I'm probably living proof that eating or taking calcium does not cause a high heart scan score.  

For around 18 years I suffered from a crippling gut problem.  During that time I was advised to avoid milk products along with high fiber.  Milk was avoided because of lactose intolerance and another effect I noticed it had on the gut.   Calcium rich vegetables were not eaten in much quantity due to fiber causing my gut problem to become worse and more painful.  Early on I tried taking calcium tablets but they caused a great deal of gut problems too so that was stopped.  

Basically my body was calcium deficient for close to 2 decades.        

It was only after I figured out my gut problem was food related - a food allergy - that I began eating fiber calcium rich foods along with cheese again.  It was also around this time that I had a heart scan.  My score is in the top 90% for my age.  From blood testing it appears my plaque build up came from eating a sugar rich / low fiber diet and not eating too much calcium.

Is there a test for K2 deficiency?

What is the best source of K2?

To my knowledge, no clinically available measure of K2 adequacy is yet available. The best source is arguable, but we're gravitating towards supplements that supply the MK-7 form until the data clarify.

Dr Davis,
Thank you for your comments. You state that supplemental calcium does not cause artery calcification, explaining there are different mechanisms in bone vs. arteries, etc. This may not be the case however.  A recent study has shown that calcium supplementation might very well increase vascular events (e.g. heart attack or stroke) in elderly women. According to the studies lead author the findings were surprising and robust.
ref:
1. Bollard MJ, et al. Vascular events in healthy older women receiving calcium supplementation: randomized controlled trial.
2. Medscape CME/CE 1/24/08
ref: British Med. J. 1/15/2008

These calcium concerns can be added to other studies linking excess calcium (esp. calcium citrate) to small vessel calcification in the brain, and others showing increased aluminum levels when co-ingested with sources of aluminum hydroxide, such as antacids. Also noted here is calcium citrate is up to .25 to 2.5 times more absorbed and bioavailable than calcium carbonate. Then a more prudent dose recommendation becomes necessary. Ours is to limit the dosage below the daily value (DV) for most post-menopausal women. The DV is based mostly from lessor absorbed (esp. on an empty stomach) calcium carbonate studies.  
  In our clinic, the following calcium (citrate, or citrate/malate) supplementation guideline is given to postmenopausal women, and especially important for over age 65.
1. Do not take calcium without vitamin D3 and vitamin K2 (MK-7), unless K is contraindicated because of warfarin / coumadin.
2. Limit dosage to 600 mg per day, as unopposed with or without vitamin D. (e.g. a cal+D supplement)
3. Limit dosage to maximum 1200 mg / day with the co-administration of vitamin D (dosage based on 25(OH)D testing) and vitamin K2 (MK-7a) 50-100 mcg /day.  
4. Limit calcium (citrate)intake to 600-1000 mg / day (even with D+K) if known coronary artery disease is present or coronary calcium score elevated, or smoking.  
5. If elevated coronary calcium score is elevated and the risk for CHD is high, individualize the vitamin K2 (MK7) dose upward as high as 300 mcg/day to attempt to reverse the calcification.
6. Do not take aluminum hydroxide antacids, or any other sources of
AH.
7.Related "bone up" caveats: Recognize that bone loss and CHD often co-exist in the same patient. Hip fracture risk is greatly increased with proton pump inhibitors (e.g. reflux meds). Consider natural alternatives to bisphosphonates and calcium+D only supplements.  e.g. The FOOT Plan (Fully Optimized Osteoporosis Therapy) using strontium citrate, potassium (citrate) alkalization,  vitamin D3/K2, omega-3 EPA/DHA, melatonin, and calcium /magnesium citrate. Far greater and faster bone density results occur in both spine and hip, with healthier bone architecture and geometry. And much healthier for the heart too!  

Mark Swanson, ND
drswanson@drswanson.com

Hello,

I was diagnosed with stage III-C uterine cancer about 4 years ago. A recent CT scan of the abdomen and pelvis revealed atherosclerotic disease. However, the same day I took the scan, I also took a Calcium Scoring test which revealed a good score of zero concerning the heart arteries.

I ordered k2 supplements, but I am leery as to whether it would increase estrogen in my body because K2 is generally derived from fermented soy beans. When I was first diagnosed, one oncologist felt soy was ok, another oncologist plus my gynecologist suggested I steer clear of it. I just wonder what your opinion is on this matter. Also, would the fact the scan picked up atherosclerotic disease indicate it is in an advanced stage? Thank you.

