Vitamin D Project: Grassroots Health

Here's an interesting project a Track Your Plaque Member brought to my attention: Grassroots Health.

Carole Baggerly, Director of GrassrootsHealth, is a breast cancer survivor who has engineered an impressive project to collect and tabulate vitamin D blood levels in thousands, perhaps millions of people, over the next 5 years. Anyone can participate at a cost of $30 twice a year to get a vitamin D home test kit. (A fingerprick is required. I've tried the test kit--it's easy and painless to use.) They simply ask you to provide some basic health information that will be accumulated and analyzed.

Here's a graph they feature on their website showing the vitamin D blood levels distributed among the first 300 participants:











(Click to enlarge.)

Ms. Baggerly is apparently working with vitamin D pioneer, Dr. Reinhold Vieth, of the University of Toronto.

This sounds like a really great idea. Should you enroll, please come back here and let us know about your experience.

Comments (24) -

  • Anne

    3/3/2009 2:32:00 PM |

    The price is reasonable. I enrolled. The kit came in a few days. The instructions were easy to follow. The lancet easy to use and they give you 4 tries to fill the spots with a drop of blood. My results came bact in less than 2 weeks. It was 54ng/ml - the best ever result. I am taking 4000 IU of D3 each day. Before, my level was dropping on 2000 IU.

    I am more than happy to be a part of this project.

  • homertobias

    3/3/2009 3:37:00 PM |

    What is so wonderful about grassroots health is that potentially the health data generated by the participants will further Vitamin D research. All the sponsoring MD's are the "heavy hitters" in Vitamin D academia, from the Garland brothers in San Diego, to Dr. Donald Trump in Roswell Park to Dr. Hollis in Boston.  This is a fantastic way to further preventive medicine research instead of just making a lab or supplement maker richer.

  • Anna

    3/3/2009 5:05:00 PM |

    Even though we can get our level tested through our doctor/HMO network at no cost (perhaps a visit co-pay), I decided to enroll our whole family in the Grassroots Health D*Action program.  The fingerprick blood drop collection at home also easier on our son, instead of a needle/syringe blood draw at the lab.  I really feel it is important to collect enough data about Vitamin D for more research, even if there is some out of pocket expense for us.   We seem to have developed quite a bit of resistance to all the illnesses that are spreading fast around our communities, now that our D levels are up above 60 ng/mL.  

    One of the issues I do have with the current state of Vit D research is that is is primarily epidemiological.  We really need to support more well-designed intervention studies so we can tease out more conclusive evidence about Vit D.

    Of course, we had a laugh completing the D*Action questionnaire for my son, aged 10.  The answer option about number of falls in the past 6 months would only allow for up to 99!  Between skateboarding, soccer, and mad-man bike riding with his friends, we estimated he might have fallen as much as 250 times in 6 months!  No broken bones, though, unlike my 81 yo MIL in the UK, who got out of bed, slipped on a magazine on the floor, and suffered a hairline fracture of the tibia, requiring a full leg cast last winter, with a long recovery.  Of course, she assures me the packet of calcium powder she takes nightly in some water (supplied to the elderly by NHS) also has Vitamin D in it, so she's covered....sigh.

    Nearly everyone I know from teens to seniors, discovers their level is low if they get the test - usually at the bottom of the reference range or even severely deficient.   This is true of my friends and neighbors in the San Diego area as well as my extended family in the Northeast (incl 2 teenage sisters both with levels >20 ng/mL! - one has scoliosis, a vertebra stress fracture, and spondylolithesis!).  

    Other than my husband and son, who now have good D3 levels (65-80 ng/mL) due to taking 3,000 and 8,000 iU daily this winter, only my 74 yo dad also tested with good levels this winter (52 ng/mL), despite his Northeastern location, because he's now taking the amount of Vit D3 I suggested (I sent him a 6 mos supply for his birthday in September).  My dad listens to me  Smile.  The others might, now that their results are in  Wink.

  • Anonymous

    3/3/2009 5:21:00 PM |

    Thank you for posting this.  I just enrolled and will report back when I receive my results.  I'm currently taking 6000 IU of D3 daily, and am very curious as to what my levels will be.

  • TedHutchinson

    3/3/2009 5:39:00 PM |

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0O3L77kgU24
    In this video Carol Baggerly talks about Vitamin D basics.

    This link
    http://tinyurl.com/dfazes
    takes you to the series of 45minutes vitamin d presentations by leading Vitamin d scientists that Grassrootshealth have sponsored.

    They are all excellent but of particular relevance here is
    Vitamin D and Cardiovascular Disease Prevention

    but I think most people will be really shocked when then watch this one
    Skin Cancer/Sunscreen - the Dilemma

  • jumpow

    3/3/2009 5:43:00 PM |

    Hi doc

    I blogged about the kit the other day - http://dadrewrite.blogspot.com/2009/03/daction-vitamin-d-testing-kit.html

    All in all, I have been impressed with the experience.

  • Jenny

    3/3/2009 10:19:00 PM |

    I just sent my first sample off today.  I was a little reluctant to use the lancet on myself, but I collected my courage, and did a much better job than the technician at my physician's office usually does (also, I am not nearly as grumpy).  I feel fortunate to have the chance to participate, and I hope at least some of the friends and family I've told about the project will join in too.  The information to be gained by this study should be very valuable, and moreover the opportunity for individuals to take advantage of this to monitor and supplement Vitamin D on their own  is a chance to take charge of a key parameter of health.  I would like to see much more of this type of grassroots health initiative.  How I wish I could find more ways to remove the government, the insurance companies, and big pharma
    from between me and my pursuit of good health.

