Our family has had great results in regarding upper respiratory infections since getting our Vit D levels up to an optimal level (over 60 ng/ml).  While we sometimes do come down with a mild cold, the symptoms are now very short-lived and mild.  If we raise our Vit D dose by 50% for a few days at the first sign of a cold, the illness seems to stall and go away within 2-4 days.

I've actually never had an influenza virus illness that I know of and only 1 flu shot about 8 years ago.  Other than my usual practices to maintain health, I don't plan to do anything different to avoid swine flu (even after visiting the home of one of my neighbors, who was exposed to one of the confirmed San Diego Swine flu cases - the single mother couldn't send the sick child to school, so she brought her to work).

Truly amazing, the scope and reach of the benefits of adequate levels of Vitamin D!  Even more amazing is that we are only now (recent years) are learning how essential Vitamin D is, while, sadly, adequate Vitamin D supplementation has not yet become part of main stream practice.

As it is too early, not much is known yet about the current swine flu virus.   It is worrisome that it has been fatal for many people.  Interestingly, the deaths generally occur in the age group from 20 to 65 years old.  Could it be possible that these are the hard working folks who nearly spend every day-light hour inside office buildings and factories - no getting sun-light ---> not producing Vitamin D in their skins?   If Vitamin D shortfall is the critical risk factor, then this suggests a causal relationship could be identified?

This post is a bit simplistic.

I have been supplementing with Vitamin D for 1.5 years and my levels tested to where the medical enthusiasts for Vitamin D recommend it be.

I've still come down with two nasty respiratory viruses over the past year.

One of the other credentialled health bloggers I read suggests the exact opposite--the high levels of inflammation may protect against the flu.

I don't think any of us know enough to make a call on this. The fatal 1918 flu killed people who had a robust immune response. It was that immune response that caused the pulmonary edema that killed them.

The way everyone is grabbing onto this possible epidemic to support whatever their prized ideology might be, be it political or health-oriented gives a lot of insight into human nature but very little into how to deal with an emerging threat.

The World Health Organization raised its global alert level on the spreading swine flu virus Monday, but stopped short of declaring a global ...on swine flu worldwide

I read that the reason why mostly young adults died in the 1918 flu pandemic was because their 'healthier' immune systems produced a “cytokine storm” which killed them whereas the weaker immune systems of young children and elderly people did not respond so. Where does that leave all of us with good immune systems then ? I've not had a cold for three years ! I don't want a “cytokine storm” reaction !

Anne

I agree with the cytokine storm threat for the newly emerging viruse strains of the H1N1 virus and also the H5N1 virus.

But if you believe the information out there, most people didn't die of the swine flu during the 1918 epidemic. The majority of the enormous death toll from that epidemic was due to post viral/secondary streptococcus infection (a bacterial infection). So it really was the complications that killed them.

Of course, you could apply the chicken and egg rational here and say that the reason so many contracted pneumonia and strep is because their system was compromised by the fluid generated as a result of the viral infection...(i.e. the CS).

First reports of the H1N1 virus are that healthy people in their 20's and 30's are more likely to die from it than, say, old people who have lower D levels.  Might be better to stop vitamin D if the flu gets here and and the first reports turn out to be accurate.

Anne
Stoss Therapy from Dr CannellBiotech Pharmacal 50,000iuIf you prefer oil based D3 these capsules slide apart and you can dissolve the white powder Cholecalciferol in some fish oil.

There is some evidence that UV light and vitamin D levels are the seasonal factors that drive the winter flu epidemics. Not sure if this one may be a bit different, as it started in near tropical areas in the spring. But overall, there is good evidence that higher vitamin D leads to fewer respiratory infections.

Another nutrient of interest is n-acetylcysteine, an amino acid that increases glutathione and other anti-oxidant/anti-inflammatory systems in the body.

In this Italian study, twice a day acetylcysteine cut the symptoms of influenza by 2/3. The acetylcysteine group had just as many antibodies to the flu (indicating they were exposed) - but they were far less likely to go on to develop dis-ease from the virus, and when they did, it was usually much less intense.

One thing that I have yet to see reported in the media is the fact that Mexico City (the hot bed for deaths) has probably one of the worst air pollution problems in the world!  As this swine flu virus strongly involves the respiratory system, it should be no surprise that the already compromised lungs of these people can't handle it!  If there ARE deaths in the US (native citizens), watch them be centered in our most polluted cities!

I've just had an intestinal flu, despite my D levels being at 62ng/ml. My doctor said that it couldn't be swine because it wasn't respiratory.

On the other hand, before supplementing with D, I would get one or more upper respiratory infections (usually bacterial) per year, and I didn't have any this year.

