Cheese and vitamin K2

If you've been following the Track Your Plaque conversation, you know that, contrary to prevailing opinion among many cardiologists, there is an emerging notion that coronary calcification is an active process, a true part of the disease.

Vitamin D3 is an important aspect of this question. So is vitamin K2. Not to be confused with K1 that plays a role in blood coagulation, K2 has an important role in calcium metabolism. Thus, vitmain K2 deficiency is related to osteoporosis and to coronary calcification.

Getting K2, like getting D, is difficult from food sources. The choices for K2 sources includes:

--Natto--generally, an impalatable choice. I've had it and it was intolerably gooey and weird-tasting. It is, nonetheless, the most concentrated food source of K2.

--Pate--Though liver products have the potential for containing many other unhealthy things, like pesticide residues, since the liver acts as a filter for the blood.

--Fermented cheeses--Since K2 is a product of fermentation of cheese, as it is in Natto.


For years, we've advised people to avoid or minimize cheese because of saturated fat or cholesterol content. I think that there's reason to re-think this advice based on the emerging data.

How can you tell the difference between fermented and non-fermented cheese? First, look for the holes in the cheese. The holes are the remnants of gas pockets created during fermentation. Second, look for the word "cultures" on the label, meaning organisms for fermentation were added. If "processed cheese" is anywhere on the label, this is a dairy product that has been chemically coagulated and is not fermented.

Fermented cheeses are generally "gourmet" cheeses, not eaten a pound at a time on a pizza, but meant to be eaten in small portions.

How much fermented cheese is necessary for its presumed inhibitory benefits on coronary calcification and osteoporsis? Are some fermented cheeses better than others? These issues remain unsettled. Stay tuned.

Comments (5) -

  • Anonymous

    6/5/2007 11:06:00 PM |

    Doc
    I am really confused on your recommendation on trying to get k2 from food or cheese. Since you mention there is no way to tell how much k2 you are getting. I do notice that you dont mention supplements as an option to this problem. Since you are not opposed to supplements and k2 supplements are available now, I would think you would at least mention this as the solution in the meantime.

  • Dr. Davis

    6/6/2007 1:53:00 AM |

    That's because this conversation was meant to supplement a full discussion on vitamin K2 posted on the website this Blog accompanies. In a full Special Report on www.trackyourplaque.com, we have a full conversation about nutritional supplements.

  • Brock Cusick

    11/26/2008 3:14:00 PM |

    There are two kinds of K2 - MK-4 and MK-7.  Natto is MK-7 and all animal sources are MK-4.  Further, Dr. Weston Price did not find any examples of healthy primitive cultures that relied on MK-7. Every one used MK-4 animal sources.

    The most concentrated sources of MK-4 are butter oil, fish liver oil and organ meats (such as foi gras). Cheese is a pretty dilute source by comparison.

  • buy jeans

    11/3/2010 3:19:33 PM |

    For years, we've advised people to avoid or minimize cheese because of saturated fat or cholesterol content. I think that there's reason to re-think this advice based on the emerging data.

  • Anonymous

    2/5/2011 5:46:07 PM |

    Did you do any research on cheese at all before you posted this blog? Look for cheeses that have holes in it because it is a product of fermentation... All REAL cheese is fermented. It does not need to have holes to be fermented. The holes are from fermentation or culturing by a specific type of bacteria- propionic bacteria. Also, processed cheese starts off as real cheese and is then processed with heat, mechanical means, chemicals, etc. While you should definitely stay away from it because of these chemicals and the creation of oxidized cholesterol, the assertion that it is not fermented is false.

Loading
Can I eat quinoa?

Can I eat quinoa?

. . . or beans, or brown rice, or sweet potatoes? Or how about amaranth, sorghum, oats, and buckwheat? Surely corn on the cob is okay!

