only people who show no small LDL particles are slender, athletic, pre-menopausal females.--In studies in which lipoproteins have been quantified in people with coronary disease, small LDL particles dominate, just as they do in my office. Here's a 2006 review.--Small LDL is largely the province of people who consume carbohydrates, such as the American population instructed to "cut fat and eat more healthy whole grains." Conventional diet advice has therefore triggered an expllosion in small LDL particles.--When fasting triglycerides exceed 60 mg/dl, small LDL particles increase as a proportion of total LDL particles. This includes the majority of the US population. (This ignores postprandial, or after-eating, triglycerides, which also contribute to small LDL formation.)If you were to read the data, however, you might conclude that small LDL affects a minority of people. This is because in most studies small LDL categorize it as either "pattern B," meaning exceeding some arbitrary threshold of percentage of small LDL particles, versus "pattern A," meaning falling below that same arbitrary threshold.Problem: There is no consensus on what percentage of small LDL particles should mark the cutoff between pattern A vs. pattern B. In many studies, for instance, people with 50% small LDL particles are called "pattern A."If, instead, we were to set the bar lower to identify this highly atherogenic (atherosclerotic plaque-causing) particle at, say, 20-30% of total, then the number or percentage of people with "pattern B" small LDL particles would go much higher.I see this play out in my office and in the online program, Track Your Plaque, every day: At the start eating a low-fat, grain-filled diet with lots of visceral fat ("wheat belly") to start, they add back fat and cut out all wheat and limit carbohydrates. Small LDL particles plummet Even moore from Jimmy Moore 14. September 2011 William Davis (8) The ubiquitous and irrepressible Jimmy Moore posted even more commentary about the Wheat Belly phenomenon here, what he calls "The Wheat Belly Bonanza." Is low-carb really, at its core, little more than elimination of wheat? Sure, corn, rice, and sugar exert deleterious effects. But the dominant effect--by far--is the elimination of wheat. So is the low-carb movement really, at its core, a wheat-elimination movement?Food (non-wheat-containing, of course) for thought. << Older posts Newer posts >> Newer posts12345678910...121122Older posts We got the drug industry we deserve Toggle navigation Home Blog Home Archive Join Now Log in We got the drug industry we deserve 14. October 2011 William Davis (6) A biting commentary on just who is writing treatment guidelines for diabetes and cardiovascular disease was published in the British Medical Journal, summarized in theHeart.org's HeartWire here. "About half the experts serving on the committees that wrote national clinical guidelines for diabetes and hyperlipidemia over the past decade had potential financial conflicts of interest (COI), and about 4% had conflicts that were not disclosed."Five of the guidelines did not include a declaration of the panel members' conflicts of interest, but 138 of the 288 panel members (48%) reported conflicts of interest at the time of the publication of the guideline. Eight reported more than one conflict. Of those who declared conflicts, 93% reported receiving honoraria, speaker's fees, and/or other kinds of payments or stock ownership from drug manufacturers with an interest in diabetes or hyperlipidemia, and 7% reported receiving only research funding. Six panelists who declared conflicts were chairs of their committee."Of the 73 panelists who had a chance to declare a conflict of interest but declared none, eight had undeclared COI that the researchers identified by searching other sources. Among the 77 panel members who did not have an opportunity to publicly declare COI in the guidelines documents, four were found to have COI."The closing quote by Dr. Edwin Gale of the UK is priceless: "Legislation will not change the situation, for the smart money is always one step ahead. What is needed is a change of culture in which serving two masters becomes as socially unacceptable as smoking a cigarette. Until then, the drug industry will continue to model its behavior on that of its consumers, and we will continue to get the drug industry we deserve."It's like having Kellogg's tell us what to each for breakfast, or Toyota telling us what car to drive. The sway of the drug industry is huge. Even to this day, I observe colleagues kowtow to the sexy sales rep hawking her wares. But that's the least of it. Far worse, even the "experts" who we had trusted to have objectively reviewed the evidence to help the practitioner on Main Street appears to be little more than a hired lackey for Big Pharma, hoping for that extra few hundred thousand dollars. Related posts We got the drug industry we deserve A biting commentary on just who is writing treatment guidelines for diabetes and cardiovascular dise... Drug industry "Deep Throat" A Heart Scan Blog reader brought the following letter from a former pharmaceutical sales representat... Statin drug revolt I sense a growing revolt against the intrusion of statin drugs into our lives. No doubt, the statin ... Comments (6) - Jim Purdy 10/14/2011 1:36:03 AM | I am not a fan of any drugs, and as a result, I change primary care physician regularly, usually after two visits.ON THE FIRST VISIT, I explain to the new doctor that I do not, and will not, take prescription medications. I explain that the only