Can skinny be fat?

You're going to hate this.

Dr. Romero-Corral and colleagues from the Mayo Clinic presented an analysis of the National Institutes of Health-funded National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES-3) at the recent American College of Cardiology meetings. (Science Daily also has some coverage on this report.)

Their analysis identified 2127 adults from the NHANES database who had normal body-mass indexes (BMI) between 18.5 and 24.9 units), average age 41 years old. When broken down by percent body fat (measured with bioimpedance, meaning a small electrical current is passed through the body, much like what the store-bought Tanita devices do), with normal-weight obesity defined as >20% body fat in males, >30% body fat in females, 55% of participants met criteria for designation as normal-weight obesity.

Compared to people with similar BMI's but who fell below these body fat percentage cut-offs, the normal-weight obese men had increased ratios of Apo B to Apo A1; were much more likely to have increased blood sugars or be diabetic; have higher C-reactive protein (CRP); were several-fold more likely to meet other criteria for diagnosis of metabolic syndrome; had lower HDL cholesterols; and had higher blood pressure. Women with normal-weight obesity were four-fold more likely to have coronary disease.

While preliminary, this suggests that a substantial number of people with apparently favorable body weights and BMIs are, in actuality, overweight when judged by metabolic parameters. This then probably leads to increased risk for heart disease. We can then fairly readily extrapolate the argument that a reduction in weight to even lower BMIs likely reduces or corrects these patterns.

This argument is similar to that proposed by several others, arguing that BMI is a flawed measure, since it does not incorporate muscle mass or skeletal factors ("big- or small-boned"). Instead, they have argued that waist circumference is preferable.

The normal-weight obesity syndrome was originally identified by Dr. Antonio de Lorenzo and colleagues at the University of Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy, and reported in Normal weight obese (NWO) women: an evaluation of a candidate new syndrome. Their studies of women with this "syndrome" have suggested that heightened measures of inflammation are present despite apparently normal body weight and BMIs. One such report, Normal-weight obese syndrome: early inflammation?, is available in full-text.

Is there a lesson to be learned for the Track Your Plaque program? I believe there is. I believe it means that, if you have any weight-sensitive parameter, such as low HDL, small LDL, high triglycerides, high CRP, high blood sugar, high blood pressure, etc., then further weight loss might be considered, even if BMI is around 25. Obviously, there is a rational limit to how far you can push this concept. (Anorexia is not good for you either.)

I find this a useful concept. It provides yet another potential strategy to pursue when the above patterns are encountered. Perhaps it's also a way to cap reliance on niacin, whose effects closely mimic that of weight loss.

Now that's a lot more preferable to more and more statin drug, isn't it?


Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

Comments (6) -

  • Anna

    4/29/2008 5:42:00 AM |

    Very interesting.  I've been paying attention to this issue as the reports have come out the last few weeks.  As a mid-40s female with a BMI hovering around 22 (5'3.5", 125 #), despite losing about 20# 4 years ago with a LC diet, I know I am still carrying more fat on me (and in different places) than I did 15 years ago at about the same weight.  

    What about strength training to build muscle mass  and drop body fat % instead of losing weight?   I don't really want to lose any more weight and I think I have hit the limit of weight loss from carb restriction.  I don't like to restrict calories, nor do I think it is effective for me.

    I've never liked exercise for the sake of exercise, but I think it was those incredibly boring cardio routines that put me off gyms and exercise routines (plus I found it was much easier to lose and maintain weight through carb restriction than through exercise).  

    But I've been reading up on the "slow strength" routines and they seem like a very efficient way to enhance my metabolism and muscle/fat ratios, especially since my glucose metabolism is already impaired.

  • Richard A.

    4/29/2008 2:00:00 PM |

    Maybe another approach for the normal weight obese is to take up weight lifting.

  • Anonymous

    4/29/2008 3:07:00 PM |

    My brother in law liked this post.  He is a former rugby player, 6 foot, 200 plus lbs. in size.  He looks like he is chiseled out of granite with the muscles he has.  I doubt there is more than 10% body fat on him, but he tells me that for years he has been considered obese by the BMI.

  • Zute

    4/29/2008 3:46:00 PM |

    I'm curious why the association it seems most medical people leap to is that it is the obesity causing the issue rather than the obesity being yet another symptom.

    Strangely if you cut out the refined carbs, grains, sugars, excess starches, all the symptoms correct themselves.  Sure, you can do the same thing with calorie restriction but we should know from Keyes starvation experiment that that doesn't really work long term with a high carb diet.

    Is there any real evidence it is the fat causing metabolic syndrome versus the metabolic syndrome causing the fat?

  • Anonymous

    4/30/2008 3:50:00 PM |

    This article pretty much describes me.  5'8" male, about 165lbs and a BMI of 25.  I've always had a problem gaining muscle so although I look normal my body fat was about 23% and I had high triglycerides.  I bought a bowflex and have worked hard to gain some muscle.  I'm now about 21% body fat and there is some muscle gain.  I don't know if I'll ever make it to 15% body fat, but I'm trying.  BMI is pretty much a joke.

