The many faces of LDL

Pam has an LDL cholesterol of 144 mg/dl.

To most people, this means that she has a mildly elevated LDL value. Many people would respond by cutting the saturated fat in their diet. Most physicians would concur and talk about prescribing a statin drug.

Let me tell you what an LDL cholesterol of 144 mg/dl means to me:

1) It could mean an LDL of all large particles (which is good) or an LDL of all small particles (which is very bad). Or, perhaps it's some combination of big and small. I can't tell which just by knowing that LDL is 144.

Small LDL responds to a diet reduced in processed carbohydrates and wheat flour; large LDL does not. Small LDL responds in an exagerrated way to niacin; large LDL does not. It makes a difference.

2) It could mean that, hidden within LDL, is lipoprotein(a), or Lp(a). Recall that Lp(a) is a high-risk genetic pattern that can provide the false appearance of high LDL cholesterol. If Pam were prescribed a statin drug, it would have little effect and little benefit. (See Red flags for Lipoprotein(a).)

Knowing that Pam has Lp(a) can point us in an entirely different direction than just LDL cholesterol. It might mean high-dose fish oil, a more serious approach to niacin, hormonal treatments like DHEA or testosterone. It might mean more attention to warning your children about the possibility that they, too, might share this genetic trait.

3) It could mean both small LDL and Lp(a) are present simultaneously, an especially dangerous combined pattern that is among the highest risks for heart disease known.

4) Because Pam's LDL of 144 mg/dl was not measured, but calculated, it means that it is subject to tremendous inaccuracy.

In my office, calculated LDL cholesterols can be inaccurate by 50 or 100 mg/dl--commonly. So Pam's LDL of 144 mg/dl could really be 70 mg/dl, or it could be 244 mg/dl. Once again, it's a big difference.


Just like The Three Faces of Eve, the 1957 film in which Joanne Woodward played the three wildly different sides of Eve's personality--the daytime Eve White, the fun-loving and daring Eve Black, and Jane--so can LDL assume several different faces, all with different personalities, different implications.

Accepting LDL cholesterol as LDL cholesterol is a fool's game. It is only a starting point, nothing more. Accepting a statin drug based on LDL is, likewise, a trap fraught with uncertainty, the potential for limited or ineffective results, the price being your heart and health.
Loading
Look like Jimmy Stewart

Look like Jimmy Stewart


"This diet works great," Don declared. "But I think I've lost too much weight."

At 67 years old and 5 ft. 11 inches, Don began the program weighing 228 lbs (BMI 31.9). Because of high triglycerides, high blood sugar, high c-reactive protein, and excessive small LDL, I instructed Don to eliminate all wheat products from his diet, along with cornstarch and sweets. His intake of lean meats, eggs, vegetables, oils, raw nuts, etc. was unlimited.

Don now weighed 194 lbs, down 34 lbs over 6 months (BMI 27.1). Triglycerides, blood sugar, blood pressure, and well-being had improved dramatically; small LDL, however, had dropped only 30%--still room for improvement.

"My friends say I'm too skinny. They ask if I have cancer!"

I've heard this many times: Someone loses weight in a relatively short period of time and friends and family tell you you're too skinny. "It must be cancer. Nobody loses weight like that."

Unfortunately, many Americans have forgotten what normal looks like. Normal is certainly not a 190-lb, 5 ft 4 in woman, nor is it a 228 lb, 5 ft 11 inch man. But Americans have put on so much weight that the prevailing view of what constitutes "normal" weight has been revised upward. Normal is closer to what we see in old movies from the 1940s and '50s with people like Jimmy Stewart and Donna Reed. That's what we are supposed to look like.

So Don actually remains mildly overweight but is judged as "too skinny," or even cancer-ridden, by friends and family.

Ignore such comments. As you lose pounds and approach a truly desirable weight, realize that you are returning to the normal state, not the vision of "normal" now held by most Americans.

Comments (23) -

  • AllenS

    1/15/2010 8:40:24 PM |

    This is funny because as a 5'11" male I'm 165lbs and considered by some to be "emaciated" even though I have 10% body fat and quite a bit of muscle. I remember 45 years ago as a kid when my 6' tall father weighed 170lbs. Nobody ever called him skinny because he pretty much looked like all of his friends. He was considered normal at that time. I remember his weight at that time because he often boasted about it seeing as how he only weighed 125 lbs when he was drafted into the Navy.

    We have indeed forgotten what normal looks like.

  • Sarah

    1/15/2010 9:07:45 PM |

    I think you're onto something with this 'standards' business. I'm down to 171 pounds (nearly 70 pounds!) since going on my diet. It hasn't been a FAST loss, but people who haven't seen me in a while are surprised and remark that I look like a 'stick'.

    Since when did 171 fall into the 'stick' range for a 5'4" woman? Maybe >30 BMI is thin for Kentucky.

    Note: I love Jimmy Stewart!

  • Jeanie Campbell

    1/15/2010 10:32:44 PM |

    Excellent post!  My question, then, is, where do we find a reliable place to find out what our desirable weight IS?  I'm not sure I trust the ones I have found on-line.  Can you recommend one?  Especially for folks over 50.  Thanks!

  • whatsonthemenu

    1/15/2010 11:44:56 PM |

    "Unfortunately, many Americans have forgotten what normal looks like. Normal is certainly not a 190-lb, 5 ft 4 in woman, nor is it a 228 lb, 5 ft 11 inch man."

    So true.  Walking through the airport terminal on a visit from Asia immediately oriented me back to the US with the long chain of fast food franchises and big, waddling passengers.  A trip to Walmart to see morbidly obese people in motorized carts is a tourist attraction for Asians.  They can't believe it until they see it.

  • jnkdaniel@hotmail.com

    1/16/2010 1:16:58 AM |

    Yes, this blog is definitely detrimental to my fat.

    For five months, I've swam, taken fish oil, cut out juice and bread from my fridge.  As a result I've lost 16 pounds, 12 beats per minute, and 3 off my blood pressure.

    I'm currently 29m 6'2 and at 184 lb, 48 bpm resting, and at 125 for blood pressure.

    It is truly scary to see how easy it is to lose weight once you know how bad certain foods are.  It is borderline addicting!

    I'm curious to see if I will hit an equilibrium or I will have to do something to stop the weight loss once I reach 175-180.

  • Anonymous

    1/16/2010 2:01:02 AM |

    This is so true, many of my friends think I'm extremely skinny, yet I'm at my optimal weight. My mom refuses to lose more weight,she says "people will say that I look old and sick"

  • Anonymous

    1/16/2010 6:26:42 AM |

    You hit the nail on the head. I too, as a 50-something year old male, was about 220 at 5'10" last year this time, and as I approached 185 mid-year, several folks asked, "Are you all right?" and "Did you intend to lose the weight?" Yet I still am not at an ideal weight for my height, and although I look slim in comparison, I still have abdominal fat that needs to go. I've also had people tell me, "You look too thin," and "Don't lose any more weight." We must recapture a sense of normal. However, during a recent visit to a Glen Ivy Spa in So. Cal. my wife and I marveled at how many grossly obese people there were sauntering around in swimsuits. We've definitely got a problem here. For me, I'd rather look like Jimmie Stewart or Jack Lalane or Art Devany, and I don't care what anyone else thinks about it!

  • pmpctek

    1/16/2010 7:20:44 AM |

    I had a friend say to me once, "you lost a lot of weight, are you sick 'r something?"

    I'm a 5' 9" 49 y.o. North American male and went from 192 lbs. to 168 lbs. in nine months.  This was a couple years ago. I lost most of it off my mid-section and face.  I have the incredible shrinking waist (now 30 inches.)

    I did this by simply eliminating grains, starches, and sugars.  I actually had to slightly increase my daily calorie intake (than when I weighed 192) because I too was concerned I might have been losing too much weight.

