The best artificial sweeteners

Our new recipes, such as New York Style Cheesecake and Chocolate Coconut Bread, are wheat-free and low- or no-carbohydrate. They fit perfectly into the New Track Your Plaque Diet for gaining control over coronary atherosclerotic plaque, not to mention diabetes, pre-diabetes, hypertension, small LDL particles, high triglycerides, high inflammation (c-reactive protein) and other distortions of metabolism.

However, there's one compromise: We include use of non-nutritive sweeteners. It's therefore important to know that artificial sweeteners are not all created equal.

One common tripping point: maltodextrin.

Maltodextrin is composed of polymers (repeating subunits) of glucose, as few as 3 or as many as 20 or more glucose subunits. So maltodextrin is glucose sugar. While it lacks the especially destructive pentose sugar, fructose, maltodextrin is metabolized to glucose and thereby increases blood sugar substantially.

Many artificial sweeteners are bulked up with maltodextrin. For instance, granulated Splenda and Stevia in the Raw, two sweeteners billed as low-calorie and sugar-free that is used on a cup-for-cup basis like sugar, are primarily maltodextrin--with only a teensy bit of Splenda or stevia.

The best artificial sweeteners, i.e., the most benign without a load of maltodextrin, are:

Liquid stevia--Just the extract from stevia leaves and water. It can be a bit pricey, e.g., $10 for a 2 oz bottle, but a little goes a long way.

Truvia--While I'm not too fond of the manufacturer (Cargill), I believe that Truvia is among the better sweeteners around. It is a mixture of the natural sugar, erythritol, that generates little to no blood sugar effects and rebiana (rebaudioside), an isolate of stevia. Some people aren't too fond of the mild menthol-like cooling effect of the erythritol nor the slight aftertaste. I find it works pretty well in most recipes.

Be aware that, no matter which artificial sweetener you use, it has the potential to stimulate appetite. I therefore like to not eat foods sweetened with liquid stevia or Truvia in isolation but as part of a meal. That way, any appetite stimulation that results is substantially quelled by the proteins and fats ingested.

Comments (23) -

  • Princess Dieter

    8/12/2011 11:53:20 PM |

    Thank you for the link. I was just talking with hubby last night about finding a recipe for cheesecake that had no wheat/gluten and would be good for us for special treats/occasions (like an upcoming family birthday). Yay.

  • pjnoir

    8/13/2011 2:52:19 AM |

    I never use Truvia. The best stavia hands down is SweetLeaf, either the liquid or the powder. BUT Stevia acts like insulin, in fact, Asia has been using it as an insulin substitute and comes with a warning to diabetics about using it with one’s daily  insulin shots.   I stopped using it as I don’t need to rev up by insulin production.  I’m diabetic. I still go with local honey and get the benefits of having local pollen in my body.

  • Shreela

    8/13/2011 3:27:35 AM |

    Both DH and I noticed the aftertaste. I figured out how to use half stevia/half sugar for a few days, then 1/4 each, then all stevia, which solved the aftertaste problem for me. I then tried one teaspoon of sugar to a quart of stevia-sweetened tea with DH - he didn't notice any weird taste. So hopefully just adding a tiny bit of sugar for 1-2 weeks will get your taste buds used to stevia.

  • Gabriella Kadar

    8/13/2011 3:29:15 AM |

    Why do people feel the need to eat desserts?  Doesn't adherence to a consistent low carb diet eventually curb most of the craving for sweets?  One teaspoon of fruit jam should be able to quell any overweening desire.  Or is the socio-cultural programming for eating confections so deeply ingrained that people just can't live without?

  • Michia

    8/13/2011 9:06:53 AM |

    I agree.  In our house (LC for years), the same logic applies to low carb "treats" that applies to low carb Frankenfoods.  Don't eat foods that are trying to be foods that you know you can no longer have.  

    There is a real danger in continuing to eat really sweet foods, even artificially sweetened.  "Low carb" needs to be "low sweet".  If you hang in there, you do eventually lose your taste for it.  

    As for Splenda, you can find the liquid if  you try.  And the mini tablets are minimally carby.

  • cancerclasses

    8/13/2011 6:13:31 PM |

    Both cancer & systemic fungi make energy by means of glycolysis and create demands for large amounts of sugars.  People with continuing carb cravings that won't resolve may have one or the other condition.  Otherwise I'm with you, people hanging onto sweets are still living to eat rather than eating to live.

  • Might-o'chondri-AL

    8/13/2011 7:27:21 PM |

    Hi Dr. Davis,
    Server blocked me elsewhere, so writing this here.
    Amazake data when made from white rice (brown, short & long may each differ) =
    30 - 70 % complex carbohydrate saccharides
    20 - 45 % maltose (not amylose)
    3 - 5 % glucose
    5 - 9 % protein
    3 - 5% fat
    1 - 7 % fiber
    0.3 - 0.4 % mineral ash
    iron, niacin & thiamine

    Sample 1 liter (1 quart) sauce pan Amazake home kitchen batch:
    200 ml ( 7 ounce volume, +/- 200 grams) short grain brown rice rinsed and drained
    bring to boil  in 2.5 times the volume water
    reduce heat to low and, covered,  cook 50 - 60 minutes (until not wet)
    transfer cooked rice to an incubation vessel & let cool
    when cooled to  60* Celcius (140 * F) mix with 400 ml (14 ounce volume) of Koji innoculant
    cover with aluminum foil (or somehow) and put where can keep warm
    incubation ideal temperature is 57 - 60 * C  (with leeway)
    ferment for  desired time , 12 hours sweeter and I use 22 hours
    when time up pan boil the Amazake (stir) 3- 5 minutes to inactivate Koji fungi
    refrigerated covered keeps weeks

    Dosages mentioned previously (for 165 pound adult, and Amazake was eaten with protein and fat):
    (a) " low" dose with 2 hour blood glucose ending up being same as pre-prandial blood glucose was 1/8th (by volume) of the above Amazake (rough calculation would thus be ingesting 1/8th  of  +/- 600 grams  total of original dry rice and Koji rice)
    (b) "high" dose with 2 hour blood glucose rebound (suggested for athletes carbs) was 1/4 (by volume) of the above Amazake recipe (rough calculation  would in this case be ingesting 1/4 of +/- 600 grams total of original dry rice and Koji rice)

    Koji innoculant ( steamed white glutinous rice infused with Aspergillus oryzae and then dessicated) used was wholesale direct from L.A. producer Miyako Oriental Foods 626-962-9633; call for your local retailer of their Koji under the "Cold Mountain" brand. They recommend double their Koji for any volume of rice substrate. Other makers of Koji proportions may be less if the Koji is less dehydrated; family business G.E.M. Cultures in Wash. mail orders their Koji and it may (?) be suitable for using less (GEM also sells spores with instructions to make your own Koji).

  • Might-o'chondri-AL

    8/13/2011 7:43:26 PM |

    Dr. Davis,
    Orientation for those athletes interested in experimenting with Amazake:
    Innoculant of rice is Aspergillus oryzae fungal infused rice grains, called Koji; Koji has alpha-amylase, glyco-amylase, acid protease, lipase, amylo-glucosidase , acid carboxy-peptidase , chitosinase and citric acid.
    Incubation lets fungal penetrate new rice substrate and fungal hyphal tip performs hydrolytic enzyme secretion.

    Cooking the rice first gelatinizes the starch held in granules inside of organelles with lipoprotein membranes (amyloplasts) into 16 - 30% amylose and 65 - 85 % amylopectin which are ammenable to hyphal hydrolytic action. Koji's amylo-glucosidase enzyme digests the gel &  Koji's alpha amylase enzyme reduces molecular size of amylose, which makes it less viscous and more fluidly mobile. It is glyco-amylase enzyme that turns amylose and some of the amylo-pectin chains  into glucose.
    Incubation lets the fungi grow and their mycellial cell wall builds up with the amino mono-saccharide glucosamine (a.k.a. chitosan); fungi generally have 67 - 126 mg mycelial glucosamine per 1 gram dry weight mycellium. Amazake is well tolerated by most since glucosamine is useful in colitis. Glucosamine (chitosan) is a poly-cationic bio-polymer formed when chitosanase I enzyme de-acetylates chitin (in fiber); with optimal enzymatic pH being 5.5 - 6.5. Chitosan is more acid pH soluble than chitin and under chitosanase II enzyme (working from pH 3.8 -8.5) some chitin is de-acetylated to form more oligo-saccharides.

    Amazake may have biologically active high molecular weight immunological poly-anionic polysaccharide
    derivatives like the poly-acetyl carboxylic acid  COAM (chlorite oxidase oxy-amylose). COAM comes about when a saccharide chain is oxidatively cleaved between 2 carbon atoms resulting in oxy-amylose, a polymer of 2 aldehyde functions;  when these aldehydes gets further oxidized they produce functional carboxyls.  Rice has aldehydes like the volatile aldehyde hexanal we smell as stored rice &/or from rice bran.