  • Anonymous

    5/1/2008 3:03:00 PM |

    BMI is a fairly crude measure.  For the majority it probably has some value.  As others have pointed out it can incorrectly identify some heavily muscled people as overweight whilst suggesting some overweight people aren't overweight.  Perhaps a better indicator of obesity is waist measurement, or the waist to hip ratio.  In particular It doesn't appear to be healthy to carry significant amounts of weight around the middle.  

    Looking at old black and white films or photographs of crowd scenes, its noticeable that most people are lean: much more so than today.  I have been struck by how lean, and healthy, many soldiers look in what must have been harrowing and stressful times.  Maybe it was the more active lifestyle and spartan lifestyles.

    I doubt you could look at many modern day crod secenes and be impressed by how lean and healthy the people looked.  Even the London marathon contained quite a high proportion of overweight participants!

    Paul

Loading
Don't mistake marketing for truth

Don't mistake marketing for truth

We're all so inundated with marketing messages for food. Unfortunately, many people confuse the messages delivered through marketing with the truth.

For instance:

Pork: "The other white meat." Pork is a high-saturated fat food.

"Bananas: A great source of potassium." Bananas are a high glycemic index (rapid sugar release), low fiber food.

"Pretzels: A low-fat snack." A high glycemic index food made from white wheat flour. It makes you fat and skyrockets blood sugar.

Jif peanut butter: "Choosy moms choose Jif." Do they also choose hydrogenated fats?

Hi-C: Upbeat jingles like "Who put the straw in my Hi-C fruit drink, a new cool straw that wriggles and bends? Who put the straw in my Hi-C fruit drink, with Vitamin C for me and my friends? Who was that man, I'd like to shake his hand, he made my Hi-C cooler than before!" What about the 25 grams of sugar per 4 oz serving? And the high fructose corn syrup that creates an insatiable sweet tooth, raises triglycrides 30%, and exagerates pre-diabetes?


Marketing is not reliable, unbiased information. If Ford boasts that their cars are superior to GM, do you say "Well then, I need to buy a Ford?" Of course not. Take marketing for what it is: A method of persuading people to buy. It may or may not contain the truth. It's a big part of the reason Americans are the fattest people on earth and are experiencing an explosion of chronic diseases of excess.
Loading
Is shock therapy the answer to “cure” obesity?

Is shock therapy the answer to “cure” obesity?

The next obesity “fix” may be hitting the market known as "VBLOC therapy”.  This implanted device delivers intermittent electrical "blocking signals" to the intra-abdominal vagus nerve.  According to the manufacturer, the device "reduces sensations of hunger and produces satiety leading to weight loss.”

Seems to me like another classic case of conventional healthcare proposing surgery or medications to address the obesity epidemic. Pharmacologic treatment and bariatric surgery have been offered for years to win the battle of the bulge.  As a registered dietitian, who years ago begrudgingly counseled patients prior to undergoing bariatric surgery, I have seen countless people re-gaining all (if not more) of the weight lost after the first year of surgery. Same goes for pharmalogical interventions, such as Phentermine.  Sure it worked in the short-term.  But in every single case, when the medication was stopped, as it is not FDA approved for long-term use, the weight came creeping back.

My take on the releasing a significant amount of weight does not require going under the knife.  How about this instead? Address the cause of increase hunger and appetite.  This is a crucial missing link for many undergoing surgery or using medication(s) as a “solution”.  Not addressing the cause of increased hunger and ravenous eating behaviors precipitously results in rebound weight gain.  Rather than sending an electrical pulse to a nerve in the stomach, maybe the FDA should consider a Cureality-based nutrition program that is wildly successful stimulating a “side effect” of weight loss.  Wheat elimination offers a surgery-free option that reduces hunger and insistent drive to eat every few hours, thanks to freedom from gliadin driven appetite stimulation.  Weight loss is common experience due to reduced hunger and subsequent intake. Give it a try.  What else do you have to lose, but some love handles?

--Lisa Grudzielanek, MS,RDN,CD CDE
Cureality Nutrition & Health Coach
Loading
You probably don't take enough fish oil

You probably don't take enough fish oil

The results of the recent Heart Scan Blog survey in response to the question: MY DAILY DOSE OF EPA + DHA FROM FISH OIL IS revealed:


Zero--I don't take any
17 (7%) of respondents

Less than 1000 mg per day
24 (10%) of respondents

1000-2000 mg per day
91 (38%) of respondents

2000-3000 mg per day
44 (18%) of respondents

3000-4000 mg per day
40 (16%) of respondents

More than 4000 mg per day
20 (8%) of respondents



Based on the above results, I would say that only a minority of respondents are taking an ideal dose of omega-3 fatty acids. Nearly all of us should consider taking more.

