Vitamin D for $200?

What if vitamin D cost $200 rather than $2?

In other words, what if cholecalciferol, or vitamin D3, was a patent-protectable agent that would sell for an extravagant price, just like a drug?

Vitamin D would be the hot topic. There would be TV ads run during Oprah, slick magazine two-page spreads with experts touting its outsized benefits, insurance companies would battle over how much your copay should be.

The manufacturer would host large fancy symposia to educate physicians on how wonderful vitamin D is for treatment of numerous conditions, complete with dinner, a show, and gifts. They would hire expert speakers to speak, scientists to have articles ghost-written, give out knick knacks with the brand label inscribed--just like Lipitor, Actos, Vytorin, ReoPro, Plavix . . .

After all, what other "drug" substantially increases bone density (up to 20% in adult females), enhances insulin responses 30% (equivalent to the TZD drugs, Actos and Avandia), and slashes colon cancer risk?

But it's not a drug. That is both vitamin D's strength and its weakness. It's a strong point because it's natural, phenomenally helpful across a variety of conditions, and inexpensive. It is also a weakness because, at $2 a month, no one is raking in the $12 billion annually that Pfizer makes for Lipitor that allows it to fund an enormous marketing campaign.

Vitamin D is a "discovery" of huge importance for health, including making reductions of CT heart scan scores far more likely for more people. And it comes without a prescription.

Comments (2) -

  • Edward

    3/14/2007 8:34:00 AM |

    http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/85/3/860
    This recent research shows the poor Vitamin D status of most UK white residents. 87% lower than ideal in Winter and 60% remain so throughout the year. Goodness knows what the situation is for those with brown or black skins but it will inevitably be worse as it takes longer for darker skins to make the same amount of D3.

  • Neil

    3/15/2007 12:42:00 AM |

    Poster Edward and Dr. Davis, I have been reading quite a lot about vitamin D, the subject to me is absolutely fascinating. Edward, your thought about darker skin pigmentation and low vitamin D status is verified throughout medical literature and news articles. Like this...

    "...92 percent of African-American babies and 66 percent of white infants found to have inadequate vitamin D concentrations in their blood at birth." Link… http://tinyurl.com/2xpjse

    This especially gives one pause when you then consider the rate of cardiovascular disease, cervical, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancers, hypertension, fibromyalgia, Alzheimer's, and diabetes run much higher in the African American community, sometimes as much as 100-200% higher for some of these diseases.  Since these are all conditions strongly associated with vitamin D status, could it be all they need is this inexpensive vitamin supplement on an ongoing basis? And these strong associations with vitamin D status and rate of these serious diseases hold true for other racial backgrounds. One study of Southeast Asians living in England found they had a low Vitamin D status as well.

    To quote Dr. Davis from the other day "The whole vitamin D "discovery" sometimes worries me. Vitamin D has proven to be an unbelievable, remarkable, dramatic boon to health, including facilitation in dropping CT heart scan scores. Yet the answer was always right in front of us. It worries me that you and I might have the answer to important questions right within our grasp all along--but don't know it. What if the same were true, say, for cancer? That is, a profound answer is right there, but our eyes just pass right over it."

    In my recent reading I have run across so many articles on vitamin D that are just so stunning that I saved them.

    "Vitamin D deficiency is a major contributor to chronic low back pain in areas where vitamin D deficiency is endemic." Link...  http://tinyurl.com/2u4ayp

    “…...the vitamin plays a role in shutting down or activating at least 100 genes, many of which are involved in preventing diseases....family members of the Alzheimer's patients reported how well they were performing and acting within weeks of being put on large doses of prescription vitamin D, said lead author Robert Przybelski, an associate professor of geriatric medicine at the University of Wisconsin.”We hypothesize that good vitamin D levels might prevent or mitigate the disease," Przybelski said.”  Link… http://tinyurl.com/2uk2hy


    “…the deadliness of the 1918 killer flu could have been largely a result of vitamin D deficiency. Worldwide, an estimated 25 million people died from that flu.” Link… http://tinyurl.com/33ogga

    “…With respect to the modulation of cardiovascular effects by 1 ,25-(OH)2D3, further investigations are needed that could eventually lead to novel pharmacological approaches to manage hypertrophy, restenosis, and atherosclerosis or remodel the cardiovascular system.” Link… http://tinyurl.com/36897n

    “…71% of patients with severe PAD had serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] levels that were below 9 ng/mL” Link…  http://tinyurl.com/2gqe3r

    How could a two dollar a month supplement do all this!!! Pretty incredible stuff.