These are, of course, non-wheat carbohydrates. They lack several crucial undesirable ingredients found in our old friend, wheat, including no:

Gliadin--The protein that degrades to exorphins, the compound from wheat digestion that exerts mind effects and stimulates appetite to the tune of 400 additional calories (on average) per day.
Gluten--The family of proteins that trigger immune diseases and neurologic impairment.
Amylopectin A--The highly-digestible "complex" carbohydrate that is no better--worse, in fact--than table sugar.

So why not eat these non-wheat grains all you want? If they don't cause appetite stimulation, behavioral outbursts in children with ADHD, addictive consumption of foods, dementia (i.e., gluten encephalopathy), etc., why not just eat them willy nilly?

Because they still increase blood sugar. Conventional wisdom is that these foods trend towards having a lower glycemic index than, say, table sugar, meaning it raises blood glucose less.

That's true . . . but very misleading. Oats, for instance, with a glycemic index of 55 compared to table sugar's 59, still sends blood sugar through the roof. Likewise, quinoa with a glycemic index of 53, will send blood sugar to, say, 150 mg/dl compared to 158 mg/dl for table sugar--yeah, sure, it's better, but it still stinks. And that's in non-diabetics. It's worse in diabetics.

Of course, John Q. Internist will tell you that, provided your blood sugars after eating don't exceed 200 mg/dl, you'll be okay. What he's really saying is "There's no need for diabetes medication, so you're okay. You will still be exposed to the many adverse health consequences of high blood sugar similar to, though less quickly than, a full diabetic, but that's not my problem."

In reality, most people can get away with consuming some of these non-wheat grains . . . provided portion size is limited. Beyond limiting portion size, there are two ways to better manage your carbohydrate sensitivity to ensure that metabolic distortions, such as high blood sugar, glycation, and small LDL particles, are not triggered.

More on that in the future.


Comments (15) -

  • Jordi Posthumus

    7/29/2011 1:01:43 AM |

    This is exactly what Ron Rosedale said back in 2004.

  • Payam

    7/29/2011 4:45:07 AM |

    If the only problem is that they raise blood sugar then are they okay if you eat them with fiber/fat?  If not, please explain why..

  • Anne

    7/29/2011 12:44:09 PM |

    I found that all grains, even when eaten with fat, raise my blood sugar to unacceptable levels. Grains can easily get me to over 200. Get a glucometer and see what these grains do to your blood sugar. I also found that when I want to see what a food does to my blood glucose I have to test every 15-20 min after I eat. If I test only at 2 hours I might miss the spike and be falsely reassured that I can eat that food. My fasting is in the 80's and I try to keep postprandial spikes under 110 and even that may be too high.

    If you are gluten sensitive, it is very common to have problems with oats(even the ones that are certified gluten free). Corn also seems to be a a problem for a good number of people who can't eat gluten.

  • Renfrew

    7/29/2011 12:44:24 PM |

    Sorry for disgressing a bit. Here is an excellent discussion about NIACIN and its effectiveness for decreasing cardiac events:
    http://www.theheart.org/article/1231453.do
    Do we have to give up NIACIN?
    Renfrew

  • Might-o'chondri-AL

    7/29/2011 6:09:41 PM |

    Hi Renfrew,
    Statin used with niacin, anti-fungals, genfibrozil, cyslosporin and erythromycin are already known by Mayo Clinic to have the potential to trigger muscle breakdown, called rhabdo-myolysis. This sends a byproduct called myo-globin into the blood that when reaches kidneys and degrades causes kidney renal tubule obstructive damage.

    HDL traffics mainly with the Apoliprotein A-1 (ApoA1), which is key to bring cholesterol to HDL for binding cholesterol molecules to transport for recycling. Compromised kidneys create a uremic environment which depresses ApoA1 bio-syntheis,  while proteinuria physically overloads the kidney tubule cells; in other words HDL ends up just carrying more triglycerides around and  HDL is not properly performing desired reverse cholesterol transport (recycling).