  • Suzanne

    3/18/2009 8:25:00 PM |

    How very interesting!  I've been taking 8000 IUs since I was diagnosed with early breast cancer last year, but my level is still only 35.1, so I'm going with 10,000for a while.  Will also join this project, as I don't believe we can afford to leave our health completely in the hands of our health"care" system.

  • JD

    3/19/2009 8:58:00 AM |

    I sent for my kit. It took about 2 1/2 weeks between the time I ordered the kit and when I got my results. My level was 44. I had been taking 2,000 to 4,000 IU per day when I did the test. The one thing I believe they could improve on is how to get the blood drops. I had ordered a home cholesterol test and their method seemed a bit superior. Same lancets but they instructed you to warm your hands by rubbing and also to force the blood by pressing on your hand by applying pressure starting with your palm using the opposite hand and working your way down. Also to do this while standing up.

  • Anna

    3/19/2009 2:55:00 PM |

    I've use lancets a lot for BG tests.  Before my hypothyroidism was treated, getting good blood drops for my BG monitoring was a challenge because of my chronically low temperature.  The Vit D test needs a much bigger blood drop than a BG test does, so it's crucial to prepare the hand for the test to ensure a big enough blood drop.

    People with cold hands definitely need to pre-warm a hand by any means necessary before using the lancet - hot water, rubbing, heating pad, etc.   Swinging the arm in a wide 180° arc a few times forces blood into the hand by centrifugal force, then "milking" the hand, then the finger usually helps, too.

  • Valda Redfern

    3/20/2009 12:43:00 AM |

    I enrolled and have just got my results - 67 ng/ml after about three months of taking 5000 iu per day, plus eating quite a lot of seafood, butter, liver and eggs (seafood once a week, about 8 oz of liver and 6 oz of butter per week in the convenient form of liver pate, and about eight eggs per week).  I had been following a moderately  low carb diet for about a year; but at the same time I started taking the D supplements I also eliminated gluten from my diet and went _really_ low carb.  I guess my vitamin D levels weren't too dusty even before I started supplementing, since I haven't had a cold since January 2008,  but I have certainly noticed an improvement in my feeling of well being since then.  Sunlight probably hasn't contributed much to my vitamin D levels: I'm 51, live in England, work inside all day, and haven't seen any real sunshine since I visited New York for a few days last August.

    I think the GrassRoots Vitamin D project is fantastic - and for anyone in the UK, it's by far the cheapest and easiest way of getting  one's vitamin D levels tested.  I plan to stick with the program.

  • baldsue

    3/25/2009 9:33:00 AM |

    It took a day of psyching myself into lancing my own finger.  But I did it.  That wasn't the worst part of the test.  The worst part was squeezing my finger hard enough to get large drops of blood out.  

    I've been taking between 2000 and 4000 IU's per day and my test came back with my level being 44 ng/mL.  Between now and my next test I'll be taking 4000 IU every day.  It'll be easier 'cause I got capsules filled with 4000 IU so I only have to take it once a day, one capsule.  I'm hoping my level will  go up a bit.  But I'm happy that my level is up from 16 ng/mL which it was 18 months ago.  And I feel better.

  • Anna

    3/25/2009 2:55:00 PM |

    baldsue,

    Thanks for the report that your level was 44 ng/mL after a taking a dose of 2000-4000 for some time, and especially your earlier test of 16 ng/mL.    

    My first D3 test was also 44, after about 8 mos of a 2000-3000iU dose of D3, which had me wondering how low my Vit D status was prior to supplementing.  I'm guessing it could have been similar to yours, in the teens or low 20s.  Despite moving to So Cal 13 years ago, I avoided the sun for a long time after a basal cell carcinoma was removed from my nose 10 years ago.  Some aspects of my health got worse then, too.  

    Lots of little things have improved much since my Vit D level has risen to 70-80 ng/mL, though I can't say for certain that D3 is the only reason.  But I do think it's a significant factor.  I take 5000iU daily now.

  • David

    3/26/2009 12:07:00 AM |

    I've been taking 2000 IU for the last 6 months. My test came today and my level was 29... still too low. I am currently a heart disease patient with 6 stents. My HDL before stents was a lousey 33. It is now 42. I will begin today taking 5000 IU for the next six months to see if I can get my levels closer to 60, both HDL and Vit D3.

  • jellybeanbonanza

    9/23/2009 3:26:14 AM |

    Late to the party, but I've watched a couple of these by Dr Heaney and Dr Holik.  Really great, current information on Vitamin D.  I'm glad to see all of the D-related information posted on this blog, I'm finding it very helpful.  Thanks!

  • baldsue

    10/2/2009 8:52:49 AM |

    Second test results:  75!!!

    I've been taking 5000IU of D3.  I think I'll keep at that level of supplementation or alternate days of 4000/5000.  Or maybe I'll go 6 months at 4000 and see what my results are next March.  Not sure of the strategy to take.  Might just keep status quo.

    In the last 2 years I've gone from 16 (no supplements) to 44 (3000IU supplement) to 75 (5000IU supplement)!  

    And I can't remember the last time I had a cold.  It was definitely more than a year ago.  I think it was Jan '07.