StephenB

Jonathan Byron
Vitamin D3 also increases glutathione
The role of vitamin D in the mental health of older adults"Not just that paper
Dr Cannell Vitamin D council
has several links to other sources confirming Vit d upregulates glutathione.

I know it's only anecdotal but since I've raised my 25(OH)D no colds, no flu, no urinary tract infections (biggy for me as I must self catheterize 5 times daily and UTI's were persistent)

An NRI who flew to Hyderabad from Texas, the US state which reported the first swine flu death outside Mexico, was on Wednesday found to have the flu symptoms..
swine flu to hyderabad

Thanks for this POST!!!

Another reason to run around with no clothes on when the "SUN" is shining and warm. Free Vitamin D....

Has anyone done a study on nudist colonies, and the impacts of flu in these places...?

The fact that this started in Mexico and so far has only killed Mexicans doesn't support your vitamin D theory.  I'm not saying its wrong or that I don't take plenty of D myself, just that it's premature to conclude D prevents this thing.  Also, the first patient to die was a door-to-door tax collector, and probably got mucho sun.

Don't forget that getting sun does NOT necessarily mean that vitamin D has been activated sufficient to increase blood levels to the optimal range.

TedHutchinson wrote: "Anne Stoss Therapy from Dr CannellBiotech  etc"

Ted - I already take a high dose of vitamin D3 and my serum levels are fine and my immune system great - which is why I'm concerned about a  "cytokine storm”  which was what they think killed so many people in the 1918 flu epidemic. A "cytokine storm"  happens when people have a good immune system, like us with our good levels of D ! That's why the people with poor immune systems, the eldery and very young, survived the 1918 pandemic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cytokine_storm

Anne

Anne
If you clicked the links provided you would understand Dr Cannell was detailing how taking extremely large amounts of Vitamin D3 AT THE FIRST SIGN of flu MAY prevent the cytokine store.
That was why I also provided a link to a supplier of cheap 50,000iu D3.
I have raised my 25(OH)D to above 60ng. I think doing that will lower my chance of getting an upper respiratory tract infection but I also have a pot of 50,000iu/d3 in the cupboard and should things turn out worse than I expect I will follow Dr Cannell's suggestions to the letter.

I couldn't find a reference to cytokine storm in Dr Cannell's article first time but now I have clicked on one of the links it in and it led to a study about vitamin D and influenza which mentions preventing cytokine storm.  Thanks Ted....now I understand !

I located this reference document while visiting the Vitamin D Council's web-site, regarding Vitamin D and the Flu. Hope this gets widely circulated!

http://www.virologyj.com/content/5/1/29

You can find the links at their site under "Noteworthy News."

Swine Flu and Vitamin D — 30 April 2009

http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/

Here's an interesting post on cytokine storms & the flu.  This researcher on inflammation seems to have views much in line with Dr. Davis and TYP.

http://coolinginflammation.blogspot.com/2009/04/extreme-flu-remedies.html

Notwithstanding the excellent information that the heart scan blog provides, I think we should all be cautious in drawing conclusions based on singular/individual experiences.
Trevor

Increase your intake of vitamin C. Vitamin C not only boosts your immune system, but in higher dosages has been shown to be an antiviral as well. The recommendation is to dramatically increase your intake at the first sign you may have been exposed to the flu. Search for "the Vitamin C Foundation" to find an effective dosage for you.


You can get a complete Swine Flu guide at http://www.swineflurecommendations.com
Ensure you are getting enough vitamin E in your diet. There has been at least one clinical study completed that links adequate vitamin E intake with reduced viral activity. Studies have also shown there may be a link between vitamin E and a reduced duration and severity of flu symptoms.

I've gradually dialed up my vitamin D3 dose over the last 8 years. Motivated by  hope of reducing my prostate cancer risks.
I started at 2000 IU per day which dose didn't stop all my colds and flu episodes but since I reached 6000 (or more) I've had neither illness. I only take the larger dose during the Autumnn
and Winter months and on those days
when I miss the midday spring and summer sun. YMMV I suppose it still could be chance but so far so good.

