Wheat: the nicotine of food

24. January 2007 William Davis (1)
Yes, we know that wheat contributes to creating small LDL, drops HDL, raises triglycerides, and VLDL. We also know it indirectly slows the clearance of after-eating fats from the blood (curious, I know). Wheat products also increase inflammation (C-reactive protein), raise blood sugar, and contribute tremendously to diabetes.

What many people don't know is that wheat products also have an addictive quality: have one donut and you want another. It's true for bread, breakfast cereals, pretzels, cookies, etc. How many times have you had just one Oreo cookie?

Curiously, elimination of wheat products, unlike elimination of nicotine, usually causes the cravings to disappear. In other words, if you stop smoking cigarettes, the desire to smoke doesn't go away. With wheat products, the often overwhelming desire for more wheat products often just goes away.

But most people are simply unable to dramatically reduce or eliminate wheat products from their daily diet and therefore struggle each and every day with excessive cravings for bagels, donuts, cookies, breads, etc.

Try this useful experiment: Eliminate wheat products for a month and see what happens. Most people drop blood pressure, lose the tummy excess, feel more alert, see a drop in blood sugar, experience improvements in lipoproteins, and regain control over appetite.
Tags :

Comments (1) -

  • Anonymous

    11/22/2008 10:53:00 AM |

    Actually one can eat Ezekial Bread, which is a brand name for an excellent form of sprouted grain bread. The grain is sprouted, then milled; unlike regular flour breads which mill the seed.

    This method of making bread is mentioned in the Bible. Also mentioned in the Bible is Olive Leaf which is an excellent anti-oxidant and anti-pathogenic herb. I used it recently to treat an eye sty. I took the Olive Leaf capsules internally.

Add comment

Loading
Heart disease prevention for the helpless, ignorant, or non-compliant

Heart disease prevention for the helpless, ignorant, or non-compliant

19. January 2009 William Davis (9)
The media outlets are gushing with the "research"/marketing spinoff of the JUPITER trial, an analysis conducted by Dr. Erica Spatz of Yale University, that suggests that statin use should be expanded to many millions more Americans.

USA Today: Study: 11M more should get statins

MedPage: JUPITER Findings Could Boost Statin Use by 20%

Health Day: Millions More Americans Might Be Placed on Statins

WebMD: More May Benefit From Cholesterol Drugs: Study Shows More Would Qualify for Statin Treatment if Levels of C-Reactive Protein Are Considered


You may recall that the JUPITER trial (discussed previously in a Heart Scan Blog post) studied the cardiovascular event risk in people with "normal" LDL cholesterols (calculated, of course, not measured) of 130 mg/dl or less, along with increased c-reactive protein, a crude inflammatory measure, of 2.0 mg/dl or greater. A 54% (relative) reduction in cardiovascular events occured in the group taking Crestor 20 mg per day.

What I see is a confluence of events that have brought us to the "statin drugs are necessary for everybody" mentality:

--The low-fat diet advice of the last 40 years has increased non-fat or low-fat foods that increase LDL, since removing fat from the diet provokes small LDL particle production and increases the inflammatory measure, c-reactive protein (CRP).

--The proliferation of "healthy whole grains" in the diet have also caused an enormous boom in small LDL particles, which is interpreted to the uninformed as "high cholesterol." It has also provoked CRP substantially.

--The advice to reduce salt intake has brought a broad re-emergence of iodine deficiency. When thyroid hormone production flags due to lack of iodine, LDL cholesterol (both large and small) increase.

--Our lives, which are increasingly conducted indoors, have worsened the already substantial vitamin D deficiency. While deficiency of vitamin D primarily reduces HDL cholesterol and increases triglycerides, it can also cause an increase in small LDL and a large increase in CRP.


In other words, a collection of events have converged to provide the appearance of high LDL cholesterol and high CRP. This creates the appearance of a "need" for statin drugs. The JUPITER trial now exploits both the LDL-reducing and CRP-decreasing effects of statins.