Benefits of omega-3 fatty acids (EPA + DHA) from fish oil begin around a dose of 840 mg per day, according to the GISSI Prevenzione Trial of 1999, an 11,000-participant trial. This dose also corresponds to a quantity of omega-3s that have been shown to raise EPA + DHA blood levels and thereby reduce the notoriously high AA:EPA ratio of Americans.

But what dose is sufficient? What dose is ideal?

Well, the answer to a great degree depends on what you are taking the fish oil for. If being taken to reduce triglycerides and triglyceride-containing lipoproteins, like VLDL and the after-eating (postprandial) IDL, then a higher dose will be necessary. (Triglyceride reduction for the genetically-determined very high triglyceride level of familial hypertriglyceridemia is the FDA-approved indication for prescription Lovaza.)

If you are taking fish oil for treatment of ADHD, depression, or bipolar illness, very high doses are often necessary.

But how about maximal reduction of cardiovascular risk and for control or reversal of atherosclerotic plaque?

This conversation is still evolving. But we can learn some important lessons from three populations of the world that are vigorous consumers of fish:

--The Inuits (aka Eskimos) of Greenland and northern Canada
--The Japanese
--The Bantus of Tanzania who live along Nyasa Lake

All three indigenous populations have several-fold greater intakes of fish and omega-3 fatty acids, have higher blood levels of omega-3 fatty acids, and have enjoyed reduced cardiovascular events, reduced atherosclerotic plaque, or improvement in various surrogates of cardiovascular risk (e.g., Lp(a)).

The most recent addition to this conversation is the ERA JUMP Study, discussed in a previous Heart Scan Blog post. In ERA JUMP, despite being heavy smokers and having other markers for greater risk for heart disease, Japanese men living in Japan had markedly less carotid and coronary plaque, as compared to Caucasian men living in PIttsburgh or Hawaiian men of Japanese descent. The difference appeared to be attributable to serum levels of omega-3 fatty acids.

I believe that the trend is here is to increase the amount of omega-3 fatty acids that most of us take. In the Track Your Plaque program, we have been advocating a rock-bottom starting dose of EPA + DHA of 1200 mg per day. However, I believe that this is due for a change.

We will be increasing the minimum dose for plaque regression and control. Please attend our Webinar this evening for a full, in-depth discussion of the rationale behind this important change.

As always, let me remind you that I am not selling, nor ever have sold, fish oil supplements. If I advocate a specific dose, a higher dose, I do so based on my interpretation of the data and experience with patients, not because I am interested in selling brand X of fish oil.

Comments (17) -

  • madcappedmc

    8/20/2008 3:11:00 PM |

    You are probably right that most people should increase their omega-3 intake.  However, all of fish oil pills (and the liquid) that I see have moderate-to-high doses of vitamin E.  So your recommendation appears require supplementing with large doses of vitamin E (in addition to the fish oil); do you think this is a cause for even mild concern?

  • Sven

    8/21/2008 3:26:00 PM |

    What about all those CVD-free populations that don´t eat any fish (e.g. Masai)? Obviously fish (oil) is not necessary to be healthy.

  • anne

    8/21/2008 7:01:00 PM |

    What a range - but must remember that both fish oils omega 3 and omega 6 important herbal supplements.

  • mike V

    8/22/2008 2:42:00 PM |

    I think that it is extremely difficult to separate the benefits of one nutrient from the effects of one's overall diet and supplement regimen.
    Maintaining a low omega 6 to omega 3 ratio has been shown to be very important.
    I have taken 3 standard Sam's/Costco capsules (total EPA+DHA=900 mg) for many years,along with an overall regimen not unlike Dr Davis's recommendation.
    My guess is that an ounce of early prevention is probably worth a pound of later reversal, but perhaps I am simply in the lucky 50%.

    FWIW my HDL at the outset was in the low 30's @ age 40, now runs about 50, @ age 72. CTA scan 1 year ago: "no detectable plaque"
    My Father died of second MI @ age 76.
    Over the years most of us "preventers" have had to read the studies, and take our "shot in the dark" with our supplements.

    Dr Davis, I can't over emphasize the value and encouragement of receiving feedback from you and your patients on the frontline. Please keep up (and promulgate) this excellent work.
    MikeV

  • Peter Silverman

    8/22/2008 2:52:00 PM |

    Is there a reason to eat those omega 3 eggs if you think you're getting enough 3 from fish oil?

  • Kayaman

    8/23/2008 11:31:00 AM |

    Since omega-3 fats are polyunsaturated that renders them prone to peroxidation.  Evidence indicates fishoil improves lipid profile, but at what cost?

  • Anonymous

    8/25/2008 6:32:00 PM |

    I hope that you (Dr Davis) realize that fish oil decreases clotting time. At what point does that come into play as being an undesirable side effect? If it takes longer than 5 or 10 minutes to stop a cut from bleeding, is that too long? What about occult internal bleeding or hemorrhagic stroke? I think this needs to be addressed. In addition many people take aspirin, more than the 81 mgs that is recommended. NSAIDS affect clotting, Vitamin E in larger doses can affect clotting, some herbs affect clotting. While I understand that the cardiovascular effects are desirable, I question the clotting issue.

