What goes up can't come down

According to conventional wisdom, heart scan scores cannot be reduced.

In other words, say you begin with a heart scan score of 300. Conventional wisdom says you should take aspirin and a statin drug, eat a low-fat "heart healthy" diet, and take high blood pressure medications, if necessary.

If your heart scan score goes up in a year or two, especially at an annual rate of 20% or more, then you are at very high risk for heart attack. If the heart scan score stays the same, then your risk is much reduced. These observations are well-established.

But more than 99% of physicians will tell you that reducing your heart scan score is impossible. Don't even try: Heart scan scores can go up, but they can't go down.

Baloney. Heart scan scores can indeed go down. And they can go down dramatically.

It is true that, following conventional advice like taking a statin drug, following a low-fat diet, and taking aspirin will fail to reduce your heart scan score. A more rational approach that 1) identifies all causes of coronary plaque, 2) corrects all causes while including crucial strategies like omega-3 fatty acid supplementation, vitamin D supplementation, and thyroid function normalization, is far more likely to yield a halt or reduction in score.

While not everybody who undertakes the Track Your Plaque program will succeed in reducing their heart scan score, a growing number are enjoying success.

A small portion of our experience was documented this past summer. (I collected and analyzed the data with the help of Rush University nutrition scientist, Dr. Susie Rockway, and statistician, Dr. Mary Kwasny.)


Effect of a combined therapeutic approach of intensive lipid management, omega-3 fatty acid supplementation, and increased serum 25 (OH) vitamin D on coronary calcium scores in asymptomatic adults.

Davis W, Rockway S, Kwasny M.

The impact of intensive lipid management, omega-3 fatty acid, and vitamin D3 supplementation on atherosclerotic plaque was assessed through serial computed tomography coronary calcium scoring (CCS). Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol reduction with statin therapy has not been shown to reduce or slow progression of serial CCS in several recent studies, casting doubt on the usefulness of this approach for tracking atherosclerotic progression. In an open-label study, 45 male and female subjects with CCS of > or = 50 without symptoms of heart disease were treated with statin therapy, niacin, and omega-3 fatty acid supplementation to achieve low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and triglycerides < or = 60 mg/dL; high-density lipoprotein > or = 60 mg/dL; and vitamin D3 supplementation to achieve serum levels of > or = 50 ng/mL 25(OH) vitamin D, in addition to diet advice. Lipid profiles of subjects were significantly changed as follows: total cholesterol -24%, low-density lipoprotein -41%; triglycerides -42%, high-density lipoprotein +19%, and mean serum 25(OH) vitamin D levels +83%. After a mean of 18 months, 20 subjects experienced decrease in CCS with mean change of -14.5% (range 0% to -64%); 22 subjects experienced no change or slow annual rate of CCS increase of +12% (range 1%-29%). Only 3 subjects experienced annual CCS progression exceeding 29% (44%-71%). Despite wide variation in response, substantial reduction of CCS was achieved in 44% of subjects and slowed plaque growth in 49% of the subjects applying a broad treatment program.

Comments (13) -

  • karl

    11/28/2009 8:01:01 PM |

    Where is this published?

  • Nigel Kinbrum BSc(Hons)Eng

    11/28/2009 9:09:40 PM |

    Has anyone investigated the effect of Vitamin K2 on CCS?

  • Dr. William Davis

    11/28/2009 9:23:30 PM |

    Karl--

    In the American Journal of Therpeutics 2009 Jul-Aug;16(4):326-32.

    For abstract, go to Pubmed and enter "Davis + Rockway" into the search.

  • Dr. William Davis

    11/28/2009 9:24:14 PM |

    Hi, Nigel--

    There are no studies in which K2 vs. placebo have been administered, only observations studies in which lower K2 intake has been related to greater risk for cardiovascular events.

  • David

    11/29/2009 2:17:29 AM |

    Hi Dr. Davis,

    Do you have any insight into what separated those that had reversal from that those that had slow and rapid progression?

    Thanks,
    David

  • drake

    11/29/2009 2:24:04 AM |

    My cardiologist said essentially the very point of your first sentence.  I had pestered my PCP to order a heart scan a month ago.  He relented only by stating that I should then go see a cardiologist.  

    The cardio stated that scores can't be decreased unless "they change the software reading the scan."  He further stated, "calcium is calcium; where's it going to go?"  Needless to say, he placed very little value on heart scans but it made for some lively discussion between he and I.

  • Paul Smith

    11/29/2009 2:36:20 AM |

    Dr. Davis - I'm 36YO in Australia with a 50% blockage on my LAD (vulnerable plaque). I have 1 tiny spec of calcium on a branch of my LAD so not much of a calcium score. I realise this is a serious problem.
    I guess 'track you plaque' would be harder for my with such a low calcium score so I haven't joined up.
    I've been using your techniques for 3months now - I'm sugar and carb free and I'm very close to 60/60/60 as you have recommend.
    With reference to your most recent posting, what is your experience with Vulnerable Plaque reduction in people with low or no calcium score? Its a bit harder to track I would have thought? PS - TIP for new bloggers - don't take 500mg of Niacin if its the first time your doing it! Ouch.

  • Red Sphynx

    11/29/2009 2:59:29 AM |

    Wow.

    Any general insight as to why this worked so markedly well for some of your patients, less well for others, and not at all for 3?  Obesity?  Tobacco?  Stress? Not taking their meds? Diabetes? Working in a refinery?  Or is It more about choosing the right ancestors?

  • Anonymous

    11/29/2009 4:48:45 AM |

    A major question remains: "Why are some patients NOT responsive to the TYP protocol"?