reason I am in their office is to get orders for lab work, so that I can review the results and make my own decisions about lifestyle changes, especially diet. The doctor then calls me" non-compliant" and prints numerous computer-generated prescriptions anyway. Obviously, it is the doctor who is non-compliant, since I have already said I do not want drugs.ON THE SECOND VISIT, the doctor asks, "Have you been taking your medications as ordered?" When I tell the doctor again, as I did at the first visit, that I do not take medications, the doctor says, "You're crazy and suicidal." I then find the next doctor, and the cycle starts over.As I see things, I have two choices when I feel ill:1. I could attack my body with some bizarre BigPharma chemicals that our ancestors' bodies have never dealt with in millions of years of evolution (Oxycodone, hydrocodone? Really? Are doctors nuts?).2. Or I could get out of the way and let my body heal itself as has been done over many millions of years of evolution. All I want to do is support that process by making sure to give my body the proper nutrition in the form of the appropriate whole foods. Dr. William Davis 10/14/2011 3:40:23 AM | Wow, Jim. Creepy. Don't despair: I'm confident that you will eventually find a healthcare practitioner who will act as your advocate, not a provider of drugs. It may take, unfortunately, going through quite a few practitioners before you come on such a person. Suze 10/19/2011 1:44:46 AM | Great post. I am starting to think there are two kinds of people - those who seek drugs and those who run from them. LOL. Among other occupations, I am an OR nurse. I have been wined and dined by the best reps ever, to buy their wares for surgery. It's all about the money.The drug companies have a lot to lose if we all quit taking their meds. Which is exactly what I want to do. I do not want to be a slave to a diagnosis and accompanying pill bottle. I want to be freeeeee.This is not to say there is a time and place for medicine. There IS. But not for every sniffle. Jeanne 10/20/2011 11:44:20 AM | Boy Suze, I can relate! I'm a nurse as well and spent lots of years in NICU, but a change to chemical dependancy/psych was eye opening and downright disgusting in the amount of meds handed out.I used to ask patients if they were hungry when dispensing a 6oz. Cup FULL of various pills before breakfast! Couldn't take it and quit. Couldn't be a party to pharm management over real therapy. I also take as few pills as possible, especially antibiotics. N 11/30/2011 6:36:01 PM | Hi Doc,I just visited my parents, and my mom shared her recent blood work with me.Her cholesterol was a mere 210, and her doc (general practitioner), put her on a statin !!!I told her about your blog a bit and particle size, but of course she's hesitant since her doctor obviously has more credibility than me.Outside of eating better, what next steps should I advise her to take? She agreed to request a cholesterol particle size test (is there an official name for this?). Dr. William Davis 12/1/2011 4:22:01 AM | Yes, N: Lipoprotein testing, such as NMR Lipoprofile or Atherotech VAP. It really shouldn't be that tough, but we are battling the incredible ignorance in the primary care community who is spread too thin to master any one area. Add comment Comment Preview Name * E-mail * Comment * Preview Notify me when new comments are added The captcha text was not valid. Please try again.
Wheat "debate" on CBC 11. October 2011 William Davis (29) "Many Canadians plan warm buns, stuffing and pie for their Thanksgiving meals tonight. But I'll speak with a cardiologist who thinks we have no reason to be thankful for any food that contains wheat. William Davis says our daily bread is making us fat and sick."That's the introduction to my recent interview and debate on CBC, the Canadian public radio system, aired on the Canadian Thanksgiving. Arguing the other side was Dr. Susan Whiting, an academic nutritionist. (I use the word "arguing" loosely, since she hardly argued the issues, certainly hadn't read the book, but was content to echo the conventional line that whole grains are healthy and cutting out a food group is unhealthy.) I do have to give credit to the Canadian media, including the CBC, who have been hosting some rough-and-tumble discussions about the entire wheat question despite Canada being a world exporter of wheat. I recently participated in another debate with a PhD nutrition expert from Montreal who, in response to my assertion that the genetically-altered high-yield, semi-dwarf strains have changed the basic composition of wheat, argued that the creation of the 2-foot tall semi-dwarf strain was a convenience created so that farmers could see above their fields--no kidding. I stifled my laugh. (The semi-dwarf variants were actually created to compensate for the heavy seed head that develops with vigorous nitrate fertilization that buckles 4 1/2-foot tall wheat stalk, making harvesting and threshing impossible, a process farmers call "lodging." The 2-foot tall semi-dwarf thick, stocky stalk is strong enough to resist lodging.) In short, debating the nutrition "experts" on this question has been tantamount to arguing with a school age child on the finer points of quantum physics. There has not yet been any real objection raised on the basic arguments against modern genetically-altered wheat. Modern semi-dwarf wheat is, and remains, an incredibly bad creation of the genetics laboratories of the 1970s. It has no business on the shelves of your grocery store nor on the cupboards in your home.