    When I share with family and friends why I look so lean, that it's from permanent grain, starch and sugar abstention, they always respond with "oh no, I can't do that"  or "how can you do that?"

  • Kurt

    1/16/2010 1:36:58 PM |

    This is reassuring. I've been worrying because, since I started a heart healthy diet, I've gone from 183 lbs to 167 lbs, which is less than I weighed when I was 18 years old (170).

  • Dr. William Davis

    1/16/2010 3:00:21 PM |

    Hi, Jeannie--

    There are a number of ways to determine ideal weight. BMI, though an imperfect concept, is a good starting place. Here's a BMI calculator: http://www.nhlbisupport.com/bmi/

    This gives me an idea for a future post: "What is ideal weight?"

  • Aaron Blaisdell

    1/16/2010 4:20:20 PM |

    I won't even tell you what my Chinese in-laws think. Two English words my Chinese-speaking mother-in-law knows are "eat more." I always fend her of with with the retort "Che bao la."

  • Eclecbit

    1/16/2010 6:07:27 PM |

    There's also the problem of finding clothes that fit. I'm a 5'11" male and weigh 152lbs. I've got a 32" waist, but when I try on 32" waist pants they fall off of me because they're really 34" (I believe this is called vanity sizing), so I look for the 30" waist pants and guess what? There are none!

    Maybe it's because I live in the South, but 30" waist pants are pretty much non-existent, and the ones that I do find are always too short.

    My wife used to think I was too skinny, but then she remembered all her Oriental friends back in California who are as skinny as I am. For them it's considered normal.

  • Steve L.

    1/16/2010 6:26:22 PM |

    I say revel in it!  I knew from past temporary weight loss that people would start to notice after I lost 30 pounds or so.  Since I needed to lose 70 to get to ideal weight, I also knew that those comments were nothing but signs of sucess.  We truly have adapted to a new normal in our perceptions.  The shock value does diminish over time though.  Now three years out from adopting a healthy diet (currently 6'3", 190 lbs.), I got all the comments along the way, but now people have adjusted to my new look (as have I).  Once in a while though, I see someone, usually business-related, that I haven't seen for a few years, and they're shocked.  I just enjoy it, and try to recruit them over from the dark side.

    The thing that I find interesting now is that, while I was losing people were interesting in why I was losing, and several adopted the low-carb/paleo approach with great success.  But now that I have reached an ideal weight, the memory of the previous me fades, and few see me as a potential source of healthy diet information.  I think some actually think I must be a bit of a freak for having done so well, and so there's nothing useful to be learned from me by non-freaks.

  • Anne

    1/16/2010 9:36:40 PM |

    I am another who lost weight when I dropped all grains and sugars and greatly limited high carb veges and fruits. The weight just melted away. I did not need to lose much and when I hit 20 lbs, the weight loss stopped. I have been at 120-125 for many months now. I am 5' 4". I never feel hungry eating the higher fat diet. Honestly, sometimes I do miss the junky food but not enough to eat it and jeopardize my health.

  • Nick

    1/17/2010 3:38:15 AM |

    I wonder if anyone has information on cornstarch and why it places right next to wheat as a 'food' to avoid?  I have seen a great deal of convincing argument with regard to wheat, but almost none with regard to cornstarch (other than for those who may need to closely watch blood glucose levels).  

    If anyone can lead me to more information on how it affects our organism, I would great appreciate it.

  • steve

    1/17/2010 4:21:28 PM |

    Dr. Davis.  If you do a post on ideal weight, it might be helpful to include a discussion of muscle mass.  Many athletes are heavier than those of comparable ages in the general population, but have body fat levels that are extremely low.  There is a trade-off with weight loss and muscle loss, and I suppose a happy equilibrium at some leve.  Perhaps body fat level is a better gauge than absolute weight level, but hard to accuratley measure.  Thanks,

  • Claire

    1/18/2010 6:40:22 AM |

    I read an newspaper article about how parents in the UK didn't realise their children were obese. Yes, that's obese - not just overweight.

    We have lost sight of what it is to be of normal weight. I catch myself looking at people's sizes in old movies to remind myself of what "normal" should be.

  • AllenS

    1/18/2010 5:43:56 PM |

    I really don't like the BMI indicator. First, there is no differentiation between males and females or body type. Fit males who have any kind of muscle tone or who may be big-boned will invariably have a BMI greater than 25. I'm very close even though I'm only 10% body fat.

    Instead, I think that a better measure is to ignore weight altogether and get your % body fat computed. Ideally it should be 14-17% for males and 21-24% for females.

    I too have difficulty finding pants that fit. I wear a 30" waist. Its tough to find anything smaller than a 38"-40" waist which is pretty sad.

  • Anonymous

    1/18/2010 11:57:30 PM |

    Based on the posts here on HeartScan and my brothers insistence Atkin's was his preferred effective weight control solution, I started eating meat again after 10 years of being a pescatarian. I put on 12 lbs in 3 months.  OK, I am not too keen on eating slabs of meat and may have gone overboard with sausage meat / chicken wings but I hope my next blood test will show an increase in HDL as a result of the added fat and lower wheat/grains

    BTW. I stopped my 20mgs crestor and got a base line several months back (too scary !). I have taken 20mgs and 40mgs crestor with the latter leading to some muscle pain but perfect LDL (60). HDL only went up with Niacin (31 to 45 )

    What I want is no more than 20mgs crestor (which gives me LDL circa 75 and I can tolerate well) and to elevate my HDL to 60 without having to eat raw cow.

    This site is a great resource. I would like to see Dr D square off against the celeb TV Dr Oz who pushes high grain diets and low saturated fat.
    Trev

  • Apolloswabbie

    1/30/2010 10:03:43 PM |

    I think some of the response to too skinny is because folks are faced with how 'not skinny' they are looking at those who are not.

  • Anonymous

    2/8/2010 10:14:07 PM |

    I'm a caucasian male, 6'2" and I've been healthily below 160.  I have a thin body.  I don't know if it's because my bones are smaller, or what, but this is normal for me.

    And, I feel for the thin folks in the south.  When we lived in TN for a few years, I had a heck of a time finding 32" waist pants.  Now that I'm back in CA, it's much easier.

  • lockeender

    5/6/2010 4:09:25 AM |

    Jimmy Stewart was thought too skinny by Hollywood and the Army at the time.  When he was first signed to MGM they recognized that Stewart had an uncanny screen charisma and great star potential, but they considered him just so goofy looking that they didn't buy him having any male star sex appeal.  MGM wanted someone to compete with Tyrone Power, Clark Gable, Spencer Tracy and up and comers like Cary Grant (Grant would be a better example for you than Stewart).  Before MGM ever put Stewart in a movie they put him with one of the studio weight trainers, hoping to add some muscle to his physique.  The trainer had Stewart lifting weights and drinking a gallon of milk everyday.  After a month of this regimen Stewart had gained about three pounds, mostly of bloat.  MGM put him in a variety of bit parts but they figured he was basically useless to them so they loaned him out to Columbia for a pair of pictures, You Can't Take it with You and Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.  Stewart's star was made and he returned to MGM to make a slew of great films, Destry rides again, Philadelphia Story, & The shop Around the corner.  Stewart came from a very patriotic, midwestern family.  in 1940 Stewart basically quit his studio contract (after filming A Mortal Storm) and recognizing the world situation, he went to enlist in the Army with the idea of entering the Air Corps to train as a pilot.  He was rejected flat out because he did not weigh enough for the minimum standard to enlist.  And Stewart was 6' 3&3/4" he weighed next to nothing!  Since he was only a few lbs under, Stewart went back the next week, this time after waterloading himself.  he barely made it through the physical before bursting, but he was able to eek over that minimum weight standard by a single pound.  By the time Pearl Harbor hit, Stewart was a certified pilot and he spent most of the war continually flying bombing missions over Europe.