    My own family tree is littered with victims of cancer, heart attack (leading to sudden death MI’s in my Uncle and Grandfather both at the age of 52), stroke, Alzheimer’s, ALS, etc. Could vitamin D have been a strong contributing factor to their deaths??? Considering my own vitamin D level was EXTREMELY low and I now have to take about 6,000 IU daily just to normalize it, and I as well had a heart attack at 46, I consider this idea at least as a possible common factor.

    Dr. Davis...Thanks for keeping us informed on your patient experiences and your latest thoughts on Vitamin D and all the other treatments you are exploring. Your daily observations through your blog have helped me a great deal in becoming healthier. Reading your blog and webpage are constant sources of inspiration as well.

    Neil

Loading
Goodbye, fructose

Goodbye, fructose

A carefully-conducted study by a collaborative research group at University of California-Berkeley has finally closed the lid on the fuss over fructose vs. glucose and its purported adverse effects.

The study is published in its entirety here.

Compared to glucose, fructose induced:

1) Four-fold greater intra-abdominal fat accumulation--3% increased intra-abdominal fat with glucose; 14.4% with fructose. (Intraabdominal fat is the variety that blocks insulin responses and causes diabetes and inflammation.)

2) 13.9% increase in LDL cholesterol but double the increase for Apoprotein B (an index of the number of LDL particles, similar to NMR LDL particle number).

3) 44.9% increase in small LDL, compared to 13.3% with glucose.

4) While glucose (curiously) reduced the net postprandial (after-eating) triglyceride response (area under the curve, AUC), fructose increased postprandial triglycerides 99.2%.


The authors propose that fructose specifically increases liver VLDL production, the lipoprotein particle that yields abnormal after-eating particles, increased LDL, and provides building blocks to manufacture small LDL particles. The authors also persuasively propose that fructose metabolism, unlike glucose, is not inhibited (via feedback loop) by energy intake, i.e., it's as if you are always starving.

Add to this the data that show that fructose increases uric acid (that causes gout and may act as a coronary risk factor), induces leptin resistance, causes metabolic syndrome (pre-diabetes), and increases appetite, and it is clear that fructose is yet another common food additive that, along with wheat, is likely a big part of the reason Americans are fat and diabetic.

Fructose is concentrated, of course, in high-fructose corn syrup, comprising anywhere from 42-90% of total weight. Fructose also composes 50% of sucrose (table sugar). Fructose also figures prominently in many fruits; among the worst culprits are raisins (30% fructose) and honey (41% fructose).

Also, beware of low-fat or non-fat salad dressings (rich with high-fructose corn syrup), ketchup, beer, fruit drinks, fruit juices, all of which are rich sources of this exceptionally fattening, metabolism-bypassing, LDL cholesterol/small LDL/ApoB increasing compound. Ironically, this means that many low-fat foods meant to reduce cholesterol actually increase it when they contain fructose in any form.

When you hear or say "fructose," run the other way, regardless of what the Corn Refiners Association says.

Comments (35) -

  • Anna

    7/12/2009 4:32:48 PM |

    Don't forget agave syrup/nectar.  That is the latest "low glycemic" sweetener temping sugar addicts, particularly to those interested in health.  Agave sweeteners are VERY high in refined fructose, with some brands much more fructose than HFCS (I've seen figures as high as 92% fructose).

    Even more worrying, agave sugar products  are labeled as safe for diabetics, who are particularly prone to damage from frequent consumption of concentrated fructose.

    The people I see using or recommending agave sweetner products seem to think that because they can't detect an immediate post-prandial BG rise, that agave syrup is somehow better (therefore healthier) than sugar and safe for liberal and/or frequent use.  Not so.  All refined/concentrated sugars need to be limited in both quantity and in frequency, including concentrated fructose.