    Is their coronary artery disease being driven by a different cause?

  • billye

    11/29/2009 6:12:09 PM |

    Hi Dr. Davis,
    As usual you always provide great information.  I have been following a life style change that features the diet of our ancient ancestors, with great results for the last 12 month.  I use saturated fats exclusively, including MCT and coconut oil, Weight loss 55 pounds, Diabetes type 2 cured (A1c's of 4.7,4.8,and 5.0 all without medication). My doctor stopped all Staten's. I recently received the results of a VAP test 11/16/09.
    Some of the pertinent results are:
    Tot. LDL-C Direct 154 mg/dl
    Tot. HDL-C Direct  63 mg/dl
    Tot. TG    Direct  63 mg/dl
    Sum Tot. Cholesterol 233
    Real-LDL sz. Pat. A large buoyant
    Remnant Lipo (IDL+VLDL3) 26
    HDL-2(large,buoyant) 18
    HDL-3(small, dense)  45
    VLDL-3 (remnant lipo)9
    Recommendation: Consider lowering LDL-C goal.

    Because I am not a doctor, I am having trouble analyzing this VAP test.  I have started a course of Usher Smith 500mg SLO NIACIN.  Any other suggestions?  Is this  enough to  
    lower my LDL? I very much value your opinion, any input will be greatly appreciated.  Thanks in advance.
    Bill Eisenberg

  • Dr. William Davis

    11/29/2009 6:35:07 PM |

    Paul--

    I believe you may be misinterpreting what Track Your Plaque is intended to do. It is NOT  a program to reduce the amount of calcium in the coronary arteries; it is a program that uses the surrogate marker of coronary calcium as a means of reducing plaque.

    All the strategies we use in the program still apply, regardless of the proportion of calcium to non-calcified elements.

  • Anonymous

    12/8/2009 3:09:48 AM |

    new book is available when ?

  • buy jeans

    11/3/2010 10:05:27 PM |

    A small portion of our experience was documented this past summer. (I collected and analyzed the data with the help of Rush University nutrition scientist, Dr. Susie Rockway, and statistician, Dr. Mary Kwasny.)

Loading
Dr. Bernadine Healy on heart scans

Dr. Bernadine Healy on heart scans


A Heart Scan Blog reader brought the following tidbit to my attention.

Cardiologist and now writer for U.S. News and World Report, Dr. Bernadine Healy, wrote this editorial, a glowing endorsement of heart scans:

The approach is beautifully simple. Calcium accumulates in advanced plaques, so calcium visible in the heart's arteries indicates atherosclerosis. An exploding number of studies in the past few years have unequivocally shown that the calcium score predicts both heart attack and sudden death. As a generalization, patients with scores between 100 and 400 face three to four times the risk of a heart attack or death compared with others at the same age with a zero score. Over 400, that elevated risk more than doubles.

Most doctors rely instead on the Framingham calculator, which estimates a symptom-free person's risk of a heart attack in the next 10 years based on smoking history, blood pressure, cholesterol levels, sex, and age. It's available free online from the National Institutes of Health. Most people taking the test will have minimal or no coronary disease, though risk estimates over 9 percent should inspire vigorous preventive efforts. For some, however, coronary heart disease is sneaky, and Framingham will underestimate what lies ahead. Roughly half of those who suffer a major heart attack or sudden coronary death are symptom free. Calcium scores are additive to Framingham; they pick up the individual surprises by using X-ray vision to look inside the heart. No wonder insurance companies are scrambling to use coronary calcium scores—life insurers, that is.



Dr. Bernadine Healy is no small-time player. In addition to her academic credentials, she is former chief of the National Institutes of Health (the first woman to hold the influential post), former head of the American Red Cross, and former deputy director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy under the Reagan administration. An endorsement of CT heart scans, though written under the guise of a probing editorial, will do an enormous amount of good to overcome the hurdles in gaining wider acceptance of heart scans.

Those of us applying heart scans in everyday practice have long appreciated their enormous power to detect and track coronary plaque. Framingham scoring can't even touch the certainty and quantification provided by heart scans in day-to-day life. Hundreds of studies have validated their use, but they still suffer from lying in the shadows of the procedural bullies aiming to boost the number of heart catheterizations, angioplasties, stents, bypass surgeries.

Dr. Healy, a voice with great weight, not just a political figure but also a cardiologist and scientist, has done a great service to broadcast the message of heart scanning.

Comments (1) -

  • Kathy Hall

    8/5/2008 1:33:00 PM |

    I just started going to a Dr. who specializes in Health and Wellness and he recommended this scan.  It is not covered by insurance.  It costs $350 here in the Detroit area.  Sounds like it's worth it.  
    My new doctor actually answers e-mail too.  What is this world coming to?

Loading
I lost 37 lbs with a fingerstick

I lost 37 lbs with a fingerstick

Jack needed to lose weight.

At 5 ft 7 inches, he weighed in at 273 lbs, putting his BMI at a sobering 42.8. (A BMI of 30 or above is classified as "obese.") In addition to lipoprotein(a), Jack had an extravagant quantity of small LDL (the evil "partner" of lipoprotein(a)), high triglycerides, and blood sugars in the diabetic range. With a heart scan score of 1670, Jack had little room for compromises.

Try as he might, Jack could simply not stick to the diet I urged him to follow. Three days, for instance, of avoiding wheat was promptly interrupted by his wife's tempting him with a nice BLT sandwich. This triggered his appetite, with diet spiraling downward in short order.