  • Anonymous

    3/7/2010 3:00:53 AM |

    Order your own D test from Directlabs.com. They will email you the test requisition and then you go to any Labcorp for the blood draw. The results can be viewed on your online directlabs account. $69 for the test.

  • Flower

    3/12/2010 3:16:47 AM |

    http://healthy-vitamin.blogspot.com/2010/03/vitamins.html

  • buy jeans

    11/3/2010 7:34:30 PM |

    People with cold hands definitely need to pre-warm a hand by any means necessary before using the lancet - hot water, rubbing, heating pad, etc. Swinging the arm in a wide 180° arc a few times forces blood into the hand by centrifugal force, then "milking" the hand, then the finger usually helps, too.

  • Anonymous

    1/10/2011 4:31:27 PM |

    This is helpful to hear from others. After reading this blog I asked my doctor to add a Vitamin D test to my quarterly lab for hypothyroid. It was 29 and my 88-year-old Dad was 32 (we live in the Northeast).

    I started bumping up by graduating up to 10,000 IU. After 4 mos, my serum level D is 54. For the first time ever my HDL is over 50 too. All other numbers (except H1AC) were perfect.

    My Dad taking only 4,000 IU per day has yet to be retested.

    My husband recently tested at only 20. He has same diet and his multiple has 2,000 IU in it. I asked him to add 5,000 IU per day until our next test in 3 mos.

  • Zoi

    4/18/2011 9:38:14 PM |

    This is a very exciting project! My mum, aged 62, just enrolled and is very happy to be part of this. Hopefully this way more information can be gathered about this epidemic and awareness can be raised even a little bit!

  • Ally

    7/10/2011 3:45:21 AM |

    To think, I was cnofused a minute ago.

  • Carlye

    7/10/2011 5:32:12 PM |

    Haha. I woke up down today. YouÂ’ve cheeerd me up!

  • Darence

    7/11/2011 3:32:14 PM |

    Hahahaha. IÂ’m not too brhigt today. Great post!

Loading
Track Your Plaque in 50,000 BC

Track Your Plaque in 50,000 BC

Imagine we could send you back in a time machine to 50,000 BC.

However, our agreement: no modern tools or equipment. Just your brain, hands, and legs. And your landing spot will be tropical or semi-tropical, the same climate that humans spent much of their evolutionary time in.

Not only might you rub elbows with contemporaries like homo erectus and neanderthalensis, you'd also have to fend for your life and survival.

To eat, you will have to chase and kill wild game, all with your bare hands or crude tools crafted from sticks and stones. You will have to learn what wild berries, roots, and plants are edible and distingusih them from those that make you retch, make your bowels run, or kill you. You won't be able to cultivate grain, at least for a good long time, since you don't have a community that makes such an undertaking easier.

Instead, you are constantly on the run, from the moment you awake until you finally settle back as the sun sets, hopefully with a full stomach, but often empty and growling, anticipating the hunt and forage of tomorrow.

You are outdoors all day, except for the period when you hide in your cave or self-made shelter. You wear what little clothing you can make yourself from your kills, a skin or two. Your skin becomes a dark brown, a 5 foot 10 inch male will weigh 140 lbs, a 5 foot 5 inch woman 95 lbs. There are obvious downsides: your teeth will rot, you will be prone to infections, and predators view you as fair game.

But the result will be that many chronic diseases of modern life will no longer be worries for you. Heart disease? Highly unlikely. Do you need vitamin D? No, because you are outdoors virtually all day with most of your body surface area exposed to sun. Omega-3 fatty acids? You get those from the wild game you eat, since they have higher omega-3 content feeding in the wild, not eating corn like modern livestock. Since your body fat is minimal, just enough for survival, you don't need niacin.

In other words, many of the strategies of the Track Your Plaque program are modern necessities, responses to the "deficiencies" of modern life. Of course, I don't really have a time machine. I also doubt that you wish to hunt wild game every day, forage for plants and roots, run nearly-naked in the sun. You probably also have become accustomed to brushing your teeth and not viewing every animal as a potential threat to your life.

Nonetheless, I find this an interesting exercise for understanding the role of all the tools we use in the Track Your Plaque program for plaque control.

Comments (3) -

  • DietKing2

    6/16/2007 2:51:00 PM |

    You know, I have always made the assumption that our ancestors' teeth didn't rot because they weren't exposed to refined sugars and carbohydrates. I know accessible fluoride wasn't around then, but then again, I'm hearing that even fluoride may not be the best thing for teeth or bones (or humans) anyway.  What about Weston Price's research?
    Good post!
    Adam

  • Cindy

    6/16/2007 11:49:00 PM |

    I agree with DietKing...everything I've read has indicated that dental carries were seen only after the start of agriculture. I've also read several studies that indicate that early man more likely made a big kill and then fed off it for several days....kinda like wild cats do today. I agree that it often took several days to make a kill, but once done, it fed them for more than just 1 day.

    Otherwise I agree....get back to natural as much as possible and you'll fare much better.