Dwight

Regarding cytokine storms:  Vitamin D3, as 1-25(OH)D3 aka, "calcitriol" is said to modulate the immune response (in part) by way of upregulating the production antimicrobial peptides known as cathelicidins, and to a lesser degree, beta-defensin (cathelicidins are strongly expressed along the epethelial lining of the lung, for those interested in D3 and respiratory infections). This *does not* mean that taking vitamin D3 will increase the strength of the immune system's inflammatory response.  The opposite is the case:  vitamin D *increases* the production of anti-inflammatory cytokines and *decreases* the production of pro-inflammatory cytokines, thereby throttling down the Th1 mediated immune response.  Think of it this way, you're out in the sun for a while, your skin becomes a bit red.. the body's response is to lower the tendency towards greater inflammation, while simultaneously upregulating the production of antimicrobial peptides that work by effectively cleaving bacteria and virus apart like a pair of scissors to paper.  Antimicrobial peptides do not work by way of releasing an oxidative burst in the way the Th1 mediated response works!  The immune system is far too complex to simply characterize it's behavior with words such as "strong" or "weak" - there is a whole lot more going on under the hood than such a simplistic view allows.

Dr. Cannell has some info to that effect (anti-inflammatory characteristics of Vit D and flu-induced cytokines) in the newsletter that went out yesterday or today.

I have been taking 5000iu a day of D3. My level is 23.9 so my GP wants me to take 50,000 D3 twice a week for 4 weeks and then once per week. I'm wondering if this much should be just to get the level up and then take a higher dose each day. And I'm looking for a higher dose gelcap of D3. Would appreciate others thoughts on this.

H1N1 (referred to as "swine flu" early on) is a new influenza virus causing illness in people. Symptoms of swine flu are similar to those caused by other influenza viruses. Health authorities across the globe are taking steps to try to stem the spread of swine flu after outbreaks in Mexico and the United States. The World Health Organization has called it a "public health emergency of international concern."

Maybe in certain circumstances - like  being exposed to am infection such as swine flu - ingesting vitamin D is good for you. I still have to wonder - why is the amount made in a day of full body exposure to strong sunlight limited to 10,000IU in the first 20 minutes. Moreover that is just one way the potential levels of D are prevented from affecting blood levels; a high proportion of  ingested vitamin D is excreted in the bile according to Vieth.

Somewhere along the line there's  a net disadvantage to constant high levels I think.
Mad dogs and ....

On Monday morning an Arkia airlines plane took off from Ben Gurion Airport carrying rabbis and kabbalists and flew over the country in a flight aimed at preventing the swine flu virus from spreading in Israel through prayers.

Thanks for sharing the information. I am very amazed at the confidence level of you guys, so i have to

refer your blog to my friends because it’s really a help full blog.
Good Day

Cheers

I think that Swine flu is a very concerning topic which everyone should take part of it because it if affecting all of us. The time to do something has already come.

Personally, I used to suffer through 2 or 3 episodes of a runny nose, sore throat, hacking cough, fevers and feeling crumby every winter. Over the last 3 years since I’ve supplemented vitamin D, I haven’t been sick even once. The past two years I didn’t bother with the flu vaccine, since I suspected that my immunity had been heightened: no flu either winter.

Your blog is really very best and useful for all , I amusing this site from a long time .

Here’s a token for your efficiency and the hard work you put in your articles. I just love to read it.Thank You a ton for writing such a wonderful piece of information.

On Sept. 10 I stopped my consumption of wheat containing foods and multi-grain rice crackers. Two weeks later I began having aching elbows which have not bothered me for years. I'm a 65 yr old male, thin with a bit of a 'wheat belly'  which is shrinking but my muscle mass is also shrinking. Have you heard of anyone experiencing changes in joints after stopping wheat and grains?

That math isn't right and it is pretty misleading because a person who ate 400 more calories per day would gain weight up until they reached an equilibrium. It would be better to use something like the Harris Benedict equation to get a sense of how bad that is.

I did that for a six foot 180 pound male who is 30 years old who is lightly active. Such an individual would maintain their weight at about 2246 calories per day. If they instead consumed 2646 calories per day, you would expect their weight to top off at about 244.7 pounds after some period of time. About a 65 pound gain, so nothing to sneeze at.

Hi, Keenan--

I've only seen relief from arthritis, not a triggering of arthritis. That's strange.

Of course, we are all subject to conditions that fall outside of wheat. It will be interesting to see whether this persists.

Thanks, David.

Yes, this was hardly a scientific analysis, just an argument to graphically illustrate what we are battling.

This would be actionable advice across the Atlantic in the UK, where the Health Minister landed himself in a controversy this week by annoucing the Brits need to cut 5 billion calories off their annual diet.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2048738/Jamie-Oliver-blasts-Andrew-Lansleys-plan-tackle-obesity.html

I couldn't post this below about the drug companies.  

While I agree that a person should not be made to take medications against their will, what am I to do for a patient with a blood pressure of 220/110, on several occasions?  I have had a few.  They refused meds, and also refused to make any diet or lifestyle changes that may have helped.  While I haven't discharged any patients because of this, I do make sure they know the potential consequences of severe hypertension, including death.  Or worse, complete paralysis on one side, requiring total care.  Sometimes it's a matter of lesser evils.