I view the foisting of Crestor via the JUPITER argument on the public as taking full advantage of the helpless situation many Americans find themselves in: Reduce fat intake, eat more healthy whole grains and . . . cholesterol and CRP skyrocket! "You need Crestor! See, I told you it was genetic," says the doctor after attending the nice AstraZeneca-sponsored drug dinner.

The notion of using a drug like Crestor to suppress inflammatory patterns is absurd. There are far better, easier, cheaper ways to achieve this goal, along with dramatic reduction in cardiovascular risk. But, to the ignorant, the helpless, or non-compliant with real change in diet and lifestyle, then Crestor does serve a purpose.

I can only hope that the excessive pushing of statin drugs on the public will sooner or later trigger a revolt.
Tags :

Comments (9) -

  • Anonymous

    1/20/2009 6:16:00 PM |

    Before going on a low carb diet, my total cholesterol was 245. Doc wanted me to take statins, I said no. So I went on a Low carb diet. After 5 months of keeping the carbs <50 mg daily, my total cholesterol went down to 164. That's all you need to know about this "high cholesterol" scam.

  • renegadediabetic

    1/20/2009 8:24:00 PM |

    After JUPITER, they should be restricting statin presecriptions to those with high inflammation who don't want to give up their inflammatory diet & lifestyle.  When Crestor was tested for lowering cholesterol, they found that is was NOT shown to prevent heart attacks, per the fine print on Crestor ads.  When it preformed better when targeting inflammation, that shoud tell you what the real culprit is.

    The greedy drug companies don't want to lose their cholesterol revenues.  They only want to increase sales.

  • Paul Kelly

    1/20/2009 8:57:00 PM |

    Why am I not surprised at the media coverage of this story?

    A little off topic - but a quick question regarding fish oil gelcaps. I read where fish oil goes from being beneficial to hurtful when it becomes oxidized. Are we better off with gelcaps or liquid? Are the gelcaps protective to prevent the fish oil from becoming rancid?

    Thanks!

    Paul

  • vin

    1/21/2009 9:39:00 AM |

    Crestor is the last statin drug developed and one which is still patented. As far as I know there are no other statins being developed; at least not for lowering LDL levels.  So I guess they will push Crestor as long as they can to recover costs and rake in the profits the company had exepected.

    Once the patent ends then they will stop pushing. Just have to wait.

  • Olga

    1/21/2009 2:57:00 PM |

    Hi Dr. Davis:

    I would like you to fo a post about iodine.  I am a 42 year old mother of two.  To make a long story short, I was misdiagnosed with a thyroid neoplasm which resulted in a hemithyroidectomy following my second pregnancy.  After 5 years of ill health, I figured out on my own that I had a goiter and that high levels of iodine supplementation was required to regain my health.  I was told to eliminate salt from my diet 20 year prior because of a high incidence of heart disease in my family, despite the fact that I have low blood pressure. I am currently seeing a doctor who is helping me stabilize my thyroid function.  The reason I am writing to you is that I also have familial hypercholesterolemia.  Thanks to your program, my HDL and triglycerides are excellent.  Is it possible that the LDL will also come down if I can get my iodine into an optimal range?  Thanks for all the great information.

  • Quelle

    1/21/2009 10:11:00 PM |

    "The proliferation of "healthy whole grains" in the diet have also caused an enormous boom in small LDL particles, which is interpreted to the uninformed as "high cholesterol." It has also provoked CRP substantially"

    Which studies are you talking about in this paragraph?

  • Ricardo Carvalho

    1/21/2009 10:52:00 PM |

    I think this cartoon explains the "logic" behind all this "health" industry - http://www.naturalnews.com/023014.html

  • JPB

    1/22/2009 11:08:00 PM |

    The scary thing here is that there are parts of the medical care industry who are pushing for mandatory testing/drugs/etc. in exchange for lower "health" insurance rates (i.e. "preventative care").  
    I think that we need to preserve free choice for individuals.  I don't know exactly how to ensure this, but I do know that I don't want to be forced into mandatory lipid testing and/or treatment!  Anyone have any ideas on this?