    Cary Grant on the other hand, would be a superb example. Grant began life as a circus tumbler, and he maintained his athleticism throughout his life.  His remarkable lack of aging until his final decade was due to his  eschewing alcohol and smoking in his private life, which was both very rare at the time and ironic considering the suave characters he played always drank and smoked.  He may also have been one of the oddball anti-sugar hollywood types (Gloria Swanson was one) that refused to eat anything with sugar in it.  But I'm not certain on that.

  • buy jeans

    11/3/2010 3:43:15 PM |

    Ignore such comments. As you lose pounds and approach a truly desirable weight, realize that you are returning to the normal state, not the vision of "normal" now held by most Americans.

Loading
"We don't believe in heart scans"

"We don't believe in heart scans"

Tim's CT heart scan score was an earth-shattering 3,447, clearly in the upper stratosphere of percentile rank. Risk of heart attack: 25% per year. At age 58, it was a wonder that nothing had happened yet.

Tim went to the Cleveland Clinic for an opinion, long a powerful bastion of heart procedures. The consulting cardiologist told Tim, "We don't believe in heart scans. They're wrong too often."

An opinion from a widely-respected cardiovascular center. If they don't "believe" in heart scans, does that mean they "believe" in stents and bypass surgery? Does it mean that the thousands of research studies that have now been published on the value of heart scanning are pure fiction? Is there a choice to believe or not believe?

I continue to be shocked at the extraordinary ignorance on the topic of heart scanning among my colleagues. The number one killer of Americans and you still rely on stress tests?

Why this perception that heart scans are "wrong too often"? What this cardiologist means, I believe, is that when people are taken to the cath lab for catheterization, a substantial number of those with positive heart scan scores don't have "blockage". But I could have told him that even before the heart catheterization.

There is an expected and well-documented likelihood of finding significant "blockage" based on your heart scan score. At Tim's scary score of 3,447, what is the likelihood of "blockage" of 50% or more? It's around 40-50%. That means that half the people at this score will have a blockage sufficient to justify inserting stents or undergoing bypass surgery, half will not. There will indeed be many plaques, but none severe enough to block flow.

Does that make the heart scan wrong? I don't think it does. Just because you don't need a major procedure to "fix" blockages does not mean that no heart disease is present. Without preventive efforts, Tim's heart attack risk remains an alarming 25% per year--whether or not he gets stents or bypass. The only treatments that substantially reduce this risk (in an asymptomatic person) are preventive efforts, not procedures.

Yet cardiologists like the one Tim consulted at the Cleveland Clinic regard heart scans as something "he doesn't believe in". I would suggest a return to the textbooks and published literature and re-thinking how heart disease should be managed.

Heart scans should provide an opportunity for prevention, not an opportunity for profit.
Loading
Vitamin D: New Miracle Drug

Vitamin D: New Miracle Drug

At the meetings of the American Society of Bone and Mineral Research, Dr. Bruce Troen of the University of Miami detailed his views on the extraordinary benefits of vitamin D replacement. He also talked about the enormous problem of unrecognized vitamin deficiency.

“There’s a huge epidemic of hypovitaminosis D, and the real key here is not just that it’ll benefit you from a bone and neuromuscular standpoint, but if you correct hypovitaminosis D and the corresponding secondary hyperparathyroidism, then you’re going to decrease prostate cancer, colon cancer—actually “up to 17 different cancers, breast cancer included.”

Unfortunately, Dr. Troen did not talk much about the heart benefits of vitamin D, likely since the data is scant, nearly non-existent. However, if the Track Your Plaque experience means anything, I predict that vitamin D replacement will become among the most powerful tools you can use to gain control over coronary plaque.

Read the text of a report from the Internal Medicine World Report to read more of Dr. Troen's comments.


http://www.imwr.com/article.php?s=IMWR/2006/11&p=40
Loading
Wheat-free and weight loss

Wheat-free and weight loss

With a heart scan score of 1222, Leslie could be in deep trouble in short order.

At 64 years old, Leslie had gained nearly 40 lbs since she'd given up a lot of her activities caring for a husband who'd developed psychological difficulties and stopped contributing to the household duties. A tall woman at 5 ft 9 inches, she held her 202 lbs well, but her lipoprotein patterns were a disaster:

--LDL particle number 2482 nmol/l--an equivalent LDL cholesterol of 248 mg/dl (drop the last digit)
--HDL 38 mg/dl
--Triglycerides 241 mg/dl
--90% of LDL particles were small
--Lipoprotein(a) 240 nmol/l

Blood sugar was in the pre-diabetic range at 112 mg/dl, C-reactive protein was high at 3.0 mg/l, blood pressure was somewhat high at 140/84.

Now, with the exception of lipoprotein(a), these patterns are exquisitely weight-sensitive. A reduction in weight would yield effects superior to any medication I could give her.

Processed wheat products were a big problem for Leslie: whole wheat bread, pretzels for snacks, whole wheat pasta. Yes, they sound healthy, even endorsed by the American Heart Association, often bearing "heart healthy" labels on the packages. Don't you believe it.

In particular, Leslie had the number one cause for heart disease in America: small LDL particles, a pattern that is magnified 30-70% by wheat products. Endorsed by the Heart Association? (As I often tell people, if you want heart disease, follow the diet advocated by the American Heart Association.)

Leslie was skeptical, worried that she would be hungry all the time and would have virtually nothing left to eat. Instead, when she returned to the office three months later, she reported that eating was easy, finding healthy foods not containing wheat was easier than she thought, she felt great, finding more energy than she'd had in years.

She'd also shed 30 lbs.

Leslie's lipoprotein patterns also reflected the weight loss. She achieved her 60:60:60 Track Your Plaque lipid targets, small LDL shrunk dramatically, blood sugar and blood pressure were back in normal ranges.

I see results like Leslie's several times every week. For those of us with patterns like Leslie's, or just obesity that accumulates in the abdomen, going wheat-free is among the most powerful single strategies I know of.

If you need convincing, try an experiment. Eliminate--not reduce, but eliminate wheat products from your diet, whether or not the fancy label on the package says it's healthy, high in fiber, a "healthy low-fat snack", etc. This means no bread, pasta, crackers, cookies, breads, chips, pancakes, waffles, breading on chicken, rolls, bagels, cakes, breakfast cereal. I find elimination of wheat easier than just cutting back. I believe this is because wheat is powerfully addictive. It's very similar to telling an alcoholic that a drink now and then is okay--it just doesn't work. They need to be alcohol-free. Most of us need to be wheat-free, not just cut back.

You won't be hungry if you replace the lost calories with plenty of raw almonds, walnuts, pecans, sunflower and pumpkin seeds; more liberal use of healthy olive oil, canola oil and flaxseed oil; adding ground flaxseed and oat bran to yogurt, cottage cheese, etc.; and more lean proteins like lean beef, chicken, turkey, fish, and eggs.

The majority of people who go wheat-free lose weight, sometimes dramatically. Most people also feel better: more energy, more alert, better sleep, less mood swings. Time and again, people who try this will tell me that the daytime grogginess they've suffered and lived with for years, and would treat with loads of caffeine, is suddenly gone. They cruise through their day with extra energy.

Even without weight loss, going wheat-free usually raises HDL, reduces the dreaded small LDL dramtically. It also reduces triglycerides, blood sugar, C-reactive protein, blood pressure. Blood sugar control in diabetics is far easier, with less fluctuations and sharp rises in blood sugar.

Success at this also yields great advantage for your heart scan score control and reversal efforts.