    Statins , to be fair, are showing  good results in preventing post surgery human acute kidney failure and some other kidney cases.  Of course  niacin  in rats with chronic renal failure ameliorated hypertension, proteinuria, inflammation and oxidative stress (see 2009: Am. J. Physiol. Renal Physiol. 297, F106-F113 and follow similarly related 2010: "Niacin Improves Renal Lipid Metabolism and Slows Progression in Chronic Kidney Disease" in Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1800, 6-15) .  So my non-clinician take is that niacin use, such as Doc's, without co-administered statins is largely preventative of lipo-toxicity; whereas the experiment you read of  dosing statins plus niacin risked a potential drug interaction Mayo Clinic already warned about .

  • conrack

    7/29/2011 7:13:16 PM |

    Allow me to rephrase your question: If the only problem with eating glucose is that it raises your blood sugar then is it ok to eat glucose with fats & just eat donuts?

    Brilliant.

  • Buckaroo Banzai

    7/29/2011 8:57:46 PM |

    I've never heard of table sugar being rated on the glycemic index as low as 59.  Nutritiondata says 68 and I have read 70 in books.  http://nutritiondata.self.com/topics/glycemic-index#values

  • Payam

    7/30/2011 2:15:50 AM |

    Thanks for putting words in my mouth wise guy.  What I was saying is that if I eat a sweet potato with enough coconut oil that it doesnt spike my blood sugar, what is the problem.  Dr. Davis said in the article that it wouldnt " cause appetite stimulation, behavioral outbursts in children with ADHD, addictive consumption of foods, dementia, etc."  If the only problem is that it spikes blood sugar and you avoid that problem, then whats wrong with a sweet potato.  But you already knew what my question was.. you just wanted to take out your frustration on me...

  • steve

    7/30/2011 8:08:17 PM |

    Dr Davis:
    What is a safe level for post prandial glucose measurement?  Is it under 120, under 100 or what?  Also, are you advocating a zero carb-starch diet?

    Thanks,

  • conrack

    7/30/2011 9:50:10 PM |

    Thanks for giving me another opportunity to make fun of your insistence on eating anything made of glucose.  What you were saying is that if you eat a GLUCOSE potato with enough coconut oil that it BECOMES A DONUT, it WILL still spike your blood sugar, that is the problem. (ANY glucose + ANY fat = DONUTS!)  Dr. Davis said in the article "IF they don't cause (conditions & behaviors caused by high blood sugar)" and then said "That’s...very misleading." If you think the only problem (and it's NOT) is that it spikes blood sugar, and you THINK you can, but actually CAN NOT avoid that OR the other problems, then that's whats wrong with a glucose potato. But you already knew what the answer is.. you just wanted to justify & take out your glucose addiction on me…

  • conrack

    7/30/2011 9:58:58 PM |

    Oops, that should read (conditions & behaviors caused by wheat). Got lost in the cuts & pastes.

  • Payam

    7/30/2011 11:39:23 PM |

    Okay, so rather than speaking in generalities, answer this.  I just had a baked potato with cinnamon and melted coconut oil.  Measured my blood glucose every 30 mins for 2 hours and it didn't go over 100.  It could be and probably is because I am a triathlete and I worked out in the morning so my muscle glycogen stores were empty.  So, glucose would preferentially go to muscle.  But what is wrong with eating a baked potato after a workout.  In other words, what are these "other problems" that you mention. (I didn't eat the skin by the way, b/c of the glycoalkaloids).  

    I am not trying to get into an argument with you, I really dont care.  I am just trying to get more informed.  I understand however, that Dr. Davis's information applies more to diabetics and insulin resistant, so maybe for someone active like me, its not as big a deal.  But if a potato doesn't spike my blood sugar, why, specifically, should I avoid it? Thanks

  • Tim Dietz

    7/31/2011 8:40:53 PM |

    I've monitored this blog for quite a while now and either I"ve forgotten the reasons or I've never seen them, but could somebody point me to the article(s) that outline the effects of high post prandial glucose?