  • Trinkwasser

    1/23/2009 11:49:00 AM |

    Same story here. trigs 380 HDL 25 LDL 165 so I was put on a Healthy High Carb Low Fat Diet, which put my LDL up to 200. The simvastatin reduced this to 75 without greatly affecting the dangerous components.

    Reducing my carbs until my BG no longer spiked (60 - 100g carefully spread through the day) has given me trigs 39 HDL 47 LDL 105

    Now my previous doctor died "unexpectedly" which is a good indication of his competence level, blamed me for not complying with the diet and failed to notice I was actually diabetic.

    My current docs are obviously singing off the same hymn sheet as many of you in the "Blogosphere", their main problem is being forced to follow outmoded protocols. She wasn't fussed by my LDL being over 100 in view of the improvement in the other lipids and though she was a bit wary of my latest experiment of eating more saturated fats which put my HDL up to 55 and brought my LDL down to 93 she can't argue with the result!

    Next experiment will be to drop the statin and see what my unmedicated lipids look like now the insulin resistance has been kicked into touch.

    The big problem here in the UK is accountants, who decree no test strips for Type 2s, TChol instead of Full Lipid Panel and no possibility of a CRP test. Hey they have to cut back somewhere in order to afford all the statins . . .

Add comment

Loading
1985: The Year of Whole Grains

1985: The Year of Whole Grains

9. April 2011 William Davis (30)
In 1985, the National Cholesterol Education Panel delivered its Adult Treatment Panel guidelines to Americans, advice to cut cholesterol intake, reduce saturated fat, and increase "healthy whole grains" to reduce the incidence of heart attack and other cardiovascular events.

Per capita wheat consumption increased accordingly. Wheat consumption today is 26 lbs per year greater than in 1970 and now totals 133 lbs per person per year. (Because infants and children are lumped together with adults, average adult consumption is likely greater than 200 lbs per year, or the equivalent of approximately 300 loaves of bread per year.) Another twist: The mid- and late-1980s also marks the widespread adoption of the genetically-altered dwarf variants of wheat to replace standard-height wheat.

In 1985, the Centers for Disease Control also began to track multiple health conditions, including diabetes. Here is the curve for diabetes:


Note that, from 1958 until 1985, the curve was climbing slowly. After 1985, the curve shifted sharply upward. (Not shown is the data point for 2010, an even steeper upward ascent.) Now diabetes is skyrocketing, projected to afflict 1 in 3 adults in the coming decades.

You think there's a relationship?
Tags :

Comments (30) -

  • Gabriella Kadar

    4/9/2011 7:30:55 PM |

    The World Health Organization changed impaired fasting glucose levels from 6.9 to 6.1 in 1999.  The curve used to illustrate the incidence of diagnosed type 2 diabetes indicates a steepening at this time.  If data would have been collected for all patients prior to 1999 and utilized as a retrospective for type 2 diabetes in the population, the incidence rate prior to 1999 would likely have been significantly higher.

  • Anonymous

    4/9/2011 8:00:57 PM |

    Very true, Dr. Davis.  Wheat consumption is up since 1970.  The strange thing is, it was much higher in the 19th century...something like 225 pounds per capita.

    historical wheat consumption

    Maybe we were eating fewer total carbs then, or expending more energy, if in fact the recent increase in diabetes is wheat-related.

  • Peter

    4/9/2011 8:11:56 PM |

    I think since so much wheat is eaten in products that are mixtures of wheat, sugar, and vegetable oil, there's no way to know what the culprit is.

  • Botiquin DE Primeros Auxilios

    4/9/2011 9:37:29 PM |

    Well the reason is that wheat is the most important factor for our lives.

