Dear Dr. William Davis,

You have been a tremendous force in helping me recapturing my life. I called your office today. Let them know that I live in Baltimore Maryland and would like to see if it is possible for you to review some details of my cardiovascular disease status. I can send you my history and blood test information through email. You can interview me over the phone if you feel it is necessary. I can pay the bill related to the “virtual” visits using check, money order, visa, etc and in advance; however the preference is.

Please advise. Thanks again for having made TrackYourPlaque possible. It is truly a practical tool for shifting the paradigm in health management.

Ali Khorramshahi
............................................................................................................
DigitaLogic, Inc.
711 West 40th Street.  Suite 315 Baltimore, MD 21211
t: 410.662.9500 Ext. 2545 o I o f: 410.662.9400 o I o e: ali@DigitaLogic.com
c: 443.845.6033
h: 410-669-3266

Thank you, Ali.

But I would urge you to use the resources here and in the Track Your Plaque program, as well as the information in the Wheat Belly book and blog.

Given the pressures on my time, I am no longer able to see new patients and am barely able to provide any more teleconferences, as I am traveling to speak and consult for the development of new, alternative, wheat-free foods.

Dr Davis,

It would be nice if your 2nd edition of the Track Your Plaque book were actually published. I've been using it in PDF, but your TYP followers need it as a real book, on par with Wheat Belly. Do you have plans to do it?

Thank you so much for everything you are doing!

I have been scouring your website and have not found what I am looking for.

I want to lay out for my cardiologist a clear and detailed request as to why he should support the required testing in TYP.  They do not have respect for any course of action other than the current generally  accepted, woefully inadequate, standard of care. I recently had 3 stents to correct 2 100% blockages (RCA and Circumflex).  Kaiser will not pay for scans nor any lipid testing other than total cholesteral since they say the results will not alter their proscribed treatment.  I want to undestand why I have the CAD and take steps to measure and reverse it.  I do not wish to wait till the widowmaker clots too.

Then, I fear, Jim, that the answers will not come from your doctor. Your best bet is to get out of the system and/or find someone within the system willing to work with you.

In effect, your doctor is saying, "I have chosen to ignore the thousands of studies that demonstrate why simple cholesterol testing fails to fully characterize coronary risk in a substantial number of people. I therefore place the burden of proof on YOU."

Imagine you take your car to the mechanic and ask why the engine isn't running. Instead of providing an answer, the mechanic says, "Hey, if you want your car fixed, then you tell me what you want done!" We would walk out in disgust. You should do the same with your doctor.

YOU are not the problem. Your doctor is the problem.

Can you supply a list of doctors who agree with your approach to heart disease.  I am trying to get my doctor to authorize a VAP test and they will not do it because they have never heard of it before.  It is so aggravating that I can't just get one done.  I live in Springfield, Illinois.

Hi Dr. Davis,

I'm new to reading your blog.  Does your program actually reduce plaque in arteries?

Yes. Please refer to the main website, www.trackyourplaque.com, for full details, including many of our success stories.

Dr. Davis, I'm 100% in agreement.  I think that we as a medical community view our patients as lazy, not willing to make the changes to their lifestyles and diets needed.  And for most, sadly, we're right, our patients are stuck in their ways of eating and sitting on their rear ends.  But for those few very motivated patients, who essentially go vegetarian and take up an active lifestyle, they can do quite well.

I'm skeptical of your theories on fasting, though.  I've never heard of an article in a peer-reviewed journal that supports periodic fasting in coronary disease.

Yes.

Though my approach articulated in the Track Your Plaque program for reversal of heart disease is based on genuine science, my thoughts on fasting are admittedly based only on experience with patients, but not on scientific examination.

But can't the experiences of real life serve as the basis for future scientific scrutiny?

Dr. Caldwell B. Esselstyn has published numerous scientific papers on the elimination and prevention of heart disease. For more information go to http://www.heartattackproof.com

Why are Esselstyn's and Ornish's dietary plans not “palatable” to the public? Despite all the evidence pointing to their efficacy?