  • Anna

    8/26/2008 5:15:00 PM |

    I can see why fish oil might seem beneficial to folks who eat the SAD, in a similar way the epi studies indicate eating whole grains trumps refined grains (I think the evidence indicates that no grain is better whole grain).  Fish oils make a crummy standard diet less damaging, so it seems like a great idea.  

    But what about if one avoids industrial foods and the sources of omega 6 PUFA in the first place?  Why supplement with omega 3 if there is no need to offset the omega 6 FAs?  Why purposely raise intake of intake any unstable PUFAs, including omega 3s (fish oil).

    There are considerable concerns about PUFAs consumption in general, particularly cancer.  

    I have greatly reduced or eliminated the most common sources of omega 6 FA (minimal or no grain,  industrial veg oils, or grain-fed meat/dairy/poultry).  Instead, I stick to pastured animal foods and traditional fats that are predominately naturally saturated or monosaturated (unless the PUFAs are in the original intact food, such as nuts, fish, etc.).  

    So if I supplement with fish oil omega 3s (or any concentrated non-food source), I could actually be overloading on omega 3 PUFA intake in relationship to my low omega 6 intake.  

    I've been mulling this over for some time, trying to reconcile the differences in views.  Then Peter's post on Hyperlipid showed up today.  Could this be the interpretation that explains my reluctance on the fish oil supplementation?

    http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/2008/08/age-rage-and-ale-vldl-degradation-and_25.html

    Dr. Davis, I know you are busy, and I'm not trying to create waves, but since you do advocate fish oil supplementation, I wonder if you can review Peter's post and explain if you have a different interpretation.  

    On the fish oil issue, I just haven't been able to decide my best course of action, other than holding off on supplementation until I am more confidently sure of my understanding of what more omega 3 might or might not do for me and my family (not on the SAD).

  • Sven

    8/27/2008 8:10:00 AM |

    A recent review published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition by Dariush Mozaffarian of Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School concluded that omega-3 fish oil fatty acids EPA and DHA help prevent heart disease, but that the benefits only extent to taking 250 mg/day. This conclusion was based on the convergence of data from prospective cohort studies and randomized clinical trials.

    This is from Chris Masterjohn´s newsletter.

  • Anna

    8/28/2008 12:05:00 AM |

    Yes, I've been reading Chris Masterjohn's interpretations of the PUFA and cholesterol literature, too (among others).  Gotta love the access the web gives us, eh?  Though it does give us a lot to ponder...still, I feel better about sifting through some contradictory ideas or ones that don't quite fit the puzzle vs. just accepting the conventional info spooned out to me and burying my head in the sand, like too many do.

  • Dr. B G

    8/30/2008 3:51:00 PM |

    Sven,

    Mozzafarian is misinformed about a lot of things -- he wrote a letter once advising against EBT heartscans (low rad, no dyes, low maintenance) for the general population (he's kinda right -- health insurance may not be able to 'afford' an EBT for 'everyone' however on the flip side, if prevention of expensive procedures and hospitalizations (and optimal health) were goals of health insurance, then eventually they cannot NOT afford to offer EBT to everyone.  

    Darius is young... give him time -- he has done some wonderful research and I believe he's on the right track.

    He was my chief resident on my Internal Med rotation at Stanford, as a pharmacy clerkship student.  My classmates (male and female) all drooled after him... Some thought he was a blond, hazel-eyed Persian god. Very kind, humble, hard worker (despite family wealth) and smart too!  

    -G

  • Dr. B G

    8/30/2008 3:51:00 PM |

    Sven,

    Mozzafarian is misinformed about a lot of things -- he wrote a letter once advising against EBT heartscans (low rad, no dyes, low maintenance) for the general population (he's kinda right -- health insurance may not be able to 'afford' an EBT for 'everyone' however on the flip side, if prevention of expensive procedures and hospitalizations (and optimal health) were goals of health insurance, then eventually they cannot NOT afford to offer EBT to everyone.  

    Darius is young... give him time -- he has done some wonderful research and I believe he's on the right track.

    He was my chief resident on my Internal Med rotation at Stanford, as a pharmacy clerkship student.  My classmates (male and female) all drooled after him... Some thought he was a blond, hazel-eyed Persian god. Very kind, humble, hard worker (despite family wealth) and smart too!  

    -G

  • mike V

    9/2/2008 5:10:00 AM |

    BETTER THAN STATINS

    Keep up the good work folks.
    More vindication from Europe.

    http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/08/31/healthscience/fishoil31.php

    Mike V

  • Anonymous

    11/16/2008 4:31:00 AM |

    "What about all those CVD-free populations that don´t eat any fish (e.g. Masai)? Obviously fish (oil) is not necessary to be healthy"
    thye eat a lot of grass fed animals and their organ and drink their blood all high im omega 3

  • Davide

    11/30/2008 7:51:00 PM |

    Dr. Davis,

    Just came across your blog recently--fascinated by it. Learning a lot. Question: Have you had any experience with Neptune Krill Oil? The DHA and EPA in it is supposedly naturally bound to naturally-occurring phospholipids (the composition of our all our cell membranes), which makes its bioavailability and assimilation so much higher. Consequently, so much less is needed for a therapeutic dose.