    Thanks,

    Tim

  • conrack

    8/5/2011 7:30:52 PM |

    The answer is in the second half of this article posted on August 5, 2011 here: http://www.trackyourplaque.com/blog/2011/08/carb-counting.html

  • Sami Paju

    8/12/2011 3:06:48 PM |

    Hello,

    I would like to add to the discussion one significant issue with quinoa; saponins. They are molecules that are supposedly a major gut-irritant, and when compared to e.g. plant and animal foods have a high likelihood to cause leaky gut and inflammation of the small intestine. And inflammation is rather counterproductive for anyone trying to lose weight.

    //sami

Loading
A Tale of Two LDL's

A Tale of Two LDL's

Kurt, a 50-year old businessman with a heart scan score of 323, had a :

--Conventional (calculated) LDL of 128 mg/dl
--Real measured LDL 241 mg/dl.


Laurie, a 53-year old woman who underwent a coronary bypass operation last year (before I met her), had a:

--Conventional LDL of 142 mg/dl
--Real measured LDL was 85 mg/dl.


(By "real, measured" LDL, I'm referring to LDL particle number in units of nmol/L obtained through NMR lipoprotein testing and dividing by 10, or just dropping the last digit to convert the value to mg/dl. This technique was arrived at by comparing the population distributions of these two parameters, LDL particle number and calculated LDL. This is the gold standard in my view. Similar numbers can be obtained by measuring apoprotein B, direct LDL, or calculated non-HDL, with diminishing reliability from first to last.)

In other words, Kurt's conventional LDL underestimated real LDL by 88%. Laurie's conventional LDL overestimated real LDL by 40%.

Interestingly, Laurie's doctor had insisted she take Lipitor for a high LDL cholesterol. Her real LDL was, in fact, low to begin with and benefits of a statin drug would be little to none. (Remember, in our Track Your Plaque approach, multiple other treatments are included, such as omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil, vitamin D normalization, and wheat elimination, strategies that yield benefits that others expect to obtain with statins.) Laurie's real cause of her heart disease proved to have nothing to do with LDL cholesterol, but involved lipoprotein(a) and thyroid issues.

Kurt proved to have a severe preponderance of small LDL particles--the worst kind of LDL, while Laurie had none--a benign pattern.

Then how can anyone make sense of the conventional, calculated LDL cholesterol that is generally (95% of the time) provided? If accuracy can stretch to plus or minus 80% . . . you can't. Conventional LDL is a miserably inaccurate number. The problem is that obtaining a superior number requires a step or two more testing and insight, something most busy primary care doc's simply don't have in the midst of a day filled with arthritis, bronchitis, diarrhea, belly aches, and seborrhea.

Yet conventional--I call it "fictitious"--LDL serves as the basis for this $27 billion (annual revenues) industry selling statin drugs.

This is meant to be neither an argument in favor of nor against statin drugs. However, it is plain as day that any study designed to reduce LDL cholesterol will be hopelessly clouded by calculated LDL imprecision. A calculated LDL of, say, 143 mg/dl might really be 187 mg/dl, or it might be 74 mg/dl--you can't tell by looking just at LDL. Yet billions of dollars of research and billions of dollars of healthcare costs are based on the treatment of this number.

This reminds me of the mark-to-market accounting magic that helped topple Wall Street.

I don't think that the statin world is poised for such a huge downfall. But I do see this as a source of enormous dilution of the effects of statin drugs. People who barely stand to benefit get the drugs, while others who might truly benefit are treated inadequately. It provides fuel to the growing idea that reducing LDL cholesterol fails to truly provide benefit.

I am no lover of statin drugs nor drugs in general. But I am a fan of knowing the truth. Despite my bashing of the drug industry (and make no mistake: the drug industry is a cutthroat, profit-seeking, do-anything-to-increase-sales industry), I do believe that there is a role for statin drugs (though far smaller than $27 billion per year). But the usual method of selecting people for treatment is pure fiction. The ATP-III cholesterol treatment guidelines? An anemic attempt to apply structure to meaningless values.

You and I do not need to subscribe to this sort of non-quantitative nonsense.