    Rice, like most bean & grain carbohydrate polysaccharides, include the following in both the soluble and insoluble form: arabinoxylan, beta-glucan, cellulose, mannose, galactose, xylose and uronic acid. For us these non-starch  polysaccharides are not digestible;  as neither is fiber (made up of cellulose, hemicellulose, pectin and lignan ) since 90% of our dietary fiber is linked together by beta-glycosides that our digestive enzymes can't cleave. Arabinoxylan, mannan, galacto-mannan and xylan are considered anti-nutritional since can lower intestinal uptake of nutrients; while mannose reacts with amino groups in dietary protein to reduce the amount of certain aminos properly digested.

    Koji's fungal hyphal hydrolytic enzymes include mannosidase enzymes; beta mannanase catalyses the mannosidic links in insoluble mannan polysacharides where there are galactosyl residual features.  The  so-called endo-mannanase (a manno -hydrolase) cleaves mannan and galactomannan to free up molecules like manno-triose, manno-biose and manno-tetraose that human gut Bifidobacteria can then feed on. This may be part of why a substantial dose of Amazake seems to yield more delivery of  sustained energy beyond what one would get from the usual amount of short chain fatty acids put out by gut bacteria.

    Amazake incubation is a solid state fermentation, since want the minimal free fluid when culturing;  too much water and the substrate porosity is diminished and resultant depressed oxygen transport in substrate  causes fungal cell numbers to decline. A  submerged fungal ferment, when cooked rice with koji substrate is set out  too soupy can result in 3.5 times less enzymatic activity. Using  too much rice substrate mixed with too sparse koji innoculant and the fermentation won't proceed promptly due to low oxygen. Also do not stir the blend while incubating to avoid damaging mature fungal hyphae or breaking new growth.

    Mannanase enzyme development in 1st day is less than 50 units/gram and this goes to a maximum of 100 units/gram after 2 days; a peak mannanase content seems to be +/- 250 units/gram on days 3-5. I incubate short grain brown rice Amazake for 22 hours; while most commercial Amazake products and home producers probably do not incubate more than 12 hours. The longer incubation is allowed to go on for the more llikely bitter flavors develop from oxidation of the bran's oil content;  yet the bran is desired for it affords better beta- mannanase and beta-mannosidase enzymatic formation.

    Amazake has exceptional anti-oxidant properties; with longer incubation time this activity increases. Amazake also raises the bodies ability to inhibit lipid peroxidation; so concern over any of rice bran's oil oxidation is probably moot.
    END

  • Elenor

    8/14/2011 5:13:52 PM |

    You don't mention liquid surcralose (Splenda)  -- which has all the 'benefits' of sucralose without the maltodextrin.  I use it and nothing else.

  • Dr. William Davis

    8/15/2011 12:51:28 PM |

    Wow, Might. You are a walking Wikipedia!

    Thanks for the incredible insights.

  • Marlene

    8/15/2011 5:44:10 PM |

    I have never been able to find liquid Splenda in stores in the U.S.  If it's there, what brand name is it sold under?

  • ibh

    8/15/2011 8:36:23 PM |

    I use Sweet Leaf as well. It is in the powder from. the box states no chemicals,no alcohols, no erythritol, no ethanol or menthol,, no aspartame, no sucralose, no maltodextrin, no dextrose or additivees. Seems clean to me. Any thoughts as to problems with this product.

  • Anonymous

    8/15/2011 8:36:54 PM |

    Doc, also notice the removal of all of Might's comments from Guyenet's site. This speaks for itself, as to where the truth lies. Might is truly a wonder and knows what he's talking about.

  • Jack Kronk

    8/15/2011 9:57:54 PM |

    What does that mean, that the comments from Guyenet's site are removed? Stephan removed them, or Might removed them? I've traded comments with Might over there dozens of times.

  • Jack Kronk

    8/15/2011 10:00:22 PM |

    I just use pure Stevia powder, which is gauranteed to be at least 95% pure stevia crystals (like the liquid stevia, on in teh form of powder. The brand I use is Stevita. A tiny little 0.7 ounce conainer lasts FOREVER! You only need a tiny pinhc of it for coffee. It doesn't exchange well versus sugar as a substitute, but adding a little to whatever you might be baking or making can help with using less of whatever other sweetener you may need to use.

  • Janmar Delicana

    8/16/2011 12:13:10 AM |

    Dear Dr. Davis,
    It’s a great pleasure to read your blog. I find your post very informative. Thank you for sharing.
    As a reader, I consider your writing to be a great example of a quality and globally competitive output.
    As a moderator for Physician Nexus (a community for physicians) I would like to share your genuine ideas and knowledge. With this you can gain 1000 physician readers on Nexus.
    We would love for you to visit our community. It's free, takes seconds, and is designed for physicians only - completely free of industry bias and commercial interests.
    Best,
    Janmar Delicana
    On behalf of the Physician Nexus Team
    www.PhysicianNexus.com

  • Might-o'chondri-AL

    8/17/2011 12:33:07 AM |

    Stephan who hosts the WholeHealth blog is smarter than me &  the removal of my comments there came from someone using my computer. These days I do not have the time to follow Stephan's blog, which has nothing to do with validity of his approach.

  • Stefan

    8/31/2011 1:46:14 AM |

    Marlene,
    I buy it at SuperSupplements or at Whole Foods. Any nutritional supplements &vitamins stores should carry it. If you live in a place whch doesn't havenay -> use Amazon. It's simple Smile.

  • Stefan

    8/31/2011 1:50:21 AM |

    Whoops - I thought you meant Stevia. Liquid Splenda is at amazon as well

  • Serge

    9/2/2011 11:27:16 PM |

    Dr. Davis--

    I'd like to recommend ZSweet.  It's a stevia/erythritol blend but isn't a Big Ag product like Cargill/Coca-Cola's Truvia or Pepsico/Monsanto-er-Merisant's PureVia.

    It's funny how Stevia was banned by the FDA in the 80s, only to be given the GRAS label in 2008, which just happened to be the same year that Truvia was launched.  Coincidence?

  • Dr. William Davis

    9/2/2011 11:40:52 PM |

    Hi, Serge-

    I have no doubt that the clout of Cargill pushed Truvia through. I wasn't aware of ZSweet--thanks!

  • Susan

    12/18/2011 6:10:37 AM |

    I am absolutely thrilled to have found this blog.  I've been extremely cautious of sugar and sweets since my mother was diagnosed with diabetes when I was a child.  Unfortunately I did fall into the "healthy whole grains" trap for a while, but have kept my daily carbs between 50-100 for many years now.  I like Stevia products, but unfortunately they leave me with a slight headache.  I've been (sparingly) using Volcanic Agave Nectar for years, mostly in tea and for the occasional baked good.  I understand that due to the rich soil in which it's grown, and minimal processing, volcanic blue agave has a lower glycemic index-load than other traditional agave nectars, at 27.  

    Am I doing myself harm by using it?  I'd like to try the liquid Splenda, that contains no maltodextrin.  Thank you Elenor and Stefan for mentioning it, but should I be concerned about its processing?

  • jpatti

    5/27/2012 6:58:29 PM |

    I'm not big on Truvia.  

    From what I've heard from other diabetics erthyritol doesn't have the GI side effects of most sugar alcohols and has a lesser effect on bg, but even so... I prefer a plain stevia powder.

    I don't think erthyritol has been around long enough to know what it's side effects may be, that it doesn't raise bg much and doesn't cause GI distress isn't good enough. There's any number of other bad side effects that exist in the world besides those two.

    Stevia is food.  Granted, the plain white stuff is relatively refined, but I still feel better about it than erthryitol.  

    Susan, agave nectar has almost no GI effect because it is fructose, not glucose.  It has MUCH more fructose than HFCS.  Search this blog for a long list of the bad stuff that fructose causes.  I'm a diabetic, and I'd seriously rather eat sugar than agave.

Loading
Vitamin D Newsletter reprinted

Vitamin D Newsletter reprinted

Reprinted here is the unfailingly informative Vitamin D Newsletter from Dr. John Cannell. Although there's little here specifically about heart disease, there's so much great information about vitamin D that I thought most would still appreciate it.



The Vitamin D Newsletter

May, 2008

Yesterday's Washington Post article, Too-Good-To-Be-True Nutrient?, sums up the April 9th vitamin D symposium at UCSD in San Diego, which was nothing short of spectacular. Carole Baggerly outdid herself organizing it and explaining how she got involved. Make no mistake; Carole is both serious and energetic. She told about her efforts to introduce resolutions at upcoming meetings of various professional groups. Then she introduced the volunteers from the San Diego Black Nurses Association who made sure the conference went off without a hitch. Then Carole introduced the four speakers. The slides of each speaker are available at Grassroots Health.

Before I tell you the highlights of the conference, I'd like to tell you about another conference, this one in Germany, this May 17th and 18th. It is the Third International Symposium on Vitamin D Analogs in Cancer Prevention and Therapy. Readers know how I feel about giving analogs to vitamin D deficient patients instead of vitamin D but speakers include Michael Holick, Reinhold Veith, Bill Grant, Tai Chen, Heidi Cross, David Feldman, and Roger Bouillon, all of whom know the importance of the nutrient. Most of this conference is for scientists, not lay people. However, Michael Holick is the first speaker and if you have not heard his latest talk about vitamin D, it might be worth a trip to Germany.