More of my patients want the  pills, because they are unwilling to do anything else to help their condition, even though I encourage them, and offer referrals for further education.  I hear it's too complicated, or their insurance won't cover it and it's too expensive.  I doubt I could make a living in my community without a prescription pad.  I wish I could!  I'll keep trying.

Just a heads up (although you may have already seen it) is that Gillian Riley, the UK expert on food addiction/breaking out of overeating, recommended WHEAT BELLY in her October newsletter. http://www.eatingless.com/archive-newsletters.html#

I've often recommended Ms. Riley's books--EATING LESS ; BEATING OVEREATING; and WILLPOWER!--to fellow hyperconditioned overeaters.

Not eating wheat/sugar  sure helps in the "not overeating" dept. And Gillian is on board with that.

Love your site doctor, but this is a terribly naive and simplistic approach. Calorie numbers are irrelevant, it's the kind of calories. Yes, I understand that the 400 you mention would most likely be 400 calories of additional carbs, but calories in/calories out don't determine weight now, do they?

Really shouldn't post anything reinforcing the outdated but still omnipresent "calorie equilibrium" theory (fairy tale is more like it) of weight gain.

Otherwise, keep up the good work.

I guess that explains pretty clearly why I've been able to lose about 40 lbs so far in 9 months...

If you live in the Northerm hemisphere Vitamin D levels drop from September through to March unless effective strength supplementation is implemented.
Also 65yrs old the natural production of the antinociceptive, anti-inflammatory, antibiotic, antioxidants melatonin and vitamin d will have declined (by age 75 only 25% of vit d capacity is possible if sufficient 7-dehydrocholesterol remains in skin) so everyone becomes far more sensitive to pain/inflammation (and infection).  You can replace the missing Vitamin D3, melatonin with at least 5000iu/D3/oil based gelcap and 3mg Time Release melatonin (Also pay strict attention to improving natural melatonin secretion by using Flux getting outdoors midday and total darkness while asleep. ) Search this site for good Vitamin D3 & Melatonin information.

A few months ago I did an experiment and cut all wheat and sugar out of my diet.

That is, if it would contain even a trace amount I would not touch it. I managed to follow this approach for two months, I didn't measure my food intake but my body fat dropped quite a lot and I could see much more muscle definition, especially in my abdominal area.

Personally I think sugar and wheat are the two main contributors to obesity, and I think the "minimum effective dose" for optimal health would be to remove those two ingredients completely. And of course that doesn't allow any room for "cheat meals" like some people think.

Well said, Chris.

I agree. In particular, I find that no wheat is far better than less wheat. I believe this is mostly due to the appetite-triggering effect of wheat gliadin.

Good to see you here, Rieland!

@Ted
I am also living in the Northern Hemisphere [Iowa] and do not get nearly as much sunshine as I should.I tend to be a hermit and spend most of my day inside.  Also over 65. I am taking 5000 IU a day of Vit D, gelcaps.
Without a lot of testing, is there a way to determine if I should take more and, if so, how much. My biggest concern is tightness in the hip area every morning.

Well, Corey, allow me to elaborate on my "terribly naive and simplistic approach."

This is clearly not a scientific analysis, but a simple effort to illustrate what happens with simple math what could theoretically happen with an additional 400 calories per day intake but ignoring all other factors, such as proportion fat vs. carbohydrates.

So of course this is simplistic. It just makes the point that the increased calorie consumption triggered by wheat gliadin has potentially huge effects.

Good to have friends in this battle, Princess!

We are up against the incredible financial and lobbying might of vertically-integrated Agribusiness and Big Food, who have billions of dollars to allocate on lobbying, marketing, and pushing their agenda. We have social media, the internet, and our wits.

Hi, Dr. Teresa--

That's all you can do: Keep on trying.

I'm impressed that you DO try, since most of our colleagues pay no mind whatsoever to even considering genuinely effective dietary changes.

Hi, Philippa--

Let's see: England, population 51 million times 400 calories per day, times 365 days per day, equals 7.446 x 10,000,000,000,000 calories, or several thousand times more than the Health Minister proposes.

5 billion calories would be child's play.

I don't think there is any way anyone can accurately predict their 25(OH)D level either from uvb exposure or daily supplement usage. It depends on individual response. The banner graph at GRASSROOTSHEALTH.ORG shows for any regular daily intake the 25(OH)D achieved varies up to 100ng/ml. Taking 5000iu daily D3 only increases your chances of staying around 50ng/ml  but you could be anywhere between 20ng/ml and 120ng/ml without testing you can't know. After you've had a few tests you get to the point where you can predict the result but it's still worth retesting annualy to make sure nothing's changed. You should be able to find a 25(OH)D test for $60.