Jackie

Thus, bone health and arterial health do indeed intersect via calcium, but not through calcium supplements. Instead, the control exerted by vitamin D connects the seemingly unconnected processes

Chances are the calcium supplement you are taking now is a rock source of calcium. The label will say "calcium carbonate", which is nothing more than limestone. AlgaeCal Plus contains an organic, plant-sourced calcium form derived from a unique South American marine algae called Algas Calcareasâ„¢.

Calcium supplements helps strengthen your bones. You should always take them to maintain your strong bones.

Lorna Vanderhaeghe products

As a follower of your blog and TRP recommendations, which I am doing, I added a small iodine supplement in a kelp tablet.  I have low thyroid and take Armour thyroid everyday.  Just recently I have read different doctors saying that taking iodine makes low thyroid worse and should not be done.  Am I inhibiting the action of the medication by taking the kelp tab?

Jan

i was looking for (UI) urine iodine testing kit. i found the next line which didn't surprise me. the UI kit was priced,
" Price is set at 2 USD excluding postage and tax on delivery".
the web site adress.
http://www.il.mahidol.ac.th/eng/index.php/resources/test-kits.html
this is from Thailand Mahidol University.
it also sells test kit for iodine in the kitchen salt.
i can never imagine purchasing something in north america with 2bucks.

iodine test kit.
i just got mixed up. the us 2$ was the price for iodine in salt testing kit not the UI testing as i wrote earlier. can you please change the info? thanks.

Dr D.

Can you please give us a clue as to what happens to the unstable iodide?
Does it evaporate, or combine with some impurity to produce a non-absorbable form?

Curious Non chemistry major

After reading about iodine here, I started eating nori (dried seaweed). I don't know what catagory that puts me in, or how much iodine I am getting.

Jeanne

Jan--

That's an absurd and outdated notion.

It is true that initial supplementation yields a paradoxic increase in TSH that subsides over a few months. But iodine is essential for health.

Remember: Most physicians think supplements are stupid and a waste of money. If it came with a prescription and a good-looking representative, they would suddenly be prescribing it galore.

Hi, Mike--

See the Track Your Plaque Special Report, Does iodine deficiency contribute to plaque growth.

There is a graph that shows the degradation of iodine due to volatilization (evaporation). See it athttp://www.trackyourplaque.com/library/fl_03-017iodine.asp (open access).

Dr. Davis, I have been following this thread with interest.  After being on Synthroid for several years, I was switched to Armour Thyroid and had a bad experience with it. I decided to consult an endocrinologist rather than continue going to my PCP for my thyroid issues.  The endocrinologist DC'd the Armour, and put me back on Synthroid.  Told me  she was opposed to use of Armour and of Cytomel, and under no circumstances to take an Iodine supplement.  I have to say that I appear to be better off without the Armour, but my TSH has not come back down to an acceptable level yet--new dose increase today, so another wait for labs. I don't know what my next step should be, but in this area I am not confident enough of the facts or how they might apply to my situation to dose myself with Iodine.  It's not as clear-cut to me as the case for dosoing myself with Vitamin D.  If anyone knows of an open-minded Iodine-friendly physician in North Carolina, I would consult with her/him, but otherwise I would be afraid to do it.  I believe that some people have very bad reactions to Iodine, or is this misinformation?

What dose and type of supplement do you recommend, doc?

Re: Vanishing iodide.

Thanks for that Doc.
I presume keeping your salt stash in a a zip-loc bag in the refrigerator would lengthen its effective life.
I wonder if there is a problem with short lifetime on any of the supplement forms?
MikeV

PS What are the odds of rejuvenating aging (hypo)thyroid glands that have been successfully supplemented for many years?

PPS I truly appreciate your work in breaking down the blood-brain barrier between 'Medicine' and intelligent nutrition/prevention.

Hi, Mike--

Tightly storing iodized salt in an air-tight container would likely preserve iodine content.

To my knowledge, the degradation of iodine-containing supplements or medications has not been formally examined. But it is probably best to keep tightly closed in a cool place to be safe.