Carrot Cake 5. October 2011 William Davis (14) This is among my favorite recipes from the Wheat Belly book. I reproduce it here for those of you who read the Kindle or audio version and therefore didn't get the recipes.I made this most recently this past weekend. It was gone very quickly, as even the 13-year old gobbled it up.(I reduced the sour cream in this version from 8 to 6 oz to reduce cooking time. Also, note that anyone trying to avoid dairy can substitute more coconut milk, i.e., the thicker variety, in equivalent quantities.)Makes 8-10 servings Ingredients:Cake:2 cups carrots, finely grated1 cup chopped pecans1 cup coconut flour1 tablespoon ground flaxseed2 teaspoons ground cinnamon1 teaspoon allspice1 teaspoon nutmeg1 teaspoon baking powder2 tablespoons freshly grated orange peelSweetener equivalent to ½ cup sugar (e.g., 4 tablespoons Truvia)½ teaspoon sea salt4 eggs1/2 cup butter or coconut oil, melted2 teaspoons vanilla extract½ cup coconut milk6 ounces sour creamIcing:8 ounces cream cheese or Neufchâtel cheese, softened1 teaspoon lemon juice1 tablespoon Truvía or 1/8 teaspoon stevia extract powder or ¼ cup SplendaPreheat oven to 325° degrees F. Grate carrots and set aside.Combine coconut flour, flaxseed, cinnamon, nutmeg, baking powder, orange peel, sweetener, and salt in large bowl and mix by hand.Put eggs, butter or coconut oil, vanilla coconut milk, and sour cream in mixing bowl; mix by hand. Pour liquid mixture into dry pecan/coconut flour mixture and blend with power mixer until thoroughly mixed. Stir carrots and pecans in by hand with spoon. Pour mixture into greased 9- or 10-inch square cake pan.Bake for 60 minutes or until toothpick withdraws dry. Allow to cool 30 minutes.Place Neufchâtel cheese in bowl. Add lemon juice and sweetener and mix thoroughly. Spread on cake.
Why wheat makes you fat 1. October 2011 William Davis (32) 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.
Just who is "Real Facts 2000"? 29. September 2011 William Davis (38) This is an example of what seems to be developing over at Amazon.com, posted as a "book review": The author has no credentials, no credibility, just a small cult of terribly misinformed followers. Don't be fooled by the high volume screech against wheat and grains. Allegations of "secret ingredients in wheat" to make you eat more, or comparisons to cigerettes. Seriously?! For over 8000 years wheat has sustained and grown human kind, oh and it tastes good when mixed with a little water and yeast. Every nutritionist and serious medical professional will tell you that bread is the most economical and safe source of essential nutrients. In fact, bread is handed out in natural disasters because it sustains life without food safety issues or requiring refrigeration. And now, suddenly it will kill you. Comical! This book is such a bone headed, misinformed way to just scare people into not eating. As for secret ingredients, humm, apparently the author is ignorant of the food laws that regulate everything that goes into food and on food labels. Unlike some enforcement agencies, the FDA has some serious teeth behind its enforcement. As for frankenwheat, again seriously?! Wheat, due to its ubiquitous presence in the world is treated as sacrosant from any GMO research or development. If you need real, science based information on healthy eating, check out [...] and leave this book and its cult in the compound.If you recognize the wording and tone, you will readily recognize the footprints of the Wheat Lobby here. "Terribly misinformed followers"? . . . Hmmm. "Food laws"? I didn't realize that eating more "healthy whole grains" was a . . . law?Make no mistake: There are people and organizations who have a heavy stake in your continued consumption of the equivalent of 300 loaves of bread per year. There are people and organizations (read: pharmaceutical industry) who have a big stake on the "payoff" of your continued consumption of "healthy whole grains." This is not a book review; this is part of a concerted, organized campaign to discredit a message that needs to be heard. Anybody from the media listening?