Comments (14) -

  • Anne

    10/13/2007 3:49:00 PM |

    I was overweight by only about 15lbs and I was having pitting edema in my legs and shortness of breath. My cardiologist and I were discussing the possible need of an angiogram. I was three years out from heart bypass surgery.

    Before we could schedule the procedure, I tested positive for gluten sensitivity through www.enterolab.com. I eliminated not only wheat but also barley and rye and oats(very contaminated with wheat) from my diet. Within a few weeks my edema was gone, my energy was up and I was no longer short of breath. I lost about 10 lbs. The main reason I gave up gluten was to see if I could stop the progression of my peripheral neuropathy. Getting off wheat and other gluten grains has given me back my life. I have been gluten free for 4 years and feel younger than I have in many years.

    There are many gluten free processed foods, but I have found I feel my best when I stick with whole foods.

  • wccaguy

    10/13/2007 4:13:00 PM |

    Hey Doc,

    How is it that you're always making posts about subjects I've got questions about?

    About wheat...  I've got weight to lose and I've been doing a low carb thing and have lost 12 pounds in 5 weeks (including a week where I cheated for an event and got thrown off for a few days).  By the way, thanks for turning me on to Jimmy Moore.

    There are some low-carb breads out there.  I picked up a loaf ("Rudy's") last night at the local Whole Foods.  It has 5 net carbs per slice.  Not bad for a twice a week binge.  But now I'm wondering if, despite the low carbs, the wheat content in the bread will be out to get me.

    Thoughts?

    Thanks again as always!!!

  • Anonymous

    10/14/2007 12:37:00 AM |

    Dr. Davis:  Do you concentrate on wheat because it is the most prevalent grain, or should we get all grains out of our lives?  

    I have lost weight since I got most wheat out of my life, but I could still stand to shed a few more pounds.  I am still eating steel cut oats for breakfast on occasion, as well as teff (an Ethiopian grain) with spiced lentils.  Should I get every grain out of my life?

    And what about carbs from fruit - are they just as bad as grains? I'm eating 3-4 fruits a day -- not the high glycemic stuff -- but carbs nevertheless (apples, plums, berries, grapefruit).

  • Dr. Davis

    10/14/2007 2:07:00 AM |

    I believe that the intensity of your efforts depends on how far you've got to go in weight loss. For full effect, I've found--time and again--that full elimination is most effective.

  • Dr. Davis

    10/14/2007 2:11:00 AM |

    The low-carb strategy is a tool for weight loss, not necessarily for health beyond weight loss effects.

    Fruits are part of a healthy diet that, I believe, should only be eliminated if you are employing a low-carb strategy for weight loss.  

    I'm undecided how far we need to go with the entire grain world. I have had good experiences with oats and flax. Unfortunately, I have no experience with teff. Wheat is th ebiggest problem by a enormous margin.

  • Anonymous

    10/15/2007 2:47:00 AM |

    hello again- can you talk about calcium - vit. D and men.
    I am a 51 year old man and have heard that calcium/vit D are good for weight loss and health. But also have read that calcium/dairy is associated with a prostate cancer. How much is too much?
    Thanks!

  • Dr. Davis

    10/15/2007 12:40:00 PM |

    Sorry, I have never heard of any association with calcium and prostate cancer. However, this Blog and the accompanying website focus on heart disease, for which vitamin D is fabulously effective, in my view.

    For more discussion, see both the multiple blog posts on vitamin D, along with extensive reports on the www.trackyourplaque.com websites.

  • G

    11/15/2007 4:33:00 AM |

    Low carb is associated with slowing prostate cancer growth... *hot off the press!*

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/hsn/20071114/hl_hsn/lowcarbdietmayslowprostatetumorgrowth;_ylt=AqKywxO4nIE22JRYZeq0O53VJRIF

  • Anonymous

    7/3/2009 8:30:12 AM |

    This blog have helpful content and information. Is there any formula to control diet and keep muscle tone with fitness? For more log on
    Personal Trainer- www.just4ufit.com

  • health

    7/21/2009 11:51:09 AM |

    Hello Dr,

    wow some really good solid inforamtion there, i hope you don't mind I took severalnotes to share with my family over dinner.. I might add if i may that coconut oil is a good health resource, it consists of short and medium chain fatty acids and be re-used a couple of times

  • Weight Loss News

    7/25/2009 9:53:11 AM |

    Hi Dr,

    wow thanks for sharing this powerful info with people, I thought the some of the foods stuffs you mentioned with wheat in them were actually good for you... perhaps in moderation or.... should it be cut out all together?

  • Jennifer

    2/27/2010 5:10:27 PM |

    I've tried various low-carb, low-calorie, and low-fat diets for the past couple of years. Although the Atkins diet is very popular, it made me feel somewhat unhealthy.
    The diet plan I'm on right now is the Medifast Diet. The caloric intake is roughly 800-1000 calories. However, it doesn't make my body feel weak. It is a bit of a pricey diet, but there are plenty of coupons available on the internet (i.e. http://www.swoopup.com/stores/deals/Medifast-Diet). You should never pay full price.
    My advice is just choose a diet plan which your body reacts positively to. No one knows your body better than you do!

  • buy jeans

    11/3/2010 6:59:31 PM |

    Processed wheat products were a big problem for Leslie: whole wheat bread, pretzels for snacks, whole wheat pasta. Yes, they sound healthy, even endorsed by the American Heart Association, often bearing "heart healthy" labels on the packages. Don't you believe it.

  • weight loss

    1/15/2011 1:18:36 AM |

    Wheat free diet is one of the most effective ways to lose weight. I am using that kind of method for over a year now and it gives me an amazing result.

Loading
What if heart scans become obsolete?

What if heart scans become obsolete?

What will we do if or when CT heart scans become outdated and something better comes along?

Heart scans are, after all, our principal tool for detection and precise quantification of coronary atherosclerotic plaque. They provide the basis for the Track Your Plaque program: serial heart scans to track progression or regression of coronary plaque.

So what the heck will we do if heart scans become obsolete, if some other technology proves superior for precise lengthwise quantification of coronary plaque?

Simple: Then we will convert to that measure.

Say, for instance, that in 5 years, MRI advances to the point where it is quick and precise, despite the rapid motion of the heart that has, in past, caused this technology to stumble for plaque quantification. Instead of obtaining a heart scan score of, say, 350, instead an MRI might yield information like:

Calcium volume: 350 cubic mm
Soft plaque elements: 200 cubic mm
Fibrous tissue: 700 cubic mm

In other words, while a CT heart scan provides a calcium score that serves as a surrogate measure of total plaque volume, perhaps the next wave of technology will directly measure total plaque volume.

Don't CT coronary angiograms already measure total plaque volume?

No, they definitely do not. At present, the best they can do is visualize the non-calcific elements and suggest the diameter reduction created by plaque at a specific point. Thus, results like "50% blockage in the mid-left anterior descending." What they do not provide is a lengthwise total volume of plaque and all its elements. Perhaps some software manipulation in future will yield such information (and I think it will, though I personally have been unable to accomplish it).

So neither the Track Your Plaque program nor the Heart Scan Blog are necessarily bound to heart scans. But heart scans, in 2008, remain the number one best tool for plaque quantification that is easy, precise, available, and inexpensive. For those reasons, CT heart scans continue to serve as the basis for these programs, and not CT angiograms, MRI, or other non-quantitative technology.

Comments (3) -

  • Rich

    2/21/2008 4:05:00 AM |

    Dr. Davis:

    Should we infer from your comparison of existing scans to future MRIs (350=350) that our Agatston calcium score denotes cubic mm of calcium?

    Thanks, Rich

  • Jack

    2/21/2008 1:05:00 PM |

    What about CIMT ultrasounds to identify cardiovascular risk and then moniter with follow-up CIMT ultrasounds to track regression?  I know that Dr. Jim Stein is a big fan of CIMT ultrasound.