I eliminated sugar and wheat from my diet just from the observation that the food did not keep me full as long compared to other foods of same number of calories.  Not only led to weight loss but also eliminated my ocassional GERD as well as frequent stomach discomfort.  Now I have even more reasons to stay off the stuff and now being 95% wheat free (indulge in ocassional small portion of dessert) I no longer crave these foods and feel great.

How about "Skinny Guy Weight Loss"? (I didn't feel right calling you "Fat Guy . . .")

It's such a simple formula for returning to health. I, personally, experienced relief from the same gastrointestinal effects. With any small indulgence, I am provided a graphic reminder of how it used to be.

Stay strong. Your body will be grateful!

I took 7 eggs, spinach leaves torn up small, cut up green and blond peppers, and dropped them all in my cast iron pan on the stove top with some bacon grease.  It would have got some sausage, bacon, ham, and/or onion but I didn't have any.  I called it an omelet but I think it would taste a lot like the quiche here.  (ate it all by myself so needless to say, i'm not hungry and wont be eating lunch)

I always shy away from this type of thing, thinking of the oxidation that is occurring with the cholesterol in the eggs.   Is this unreasonable to consider, when contemplating eggs that have been in my fridge, scrambled, for days?   Same reason, I don't eat scrambled eggs on hotel buffet lines - also with those there is a higher likelihood that the eggs were made from powdered, also oxidized, fats.

I'm with Jonathan. fried eggs > baked eggs. baking eggs makes them spongy.

Matt B - I'm not sure I follow. Surely sealing the eggs away from the air in a tight container fixes this.

My favorite breakfast: deconstructed omelet

1-2 eggs
finely diced veggies
spices
butter or lard
water or broth

Melt 2T butter or lard in a fry pan on medium heat.
Add spices and let cook for a couple minutes to bring out the flavor.  If you have minced onion or garlic, add these now.
Add enough water or broth to cover the bottom of the pan, about 1/8 to 1/4 cup.  
Add the veggies and cook for 2-5 minutes, until just softened and the color bright.
Push the veggies to the side of the pan, add a little water, broth, or cooking fat if necessary and drop 1-2 eggs in the middle of the pan.  Cover and the eggs should set in 2-4 minutes.  
Layer the veggies on the bottom of a plate and top with the eggs or serve them side by side.

If you don't want to bother with veggies, eggs cooked in chicken broth and/or lard are delicious!  The egg whites soak up the flavor of the cooking liquid.

Eggs got a bad rap in the 80s and 90s for having too much cholesterol. Should we not worry about ingestion of cholesterol as much as creation of cholesterol in the liver? I could eat eggs 4x a day, and lots of them each time if it doesn't spike my numbers.

-- Boris

@n, I believe some oxidation would occur with the exposed yolks.  It's never going to be air tight.  Are my concerns totally unfounded?  

http://www.cheeseslave.com/2009/08/28/what-passes-for-food-in-america/  

@Boris, I am all for consuming cholesterol, just not oxidized cholesterol.  My breakfast many days is 3 hard boiled eggs with butter

If I pre-cook eggs, I only do it hard boiled.   fried eggs >>>>> baked eggs, but when I'm trying to get out the door by 5:30, fried don't work so well

Hi,
Would someone please explain the "oxidation" your speaking of?
Thank you.
Tom

I just tried the recipe with most of the same ingredients .... delicious!
I think this will work with most any veggies.  I'm looking forward to experimenting.
One note: I baked it in an uncovered dish.  It was just a bit watery on the bottom.  I think it would have been more so in a covered dish.

hi dr davis.

you've done amazing coverage for wheat. would you consider exploring the murky world of milk as well?

it will be great to have some clarification on that too!

For convenience, we bake them in mini-muffin pans and freeze them in single serving bags.

has this turned into a recipies site?

Sally Fallon says scrambling eggs does NOT oxidize the cholesterol:

http://kellythekitchenkop.com/2009/05/oxidized-cholesterol-sally-fallon-answers-a-reader-question.html

According to F. Guadiola et el in the book "Cholesterol and Phytoisterol Oxidation Products: Analysis Occurance, and Biological Effects." pg 129, Eggs that are fried and boiled have been reported to have oxidized cholesterol.

You can preview this in google books.

I guess I'm a little lost.  I just signed up for TYP to read articles and forum posts, with many of the articles alluding that it is best to keep saturated fat low, but these blog posts seem to contradict that?