    There are also several clinical trials (even though they are small) with really amazing results.

    Check it out and please let me know what you think.

    http://neptunebiotech.com/

  • Anonymous

    3/12/2009 6:44:00 PM |

    I keep reading about getting toxic dose of Vit A with taking high doses of fish oils.  The vegetarian option only seems to have DHA and no EPA.  Sugestions?

  • buy jeans

    11/3/2010 10:44:23 PM |

    Dr. Goldstrich has proven especially adept at understanding how to incorporate new findings from clinical studies in our framework of coronary atherosclerotic plaque management strategies.

Loading
Take this survey: I DOUBLE-DARE YOU

Take this survey: I DOUBLE-DARE YOU

In a previous post I entitled Heart disease reversal a big "No No", I posed a challenge--a dare--to readers to ask their doctors if coronary heart could be reversed.

Here's what I said:

I dare you: Ask your doctor whether coronary heart disease can be reversed.

My prediction is that the answer will be a flat "NO." Or, something like "rarely, in extraordinary cases," kind of like spontaneous cure of cancer.

There are indeed discussions that have developed over the years in the conventional scientific and medical literature about reversal of heart disease, like Dean Ornish's Lifestyle Heart Trial, the REVERSAL Trial of atorvastatin (Lipitor) and the ASTEROID Trial of rosuvastatin (Crestor). Reversal of atherosclerotic plaque in these trials tends to be small in scale and sporadic.

The concept of reversal of heart disease has simply not gained a foothold in the lexicon nor in the thinking of practicing physicians. Heart disease is a relentlessly, unavoidably, and helplessly progressive disease in their way of thinking. Perhaps we can reduce the likelihood of cardiovascular events like heart attack and death with statin drugs and beta blockers. But reverse heart disease? In your dreams!

We need to change this mentality. Heart disease is a reversible phenomenon. Atherosclerosis in other territories like the carotid arteries is also a reversible pheneomenon. Rather than throwing medicines and (ineffective) diets at you (like the ridiculous American Heart Association program), what if your doctor set out from the start not just to reduce events, but to purposefully reduce your heart's plaque? While it might not succeed in everyone, it would certainly change the focus dramatically.

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.

Then why accept "event reduction" as a goal in heart disease? We shouldn't have to. Heart disease reversal--elimination--should be the goal.


I know of one person who actually followed through on this challenge and asked his cardiologist whether his heart disease could be reduced or reversed. As predicted, the answer was no. No explanation followed.

But allow me to reiterate: Heart disease is 1) detectable, 2) quantifiable, 3) controllable, and, in many cases 4) reversible.

What if there was a big payoff to your doctor if heart disease was reversed, say $100,000? That's enough to dwarf the payoff from procedures. Guess what? You'd have doctors fighting for your business, a chance to reverse your disease, ads to that effect, champions of reversal emerging. No new tools would be necessary. They could use the tools already available. Then why hasn't this happened? Is the technology unavailable? Are the treatments ineffective?

No, heart disease is a controllable and reversible process with tools that are available today. But there is, of course, no big payoff for doing it. So the financial incentive remains to do procedures, not to reverse the disease.

But I'd like to re-pose this challenge. Ask your doctor if heart disease can be reversed, or at least reduced. I've even posted a Survey at the top left for anyone who tries.

Again, my prediction: Nobody will try it and nobody will post survey results. Why? Despite my rantings (and those of a few others) about the concept of heart disease being a reversible process, in the public's consciousness it remains a death sentence and the only solution is hospital procedures. My colleagues continue to cultivate this attitude and it serves them well financially.

I'll be disappointed if I prove to be right. I hope that I am wrong. But I don't think that I am.



Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

Comments (10) -

  • Anonymous

    1/14/2008 2:03:00 PM |

    I'm not planning to see my doctor again until I reverse my plaque growth.  My first round of talks with him was not encouraging as he only believes statin drugs can be of help.  Ironically my doctor's age is similar to mine and he also told me he has a similar amount of plaque.  My plan is simply to see him again once I control or reverse my plaque growth and tell him there no reason why he couldn't do the same thing too.

  • Anonymous

    1/14/2008 2:30:00 PM |

    Interesting.  Recently, my primary care physician and I had a long talk about causing regression of heart disease.  (Imagine that - my doctor actually spent more than 30 minutes talking to me about medicine.)  He took the time to pull out various articles and texts about heart disease and explain the underlying causes.  He noted that his goal for his patients was to move their heart scan score backwards.  His primary tools for doing so are (1) EBT; (2) blood tests using VAP; and (3) medication (primarily statins mixed with niacin); and (4) repeat EBT.  He noted that very few of his patients had regression of their calcium scores but that many of his patients had calcium score increases in the 0 to 10% annual range.  Most interesting to me is that my doctor also has coronary calcification and is a diabetic.  He mentioned that his own calcium score had decreased in the past year by about 3%.  So obviously he must be doing something right, at least for himself.  