    I see "moderation" used a lot in reference to sugars and agave products whenever criticism of sugars is made.  But what is "moderation"?  Do we even have a reference point anymore in our sugar-drenched culture?  "Moderation" in the 21st century is still at least a hundred pounds per capita more sugars than most humans consumed just a few hundred years ago, and much more than our paleolithic ancestors consumed. Even "moderation" needs to be considered in moderation.

  • Nameless

    7/12/2009 7:21:03 PM |

    Wow, that's really interesting.

    In the past I've wondered if something real simple (like removal of soda/sugary drinks) from society would have a major impact on both heart and general health.  Apparently it would.

    It's also weird how cardiologists (in general) overlook sugar intake almost completely. When I last saw my cardiologist, I was sort of baffled that they were offering the patients waiting for infusion therapy snacks while they wait. The nurse commented how  the patients go  first for the peanut butter/jelly sandwiches and they run out fast. And I'm there thinking... are they crazy, giving  sugary food to heart patients?  Then I remembered most cardiologists tend to be fat intake oriented only.

    Question for Dr. Davis -- what amount of fructose, daily would you consider safe? Is any amount  safe? As certain fruits do provide health benefits even if they do contain fructose. Berries are still acceptable? What gycated hemoglobin level do you aim for with your patients and have you noticed any differences in plaque progression based solely on this value?

  • Rick

    7/13/2009 3:33:37 AM |

    Hi Dr Davis,
    Could you tell us more about beer? Do you mean that beer has fructose added to it? Or that it contains a lot of fructose naturally? In general, how high up is beer on your list of things that we shouldn't eat? I ask because I'm having some success cutting down on sweet things and on wheat, and beer is one of my chief culinary pleasures. I don't mean that I drink a lot or that I drink everyday, just that I thoroughly enjoy the 3 or 4 beers a week I do have. (I generally drink brews made with 100% barley malt.)

  • pmpctek

    7/13/2009 3:40:40 AM |

    So low glycemic fruits (which are high in fructose) like apples, apricots, berries, cherries, grapefruit, plums, and prunes can be hazardous to our health...

    I'm starting to run out of things I can eat.

  • Cynthia1770

    7/13/2009 1:27:47 PM |

    Hi,
    Thank you for the link to the JCI
    study. I can hardly wait to see how the CRA will militantly respond. As a former research technician I am driven crazy when the CRA claims that sucrose and HFCS are essesntially similar. Take the variant HFCS-55. To the casual observer the 55% fructose: 45% glucose composition looks 5% different than the 50:50 ratio found in sucrose. That is, until you do the math.
    55%:45% = 55/45 = 1.22.
    This means in every can of Coke
    (bottled in the USA) there is, compared to glucose, 22% extra fructose. The CRA can't deny the math; they designed the ratio. To your health.

  • homertobias

    7/13/2009 3:17:12 PM |

    Did anyone notice that one of the authors of the article is RM Krauss? I love chasing his articles on pubmed.  His saturated fat articles from a few years back are particularily interesting.  I think of him as "small dense krauss" in the age,rage and ldl series on Peter's blog.

  • Curious

    7/13/2009 7:02:44 PM |

    Dr. Davis - there's so much great information here, but when we ask questions to try to understand the information, you don't answer them!

  • Dr. William Davis

    7/14/2009 12:43:22 AM |

    Thank you, Curious.

    But most of my time is spent in my more-than-full-time cardiology practice, consulting to the nutritional supplement industry, research, and the practically full-time website, Track Your Plaque, in which I engage in discussions with your wonderfully savvy Members. So I have to triage my time accordingly.

  • Dr. William Davis

    7/14/2009 12:44:41 AM |

    Also, I read the comments and I try to cover as many of the points as possible in future posts or in the content we post on Track Your Plaque.

    Remember: As I post prominently on the blog: The Heart Scan Blog accompanies Track Your Plaque; it is not meant to be a standalone source of information.

  • Anonymous

    7/14/2009 2:46:29 AM |

    Dr, D.  Those of use who TYP ( "track your posts") on this Blog may not be as "bought in" as the members of your track your Plaque members.

    If fructose is added to beer, it will be converted to alcohol so none left in the final product.  If wheat is used in the beer grist, the starches that are extracted are converted (mostly) to alcohol so no residual "toxins" to cause swelling.