  • Dr. William Davis

    4/9/2011 11:59:26 PM |

    Hi, Anon--

    Yes, indeed. Human life was different for at least rural people.

    Also, wheat has changed. This is a crucial, crucial point that explains much of this phenomenon, I believe.

  • Gretchen

    4/10/2011 1:00:56 AM |

    It would be interesting to plot diabetes rates against various possible culprits (pointing out on the graph when diagnostic cutoff changed): wheat, all carbohydrates, size of sodas, computer ownership, average size of restaurant meals, bicycle ownership, hours spent commuting, population older than 65, exposure to Agent Orange, service in Gulf War, and some really silly things like hair length and popular nailpolish colors.

    If only wheat consumption seemed correlated, this would be suggestive.

  • Anonymous

    4/10/2011 4:35:15 AM |

    Wre there ads for All Bran bars and wheat links on this site?

  • Anonymous

    4/10/2011 5:04:08 AM |

    Wheat is ingrained in us, beginning with bread as the "staff of life."

  • Anonymous

    4/10/2011 8:15:51 AM |

    correlation does not equal causation.

    I don't eat wheat, I suffer from all of the problems you describe and it's also related to my psoriasis.  Good hypothesis with all your measurements of post consumption measurement of blood sugars, but someone needs to do a mass study.

  • O Primitivo

    4/10/2011 9:54:59 AM |

    The graph on this post is also very educational:
    http://www.gnolls.org/1086/the-lipid-hypothesis-has-officially-failed-part-1-of-many/

  • Dr. William Davis

    4/10/2011 2:20:27 PM |

    Hi, Ted--

    Great find!

    I wasn't aware of these data. Yet another way that increased yield comes at a price.

  • Anonymous

    4/10/2011 3:19:02 PM |

    Dramatic changes in the slope of a curve are easy to see if you're looking for them, but you've displayed an arithmetic, not a logarmitic axis.  Your point would be better made if you could switch the axis and if we still see the association between the variables.

  • Helen

    4/10/2011 5:39:22 PM |

    Gretchen - Well said.

    I think many things in our modern environment play a role in tipping the scales toward diabetes - including disrupted circadian cycles and environmental toxins, such as fire retardants, plasticizers, and pesticides.  (I don't have time right now to find links from stuff I've read on this - but try Googling these things - the research is there.)  

    Jenny Ruhl claimed a short time ago that while prediabetes has risen, actual diabetes has not.  She is a good resource and I would take her arguments on most things diabetes pretty seriously.  Check her blog if interested:  Diabetes Update.  

    As a mother of a kid with celiac disease, and for other reasons, I am hardly pro-wheat or pro-gluten, but I'm not convinced grains have caused a rise in diabetes.  My daughter's gastroenterologist, however, has Type I diabetes and says that eliminating gluten has greatly improved her glucose control.

  • Anonymous

    4/10/2011 6:54:41 PM |

    When I eyeball this figure, it looks like the change occurs around 1993-1996.

  • Might-o'chondri-AL

    4/10/2011 10:44:35 PM |

    Helen has a point that under counting of who is "pre-diabetic" is quite possible skewing the data. The CDC changed it's diabetes diagnosis criteria; 1985 wasn't when they did that however.

    CDC took their raw 1995 - 1997 data and in 1998 decided to only use fasting glucose, and not the old standard oral glucose tolerance test, as the CDC diabetes template. For all individuals  whose data was showing greater than ( or equal to) 126 mg/dl fasting glucose they were then counted as diabetic by the CDC.

    This methodology caused CDC to say U.S.A. diabetics went from 8 million in 1995 to 10.3 million diabetics in 1997; a statistically massive 2 year jump of diabetics. And furthermore, the number of un-diagnosed diabetics was claimed to have gone down (in same period of time); they cut out a whole slew of "pre-diabetics", so to speak.

    The other criteria CDC website shows from 1998 is, that when non-fasting glucose hits 200  mg/dl (or more) they are considered diabetic. The reproduced graph Doc posted shows an exponential climb upward right at the time CDC  began using it's altered criteria.