Jenny,

I think the bad reaction to iodine you refer to could have 2 origins.  There are people who are allergic to iodine and can have severe reactions to ingesting iodine. They don't eat shellfish and cannot have iodine dye injected for x-rays,etc.  Also, as I related to Dr.D in my post here, (see 1st post) recently I have read about drs saying patients should not take iodine if they have low thryroid because it will cause lower production of thyroid hormone.  Dr. D responded to my post here and like you, I wasn't sure about dosing myself. I will continue to take a small amount in an organic kelp tab, take my Armour thyroid everyday and get levels checked at appropriate intervals. My PCP is really only involved in testing my levels and working with me on rx meds. I make supplementation decisions based on my own research. Hard to find a dr who values an integrated approach.
Good luck!
Jan

jenny.
some times the problem with adrenal gland may  give bad experience with armour. adrenal have to be fixed first before armour can be given. and some times, it is just adrenal issue and not hypothyroid issue at all.
http://thyroid.about.com/od/drdavidderry/l/bl11.htm

also.
ALWAYS treat your adrenals first!
        If the adrenals are weak, replacing thyroid hormone first would most likely make a person feel much worse and may stir up 'hyperthyroid' symptoms bu increasing the metabolism and initiate an adrenal crisis. The adrenals must be strong enough to cope with the increase in metabolism. This is the most common mistake made in the medical management of these conditions.

http://www.livingnetwork.co.za/healingnetwork/adrenals_thyroid.html

from personal experience the supporting "B" vitamins and magnesium must be started first before starting on dessicated hormones. but it must be decided first that if you are truly hypothyroid?
when i started the thyroid hormones, it felt like starting up an old motor with different timing  belt. body, brain, heart and several other cells were going through adjustment of control and distribution of the energy. it took about 6 months or so for me to deiced the right dose and timing of vitamins, iodine and dessicated thyroid hormones. i felt that above dosing and timing can not be decided by a doctor. it is only the patient can figure it out with a learning curve. it is lots of work but believe me it is worth it.

jenny.
i forgot to add the list of suggested thyroid doctors in us and canada.
http://www.thyroid-info.com/topdrs/

What do you think about Kelp and tyrosine in combination?

NOW has a thyroid supplement that combines these. What do you think?

http://www.bulknutrition.com/?products_id=1366

Hi Mike,

http://chem-eng.utoronto.ca/~diosady/sltstblty.html

here is a paper on the loss of Iodine from salt.  It compares Potassium Iodide to the Iodate with the latter being more stable at higher temps and in high humidity. The two environmental factors mentioned are key to degradation and loss of Iodine from the table salt.  Not only should you store your salt in a sealed container in refrigerator, but you should ensure the salt you buy is in a vapor barrier lined package so that it is in the best condition when you purchase it.
cheers
Trevor

Kelp warning?

http://www.curezone.com/faq/q.asp?a=13,281,2962&q=657

Researchers at the University of California/Davis found that eight out of nine kelp supplements contained abnormal levels of arsenic (Env. Health Perspectives, April, 2007).

Thanks for the info on the home testing kit...I live in Europe and it's sometimes hard to find these. I've been taking kelp (along with culinary practice) for iodine issues.

People should know that genetically susceptible individuals can give themselves graves disease by taking iodine supplements such as Lugols. While supplementation may be healthful for some people, it can really ruin your life if you happen to be one of them.

I am heartened by the number of respondents taking iodine in some form. After all, iodine is an essential trace mineral. Without it and health suffers, often dramatically.

Since I was diagnosed with hypothyroid disease, I started taking porcine thyroid supplements for my hormone deficiency. I feel energized now.

Is there any difference in fructose by source?  I know that natural fructose has a molecule that is  either right-handed or left-handed (can't remember which) and manufactured fructose is the opposite?  Could that account for a difference in how they're metabolized?

Yes, honey does contain fructose. But there is evidence that suggests that natural honey has a very different effect on the human body than an control that contains the same amount of fructose, glucose, etc.

The Effect of honey on serum cholesterol and lipid values. found that sugar did not raise LDL as a comparable sugar syrup did.

The study Natural honey and cardiovascular risk factors; effects on blood glucose, cholesterol, triacylglycerole, CRP, and body weight compared with sucrose. found that honey actually had beneficial effects on several risk factors.

See also: Natural honey lowers plasma glucose, C-reactive protein, homocysteine, and blood lipids in healthy, diabetic, and hyperlipidemic subjects: comparison with dextrose and sucrose.

In this study (Substituting honey for refined carbohydrates protects rats from hypertriglyceridemic and prooxidative effects of fructose.) it was shown that honey did not have the same effects as purified fructose, at least in rats.  