    It isn't high fructose corn syrup consumption or prepared meals that makes Americans one of the most overweight nations in the world, its eating more calories that you need; it comes down to pure physics

  • Jammer

    7/14/2009 7:41:45 PM |

    I'd like to see a post about the lie of Calories. Fat is calculated at 10 kcal/gram because if burns (bomb calorimeter) better than sugar (calculated at 4kcal/g, the same as fiber).

    But of course sugar is much more available to our bodies as energy than fat or fiber.

    This makes the Calorie a big lie and emphasizes even more the low-fat diet (because fat would obviously be easier to cut by calorie than carbs).

    When people try to talk about the "physics of losing weight", they need to address the underlying assumptions that make the whole system a lie.

  • Anonymous

    7/15/2009 3:11:32 AM |

    Jammer, Please, it is a fundamental law: you can not create or destroy energy.  Mechanistically the body may deal with fats, sugars and proteins differently but unless you live in an alternate dimension, calories absorbed by the gut are either expended as energy or stored in the body in one form or another.  Belief in some magical effect of being able to "eat all the xyz without putting on weight" is a matter of faith and faith is neither fact nor science.

  • Apolloswabbie

    7/16/2009 7:28:23 PM |

    Anonymous, on the contrary, you are expressing faith in but one interpretation of the Laws of Thermodynamics (LoT).  When tested, results often show that one can eat more calories on a restricted carb diet and be less hungry and lose more weight.  The reasons are many and I refer you to Good Calories Bad Calories should you wish to learn more.  The body is not a closed system, and your interpretation of the LoT imply that it is.  What do I mean?  â€œCalories in = energy expended + fat accumulated/depleted” is correct, but only if one realizes that some calories drive hormonal responses which have an effect on the equation.  Eat more protein, feel less hunger, be more active, thus expend more energy.  Eat more carbohydrate (measured by glycemic load in particular), feel more hunger and behave like hungry people do - rest more, thus expending less calories.

    Do teenagers grow because they eat too much or because their bodies are responding to the complex interaction of hormones?

    Do pregnant ladies gain weight because they eat too much or because their bodies are responding to the complex interaction of hormones?

    Do post-menopausal ladies gain weight more easily because they suddenly begin to eat too much, or because their bodies are responding to the complex interaction of hormones?

    Do tall thin people (ectomorphs) just magically match their consumption and expenditure (thus remaining slender despite what appears to be high food intake)?  Or are they genetically programmed to a different hormonal response than endomorphs?  

    If you met two people, one tall and thin and the other shorter, wider, with a large pelvis and heavy bones – don’t you already know that one will struggle more with their weight than the other?  You do, and you know it long before you know which one is the least disciplined in the non-food arenas in their lives.  

    Are you aware of the research that shows, repeatedly, that the obese consistently eat less than many or most of those who are not obese?

    Do those who are heavier than we think they should be eat too much, or are they responding to the hormonal mileu they have created by eating foods which we are not designed to eat?  I think the later.  Obesity is not the result of a character flaw, it is a result of widespread consumption of foods (primarily cereal gains, sugar and agricultural products which have exceptionally high carb content) we are not genetically adapted to.  These foods drive a hormonal response the results in energy accumulation as fat.

  • Anonymous

    7/19/2009 12:01:19 AM |

    Aplloswabbie,notwithstanding the impact on what drives people to consume or expend energy at different rates, all excellent info., the equation is still balanced in the end.

  • Apolloswabbie

    7/19/2009 4:37:21 PM |

    Anon, agreed, but the significance of our agreement on that fact is low, as it provides little utility in assisting ourselves or others with their health.  For me, the realization that "low fat" diets are unnatural and drive metabolic derangement gave me a chance to eat good food to satiety, but avoid the high body fat that plaques my family.  Best regards.

  • JLL

    7/20/2009 1:57:42 PM |

    How much fructose does beer have then? From what I could find, the fructose content of barley malt is significantly lower than other sugars.

  • stern

    7/29/2009 9:50:44 PM |

    how about mal;tose from tapioca syrup?

  • Anonymous

    7/31/2009 8:51:33 PM |

    Now if you could get Congress to drop the high tariffs on sugar so it becomes less expensive than HFCS, we all could live longer.