For two and and a half year now, I have, like you, tried to present the virtues of their plans on the web. Obviously, that page gets, by far, the the highest bounce rate. When I look at the time spent on the page, it points to the time at which most readers will encounter the word vegetarian. They then flee and run away.

This has to be somewhat of a cultural nature. As North Americans we have been brought up in a culture that sees the ingestion of meat as being “Manly” and the ingestion of legumes and vegetables as being sissy or belonging to the female gender. Some TV ads for a notorious Nutritional System even talk about “man food”.

I am not surprised that real food is hard to push. The consumer is bombarded by constant advertising from the meat-packing industry and the fast food industry. The physician is also heavily courted by the pharmaceutical industry ...telling him / her that their pill is better than any diet. Physicians also know that, the moment they mention the word “vegetarian”, they will see the patient immediately lose interest in the important things they try to convey.

For a page with a high “vegetarian” bounce rate, view: http://www.heartmonitron.com/hm_meddigest_journals_on_nutrition-_heart_and_diabetes-_cholesterol_and_healthy_weight_003.htm

This phenomenon has to be cultural. We view the ingestion of meat as being the best thing we can do. I, sincerely, wish you the very best luck in your endeavor. As for me, I will keep advocating those principles that have proven to be capable of reversing CHD and shrinking plaque.

heartMonitron,
NGBeditor

After all, isn't this the theme followed in cancer treatment? If you had a tumor, isn't cure the goal? Would we accept an oncologist's advice to simply reduce the likelihood of death from cancer but ignore the idea of ridding yourself completely of the disease? I don't think so.

Is there any difference in fructose by source?  I know that natural fructose has a molecule that is  either right-handed or left-handed (can't remember which) and manufactured fructose is the opposite?  Could that account for a difference in how they're metabolized?

Yes, honey does contain fructose. But there is evidence that suggests that natural honey has a very different effect on the human body than an control that contains the same amount of fructose, glucose, etc.

The Effect of honey on serum cholesterol and lipid values. found that sugar did not raise LDL as a comparable sugar syrup did.

The study Natural honey and cardiovascular risk factors; effects on blood glucose, cholesterol, triacylglycerole, CRP, and body weight compared with sucrose. found that honey actually had beneficial effects on several risk factors.

See also: Natural honey lowers plasma glucose, C-reactive protein, homocysteine, and blood lipids in healthy, diabetic, and hyperlipidemic subjects: comparison with dextrose and sucrose.

In this study (Substituting honey for refined carbohydrates protects rats from hypertriglyceridemic and prooxidative effects of fructose.) it was shown that honey did not have the same effects as purified fructose, at least in rats.  

The research in this area is thin and conclusions should not be written in stone, but I think there is enough research to suggest that the effects of honey (or fresh fruit) in 'moderation' cannot be reduced to simply a mixture of sugars.

I believe we clearly evolved as omnivores and are intended to eat some fruit; we should be able to deal with the metabolic effects of some fructose. The explosion in health problems related to fructose is due to the fact that 1) the amount being consumed is so large, and 2) the fructose is highly refined and has been stripped of natural antioxidants and other phytochemicals that are present in natural honey or fruit.

Regardless of what honey does once it's been absorbed, for those of us who don't digest fructose well it is frequently a quick ticket to intestinal distress (as is agave nectar).

As Dr. Royal Lee pointed out in the 1920's. Honey is a complete food, containing proteins, vitamins, minerals, coenzymes, and cofactors; as well as the fructose. Eat too much of it (or any whole food) and the body will avoid it for months to years.

Processed foods have no such feedback mechanism.

Interesting references (I love honey), but what is the biological rationale for those findings? Some magical & so far unkown micronutrient in honey?

Even if the latter is the case, eliminating fructose while adding this nutrient X would be even healthier (that is assuming the fructose literature shows a convincing dose-response relationship, I haven't checked).

Not for *me*, because I'm diabetic, but for most people I think there *is* an advantage to using honey, molasses, sorghum and/or maple syrup instead of granulated sugar.  