  • Ziaul

    2/21/2008 1:49:00 PM |

    Hi Dr. Davis,
    I just had a heart attack and triple by-pass late January. I'm 40 years old and am on the following medicines: Altace, Cordarone, Lipitor, Lopressor. Is your program right for me? Will I still be able to track my plaque and know that I am reducing my risk? Will I still be able to take these "tests" while on my medicines?
    Thanks for your help.

Loading
The world of intermediate carbohydrates

The world of intermediate carbohydrates

There are clear-cut bad carbohydrates: wheat, oats, cornstarch, and sucrose. (Fructose, too, but in a class of bad all its own.)

Wheat: The worst. Not only does wheat flour increase blood sugar higher than nearly all other carbohydrates, it invites celiac disease, neurologic impairment, mental and emotional effects, addictive (i.e., exorphin) effects, asthma, irritable bowel syndrome, acid reflux, sleepiness, sleep disruption, arthritis . . . just to name a few.

Oats: Yeah, yeah, I know: "Lowers cholesterol." But nobody told you that oats, including slow-cooked oatmeal, causes blood sugar to skyrocket.

Cornstarch: Like wheat, cornstarch flagrantly increases blood sugar.It also stimulates appetite. That's why food manufacturers put it in everything from soups to frozen dinners.

Sucrose: Not only does sucrose create a desire for more food, it is also 50% fructose, the peculiar sugar that makes us fat, increases small LDL particles, increases triglycerides, slows the metabolism of other foods, encourages diabetes, and causes more glycation than any other sugar.

But there are a large world of "other" natural carbohydrates that don't fall into the really bad category. This includes starchy beans like black, kidney, and pinto; rices such as white, brown, and wild; potatoes, including white, red, sweet, and yams; and fruits. It includes "alternative" grains like quinoa, spelt, triticale, amaranth, and barley.

For lack of a better term, I call these "intermediate" carbohydrates. They are not as bad as wheat, etc., but nor are they good. They will still increase blood glucose, small LDL, triglycerides, etc., just not as much as the worst carbohydrates.

The difference is relative. Say we compare the one-hour blood glucose effects of 1 cup of wheat flour product vs. one cup of quinoa. Typical blood sugar after wheat product: 180 mg/dl. Typical blood sugar after quinoa: 160 mg/dl--better but still pretty bad.

Some people are so carb-sensitive that they should avoid even these so-called intermediate carbohydrates. Others can have small indulgences, e.g., 1/2 cup, and not generate high blood sugars.
Loading
I don’t have high blood pressure!

I don’t have high blood pressure!

Art undeniably had high blood pressure.

At age 53, he had all the “footprints” of high blood pressure that’d been present for at least several years: abnormal patterns by EKG, abnormally thick heart muscle, and an enlarged aorta by an echocardiogram. These sorts of changes require many years to develop. Art’s blood pressure was 140/85 sitting quietly in the office.

“That’s about what my primary care doc gets, too. Whenever it’s high, he takes it again after a few minutes and it always comes down.”

Art tried to persuade me that his blood pressure was high today only because of the traffic on the way into the office. When I dismissed this as a cause, he insisted that stress he’d been suffering because of his teenage son was the cause. “I just know I don’t have high blood pressure!”




Who’s right here? Well, Art is not here to defend himself. But one fact is crystal clear: you cannot develop complications of high blood pressure unless you truly have high blood pressure!

In other words, Art’s abnormal changes in heart structure (thickened heart muscle and enlarged aorta) are serious changes that develop only with years and years of sustained blood pressure at least as high as the one in the office. His blood pressure almost certainly ranged much higher at other times, particularly during stressful situations like waiting in the check-out line at the grocery store, watching a suspenseful TV show, petty irritations at his job, and on and on.

Blood pressure does not have to be high all the time to generate complications of high blood pressure. It can be sporadic, variable, even occasional. Clearly, sustained high blood pressure is the worst situation that creates adverse consequences more quickly. But blood pressure that wavers from low to high only some of the time can still, given sufficient time, cause the very same unwanted effects.

Control of blood pressure is crucial to your coronary plaque control program. Blood pressure may be boring: not as exotic, say, as lipoproteins, and not as fun as talking about nutritional supplements. But neglect blood pressure issues and you will not gain full control over coronary plaque growth—-your heart scan score will increase.

Watch for an upcoming Special Report on the Track Your Plaque Membership website, a full detailed discussion of how to recognize when blood pressure is an important issue, along with a full discussion of nutritional methods to reduce it, often sufficient to minimize or eliminate the need for medication.
Loading
Vitamin D2 belongs in the garbage

Vitamin D2 belongs in the garbage

It happened yet again.

Mel came to the office. CT heart scan score: 799--quite high, enough to pose a real threat very soon. Thus, no time to lose in instituting an effective prevention program.

We do the usual--identify the six causes of coronary plaque; begin fish oil, show him how to correct his plaque causes. You've heard it before.

Vitamin D blood level in March: 17 ng/ml--severe deficiency.

Vitamin D replacement needs to be a part of his coronary plaque control program. So I suggested 6000 units per day of an oil-based preparation of vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol). Conveniently, there is a Vitamin Shoppe outlet across the street from my office. I just point and tell people to go across the street.

Mel did just that. However, he also informed his primary care physician about his vitamin D deficiency. His primary physician promptly told him he needed to take a prescription form of vitamin D and not to bother with just a supplement.

So Mel stopped his vitamin D capsules and started taking vitamin D prescription "medication." Mel figured, naturally, that if it requires a prescription, it must be better. Unfortunately, Mel and his doctor failed to pass the change in strategy onto us.

So, four months later, Mel got repeat vitamin D blood level: 19 ng/ml.

I've seen this too many times. The prescription form of vitamin D is nonsense. There's hardly any effect on blood levels of vitamin D3 at all. The body's conversion of this non-human form of D is extremely inefficient and therefore virtually useless. While it raises the blood level of vitamin D2 (ergocalciferol) and thereby total D (D3 + D2), there is negligible effect on the real human and active form, D3.

How and why this preparation got through the FDA process to obtain approval as a drug is beyond me, though I am not a defender of FDA practices and politics.

This notion that "if it's a prescription, it must be better" is a fiction perpetuated by the drug industry. The same principle gets tossed around with fish oil, hormones like estrogens and testosterone, and others. Often, the principal difference between prescription and non-prescription is patent protection. Patent protection provides profit protection. Selling a product without patent protection can be risky business. It's certainly less profitable.

As always, getting at the truth is sometimes the most difficult job of all. Prescription vitamin D belongs in the garbage. Vitamin D capsules (gelcaps) do the job and do it well, over and over, with reliable, consistent and substantial rises in blood levels of 25-OH-vitamin D3. I take 6000 units per day (3 2000 unit capsules) that cost me $5.99 for a bottle of 120 capsules, or about $4.50 a month.

And nobody--nobody--pays me to say this. I say it because I believe it's true.

Comments (15) -

  • TedHutchinson

    8/8/2007 5:39:00 PM |

    The situation is the same in the UK.
    An "official" answer from the NHS National Library for Health explains "What is the most appropriate way to supplement vitamin D in a patient with low vitamin d which does not appear to be due to malabsorption , and who has a normal calcium and alkaline phosphatase" can be found here.
    http://www.clinicalanswers.nhs.uk/index.cfm?question=5791

    Now who here thinks that if your outgoings are $4000 daily and your overdraft is at it's limit,in-payments of $800 daily will clear the overdraft and build up your savings?