The research in this area is thin and conclusions should not be written in stone, but I think there is enough research to suggest that the effects of honey (or fresh fruit) in 'moderation' cannot be reduced to simply a mixture of sugars.

I believe we clearly evolved as omnivores and are intended to eat some fruit; we should be able to deal with the metabolic effects of some fructose. The explosion in health problems related to fructose is due to the fact that 1) the amount being consumed is so large, and 2) the fructose is highly refined and has been stripped of natural antioxidants and other phytochemicals that are present in natural honey or fruit.

Regardless of what honey does once it's been absorbed, for those of us who don't digest fructose well it is frequently a quick ticket to intestinal distress (as is agave nectar).

As Dr. Royal Lee pointed out in the 1920's. Honey is a complete food, containing proteins, vitamins, minerals, coenzymes, and cofactors; as well as the fructose. Eat too much of it (or any whole food) and the body will avoid it for months to years.

Processed foods have no such feedback mechanism.

Interesting references (I love honey), but what is the biological rationale for those findings? Some magical & so far unkown micronutrient in honey?

Even if the latter is the case, eliminating fructose while adding this nutrient X would be even healthier (that is assuming the fructose literature shows a convincing dose-response relationship, I haven't checked).

Not for *me*, because I'm diabetic, but for most people I think there *is* an advantage to using honey, molasses, sorghum and/or maple syrup instead of granulated sugar.  

It's not the minerals and vitamins, cause it's not enough to be significant.  If raw, there's some enzymes too, but again... really a salad and a cup of broth has way more micronutrients than any of these syrups.

But these all taste way stronger than sugar.  It's really easy to oversweeten things with white sugar, because the only taste there is "sweet".  If you're sweetening with a strongly-flavored syrup, it's a lot harder to overdo.  

It's easy for someone to put 2-3 tsp of sugar in a cup of coffee; much less likely for them to put in that dose of molasses.

In short, for people who do not have blood glucose issues, using the syrups for sweetening still cuts sugar consumption down a lot, which is a good thing.  

And for those of us with blood glucose issues, there's stevia.

However, honey will have the natural form of fructose, the D isomer, which can be converted to glucose and go through the glycolytic pathway. The chemical process which produces HFCS makes a significant amount of L-fructose which can only be processed by immeditately turning it into fat. This may account for Jonathan's studies showing good things from a non-industrial source of fructose. I suspect the same things would be shown with fructose from fruits.

Fascinating on honey (& possibly fruit). I've always been suspicious of equating HFCS, or purified lab fructose, with the fructose found in fruits and in honey. Do you have any references for the d isomer / l-fructose distinction?

Thanks

Well this is definitely going to make me think twice before using spoon-fulls of honey in my next camomile tea, lol. This is useful information that was surprising to me, so thanks for sharing! I work with a program called Chef's Diet, and we create meals used from fresh produce and lean meats, delivered to your door daily.  I find your post pertinent. If you or your readers are interested in healthy eating and are interested in Chef's Diet, check us out at http://www.mychefsdiet.com.

Jacob, this was my source for the L-fructose comment. Maybe not the most reliable source but an interesting premise. I have not gone to the original literature to verify.
http://www.westonaprice.org/modernfood/HFCSAgave.pdf

According to the Finnish National institute of health and welfare, honey contains only 41.4% fructose.  Even allowing for half of the 1.5% sucrose being converted to fructose, its still short of the 50% fructose for table sugar or the 55% for HFCS.

See http://www.fineli.fi/food.php?foodid=4&lang=en

"jon said...
As Dr. Royal Lee pointed out in the 1920's. Honey is a complete food, containing proteins...."

Are you referring to Royal "Jel" Lee?

Sorry. I could not resist.

from what I've been reading...mass produced honey where bees are under forced conditions to produce honey are fed fructose corn syrup and this leads to higher levels of fructose in our honey.  fructose corn syrup is the ultimate culprit and is something I avoid. when shopping for honey, the cheaper honey will most likely be the honey that is "spiked" with fructose corn syrup.  it is also referred to as "baker's honey".  you need to buy whole organic honey to get honey that doesn't contain the corn syrup.  also, most food that has honey as an ingredient will contain fructose corn syrup.  I used to buy the "golden blossom" brand of honey but discovered that is is packed with high fructose corn syrup.  I only buy organic now...its a bit more money but worth every penny

Ah, yes, the HFCS Big Lie: the artificial sweetener produced from agricultural starches. Despite its name, the fructose in HFCS is not the same as the L-fructose found in fruit and honey; instead it contains high concentrations of D-fructose, a naturally rare “mirrored” version of reversed isomerization and polarity.  In mammals (including humans), both isomers of fructose are not used directly for energy, instead being shunted by the liver for conversion primarily into blood triglycerides and body fat.