  • trinkwasser

    8/3/2009 12:32:58 PM |

    Not much longer, we predominantly have sugar from local beet rather than HFCS in the UK, yet our stats aren't much better. IMO there's little difference in the relative toxicity between sugar and HFCS within the context of a high wheat diet

  • 熟女サークル

    9/10/2009 5:06:10 AM |

    性欲のピークを迎えたセレブ熟女たちは、お金で男性を買うことが多いようです。当、熟女サークルでは全国各地からお金持ちのセレブたちが集まっています。女性から男性への報酬は、 最低15万円からとなっております。興味のある方は一度当サイト案内をご覧ください

  • メル友募集中

    9/11/2009 5:18:12 AM |

    プロフ見た感想を携帯アドの方に送ってください。悪口は気が病むので止めておいて欲しいですjewely.jmtjd@docomo.ne.jp

  • Anonymous

    2/8/2010 8:08:00 PM |

    So fruit, in moderate portions, is bad for me?
    *snort*
    I understand targeting HFCS just as you would large amounts of sucrose.  It's the AMOUNT of these substances that can be a problem.  The other nutrients I get from a piece fruit can far outweigh any possible negative of small amount of fructose in the piece of fruit.  Decisions are all about risk vs. benefit. I imagine there are no risk-free food choices.

  • Anonymous

    8/8/2010 8:41:07 PM |

    No risk-free food choices, Anon?  Whole fruits and vege have little risks!

    Very good post that busts everything that http://betterworldcookies.blogspot.com/2010/06/why-i-use-agave-nectar-examination-of.html says!

  • Generic Cialis

    9/23/2010 8:49:14 PM |

    Wow, I had no idea of this. I should start being careful with my eating, I am really worried about my health now due to several conditions and this is a real eye opener

  • buy jeans

    11/2/2010 7:37:08 PM |

    Fructose is concentrated, of course, in high-fructose corn syrup, comprising anywhere from 42-90% of total weight. Fructose also composes 50% of sucrose (table sugar). Fructose also figures prominently in many fruits; among the worst culprits are raisins (30% fructose) and honey (41% fructose).

  • Anonymous

    1/24/2011 5:52:58 PM |

    A point that Robert Luskin makes in his video "Sugar, the Bitter Truth" is that biochemically fructose does not produce Leptin in the body, the "stop eating" hormone.

    A great ingredient for corporate food products - the more fructose, the more you eat/drink before feeling "full". Given that the calorie surplus that makes the US one of the fattest countries in the world is only 20 calories per day, high fructose corn syrup could account for that all by itself.

  • Generic Cialis

    1/25/2011 9:53:49 AM |

    Hey there,
    Really nice job, There are many people searching about that now they will find enough sources by your tips.
    Also looking forward for more tips about that

  • sweaty hands

    2/22/2011 12:18:14 AM |

    Thanks very much for this nice submit;that is the type of factor that retains me going by way of these day. I¡¯ve been trying round for this web site after being referred to them from a buddy and was happy when I found it after looking for some time. Being a avid blogger, I¡¯m glad to see others taking initivative and contributing to the community. Just needed to comment to show my appreciation on your article as it¡¯s very appleaing, and lots of writers do not get authorization they deserve. I'm sure I¡¯ll drop by again and will suggest to my friends.

  • Generic Viagra

    2/28/2011 1:01:27 PM |

    Wow, nice post,there are many person searching about that now they will find enough resources by your post.Thank you for sharing to us.Please one more post about that..aftstr

  • Networking solutions

    3/3/2011 11:32:32 AM |

    Nice work, I would like to read your blog every day Thanks

  • ガバペン

    3/7/2011 9:22:47 AM |

    Great tips, I would like to join your blog anyway,

  • Generic Viagra

    4/25/2011 11:24:36 AM |

    Great information, you have a wonderful blog and an excellent article!!

  • Viagra Online

    6/9/2011 5:43:09 AM |

    Thanks for the posting. Loads of good writing here. I Wish I Had found this site Sooner

Loading
Statin stupid

Statin stupid

If we followed the lead of the pharmaceutical industry and my cardiology colleagues, we would all subscribe to the "statins for all" philosophy. There is now $2 billion of clinical "research" to back up this "evidence-based" practice.