Changing or evolution of ideas?

Most health advice says to lower Sat. fat intake.  That was based on some really crappy science and number fudging.  Books such as ones by Uffe Ravnskov and many others tear that science to bits.  The more cholesterol and Sat. fat you eat, the less the body makes.  It's pretty well regulated.  The reason it goes up in the first place is because it is protective.  It's used to repair the body.  It went up because wheat consumption and too many carbs raised the abrasive sugar in you veins and caused inflammation for which the cholesterol has to fix.  Fixing the inflammation lowers the cholesterol.
Eating sat fat (most of the fats we use as replacements are high in inflammation causing Omega 6) also helps raise you HDL while the LDL will go down or at least change to a fluffy pattern.  Totals shouldn't be 200 or less like they say now.  240 is quite normal and people with 600 live really long normal lives.

I think baking them doesn't make them spongy as much as the whisking them before you put them in there.  I still prefer them skillet scrambled.

Thanks for the insight Jonathan.  I'm an ER/ICU nurse of 15 years with a few years of Nutrition studies before I went to nursing school.  Unfortunately, my brain is now just ridding itself of it's current dogma as I research this new 'trend' and approach.  

I've been spending about 7 hours a day (I'm working in a slow ER;)) reading this site, and others like it.  Great resource and amazing how we got lead down the wrong path for the last 30 some odd years.

I've been eating low carb for the last months, and I started experiencing realy bad muscle aches teh day after workouts. Like I feel my triceps and chest are burning under the skin.
So after last workout I added some extra carbs and aches are gone.
so the question is... how do you deal with muscle aches on a low carb diet?

The Egg bake looks like an interesting recipe. I just bought two dozen eggs and am readying the kitchen. Can't wait to try it. Thanks for the post and Lisa for the idea!

Dear Dr. Davis,

This blog is full of statements and advice that seem to seek to debunk conventional, established thinking about heart issues. Given that we are talking about extremely serious matters, do you not think that the least you can do is to let us know whether:

1. You have published research backing the advice you give on your blog,
2. Your work has been peer reviewed and
3. Where to find them.

By not doing so, every reader of your blog will feel entitled to utter totally unsubstantiated statements such  as these two in this post: "That was based on some really crappy science and number fudging" (Jonathan) or "my brain is now just ridding itself of it's current dogma" (Anonymous).

^^^^

we are all the peers of each other here and have reviewd this advise by testing it on ourselves.

you are welcome to be a 'peer reviewer' yourself and 'report' your 'findings' through a simple comment on this blog.

lets keep the bureaucracy and red tape out, and figure out for ourselves what works.

learn to listen to your body, that is the best peer review!

Muscle aches.  Hmm...  I get sore after HIT but always though I was supposed to.  I only lift once a week though so I have plenty of time to replenish stores of glucose.  You my want to add some fruit like a peach or apple post work out (shouldn't need much) along with some post workout protein.

Conventional thinking has to be right because it is conventional.  So a drug manufacturer sponsors a trial, they work the numbers to match what they thought it should say, hand this screwed up data to a peer panel that never tested this stuff themselves, and now it is accurate "peer reviewed" advice to give to 100% of the people on this planet.
I'll stick to thought that God knew what he was doing when we were created and that our bodies have cholesterol for a reason.  If saying I believe in God makes me unscientific, I don't care.  I know what works for me (lost 70 lbs and counting, sugar is under control, can do 5+ mile hikes in the mountains even though I'm still 285 lbs, no longer take Prilosec at all, and feel strong as an ox).
If it was two of us low-carbers finding improvements in health then maybe there would be room for dispute but we are thousands strong.
Why is it the people how actually find what works have to prove themselves and the people who push ideas that haven't worked in 40 years get to stand and point fingers.  I believe in what I learn myself, not what is forced upon me.

Really!...Do you subscribe to Pal & Jonathan statements, Dr. Davis?

I find it odd that requests for publications and references comes in a recipe post.

Point taken. This is also a blog, not an encyclopedia. While I try to point out the science where it exists and is appropriate, much of what I say here is based on personal observations, not always quantified. That's why I call it The Heart Scan Blog, not The Heart Scan Encyclopedia.

The Guadiola book from 2002 referred to by anon above is very interesting.

From the table on p125 of cholesterol oxidation product in egg products:

pasturized, uncooked egg - 3 ug/g
fried 1 min - 84
fried 3 min - 124
boiled 3 min - 128
boiled 10 min - 203

I wonder what effect temp has on these numbers. That is, cooking at a temp lower that boiling or what you'd trypically fry an egg at.