The first San Diego speaker was Dr. William Grant. Since leaving NASA to begin a full-time career as a vitamin D researcher, Bill has published dozens of studies and has another dozen in the works. Using ecological studies (from Greek oikos, house + German -logie, study or studying your own house) of UVB irradiance and cancer, Bill reported that 15 cancers (colon, esophageal, gallbladder, gastric, pancreatic, rectal, small intestinal, bladder, kidney, prostate, breast, endometrial, ovarian, Hodgkin's lymphoma, and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma) are associated with lower UVB light. He concluded that 257,000 cancer deaths in 2007 in the USA were accounted for by inadequate vitamin D levels. Of course the problem with ecological studies is that it easy to be vitamin D deficient in Miami, all you have to do is listen to your doctor's advice and stay out of the sun. Recently, a group from the Arizona Cancer Center found almost 80% of Arizonians had levels below 30 ng/ml. So much for sunny spots.

Jacobs ET, et al. Vitamin D insufficiency in southern Arizona. Am J Clin Nutr. 2008 Mar;87(3):608-13.


The next speaker was Professor Cedric Garland. I found myself wondering how he did it. I became convinced that vitamin D prevents cancer five years ago. Cedric and his brother Frank and his colleague Ed Gorham knew it 30 years ago! I know what it is like to tell someone that vitamin D prevents cancer and see them think, "Here we go again, another miracle vitamin." I know what it is like to try and explain and watch people die unnecessarily. But I've only had that experience for five years. Cedric has dealt with that frustration for thirty years. Almost thirty years ago, Cedric and Frank Garland published evidence that vitamin D prevents cancer. In fact, it was Cedric's first publication. Thankfully, the paper was recently recognized as being so important that it was republished in 2006 by the International Journal of Epidemiology. You can read the entire paper for free by clicking on the second link below and then clicking on "free final text", courtesy of Oxford Journals.

Garland CF, Garland FC. Do sunlight and vitamin D reduce the likelihood of colon cancer? Int J Epidemiol. 1980 Sep;9(3):227-31.

Garland CF, Garland FC. Do sunlight and vitamin D reduce the likelihood of colon cancer? Int J Epidemiol. 2006 Apr;35(2):217-20.


Cedric began by showing the incidence of type-1 diabetes and multiple sclerosis by latitude. I had no idea that the latitudinal data was so strong for type 1 diabetes in children. This disease is almost nonexistent around the equator. Type-1 diabetes is but one of the three modern childhood epidemics caused by the sunlight-hating dermatologists, the other two, I think, are autism and asthma. Next he showed latitude and 25(OH)D levels, which reminded me to be suspicious of high levels, unless they use accurate methods of detecting 25(OH)D. Some methods used, even in this country, are over detecting vitamin D and telling patients their levels are above 50 ng/ml when they are, in reality, much lower. Cedric's data showed Thailand had mean levels of 70 ng/ml, which I doubt and suspect were due to inaccurate 25(OH)D tests. He then reviewed evidence of the 25(OH)D levels needed to prevent numerous cancers. The safest levels are somewhere above 50 ng/ml. Cedric spent most of his time presenting an entirely new theory of carcinogenesis, one dependent on vitamin D maintaining cellular junctions. I suspect this paper will also be reprinted in 20 years. The only disagreement I have is with his recommendation for cancer patients to start at fairly low doses. For reasons I recently explained, the risk benefit analysis indicates cancer patients should take 5,000 to 10,000 IU per day and they may have no time to lose. Why worry about the phantom of vitamin D toxicity if you may be dying of cancer? Just have your calcium checked along with frequent 25(OH)D levels. Get your levels up to 70-90 ng/ml if you have cancer.



Does vitamin D treat cancer?

The next speaker was Professor Bruce Hollis. He reviewed basic physiology of vitamin D and emphasized that the entire system is designed to deal with an excess not with an insufficiency of vitamin D. Numerous mechanisms are available in your body to prevent vitamin D toxicity but few are available to deal with insufficiency. Then he briefly mentioned one of the most important discoveries about vitamin D in the last few years, one where Professor Neil Binkley of the University of Wisconsin was senior author. (In the last four years, Professor Binkley has become a prolific vitamin D expert and I hope Carol Baggerly is able to get him to speak at some of the upcoming conferences she hopes to sponsor.) As I have pointed out before, Hollis and Binkley's crucial discovery was that the body doesn't start storing the parent compound, cholecalciferol, until 25(OH)D levels reach about 50 ng/ml. They showed, using basic steroid pharmacology, that 50 ng/ml should be considered the lower limit of adequate 25(OH)D levels.

Hollis BW, Wagner CL, Drezner MK, Binkley NC. Circulating vitamin D3 and 25-hydroxyvitamin D in humans: An important tool to define adequate nutritional vitamin D status. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2007 Mar;103(3-5):631-4.


Bruce kept the audience enthralled with a review of all the disease states that indicate 25(OH)D levels need to be much higher than they are now, that is, the multiple biomarkers that suggest the lower limit of 25(OH)D levels should be above 40 ng/ml and closer to 50 ng/ml. Then Professor Hollis spoke of his ongoing study in pregnant women and how he got approval to use 4,000 IU of vitamin D per day back in 2003, quite an accomplishment. He also reviewed another one of his research projects, one that answered an age old question, why is breast milk a poor source of vitamin D? How were prehistoric infants supposed to get their vitamin D, by lying out in the sun where saber tooth tigers would eat them? No, they were hidden in caves and had to have another source or the human race would have died out long ago because rickets destroys a woman's and infant's chance to live through childbirth due to rachitic deformations of the mother's pelvis. Carol Wagner and Bruce Hollis, together with their colleagues, answered that age old question, human breast milk is a poor vitamin D source because virtually all modern mothers are vitamin D deficient. That is, when pregnant women keep their levels where we think prehistoric human levels were, about 50 ng/ml, breast milk becomes a rich source of vitamin D. First Carol and Bruce gave 2,000 IU per day, then 4,000 IU per day and finally 6400 IU of D3 per day to lactating women. Only at 6400 of D3/day did the women maintain both their own 25(OH)D levels and the levels of their breast feeding babies above 50 ng/ml. On 6400 IU/day, the vitamin D activity of the breast milk went from about 80 to 800 IU/L. Quite a discovery, and another reason for all of us to keep our levels above 50 ng/ml.

Wagner CL, Hulsey TC, Fanning D, Ebeling M, Hollis BW. High-dose vitamin D3 supplementation in a cohort of breastfeeding mothers and their infants: a 6-month follow-up pilot study. Breastfeed Med. 2006 Summer;1(2):59-70.

Professor Robert Heaney went last, discussing 74 slides. So much of what we know about vitamin D today is due to Robert's unceasing dedication to vitamin D, the most recent example being his and Joanne Lappe's randomized controlled trial showing that increasing baseline levels from 29 to 38 ng/ml reduced the risk of getting cancer by around 70%. He again pointed out that the body does not begin to consistently store much vitamin D until your levels get to around 50 ng/ml. He also went through multiple biomarkers of vitamin D. That is, what level or intakes do you have to have to reduce the incidence of multiple diseases? He covered calcium absorption, osteoporosis, risk of falling, muscle function, death and disability of the aged, TB, influenza, cardiovascular disease, hypertension, diabetes, cancer, multiple sclerosis, and gum disease. How can one vitamin be involved in so many diseases? Simple said Dr. Heaney, "vitamin D is the key that unlocks the DNA library." He then reviewed toxicity and concluded there is no evidence that it occurs at levels below 200 ng/ml or with intakes (total) below 30,000 IU per day. Of course, we have no reason to think anyone needs 30,000 IU per day or levels of 200 ng/ml, which would be irresponsible. But someone with a serious cancer should consider getting their level up to 70-90 ng/ml and that may take 10,000 IU per day or even more in some people. As a rule of thumb, 1,000 IU will raise 25(OH)D levels by about 10 ng/ml.

Then Professor Heaney addressed a public health question. How much would we have to give all Americans to get 98% of people above 32 ng/ml without causing toxicity in anybody? The answer: 2,000 IU per day. Of course 32 ng/ml is not adequate but it would be a great first step. Furthermore, of the people left out, a high percentage would be African Americans. In fact, Dr. Talwar recently reported that 40% of African American women fail to achieve a level of 30 ng/ml even after taking 2,000 IU/day for a year.

Talwar SA, Aloia JF, Pollack S, Yeh JK. Dose response to vitamin D supplementation among postmenopausal African American women. Am J Clin Nutr. 2007 Dec;86(6):1657-62.