Comments (10) -

  • renegadediabetic

    1/15/2009 3:22:00 PM |

    It's just part of big pharma's racket.  The public has been propgandized to fear cholesterol, statin prescriptions are based on an antiquated calculation, and the people who set cholesterol targets have financial ties to the drug companies.  This has created a big cash cow for big pharma.

    The only people to benefit from statins are middle aged men who have had a heart attack and even then, the benefit is small.  If statins were restricted to those who would truely benefit, it would mean a lot less $$$$ for big pharma.

  • Alan S David

    1/15/2009 3:31:00 PM |

    Today's news said millions more Americans over 60 could benefit from statins to combat the c-reative protein problem. How many more so called great things will statins do for us? Is this another terrific marketing ploy?

  • Zbig

    1/15/2009 8:52:00 PM |

    Dear Doc,
    all this NMR is black magic to me so far, besides I will wait for some advanced lipid measurements until I am at least 40.
    But I suspect that the LDL size can be guesstimated from e.g. triglicerides / HDL ratio - could you please supplement your post with the figures for both persons. I suspect there will be a difference there. TIA

  • Steve L.

    1/16/2009 3:36:00 AM |

    And if a million or so "Lauries" are given Lipitor for their 85 mg/dl  real LDL, I don't expect their all-cause mortality will IMPROVE .

  • Richard Nikoley

    1/17/2009 5:43:00 AM |

    Doc:

    My speculation is that this is merely an effect of the huge to-market costs pharmaceutical companies must endure, owing to FDA regulations.

    If people didn't have false-security -- as you have shown -- of FDA hurdles and implicit [expensively purchased] assurances, they might just take a bit more proactive, intelligent and informed approach to their own health, and maybe drug companies might go back to serving an informed consumer who no longer simply bows to an authority (the FDA) because they have the power to be who they are.

  • jean

    1/17/2009 5:57:00 AM |

    My neighbor is being lipitor by his internist because both his parents have alzheimers. At least that is what my neighbor told me.  I told him I'd never heard of that and he said he'd trust the doctor to know.

  • Robin

    11/2/2012 4:58:02 AM |

    Statins don't lessen the risk of heart disease by lowering cholesterol. They work by lowering inflammation which is not what  they were designed to do and was not expected. Happens a lot - drugs being created for one thing and being found to work for something else so are then subscribed for other conditions.

    Statins are powerful and dangerous drugs that block the production of cholesterol. Our bodies NEED cholesterol. By blocking its production, it also blocks Co Q10 and dolichols, and more. Side effects range from minor muscle pains to the complete destruction of muscles, kidney failure then death. Also transient global amnesia (TGA) which doesn't show up immediately and is dismissed when it does. They cause depression and violent behaviour. That's why people on statins have a higher morbidity from all other causes and not heart attacks.

    As renegadediabetic  above says, they show slight benefit for middle-aged men who have already had a heart attack. Oh yeah, tell us again why we need them?

  • Robin

    11/2/2012 5:00:24 AM |

    "morbidity"? Um, mortality.

  • Robin

    11/2/2012 5:01:59 AM |

    Darn. Message went to wrong place. Mortality is what I meant.

Loading
What is Cureality all about?

What is Cureality all about?


“Looking over your medical record, Nancy, I’m a bit concerned about your risk for osteoporosis and hip fracture. It looks like your mom had a hip fracture at age 67. Is that right? ”

“Yes, she did,” Nancy responded. “And her life was never quite the same for the 15 years she lived after that.

“You’re 53 year old. Bone thinning develops over many years. Let’s get you scheduled for a bone scan.”

Two weeks later:

“Your z-score is 1.5, Nancy. This means you’ve got a mild form of osteoporosis called ‘osteopenia.’ Here: This is a prescription for alendronate, what used to be called Fosamax.”

“Aren’t there side-effects with that drug? A friend of mine said that her mom had a leg fracture from it.”

“Well, yes. All prescription drugs have potential side-effects. They’re rare, but they can happen and we can’t predict it. Besides leg fracture, there’s something called jaw osteonecrosis in which the jawbone dies and has to be surgically replaced. But would you rather run the risk of a hip fracture?”