My point exactly, Dr. Davis. If your blog were about recipes and cookery, I wouldn't have even bothered to raise the issue. As far as I know, cookery has not reached the status of science ...not yet anyway!

According to your own profile in this blog, you practise cardiology, and so one imagines that both your writings and opinions are informed by scientific methods. And when that is not the case, and when what you are providing is an opinion, even if it is an informed opinion, it is your professional duty to let your readers know that what you are saying is, in your own words, based on personal observations.

And that is perfectly legitimate, you are of course entitled to your own opinions. But when what you write about and the comments you make might have a impact on the health of those readers who trust your opinions, because you are a practising cardiologist, then your opinions must adhere to scientific principles. And if what you say and write about has not been scientifically demonstrated, then you should expressed it unambiguously.

I have a serious heart condition, and believe you me, when it comes to life or death matters, I do not consult the cookery pages. Nor do I seek advice from an astrologer either.

^^^

you have a serious heart condition because of your trust in 'scientific principles' which is how it should be.

but sir what do you mean by that phrase? just complex sounding gibberish stretched and distorted through endless loops of political and monetary  interets called the 'peer review' process?

you are welcome to unravel the heart mysteries here yourself but do let Dr Davis share his observations without choking this channel for others by your demands for your version of the 'peer review' process!

i like the simple and effective approach here!

Thanks!

Anon said "I have a serious heart condition, and believe you me, when it comes to life or death matters, I do not consult the cookery pages. Nor do I seek advice from an astrologer either."

Last time I checked this wasn't the doctor's office.

Either you're a troll or you haven't grasped the concept of a blog.

@Anonymous:

You obviously have a need for "authoritarian" documentation to sooth your inability to think for yourself.  Why do you continue to post here other than to stir up contoversy and post snide Ad Hominums?
Clearly you are trolling, and that says all that needs be said about your pompous and officious personality.
I for one will now ignore you and I hope that everyone else will also.
Take your pathetic and disengenuous comments somewhere with your own kind where you can all feed on each other's tiny egos, and mean and nasy outlooks on everything.
No one asked you to come here, so leave.  You bring nothing of value to the discussions here.

I have nothing against the blog. You are free to think whatever you want and your beliefs are not my concern. Just do not try to present as a fact what is just an opinion. At least Jonathan, one of your neighbours a couple of comments before yours, is more candid when he says: "I'll stick to thought that God knew what he was doing when we were created and that our bodies have cholesterol for a reason." I rest my case.

Jonathan said:
"Eating sat fat (most of the fats we use as replacements are high in inflammation causing Omega 6) also helps raise you HDL while the LDL will go down or at least change to a fluffy pattern. Totals shouldn't be 200 or less like they say now. 240 is quite normal and people with 600 live really long normal lives."

Dr. Davis said in an older post:

"If, on the other hand, your small LDL is genetically programmed, then saturated fat will increase small LDL.  In other words, saturated fat tends to increase the dominant or genetically-determined form of LDL. If your dominant genetically-determined form is small, then saturated fat increases small LDL particles."

Dr Davis also mentioned somewhere (can't find it at the moment) that saturated fat causes inflammation.

So I'd say that there is still conflicting reports out there and moderation again wins the day.

Meanwhile in this post we have the suggestion to consume large amounts of eggs which contain saturated fat. Safe for everyone?

I am curious: just what consists of a typical day of  meals for you? And what is causes "oxidized ldl"?

About the muscle aches...

A little bit of soreness is to be expected, especially after a hard workout, change of routine, or starting a routine after a long break.  That said, if you're not consuming adequate calories, your body will use the protein for fuel instead of for repairing/rebuilding your muscles.  Carbohydrate will spare the protein (again, assuming adequate calories are consumed) as well as replace glycogen stores.  Try just bumping up your calories, but if you want to continue the carbs just make sure you consume a carb/protein snack within an hour of your workout and don't overtrain.

First off, LDL is not the horrible guy everybody thinks of it as.  You have to have it.  It has a job to do.  LDL helps fight infections as well as transport needed fuel through the blood.  You just want the bigger size pattern so it doesn't oxidize as quickly.
Sat fat consumption doesn't fix the pattern directly.  It allows for less calories from carbs which helps fix the pattern.  It does seem to help raise HDL no matter how the person's genetics create LDL.  Along with the less carbs causing lower Trig, the HDL to Trig ratio is much improved.
Your body stores excess as a high % of sat fat to burn later.  Which means in order to use those stores, you have to release it into the blood stream.  What's the difference in that and eating it?
As for inflammatory, I've not seen anything on it.  Doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  It might not be scientific and I'm just a layman, but if you put sugar on your tongue and rub it around it will get real sore.  Put some coconut oil on there and rub it around it will feel better.  So my opinion is that fat/cholesterol didn't cause the inflammation in the arteries, it's responding to it to fix it.