He also discussed his recent study giving healthy adults 100,000 IU as a single dose. If you start with a baseline level of 28 ng/ml and take 100,000 IU as a single dose, mean levels will remain above 32 ng/ml for two months. If you rely on such stoss doses, but you start with a lower level, or want your levels above 50 ng/ml, how often do you need to take 100,000 IU? We don't know the answer to the last question but we know that Grey et al gave 50,000 IU per week for four weeks then 50,000 per month for a year to 21 patients with hyperparathyroidism. Blood levels rose from a mean of 11 ng/ml at baseline to 30 ng/ml at one year and levels did not continue to rise after six months. Remember, that means half the patients had levels lower than 30 ng/ml at the end of the year. Also remember that the metabolic clearance (how quickly you use it up) might be higher in certain disease states.

Grey A, et al. Vitamin D repletion in patients with primary hyperparathyroidism and coexistent vitamin D insufficiency. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2005 Apr;90(4):2122-6.


That last point, metabolic clearance, is only one of a number of reasons that patients vary in their response to vitamin D. Remember, a surprising number of patients will tell their physician they are taking vitamin D when they are not, some will be taking preparations that have less in it than the label says, some will not absorb it, and some people weigh more than others. As Dr. Heaney points out, even if you know patients took 100,000 IU, great variably exists in individual response. At the end of two months some will have shown a minimal response and other much more. This is a field where little is known. Do different disease states use up vitamin D quickly? The answer is probably yes. Furthermore, variability also exists in how one metabolizes and catabolizes (breaks down) vitamin D. Also, what is the interactive effect of drugs that use the same liver enzymes for catabolism? We just don't know and that is why vitamin D blood testing is crucial. Remember, the only test to have is a 25-hydroxy-vitamin D. Do not let anyone get a 1,25-dihydroxy-vitamin D; it will not tell you if you are vitamin D deficient and is usually only indicated in evaluating high blood calcium.

As far as 25(OH)D levels go, many of you have written complaining about the high cost of a 25(OH)D levels at some labs. I've got some good news. For the next month, Life Extension Foundation is having a sale on their 25(OH)D blood tests, only $32.25, including the fee for drawing the blood. (No, we don't get funding from Life Extension, I wish we did.) Life Extension uses LabCorp, which, in turn, uses an accurate method to determine 25(OH)D levels, the DiaSorin Laiason method. The only problem is that DiaSorin, LabCorp, and Life Extension all say that 30 ng/ml is acceptable. It is not. Take enough vitamin D or get enough UVB radiation to get your levels above 50 ng/ml. To order the test, call Life Extension at 800 208-3444. Unfortunately, this offer is not available in New York, New Jersey or Rhode Island.

Also, Dr. James Dowd has written a fine book about vitamin D, The Vitamin D Cure. Get this, he is board certified in internal medicine, adult rheumatology, and pediatric rheumatology, an associate professor at Michigan State University, and runs his own Arthritis Institute and the Michigan Arthritis Research Center. He gives a formula for how much vitamin D you need but stresses the importance of testing to know for sure. He uses the formula of 2000 IU for every 100 pounds of body weight, which is as accurate an estimation as one can make without knowing baseline levels. Of course it depends on so many things, as Dr. Dowd points out, such as percentage body fat, latitude, skin type, sun exposure and age. He gives case after case examples of how vitamin D not just prevents disease, but seems to have a treatment effect. He also stresses three other things I've written about before, acid base balance, magnesium and potassium. If you can't get eat enough fruits and green leafy vegetables to obtain your potassium and magnesium and to get rid of low-grade chronic metabolic acidosis, then you should consider magnesium supplements and potassium bicarbonate supplements.

With these four experts and with this month's vitamin D news articles about breast cancer, brain function, artery blockage in the legs, soft skulls in babies, peripheral neuropathy in diabetics, childhood type-1 diabetes, colon cancer, and stress fractures and with the increasing number of scientists around the world jumping on the vitamin D express, why doesn't the government do something? What will it take? Like Carole says it will take a grassroots effort.

The first thing to do is tell your family and friends about vitamin D. Tell your doctor. Get your family's 25(OH)D tested, including your children. Once people begin to see it works, they will get their family and friends to take it. They will feel better and then the word will spread. All the government can do is make vitamin D illegal or limit the amount in each pill. The first is unlikely but not the second. With 5,000 IU capsules widely available, many people give no thought to taking one a day. But if the government limits the sale of anything over 400 IU and people had to take 12 of the 400 IU tablets, instead of one of the 5,000 IU, they might balk at so many pills. Before our officials in Washington take such a step, let's hope they read the Washington Post.

John Cannell, MD
The Vitamin D Council

This is a periodic newsletter from the Vitamin D Council, a non-profit trying to end the epidemic of vitamin D deficiency. This newsletter is not copyrighted. Please reproduce it and post it on Internet sites. We are a nonprofit tax-exempt educational organization and depend on your donations.

The Vitamin D Council
9100 San Gregorio road
Atascadero, CA 93422

Comments (2) -

  • Anonymous

    5/1/2008 5:12:00 PM |

    The letter points out how critical adequate Vitamin D intake is when pregnant or lactating.

    To add to that point:   an unfortunately large number of women experience pre-eclampsia during pregnancy, which often is fatal without aggressive and rapid medical intervention.   In Sept 2007, a study reported that women will low level of Vitamin D increased their likelihood of pre-eclampsia by FIVE-FOLD.

    Also, perinatal cardio myopathy occurs with 1 in 3000 women in the USA, and the rate is hire for black women.  It would not be surprising if it turns out this is linked to Vitamin D also.

    With the massive amount of info and research supporting the importance of vitamin D, it seems that the failure to prescribe adequate amounts of vitamin D intake is nearly criminal.

  • Anonymous

    5/2/2008 4:18:00 AM |

    I was wondering if there is benefit to taking Vitamin D if ones level is in the normal range?

Loading
Dr. Arthur Agatston in the news

Dr. Arthur Agatston in the news



The Miami Herald has a new report on Dr. Arthur Agagtston (of South Beach Diet fame) to announce his new book, The South Beach Heart Health Revolution:
The South Beach Diet doctor takes on cardio care

Agatston, the granddaddy of CT heart scanning, is always at least worth listening to. Although his diet may not be perfect, it clearly has jumped light years ahead of conventional diets like the inane American Heart Association diet. The South Beach Diet focuses on healthy oils, nuts, lean meats, vegetables, and fruits, while slashing grains (except in the often disastrous phase III).

The article lists Dr. Agatston's advice to achieve a "heart healthy" lifestyle:


• Maintain a healthy weight through diet.

• Undergo CT heart scans to check for arterial plaque.

• Do aerobic exercise, along with stretching and strengthening workouts.

• Ask your doctor about taking statins and other cholesterol-lowering drugs.


We wouldn't have CT heart scan scoring (at least in its present form) without Dr. Agatston, who developed the algorithm for scoring years ago in the early days of heart scanning. We also need to credit him with putting together a rational diet despite the counter-information emanating from the Heart Association, the USDA (a la Food Pyramid, the one that makes Americans fat and diabetic), and the American Diabetes Association, among others.

But "Ask your doctor about taking statins and other cholesterol-lowering drugs"? This is where Dr. Agatston begins to falter. While he is putting his enormous notoriety to use, his message is bland and ineffective. "Do aerobic exercise"? We don't need Dr. Agatston to tell us this.

As much as Art Agatston has added to the national conversation on heart disease and diet, he has failed to deliver the message of true heart disease prevention. His approach lacks just a few crucial ingredients like lipoprotein testing, diagnosis of hidden causes of heart disease (like Lp(a)), and vitamin D. (Two years ago I had a patient I saw for an opinion after he'd showed Dr. Agatston his lipoprotein panel. The patient said Dr. Agatston looked at the report and didn't know what to do with it and handed it back to him without comment. He then asked if he wanted his autograph.)

Anyway, the rising tide raises all boats. Agatston's repeated public endorsements of heart scans will help deliver the message that heart disease is detectable in its early stages and should trigger action to follow a heart disease prevention program.

That alone is an accomplishment in a world hell-bent on dragging us into the hospital for procedures.

Comments (7) -

  • Neelesh

    1/15/2008 2:34:00 PM |

    This is curious, given that in his book 'The South beach heart program', Agatston talks quite a bit about "advanced blood tests", including LP(a),and lipoprotein subfractions. I wonder if hethinks otherwise now Smile

  • Nancy M.

    1/16/2008 5:41:00 PM |

    I ran into someone that met this doctor and she asked him what diet he eats, thinking he would be following his own.  Apparently he follows a more Paleo type of diet rather than those "healthy" whole grains he espouses in his books.

  • Dr. Davis

    1/16/2008 5:45:00 PM |

    Isn't that interesting!

    If I had to choose from a menu of popular diets that most closely approximates what we do in the Track Your Plaque program, it would be quite close to the Paleo Diet as articulated by Loren Cordain.

  • Roger

    1/21/2008 3:43:00 PM |

    I'm surprised by that.  The Paleo diet is an extraordinarily high meat-oriented diet (the author suggest that about 55% of calories will come from meat.)  Since dairy and soy are forbidden, almost all protein must come from meat, fish, or eggs.  The diet is similar to Atkins, except that the Paleo diet makes a nod to healthier fats like flax oil, which he suggests rubbing on lean meat before serving.