    It appears from the GPnotebook http://www.gpnotebook.co.uk/simplepage.cfm?ID=-845545466&linkID=69270&cook=yes that "there are no suitable preparations available on the NHS for situations where stand-alone vitamin D supplementation would be preferable, as in pregnancy"

    It seems to me utterly absurd that when our major high street chemists have on their supplement shelves 1000iu Cholecalciferol Vitamin D3, our Health Professionals appear unaware this is available (and at less then the cost of the normal prescription charge).

    The case against ergocalciferol (vitamin D2) as a vitamin supplement by Lisa A Houghton and Reinhold Vieth http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/84/4/694 explains the science supporting Dr. Davis for those who are have any doubts about his opinions.

  • Ortcloud

    8/8/2007 5:39:00 PM |

    maybe this is why you see some doctors or studies using outrageous amounts like 50,000 iu's. The problem is that some people see these studies or amounts and take this amount in d3, which would be dangerous.

  • TedHutchinson

    8/8/2007 5:41:00 PM |

    The case against ergocalciferol (vitamin D2) as a vitamin supplement by Lisa A Houghton and Reinhold Vieth provides the science for those who doubt Dr Davis.

  • TedHutchinson

    8/8/2007 5:52:00 PM |

    In the UK "official" medical policy can be seen in this "official" answer from our NHS National Library of Health.
    What is the most appropriate way to supplement vitamin D in a patient with low vitamin d which does not appear to be due to malabsorption , and who has a normal calcium and alkaline phosphatase?

    http://www.clinicalanswers.nhs.uk/index.cfm?question=5791

    It appears officially there are no suitable preparations available on the NHS for situations where stand-alone vitamin D supplementation would be preferable, as in pregnancy yet every high street has chemists selling 1000iu Cholecalciferol Vitamin D3.
    http://www.gpnotebook.co.uk/simplepage.cfm?ID=1872363567&linkID=35618&cook=yes

  • TedHutchinson

    8/8/2007 7:36:00 PM |

    In reply to Ortcloud

    But we do not say because five times the safe limit daily recommendations for water (8 glasses) may cause adverse events (water intoxication) if people are stupid enough to consume 40 glasses a day that Water should have warning labels and/or a restricted supply.

    Our bodies use between 3000 & 5000iu Vitamin D daily. Ten times this amount will, over time, cause adverse events (hypercalcemia) but that is 10 times the most anyone (who hasn't access to sunlight) may need.
    http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/85/1/6
    Risk assessment for vitamin D
    John N Hathcock, Andrew Shao, Reinhold Vieth and Robert Heaney
    explains the safety of Vitamin D3 in more detail than I can here.
    If you find it difficult to follow you can listen to Vieth giving a presentation at
    http://app2.capitalreach.com/esp1204/servlet/tc?cn=asbmr&c=10169&s=20343&e=6950&&
    Contemporary Diagnosis and Treatment of Vitamin D-Related Disorders
    Session 4: Vitamin D and Population Health use the arrows by the slide preview to fast forward to Vieth session (though the others are worth listening to if you have the time.

    If anyone is wondering; You cannot become Vitamin D intoxicated from sunshine, it is a self limiting process and if you continue to apply UVB heat the Vit d is turned into supra sterols that the body doesn't use. The animated diagrams here show it in action. http://www.uvguide.co.uk/vitdpathway.htm but it explains why regular SHORT sun exposure sessions are far more effective than longer sessions that may lead to dangerous sunburn.

  • Anonymous

    8/11/2007 2:16:00 AM |

    I asked the clerk in my doctor's office to add a vitamin D3 test to my blood test requisition form. She put down vitamin D 25-hydroxy. The blood test result states that this assay quantifies the sum of vitamin D3, 25-hydroxy and vitamin D2, 25-hydroxy. Is it normal to report the sum rather than D3 and D2 separately?

  • Dr. Davis

    8/11/2007 2:20:00 AM |

    Most of the time, the sum of D3 + D2 is reported along with the individual components, D3 and D2 individually. D2 is usually reported as a means of measuring "compliance"--are you taking your "drug" or not? If the individual components are not reported, then a different lab should be used in my view.

  • Anonymous

    8/11/2007 2:37:00 AM |

    Thanks, Dr Davis
    The vitamin D test was performed by ARUP Laboratories in Salt Lake City, Utah, and my blood sample was collected in New York City. I did not take any vitamin D or related drug at the time. The report shows that my D3 + D2 level is normal low at 24. Now I take over-the-counter vitamin D3 2000 IU softgel supplement.

  • Dr. Davis

    8/11/2007 1:16:00 PM |

    That's great. However, in our patients we usually use at least 4000 units per day for a level this low. Or, you can be guided by your level on whatever dose you and your doctor choose.

  • w

    3/25/2008 8:24:00 PM |

    To make a long story short I began getting sinusitis back in Aug. '07. Never had it before. Battled that and a couple of small colds. The in December things went wacky. Weakness in arms. Stomach ulcer (which finally has pretty much gone away). Weak legs. Extreme exhaustion at times. Once I started Augmentin for the sinus infection in Dec. I was introduced to muscle pain as well. Got my Vit D tested by chance and found out it was <7ng/ml (yikes).

    The doc didn't know how to treat it so he had me on 400IUs daily (yeah right). So I did some research and started taking 2000IU D3 daily and tanning 15 minutes a week for a month. Within a couple of weeks I felt some improvement but still nowhere near 100% normal. Finally another doc prescribed 50,000IUs of Drisdol (D2) daily for 6 weeks. By that time I had already raised my D up to 32ng/ml in about 6 weeks using D3. 3 days on Drisdol and my knee pain subsided a bit...but 10 days on it I had a severe migraine and stopped taking it. Got another vit D test and I had skyrocketed to 76ng/ml...but still felt bad. I have to admit that some of the pain has lifted since being on the Drisdol but I'm nowhere near "normal" feeling.

    Since most of my "tank" is 2/3 full of D2 could this be why I'm still feeling yucky even though my total level is 76ng/ml? What can I do to slowly introduce D3 back into the mix without overdosing?

  • male

    10/5/2010 8:51:49 PM |

    For men who want bigger, harder, longer-lasting erections, there's now VigRX Plusâ„¢, a fresh twist on the already popular VigRXâ„¢, but designed to further enhance men's sexual functioning with the addition of three exciting new ingredients: Damiana, Tribulus, and Bioperin. Doctor endorsed and rated #1 for results by clients of penis enlargement consumers. rated two penis pills is vimax. if you find about male enhancement this products is the best and proven to work, there products have money-back guarantee in effectiveness and result.

  • buy jeans

    11/3/2010 6:40:49 PM |

    So Mel stopped his vitamin D capsules and started taking vitamin D prescription "medication." Mel figured, naturally, that if it requires a prescription, it must be better. Unfortunately, Mel and his doctor failed to pass the change in strategy onto us.

  • Vlora

    7/11/2011 2:17:47 PM |

    I really appreciate free, succinct, rlaeible data like this.

  • susggl

    7/14/2011 1:28:53 PM |

    wy6eP3 , [url=http://ljdqpirwowgd.com/]ljdqpirwowgd[/url], [link=http://zkbzzyxhdvzs.com/]zkbzzyxhdvzs[/link], http://wsxbauupmtqx.com/

Loading
How to have a heart attack in 10 easy steps

How to have a heart attack in 10 easy steps

If you would like to plan a heart attack in your future, here are some easy-to-follow steps to get you there in just a few short months or years:


1) Follow a low-fat diet.

2) Replace fat calories with "healthy whole grains" like whole wheat bread.

3) Eat "heart healthy" foods like heart healthy yogurt and breakfast cereals from the grocery store.

4) Use cholesterol-reducing plant sterols.

5) Take a multivitamin to obtain all the "necessary" nutrients.

6) Take the advice of your doctor who declares your heart "in great shape" based on your cholesterol values.