Almonds are the new wheat 29. September 2011 William Davis (31) Once you eliminate this genetically-altered Frankengrain called modern wheat, the diet should center around vegetables, nuts, healthy oils like olive and coconut, fish, meats, cheese, olives, avocados and other real whole foods. This is, in fact, the diet that I have advocated in my heart disease prevention practice, as well as my online program for prevention and reversal of heart disease. But what if you'd like a piece of cheesecake or a nice slice of dessert bread---but you don't want to gain two pounds, spend 48 hours in the bathroom suffering with diarrhea and cramps, 3 weeks of joint pains and leg swelling, wade through mental "fog," anxiety, and rage just because you had that momentary indulgence---as you would with wheat? That's why I've been focusing on recipes that allow you to have something familiar, e.g., chocolate coconut bread or biscotti, but using ingredients that will not generate the metabolic contortions triggered by wheat. On perusing these recipes, you will notice that there are recurring ingredient themes. Many of the same ingredients pop up time and again. Among the most frequent, versatile, user-friendly, and tasty: Almonds. You can use almonds as ground whole almonds, ground blanched almonds for a finer texture, ground roasted almonds, almond butter (though, for maximum health benefits, I prefer the ground whole almonds). Ground almonds allow you to recreate muffins, breads, scones, pizza crust, pie crust, biscotti, and cookies with health benefits that exceed that of whole wheat---but with none of the downside: no weight gain, no high blood sugar, no triggering of small LDL particles (#1 cause of heart disease in the U.S.), no accumulation of visceral fat, no appetite stimulation. In short, you just have your chocolate almond biscotti or mocha cupcake and enjoy it, no health price to pay. So I call almonds the new wheat, except better.
Being regular is dangerous to your health 25. September 2011 William Davis (21) No, I'm not referring to your daily morning ritual in the bathroom. I'm talking about heart rate.Counterintuitively, a perfectly regular heart rate is a marker of poor health. People with perfect regularity of heart rate have more heart attacks, for instance.Regularity of heart rate occurs more commonly in people with hypertension and other metabolic derangements, and it signals increased risk for both heart attack and death. A perfectly regular heart rate, i.e., no variation in the time interval from beat to beat, suggests that the parasympathetic nervous system, the component of automatic ("autonomic") nervous system control that is associated with the relaxation response, feelings of well-being, quiet, and relaxation, is weak. It also means that the opposing sympathetic nervous sytem that regulates the "fight or flight," adrenaline-like response is allowed to be dominant. Dominance of the sympathetic over the parasympathetic system generates regularity of heart rate. Heart rate also tends to be faster, e.g., 85 beats per minutes rather than 55 or 60 beats per minute. So perfect regularity, as well as increased rate, is undesirable.What we want is irregularity of heart rate. But not irregularity that occurs chaotically with no rhyme or reason. More precisely, we want variability in heart rate. And we want variability to occur in synchrony with breathing, i.e., the respiratory cycle.The ideal response is:1) increase in heart rate with inspiration2) decrease in heart rate with expiration.Heart rate in healthy people typically varies 15-20 beats per minute within the respiratory cycle, e.g., 60 bpm at end-exhalation, 80 bpm at end-inspiration. Restoration of increased heart rate variability is associated with reduced blood pressure, reduced blood sugars (HbA1c), reduced inflammatory markers and cortisol (associated with stress), even an increase in DHEA levels. Feelings of well-being and calm also develop. Among the strategies to consider to restore heightened heart rate variability and slowed heart rate include:--Omega-3 fatty acid supplementation--Exercise--Weight loss--Deep breathing exercises--Meditation, prayer, and biofeedbackFor our Track Your Plaque purposes, we are folding in the HeartMath strategies, i.e., use of a heart rate monitor that calculates heart rate variability in the context of respiratory cycle. If you've not already done so, take a look at the two Special Reports devoted to this topic on the Track Your Plaque website.