    On page 26 of his book, Cordain describes a 25 year old female who follows the Paleo diet.  He indicates that on a typical day she will get about 190 grams of protein.

    According to NutritionData.com, each of the following contain 190 grams of protein:

    31 large hard-boiled eggs

    1 lb. 11 oz of salmon

    1 lb. 8 oz of turkey

    1 lb. 8 oz of Sirloin

    1 lb. 8 oz pork chops

    Six 1/4 lb. hamburgers

    Basically, a pound and a half of meat.  Using the traditional "pack of cards" portion size (three ounces), a follower of the Paleo diet would be consuming eight portions of meat per day.

    I'm no vegetarian, but it's hard for me to imagine that meat in that quantity is necessary for good health.

  • Zute

    3/7/2008 7:40:00 PM |

    I just looked up where I heard about Agatston actually thinking Paleo is right diet to follow.  Here's a link to the thread where it was discussed:
    http://forum.lowcarber.org/archive/index.php/t-337734.html

    "It was a lecture geared towards health professionals....he spoke of how he believes in the Paleo diet(book) and that the ideal for us in our current state of evolution is a grain free diet.....really..he said that!!

    He also did not know that his Meal Plan Guide is telling us to add in cereal first in phase II....he said he would get that changed...it should be berries only...first...then starchy veggies.....whole grain last and after whole grain...then processed grain ie: flour/bread :idea:

    He also told me that they put whole grains into the plan so that it'd be easier for people to adapt to the plan....they know that people are addicted to grain and it would be too hard for most to give them up totally...me :wave: ;) He was trying to make the plan marketable to all and he felt that telling us to eat whole grain is better than what we were doing before...and he's right."

    See, this is where I have a problem with that sort of thinking.  Instead of telling you what is optimal for your health, they tell you what they think you'll comply with instead.  I think the ADA does that too.  The results of this are that people might be slightly healthier than if you did nothing but you're a long ways off from the health you could achieve if you were fully informed at the beginning.

    Some of us have the discipline to make the needed changes.  Dear Doctors, please don't assume we're all hopeless!

  • Ideal Scents LLC

    3/15/2010 4:09:29 AM |

    South Beach Diet in my opinion is awesome.  After Phase I you lose your cravings.  I have been into nutrition for over 30 years, and still need to lose a few pounds.  On this diet you eat healthy fresh foods, you don't have to eat any meat if you don't want to and if you're vegan it can work as well.

    One of the great things about it is you don't have to be manic, it's pretty simple. You are full eating lots of fiber from fresh veggies.   Those foods God planned for us to eat, instead of processed and over cooked foods.

    One thing you mentioned was the LPP test for heart disease, I have a question, why aren't M.D.'s requesting this test more often.  The docs who are requesting this are those who are both  N.D. M.D.'s, they look at the whole person not just one aspect.

  • buy jeans

    11/3/2010 6:46:50 PM |

    In addition, since I have been involved with cardiac CT for now nearly 24 years, the PLC also affords me an opportunity to develop a CT coronary angiography training program for cardiologists and radiologists (www.cardiaccta.us). Together, these new efforts are merely an extension of my interests in prevention, patient care, and teaching.

Loading
Weight loss and blood pressure

Weight loss and blood pressure

Here's another thought with regards to time issues with weight loss: reductions in blood pressure (BP).

The previous post talked about how triglycerides initially go up, sometimes way up, when weight drops, only to be followed months later by substantial drops. HDL initially drops in response to the triglyceride fluctuations, only to be followed by a rise.

Blood pressure also shows a curious pattern that is largely dependent on age.

Say someone in their 20s or 30s, for instance, loses 30 lbs (through elimination of wheat and cornstarch, say). BP usually drops within a few weeks, perhaps a month or two at most.

How about someone in their 70s? Say a substantial amount of weight is lost, say 50 lbs over 6 months. BP does indeed drop, but it may require 6 months or longer after weight plateaus for the full effects of BP-reduction to be fully expressed. But it will eventually drop.

Why the age-dependent difference?

It relates to the capacity of arteries to remain flexible and distensible. Over the years, cross-linking of collagen (a structural protein), glycation (glucose molecules attaching to proteins), loss of endothelial responsiveness to generate artery-dilating substances like nitric oxide, and arterial atherosclerotic plaque all all up to making older arteries less able to "relax" and BP to drop.

But given time and the proper effort, BP will eventually drop. Awareness of this time effect can help most people decide better when medications are necessary or if weight loss alone is sufficient to reach BP goals.

Comments (6) -

  • Jenny

    8/15/2008 4:21:00 PM |

    Thanks for the encouragement.  I have always hoped and believed it was possible for me to control my blood pressure without medication, (without receiving much guidance or encouragement toward that goal from my physician) and while that may not be entirely possible now given my age (62) and fairly long-standing history of hypertension, I have seen good improvement in my readings since becoming stricter with lower carbohydrates, and losing about 20 pounds over 4-5 months.  In light of this topic, would you consider commenting or doing a longer post on the effects of weight loss in older people?  Jenny Ruhl had a post on DiabetesUpdate recently (August 6th, "More Evidence that Weight Loss After 65 Is Dangerous to Your Health") concerning a study that was interpreted to show that weight loss after the age of 65 can have negative impact on health and mortality.  http://www.diabetesincontrol.com/results.php?storyarticle=5975  
    I have also read opinions in the past that are similar, such as that weight loss after 60 may worsen osteoporosis (sorry, unable to cite the source for that).  Judging from my personal experience, my weight loss appears to have had beneficial effects on my BP and lipid profile, but is it possible there is a hidden cost?  Ideally, of course I would have lost weight earlier, or even more ideally, never gained it in the first place, but...!  I feel now that I have maybe 10 or so more pounds to lose to be at an optimal weight, judging from the amount of remaining abdominal fat, but perhaps that is not realistic or desirable at my age.  I have not chosen a number to shoot for, but am instead assuming that by continuing to eat as I am, emphasizing adequate protein and relying more on fats than carbs for energy, getting adequate vitamin D3, and working to keep up my muscle mass, I will naturally arrive at a healthier weight, (plus,now you offer hope that the full effect on my Blood Pressure is still to come!) Surely the assumption that I am promoting my health by losing excess weight through good nutrition practices is not one that would hold true only for a younger person?

  • Roger

    8/16/2008 4:42:00 PM |

    Hi,

    I wasn't sure where to post this comment, but I couldn't find anything on your site about the supposed Vitamin C--CHD connection, promoted by Pauling and Rath.  Googling around has found inconclusive studies and results; some for, some neutral. Perhaps this could be a new thread.  Thanks.  Roger

  • Towards infinity

    8/17/2008 10:06:00 AM |

    To Jenny, sure adding adequate vitamin d is important but don't forget vitamine k2 (as mk-4) and maybe a decent mix of bone building minerals like boron strontium citrate oh and some b12, folic acid etc.

  • Loose weight123

    11/27/2008 11:17:00 AM |

    I saw your site first time it is good and i think you are right we can control our blood pressure without taking any medicine.keep it up.

    http://weight-loss.realhealthproducts.org/

  • alen mcmilan

    10/11/2010 3:56:07 AM |

    I just accros from your blog and I thought I would have to leave my first comment after reading your great article. I think Many of the people want to know on this.So ,I think this will help them a lot.
    Phentermine

  • Aiden

    10/27/2010 8:50:12 AM |

    yes weight is directly proportional to blood pressure, more weight is dangerous for helth! HCG diet , thanks

Loading
Diet: One size does NOT fit all

Diet: One size does NOT fit all

Heart Scan Blog reader, Frustrated, posted this comment:

Dr. Davis,
I have spent the last 5 months eating a diet that completely eliminated all wheat products. It was very low carb, and consisted of relatively high protein (eggs, grass fed beef, grass fed raw cheese, oily fish, chicken), good level of olive oil, walnuts, fish oil (3 mg per day), raw vegetables, little bit of fruit. So I had good amount of monounsaturated fat as well as saturated fat from eggs and grass fed products.

My recent NMR showed:
LDL-p. 2,800
Small LDL particle 1700
Small HDL particle 20
HDL-C 40
LDL-C 114
Trigs. 224
Total chol 208

So I was disappointed. Where have I gone wrong? No wheat and sky-high LDL-p and 1700 small LDL particles.


This is indeed unusual. I see this perhaps 5 or 6 times over a year's time, while thousands of other people show the usual expected respone. I don't have Frustrated's lipoprotein panel prior to starting the diet, but I'll bet the starting panel was similar to this "after" panel.

The overwhelming majority of people who follow a diet like the one described--no wheat, limited carbohydrate, grass fed beef, fish, chicken, vegetables, limited fruit--obtain extravagant reductions in small LDL, increased HDL, and reduced triglycerides. So why did Frustrated end up with such disappointing results, values that potentially provide for high risk for heart disease?