So I taught Jack how to check his blood sugars using a fingerstick device, what I call the most important weight loss tool available. I asked Jack to check his pre-meal blood glucose and his one-hour after-meal blood glucose and not allow the after-meal blood glucose to rise any higher than the pre-meal. For example, if blood glucose pre-meal was 115 mg/dl, after-meal blood glucose should be no higher than 115 mg/dl.

If any food or combination of foods increase blood glucose more than the pre-meal value, then eliminate the culprit food or reduce the portion size. For example, if dinner consists of baked salmon, asparagus, and mashed potatoes, and pre-meal blood glucose is 115 mg/dl, post-meal 155 mg/dl, reduce or eliminate the mashed potatoes. If slow-cooked, stone ground oatmeal causes blood glucose to increase from 115 mg/dl to 185 mg/dl (a typical response to oatmeal), then eliminate it.

Having immediate feedback on the effects of various foods finally did it for Jack: It identified foods that were triggering excessive blood sugar rises (and thereby insulin) and foods that did not.

What Jack did not do is limit or restrict calories. In fact, I asked him to eat portion sizes that left him comfortable. There was no need to reduce calories, push the plate away, etc. Just don't allow blood sugars to rise.

Six months later, Jack came back 37 lbs lighter. And he got there without calorie-counting, without regulating portion sizes, without hunger.

Comments (34) -

  • Martin Levac

    12/30/2010 5:14:00 AM |

    6 months, 37 lbs. That's pretty good. Immediate feedback is a strong tool for pretty much anything we do. When all we have is a scale, it takes a while for the result to show up. And we're never sure what we did that did it. But when we check blood sugar, we have the result right there and then. Like you said, we know exactly what's the cause and can act on it with total confidence.

  • Anonymous

    12/30/2010 3:37:50 PM |

    No problem with this but for the cost.
    At six (one before, one after, more if you're "grazing") sticks a day @.40 usd each test strip, we're spending $72/mo.
    This must be lowered somehow.

  • Anonymous

    12/30/2010 6:07:28 PM |

    To Anonymous,

    $72 / mo is only possible if you are eating different for different meals for the entire month. This is highly unlikely.

  • Jeff Consiglio

    12/30/2010 11:01:26 PM |

    Diabetics or pre-diabetics making dietary adjustments based on an objectively measured parameter, such as this, is genius. (I believe constant blood-sugar monitoring is what led Dr. Bernstein to adopt a low-carb diet.)

    But what about someone who's not diabetic...a person prone to hypoglycemic episodes for instance.

    Seems such an individual's tendency to "overshoot" insulin output in response to incoming carbohydrates would quickly (too quickly)lower blood-sugar levels...giving the false appearance that all is well. Even though much of that glucose got partitioned into fat cells.

    Keep up the good work Doc! I'm a personal trainer who regularly sends low-carb disbelieving physician clients of mine to your site. They can obviously receive this kind of info with a more open-mind from a fellow physician than from me.

  • Ensues

    12/31/2010 1:44:01 AM |

    I have a very similar story!  I lost 30 lbs in just over two months and this blog and Dr. Davis was the entire reason.  Total cholesterol down over 30% and triglycerides down over 50%.  LDL is much reduced too.  My only concern now is HDL.  It will not move an inch!  Started fish oil, then waited then started vitamin D supplementation.  Waited another couple months and earlier this week I started Niacin.  My HDL actually went down as Dr. Davis said it would while I was losing weight.  Then went right back up to 22 were it's been for years.  Might try wine and dark chocolate in moderation and if ALL ELSE fails I will have to submit to exercise.  My most sincere thanks Dr. Davis and keep posting actual patient experience.  It's very motivating.  Can't wait to read about a patient with a "stuck" HDL marker.

  • Anonymous

    12/31/2010 3:50:06 AM |

    It costs too much money to buy the strips. I know doctors can get give you prescriptions for the strips at lower costs, but that isn't something my doctor would do.Too bad, it sounds interesting.

  • Anonymous

    12/31/2010 4:53:31 AM |

    For those having issues with the cost, ask yourself this: what is my health worth?  This motivational tool is key to losing weight and changing your lifestyle intelligently.

  • Daniel A. Clinton, RN, BSN

    12/31/2010 7:05:33 AM |

    With 25.1% of Americans either diabetic or prediabetic, it's about time we start thoroughly and intelligently educating patients about how to maintain normal blood glucose levels. The reality is most Americans continue to eat an American diet, conclude blood sugar control thru diet to be impossible, and fall into a never-ending cycle of insulin resistance, pessimism, false comfort in high levels, and an exaggerated concern of hypoglycemia which they use to rationalize running around with blood sugars in the 200s. Proper education and a glucometer the two best tools to combat these epidemics, and yet only a tiny percentage of the population really understands the disease process and proper regimen to maintain good glycemic control. And it's no wonder with the ADA telling people who consider themselves "moderately active" (as most overweight, inactive people do) to eat 45 grams of carbs per meal.
    Dr. Davis, do you have any suggestions on how to develop a glucose tolerance test patients could perform on themselves at home simply using a fingerstick? Do you think there's value in something as simple as checking a fasting blood sugar, drinking a 20 oz Coke, and then taking fingerstick readings at 1 hour and 2 hours?

  • Peter

    12/31/2010 11:22:24 AM |

    What I learned from testing was that brown rice and black beans raise my blood sugar 60 or 70 points, and that if I stayed away from grains, beans, and sugars, my blood sugar doesn't budge.  It didn't take many strips to figure this out, the bigger expense is that rice and beans were way cheaper than fish, meat, and cheese.