“Before we jump to drugs, aren’t there natural things I could do first?”

(Big sigh.) “You can take calcium, but that only helps a bit. You’ve got to make a choice: Take the drug or risk a hip fracture.”

“I’m going to explore some natural remedies on my own first.”

Nancy’s dialogue with her doctor is fictional but based on similar encounters that occur thousands of times every day nationwide. Identify a problem, prescribe a drug. Natural remedies? “They don’t work.” “I don’t know anything about that.” “None of that is proven.” “I only practice evidence-based medicine.” You’ve probably heard a few of these explanations yourself if you ever question the wisdom of conventional medical care.

Each of Nancy’s fictitious interactions were no more 10 minutes long. If she is like most people, she will have one or two such interactions over the course of a year, unless she develops some acute illness. So she’s got something like 20-30 minutes per year to compress all of her “health” advice into the time allotted. 20-30 minutes per year to discuss bone health, nutrition, blood sugar issues, cholesterol issues, blood pressure, female issues, and all the other facets of health. Perhaps she has developed some chronic gastrointestinal complaints, too, and an odd rash on her elbows, maybe headaches a few times per week that she didn’t have before. Regardless, she’s going to have to make do with those few minutes, likely receiving one or more prescriptions or imaging procedures for each.

Such is the nature of modern healthcare: Provide the minimum interaction, address only a few, perhaps no more than one, problem, then prescribe a drug. This is, more often than not, wrong. Plain wrong. Tragically, awfully, unethically, unnecessarily wrong.

Let’s pick up again with Nancy. Upon learning of her osteopenia and long-term risk for hip fractures of the sort that changed her mom’s life and health irretrievably, Nancy started searching for solutions. Not only did she discover that, yes, there are indeed a number of safe and effective ways to deal with osteopenia. She also learned that such strategies have even been examined in clinical trials, some of the strategies pitted head-to-head with drugs and performed on a par, sometimes better, than prescription drugs. She also found that there are online communities that she could join and discuss her health situation with people all sharing the same health interests. During one such interaction at the start of her effort, when she was still a bit unsure and tentative, a woman she didn’t know but who shared a similar interest in restoring bone health, commented to Nancy, “Don’t sweat it, Nancy. I was in your shoes a little over a year ago. I followed a program for bone health: vitamin D, vitamin K2, magnesium, I made sure that I included leafy green vegetables at least once or twice per day, and I added strength training for a few minutes twice per week. I started with osteoporosis. My most recent bone density test showed that I reversed it completely—it’s entirely normal! So hang in there and be sure to share your questions and concerns with us here.”

THAT is what Cureality is all about. Cureality fills the gap of knowledge in health that is not being provided in a few minute-long medical interaction. Cureality reveals the astounding amount of credible, safe, scientific information that allows you to participate, sometimes take over completely, various aspects of health. You don’t have to fire your doctor; these efforts supplement the information and advice you obtain (or don’t obtain) in the doctor’s office. While critics may sometimes say that this can be dangerous or that misdiagnoses and dangerous treatments might be risked, our experience is the exact opposite: People do better by taking the reins of health themselves, choosing to use the health care system for acute or catastrophic illness—but not necessarily for health.

Our fictional woman, Nancy, returns to her doctor one year later after undergoing a repeat bone scan. The doctor opened her chart, clearly expecting to scold her for her foolhardy and careless attitude. Instead, he was speechless. After a pause, he said, “I don’t know how you did it, but your bone density is now normal, the density of a healthy 30-year old woman. Just continue doing what you’re doing.” He closed the chart and walked out.

Yes: “Just continue what you are doing”—not “Please tell me what you did so that I might learn something new,” or “Where did you learn about such strategies? I knew nothing about this!” Just “do what you’re doing.” Too often, that is the response you get that defines what modern health care has become.