The two fructoses are not the same, and the HFCS industry is not inclined to look for possible secondary health effects; they just want their profits to continue.

Honey is a wholesome food eaten for millenia by humans, containing much more than simple sugars. HFCS has been around for mere decades. Why be a lab rat for ADM or Cargill?

"Is there any difference in fructose by source?"

I don't know.

"I know that natural fructose has a molecule that is either right-handed or left-handed (can't remember which) and manufactured fructose is the opposite?"

Fructose in nature exists in many forms depending on what has produced it.

Fructose can exist as a linear ketose, a six-member pyranose ring, or a 5-member furanose ring. These exist in left-rotating(D) or right-rotating(L) forms.

I don't see any specific pattern that would allow one to claim that fructose in corn syrup is somehow uniquely evil. It is even produced by a biological process with enzymes.

If you're going to do some more research on this, keep in mind that the notation can be a bit confusing. Small l and small d refer to which way it rotates plane polarized light(l is anti-clockwise/left and d is clockwise/right). But there is also big L and big D which refer to the different enantiomers; in fructose it happens to be that l-fructose is a D-fructose and vice versa.

"Despite its name, the fructose in HFCS is not the same as the L-fructose found in fruit and honey;"

No the most common kind in nature is D-fructose, also known as l-fructose(capitalization matters).

"[...]instead it contains high concentrations of D-fructose, a naturally rare “mirrored” version of reversed isomerization and polarity."

But it's not naturally rare. You won't usually find L-fructose in plants; but this does not prevent you from getting plenty of L-fructose in a "natural" diet.

Fruits contain not just fructose, but also lots of sucrose. When you eat this sucrose it will be broken down by acid hydrolysis into L-fructose.

Different plants, animals, bacteria or fungi that use enzymes instead of acid hydrolysis to break down sucrose use different enzymes, yielding either L-fructose or D-fructose.

L and D enantiomers does not cover all varieties of fructose that exist in nature.

I don't see any particularly sinister pattern here. It smells more like more like it is part of the long-running FUD campaign against the artificial and man-made by the technophobes. See the success of organic farming for the damage such long-running FUD campaign can do. Organic farming uses more land, more water, more energy and more pesticides. Which replaces "artificial" fertilizer such as mined potash, with "natural" fertilizer such as mined potash without the dirt removed(all this does is increase shipping costs).

The honey is really great for the skin, i usually use it in my face, is really wonderful. After my mask i feel my face smooth and clean. And my boyfriend always notice the difference, he simply love it. I feel more comfortable with my self and he is always with too much energy because he usually buy viagra

While the average per capita intake of honey is only a modest 1.29 lb per year (National Honey Board; 2008) and therefore contributes only 0.77 lb of fructose per year, there are people who, believing honey to be healthy, use it to excess and use far more than 1.29 lb per year.

For your body fructose is fructose - simple. The body has no way of differentiating. The outer shell is stripped off and what remains is FRUCTOSE. Fructose cannot be used for energy and will be shipped to the liver once processed and converted to fat - usually abdominal fat (note the expanding muffin tops of young girls drinking fruit juices as healthy options)!

Fructose is fructose to your body, whether you have to digest it or it's supplied to your processed.

You can see from this analysis and study that honey reduces your immune function, for instance, by nearly as much as pure fructose and by much more than glucose or starch:

http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/leukocytic_index.html

Anyone eating the recommended low-fat, high carb, high fibre diet and having those 5 small meals a day, will have impaired their immune function by 50% for pretty much the whole day!

For optimal health you have to eat a high fat diet, that's very low in carbs.

Follow my thread here:
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1156003/pg1

Research on mice shows that, for them, fructose causes insulin restance and obesity. Insulin resistance makes type 2 diabetes worse, converts pe-diabetes into type 2, and type 1 diabetes into type 1.5 (also known as double diabetes).

Does this also apply to humans?  The "expert" opinions vary so widely that they essentially prove little more than the need for similar research on humans.