  • brec

    4/11/2011 12:02:06 AM |

    "Note that, from 1958 until 1985, the curve was climbing slowly. After 1985, the curve shifted sharply upward."

    As I look at the presented graph, from 1986 to about 1991 the trend decelerated slightly, then resumed its prior long-term value, then accelerated in about 1997

    However, I must admit that 1997 is "after 1985."

  • Helen

    4/11/2011 12:51:04 AM |

    Other suspects that became prevalent in the food stream in the 1980s were high-fructose corn syrup and artificial trans-fatty acids, both of which are linked to hepatic insulin resistance and metabolic syndrome.

  • Daniel A. Clinton, RN, BSN

    4/11/2011 2:43:28 AM |

    I think of all the intelligent, scientifically-reasoned arguments all lead back to the commonsensical notion "Don't eat junk." To start, anything with enriched (aka processed) flour, partially hydrogenated oils, or high fructose corn syrup qualifies as junk. Which isn't to say all disease eminates from just those three ingredients, but I believe completely eliminating those three ingredients would yield a large health benefit to most Americans.

  • Mike

    4/11/2011 2:57:36 AM |

    It takes years for type 2 diabetes to develop. A shift in the rate at which people are diagnosed with it would be caused by something that happened some time before the shift.

  • justdoinglife

    4/11/2011 2:57:59 AM |

    1960 to 1970 is also the time frame that chemical fertilizer came into the mainstream. On the farm I was raised on, along with chemical fertilizers came mineral supplements for the hogs that were living on the fertilized barley. They "failed to prosper" on fertilized barley, where they did just fine on unfertilized barley. By the why, fertilized barley produced over twice the volume of grain, and I assume the same mineral absorption. You can blame the grain, but I believe it could be the fertilizer.

  • madmax

    4/11/2011 5:32:07 PM |

    The chart for the growth of the national debt looks the exact same. I wonder if there is a correlation between the advance of socialism and the cultural ascendancy of the Lipid hypothesis? I'd bet the ranch that the destruction of American health and the destruction of the American economy is not a coincidence.

  • Might-o'chondri-AL

    4/11/2011 6:15:13 PM |

    Duke university 2008 study fed new born rats 0.1 mg/kg body weight of the organophosphate pesticide parathion, for 4 days. When the rats were adults and fed a high fat diet they noticed a different response among the sexes.

    In the adult females the high fat diet resulted in a 30% higher weight gain ( vs. high fat fed males' 10% weight gain) over controls (according to respective sex) on the same diet. This type of pesticide exposure to young children may be part of how obesity is rising; the standard western fare is high in generic fat content.

    For the parathion early exposed adult male rats fed on a normal diet (ie: not high fat) the results also seem troubling. They gained weight, glucose levels rose, fat break down was inhibited and they were pre-diabetic; as compared to male controls.

    Counter-intuitively, another group of male new born rats fed parathion at 0.2 mg/kg body weight (4 days) when fed a normal diet as male adults actually weighed less than their male controls. Whereas, the female rats (fed normal diet in this case) who got both 0.1 & 0.2 mg/kg parathion (4 days) all weighed less than their female controls. Mothers, don't try this at home.

  • Helen

    4/12/2011 1:17:41 AM |

    Another culprit:

    SSRIs.  Prozac was first marketed in 1988.  (It was not the first, however - some came on the market slightly earlier that decade.)  SSRIs impair glucose tolerance and are associated with an increased risk of diabetes.  

    I think there are some modern-day smoking guns more convincing that increased grain consumption for increased obesity, insulin resistance, and risk of diabetes.  Although they are a neolithic food some of us may not be exquisitely adapted for, they have been around for 5,000 years, while the obesity epidemic is quite recent.