  • Ortcloud

    6/17/2007 11:12:00 PM |

    We are very much least we are slaves to our ancestors dna.

    ironic that modern "progress" intended on increasing our survival is in fact killing us. We have built an impressive civilized society but it is not really compatible with our genetics. Maybe we need a genetic software update, nature tries to update our dna by natural selection but we have done everything possible to try to stop it either because of emotions or greed. (democrats or republicans)

Loading
Lipoprotein(a) and small LDL

Lipoprotein(a) and small LDL

It's been my suspicion for some time that the combination of lipoprotein(a), or Lp(a), in combination with small LDL particles is a really bad risk for heart disease. People with this combination seem to have much higher heart scan scores for age than others. This seems to be a pattern that we'll see in the occasional woman less than 50 years old who already has a high heaert scan score. (It's unusual for women to have detectable coronary plaque before age 50.)

Very little data exists to support this idea and we are in the process of performing a small study to see whether it's true or not. My gut sense: it's among the most potent causes of coronary plaque around.

Case in point: Even though I spend a great deal of my time and energy advocating heart disease prevention, I still maintain my hospital privileges and skills. I had to cover one of the emergency rooms in town this past weekend (a requirement to maintain my hospital privileges).

One of the patients I saw was a 40-year old man--we'll call him Roland-- suffering a very large heart attack, a so-called "anterior myocardial infarction", or a heart attack involving the most important front portion of the heart. Thankfully, he came to the ER within 45 minutes after his chest pain started. The situation was immediately obvious and I was called to the ER. We quickly took him to the cardiac catheterization laboratory and put a stent in the left anterior descending artery and flow was restored. His chest pain dissipated over the next few minutes.

Nonetheless, Roland was left with a large area of reduced contraction of his heart muscle. Only time will tell how much recovery he'll have.

Roland was extremely lucky. The majority of people with closure of the artery that he'd experienced die within minutes. He did, in fact, "arrest" briefly, i.e., his heart became electrically unstable, though he recovered promptly.

Along with the multiple tubes of blood we required to run tests for his heart attack management, we had Roland's lipids and other measures sent off, as well. Wouldn't you know: Lp(a) and small LDL. This may have accounted for a heart attack at age 40.

Keep a lookout for this when you have lipoprotein testing. Conveniently, niacin can be used to treat both patterns, though higher doses are generally required for the Lp(a) part of the pattern. It's also my belief that the sort of Lp(a) measurement performed by the Liposcience laboratory (www.liposcience.com) is superior. They use a particle number based measure, not a weight-based measure. It is therefore independent of particle size, which can vary. Further work will, I believe, reveal some very important insights into the dreaded Lp(a).

Comments (1) -

  • wccaguy

    10/20/2007 4:18:00 PM |

    Just getting around to reading some of your older blog posts.

    Although I'm not completely certain, it's my impression that Marcovina was a student of Professor Sally McCormick of Otago University in New Zealand.

    http://biochem.otago.ac.nz/staff/mccormick/smccormick.html

    Notice they both participated in this seminal article.

    Sharp RH, Perugini MA, Marcovina SM, McCormick SPA: Structural features of apolipoprotein B synthetic peptides that inhibit lipoprotein(a) assembly. J Lipid Res 45:2227-2234, 2004.

    I'm very certain that Rebeca Sharp was a student at Otago.

    More importantly, Sally McCormick has applied for a patent mirroring the article title linked to above at wipo.int.  Don't have the link handy.

Loading
When is a calorie not a calorie?

When is a calorie not a calorie?

One ounce of raw almonds (about 23 nuts) contains:


6 grams protein

14 grams fat

6 grams carbohydrate

3.5 grams fiber

For a total of 163 calories per ounce.


(From the USDA Nutrient Database)


Calorie content of foods is determined by summing up the calories from each constituent: 1 gram of fat = 9 calories; 1 gram protein = 4 calories; 1 gram carbohydrate = 4 calories. Calorie content can also be directly measured using a device called a burn calorimeter, in which the amount of energy released from a specific food is measured by literally burning it and gauging precisely how much energy is released.


The problem with both of these methods is that it is assumed that all foods are digested with equal efficiency. That is, it assumes that a potato chip is as readily digested and absorbed as energy from table sugar, a pretzel, oatmeal, a piece of steak, or a handful of nuts. In real life, of course this is not true. Different foods are absorbed with varying efficiency.

For a long time I've suspected that some foods are very inefficiently absorbed. I've particularly suspected that raw nuts are relatively poorly absorbed and thus yield only a fraction of the calories ingested.

Among the studies recently reported at the Federation of the Association of Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB) meetings I attended in San Diego this past week were several devoted to almonds.

One study, to my surprise, documented this phenomenon. In Manipulation of lipid bioaccessibility of almonds influences postprandial lipemia in healthy human subjects, it was determined that, of 100 calories ingested from the fat fraction of almonds, only about half was actually absorbed. The remaining half passed out in the stool. (They did this by collecting stool samples and comparing the fat composition after eating the different almonds prepartions. This is not discussed in the limited text of the abstract.) In addition, postprandial (after-eating) surges in triglycerides were much less with whole almonds compared to the oil separated from the nut (i.e., broken down into almond oil + defatted almond flour). The researchers attributed the difference to the inhibitory effects of the almond nut's "food matrix," or the structural properties of chewed foods.

Add to this the fact that, of 6 grams of carbohydrate per ounce of whole almonds, 3.5 grams are indigestible fibers. This means that 6 - 3.5 = 2.5 grams of digestible carbohydrates are present per ounce (assuming 100% release).

If we follow the reasoning that only about half the fat fraction of almonds are absorbed, and assume that the protein and carbohydrate (minus the indigestible fibers) are absorbed efficiently (100%), then we would re-calculate the calorie content of almonds to be 97 calories per ounce, or 40% less than calories calculated by composition or measured with a calorimeter.