  • Anonymous

    12/31/2010 2:36:40 PM |

    Concern for one's health is a straw man, it's usually everyone's concern; however cost IS an arbiter, otherwise we'd all have "Cadillac" health plans. Technology will lower the strip costs, or eliminate them. In the meantime some do without.

  • Anne

    12/31/2010 2:48:04 PM |

    It is easy to find a free meter and it will come with at least 10 strips. This is enough to tell you if your blood sugar is spiking after eating. That is what I did and then I was able to convince my doctor that, in spite of my "normal" fasting BG, I needed a prescription for testing supplies as my postprandial blood glucose was spiking over 200.

    Once I figured out what foods were causing my blood sugar to go high, and totally eliminated these foods, testing became much less frequent. The only time I test now is if I add in a new food.  I will also test throughout the day every once in a while to be sure my BG is not creeping up even with the low carb lifestyle.

    When I started doing this a little over 2 years ago, I lost 15-20 lbs and have remained stable. I no longer have daily episodes of hypoglycemia caused by crashes after a blood sugar spike.

  • gkamp

    12/31/2010 3:43:19 PM |

    To penny-wise, pound foolish anonymous,

    I would tend to bet that the price of strips is kept artificially high and it is not lack of technology that is the problem.  However, think of what you'd spend on a dinner out, a movie, or even a doctor's visit--and a doctor's visit won't give you half of the information about your health that a canister of strips will give you.  Anything a doctor does is a single snapshot in time, not ultimately helpful on a day-to-day basis.  Testing your blood sugar systematically for various foods works if you pay attention to what it tells you and modify your behavior accordingly.

  • Derek S.

    12/31/2010 5:57:18 PM |

    Anonymous,

    No, health concern is most definitely not a straw man.  Yes, most people will give lip service to their health being a top priority but words mean little.  If you observe the hierarchy of priorities in that person's life based on their ACTIONS you will usually quickly see the truth of the matter is that health is NOT one of their top priorities.  It is called cognitive dissonance and it is endemic to our society, unfortunately.

    If someone is not willing to give up their Starbucks, movies, pricey wines, or any number of other extras in their life in order to obtain something that has tremendous possibilities for improving their health then by their actions they are stating clearly their priorities.  Words mean little at that point except to misdirect, evade or confuse the issue.  The actions tell the tale.

    I would end by saying that your statement about health usually being everyone's concern is simply not true...not because most everyone doesn't say it, because they do, but because most everyone doesn't act according to their words.  It has always been true that you can tell a tree by it's fruit.

  • Derek S.

    12/31/2010 6:03:56 PM |

    I also want to point out that the old biblical term for cognitive dissonance is "hypocrisy".  I usually avoid that term nowadays, though, since it cuts too close to the heart of the matter and therefore makes people very uncomfortable if not downright offended.

  • Dr. William Davis

    12/31/2010 8:10:55 PM |

    Thanks, Anne, for making a crucial point: Keep costs low by only assessing a previously untested food or combination of foods.

    In other words, if you know that a 3-egg omelette with olive oil and green peppers results in an excellent blood sugar response, don't bother to check it again.

  • Might-o'chondri-AL

    1/1/2011 12:43:45 AM |

    "Stuck" HDL was posted 30 Dec. so this may  still interest some.

    The Linosa study gives low HDL as 54% heritable, and low HDL accompanied with concurrent high Triglycerides as 31% heritable.

    The Erasmus Ruchpen study classes HDL as 43% heritable; with both sexes having the same HDL and Triglyceride genetic pre-disposition.

    The Healthy Twin (Korea) study classes low HDL as 77% heritable and Triglycerides as 46% heritable.

    Our individual genetics are probably not from those study pools. However, it has been theorized that the genetic tendency for most Caucasians (like the Korean twins)is to low HDL.

    The ratio of Apoliprotein B to Apoliprotein A1 has an inverse effect on HDL. Doc has described to us how he clinically deals with ApoB;  HDL reading might not "move" much but being pro-active is preventative.

  • e4e

    1/1/2011 4:46:55 AM |

    @Ensues,

    You might try increasing sat fat a little. Coconut oil, butter, lard used in cooking can help drive up HDL. It also drives up total cholesterol, but as a ratio, HDL goes up more.

  • Anonymous

    1/1/2011 11:13:25 AM |

    Metformin can help with weight loss in the Non Diabetic patient. A great addition to the glucose meter

  • Anonymous

    1/1/2011 12:10:20 PM |

    $72 a month is cheaper than weight watchers.

  • Anonymous

    1/1/2011 12:49:28 PM |

    Taking niacin to raise HDL worked for me, but it raised my fasting GLU to over 160. Another dangerous side effect for me is that even a small dose will cause me to fly into a rage with the least provocation.

    Wal-mart sells a test kit with 50 test strips for under $20 (side-kick).

  • steve

    1/1/2011 4:47:20 PM |

    This raises a good question: what is the ideal weight for any individual?

  • Anne

    1/1/2011 5:28:01 PM |

    Ensues, Here is a post on Inhuman Experiment about  hibiscus tea  increasing HDL and lowering LDL.

  • Roberto

    1/2/2011 7:51:17 PM |

    Dr. Davis

    I had my HbA1C checked while I was eating roughly 60% of my calories from carbohydrate and it was 4.9%. After 3 months on a low-carb diet I had it checked again and it had risen slightly to 5.0%. How could this possibly happen?

  • Ensues

    1/2/2011 11:47:58 PM |

    @Many...