7) Take the advice of your cardiologist who declares your heart "like that of a 30-year old" based on a stress test.

8) Take a statin drug to reduce LDL and c-reactive protein while maintaining your low-fat diet.

9) Neglect sun exposure and vitamin D restoration.

10) Limit your salt intake while not supplementing iodine.



There you have it: An easy, 10-step process to do your part to help your local hospital add on its next $40 million heart care center.

If you would instead like to prevent a heart attack in your future, then you should consider not doing any of the above.

Comments (48) -

  • Danny Roddy

    6/29/2010 1:52:30 AM |

    Hmmm the Kitavans break your first rule and they don't have any signs of heart disease.

  • Anonymous

    6/29/2010 2:10:36 AM |

    Danny,

    Multifactorial, much?  And of the 20% or so of TEI from fat, the Kitavans consumed most of that as SFA.  Quite a bit different from the Ornish recommended screw you fat down as low as you can go approach.

  • Josh

    6/29/2010 2:13:53 AM |

    Hmmm... maybe they're good on the other 9 steps perhaps???

  • Anonymous

    6/29/2010 2:22:35 AM |

    I'm just curious about the inclusion of a multivitamin. How does a multi increase your chances of a heart attack? Maybe the ones with iron? Thanks

    Elliot

  • Anonymous

    6/29/2010 2:24:04 AM |

    I would love to know the reasons behind these - would you be interested in posting brief explanations?

  • Jamie Scott

    6/29/2010 3:10:29 AM |

    I'm assuming the multi-vitamin is included for those types who can eat shite but as long as they are swallowing 20 vitamins & minerals everyday, they'll be fine and dandy... no need to change your diet when you can get everything you need from a pill you know.

  • hans keer

    6/29/2010 6:04:26 AM |

    Very good advice for thrill seakers. Perhaps, to make it even more exciting, you can advice them to consume lots of omega 6 containing vegetable oils. VBR Hans

  • HeartHealth

    6/29/2010 7:06:11 AM |

    This post is something one has to ead carefully as far as heart health is concerned. A source of information like this will help you understand so much about your health and how to deal with unexpected illness like heart attack.

    To me, if one learns something about health, it shows how care for yourself and how good you take care of your precious body.

    I say well done ! doc.

  • praguestepchild

    6/29/2010 7:46:05 AM |

    The Eades have a chapter about iron overload. Basically, our bodies have no mechanism for ridding excess iron, this historically happened naturally through blood loss: trauma and parasites. Then there's the famous study showing that beta carotene and vit A supplementation (18,000 people!) http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/334/18/1150 Better to get things in their natural state, like from a vegetable, rather than popping a Centrum. I use a few supplements, mostly to try and make up for what I perceive as lacking from modern lifestyle, vit D for inadequate sunlight, coQ10 for lack of organ meat consumption, etc. I chucked the Centrum.

    Danny, the Kitavans also smoke a lot, so hey, that must be really good for your heart, also!

  • praguestepchild

    6/29/2010 7:54:08 AM |

    oops ... showed that vit A and beta carotene actually increased death rates by 28% for people at risk for lung cancer. The CARET study.

  • maxwell

    6/29/2010 10:14:07 AM |

    @Danny

    It depends if you consider coconut and fatty acids from fish as low-fat foods...i know i don't.

  • Chuck

    6/29/2010 11:43:45 AM |

    Kurt Harris will tell you about the Kitavans, Danny

    http://www.paleonu.com/panu-weblog/2009/11/2/im-so-bored-with-the-kitavans.html

  • Tony

    6/29/2010 12:33:36 PM |

    I have to say: On my old "American" diet, my LDL was 155, on a 20% fat diet, it was 113, and on a 10% fat diet, it was 95.

  • Jan

    6/29/2010 1:00:02 PM |

    Oh, my.  Well, I don't do any of these things any longer, so that's good.  However, I recently switched to natural sea salt after reading Sally Fallon's Nourishing Traditions, which is not fortified with added iodine.  Should I go back to the processed, bleached stuff?  I really don't want to, so how should I make sure I get enough iodine?

  • Matt Stone

    6/29/2010 1:28:08 PM |

    I would've kept my high-fat diet going for heart health, but I got tired of having chest pains.

  • Beth

    6/29/2010 5:03:42 PM |

    @Jan: No way, never go back to regular table salt. Stick with the good stuff. We have used Redmond's for years now and I was happily surprised when I first visited our new family doc and saw an empty Redmond's bag on his desk. I asked him why he had it there and he said it's the only salt he recommends to all his patients. My nurse (part of the same practice) actually told me to mix a tsp. of Redmond's in a glass of water each day for my thyroid. I also take supplemental iodine... and Vit.D because we live so far north we don't get much natural D absorption here, something about the angle of the rays.

  • Peter

    6/29/2010 7:56:04 PM |

    Pretty much I follow your advice but it seems like there are lots of indigenous cultures that eat unrefined carbs and seem to be much healthier than us.

  • Anonymous

    6/29/2010 9:53:05 PM |

    So what about Okinawa, Sardinia, Costa Rica and other places where little meat is consumed?  How do they live to be 100?

  • Linda

    6/29/2010 10:03:31 PM |

    In Okinawa they eat a lot of pork and cook everything in lard.

  • Anonymous

    6/29/2010 10:44:32 PM |

    I eat breakfast cereal because it's the simplest thing to prepare. All I need to do is mix milk and cereal and I'm done. In my half awake state, I funnel it into my tummy and I'm done.

    What is a good substitute for cereal that follows this beautiful simplicity? Help me check #3 off the list.

    -- Boris

  • Anonymous

    6/29/2010 11:27:40 PM |

    Dr. Davis,

    With respect to iodine, do you have any feelings regarding the use of granulated kelp?  For a while I had toyed with the idea of mixing it in a shaker with the seal salt I use, however the issue of arsenic levels made me hesitant to go that route.

    -Robert Daly

  • Anonymous

    6/30/2010 12:59:41 AM |

    @praguestepchild.  Well I can see by your picture that you are male.  For  50% of the population, menstruation might be a possible regular blood loss event. Just sayin'

  • Lori Miller

    6/30/2010 2:26:57 AM |

    My mother has #11: have your grown children live with you.

    I didn't tell her that #12, in susceptible individuals, is to live with your parents.

  • Lori Miller

    6/30/2010 2:57:56 AM |

    Re: iodine, I eat dulse, a wild Atlantic sea vegetable (read: seaweed). Properly prepared, it tastes good to me. To rehydrate it, I put it in a sealed container with salad overnight.

    The package says a 1/3 cup serving has 780% of the RDA of iodine and only 3g of carb, 2g of which are fiber.

  • Anonymous

    6/30/2010 8:26:59 AM |

    Please submit a clarification or list of what one SHOULD DO (instead ) DO rather than the list of things here - I'm completely confused now! - I'd like some sort of explanation  - I want to ensure that I have an excellent lipid profile, low cholesterol and low risk or neglible heart disease and atherosclerosis, what SHOULD one do ???

  • mongander

    6/30/2010 10:05:52 AM |

    While I don't use Dr Esselstyn's diet I'm impressed that 100s of his heart disease patients have totally avoided repeat heart attacks by avoiding animal fat.  This record goes back decades.  I've taken Dr Davis' advice and generally avoid wheat (except for a little wheat germ) but I see nothing wrong with unprocessed grains for most people.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYTf0z_zVs0&feature=channel

  • Anonymous

    6/30/2010 1:49:46 PM |

    Anon,

    If you read this blog on a regular basis, you'd know what to DO.
    DO your homework!

