Looking for health in all the wrong places

The American public now has unprecedented freedom to explore new directions in health.

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

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

Among the unproductive strategies I've witnessed recently:

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Comments (11) -

  • Anonymous

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

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

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

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

  • ALANSD

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

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

  • GerryL

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

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

  • Anonymous

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

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

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

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

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

    S

  • moblogs

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

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

  • jpatti

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Food is better than pills.  

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

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

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

  • Anonymous

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

    I meant "K2" in my comment above.

    S

  • Anonymous

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Anonymous

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

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

  • Rich

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

    The NIH study on chelation should have some results soon.

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

    Rich

  • HeartCipher

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

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

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

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

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

Loading
"It's genetic"

"It's genetic"

At 53, Sam had been through the wringer with heart disease. After his first heart attack at age 50, he'd undergone four heart catheterizations, 5 stents, and, most recently, a bypass operation. He came to us to see if there was a better solution.

After hearing Sam's story, I asked,"Did your doctors suggest to you why you had heart disease?"

"Well, they said it was genetic, since my father went through the same thing in his early 50s, though he died after his second heart attack at age 54. They said it was bad luck and nothing could be done about it."

Though Sam's case is more dramatic than most, I hear this argument every day: Risk for heart disease is genetic.

It's true: There are indeed multiple reasons for inheriting causes for coronary heart disease, genes that heighten inflammatory responses, oxidative responses, modify lipoprotein particles, increase blood pressure, etc. There has even been some excitement over developing chromosomal markers for heightened risk.

That's all well and fine, but what can we do about it today?

In practical life, many inherited genetic patterns can be expressed in ways that you and I can identify--and correct. They are not chromosomal markers, but end products of genetic patterns. (Although there are indeed identifiable chromosomal markers, they have not yet led to meaningful treatments to my knowledge.)

These readily identifiable patterns include:

--Lipoprotein(a)--Clearly genetically transmitted, passed from mother or father to each child with a 50% likelihood, then you onto your children if you have it.

--Small LDL--Although small LDL is amplified by high-carbohydrate diets and obesity, it can also occur in slender people who do not indulge in carbohydrates --i.e., a genetic tendency. Or, it can be a combination of poor lifestyle magnifying the genetic tendency for small LDL.

--Low HDL--Particularly the extremes of low HDL below 30 mg/dl. (Although, interestingly, I am seeing more of these people, though not all, respond to vitamin D replacement. Perhaps an important subgroup of low HDL people are really Vitamin D Receptor (VDR) variants.)

--ApoE--Two variants are relevant: ApoE2 and ApoE4. In my experience, it's the E2 that carries far greater significance, though the data are somewhat scanty. ApoE4 people are more sensitive to the fats in their diet (greater rises in LDL with fats; thus, some people advocate a tighter saturated fat restriction with this pattern, though I am not convinced that is the best solution), while ApoE2 people are exceptionally sensitive to carbohydrates, develop extravagant increases in triglycerides, and are very diabetes-prone with even the most minimal weight gain. If two "doses" of the E2 gene are present (homozygotic), then the tendencies are very exagerrated. E4 people are also subject to greater likelihood of Alzheimer's, though it is not a certain risk in a specific individual.

--Postprandial disorders--We use the fasting intermediate-density lipoprotein (IDL) as an easy, obtainable index of the ability to clear after-eating byproducts of meals from the blood. Increased IDL has been related to increased coronary, carotid, and aortic aneurysmal disease.

--Hypertriglyceridemia-i.e., increases in triglycerides, While not all forms of high triglycerides confer risk for atherosclerosis, many do, particularly if associated with IDL, small LDL, increased LDL particle number and/or apoB.


There are more, but you get the point. There are clear-cut genetically-transmitted reasons for greater risk for cardiovascular disease. Some, like lipoprotein(a), yield very high risk. Others, like increased triglycerides, yield mixed levels of risk.

Importantly, all of these patterns--ALL--are identifiable and are treatable. Treatment may not always be the easiest thing, but they are treatable nonetheless. While lipoprotein(a), for instance, is the most difficult pattern to correct in the above list, I remind everyone that our current "record holder" for reversal of plaque and heart scan scores--63% reduction--has lipoprotein(a) that we corrected.

If you've been told that your risk for cardiovascular disease or coronary plaque is "genetic" and thereby uncorrectable and hopeless, run the other direction as fast as you can. Get another opinion from someone willing to take the modest effort to tell you precisely why.

Comments (17) -

  • steve

    11/18/2008 2:58:00 PM |

    all excellent points,but the question is: how do you find someone who will tell you why?  Most will look at advanced cholesterol testing and based on that prescribe a statin and a low fat diet.  Speaking of diet, it is unclear how much sat fat you think acceptable on a daily basis.  It is nice to say it is ok to have and we have gone overboard in its elimination, but unfair not to then say how much in your view is ok

  • Anonymous

    11/18/2008 4:25:00 PM |

    Thank you, thank you, thank you... I'm still trying to convince my dad that his lifestyle is still important after his idiot cardiologist told him it was all genetic and all he could do it take meds and hope for the best... I hate when docs downplay diet and exercise.  Ugh!

    On another note, I've been told that because I have ApoE 4 I should not consume alcohol or take fish oil.  What do you know about that?

  • vin

    11/18/2008 4:25:00 PM |

    My grandmother, who died 20 years ago at the age of 85, used to say "it is god's will" whenever someone died young (or old). It is what the modern day cardiologist now puts it down to genetics.

    That is progress over the last 100 years.