If we were to assume that protein and carbohydrates were, like fats, inefficiently absorbed because of the effects of the food matrix, then one ounce of almonds yields 88 calories per ounce, or 46% less. This is, in fact, a likely scenario, since the food matrix is largely created by the cell wall and should impede digestive access to fat, protein, and carbohydrate equally.

My point? Almonds and other nuts at first appear to be calorically dense due to fat composition. However, this simplistic view of nuts is misleading because of the confounding effects of the food matrix. Stated differently: Whole foods yield less calories. And, judging by the postprandial triglyceride effects: Whole foods yield less undesirable effects, such as postprandial rises in triglycerides.

Some other observations with almonds included:

The effect of almonds on plasma lipids in persons with prediabetes This study confirmed the LDL-reducing and modest HDL-raising effects of almonds.

Almonds (Amygdalus communis L.) as a possible source of prebiotic functional food This curious observation suggests that almonds modify the bacterial flora of the intestinal tract in a positive way (like the cultures in yogurts).



Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

Comments (8) -

  • Anna

    4/11/2008 1:46:00 AM |

    I often soak raw almonds (and other nuts) about 24 hours in filtered water with sea salt, then dry them a day or two at about 150°F in the oven.  I doubt the studies take this kind of "processing" into account, but any idea how that might change the absorption scenario?

  • Anonymous

    4/11/2008 4:27:00 PM |

    I'm glad you posted this.  A few women I know have been wary of eating many nuts for fear that fatty nuts would cause them to gain weight.  

    Really like the little bit on healthy gut flora caused by almonds too.  A healthy gut is important to me.

  • Peter

    4/11/2008 8:19:00 PM |

    I would certainly agree that it is possible to eat enormous quantities of nuts without absorbing all of their calories. I noticed I could remain weight stable while sedentary and eating 3,500 calories back when I used to eat large quantities of nuts. Even when well chewed a proportion of them end up you-know-where! Just flush...

    Peter

  • brian

    4/12/2008 4:22:00 PM |

    Dr. Davis, this is a great example. Thanks for posting it. I have a question on the 88 calories. I tried to work through the calculations to demonstrate this to one of my clients. I couldn't come up with 88 calories per ounce.

    I kept coming up with 80 and here's how. 50% calories from fat is 63. I used 50% for protein and digestible carbs - based on the info provided. For protein, that leaves 3 gms or 12 calories. For carbs, half of 2.5 gms is 1.25 gms, which equals 5 cals. These add up to 80 (63 + 12 + 5).

    I’m probably making a silly mistake but I’d like to come up with the same numbers when demonstrating this to clients – makes me feel kind of silly.

    Thanks again for the blog, I greatly appreciate the information you post.

    Brian

  • Anne

    4/13/2008 9:57:00 PM |

    Does pasteurization affect the positive effect almonds have on gut bacteria? Last year it became manditory that all California almonds must be pastuerized by one of these methods: fumigation with propylene oxide, blanching and oil roasting. This is to prevent salmonella. http://www.almondboard.com/Programs/content.cfm?ItemNumber=890&snItemNumber=450

    I eat a handful of almonds just about every day. I have wondered if there benefits have been compromised.

  • Anonymous

    4/14/2008 12:25:00 PM |

    The study was sponsored by The Californian Almond Association

  • Katherine

    10/21/2008 6:30:00 AM |

    In the era of the 64-oz. soda, the 1,200-calorie burger, food companies now produce enough each day for every American to consume 3,800 calories per day as compared to the 2,350 needed for survival. Not only adults but kids are also consuming far more calories than they can possibly use. http://www.phentermine-effects.com

  • buy jeans

    11/3/2010 6:53:22 PM |

    For a long time I've suspected that some foods are very inefficiently absorbed. I've particularly suspected that raw nuts are relatively poorly absorbed and thus yield only a fraction of the calories ingested.

Loading
The best fish oil

The best fish oil

The best fish oils available are the liquid forms. Contrary to many people's expectations, the best liquid fish oils have no fishy odor or taste.

I use a lot of liquid fish oils because of the higher doses we use in the Track Your Plaque program, as well as our strategy of high-dose fish oil to reduce lipoprotein(a). Women, in particular, don't like taking the oodles of capsules required to achieve the higher doses we need. So the ladies really like the liquid forms.

The best liquid fish oils are non-fishy, highly-concentrated, and come in the better absorbed triglyceride form. Many capsules, including prescription Lovaza, are the less well-absorbed ethyl ester form. Several studies, such as this one, have now demonstrated that the naturally-occurring triglyceride form yields higher blood (RBC) levels of omega-3 fatty acids, likely due to more efficient digestion via pancreatic lipase.

While there are many good forms of fish oil and only a few bad, these are the best of the best:

Pharmax
The Pharmax Finest Pure Fish Oil with Essential Oil of Orange contains 1800 mg EPA + DHA per teaspoon. This is the preparation I've been taking.

Nordic Naturals
The Nordic Naturals lemon-flavored ProOmega Liquid contains 2752 mg EPA + DHA per teaspoon, the most concentrated of any fish oil I've seen.

(This list is not exclusive. These are just two brands I've used extensively with good results.)