  • Might-o'chondri-AL

    4/12/2011 4:11:35 AM |

    Hi Helen,
    In 1938 there was a U.S.A. National Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists ; since 1941 the word national was replaced by "American" (ie: now is the ACGIH). 1946 the ACGIH set maximum limits on 148 compounds; which in 1956 became their "Threshold Limit Value", (TLV).

    TLV is not saying "x" level is always safe; just what is supposedly tolerable exposure for most "healthy" adults. ACGIH lays their TLV data out for industrial hygenists to use in their field, not for laymen's general use.

    2-butoxy-ethanol TLV (as a gas or evaporating vapor) is set at 20 ppm. This chemical is the favorite solvent in household spray and wipe cleaning products.

    It makes me wonder if the U.S.A. adult female house cleaner suffers metabolic syndrome at a higher rate than other individuals. If so then might not close decades of breathing 2-butoxyethanol droplets have had/has epigenetic synergy?

    1971 O.S.H.A. took 470 TLVs from ACGIH data and now calls those TLV by the phrase "Permissible Exposure Limit" (PEL). Meanwhile, as of 2010 there are 642 TLVs set out by ACGIH.

    The European Union has a registry of 143,000 chemicals in use (or used); and there are +/- 50,000,000 chemicals known to exist (as per Chemical Abstract Service Registry). The EPA has more details; for searching if you're curios: www.epa.gov/grtlakes/toxteam.
    pbtrept/pbtreport.htm

    2012 the European Union is set to report on chemical testing of all chemicals manufactured in excess of 1,000 tons annually. You'll see that as data reported from "REACH" (Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemical Substances).

    If you want to track down what chemical is in a product then search out the manufacturers "MSDS" (material safety data sheet). Some claim "trade secret" ingredients and then you can only guess on what is involved.

  • Ensues

    4/12/2011 1:13:53 PM |

    I love the triglyceride posts as I have been working on mine for a number of months.  Was well over 1000.  On low carb, virtually no grains, tricor (200mg), and a healthy dose of fish oil I was still at 233.  I am wondering if it will take my body/metabolism some time to heal before I can get lower.  As you might imagine I am sporting an HDL below 25.  I am working it diligently, have lost a ton of weight and get healthier by the day.  I should be sending Dr Davis a stipend for my improvement!

  • Might-o'chondri-AL

    4/12/2011 3:41:28 PM |

    Dr. Davis,
    please kick out of your spam filter the post I just sent on the 12th saying "Hi Helen,". It had resources for her interest in modern chemicals.

    To Helen,
    If my 12th post doesn't show up soon (2 days?) and you request it on this thread I will try to recreate it here. Maybe you've moved on to newer threads; I don't usually monitor old threads, but I will this for a few days.

  • Medicomp INC.

    4/12/2011 4:03:13 PM |

    Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like this ascent is going to slow down anytime soon.  Even if people in recent years seem to be taking a more health-savvy approach to their eating habits, it wouldn't be surprisingly to see this trend continue regardless.

  • dextery

    4/13/2011 5:34:40 PM |

    Western countries have also seen a rise in sugar consumption along with wheat consumption over the same time period.

    Taubes has just published a piece
    "Is Sugar Toxic" and winds his way through diseases of Western cultures from sugar causing metabolic syndrome to sugar be implicated in cancer formation.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&ref=magazine

    No where was there any mention of wheat..I don't think we can isolate wheat as the primary culprit in Diseases of Civilization.  Wheat Plus Sugar, the double whammy.

Add comment

Loading
Looking for health in all the wrong places

Looking for health in all the wrong places

12. February 2008 William Davis (11)
The American public now has unprecedented freedom to explore new directions in health.

Never before have we had the enormous resources now available to add to our health experience: nutritional supplements, endless books on health and diet, the internet, online discussion groups, insurance products to permit spending on self-directed health services like medical savings accounts and flex-spending. The Track Your Plaque program is just one facet of this emerging and exciting area of self-empowerment in health. Compare what you can achieve with such a program with the situation of just 25 years ago, when the most you might get to reduce your risk for heart disease was to take the (largely ineffective) drug cholestyramine, probucol, and a low-cholesterol, low-fat diet.