  • Jessica

    11/18/2008 7:14:00 PM |

    I think the potential that Vitamin D has relating to heart health is significant.

    Although I'm not the best at verbalizing why this is the case, when I learn a condition is "genetic" and it tends to strike later in life, I think, "but you've had that gene your entire life. Why is it that NOW it's expressing itself?"

    Genetic predispositions to conditions may explain why someone has a condition, but it doesn't explain why the condition occurs when it does.

    Could it be that identifying and correcting D deficiencies early in life will provide our cells (DNA) with the power to continue suppressing genes that should never be expressed?

  • Anonymous

    11/18/2008 7:59:00 PM |

    I think you missed one of the biggest "genetic" factors: crappy living habits: junk food, no exercise. These pass down from generation to generation too. But, like some of the others you mentioned, these conditions are treatable.

  • Anonymous

    11/19/2008 12:03:00 AM |

    www.amocare.com is a free service that has hospitals located in the U.S. that perform heart surgery for around 70% the cost of the price of the average cost. American Medical Outsourcing will help you with the entire process of the treatment. Heart bypass surgery usaly cost $45k-$55k. with AMO, the cost is around $10k-$13k. Go to www.amocare.com for more info.

  • Anonymous

    11/19/2008 4:01:00 PM |

    I'm curious as to why you approved the comment of the amocare spammer?

  • Katherine

    11/20/2011 6:08:47 PM |

    About six months ago I started eating a paleo lifestyle.  Since then I've had two cholestrol panels.  After two months, my LDL was 180.  Four months later, my LDL was 290.  HDL is 68 and Trigs are 41.  I've also lost about 10-14 pounds.  My dad has high cholesterol (LDL) and my grandmother on my mom's side had a heart attack at 66 and died.  I've recently had a FH test and I'm awaiting the results.  Now after reading this, having having a test run on the ApoE4 seems like a good idea as well.  Would the ApoE4 be appropriate?  Was the FH test a waste of time?

  • Dr. William Davis

    11/21/2011 1:38:03 PM |

    Both can be helpful, if only to confirm whether there is a genetic basis or not.

  • Katherine

    11/24/2011 2:16:31 PM |

    Dr. Davis,
    You've said "ApoE4 people are more sensitive to the fats in their diet (greater rises in LDL with fats; thus, some people advocate a tighter saturated fat restriction with this pattern, though I am not convinced that is the best solution),"  What do you think is the best solution?

  • Dr. William Davis

    11/25/2011 2:10:35 PM |

    Because the majority of apo E4 people have extravagant numbers of small LDL particles triggered by carbohydrate consumption, I still advise first eliminating wheat and slashing carbs.

  • Gene K

    11/25/2011 4:21:21 PM |

    I am apo E4/3, and I was able to bring down my small LDL particles to under 90. My daily carb consumption includes a small cup of dark berries, hummus, non-starchy vegetables (broccoli, eggplant, cauliflower, zucchini), and natto. I saw a big drop in small LDL particles after I greatly reduced consumption of oils (olive oil specifically), but I don't know whether this change alone had a role in causing the reduction of my smLDL.

  • Gene K

    11/25/2011 4:27:53 PM |

    (cont'd) As far as fats, I don't eat red meat, but plenty of fatty fish and lean poultry plus an egg every day. Tons of yellow mustard (turmeric), too.

  • Dr. William Davis

    11/27/2011 2:15:58 PM |

    HI, Gene--

    I believe the best way to view this is that oils/fats amplify LDL particles in all its forms. If in the presence of carbohydrates, oils/fats will increase small LDL because it is the dominant form.

  • Katherine

    11/28/2011 8:50:14 PM |

    I have eliminated wheat and eat about 30 total carbs a day while my LDL is 289.  I am actively losing weight which is sounds like may have influenced my numbers.  Is the Apo E4 associated only with increased LDL's or is it with elevated Trigs as well?  My Trigs are 37.

  • Ronnie

    12/13/2011 3:16:58 AM |

    My doctor tested me for ApoE without telling me and mailed me my results....I'm a 3/4.  My LDL-P was 1206, Triglycerides 115, HDL-C 72, sdLDL 37 mg/dl.  I'm 60, female, thin (5'2" 109 lbs), have exercised my entire life, non smoker, occasionally drink one glass of white wine.  Parents never had heart disease although I have a sister with CAD which I always chalked up to poor lifestyle habits (terrible diet, sedentary).  I never expected this and I'm not handling this news well at all.  While some people may want to know their ApoE genotype, I wasn't one of them.  I greatly resent my doctor doing this test without consulting me first and the way I received the results through the mail.   I have no idea what to do this information.  Do I consult with a geneticist, a cardiologist or a lipid specialist?

  • Robin Michael

    5/1/2013 5:50:50 PM |

    Dr. Davis,

    I joined TYP specifically because my Heart Diagnostics Lab results (taken before I started Wheat Belly plan) showed my to be APOE E4 3/4 genotype.  My other numbers: total cholesterol=154, LDL-C=85, HDL-C=56, Triglycerides=58. On Lipitor generic 10mg, Lisinopril 20mg and Amlodipine 5mg. I find the WB plan to be easy, but am moderately high fat diet including labne for breakfast, eggs for lunch with avocado, sour cream, and fish/chicken and salad/green vegetable for dinner. Carbs are limited to less than 50g per day. I generally cook with olive oil, and sometimes toasted sesame oil. I eat very little fruit, limited my intake to a few berries in the morning, a plum or half an apple at lunch.

    Do you recommend lowering my fat intake? Anything else?

Loading