It's not the minerals and vitamins, cause it's not enough to be significant.  If raw, there's some enzymes too, but again... really a salad and a cup of broth has way more micronutrients than any of these syrups.

But these all taste way stronger than sugar.  It's really easy to oversweeten things with white sugar, because the only taste there is "sweet".  If you're sweetening with a strongly-flavored syrup, it's a lot harder to overdo.  

It's easy for someone to put 2-3 tsp of sugar in a cup of coffee; much less likely for them to put in that dose of molasses.

In short, for people who do not have blood glucose issues, using the syrups for sweetening still cuts sugar consumption down a lot, which is a good thing.  

And for those of us with blood glucose issues, there's stevia.

However, honey will have the natural form of fructose, the D isomer, which can be converted to glucose and go through the glycolytic pathway. The chemical process which produces HFCS makes a significant amount of L-fructose which can only be processed by immeditately turning it into fat. This may account for Jonathan's studies showing good things from a non-industrial source of fructose. I suspect the same things would be shown with fructose from fruits.

Fascinating on honey (& possibly fruit). I've always been suspicious of equating HFCS, or purified lab fructose, with the fructose found in fruits and in honey. Do you have any references for the d isomer / l-fructose distinction?

Thanks

Well this is definitely going to make me think twice before using spoon-fulls of honey in my next camomile tea, lol. This is useful information that was surprising to me, so thanks for sharing! I work with a program called Chef's Diet, and we create meals used from fresh produce and lean meats, delivered to your door daily.  I find your post pertinent. If you or your readers are interested in healthy eating and are interested in Chef's Diet, check us out at http://www.mychefsdiet.com.

Jacob, this was my source for the L-fructose comment. Maybe not the most reliable source but an interesting premise. I have not gone to the original literature to verify.
http://www.westonaprice.org/modernfood/HFCSAgave.pdf

According to the Finnish National institute of health and welfare, honey contains only 41.4% fructose.  Even allowing for half of the 1.5% sucrose being converted to fructose, its still short of the 50% fructose for table sugar or the 55% for HFCS.

See http://www.fineli.fi/food.php?foodid=4&lang=en

"jon said...
As Dr. Royal Lee pointed out in the 1920's. Honey is a complete food, containing proteins...."

Are you referring to Royal "Jel" Lee?

Sorry. I could not resist.

from what I've been reading...mass produced honey where bees are under forced conditions to produce honey are fed fructose corn syrup and this leads to higher levels of fructose in our honey.  fructose corn syrup is the ultimate culprit and is something I avoid. when shopping for honey, the cheaper honey will most likely be the honey that is "spiked" with fructose corn syrup.  it is also referred to as "baker's honey".  you need to buy whole organic honey to get honey that doesn't contain the corn syrup.  also, most food that has honey as an ingredient will contain fructose corn syrup.  I used to buy the "golden blossom" brand of honey but discovered that is is packed with high fructose corn syrup.  I only buy organic now...its a bit more money but worth every penny

Ah, yes, the HFCS Big Lie: the artificial sweetener produced from agricultural starches. Despite its name, the fructose in HFCS is not the same as the L-fructose found in fruit and honey; instead it contains high concentrations of D-fructose, a naturally rare “mirrored” version of reversed isomerization and polarity.  In mammals (including humans), both isomers of fructose are not used directly for energy, instead being shunted by the liver for conversion primarily into blood triglycerides and body fat.

The two fructoses are not the same, and the HFCS industry is not inclined to look for possible secondary health effects; they just want their profits to continue.

Honey is a wholesome food eaten for millenia by humans, containing much more than simple sugars. HFCS has been around for mere decades. Why be a lab rat for ADM or Cargill?

"Is there any difference in fructose by source?"

I don't know.

"I know that natural fructose has a molecule that is either right-handed or left-handed (can't remember which) and manufactured fructose is the opposite?"

Fructose in nature exists in many forms depending on what has produced it.

Fructose can exist as a linear ketose, a six-member pyranose ring, or a 5-member furanose ring. These exist in left-rotating(D) or right-rotating(L) forms.