    We spoke about Vitamin D3.  He is a proponent of supplementing D3 when the levels are below 30 ng/mL.  He also tested for homocysteine levels and then emailed me to to take a B multi-supplement based on a high homocysteine score saying that it may have benefits both for heart disease and stroke prevention.

    He had not heard of TYP but I would bet that he would be quite open to this approach as he says his goal is "preventive cardiology."  What materials would you suggest I provide him for my next office visit?

    -Russ

  • Nancy M.

    1/14/2008 7:23:00 PM |

    We just had a woman reverse her heart disease through diet: congestive heart failure, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.  Her doctor initially put her on a low fat, high carb diet and she got worse.  She ran into a cardiologist on a plane trip who advised low carb.  She went back onto a low carb diet (she'd been on one previously) and the results of her last echo cardiogram say the damage to her heart is negligible.  Her doctor was formerly skeptical of low carb diets but is now on one and has dropped 20 pounds herself.

    So yeah!  She's pretty convinced heart disease is reversible!

    And to confirm her results, the day after she found out a study came out about insulin resistance and cardiomyopathy.  Insulin-Resistant Cardiomyopathy, Clinical Evidence, Mechanisms, and Treatment Options.
    http://content.onlinejacc.org/cgi/content/abstract/51/2/93

    Sadly the study doesn't mention changing your diet to treat it....

  • Dr. Davis

    1/14/2008 8:20:00 PM |

    Interesting!

    Can you tell us who your doctor is? I'd like to contact him myself and congratulate him on trying to achieve regression/reversal. He is truly exceptional.

    In the meantime, just let him know that the Track Your Plaque program is all about trying to gain control over your heart scan score. We might be able to improve his results dramatically just by adding a few bits of wisdom.

  • Dr. Davis

    1/14/2008 8:32:00 PM |

    Thanks, Nancy.

  • Dr. Davis

    1/14/2008 8:40:00 PM |

    That's an interesting turnaround.

    Also, perhaps a curious reflection of how motivations can differ between doctor and patient nowadays. You want to save your life, your doctor often wants to save money (i.e., insurance money).

  • Anonymous

    1/14/2008 9:31:00 PM |

    Dr. Davis - I sent a message to your aol account with my doctor's details.  I would be very curious to learn of his reaction to the TYP program.  I suspect he'll be receptive to your approach.

    -Russ

  • Stan

    1/14/2008 11:01:00 PM |

    Of course it can be reversed!   I have done it myself although I cannot prove it now.   I used to experience some mild angina pain in my early fourties, and frequent episodes of rapid heart beat every few months.  It all went away about 6 months on a ketogenic diet, on which I have stayed permanently on, to this day. It never reoccured and my stamina has gone back up to roughly the same level I had in my twenties (I am 51).   It was 8 years ago.

    Best regards to all, this is really exceptional blog. Keep up your good work,

    Stan (Heretic)

  • moblogs

    1/15/2008 12:18:00 PM |

    I won't add to the survey as I haven't asked, but the mantra from the British Heart Foundation down to the doctor is prevention or management. Nowhere in their literature have I seen any mention of reversing heart disease.

  • Anonymous

    12/26/2009 4:30:22 PM |

    Cannot be

Loading
Are statins and omega-3s incompatible?

Are statins and omega-3s incompatible?

French researcher, Dr. Michel de Lorgeril, has been in the forefront of thinking and research into nutritional issues, including the Mediterranean Diet, the French Paradox, and the role of fat intake in cardiovascular health. In a recent review entitled Recent findings on the health effects of omega-3 fatty acids and statins, and their interactions: do statins inhibit omega-3?, he explores the question of whether statin drugs are, in effect, incompatible with omega-3 fatty acids.

Dr. Lorgeril makes several arguments:

1) Earlier studies, such as GISSI-Prevenzione, demonstrated reduction in cardiovascular events with omega-3 fatty acid supplementation, consistent with the biological and physiological benefits observed in animals, experimental preparations, and epidemiologic observations in free-living populations.

2) More recent studies (and meta-analyses) examining the effects of omega-3 fatty acids have failed to demonstrate cardiovascular benefit showing, at most, non-significant trends towards benefit.

He points out that the more recent studies were conducted post-GISSI and after agencies like the American Heart Association's advised people to consume more fish, which prompted broad increases in omega-3 intake. The populations studied therefore had increased intake of omega-3 fatty acids at the start of the studies, verified by higher levels of omega-3 RBC levels in participants.