Unfortunately, it also means that people have unrestrained potential to be tripped up, to be misled down some dead end of health that fails to accomplish desired goals, maybe even dangerous. The more freedom we have, the greater the choices, the more room we have to screw up.

Among the unproductive strategies I've witnessed recently:

--Nattokinase--The staying power of this scam continues to shock me. There is no rational basis for its use. A woman today declared that she would like to stop the warfarin that she was taking to prevent stroke from atrial fibrillation by taking nattokinase. This would be a mistake that could cost her a major and disabling, even fatal, stroke. Though warfarin is far from perfect, it at least achieves its goal of reducing stroke risk. Nattokinase does not. Nattokinase does nothing but make money for the people who sell it.

--Poly-nutritional supplements. You've heard of polypharmacy, the phenomenon of taking numerous medications with overlapping effects and side-effects, usually because of multiple doctors, each prescribing drugs without knowledge or interest in what colleagues are prescribing. I'm seeing the same phenomenon with supplements: 20,30, or more supplements per day, all in the hopes of heightening health. A focused few supplements is, in my view, superior to a shotgun approach of trying to improve health by taking hawthorne, silymarin, chrysin, calcium, Chinese herbs, and 25 other supplements.

--Chelation--Based on the notion that heavy metal toxicity causes heart disease; removal of heavy metals cures it. I've read some of the books on chelation, in addition to the slim scientific data, to decide whether there was anything to it. In my view, it is a complete and utter scam. It does make money for its practitioners, however. That's not to say that heavy-metal chelation doesn't have a role in health--it does. But it serves no purpose in coronary disease prevention and control.

--Colonic purges--Achieved by a number of routes, some oral, others via enema. Promotions for purging are often accompanied by a pile of scum that apparently lined somebody's intestinal tract. Purges purportedly, well, purge it from the intestine. This is also plain nonsense. There is no such toxic scum lining anybody's intestinal tract. However, if calorie restriction or a fast results inadvertently from the effort, perhaps some good comes from it.

--Statin drug alternatives--The unprecedented $27 billion dollar a year success of the statin drug industry, accompanied by the enormous marketing push by their manufacturers, has spawned an entire industry of statin alternatives. They range from red yeast rice, to guggulipid, to various concoctions of sterol esters, Chinese herbs, chitosan, and a variety of others. Some actually do reduce cholesterol a few points. Preparations like red yeast rice even pose a side-effect profile not too different from the prescription statin agents. Unfortunately, even among those agents that work, the effects tend to be small to trivial. While I am no lover of statin drugs nor the statin drug industry, I find these preparations to be anemic imitators. You'd be better off with raw nuts and ground flaxseed than wasting your money on these cheap imitations.

--Worries about liver toxicity--A day doesn't go by that I don't have at least several questions about suffering toxic liver effects from niacin, vitamin D, statin drugs, etc. I have treated thousands of patients for heart disease in its various stages and forms and have used many different strategies. How many times have I seen serious liver toxicity? A handful of times and usually from either mis-use of the agent or drug, or in a person with several other coexisting diseases. (Other serious health conditions, like kidney failure, raise the toxicity of drugs and supplements.) Liver toxicity in the vast majority of otherwise healthy people is close to being a non-concern.


Readers of The Heart Scan Blog and of the Track Your Plaque website know that I celebrate expansion of knowledge and information access to the public. However, I am concerned that the flip side of this growing self-empowerment is expanding potential for mistakes. It reminds me of an attorney friend, who, when diagnosed with prostate cancer, explored all manner of alternative treatments, from laetrile to heavy metal chelation to high-dose lycopene tablets. At the initial stage of diagnosis, his cancer was readily treatable. He now has widely metastatic cancer.

Maintain an open mind, but think before you commit to some crazed claim of cure, some "secret" to health, somebody's brazen but concealed attempt at steering profits in their direction.