These highly-concentrated, triglyceride forms are more expensive, due to their concentrated nature. 1 teaspoon Pharmax fish oil, for example, provides an equivalent quantity of omega-3 fatty acids as 6 standard fish oil capsules on a milligram for milligram basis, but more like 8 to 9 capsules when absorption efficiency is factored in. The triglyceride form is also more laborious to manufacture. On our Track Your Plaque Marketplace, our Pharmax 500 ml runs $58.95 list. (500 ml provides 100 teaspoons or 600-capsule equivalent.)

Note that, minus the protection of the capsule, liquid fish oils will oxidize if not refrigerated. So be sure to keep your liquid fish oil in the fridge.

Comments (30) -

  • Christopher

    1/29/2011 4:17:37 PM |

    Dr. Davis, would like your thoughts on the Trader Joe's brand Omega-3 Fatty Acids:
    1200 mg Fish Oil
    400mg EPA
    200 DHA
    Thanks,
    Chris O

  • Anonymous

    1/29/2011 4:23:39 PM |

    I use Pharmax Finest Pure Fish Oil with Essential Oil of Orange from the TYP Marketplace.  I take 1 tablespoon per day to help reduce Lp(a).  Is it better to take this dose at one time or divide it through the day?

  • Kristjan Mar

    1/29/2011 4:53:10 PM |

    In Iceland where I come from we have a really high quality fish oil called Lysi.

    In my opinion liquid form is the only real way to take it, with caps you have to take a ridiculous amount to reach the same amount as in a tablespoon.

    Plus you have no way of knowing if the fish oil caps are spoiled except to chew them, often they're not even refridgerated in the supermarket.

  • Anonymous

    1/29/2011 5:02:21 PM |

    I remember from an earlier thread that spacing the dose out over the day works better than a big dose once daily. That makes sense, given that you are trying to alter some liver metabolism that goes on around the clock. I've been using the Life Extension capsules, six a day, for several years with pretty good results. It gets my TG from 400+ to about 170. I'm hoping the gram a day of regular niacin I've been taking for a few months helps further and gets my HDL out of the sewer (27). I'll know that in a few days...

  • Might-o'chondri-AL

    1/29/2011 6:43:34 PM |

    Nice tasting Liquid fish oil brand, 1 teaspoon=
    1,500 mg EPA
    + 750 mg DHA
    ----
    = 2,250 mg EPA + DHA
    +   380 mg other Omega 3
    -------
    = 2,630 mg. Omega 3/teaspoon
    (out of a total fish oil content of 4,400 mg./tsp.)

    Canada made "Natural Factors",
    "Dr. Michael Murray recommended pharmaceutical grade" says label; extracted
    from anchovy/sardine/mackerel;
    1 teaspoon stateside cost works out to less than US$1 a teaspoon; each teaspoon has 40 calories, 15 mg cholesterol, total fat 4.5 gr. (being 3.5 gr. polyunsaturated), natural vitamin E and natural orange flavor, no heavy metals/environmental toxins ... I've no financial interest in the product.

  • Anonymous

    1/29/2011 8:48:35 PM |

    What about Carlson's?



    http://www.amazon.com/Carlson-Finest-Liquid-Omega-3-Orange/dp/B001LF39S8/ref=wl_it_dp_o?ie=UTF8&coliid=I27QWKFK5P760T&colid=1J0P20X13IM7F

  • NatureDoctor

    1/29/2011 9:04:42 PM |

    What are your thoughts on Chris Masterjohn's research regarding very low requirements of polyunsaturated fats in the human diet?  High amounts of fish oil would certainly contravene this hypothesis.  I am referring to his position paper, How Essential Are The Essential Fatty Acids?

  • O Primitivo

    1/29/2011 9:18:37 PM |

    The best fish oils should be, as expected, in fish. Eat more fish!!!;))

  • David M Gordon

    1/29/2011 9:33:40 PM |

    "1 teaspoon Pharmax fish oil, for example, provides an equivalent quantity of omega-3 fatty acids as 6 standard fish oil capsules on a milligram for milligram basis, but more like 8 to 9 capsules when absorption efficiency is factored in."

    Color me confused, Dr D. At the moment, I ingest 6 (3, 2x/day) Sam's Club Omega 3 capsules (the ones you recommended in a long-ago post) to obtain the 6 Grams of total DHA and EPA/day. Does your comment I quote above mean that, with the liquid form, I can take less than the equivalent of 6G/day  because of its absorption efficiency? And how much, if yes?

    Really, I am sufficiently befuddled that I think even my question is not clear...

    Help!

  • Hannu K.

    1/29/2011 9:45:43 PM |

    Where can I check if the fish oil is trigyleride form?

  • reikime

    1/29/2011 11:20:55 PM |

    uh.. off topic.. when I clicked on my bookmark, to the Heart Scan Blog all of the website except these comments are in what looks like Russian!!  nothing else on my computer is corrupted...anyone else?.. and how do I fix this?  I am on an IMac.

    Thanks,
    Jeanne

  • reikime

    1/30/2011 12:36:45 AM |

    Fixed it!  funny that it was only this website.

    on topic- I am very intolerant to anchovies, will Krill oil help me?  can't take ANY fish oil with anchovy.