There are several possibilities:

1) He/she is in the midst of substantial weight loss. When labs are drawn in the midst of weight loss, stored energy is being mobilized into the blood stream. This energy is mobilized as fatty acids and triglycerides which, upon entering the blood stream, cause increased triglycerides, reduced HDL, chaotic or unpredictable small LDL patterns, and increased blood sugar sufficient to be in the diabetic or pre-diabetic range. This all subsides and settles down to better values around 2 months after weight loss has plateaued.

2) Apo E4--If Frustrated has one or two apo E4 genes, then increased dietary fat will serve to exaggerate measures like small LDL despite the reduction in carbohydrates, LDL particle number, and triglycerides. This is a tough situation, since small LDL particles and high triglycerides signal carbohydrate sensitivity, while apo E4 makes this person, in effect, unable to deal with fats and dietary cholesterol. It gives me the creeps to talk about reducing fat intake, but this becomes necessary along with carbohydrate restriction, else statin drugs will come to the "rescue."

3) Apo E2 + Apo E4--It's possible that an apo E2 is present along with apo E4. Apo E2 makes this person extremely carbohydrate-sensitive and diabetes-prone with awful postprandial (after-meal) persistence of dietary byproducts, alongside the hyperabsorption of fats and dietary cholesterol from apo E4. This is a genuine nutritional rock and a hard place.

4) Other variants--There are probably a dozen or more other genetic variants, thankfully rare, such as apo B and apo C2 variants, that are not generally available for us to measure that could influence Frustrated's response.

5) The low-carb diet is not truly low-carb--Frustrated sounds like a pretty sharp cookie. But it's not uncommon for someone to overlook a substantial source of carbohydrate exposure that triggers these patterns. Fruit is a very common tripping point, since people generally regard unlimited fruit as a healthy thing. This does not seem to be Frustrated's problem. Others indulge in quinoa, sweet potatoes, millet or other carbohydrate sources that look and sound healthy but, in sufficient quantities, can still trigger this pattern.

6) Other--Hypothyroidism, kidney disease, nephrotic syndrome, hypercortisolism and some other relatively rare conditions are worth considering if none of the above apply.

Anyway, that's the list I use when this peculiar situation arises. If obvious weight loss is not the culprit, the next step is apo E testing. However, the wrong response is to reject the low-carbohydrate notion altogether and just limit fat, since this typically leads to uncontrolled small LDL, high triglycerides, and diabetes. It can often mean limiting carbohydrates while also limiting fats. Just as with the combination of apo E4 with Lipoprotein(a), I lump many of these patterns into the emerging world of genetic incompatibilities, genetic traits that code for incompatible metabolic phenomena.


Comments (33) -

  • David Horry

    8/24/2011 6:03:44 AM |

    Hi Dr Davis,
    I am an apoe4 carrier. My trig=62, HDL=69; LDL-C=175 after 16 months on a carbohydrate restricted, gluten free diet. Wondering whether I need to also reduce my fat intake. But then what is left to eat? Making up the calorie difference with protein does not sound too healthy.

    David

  • Dr. William Davis

    8/24/2011 12:24:19 PM |

    Hi, David--

    I would urge you to NOT rely on the calculated LDL value, since on a low-carb diet with potential conversion of small to large LDL particles calculated LDL can substantially overestimate true LDL.

    The best: LDL particle number through NMR lipoprotein analysis. The next best: apoprotein B, widely available from nearly all labs.

    When you're armed with this information, then you can make an intelligent decision about diet changes.

  • Paul

    8/24/2011 1:43:34 PM |

    Regarding Item 6

    There was some traffic between Chris Kresser and Jimmy Moore on Twitter yesterday regarding whether low carb caused low T3 in susceptible individuals. Clearly bad news for heart health.

    I am a treated hypothyroid and this was my recent experience - I had gone low carb and ended up with an abscess in the roof of my mouth that needed antibiotics.  When tested, my T3 had fallen from 5.5 to 3.8 (RR 4 - 6.8) - however, my TSH was 0.672 (RR 0.35-4.5).  In the UK, this low T3 would normally would have been missed as there is a TSH only testing policy here unless the TSH is found to be outside the reference range - I elected to pay privately for the T3 test.

    I remain on low-carb (and wheat free of course) as it is the only approach which allows me to lose weight, and have increased my meds from 75T4+20T3 to 100T4+40T3.

    I would query whether you consider hypothyroidism to be rare. I suspect it is very common.

  • steve

    8/24/2011 6:52:16 PM |

    Hi Dr. Davis:
    What if the patient  followed the above diet, had a particle count of 2,100, but only 200 were small and HDL 69 and Trgs 66.  Would this be acceptable, and better than a particle count of 640, less than 90 small, HDL 64, Trgs 45, but on statin and Zetia?  Assume thyroid and D all normal, and Apo E3/3
    Thanks for all the input

  • Chris

    8/24/2011 7:26:24 PM |

    Hi Dr Davis,
    This post really hit home with me (and ironically this is my first visit to your site).  I had a heart attack 2 years ago (34 years old, ate well or so I thought, in great physical condition at 5'9" 150 lbs).  My cardiologist advised the usual low fat diet and pravastatin, and while my lipids are better than they were, I'm still very concerned they are not near where they should be.

    About 5 weeks ago I found the primal diet and began eating that diet.  Last week I had another lipid test and my numbers actually got worse (not by much).  Would you mind reviewing my numbers and if you have any suggestions I would appreciate it.

    8/31/2009 heart attack
    total chol 115
    LDL 74
    HDL 16
    Triglycerides 126
    VLDL 25

    07/19/2010 checkup
    total chol 138
    LDL 64
    HDL 33
    Triglycerides 203
    VLDL 41

    03/21/2011 Healthfair
    total chol 122
    LDL 69
    HDL 31
    Triglycerides 111
    VLDL 22

    8/19/2011 walk in lab:
    total chol 159
    LDL 98
    HDL 34
    Triglycerides 135
    VLDL 27

    Glucose 97
    hsCRP 1.2
    A1c 5.5

    Do you suggest giving the "primal" diet more time or do you suspect I may have another condition causing this?

  • Chris

    8/24/2011 7:36:33 PM |

    Also in May of this year I had the following tests done at the cardiologists:
    Date of service: May 13, 2011
    CAT Scan MRI & NMR
    Diagnostic Radiology X-Ray
    Cardiovascular Stress Test

    I was told everything was fine.

  • Might-o'chondri-AL

    8/25/2011 2:28:51 AM |

    Track Your Plaque once gave a desirable level of ApoB  as under 70 mg.dl as surrogate marker for the desirable LDL particle number (which is less than 700 nm/l) if one only has ApoB testing.  Maybe some one else can recall the conversion ratio of ApoB into LDL particle numbers.

    A cholesterol fractions normal transfer from HDL to ApoB is governed by  the cholesterol ester transfer protein (CETP). Genetic variants of CETP can cause differences in the numbers of  small LDL and sparse CETP can cause cholesterol to stay stuck in HDL  ( CETP has little impact on numerical % of HDL). So genetic variants of ApoB can influence the levels of cholesterol shunting around.

    In  the liver ApoB normally gets it's lipids when ApoB goes into a cell's endoplasmic reticulum. And if the ApoB doesn't improperly degrade ( ApoB needs "enough" microsomal triglyceride transfer protein SREBP-1c, the sterol regulatory element binding protein, to avoid degrading) then ApoB can pick up triglycerides to form VLDL molecules. So, if there is not enough liver SREBP-1c  then lipids can't be transferred over to make triglyceride rich VLDL; conversely lots of liver SREBP-1c provokes extra VLDL.

    Doc says carbohydrate related  post-prandial high glucose not only induces  more VLDL output  from the liver but that this is part of the mechanism whereby carbs can boost body fat. High carbohydrate intake causes extra lipo-genesis in the liver because a significant  reflex of high post -prandial liver insulin is a signal that upregulates SREBP-1c. Then SREBP-1c expression rises and that in turn activates genes for the lipogenic enzymes (ex: fatty acid synthesase & acetyl CoA carboxylase),

    Rogue readings of VLDL may be due to viral hepatitis proteins, flavivirus and pestivirus, which can decrease VLDL formation and secretion while dropping levels of ApoB. Viral proteins "smear" onto lipids and this blocks SREBP-1c action and viral proteins can also "stick" on to the HDL protein fraction ApoA1 inside of the  liver cells' Golgi Apparatus. Thus in chronic liver disease and hepatitis circulating VLDL associated triglycerides eventually decreases so there are more non-VLDL  triglycerides in play.

  • Jack Daniels

    8/25/2011 11:49:38 AM |

    Hi Dr. Davis,

    I was just wondering, due to many healthy cultures including the kitava, okinawan's...etc, who indulge in rather high carb intakes and retain rather pristine health, is it possible that high trigs, low hdl..etc may just be a lipid profile reflecting high carb* intake rather than suggesting atherogenic buildup ?

    *when based on safe starchy type carbs

  • Dr. William Davis

    8/25/2011 3:42:09 PM |

    Hi, Paul--
    In the population I see, hypothyroidism is exceptionally common, both in people on low-carb but also in people prior to initiating their low-carb efforts. So, without a formal analysis, I'm skeptical that low-carb in and of itself causes free T3 to drop.
    There are also numerous inhibitors of the 5'-deiodinase enzyme that converts T4 to T3, including perchlorate residues from fertilizers in vegetables and polyfluorooctanoic acid, the residue of non-stick cookware, just to name a couple.