I don't see any specific pattern that would allow one to claim that fructose in corn syrup is somehow uniquely evil. It is even produced by a biological process with enzymes.

If you're going to do some more research on this, keep in mind that the notation can be a bit confusing. Small l and small d refer to which way it rotates plane polarized light(l is anti-clockwise/left and d is clockwise/right). But there is also big L and big D which refer to the different enantiomers; in fructose it happens to be that l-fructose is a D-fructose and vice versa.

"Despite its name, the fructose in HFCS is not the same as the L-fructose found in fruit and honey;"

No the most common kind in nature is D-fructose, also known as l-fructose(capitalization matters).

"[...]instead it contains high concentrations of D-fructose, a naturally rare “mirrored” version of reversed isomerization and polarity."

But it's not naturally rare. You won't usually find L-fructose in plants; but this does not prevent you from getting plenty of L-fructose in a "natural" diet.

Fruits contain not just fructose, but also lots of sucrose. When you eat this sucrose it will be broken down by acid hydrolysis into L-fructose.

Different plants, animals, bacteria or fungi that use enzymes instead of acid hydrolysis to break down sucrose use different enzymes, yielding either L-fructose or D-fructose.

L and D enantiomers does not cover all varieties of fructose that exist in nature.

I don't see any particularly sinister pattern here. It smells more like more like it is part of the long-running FUD campaign against the artificial and man-made by the technophobes. See the success of organic farming for the damage such long-running FUD campaign can do. Organic farming uses more land, more water, more energy and more pesticides. Which replaces "artificial" fertilizer such as mined potash, with "natural" fertilizer such as mined potash without the dirt removed(all this does is increase shipping costs).

The honey is really great for the skin, i usually use it in my face, is really wonderful. After my mask i feel my face smooth and clean. And my boyfriend always notice the difference, he simply love it. I feel more comfortable with my self and he is always with too much energy because he usually buy viagra

While the average per capita intake of honey is only a modest 1.29 lb per year (National Honey Board; 2008) and therefore contributes only 0.77 lb of fructose per year, there are people who, believing honey to be healthy, use it to excess and use far more than 1.29 lb per year.

For your body fructose is fructose - simple. The body has no way of differentiating. The outer shell is stripped off and what remains is FRUCTOSE. Fructose cannot be used for energy and will be shipped to the liver once processed and converted to fat - usually abdominal fat (note the expanding muffin tops of young girls drinking fruit juices as healthy options)!

Fructose is fructose to your body, whether you have to digest it or it's supplied to your processed.

You can see from this analysis and study that honey reduces your immune function, for instance, by nearly as much as pure fructose and by much more than glucose or starch:

http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/leukocytic_index.html

Anyone eating the recommended low-fat, high carb, high fibre diet and having those 5 small meals a day, will have impaired their immune function by 50% for pretty much the whole day!

For optimal health you have to eat a high fat diet, that's very low in carbs.

Follow my thread here:
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1156003/pg1

Research on mice shows that, for them, fructose causes insulin restance and obesity. Insulin resistance makes type 2 diabetes worse, converts pe-diabetes into type 2, and type 1 diabetes into type 1.5 (also known as double diabetes).

Does this also apply to humans?  The "expert" opinions vary so widely that they essentially prove little more than the need for similar research on humans.

Manufacturing processes seledom distinguish between the two isomers at all, and therefore starting with anything that does not have isomers would almost always produce a 50-50 mixture of the two isomers of fructose.

Manufacturing processes starting with one isomer of something would be much more likely to produce just one isomer of whatever their result is.

So far, research on humans has shown that fructose make your brain increase your appetite.  Also, your liver converts it into cholesterol and saturated fat.  The rest of your body has little use for it; it cannot be used for energy the same way glucose can.

Do D-glucose and L-glucose have different effects on your body?  I haven't found any research papers saying one way or the other yet.

One more comment:  The heating process used in manufacturing high fructose corn syrup, will, if overdone, turn some of it into a compound toxic to honeybees.

Does this also apply to humans?  So far, I haven't found any research papers saying that anyone has done any research into whether it does or not.