Manufacturing processes seledom distinguish between the two isomers at all, and therefore starting with anything that does not have isomers would almost always produce a 50-50 mixture of the two isomers of fructose.

Manufacturing processes starting with one isomer of something would be much more likely to produce just one isomer of whatever their result is.

So far, research on humans has shown that fructose make your brain increase your appetite.  Also, your liver converts it into cholesterol and saturated fat.  The rest of your body has little use for it; it cannot be used for energy the same way glucose can.

Do D-glucose and L-glucose have different effects on your body?  I haven't found any research papers saying one way or the other yet.

One more comment:  The heating process used in manufacturing high fructose corn syrup, will, if overdone, turn some of it into a compound toxic to honeybees.

Does this also apply to humans?  So far, I haven't found any research papers saying that anyone has done any research into whether it does or not.

What are your views on certain supplements that show promise in regard to heart health, but haven't been fully proven yet? Such as resveratrol, grape seed extract,  pomegranate, green tea, krill oil, aged garlic, cocoa, etc.

Are they safe and worthwhile to take,  or would you consider them a risk for certain patients?

Unfortunately, we can't always go to our family doctor or cardiologist (at least generally speaking), give them a list of supplements that potentially could be beneficial, and ask their opinion. 99% of the time they'll be clueless, or simply give vague suggestions, or possibly worse, give bad advice. I had one cardiologist recommend flush-free niacin to me  (the non-beneficial type), for instance.

Its very hard as a health conscious consumer, to know what supplements to use, and at what dosage. There is so much conflicting information available.
I take a small handful of vitamins, amino acids and minerals daily. I eat really well, and exercise regularly, and still have trouble controlling my hypertension.My recent heart scan showed a score of 99.  I have been looking to supplements to help, but so far the help has been minimal. Am I looking for help in all the wrong places too?

It can get frustrating even for those with a long time interest in nutrition and health. Along with my dietary and exercise regimen I take folic acid to help lower triglycerides. Then I come across a report from a newsletter that cited the Norwegian Vitamin Trial (NORVIT) and said " Folic acid supplementation was found to lower homocysteine levels by 28%., but to increase relative risks of heart attack, stroke, and death by 20%, along with a more than a 30% increase in cancer." The source recommends that NO folic acid supplements be taken outside of naturally occurring food sources.
Another newsletter by another doctor advises against  any supplementation of Vitamin D outside of natural sunshine.
Frustrating.

Please clarify your comments on Nattokinase: is this not the same food item that's high in vitamin K2, which if I understand it correctly, helps to put calcium into the bones (along with D3), so that there's less calcium going to the arteries and causing plaque.

If my understanding of K3, and that nattokinase has very high amouns of K3 in it, is correct, then are you saying that Nattokinase is not a suitable replacement for blood thinners or stroke prevention, but that it does have desirable effects for directing calcium to bones, instead of arterial plaques?

I went in for a colonoscopy recently, and did various preps for it, the most powerful one for me was the mag citrate. My photos from the colonoscopy showed pink healthy looking tissue (whew), which led me to think that expensive colon cleanses probably weren't necessary. I'd never done one, but had read about them in the past.

When I did read about them, I remember wondering if hydrogen peroxide enemas did the same thing as those oxy-cleansers. Thankfully I've never had to perform one of the more 'exotic' enemas, but I do remember our teachers warning us to use plastic gowns and stand clear if we ever had to give one.

S

I think it's desperation that often leads to the wrong places. I don't have any heart problems but it is an almost certified route to the grave in my family tree later in life, so with remaining youth I'm able to research things calmly. I visit here mainly as my own research gels with things you say.
I think the key thing is to entertain claims that are referenced and peer reviewed; even a good 'oddball' thought makes it into PubMed. And then there's no reason why an abstract couldn't be printed and discussed with an open minded doctor to look at a route that might be best for the patient.
I think in a sadistic way we like doctors to be fairly arrogant and say "this is your problem, do as I say", but we also know that at the end of the day it's you who cares about you the most. And it's simply terror that leads people into the first arms of saviour they see.

My opinion regarding "resveratrol, grape seed extract, pomegranate, green tea, krill oil, aged garlic, cocoa, etc." is... these are not supplements, these are foods.  

A whole heck of a lot of folks take a lot of ridiculously expensive "supplements" that can easily be replaced by actual food.

You know what phosphatidyl choline is?  An expensive supplement... or a dead-cheap product lecithin used in baking to assist emulsification.  In short, it makes your smoothies smoother for almost no money.