I do not endorse this "statins for all" philosophy. I believe it is a product of the raw profiteering of the pharmaceutical industry, who are adept at recruiting physicians to their cause.

But lost in the confusion of tainted studies and over-the-top media saturation is the fact that there are small groups of people who likely do obtain benefit from statin drugs. They would certainly benefit from better informed scrutiny of their lipoprotein and metabolic abnormalities. But treatment may involve statins.

This is entirely distinct from the "statins for all" argument, the simpleminded rule that primary care physicians and cardiologist are told to follow.

Groups who may indeed benefit from statin therapy include:

Homozygous or heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia--Lacking a receptor for LDL particles, LDL piles up to very high levels in these people. LDLs of 300+ are common and lead to heart disease and stroke at relatively young ages.

Combined mixed hyperlipidemia--Among the one or more genetic defects underlying this condition involves excessive production of apoprotein B and VLDL particles. This leads to high risk for heart disease.

People unable to follow a diet to correct their lipid disorder--I have 80+-year old patients, for instance, who say, "I've eaten this way for 82 years. I'm not going to change now!" In the absence of diet and other efforts (e.g., omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil), drugs may be the answer.

In other words, of the $27 billion annual bill for statin drugs, perhaps a tiny fraction is truly necessary. The majority of people taking statin drugs would not really need them if they had the real answers. But don't let that confuse us: There are some people who do indeed benefit.
Loading
Blast small LDL to oblivion

Blast small LDL to oblivion

Here's a graphic demonstration of the power of wheat elimination to reduce small LDL particles, now the number one cause for heart disease in the U.S.

Lee had suffered a stroke due to an atherosclerotic plaque in a brain artery. She also had plenty of coronary plaque with a heart scan score of 322.

Lee began with an LDL particle number (the "gold standard" for measuring LDL, far superior to conventional calculated LDL) of 2234 nmol/L. This is exceptionally high, the equivalent of an LDL cholesterol of 223 mg/dl (drop the last digit). Of this 2234 nmol/L, 90% were abnormally small, with 1998 nmol/L of small LDL particles.

Lee eliminated wheat products from her diet, as well as cutting out sugars and cornstarch. Six months later, her results:

LDL particle number: 1082 nmol/L--a 52% reduction from the starting value and equivalent to an LDL of 108 mg/dl. Small LDL: zero--yes, zero.

In other words, 100% of Lee's LDL particles had shifted to the more benign large LDL simply with elimination of these foods---NO statin drug. (In addition to wheat elimination, she was also taking vitamin D and omega-3 fatty acids at our recommended doses.)

While not everybody responds quite so vigorously due to genetic variation, nor does everyone try as hard as Lee did to eliminate the foods that trigger small LDL, her case provides a great illustration of the power of this strategy.

Comments (21) -

  • Steve K

    4/5/2009 3:33:00 PM |

    while i believe in this strategy with improvement in my own situation,probably due to genetics i have not experience any change in particle size although there has been a reduction in small particles from 1805 to 1305according to NMR with size at 18.7  Since trigs were only 20 and HDL was 54 up from 41 VitD only 38. Working to raise it.  Taking Lipitor at Doc request due to strong family history.  Only male in family not to have a coronary event. Would like not to take statin,but not sure there is an alternative. Any thoughts?

  • Anonymous

    4/6/2009 12:31:00 AM |

    I normally ead very little wheat anyway, but you've piqued my curiousity

    you wrote this:
    >>> eliminate the foods that trigger small LDL

    the interesting word here is "trigger"  - does it mean that only a small amount of wheat will cause lots of small LDL particles - that is, wheat changes the way you create LDL, and so a small amount of wheat turns a lot of LDL into small particles?


    OR

    is there a dose dependent response?  A small amount of wheat leads to low levels of small LDL particles, and more wheat leads to higher levels, and lots of wheat creates high levels.

    Sam in Toronto

  • pooti

    4/6/2009 12:50:00 AM |

    Steve, how many carbs per day are you eating and what is your percentage and type of fat you are eating? Are you eating any PUFAs? Do you consume much fructose (i.e. honey, agave nectar, fructans from sorbitol, xylitol and any poly-ol)? Do you eat pre-packaged or pre-prepared foods? How much and what are your protein sources each day?