    Jeanne

  • Anonymous

    6/30/2010 4:42:32 PM |

    Love to get your take on this Dr. Davis: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38007231/ns/health-diabetes/

  • Kent

    6/30/2010 7:27:05 PM |

    Dr Davis,

    Speaking of heart attacks, a friend of mine's wife is in the hospital as we speak with heart attack symptoms. (Chest pains, numbness in arm, sweating, etc).  She is only 42 years old. They have been running a series of tests including the tropinin test from the sounds of what he describes, which has been flutuating up and down to high of 13. They have done a Catheter Angiography amd say everything "looks fine", with no blockages, and say they are puzzled at this point. They don't want to release her due the the chest pains and tropinin test and are considering tranferring her to another hospital.  Any ideas? also, does the cardio angiography rule out plaque blockages?

    Thanks!
    Kent

  • Anonymous

    6/30/2010 10:57:53 PM |

    What's wrong with yogurt?

  • Anonymous

    7/1/2010 12:06:34 AM |

    Hey folks,
    I see that the moderator side of things for this blog appears to have gone away in that posts appear straight away.  No doubt some culling will occur.

    For those who are new, check out this blog for key items such as Vitamin D, Vitamin K2, LDL particle size (making the distribution mode larger),  HDL (increasing it), effect of Niacin on LDL and tryglycerides (dropping), impact of low fat/high carbs diets on type II diabetes, Iodine impact on thyroid function and finally Omega 3/fish oil intake.

    All this info is on this blog or you can download an interview of Dr Davis with Jimmy Moore of http://livinlavidalowcarb.com

    As someone mentioned, you should do your own homework, and make your decision on what is best

    other sources, Baylor College's www.lipidsonline.org  and the Med journal Circulation, eg http://www.circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/99/4/591 tells you about antioxidants.

    This blog, IMHO, is a good motivator and launch point for literature research.  If you need more hand holding then spring for the TYP subscription, what is your health worth to you?.  Personally, I am fine with the web and that has given me the confidence I need to chose diet and ask questions of my FP.

    I take a 20mg statin with 2.5g Niacin (most effective combination to lower trigs and reduce CAD event...See lipidsonline.org ), I eat mostly vegetarian but some fish. I have steered away from high amounts of wheat, based on information presented in this blog, and lowered my exposure to PUFAs based on Chris Masterjohn's blog (http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Vegetarianism.html .  Vitamin D3 normalization (8000IU),  3g DHA/EPA and 120mu vitamin K2 round out the preventative measures for me personally,  Some other folks will swear by their approach. One size does not fit all.  Make an informed decision based on a dialog with your doctor.  

    be healthy, not paranoid
    Trevor

  • Dr. William Davis

    7/1/2010 1:19:29 AM |

    Lori--

    I love your numbers 11 and 12!


    Jamie--

    My comment about multivitamins was not meant to bash multivitamins per se. People often say to me, "I don't need to take vitamin D, fish oil, magnesium, iodine, etc. because I already take a multivitamin."

    It is folly to believe that you can obtain all you need from a multivitamin. It would have to be the size of a golf ball.

  • Anonymous

    7/1/2010 2:05:10 AM |

    Trevor again..... one other good source for nubbies

    http://dhaomega3.org

    Dr Bruce Holub University of Guelph

    shows biggest risk factors for all-cause morbidity (1st smoking, 2nd high blood pressure). 70% higher risk of CAD event from the combination of High Trigs and low HDL.... DHA/EPA Omega3 is key to lowering risk factors

  • Anonymous

    7/1/2010 2:22:09 AM |

    @ Trevor

    Wonderful summation Trevor. Most of the answers are here in Dr. Davis' blog.  With your dose of Statin, why aren't you taking CoQ10?

  • Ed Terry

    7/1/2010 1:19:20 PM |

    I recently saw a cardiologist to get an order for a second EBCT and I explained to him how I increased my HDL from 32 to 71.  I could see that he didn't have a frame of reference for processing that information.  He also commented on how all he knew about nutrition was what he learned in medical school.  I simply remarked "I understand".  I don't think he meets many well-informed patients.

    He also didn't think it was possible to reduce the calcium score.  Assuming he follows the ten rules listed by Dr. Davis, I think it's safe to say he never will.

  • Anonymous

    7/1/2010 4:02:39 PM |

    @ Ted,
    I hear you. That was a pretty dumb move by AstraZeneca.  Healthy people with no risk profile should not take any drugs "just in case".  

    Combination therapy of niacin and statin lowers the risk on CAD events by almost 90%

    @ Anon,
    I have used CoQ10 at the suggestion of my family physician.  But not so convinced of the need/expenditure.
    Trevor

  • Anonymous

    7/1/2010 5:16:36 PM |

    [citations needed]

  • Anonymous

    7/2/2010 5:49:09 PM |

    6 months ago after following a vegan diet my HDL had dropped to 21 and triglycerides were at 256. Now, with low-carb, niacin, vitamin d and fish oil HDL is at 61 with triglycerides at 98.

  • yvonne manecke

    7/3/2010 2:48:12 AM |

    What about people with the APOe 3/4 genetics? I was told by Berkley Labs that fish oils actually do the reverse for people like me. I  have had a 3 way bipass, am 52 yrs. old and can't get my HDL up past 32, even with 1500 mg niaspan. On an extremly low fat diet LDL went down to 76 but HDL didnt go up. What should a person do if they have hyperlipidemia and are APOe 3/4?

  • Yvonne Manecke

    7/3/2010 2:56:02 AM |

    Dr. Davis
    I sure wish I could find the truth for Apoe 3/4 people. I get conflicting reports about fats. I have spent the last 3 mo. researching and can see that your info is good for most people. What about us? I know that efa's are important to help ward off alzheimers, but I have been told that I can't process them and should count them in my daily fat allowance. Also Berkleys research showed that omega 3 helped all heart patients except APOe 3/4. What am I going to do? Yvonne

  • Dr. William Davis

    7/4/2010 1:10:42 AM |

    Hi, Yvonne--

    We will be having some conversations about the influence of Apo E genetics on dietary considerations in a future Track Your Plaque discussion.

  • Urgent Care California

    7/6/2010 8:35:40 AM |

    Your tips are really great. Thanks for sharing such a great post.

  • Olive Kaiser

    7/8/2010 4:20:40 AM |

    For the question about cereal for breakfast, use cooked brown rice or other whole grain cereal, gluten free if necessary.  Put it in the crock pot overnight with grass fed pastured milk, butter, honey and nutmeg or cinnamon.  Or crock pot it with delicious bone broth and some animal fat.  Add some lovely pastured cream and butter in the morning and a few bananas or berries, depending on the flavors you have going.  In the morning, just spoon it up and enjoy.  

    Next day if you have time, after it congeals in the frig, slice and saute it in bacon fat or butter until the edges are crispy.  Serve with a couple of over easy pastured soy free eggs.   MMMM!

  • gart

    8/4/2010 1:26:46 PM |

    Dear Dr. Davis,

    I'm new to your blog, which I find very interesting and full of what appears to be insightful comments and recommendations. I also find your "unorthodox" stance in many issues very refreshing. I would like to know:
    1.have you published research backing the advice you give on your blog?
    2. have your work been peer reviewed?
    3. could you, please, let me know where I can find them?

    Thanks in advance for your help.

  • Gart

    8/15/2010 8:45:17 AM |

    Dr. Davis,

    I really appreciate it if you could provide an answer to my previous comment regarding research backing your advice.

    Thanks!

  • gart

    8/20/2010 11:03:39 AM |

    Dear Dr. Davis,

    I'm extremely disappointed you haven't answered my question regarding your research, either in this forum or via e-mail. I want to give you the benefit of the doubt, otherwise I would have to conclude that your advice is baseless and does not carry any scientific weight.

  • thorfalk

    3/16/2011 1:00:57 PM |

    most of the stuff makes sense, but what is the issue with multi vitamins?

Loading