  • Dr. William Davis

    8/25/2011 3:43:29 PM |

    This is the BIG unanswered question. Sadly, there are next to no data that speaks to this question.
    My day to day answer has been to 1) eliminate small LDL, then 2) maintain LDL particle number 1500 nmol/L or less. But that is pure speculation on my part.

  • Dr. William Davis

    8/25/2011 3:45:22 PM |

    Hi, Chris--
    Something doesn't compute: Every panel you list is the pattern of excessive carbohydrate consumption and/or sensitivity. So something is sneaking through. There is no question that a "primal" or low-carbohydrate approach works for this pattern.  

    You might also have an Apo E2 gene that amplifies carbohydrate sensitivity.

  • Dr. William Davis

    8/25/2011 3:47:01 PM |

    Hi, Might--
    As always, you are an incredible fountain of unique insights!

  • Dr. William Davis

    8/25/2011 3:47:44 PM |

    Sorry, Jack, I didn't understand your question. Could you rephrase?

  • Chris

    8/25/2011 4:28:55 PM |

    Thanks.  I've only been eating primal/paleo for about five weeks, so only the last panel would reflect this (if thats enough time to be reflected in my lipid panel).  I will re-test after another few months.

  • Jack Kronk

    8/25/2011 4:53:55 PM |

    Dr Davis. Jeez. This sounds similar to my story (Frustrated's #s). I have eaten Paleo for over a year now, I have done exceedingly well with body composition in that time. See my "Share You Paleo Before and After" here ---> http://paleohacks.com/questions/7058/share-your-paleo-before-and-after/28493#28493. But this only adds to the confusion for me (and others).

    For some reason, my labs came back on July 8, 2011 with small dense LDL and pathetic HDL at 40, despite a diet rich in GF beef, pastured eggs, bacon, pasture butter, coconut oil, ghee, veggies, starch and fruits only for carb sources, etc etc. I spend mega money to eat well. We don't mess around. I posted my VAP panel results on PaleoHacks last month and it has resulted in a lot of attention on this very subject. Chris Masterjohn weighed in with his thoughts. Dr Kruse wrote a blog all about it.

    http://paleohacks.com/questions/50347/hack-jack-kronks-vap-test-results

    I will be retesting again in about a month, as I have made some changes, like eliminating bananas, less heavy cream and pasture butter, etc.

    My lab said it's $390 just to do the ApoE test. Is this a normal price? If not, where do you recommend people get the testing done?

    I'm genuinely confused. It's like my body is saying... "Yes Jack. Good job. I am very happy with what you are eating. I will continue to keep fat off and pack on muscle." But then my heart is saying "Nooooo. Stop!!"

    How can this be?

  • Jack Daniels

    8/25/2011 5:29:06 PM |

    I was questioning if your pathological interpretation of a blood lipid profile that exhibits low hdl and high triglycerides, could instead just be a reflection of a high carb diet rather than suggesting an increased risk for CVD. I was referencing a couple high carb cultures, such as the Okinawa and the kitava, who exhibit a similar lipid profile but have very small incidence of CVD. Compared to other cultures with similar lipid profiles, such as the Swedes and Americans, who have much higher rates of CVD would suggest it's more about quality of blood lipids rather than their certain partitioning. Hopefully that's a better re-phrasal?

  • steve

    8/25/2011 5:57:08 PM |

    This is the BIG unanswered question. Sadly, there are next to no data that speaks to this question.
    My day to day answer has been to 1) eliminate small LDL, then 2) maintain LDL particle number 1500 nmol/L or less. But that is pure speculation on my part.

    My understanding related to your above comment is that large LDL is nearly as athrogenic as small LDL and that you want the particle number low with mix between largle and small LDL taking secondary importance.  Of course, that is based on a diet that the avg american consumes,  and not on the low carb with wheat sugar and cornstarch elimination you advocate.
    Am i under a correct understanding regarding large LDL being dangerous as well and therefore the need to minimize this even with your dietary recommendations?  Also, i thought you advocated a total LDL particle number to approach 600?  Is your 1500 number a revised viewpoint based on newer diet or clinical observations?
    Thank you again.

  • Might-o'chondri-AL

    8/25/2011 7:53:36 PM |

    Server error blocking me again ... testing after hour passed.

  • Might-o'chondri-AL

    8/25/2011 8:49:34 PM |

    ApoE is crucial to VLDL & chylomicron formation. Variant ApoE 2 less efficient at transfering lipids to liver and is binding lipids up an extra +/- 2%; result is that lipids take longer to clear from circulation and more can go wrong. From my notes, here is the rate some ancestral populations have at least 1 copy of ApoE2: 2-4% of Mexican-american & American Indian, also  3-4% of Japanese & West African. There is 0% of South American Indians with ApoE2 and one wonders which variation of  ApoE  might be in Kitava melanesians. .
    ApoE4 degrades easiest of all ApoE forms, leaving protein fragments in cell's cytosol which then can affect a mitochondria's lipid binding region impairing the performing of  tasks. In addition ApoE4 fragments diminish gene PPAR gamma expression; and this depresses the desirable bio-genesis of mitochondria. The affects on mitochondria may be why high levels of dietary fat is problematic for ApoE4 individuals; there may be too sparse output of viable mitochondria and mitochondria membranes are involved in how efficiently we burn fat or glucose.  .
    In light of these ApoE4 nuances it is interesting to know that fasting raises free fatty acid levels (from fats in the body and not loose fats from recent food); and then those free fatty acids upregulate  gene for PPAR gamma in the liver. Fasting makes one put out ketones  because of the extra PPAR gamma programing and this ketogenesis is also one way that activating more PPAR gamma improves insulin sensitivity. This suggests to me that individuals with ApoE4 may (?) find some benefit from modified fasting; possibly something like decidedly fewer meals in a day and also simply not grazing on snacks (ie: in addition to just trying to select what foods to eat) between meals that are regularly spaced apart (ie: very early breakfast to let meal times spread put more evenly) .

    Finally again from my notes, here is the rate some ancestral population have at least 1 copy of ApoE4: .14-19% Germans & Finns, also 7-12%  French & Italians. Of course America is one of the world's melting pots so an individual's propensity for ApoE 4 & ApoE 2 is hard to pin point.

  • Jack Kronk

    8/25/2011 9:02:36 PM |

    This is fascintaing Might. I have been guilty of snacking too much. All healthy snacks, but still the concept of grabbing bites of delicious foods between meals might be messing with my liver. For my VAP test, I did not fast. Chris Masterjohn believes this was the reason (or at least the reason for dismissal) of my increase in triglycerides in the blood. I am most concerned about my low HDL, because if I raise my HDL, I believe my LDL will become more dominantly pattern A.

  • Paul

    8/25/2011 11:04:33 PM |

    Thank you for the reply.  I would like to share a speculation.  Strict low carb means gluconeogenesis means an increased cortisol demand? OK in young fit Paleo men, but what about long-term un(der)treated hypothyroid individuals?

    In "Safe Uses of Cortisol", Dr William Mck Jefferies (p. 183/4) observes that low dose (20mg/day) of hydrocortisone taken by a patient with hypothyroidism increases T3,  lowers T4 and improves patient energy levels suggesting such low dose cortisol enhances T4 to T3 conversion.

    Could VLC, by putting demands on potentially weakened adrenals, have the opposite effect?

  • Might-o'chondri-AL

    8/26/2011 12:10:58 AM |

    HDL molecules hold triglycerides (there are 45 different variations of triglycerides in circulation, which are based on what their esterified fatty acid component is), cholesterol esters (about 13 - 27% of the HDL surface particles), shingomyelins and glycerophospholipids. HDL's principle proteins are +/- 70% ApoA1 and +/- 20% ApoA2;  yet any changes in the ratio of ApoA2 from genetics (Kitavans?, I propose so) or drugs (ex:fibrates) can have effects.  

    Usually people with low levels of  HDL have more trigs on their HDL surface (compared to those with high levels of HDL) and low HDL is associated with the passing of more cholesterol esters to VLDL & chylomicrons. Also, when HDL trig levels go up that makes it easier for the liver enzyme hepatic lipase to cleave off more ApoA1 for the kidneys to clear away; and that further tends to keep HDL levels low.  

    In comparison people with high levels of HDL have more cholesterol esters on their HDL; which may be due in part to cholesterol esters affinity for ApoA1 in HDL. And statisticly high levels of HDL are usually associated with bigger ("large") HDL molecule size. Both large HDL and ApoA1 are considered to be more protective factors against atherosclerosis.

    I suspect that Kitavan melanesians' low HDL fortuitously correlates with a geneticly higher than normal % of ApoA2; and ApoA2 configures more deeply nestled into the HDL complex than ApoA1. It (ApoA2) influences molecular  interactions all the way to the HDL surface and limits certain lipid dynamics.