    Just wondering because I don't know that Dr. Davis is always able to answer personal questions?

    Also, what form of Vitamin D are you taking and how much of it? How long supplementing?

  • bolderbob

    4/6/2009 3:46:00 AM |

    Given my travel etc, I have been able to reduce but not totally eliminate wheat from my diet.  Dr. Davis, I think I have eliminated about 70% of wheat.  Does that help?  Also, is whole grain wheat OK or is it all wheat?    Thanks!!!

  • toddhargrove

    4/6/2009 6:37:00 AM |

    Very impressive.  What is your opinion about the likely mechanism for the LDL improvement related to wheat?  Less carbs?  Removal of possible immune response to gluten?  Removal of gluten intolerance?  All of the above?  Which factor is most important in your mind?  Are there others?  Thanks.

  • Steve K

    4/6/2009 7:13:00 PM |

    Pooti: In response to your inquiry.

    i eat no sugar except in greek yougurt(2%) or in fruit which is limited to an apple or some berries. Rest of diet is fish beef, turkey,chicken, eggs(sometimes whites only,sometimes the whole egg)  No grains except tsp of metamuciel(psylium). Only use olive oil for salad, and eat no fried food at all.  i take fish oil.  Kinda think it is genetics but open to advise.

  • wccaguy

    4/6/2009 10:51:00 PM |

    pooti wrote:

    >>> Just wondering because I don't know that Dr. Davis is always able to answer personal questions?

    Dr. Davis always answers personal questions at the Track Your Plaque forum.  But given his patient load and responsibilities for the Track Your Plaque program, he is not able to answer questions often here at the Heart Scan Blog.

  • Scott09

    4/7/2009 7:03:00 PM |

    Doc
    How do you know it was the wheat that did it? What about the sugar or starch. Don't you have to isolate your variables?

  • xenolith_pm

    4/7/2009 8:02:00 PM |

    Steve K,

    You may be extraordinarily insulin sensitive to grains and sugars.

    Are you using the drink or wafer forms of Metamucil?

    Just one tablespoon of the original drink form of Metamucil has 9 grams of sugar (sucrose).

    The "sugar free" drink versions of Metamucil will still give you a good dose of aspartame and maltodextrin.  Small amounts of chronic doses may result in unfavorable insulin resistance/response with some people.

    The wafer form of Metamucil is even worse.  Each serving contains 6 grams of sugar, corn starch, fructose, and wheat.

    Try to get a brand that only contains psyllium husk, like Konsyl.  Each serving has only 0.5 grams of available complex carbohydrates. It can be found at Walmart.

    Yes, Greek yogurt has less lactose (milk sugar) than regular yogurt.  But, even a modest eight ounce serving of plain Greek yogurt can contain as much as 9 grams of lactose.  And if you are consuming chronic amounts, it very well may be affecting your insulin.

    IMHO, investing in a glucose meter for home monitoring is not a bad idea for anyone who think they may be genetically sensitive to carbohydrates.

  • Steve K

    4/8/2009 2:00:00 AM |

    xenolith_pm :


    i am thin and fasting glucose last measured was 79 which i am told is lower end of normal.  Were i super sensitive this and trigs(20) would i suspect be higher.  Thanks for input from all.

  • Trinkwasser

    4/8/2009 6:59:00 PM |

    I'm jealous! Dropping the carbs decimated my trigs (literally) and doubled HDL. Initially my LDL *increased* but adding more sat fats seems to have reduced this back again. I wish I could get a proper test for the particle size, I have to guestimate from the trigs/HDL ratio.

    Maybe I should eliminate the small amount of wheat I still eat, see if there's a threshold effect.

  • Anonymous

    4/9/2009 8:41:00 AM |

    I am posting this here because I cannot, at this time, afford to join the forum so would appreciate anyone who could answer me.  I have avoided wheat for years because of its disastrous gastric effects but reading Mary Enig and Sally Fallon's Nourishing Traditions have been thinking about trying some sprouted wheat bread (Sunnyvale Organic).  Any opinions on this as the phytic acid is neutralised and the vits and mins are more bioavailable?