In addition, he raises the provocative idea that the benefits of omega-3 fatty acids appear to be confined to those not taking statin agents, as suggested, for instance, in the Alpha Omega Trial. He speculates that the potential for statins to ablate the benefits of omega-3s (and vice versa) might be based on several phenomena:

--Statins increase arachidonic acid content of cell membranes, a potentially inflammatory omega-6 fatty acid that competes with omega-3 fatty acids. (Insulin provocation and greater linoleic acid/omega-6 oils do likewise.)
--Statins induce impaired mitochondrial function, while omega-3s improve mitochondrial function. (Impaired mitochondrial function is evidenced, for instance, by reduced coenzyme Q10 levels, with partial relief from muscle weakness and discomfort by supplementing coenzyme Q10.)
--Statins commonly provoke muscle weakness and discomfort which can, in turn, lead to reduced levels of physical activity and increased resistance to insulin. (Thus the recently reported increases in diabetes with statin drug use.)

Are the physiologic effects of omega-3 fatty acids, present and necessary for health, at odds with the non-physiologic effects of statin drugs?

I fear we don't have sufficient data to come to firm conclusions yet, but my perception is that the case against statins is building. Yes, they have benefits in specific subsets of people (none in others), but the notion that everybody needs a statin drug is, I believe, not only dead wrong, but may have effects that are distinctly negative. And I believe that the arguments in favor of omega-3 fatty acid supplementation, EPA and DHA (and perhaps DPA), make better sense.



Comments (4) -

  • Ellen Lewis

    6/18/2013 7:32:42 PM |

    thanks, this seems a sensible take on the issue.

  • Dolph

    6/30/2013 4:59:57 PM |

    This is a (too) far stretched conclusion pretty obviously. O3s still haven’t shown any consistent benefit alone, with a statin drug or without it, and cherry picking the studies that seem to look doesn’t help that fact either! The data is just inconclusive.

    A much more interesting blog article I hope to read in the future would be about niacin!
    Niacin has shown more than once to produce favourable outcomes alone and combined with resins. (CDP, FATS, etc.) On the other hand there can be no more doubt that it doesn’t add any benefit to statin therapy after the results of the two big clinical endpoint studies (AIM-HIGH and HPS2-THRIVE), that flush the cute little landmark studies (ARBITER, HATS, etc.) down the toilet where they belong.
    So what does that imply for the TYP-programm? A rhetorical question it should be, but I’m sure somebody will add some woo…

    - See more at: http://blog.trackyourplaque.com/2013/05/dha-the-crucial-omega-3.html#comments

  • Stephen in Jacksonville

    7/3/2013 10:15:53 PM |

    It is interesting that he should be doing this research into how statins react with Omega-3's. Statins may be one of the most widely prescribed drugs at this point, and I certainly think more research should be conducted on their long-term effects. I recently read about another study which looked at the effects of exercise and statins. Apparently, this drug actually works to counteract some of the benefits that are gained by getting regular exercise for people with cholesterol problems.

  • Brandon Barclow

    7/18/2013 6:07:47 PM |

    Stephen in Jacksonville.   There's no maybe to it.  The number 1 and number 2 selling drug in the world are statin drugs.  32 million Americans are currently taking statin medication.  The one thing that the 32 million have in common is:  THEY HATE TAKING THEIR MEDICATION.

Loading
Let's soak 'em with fish oil

Let's soak 'em with fish oil

If you don't think that charging drug prices for fish oil is wrong, take a look at a letter from an angry Heart Scan Blog reader:


Hello Dr. Davis,

My 44 year old brother had an MI [myocardial infarction, or heart attack] in June. He got pushed around due to "bad government insurance," a state-run program for the "uninsured": government pays 1/3, job pays 1/3, and individual pays 1/3.

What they didn't tell him is that there is no major medical coverage and little to no prescription coverage. We fought for 4 months to get him open heart surgery that the insurance was not going to pay for.

Now, with no assistance, terrible insurance, and no disability he has little to no income. He is a heavy equipment mechanic and is trying to be the "good American"-- take care of his bills, not file bankruptcy, etc.

Anyway, the doctors never seem to pay attention to what they prescribe. Lipitor was not working for him, due to side effects. Now they want to give him Zetia and Lovaza....Zetia at $114, and Lovoza is $169.85! Wow! For dead fish???? I think this is a little fishy! I looked up Lovaza, gee how nice, they will give you a $20 coupon....

Forget it, he can't afford this stuff. So I am enrolling in the Zetia program for him. And trying to get him OTC [over-the-counter] fish oil. The most prevalent fish oil around here (that I take myself is) Omega 3 Fish Oil that has EPA 410mg, DHA 274.

Thanks for your blog. It made me feel better that I wasn't the only one outraged by this stuff. I 've been a nurse for 20 years and it just never seems to get better. Thank you for your wisdom.

Sincerely JP, Tennessee



Had this reader not been aware that her brother could take fish oil as a nutritional supplement, he likely would have been denied the benefit of omega-3 fatty acids in slashing the risk for recurrent cardiovascular events. You and I can buy wonderfully safe and effective fish oil as a nutritional supplement, but there won't be a sexy drug representative to sell it, nor an expensive dinner and payment for a trip to Orlando to hear about it.