With freedom comes responsibility. Otherwise, you might be looking for love . . .oops, I mean health . . . in all the wrong places.
Tags :

Comments (11) -

  • Anonymous

    2/12/2008 6:52:00 AM |

    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.

  • ALANSD

    2/12/2008 5:52:00 PM |

    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?

  • GerryL

    2/12/2008 7:32:00 PM |

    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.

  • Anonymous

    2/12/2008 9:20:00 PM |

    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

  • moblogs

    2/12/2008 11:33:00 PM |

    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.

  • jpatti

    2/13/2008 10:06:00 AM |

    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.

  • Anonymous

    2/13/2008 2:08:00 PM |

    I meant "K2" in my comment above.

    S

  • Anonymous

    2/13/2008 5:39:00 PM |

    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.

  • Anonymous

    2/13/2008 10:29:00 PM |

    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.

  • Rich

    2/15/2008 5:50:00 AM |

    The NIH study on chelation should have some results soon.

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

    Rich

  • HeartCipher

    5/8/2008 9:13:00 PM |

    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.

Add comment

Loading
If you have coronary artery disease . . . do you know why?

If you have coronary artery disease . . . do you know why?

9. September 2006 William Davis (0)
This conversation is aimed primarily at non-followers of the Track Your Plaque program, because if you were a follower, you’d already know the answer!

I saw a woman in the hospital today. She’d just survived her second heart attack one week earlier. At 51 years old, she was understandably shaken, perhaps terrified. She felt that her future was uncertain and, in fact, had discussed with her husband what he should do to prepare for a future without her.

One week earlier, she’d received three stents that successfully aborted her heart attack. But, as is always the case, the modest delays of ambulance transport, the emergency room preliminaries, then of mobilizing an available cardiologist and catheterization laboratory team, totaled nearly two hours before her stent procedure. Inevitably, a moderate amount of damage had been done to her heart.

Her first “event” had been very similar: very little warning, then 911 and the flurry of activity. Both times, the cardiologists (two different physicians) complimented the patient on her prompt action. Both also called her heart attacks “close calls”.

She defied the odds with two near-death events. So, when I met her a week after her last heart attack, I asked an obvious question: “Has anyone told you why you’re having these heart attacks?”

She looked completely puzzled at first. She then said, “No, not really. I just assumed it was genetic. My mother went through the same thing when she was my age. But she didn’t get as far as I have, since they didn’t have these procedures back then.”

To me, this seems inexcusable: This woman had experienced two brushes with death and no doctor had established a cause. Could this woman’s belief be true, that it’s just genetic?

While there are, indeed, genetic causes for heart disease, the vast majority of these genetic causes are 1) identifiable, and 2) correctable. Genetic does not necessarily mean hopeless. It just means that the usual equation of heart disease risk management (heart disease = LDL cholesterol = need for Lipitor) has limited value. It would be like giving penicillin to people for any and all infections. It will work occasionally, but it will fail miserably in a great many cases. Treating LDL cholesterol with statin drugs is just like that.

Perhaps this woman has lipoprotein(a), a serious genetic trait that predicts heart disease at a young age and is largely unaffected by statin drugs. Or, she may have a severe excess of small LDL, only partially suppressed by statins. If she has the combined pattern of lipoprotein(a) and small LDL, that means she has two statin-unresponsive and significant genetic traits. But they respond to niacin, specific nutritional strategies, and several other agents.

The message: If you have coronary disease, you need to insist on knowing why. “It’s genetic” is not an acceptable answer. “There’s no proof of any heart disease causes beyond cholesterol” is also nonsense. “Everyone gets heart disease, or “hardening of the arteries”, eventually. You just got it a little before everyone else” is also patently ridiculous.

Identifying the causes of your coronary disease (or coronary plaque if you’ve had a CT heart scan) is the first step in developing a program of treatment that provides you with control over this disease.
Tags :

Add comment

Loading