    Susie

  • Anonymous

    4/9/2009 11:35:00 AM |

    I have asked for a proposed mechanism several times.  I do not dispute the reported results, it just helps if a mechanism is proposed so people can understand why wheat or any other food impacts the particle size of LDL.

    Trevor

  • Kiwi

    4/9/2009 10:45:00 PM |

    This study found that wheat was a problem compared to oats but they were unable to reach a conclusion as to why.

    http://www.39kf.com/cooperate/qk/American-Society-for-Nutrition/027602/2008-12-28-550490.shtml


    "The reason for these unfavorable lipoprotein changes in the wheat group is not readily apparent; however, the mechanism by which these alterations are produced does not occur with increased oat consumption."

    The only grain I eat now is oats prepared using the Weston Price method.

  • Anonymous

    4/10/2009 3:17:00 PM |

    I think its hard to answer in detail allot of questions that come here, which is why we started the board as there were several of us just like you with all these questions.

    It was our idea for a small fee, not Dr D idea to make money, he makes nada off this and gives gives gives!

    ....and there had to be a small fee otherwise we would need advertisers like drug companies and we wanted it to remain free of that brain washing.

    The board is about $20 a few times a year and it has saved my life.

    Cheap investment.I think I am worth that.

    There is so much information there you would know that these blog posts are 110% backed up with good medical documentation.

    Or maybe go back to the beginning of this blog and read it all in detail and allot of your questions will be answered.

    I used to hang onto this blog for info as found it the most effective and so personal. Then we started the board and I can go there and read and educate myself from Dr D and hundreds of well educated folks like you and me who want to live longer and know traditional medicine is not helping us as much as it could with reversing our plague.

    Now I hardly ever come here as all the info is at my finger tips.

    Dr D makes no money from the board, it is to pay for band widths, web seminars etc.

    It is created by volunteers from this group and if approx.$5 a month isn't affordable let me know and I will help you find a way to raise some funds to take good care of yourself.

    I believe its our right to good health care info and thats what Dr D provides here and on the board.

    I am serious, don't let the small fee make you die younger.

  • Anonymous

    4/10/2009 5:43:00 PM |

    Anonymous,

    Sprouting the grains may eliminate the gastric issues you've experienced with wheat. However, those gastric issues may have been an indication of gluten intolerance and gastric issues may not be the only symptom, just the most obvious or visible one.

    Before adding wheat back to your diet in a large way, please research non-celiac gluten sensitivity and gluten intolerance on the web and at the public library.

    http://www.glutensensitivity.net/ and http://jccglutenfree.googlepages.com/ are good places to start.

    If you have questions re: gluten intolerance, there are several forums discussing this topic such as glutenfreeandbeyond.org/forum
    or forums.glutenfree.com

  • Anonymous

    4/11/2009 4:32:00 PM |

    Thanks for that, I was just asking as the wheat issues raised in the blog and the main site probably refer to modern wheat refining and baking processes whereas sprouted grain bread is made to an ancient recipe and contains no dairy or yeast.  I will certainly check out all options before deciding.  Thanks again.

    Susie

  • Trinkwasser

    4/12/2009 2:21:00 PM |

    Some diabetics can eat Ezekiel or similar sprouted grain breads, or breads made with wheat gluten and non-wheat flours, and I can handle other grains (in sufficiently small quantities) without the BG and presumably insulin spikes specific to wheat, but that's only one of the possible issues.

  • Anonymous

    4/16/2009 9:54:00 PM |

    hey thanks.  I don't have an issue with the fee, just and issue with putting my creditcarddetails into an unsecure webpage.  I wrote the TYP and pointed out they should use https.... when it is fixed, I will join. Even this blog is https

  • particle size reduction

    4/3/2010 3:17:59 PM |

    I think that the problem you are suffering through is insulin sensitivity. Well i am still researching on this topic but till now the point which has been cleared is this one only.

  • buy jeans

    11/3/2010 7:00:57 PM |

    In other words, 100% of Lee's LDL particles had shifted to the more benign large LDL simply with elimination of these foods---NO statin drug. (In addition to wheat elimination, she was also taking vitamin D and omega-3 fatty acids at our recommended doses.)

Loading