You mean weight loss is hazardous to your health? 23. September 2011 William Davis (11) In my last Heart Scan Blog post, What is this wacky thing called weight loss?, I discussed how weight loss is associated with distortions in cholesterol and blood sugar values that can be very confusing, often leading your doctor to wrongly and unnecessarily prescribe drugs--since he/she likely rarely sees weight loss.Blog reader, Donald K., posted his enlightening story: I experienced this very thing. After losing serious weight from the eliminating wheat, processed, and sugary foods (1 year in total) I lost 130 pounds. When I was nearly finished I went to see my doctor. He wanted to put me on statins. I explained to him how the data does not support application to me (no evidence of heart disease) and I got the mantra about standards of practice, etc, etc. I held my ground and decided I am much happier eating dairy, eggs, grass fed beef, wild caught fish, and as much raw foods (nuts, veggies, fruits) as my body desires to treat my health parameters. Maintaining weight, it is easy. My BMI (23 down from 40) has remained constant for a few months now. You are right: metabolic processes definitely change. I no longer have sensations of glucose fluctuations or an uncontrolled appetite. I can only imagine the improved hormone regulation and metabolic communication going on inside my body. The symptoms from obesity, all gone. Goodbye sleep apnea, hypertension, hemorrhoids, arrhythmias, gastroinestinal disruptions, smelly body, chaffing thighs, and others not mentioned. The positive effects are just as dramatic, but I don’t want to ramble on. Weight loss? What is it? Getting your life back!Brace yourself: If you are following the nutrition advice posted here and in the Track Your Plaque program, or the discussion I've initiated in Wheat Belly, then you may find yourself in the very same health predicament as Donald. Arm yourself to protect yourself against the drug-wielding ways of doctors. No, weight loss to achieve ideal weight is definitely not bad for health. But your doctor's misinterpretation of its effects can be!
What is this wacky thing called "weight loss"? 20. September 2011 William Davis (41) I've discussed this before, but it has proven such an (encouragingly!) frequent issue that I thought it was worth discussing once again.What happens when you lose weight?The process of weight loss is characterized by multiple shifts in metabolic patterns that can be confusing. To the uninitiated eye, weight loss can look like a disastrous distortion in metabolism. The naive doctor on seeing your lab values, for instance, might insist you take a statin drug, a fibrate like Tricor (to reduce triglycerides or increase HDL), or simply berate you for your bad health habits--when it's actually a good thing you've accomplished.So when you lose weight, say, 30 pounds in 3 months, what have you accomplished?Energy stored as fat, especially from visceral fat stores, is mobilized into the bloodstream. It floods the bloodstream as fatty acids and triglycerides. These fatty acids and triglycerides don't occur in isolation, but interact with other particles and metabolic patterns. The resulting blood patterns include:--Increased triglycerides--An increase in triglycerides, for instance, from 90 mg/dl to 200 mg/dl in the midst of weight loss is common.--Reduced HDL--The flood of triglycerides leads to increased degradation of HDL, thus a drop. A drop in HDL from, say, 40 mg/dl to 27 mg/dl--very frightening to people--is exceptionally common.--Increased blood sugar--The flood of fatty acids and triglycerides results in insulin resistance, leading to higher blood sugars. It is not uncommon for someone with pre-diabetes to develop diabetic-range blood sugars, or a non-diabetic to show pre-diabetic blood sugars.--Increased small LDL particles--Though small LDL is highly variable during weight loss. When it does happen, it's probably from the interaction of VLDL (triglycerides) with LDL particles and the reaction that overloads LDL particles with triglycerides and conversion to small LDL particles.So why don't doctors often recognize these patterns when a patient loses weight? Because they rarely see it. Most of my colleagues are accustomed to having patients come back with weight gain, getting heavier and heavier each time. Lose weight? Impossible! So they just don't recognize weight loss effects when they see it. As followers of The Heart Scan Blog know, a frequent conversation around here is "Am I too skinny?" or "How do I stop losing weight?"The solution: Be patient. Be patient and wait about two months after a weight plateau has been achieved. That's when the numbers "settle down" and you see marked drops in triglycerides, increases in HDL, drops in blood sugar, reductions in small LDL.As with many things, it's all about timing.