Cocoa?  Who would *supplement* cocoa? I mean... COCOA?  Is eating chocolate now some sort of chore that is easier to accomplish by taking a pill?  I eschew sugar, but don't find it difficult to get sufficient cocoa in my diet even so.  I seriously doubt there's many folks running around suffering cocoa deficiencies.  I mean, if you deeply despise chocolate, maybe take a cocoa supplement, but for the rest of us, eating cocoa is generally a lot more pleasant when it's NOT wrapped in a capsule.

I take supplements.  In fact, I take rather a lot of them.  I take a multivitamin (without iron), vitamin D3 (just started a supplement with K2 also), and fish oil, which I recommend to everyone, most especially those with metabolic syndrome.  These are cheap and sure don't hurt - one of the easiest things you can do for your health.

I also take a B complex, panthothenic acid, niacin, calcium, CoQ10 and milk thistle - each for specific reasons relative to my own health.  

But resveratol and cocoa?  Why not a glass of wine and a piece of dark chocolate?  

Why take a pomegranate supplement, eating pomegrantaes works pretty darned well for me.  Pomegrantaes are darned yummy.

Turmeric, cinnamon and garlic are all lovely foods - and were so before anyone ever did any research into them.  

CLA is the new wonder fatty acid - and you can get gobs of it by eating pasture-raised meat and dairy, which is a heck of a lot more pleasant than swallowing pills.

Food is better than pills.  

OK, we know about vitamin K2 now, but it's a fairly new discovery.  People who just went around eating cheese were getting it even before it was in pills.  

The nutrients that will be discovered next month, next year and next decade are in foods *today*.  

Just eat good food... a wide variety of organic vegetables, as much fruit as your blood glucose tolerates, lots of wholesome meat and dairy from pasture-raised or wild animals, good fats like olive and avocado oils, grains like barley and buckwheat, nuts and seeds, lots of fresh herbs and spices - you'll "cover" all the supplements they aren't even selling yet.

I meant "K2" in my comment above.

S

My opinion regarding "resveratrol, grape seed extract, pomegranate, green tea, krill oil, aged garlic, cocoa, etc." is... these are not supplements, these are foods.

------------

As the originator of the post with reference to the above 'supplements', I somewhat agree -- I just used a general term of 'supplement' to describe them. You can get some of them via food.

But I can't drink wine, so resveratrol and grape seed would have to be in capsule form. And for high doses of resveratrol, supplements are the only way, as it would take several bottles of red wine daily. Aged garlic is different than regular garlic, and is a lot easier to take as a supplement. It's also a lot kinder on your breath and digestion.  And I don't think many people will be sitting down and eating a nice bowl of krill.

My main question was in regard to them being considered worthwhile to take (in any form), and how do we go about verifying what is beneficial, without a doctor to rely on.

Decrying all supplements is similar to running down all prescription drugs. One has to be selective. Some prescription drugs are helpful for some people. So it is with supplements. If the supplement supplies something your body needs it may help. For example, 15 years ago I found that Saw Palmeto helped my prostate. It still does today, and others have found it helpful too.

The NIH study on chelation should have some results soon.

http://nccam.nih.gov/news/2002/chelation/pressrelease.htm

Rich

There seems to be a clear correlation in my ALT value between my taking the LEF Mega Silymarin product.  When I've taken it, my ALT goes down.  But I've usually stopped taking it after just a few months.

I'm now thinking that I need to give it a good 6 month to a year trial.

The "Jedi Master" I've been working with just today told me that I need to be cautious about the possibility of having NAFLD.

So, it seems to me that Mega Silymarin is a must do.

I used diet and supplements instead of a statin to control my cholesterol, and my recent VAP test indicated I had "large buoyant" LDL. We know statins reduce LDL and inflammation, but do they affect particle size?

Does increasing dietary fiber have a significant effect on the abundance of of LDL3, or its oxidation or glycation?

My reasoning is that the gut reabsorbs cholesterol and returns it to the gall bladder.  The gall bladder taps the liver for the make-up cholesterol.  The liver draws LDL out of the blood when it needs cholesterol.  Sooo... fiber decreases re-absorption of cholesterol  This  ought to, eventually, decrease the time that LDL3 particles circulate before the liver grabs them.

But I don't know if it works out that way, or if the effect is negligible.  Can you say?