    ApoA2 holds ApoA1 off of mature HDL molecules and this results in a shunting of ApoA1 into forming up the pre-Beta HDL; these lipid poor ApoA1 configurations are great at doing reverse cholesterol transport that brings back cholesterol  to the liver for excreting as bile acids. Those pre-Beta HDL are small, yet notably excellent at taking cholesterol away from nefarious macrophage foam cells (the large HDL  molecule also picks cholesterol nicely from foam cells).

    Experiments see that preceeding type of change with fibrate drug doses, which only minimally raise HDL & ApoA1 yet increase the ApoA2 amount in HDL by over 25%. Since fibrates are agonists activating the peroxisome proliferator activiated receptor PPAR alpha it might be instructive to see if anything in the Kitavan diet is a similar agonist, such as heirloom tuber roots derived from wild yam with high diosgenin content (diosgenin is well known to affect PPAR gamma).

  • Dr. William Davis

    8/26/2011 5:15:14 PM |

    Hi, Steve--
    There really is no final word on what the desired endpoint is when small LDl has been eliminated and you have pure large LDL. In a perfect world, I'd wish for a particle number of 600 nmol/L with pure large LDL. But I'm no longer entirely sure this is necessary. But this remains anecdotal. There are no formal data, nor do I have any formal analysis of our own data on this question.

  • Dr. William Davis

    8/26/2011 5:17:32 PM |

    Hi, Jack--
    Don't know, since I've never seen any genuine lipoprotein data on these populations. Most of the data I've seen has been total cholesterol, which is far too crude to draw any conclusions from.

    Have you seen lipoprotein data on these populations?

  • Jack Kronk

    8/26/2011 5:33:12 PM |

    Might. Do you suspect that I have low HDL and highish Trigs/VLDL in the blood for this reason? I do take in a fair amount of protein (including a whey isolate daily). Also, plenty of eggs. Does dietary protein consumption have any actual affect on HDL's principle protein and/or surface cholesterol esters?

  • The Surgical Blog

    8/27/2011 3:52:44 AM |

    Yes Jack Kronk, it seems that you have low HDL and highish Trigs, I do also think.

  • Nancy Milligan

    8/28/2011 7:51:57 PM |

    Just wanted to comment. I've been a long time low carb person, gluten-free too. I also had my thyroid ablated with RAI many years ago. I have found, as have many low carbers, that my reverse T3 is very high and Free T3 is scraping the bottom or below the range.

    Unfortunately this does seem to be a common side-effect of low carb eating. It's even documented in studies on the topic.

    We had a low carb eater recently watching his LDL climb to very high levels after he began eating low carb. He started taking cytomel and his LDL is coming down very nicely.

    Did he get a sudden onset of hypothyroidism that just coincided with low carb eating? I suppose that's possible, but I do think there's something more going on.

    I'm taking Armour thyroid myself, but I still have the tendency to turn T4 into reverse T3 and I suppose that means the Free T3 can't get to the receptors. I'm going to experiment with raising my carbs a little higher and sticking to things like yams and squash for my carbs.

  • Espen Rostrup

    8/31/2011 12:33:45 PM |

    Dear dr. Davis,
    I just attended the annual cardiology congress of the European Society of Cardiology. Amongst others, the new guidelines on dyslipidemia were presented and I had the opportunity to ask the working group the question you mention above in your first of opportunities : What about measuring lipids during an ongoing substantial weight loss? The were not able to give me a proper answer.
    Do you have any scientific references saying that weight loss induce a temporary dyslipidemia or is it based on your experience?
    I would be most thankful for your comment on this.
    Best regards
    Espen Rostrup, MD, PhD-fellow
    Bergen, Norway

  • Dr. William Davis

    9/2/2011 2:56:29 AM |

    Dr. Rostrup--

    Unfortunately, I know of no published data documenting this effect. However, I have seen it hundreds of times. It is, in fact, quite predictable: drop in HDL, rise in triglycerides, variable small LDL effects, increased blood glucose. It all subsides and improves over time.

    It would indeed be an interesting study to chronicle the changes serially in a small number of people.

  • Dana

    9/8/2011 8:28:14 PM |

    I am also seeing a heck of a lot of omega-6 intake there.  Also, the healthfulness of monounsaturated fats is a bit overstated.  I've heard of studies where they had 3 groups of people.  One got their normal saturated fat, one group replaced the saturated fat with olive oil and the third group replaced the sat-fat with corn oil.  The corn oil eaters did the worst in health outcomes, but the olive oil group wasn't great either--both groups that replaced the sat-fat did more poorly.  I've heard of other studies where lard was compared with olive oil and the lard-eaters turned out better.  Bottom line, the human body seems to like saturated fat best.  (Lard is not as saturated as butter, but it is more saturated than olive oil.)  If I were in a position to make medical recommendations (I'm not), I'd tell someone like this to ixnay on the plant oils for a while and see what happens.

    It should be noted that one of the more dubious selling points of grass-finished meat is that it is lower in saturated fat.  To me, this is not a selling point.  If this person were only getting PUFAs from their grass-finished meat it would be one thing--at least then it'd be closer to a 1:1 omega-6/omega-3 ratio.  But that's not what's going on here.  If they were just eating the fish they might still be OK (depends on the fish--cold-water is better).  But they're adding in walnut oil and chicken consumption and those are going to add more omega-6, even if the chicken's pastured.

    I'm curious what this person's inflammation markers are.  If they're off the map the LDL may still be high because the body's trying to repair the inflammation.  That would explain the low HDL too; LDL takes cholesterol out to the body from the liver, and HDL returns it to the liver.  If the cholesterol is *needed* elsewhere in the body then of course it won't be returned to the liver.

    Even if inflammation markers are normal, this person's diet may not be meeting their needs for saturated fats in the cell membranes, which may mean they need more cholesterol in their cell membranes to try to make up the deficit.  Not an ideal situation.

    Get the PUFA reduced, get the inflammation down if any, see what the lipids do and then we can talk about weird genes.  Absent the necessary DNA profile we really don't know, anyway.

  • Dana

    9/8/2011 8:31:06 PM |

    "just eating the fish" = in addition to the pastured beef.  I would not drop beef in favor of fish, there's too much good nutrition a person would be giving up, but fish in addition to beef's not bad.  Chicken used to be a luxury food, you had it on Sundays if then.  Best that it's relegated to that role again.  The white meat is too dry and the dark meat's rife with PUFAs.  Other fowl are not much better.  A foray into the USDA's nutritional database is an eye-opener.

Loading
What's better than a heart scan?

What's better than a heart scan?


Do you know what's better than a heart scan?

Two heart scans. No other method can provide better feedback on the results of your program.

Say you've made efforts to correct high LDL; lost weight to raise HDL and reduce small LDL; added soluble fibers, nuts, and dramatically reduced wheat products; take fish oil, vitamin D, and follow a flavonoid-rich diet. Has it worked?

After a year or so of your program, that's when another heart scan can give you invaluable feedback on whether it's been successful. I tell my patients that it's relatively easy to correct lipid and lipoprotein abnormalities. The difficult part is to know when it's good enough. Is your LDL of 67 mg/dl and HDL of 50 mg/dl good enough? Another heart scan score is the best way I know of to find out.

Variation in plaque growth differs hugely from one person to another, even at equivalent lipoprotein values. Why? Lots of reasons. Humans are inconsistent day to day. Lipoproteins, being a snapshot in time and not a cumulative value, change somewhat from day to day. There's also the possibility of unmeasured, unrecognized factors that influence coronary plaque growth. We may not be smart enough to identify these hidden factors yet. But your heart scan score will incorporate the effects of these hidden factors.

Ideally, we aim for zero growth in plaque (no change in score) or a reduction. But, particularly in the first year, 10% or less plaque growth is still a good result that predicts much reduced risk of heart attack. More than 20% per year and your program needs more work--or else you know what's ahead.
Loading
The sobering tale of small LDL

The sobering tale of small LDL

Every day, I learn to respect small LDL more and more.

Small LDL particles, and its evil partner, low HDL, is among the most common reasons why someone fails to fully gain control of coronary plaque and heart disease risk.

Just yesterday, I saw a slender businessman (6 feet 1 inch in height, 186 lb.) whose small pattern persisted despite niacin, fish oil, oat bran, and raw almonds. We generally think of small LDL as an overweight person's pattern, but in some people the genetics are quite powerful and it can be expressed even in slender people.

The solution: More physical activity and exercise; cut back on processed carbohydrates, particularly wheat products like breads, pasta, crackers, breakfast cereals; think about magnesium (see our two recent reports on magnesium on the www.cureality.com membership website, the latest report to be posted this week); be sure sleep is adequate (gauge this by whether you're energetic during the day and don't fall asleep watching TV or movies). Lack of sufficient physical activity in people with sedentary jobs is probably among the most common reason the small LDL pattern persists.

Ignore small LDL and it can be like a hidden cancer in your body, growing and metastasizing (not literally, of course), fueling coronary plaque growth. Be sure your doctor assesses whether you have small LDL if you hope to gain control of your coronary risk.
Loading