Why small LDL particles are the #1 cause of heart disease in the US 15. September 2011 William Davis (77) Ask your doctor: What is the #1 cause of heart disease in the US?Let's put aside smoking, since it is an eminently modifiable risk and none of those crazies read this blog anyway. What will your doctor say? Most like he or she will respond:High cholesterol or high LDL cholesterolToo much saturated fatObesityPfizer, Merck, AstraZeneca and their kind would be overjoyed to know that they can add your doctor to their eager following.I'd tell you something different. I would tell you that small LDL particles are, by far and away, the #1 cause for heart disease. I base this claim on several observations:--Having run over 10,000 lipoprotein panels (mostly NMR) over the past 15 years, it is a rare person who does not have a moderate, if not severe, excess of small LDL particles. 50%, 70%, even 90% or more small LDL particles are not rare. Over the course of a year, the only people who show no small LDL particles are slender, athletic, pre-menopausal females.--In studies in which lipoproteins have been quantified in people with coronary disease, small LDL particles dominate, just as they do in my office. Here's a 2006 review.--Small LDL is largely the province of people who consume carbohydrates, such as the American population instructed to "cut fat and eat more healthy whole grains." Conventional diet advice has therefore triggered an expllosion in small LDL particles.--When fasting triglycerides exceed 60 mg/dl, small LDL particles increase as a proportion of total LDL particles. This includes the majority of the US population. (This ignores postprandial, or after-eating, triglycerides, which also contribute to small LDL formation.)If you were to read the data, however, you might conclude that small LDL affects a minority of people. This is because in most studies small LDL categorize it as either "pattern B," meaning exceeding some arbitrary threshold of percentage of small LDL particles, versus "pattern A," meaning falling below that same arbitrary threshold.Problem: There is no consensus on what percentage of small LDL particles should mark the cutoff between pattern A vs. pattern B. In many studies, for instance, people with 50% small LDL particles are called "pattern A."If, instead, we were to set the bar lower to identify this highly atherogenic (atherosclerotic plaque-causing) particle at, say, 20-30% of total, then the number or percentage of people with "pattern B" small LDL particles would go much higher.I see this play out in my office and in the online program, Track Your Plaque, every day: At the start eating a low-fat, grain-filled diet with lots of visceral fat ("wheat belly") to start, they add back fat and cut out all wheat and limit carbohydrates. Small LDL particles plummet
Even moore from Jimmy Moore 14. September 2011 William Davis (8) The ubiquitous and irrepressible Jimmy Moore posted even more commentary about the Wheat Belly phenomenon here, what he calls "The Wheat Belly Bonanza." Is low-carb really, at its core, little more than elimination of wheat? Sure, corn, rice, and sugar exert deleterious effects. But the dominant effect--by far--is the elimination of wheat. So is the low-carb movement really, at its core, a wheat-elimination movement?Food (non-wheat-containing, of course) for thought.
We got the drug industry we deserve 14. October 2011 William Davis (6) A biting commentary on just who is writing treatment guidelines for diabetes and cardiovascular disease was published in the British Medical Journal, summarized in theHeart.org's HeartWire here. "About half the experts serving on the committees that wrote national clinical guidelines for diabetes and hyperlipidemia over the past decade had potential financial conflicts of interest (COI), and about 4% had conflicts that were not disclosed."Five of the guidelines did not include a declaration of the panel members' conflicts of interest, but 138 of the 288 panel members (48%) reported conflicts of interest at the time of the publication of the guideline. Eight reported more than one conflict. Of those who declared conflicts, 93% reported receiving honoraria, speaker's fees, and/or other kinds of payments or stock ownership from drug manufacturers with an interest in diabetes or hyperlipidemia, and 7% reported receiving only research funding. Six panelists who declared conflicts were chairs of their committee."Of the 73 panelists who had a chance to declare a conflict of interest but declared none, eight had undeclared COI that the researchers identified by searching other sources. Among the 77 panel members who did not have an opportunity to publicly declare COI in the guidelines documents, four were found to have COI."The closing quote by Dr. Edwin Gale of the UK is priceless: "Legislation will not change the situation, for the smart money is always one step ahead. What is needed is a change of culture in which serving two masters becomes as socially unacceptable as smoking a cigarette. Until then, the drug industry will continue to model its behavior on that of its consumers, and we will continue to get the drug industry we deserve."It's like having Kellogg's tell us what to each for breakfast, or Toyota telling us what car to drive. The sway of the drug industry is huge. Even to this day, I observe colleagues kowtow to the sexy sales rep hawking her wares. But that's the least of it. Far worse, even the "experts" who we had trusted to have objectively reviewed the evidence to help the practitioner on Main Street appears to be little more than a hired lackey for Big Pharma, hoping for that extra few hundred thousand dollars.