You don’t want that kind of health care. Sure, it’s reassuring to know that the doctor and hospital are there in case you injure yourself or develop pneumonia. But obtain day-to-day health advice of the sort that keeps you slender, keeps blood pressure normal, maintains normal insulin and blood pressure responses, helps keep bowel health ideal, can even be used to reverse conditions such as autoimmune joint pain, diabetes, osteoporosis, or skin rashes, while costing next to nothing and yielding health care benefits for you and your family in multiple areas of health? That is the kind of health care you want.

That’s why we developed Cureality.


William Davis, MD
Author of 
#1 New York Times Bestseller Wheat Belly: Lose the wheat, lose the weight and find your path back to health, The Wheat Belly Cookbook, and Wheat Belly 30-Minute (or Less!) Cookbook published by Rodale, Inc.  
Author, Track Your Plaque: The only heart disease prevention program that shows how the new CT heart scans can be used to detect, track, and control coronary plaque

Comments (1) -

  • LC

    6/30/2014 8:43:37 PM |

    Dr. Davis, You're a badass, one wonderful f**king badass!

Loading
Low-fat diets raise triglycerides

Low-fat diets raise triglycerides

Martin, a hospital employee, knowing that I fuss a great deal with lipids and lipoproteins, showed me his lipid panel because the result triggered a "panic value" for triglycerides at 267 mg/dl. He asked if he should go on a serious low-fat diet.

I asked Martin what he had for breakfast: a whole wheat bagel with no-added-sugar jam. Lunch: a turkey sub on whole grain bread, no mayonnaise. Snacks: baked chips, pretzels ("a low-fat snack!").

In years past, if person developed high triglycerides levels, a very low-fat diet was prescribed. Someone would come to the hospital, for instance, with abdominal pain from pancreatitis (an inflamed pancreas)due to the damaging effects of triglyceride levels >1000 mg/dl. For this reason, many people still believe that all instances of elevated triglycerides should be treated with a reduction in fat intake.

This is absolutely wrong. While a fat restriction may reduce triglycerides in genetically-programmed responses when triglycerides are >1000 mg/dl, lesser levels of high triglycerides of, say 250 or 300 mg/dl, do not respond to dietary fat restrictions as a sole strategy.

Yes, a reduction in unhealthy fats (saturated, trans, polyunsaturated) helps. But a reduction in fats of all sorts is not necessary and can, in fact, worsen the problem. We learned this lesson years ago with the Ornish diet and similar ultra low-fat approaches. When you reduce fat intake significantly to <10% of calories, triglycerides go way up. In those days, it wasn't uncommon to see triglycerides skyrocket past 200 or 300 mg/dl on these diets.

Why are triglycerides important? Triglycerides are an ingredient in creating the lipoproteins VLDL, IDL, small LDL. Elevated triglycerides trigger a drop in HDL, a shift towards small, ineffective HDL, and contribute to heightened inflammation. Higher triglycerides also tend to go hand in hand with lipoproteins that persist for extended periods (12-24 hours or longer) in the blood after a meal.

Triglycerides respond very nicely to a dramatic reduction in processed carbohydrates, especially wheat and corn. Of course, wheat is the bulk of the problem, since it has grown to occupy an enormous role in many people's diet, not uncommonly eaten 3,4, or 5 times per day in various forms, as it has in Martin's diet. Eliminating all sources of high-fructose corn syrup is also helpful, since high-fructose corn syrup shoots triglycerides way up. (Recall that high-fructose corn syrup is everywhere: ketchup, beer, low-fat or non-fat salad dressings, breads, fruit drinks, sports drinks, breakfast cereals, etc.)

Curiously, it is a fat that also powerfully reduces triglycerides in the form of fish oil. In the Track Your Plaque program, fish oil, taken at truly effective doses of 4000 mg per day or more (to provide at least 1200 mg EPA+DHA), is our number one choice after reduction of processed carbohydrates for reduction of high triglycerides.