    Thanks

  • Might-o'chondri-AL

    1/30/2011 12:57:33 AM |

    Seeing some confusion here: the ideal active ingredients in fish oil are the EPA mg. & DHA mg. omega 3's. Lables indicate there are other omega 3 oils, plus other non-omega 3 oils in all products and together these are the mg of "fish oil" (product may specify yet another blending oil). Companies make their EPA mg. & DHA mg. concentrations different, incur production costs to make it higher doseage and our purchase price reflects that.

    If you have a theraputic goal for intake: it is not so much how much fish oil, but how much you need to take of any one specific product a day to meet your target for total EPA mg. & DHA mg. Omega 3 fatty acids. For a name brand product Doc recommended and gave his daily dose (whether capsule or liquid)he apparently did the math.

  • Anonymous

    1/30/2011 1:28:06 AM |

    Unfortunately I am illergic to fish oils and react badly to them. Not a good way for me to get my omegas so I need an alternative.

    Udo' Oil does do a 369 oil that has no fish oils. So far that is the only one I have been able to find I can handle.

  • Vlado

    1/30/2011 1:44:27 AM |

    best fish oil is no fish oil. Certainly if anyone knew how fish oils were made , they would not take them. It's interesting how dr. Davis says fish oil with no odor are best but those are simply sterilized and deodorized and for a reason so that the taste of smell would not be repulsed. Trust your own gut instead of anyone else I guess. Ray Peat has chronicled data and science behind the dangers and lipid peroxidation of fish oils. Brian Peskin makes a case that these derivative oils are a huge burden for the cells and should never be taken. Naturally such oils are protected by vitamin E and saturated fat but not in these fish oils. Most other literature documents effects of omega 3 on cancer metastasis, just google it.

  • Paul

    1/30/2011 6:16:26 AM |

    Now Foods Omega-3 Fish Oil 16.9 fl. oz.
    Serving Size: 1 tsp (5 ml)
    Servings Per Container: 100
    EPA: 740 mg
    DHA: 475 mg
    Other Omega-3 Fatty Acids: 185 mg
    Total Omega-3 Fatty Acids: 1,400 mg

    Cost: $19

    100% triglyceride form **

    ** Now Foods 16.9 fl. oz. is the brand I use and I can confirm this is the TG form after a polystyrene test.  (Take a styrofoam cup, place a small amount of fish oil at the bottom of the cup, wait ten minutes, and if it eats through the bottom it's the EE form.)  

    I can also attest that I do not suffer from "fish burps" that the EE form is known to cause.

  • Dr. William Davis

    1/30/2011 2:41:17 PM |

    Anonymous about Lp(a)--

    We have no formal data on dosing regimens, but I have been advising dividing dose in two, a.m. and p.m. This appears to be working well.

  • Dr. William Davis

    1/30/2011 2:43:35 PM |

    David--

    You may be confusing fish oil dose with dose of EPA+ DHA.

    Check your label to see EPA + DHA content. This is what you use to dose your fish oil.

  • SVinay

    1/30/2011 3:37:25 PM |

    Readers

    Is Carlsons fish oil the Triglyceride form one?

  • Anonymous

    1/30/2011 4:19:39 PM |

    SVinay:  Carlsons Super Omega-3 Fish Oil is the ethy ester form.

  • Marie-Anne

    1/30/2011 4:42:23 PM |

    I am currently taking Heart Health Omega-3 1000mg by Swiss Natural Sources.EPA 300 and DHA 200.  I take three capsules daily.  I have also purchased Jamieson's Omega-3 Select with the same EPA DHA content as the Swiss.  The Jamieson's is less fishy smelling and I will switch back to it when I finish the Swiss.  
    Canned boneless herring fillets are usually a part of my lunch.  Omega-3 2g.  I also found some canned cod liver.  I'll try it in an egg bake.

  • Anonymous

    1/30/2011 11:15:49 PM |

    For the poster who had a question about Carlson's... the liquid and low-dose caps are natural triglyceride. Their higher concentrate capsules are ethyl ester.

    I currently like Barlean's, as it's triglyceride and relatively inexpensive. Their higher concentrates are ethyl ester though, so go for the lower conc. ones if you want the trig form.

    I do disagree with Dr. Davis as far as preferring liquid however, due to oxidation issues. I'd recommend the caps instead, and simply chew them, if swallowing capsules bothers you. The caps do offer some extra oxidation protection.

  • Might-o'chondri-AL

    1/30/2011 11:31:16 PM |

    Hi Vlado,
    I think so-called
    "pharmaceutical" grade fish oil is distilled to seperate out concentrated gradients of "x"% DHA & "x" % EPA in a product. Yes, fish scraps that the oil is extracted from first gets heated, but so is cooked fish. Solvent residues concievably might be in some products; you can inform me of other compounds resistant to purifying out.

    1 teaspoon oil = 5 mL. = 200 pharmaceutical size droplets = 4.54 grams .... I, for example, weigh 79,379 grams (175 pounds/79.4 Kg.) and assume a daily teaspoon dose of 4.5 grams fish oil can be metabolized safely. If you've details on how the omega 3's are noxious when added into the diet please explain.

    Is my fish oil already peroxidized and/or are ingested omega 3 lipids peroxidized to my detriment at this level? My math shows that one teaspoon for me is 5.7 hundred-thousandths of my body weight; multiplying 0.000057 x 79379 grams that I weigh = 4.5 grams in teaspoon of oil.