As far as I'm concerned, you cannot say enough bad things about carbohydrates, but unfortunately they are not responsible for the formation of chylomicrons and chylomicron remnants. Chylomicrons consist mainly of dietary fat.

Assuming you can't measure your LDL particle sizes, would a low (<2) Triglicerides  ratio to HDL be a good indicator whether you have predominately Pattern A (awesome) or B (bad)?

Hi Can someone please tell me if
ALL BRAN cereal being all bran and insoluble fiber is the same as eating wheat products?  

Thanks

Hi Doctor Davis,

I have two questions.

1. How would you compare rice (unpolished but non brown) to other carbohydrates (non gluten based)?

2. How far does the fermenting/sourdough making process make wheat or other gluten containing carbs a healthier choice?

Thanks.

A question for Dr Davis: Do you screen for pregnenolone deficiency?  If so, do you recommend pregnenolone supplements, in addition or in lieu of dhea?

As a male, age 60+, I read TYP and  got the calcium scoring exam, which fortunately was zero percent.  Also had the carotid artery ultrasound which said no plaque (visual inspection).

Got me to wondering why I (apparently) have no plaque.

Well, twenty years ago when I was suffering arthritis joint pain I read Dr. Regelson's book the Super-Hormone Promise. (Still available on Amazon.) He discussed using pregnenlone as an arthritis treatment. So, I got the blood test and I discovered that I had a 100% deficiency of pregnenolone!

I've been taking 500 mg a day of LEF's pregnenolone ever since. Blood levels back to normal immediately and no joint pain. (Re hormones, I also take 25 mg dhea and about 10 mg of melatonin at night.)

My speculation is that perhaps supplementing my hormones at an earlier age, when serious deficiencies were starting to develop, helped keep my arteries healthy. On the other hand, it could be something else of course. Just my two cents!

I got a good chuckle from the in-laws reference.  Thanks!

Char

Madrob:

Yes.

If you are consuming All Bran cereal, you are consuming wheat, though the bran doesn't have the starchiness that refined wheat and whole wheat flour have.  But the bran presents other problematic properties.  

If you must supplement with a refined fiber product (for regularity, belief that high fiber diets are healthful, etc.), consider instead soluble fiber such as inulin and/or pectin (and whole foods which contain soluble fiber, such as onions, leeks, apples, sunchokes, etc.).  

See Dr. Art Ayer's (Ph.D. researcher, not an MD) blog Cooling Inflammation  for fascinating discussions on feeding and promoting healthy gut bacteria populations ("inner gardens") with soluble fiber.

happy to see denise mingers study featured here.

wheat asides, milk pasteurised or uht causes a pretty massive immune system flare up for me.

Dr. Davis, I emailed you on this but figured I'd post this study in response to this.

Can you comment on the following study ?

4) Schaefer EJ.  Body weight and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol changes after consumption of a low-fat ad libitum diet. JAMA. 1995 Nov 8;274(18):1450-5.

Eversures incontinence underwear that fits your lifestyle. The best selling, patented, washable and reusable bladder control garments.  More products can be view at Adult Diaper

can you decipher this new research for us? older women with low HDL are nore likely to be depressed, as well as more likely to have heart problems. Older men (over 65)with low LDL are more likely to be depressed, especially if their serotonin transport gene doesn't work efficiently.
http://www.alphagalileo.org/ViewItem.aspx?ItemId=81683&CultureCode=en
Research from ESPRIT study in Biological Psychiatry Journal (sobp.org/journal)

Really trustworthy blog. Please keep updating with great posts like this one. I have booked marked your site and am about to email it to a few friends of mine that I know would enjoy reading
Sesli sohbet Sesli chat
Seslisohbet Seslichat
Sesli sohbet siteleri Sesli chat siteleri
Sesli Chat
Sohbet Sesli siteler
Sohbet siteleri Chat siteleri
Sohbet merkezi chat merkezi
Sesli merkezi sesli Sohbet merkezi
Sesli chat merkezi Sohbetmerkezi
Sesli Sohbet Sesli Chat
SesliSohbet Sesli chat siteleri
Sesli sohbet siteleri SesliChat
Sesli Sesli siteler
Seslimuhabbet sesli muhabbet
sesli sohbet sesli chat siteleri
sesli sohbet siteleri sesli chat
seslisohbet seslichat
seslikent sesli kent
sesli sohbet sesli sohbet siteleri
sesli chat sesli chat siteleri
seslisohbet seslichat