Comments (4) -

  • Bruce K

    6/10/2008 7:42:00 PM |

    _I asked Martin what he had for breakfast: a whole wheat bagel with no-added-sugar jam. Lunch: a turkey sub on whole grain bread, no mayonnaise. Snacks: baked chips, pretzels ("a low-fat snack!")._

    What do you think of Joel Fuhrman's approach? He would not allow people to eat bagels, jam, bread, chips, and pretzels. The base of his diet is veggies (half raw, half-cooked), then fruits, beans, potatoes, raw nuts, and raw seeds. Grains are at the top of Fuhrman's food pyramid.

    http://www.nutritionforwellness.org/img/food_pyramid.gif

    Also, when he says "whole grains", he means unbroken grains like brown rice, oatmeal, etc. Not flours, or pastas, or breads made with flour. The only breads he would allow are things like sprouted grain breads, made without any flour.

    Most people who eat a low-fat diet eat bad foods. They don't eat high quality foods. Dr. Fuhrman claims to lower triglycerides and improve all other health markers, because he stricly limits foods like flour, fruit juice, vegetable oils, sugar, etc. Maybe a low-fat diet based on grains (esp flours) will raise the triglycerides, but a low-fat diet based on vegetables, fruits, beans, nuts, and seeds (Fuhrman's) wont.

    Fuhrman emphasizes nutrient-density far more than people like Dr. Dean Ornish. Whole grain flours are very perishable and quickly turn rancid. Weston Price pointed this out, but most people didn't bother to listen and still don't. Here's an article about how whole grain flours cause sterility if they are stored for as little as 15 days, while flour and bread that is fresh-ground doesn't. How many are eating fresh flour? I would say <1%, maybe zero.

    http://eap.mcgill.ca/Publications/EAP35.htm

  • Anonymous

    7/1/2009 11:14:32 AM |

    Just a small correction - Dr Fuhrman's diet is not really low fat like Ornish/McDougall, the only similarity to those diets is the predominance of plant based foods.

    It eliminates/restricts saturated fat and plant oils but he is VERY pro 'good' fat in it's natural packaging i.e. nuts, seeds, avocado and fish oil in some cases (he prefers DHA from algae due to mercury in fish for most people and esp pregnant/lactating/babies but for high doses still recommends high quality fish oil especially for autoimmune patients). Re the nuts/seeds/avocado - in his weight loss strategy he does limit them but a minimum level is compulsory on a daily basis and he actively encourages people to have them while maintaining ideal weight i.e. can go very high if very skinny, lower if overweight but cannot eliminate them.

  • buy jeans

    11/3/2010 6:41:31 PM |

    Yes, a reduction in unhealthy fats (saturated, trans, polyunsaturated) helps. But a reduction in fats of all sorts is not necessary and can, in fact, worsen the problem. We learned this lesson years ago with the Ornish diet and similar ultra low-fat approaches. When you reduce fat intake significantly to <10% of calories, triglycerides go way up. In those days, it wasn't uncommon to see triglycerides skyrocket past 200 or 300 mg/dl on these diets.

  • jim

    8/26/2011 4:23:10 PM |

    Do saturated fats elevate triglyceride levels in the body?  Jim

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
"Expanded indications for implantable defibrillators"

"Expanded indications for implantable defibrillators"

So reads the headline on a magazine I received recently (along with thousands of my colleagues) from a major hospital system.

It goes on to say: "In January 2005, indications for implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) were substantially broadened [emphasis ours] to include most patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) of 35% or less. This change translates into a 2- to 3-fold increase in the number of Medicare beneficiariries eligible for ICDs."

Ka-ching!!! Hear the money piling up in the bank?

The device manufacturers are constantly churning data and lobbying for reimbursement to expand the use of their devices to more and more people. Defibrillators in particularly are generally a $25,000 to $50,000 opportunity for the device manufacturer alone, not counting the costs incurred at the hospital for implantation.

Beware. As reimbursement for stents and other procedures diminishes, expect a sudden "demand" for more and more people to get implantable defibrillators. Better yet, stay away from the whole issue by preventing your heart attack.
Loading