    Thanks for the tips.  I never cease to be amazed by how supportive this community is.  I was a SAD poster child always "trying" to follow government guidelines.  I made a list of all of the "little" changes I made to conform better.  Whole wheat pasta, skim milk, whole wheat bread, no chicken skin etc etc etc.  My damaged metabolism took hit after hit after hit.  My triglycerides were over 1000.  My PCP advised to avoid greasy fried foods.  It's comical (and sad) looking back on it.  My glucose meter has a permanent place in my laptop bag and my weight goes down every week AND my health improves. Thanks again for the suggestions and data.

    Ensues

  • Anonymous

    1/3/2011 12:14:39 AM |

    I eat the same foods everyday, so I don't have to test my blood sugar very much. I save money on test strips (I use freestyle lite) and I save money since I buy food in bulk.
    I think it's important to not eliminate foods just because they raise blood sugar. It's also the combination of foods that affects the glycemic response. There are ways to eat oats and other potentially high glycemic foods with minimal glycemic response. I don't like elevated sugar, but after trying to live on flax alone, I became too depressed to continue. Flax is ok for 1 meal, but that's it for me. One example. I eat semi-pureed sauerkraut with glucomannan and dulse flakes and I get less glycemic response than with sauerkraut alone.

  • Anonymous

    1/3/2011 1:09:19 AM |

    I forgot to post my other example of food combining. Quick oats can be processed in a food processor for 2-3 minutes and added to nut butters or perhaps even added to eggs and meats, although I've only tried oats with nut butters. If I eat oats alone once daily, I spike to 150. If I eat oats twice daily, I don't go above 120, so it's about previous meals and also the time of day for me.

  • Travis Culp

    1/3/2011 9:21:33 PM |

    Though it's bizarre to me that spending money on health isn't widely accepted as being a good investment, there is a fairly easy way to avoid doing so and still get this information.
    Why doesn't the good doctor create a central repository that lists various foods/meals and the BG response to them. There must be variation between individuals, but generally speaking, a "bad" food is a bad food. I understand that the point of the process is to rein in recalcitrant patients who need to see what the food is doing, but for those who don't want to spend the money or don't want to do this for another reason, but who do have self-control, we could just share info on which foods cause the biggest response. Presumably they would be grains, sweeteners, high-lactose dairy and fruit eaten on an empty stomach. Meals comprised of mostly meat and green veggies with a serving of carbs (25g or so) should not elicit such a response.

  • Anonymous

    1/5/2011 4:44:12 PM |

    Travis Culp,
    The 'Glycemic Index' may be what you are looking for. To see a very good listing and discussion check out www.mendosa.com
    At his site there is a link to Excell listing of GI, this is nice as you can reorder it in assending /desending order. There are also  a book.
    Ed

  • Cathy

    1/5/2011 5:00:32 PM |

    My husband was diagnosed as a diabetic and I am prediabetic so I read Dr. Bernstein's book and started testing, testing, testing as suggested. When I went to get the testing strips refilled the pharmacy said I could not get more yet as I was using them too often!  After explaining what I had done and that I did not know I was only allowed to use a certain number of sticks a day (two), they refilled it but I think that is wrong for the insurance companies to restrict that.  I was glad to read the posts that once you know a food combination does not elevate sugars then you don't need to test then.  That helps a lot.  Thanks for all of your input.  It is a big help to me.

  • Complications of Diabetes

    1/7/2011 9:25:08 AM |

    Really liked the way you used to help Jack loose his weight. The results are pretty good and appreciable.
    Thanks for the post and awaiting to read more.

  • jem

    1/12/2011 6:53:14 PM |

    Is it really possible to get NO increase in BG?

    I am using this plan and have stopped testing that a m fasting (which is always elevated, for some reason).
    This has made me way less crazy.

    So back to my question....
    Yesterday my pre breakfast was 70; pp was 96.
    Lunch was 92; 102

    I seem to always have some increase so when peop say they have none, do they really mean none?

    The other question; Is the 1 hr pp enough?
    When I was testing 2 hr the reading was always higher.

    So, as you can see, there's much less stress involved w 1 hr pp testing...but am I kidding myself?

  • Dr. William Davis

    1/12/2011 7:29:15 PM |

    Jem--

    Some people digest and process carbohydrates more slowly, or the mix of foods slows the process.

    Find your peak by performing every 30 minute checks, then use that time in future.

  • Anonymous

    1/13/2011 4:38:12 PM |

    Does anyone have any experience with Mulberry Zuccarin for glucose control?  I read an article about it and came back here to find this thread, hoping for some insight.  Just snake oil, or is there something to it?

  • Karen

    2/28/2011 1:17:44 AM |

    For people concerned about cost.  I bought a walmart store brand meter for 9.00 and 50 strips is 20.00   This meter/strips is a good brand,  have no trouble with it.  the pharmacist told me she used it personally with no issues.  I don't test every day every meal,  Great price.

Loading
High LDL cholesterol--only

High LDL cholesterol--only

As a sequel to my last post, just how often can we blame an isolated high LDL cholesterol as the cause of coronary plaque and a heart scan score?

In other words, how often does someone prove to have only LDL cholesterol as the cause of a heart scan score . . . and nothing else? No low HDL, small LDL, lipoprotein(a), a post-prandial (after-eating) intermediate-density lipoprotein, inflammatory responses, phospholipase A2, high triglycerides, vitamin D deficiency, etc.

Rarely. In fact, I can truly count the number of people who have only LDL cholesterol as their sole cause of coronary atherosclerotic plaque on one hand. It is really an infrequent situation.