  • Daniel A. Clinton, RN, BSN

    1/31/2011 5:57:57 AM |

    Is there any data guiding recommendations on the ratio of EPALaughingHA? I've never come across any primary data on the subject. To the best of my knowledge, the ideal intake and ratio of EPA and DHA remain unknown and a point of contention. I've noticed many fish oils have a 3:2 ratio of EPALaughingHA, but I don't know where that is coming from. I'd love to know your thoughts, Dr. Davis.

  • imwendym

    1/31/2011 4:17:13 PM |

    I love the brand from www.strongerfasterhealthier.com
    They make 5 flavors with zero fish oil taste. My kids ask for it, so it's a big win in our house. The concentration of EPA and DHA towered over even barleans.

  • Anonymous

    1/31/2011 9:32:48 PM |

    Carlson's Super DHA Gems and EPA Gems concentrate capsules are TG form.

  • Anonymous

    2/3/2011 12:07:55 AM |

    Dear Dr Davis

    I am looking for a Kosher liquid omega 3 fis oils
    I find nutri supreme research
    Calories   40

    Calories from Fat   40

    Total Fat   4.5g    7%**

    Cholesterol   18mg   6%**

    EPA   950 mg   *

    DHA   475 mg   *

    Other Omega 3   325 mg   *

    Total Omega 3 Fatty Acids   1750 mg

    is this ok? or there is something Kosher better?---------------------------------------------

  • Anonymous

    2/23/2011 12:46:07 PM |

    Check out Ascenta! All their fish oil is in triglyceride form.

    ascentahealth.com

  • Dawn

    5/6/2011 9:37:55 PM |

    What is your opinion of Krill Oil?

  • Sandra

    2/27/2012 1:16:03 PM |

    Dr. Williams, I am wondering what you think of only taking high doses of EPA? See the following article:
    http://igennus-hn.com/omega-3-epa-treatment-for-a-heart-condition-news-release/

    As I have M.E. (post viral fatigue syndrome) as well as astronomical total cholesterol (great tryglycerides), I''m interested in trying this protocol. Would love your input.

Loading
Plaque is the new cholesterol

Plaque is the new cholesterol

Which is more important: cholesterol or coronary plaque?

Ask what Dr. Michael Eades' calls "statinators," and you will likely receive a befuddled look. Or, you might receive comments like "Measuring plaque has never been shown to reduce mortality."

While risk factors for heart disease are important, no doubt (my office practice is about half lipid consultation and complex hyperlipidemia management), for many they have become an end in themselves. In other words, LDL cholesterol in particular dominates thinking so much that it has caused many to exclude the fact that plaque---coronary atherosclerotic plaque---is the disease itself.

Dozens of studies, from the St. Francis Heart Study to the 25,000-participant UCLA registry, to the recently-released MESA database (ethic differences, women, as well as superiority to carotid measures) have repeatedly shown that heart scan scores (coronary artery calcium scores) are superior to conventional risk factors (usually via the Framingham risk score) for predicting future heart attack and other events. And the differences are not minor incremental differences. The predictive power of plaque measurement via heart scanning is multiples better: 4 times, 10 times, 20 times or more in various subgroups.

Much of what we do in medicine is not based on long-term studies of outcome, pitting some diagnostic measure or treatment against placebo. It is already standard practice to measure plaque via heart catheterization, crudely via stress testing, and increasingly popular CT coronary angiography. None of these methods have been subjected to studies comparing testing vs. not testing in a large population, followed by some program of prevention to assess differences in mortality, heart attack, and other events.

Why should heart scan be held to such a standard?

Dr. Scott Grundy, lipid guru and one of the experts who sat on the Adult Treatment Panel-II for lipid management guidelines, recently stated [emphasis added]:

"Imaging has at least 3 virtues. It individualizes risk assessment beyond use of age, which is a less reliable surrogate for atherosclerosis burden; it provides an integrated assessment of the lifetime exposure to risk factors; and it identifies individuals who are susceptible to developing atherosclerosis beyond established risk factors. Also of importance, in the absence of detectable atherosclerosis, short-term risk appears to be very low."

Well said, and from a vocal statinator, to boot.

Sadly, Dr. Grundy goes on to say how plaque imaging can serve to better determine who will benefit from statin drug use.

Of course, you and I know that there is far more to reduction of cardiovascular risk applied to a framework of serial plaque quantification ("tracking plaque"!) than statin drugs. I doubt that a man as intelligent as Dr. Grundy truly believes this. I suspect that he is simply stating what he knows what will be published without resistance in the standard medical literature, trying to achieve a modest incremental success just by raising consciousness about heart scanning and plaque imaging: first things first.

Maybe next will be a plaque-tracking, or even a plaque-reducing, mainstream conversation, just like the one we've been conducting for the past four years.

Comments (3) -

  • renegadediabetic

    7/17/2008 7:25:00 PM |

    The fixation on cholesterol is blinding the medical establishment to more significant factors, while lining the pockets of big pharma.

  • buy jeans

    11/3/2010 3:14:40 PM |

    Of course, you and I know that there is far more to reduction of cardiovascular risk applied to a framework of serial plaque quantification ("tracking plaque"!) than statin drugs. I doubt that a man as intelligent as Dr. Grundy truly believes this. I suspect that he is simply stating what he knows what will be published without resistance in the standard medical literature, trying to achieve a modest incremental success just by raising consciousness about heart scanning and plaque imaging: first things first.

  • lala

    11/17/2010 3:26:12 AM |

    Thanks for your post and welcome to check: here.

Loading