Comments (12) -

  • Richard A.

    2/8/2010 5:47:27 PM |

    Why expensive Zetia. Niacin appears to outperform Zetia.

    http://www.webmd.com/cholesterol-management/news/20091116/niacin-tops-zetia-in-cutting-artery-plaque

    While in this study the expensive Niaspan was used, you can by Slo-Niacin dirt cheap.

    http://www.costco.com/Browse/Product.aspx?Prodid=11118583

  • Ateronon

    2/8/2010 7:24:40 PM |

    Why do insurance companies pay for Lovaza? They are usually very picky and Lovaza would seem an obvious "soak" job?

    How did it get on approved drug lists?

  • Jenny

    2/9/2010 12:05:32 AM |

    Dr. Davis,

    Your correspondent should tell his brother to ditch the Zetia too. The research makes it clear it does not prevent heart attack and may worsen health. Statins appear to be helpful because of their impact on inflammation, not because they lower LDL cholesterol. Zetia lowers cholesterol in a mechanical way that has no impact on inflammation.

  • zach

    2/9/2010 1:16:17 AM |

    Why is a 44 year old being subjected to open heart surgery? Quacks.

  • Rick Loftus, M.D.

    2/9/2010 2:05:01 AM |

    As an internist not categorically opposed to statins (although I agree with starting with nutrition first, which is why I read this blog), there are generic alternatives for this person's brother. If my patients need Western drugs, I start with cheap generics whenever possible. Zetia has dubious benefits of ANY kind, and costs a fortune. And of course Dr. D is right that there are many cheaper sources of fish oil; I usually point my patients in that direction.

    I often feel "standard" American-style medical practice is intended to waste as much money as possible. People need to be able to trust their docs to execute plans that are not only based on the research evidence, but are cost effective. There is no culture of cost-effective medicine in this country, because health care was defined by the Americans as a for-profit arena.

    "Prescribe unto others as you would have them prescribe unto you."

  • Anonymous

    2/9/2010 4:39:50 AM |

    Lovaza fills a void created by bad government and insurance policy. According to IRS rules, over the counter supplements cannot be covered by many insurance handlers. My work's HSA is like this. Fish oil / omega-3 is technically considered an over the counter supplement. The folk making Lovaza more than understand the benefits of omega-3 and want to sell it to the folks who want their insurance to pay for it. So they made it into a "drug" and sell it as such. It's a brilliant marketing plan and it seems to be working for them. The sad part is that it is working! It shouldn't! Same thing goes with Lovastatin. Why not take a good red yeast rice? Oh well... you pay for what you don't know.

    -- Boris

  • Anne

    2/9/2010 8:04:37 AM |

    Your post, Dr Davis, seems more a call for better health care, the kind we here in the United Kingdom get under our National Health Service, than a call for different fish oils or different meds.

    The NHS does have it's problems, sure, but they're nothing like the problems this person you describe has.

  • tom

    2/9/2010 1:09:59 PM |

    It's ironic that her brother is trying to be a "good" American by paying his bills and not filing bankruptcy.
    If only his doctors, insurance companies, and drug mNUFcturers had a similar ethic.  It seems that for them, being a good American is maximizing their income regardless of who they take it from.
    Ordinary Americans have been sold this "good" American concept from birth.  It's propaganda.  Far too many special interests have used it to enrich only themselves.

  • Alfredo E.

    2/15/2010 9:09:26 PM |

    Your brother should not be paying anything for drugs to lower cholesterol.

    Cholesterol is not the enemy, nor is saturated fat.

    The real enemy is chronic inflammation that comes from several sources but mainly from a high grain diet (too much omega 6).

    Please, read http://www.omega-3-fish-oil-wonders.com/good-fats.html

    Best wishes,
    Alfredoe

  • beverly

    3/3/2010 3:19:19 PM |

    I have read with interest the comments concerning Lovaza. I was put on it in 2008. I have tried numerous times to ask GSK through emails & ph calls the calorie make up in the gelcap. No one seems to know! Not the Doctor who put me on it, the pharmacist, or anyone from GSK!!! As a diabetic who has lost 140 lbs, following my diet plan is very important to me. Any suggestions on who can make them give up the big calorie secret?
    Thanks,
    Beverly

  • buy jeans

    11/3/2010 10:20:24 PM |

    Had this reader not been aware that her brother could take fish oil as a nutritional supplement, he likely would have been denied the benefit of omega-3 fatty acids in slashing the risk for recurrent cardiovascular events. You and I can buy wonderfully safe and effective fish oil as a nutritional supplement, but there won't be a sexy drug representative to sell it, nor an expensive dinner and payment for a trip to Orlando to hear about it.

  • Dave

    5/31/2011 4:43:42 AM |

    Beverly,
    A rough estimate for the caloric content of each Lovaza capsule would be approximately 8-10 calories.  Since each capsule contains roughly 1 gram of total fat.

Loading