Far more commonly, people have 5, 6, 7 or more reasons for coronary plaque.

Thus, the idea that a statin drug to reduce LDL will cure heart disease is completely folly. It does happen--but rarely. I think I've seen it happen twice. Much more commonly, a program that addresses all the causes of coronary plaque yields far superior benefits.

In my view, an effort to identify all the causes is relatively easy, makes far better sense, and provides you much greater assurance that you will succeed in conquering heart disease and removing its evil influence from your life.

Comments (3) -

  • Anonymous

    5/11/2007 7:21:00 PM |

    Dr. Davis, two things check out this web site http://www.traceminerals.com/research/synx.html it appears to have some good data on Metabolic Syndrome-X:
    I would like to share some good data that I have had by following the TYP program, I was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes Feb. 15 and after that I got my second heart scan, over 600 (my age 57) a 43% increase in 18 Mo. Not good needless to say, than I found TYP in march of this year I started slowly following and implementing a TYP plan,
    Background
    In February I did not feel well and I went to the doctor(2/15) I had lost 12 lbs my % body fat was going up  the muscles in my stomach were sore at times I was so thirsty I could not stand it and my eye site was changing. Needless to say I was diagnosed as a type II diabetic   glucose 344 A1C 11.2, was prescribed new medications for both the diabetic condition( Januvia 100mg 1X per day actoPlus Met 2X per day 15mg 850mg) along with cholesterol ( Advicor 20/1000 ). I started a life style changing program.
    Life style changes
    Modified eating program- went to a low GI high Vegetable protein including soy no or almost no Fats, eat as much as I want .(needless to say I have changed this plan)
    Quit smoking
    Increased exercise- walking on treadmill 7%grade 3.75mph from 30 min. to 30 min twice a day
    My Medications were changed Advicor 20/1000; Lisinopril-hydrochlorothiazide tablets 10-12.5 mg and a 325mg aspirin
    April started on the TYP plan, my Glucose average was way up, my total cholesterol number was 100 but my LDL-P was 1015 and my small LDL-P was 913 along with a HDL-C of 30  went on the TYP program
    Had my Vitamin D checked -it was low , had my DHEA checked it was low, had my Magnesium checked it was low, after my discussion with you came off Lisinopril , ( we are seeing were this settles out to pick the right med's) stopped talking all diabetic med's added two other supplements R-ALA , PGX Fiber Blend (instead of oatmeal too many carbs) along with Vit D, Magnesium, DHEA , 15 grams of soy protein Fish oil, healthy Fats, no wheat products, Dark chocolates L-Arginine.   I have had a additional blood test for these items (Vit D magnesium, DHEA) adjusted supplements body fat down to less than 14% WHAT A DIFFERENCE, in the last 11 days  my fasting glucose numbers are between 84 and 103 that’s normal, before they were above 125 solidly Diabetic (since Feb even with diabetic medications) my doctor has never seen this much improvement without medication, on someone that had a 12 week ave of over 340.I do not know who is more anxious to see my next lipid profile me or my doctor  . I'am scheduled in three weeks.
    Needless to say i also beleive that very few people can just take one pill and be cured. I hope i'am alive when they do find the magic cure (and i think they will) but right now the TYP plan is the best game in town. Eugene

  • buy jeans

    11/3/2010 3:12:33 PM |

    Thus, the idea that a statin drug to reduce LDL will cure heart disease is completely folly. It does happen--but rarely. I think I've seen it happen twice. Much more commonly, a program that addresses all the causes of coronary plaque yields far superior benefits.

  • viagra online

    4/19/2011 8:16:49 PM |

    I knoe a lot about the Cholesterol!
    LDL particles vary in size and density, and studies have shown that a pattern that has more small dense LDL particles, called Pattern B, equates to a higher risk factor for coronary heart disease!!My grandpa died for this reason, I think that it was terrible!!

Loading
Idiot farm

Idiot farm

The notion of genetic modification of foods and livestock is a contentious issue. The purposeful insertion or deletion of a gene into a plant or animal's genome to yield specific traits, such as herbicide resistance, nutritional composition, or size, prompted the Codex Alimentarius Commission, an international effort to regulate the safety of foods, to issue guidelines concerning genetically-modified foods.

The committee is aware of the concept of unintended effects, i.e., effects that were not part of the original gene insertion or deletion design. In their report, last updated in 2009, they state that:

Unintended effects can result from the random insertion of DNA sequences into the plant genome, which may cause disruption or silencing of existing genes, activation of silent genes, or modifications in the expression of existing genes. Unintended effects may also result in the formation of new or changed patterns of metabolites. For example, the expression of enzymes at high levels may give rise to secondary biochemical effects or changes in the regulation of metabolic pathways and/or altered levels of metabolites.

They make the point that food crops generated using techniques without genetic modification are released into the food supply without safety testing:

New varieties of corn, soybean, potatoes and other common food plants are evaluated by breeders for agronomic and phenotypic characteristics, but generally, foods derived from such new plant varieties are not subjected to the rigorous and extensive food safety testing procedures, including studies in animals, that are typical of chemicals, such as food additives or pesticide residues, that may be present in food.

In other words, conventional plant breeding techniques, such as hybridization, backcrossing, and introgression, practices that include crossing parental plants with their progeny over and over again or crossing a plant with an unrelated plant, yield unique plants that are not subject to any regulation. This means that unintended effects that arise are often not identified or tested. Plant geneticists know that, when one plant is crossed with another, approximately 5% of the genes in the offspring are unique to that plant and not present in either parent. It means that offspring may express new characteristics, such as unique gliadin or gluten proteins in wheat, not expressed in either parent and with new immunological potential in consuming humans.

Dr. James Maryanski, the FDA's Biotechnology Coordinator, stated during Congressional testimony in 1999 that:

The new gene splicing techniques are being used to achieve many of the same goals and improvements that plant breeders have sought through conventional methods. Today's techniques are different from their predecessors in two significant ways. First, they can be used with greater precision and allow for more complete characterization and, therefore, greater predictability about the qualities of the new variety. These techniques give scientists the ability to isolate genes and to introduce new traits into foods without simultaneously introducing many other undesirable traits, as may occur with traditional breeding. [Emphasis mine.]

Efforts by the Codex Alimentarius and FDA are meant to control the introduction and specify safety testing procedures for genetically modified foods. But both organizations have publicly stated that there is another larger problem that has not been addressed that predates genetic modification. In other words, conventional methods like hybridization techniques, the crossing of different strains of a crop or crossing two dissimilar plants (e.g., wheat with a wild grass) have been practiced for decades before genetic modification became possible. And it is still going on.

In other words, the potential hazards of hybridization, often taken to extremes, have essentially been ignored. Hybridized plants are introduced into the food supply with no question of human safety. While hybridization can yield what appear to be benign foods, such as the tangelo, a hybrid of tangerines and grapefruit, it can also yield plants containing extensive unintended effects. It means that unique immunological sequences can be generated. It might be a unique gliadin sequence in wheat or a unique lectin sequence in beans. None are tested prior to selling to humans. So the world frets over the potential dangers of genetic modification while, all along, the much larger hazard of hybridization techniques have been--and still are--going on.

Imagine we applied the hybridization techniques applied by plant geneticists to humans, mating an uncle with his niece, then having the uncle mate again with the offspring, repeating it over and over until some trait was fully expressed. Such extensive inbreeding was practiced in the 19th century German village of Dilsberg, what Mark Twain described as "a thriving and diligent idiot factory."

Comments (10) -

  • Jayzee

    6/12/2011 2:26:37 AM |

    Google Hinze Hogendoorn http://tinyurl.com/3t48zhf
    17-year-old Dutch undergraduate student Hinze Hogendoorn  has created scientific history with his simple experiments.

    is there ever any good news from the food science arena?

  • Might-o'chondri-AL

    6/12/2011 5:20:15 AM |

    Metabolite screening should be done to compare with old standard and apparently is being done to some extent; there will always be someone who reacts adversely to what is innocuous to most people.  Since field agriculture is not free of  problems there will always be need for adaptations.

    Japanese daikon root pickle made today has a different degree of physiological benefit  than when made with a traditional old cultivar of smaller sized daikon.  Hinze's rats might have found old fashioned fare more appetizing but they don't have to struggle to produce it like hungry people worldwide must try to do.

    *  2006 article "Transgenes has less impact on the transcriptome of wheat grain than conventional breeding"
    Plant Biotechnology Journal 4, 369 - 380

    * 2006 article "Effect of transgenes on global gene expression in soybean is within the natural range of variation of conventional cultivars"
    Journal Agricultural Food Chemistry 56, 3057 - 3067

    * 2008 article " Microarray analyses reveal that plant mutagenesis may induce more transcriptomic changes than transgene insertion"
    Proceedings National Academy Science USA 105, 3640 - 3645

  • Jim Anderson

    6/13/2011 7:31:13 PM |

    It's astounding that tests are not done -- are not mandated by law and international treaty -- on hybridized plants prior to the plants being sold for human consumption! One doesn't need to be a bio-chemist to see the danger there.  Of course, I have to wonder what kind of tests should be required.  Some dangers may not be readily apparent.  It could take a human generation or two for the problems to be recognized.  We are lab rats!

  • MK Davis

    6/14/2011 2:59:29 AM |

    Our number one forage crop is in danger of infecting the nation's livestock with an organism that is causing infertility in a large percentage of food animals.

    Don Huber Interview - Roundup Ready GMOs - PATHOGEN NEW TO SCIENCE.flv
    swirly78777@mypacks.net

  • MK Davis

    6/14/2011 3:09:49 AM |

    The URL to the Don Huber video is:  http://bit.ly/k25NpH

  • Dr. William Davis

    6/14/2011 1:01:36 PM |

    Thanks, MK.

    Anyone with even a passing interest in food and food safety absolutely need to view the video link posted by MK Davis (no relationship).

    Dr. Huber brings an incredible depth of insight into the glyphosate GMO crop question.

  • jpatti

    6/14/2011 1:40:02 PM |

    I'm surprised to see stuff about hybrid and GMO plants here.  

    I was an avid gardener before I became disabled and very gung-ho about using open-pollinated seeds, mostly heirlooms.   Even though I didn't save seed, I only bought open-pollinated seeds and plants in order to encourage their preservation by seed companies.  No F1 seeds for me, and DEFINITELY no GMO.  

    When you look into the history even a little bit, you realize even the so-called heirlooms are all pretty new plants.  

    It's been a very short period of time that sweet corn has even existed - corn was always a grain, not a vegetable.  

    Similarly, tomatoes used to be much more acidic than modern varieties are.  It used to be safe to can tomatoes in a hot-water bath.  But new tomatoes need to be canned in a pressure canner... or you have to add acid to the recipe to safely do the water-bath thing and avoid botulism.

    Also, most people have no idea how much yummier heirlooms are.  Vegetables for factory farming have been bred for things like uniform harvest by machinery, ability to keep in storage, not bruising when shipped across country, etc.  Not for TASTE.  

    A Brandywine tomato (my favorite heirloom) tastes NOTHING like what you can buy in a grocery store - because when individuals were doing the breeding, taste was a factor as opposed to  ease of machine harvest and transport and long-term storage.

    You can get good seeds from companies that have taken the No-GMO pledge... such as Baker's Creek Heirloom Seeds, Bountiful Gardens, Southern Exposure Seed Exchange, Pinetree Garden Seeds and Seed Savers Exchange.

    The largest problem is with corn.  Monsanto corn has a gene that makes the plant resistant to Round-up, their primary pesticide.  Even farmers who intend to raise heirlooms have found their fields pollinated by neighbor's Monsanto corn - and been sued since the gene is patented.  

    Farmers that raise heirloom seeds have to raise corn in very isolated spots, and good seed companies test each batch of seed to make sure it's not been infected by the GMO gene.

    Almost ALL corn available today is not only not open-pollinated, but not even normal hybrid corn; rather most of it is GMO.  There's a very few sources of things like non-GMO cornmeal and almost no sweet corn.  

    Same with soybeans - it's all pretty much GMO.  

    IMO, very good reasons to avoid these products in the diet.  I keep a small batch of non-GMO  cornstarch and non-GMO tamari for cooking purposes, but we eat very little corn or soy - and absolutely none of their oils.  Even the non-GMO stuff, corn is very carby, soy causes thyroid issues, and their oils are full of PUFAs. But the small amounts we use in our diet are absolutely non-GMO.

    I forget if it's been released yet or not, but there's a GMO alfalfa coming down the pike.  If the gene is as invasive as the corn gene is, soon it'll be hard to find pasture-raised meat and dairy that hasn't been raised on GMO feed.  

    The largest problem worldwide is in poor countries, where farmers traditionally saved seed to plant again the next year.  These folks literally cannot afford to buy seeds every year.  When all that is available is patented seed or hybrid seed, they are screwed in terms of being able to raise their own food.  People literally starve due to the geopolitics of GMO seed.

    Read up on Monsanto.  They're pretty damned evil.  Probably responsible for more infant deaths than even Nestle.  I personally won't buy products from any company that sells Monsanto products; it's really THAT bad.

    Well, I shall stop my rant now.  I've been ranting about this since back when I was in grad school doing recombinant DNA work myself... I'm getting bored with myself.  ;)

    I actually stopped by to drop off this link for you, Dr. D: http://www.diabetesincontrol.com/articles/diabetes-news/10953-common-test-predicts-early-death-in-diabetes-

  • Dr. William Davis

    6/15/2011 12:11:28 PM |

    Thanks for the detailed commentary, jpatti. Exceptionally well said.

    A return to the simplest forms of farming and plant selection are, I agree, are about the only ways to dodge all the genetic shenanigans provided by agribusiness. Scary stuff.

  • Lois

    7/11/2011 3:23:15 PM |

    Now we know who the snesible one is here. Great post!

  • Peter Defty

    7/21/2011 3:05:27 PM |

    Thank you! for stating a musing I have expressed for years! Plant breeding starting with Mendel has probably done a whole lot more than soem obscure snippet of gene insertion....not being a proponet here but I agree that a much larger point is missed......but this theme seems to run in a lot of directions in the health world like worrying about "SmartMeters" and their radiation when that cell phone, cordless phone and wireless signals are right there in their face......or how African-American kids in urban environments are asthmatic and all the potential causes make the news  EXCEPT that the notion that that high carb diet they most likely are eating is the main trigger......ditto for all the suffering this population group has later in life.....

    thanks for reviving this Mark Twain quote... to book end it  perhaps reviving Parkinson's Law would be appropriate.

Loading
Heart attack guaranteed

Heart attack guaranteed

What if you knew for a fact that your risk for heart attack was 100% by, say, age 58? This is indeed true for many people, though at age 60, 65, 70--or 45.

In other words, unless something were done about the causes of heart disease, you would inevitably suffer a heart attack at 58.

What sort of action could you take at age 45?

Obviously, not smoking is an absolute requirement. Continue and you may as well start getting your affairs together.

How about exercising and eating a generally healthy diet? Will your risk be reduced to zero? No. It might be reduced 20-30%, depending on genetic factors.

How about a statin drug? Watch TV ads during Oprah, and you might think it's a cure. But in reality, while it is a financial bonanza for the drug manufacturers, it will reduce risk for heart attack by 30%.

(Note that risk reduction by following multiple strategies is not necessarily additive. In other words, if you have a healthy lifestyle and take a statin agent, is risk reduced 60% (30 + 30)? No, because the effects may overlap.)

So, eating healthy, exercising, and taking a statin drug might reduce risk 35-40%, maybe 50% in the best case scenario. Would you be satisfied? Most would not.

Add fish oil at a truly therapeutic dose. Risk reduction by itself: 28%.

Add niacin or other strategies for correction of your individual, specific causes of heart disease: Now we're up to 90% reduction.

Throw in a tracking process to prove whether or not atherosclerotic plaque has progressed or reversed. Now we're approaching 100% if plaque reverses. The only way I know how to track plaque is through CT heart scans. What other test is readily available to you with low radiation exposure, yet is relatively inexpensive and precise? It certainly is not stress testing, heart catheterization, CT angiograms, or other techniques. Cholesterol won't tell you. Besides CT heart scans, there's nothing else I know of.

Let's fact it: For many people, uncorrected risk for heart attack is truly 100% at some age. Take action while you can.

That, in a nutshell, is the Track Your Plaque program.
Loading