Dr. Davis is just one man with an opinion too.  He blogs those current thoughts.  They may change.  This site isn't a medical text book (and I still wouldn't 100% trust it if it were).  We can take away from him what we want to learn and believe.  We can read other people's opinions.  We can discuss; don't have to agree.  Knowledge only advances through disagreement.

If you want to attack my religion, fine by me.  Only tells me you have nothing to dispute my ideas with so you grasp at anything discrediting instead.  Why not call me fatty or dumb?  Bet you would think Albert Einstein as a good scientist but how many discredited him in their minds because he was weird or had strange hair.  Believe what you want to believe but think for yourself.

Well, I don't think Dr Davis was recommmending that you eat the entire 8 egg casserole at one sitting! Here's a link to eggs as it relates to heart disease.  You will need to copy and paste the link into your browser.  Full PDF available for free...
http://www.jacn.org/cgi/content/full/23/suppl_6/596S

Thanks for the link.  I got stuck on this part:
"However, population-based studies examining the association between egg consumption and serum cholesterol levels show either no association, or, paradoxically, an inverse association"

Jonathan, Jonathan. Your logic beggars belief. Now that you mention Einstein, he once said that there are two things that are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and that he wasn't sure about the universe.

Is it possible to have this troll who calls himself "anonymous" removed?
He's here only to stirr up trouble.

Jonathan, I'm not being argumentative, This is a serious inquiry. I learn a lot from this blog but I also learn a lot from sites and blogs that are in complete opposition, I take from everything. Personally the more information I get from all sides the more I end up middle of the road on my own path.

You said:
Sat fat consumption doesn't fix the pattern directly. It allows for less calories from carbs which helps fix the pattern.

Is this because the more fat/sat fat you consume the more satiated you become and it's just less room for carbs due to lack of hunger? If so then that doesn't work for everyone. I am at a good weight....maybe even thin...but I have a huge appetite. A person like me would could eat loads of sat fat and still consume a lot of carbs. What about a huge plate of pasta smothered in high fat meat sauce? Finish that meal with Italian pastries (nice cannolis) and fruit and I'd say that's a high fat and high carb disaster. The fat in that meal doesn't squeeze out the carbs then....does it?

I don't buy into the whole saturated fat nonsense and personally don't run and hide from saturated fat. I drink whole fat milk, I have Olive oil, I don't buy non fat products etc but at the same time I don't go crazy eating too much either. What is too much? I don't know but I just try not to get too crazy. But I also don't consume any processed refined carbs. No bread, wheat or sugar, no flour. Actually it would be hard for me to think of a food I eat that even has an ingredient label!! But I do eat brown rice and quinoa. Not huge amounts, but I eat them.

Thanks

Awesome.  Anonymous called me stupid.  

Tommy, I'm not meaning to attack you either.  I think you a prime example of why the government has no business giving dietary guidelines.  No one diet plan can fit 100% of the people.  You have to do what works for you.
What I meant is that if you drop calories in carbs you'll replace them in protein and fat.  I simply choose to eat more sat and the rest in mono and not increase protein.  The first time I tried Atkins I just focused on lowering carbs and I didn't make it too long.  This time around, I focused on low to now carb and increasing natural sat fat and trying to keep protein moderate.  I feel great now and have for the last 8 months.
Your high metabolism is interesting.  It's like you are very active athlete who may need some extra carbs to keep going.  Not saying grains are a good place to get them.  I would be curious how active you really are and I would be curious what a 70-80% fat content over a few weeks would do for your hunger (say your body releases insulin faster than others to protein or something).  Have you tried checking your blood sugar on an interval for a day?  Once my sugar stabilized (too me a couple of months to get real stable) my hunger when way down.  I guess I'm just mentally stuck on insulin being the normal culprit for messing with fat and sugar storage/usage and ultimately hunger causing.  I guess I should add my idea of high fat would be a day like: 4 eggs and bacon for breakfast and a cup of coffee with heavy cream, a salad with olive oil or left over pork chops or 4 hotdogs or fasting for lunch, and an untrimmed 7-9oz steak with butter on top and broccoli or asparagus sauteed in butter/coconut oil for supper.  I feel extra hungry sometimes and will have some cheese or more steak or something at supper.  I also try to vary the amount I eat like fasting some days and gorging others.  Eating carbs makes me more and more hungry (sometime delayed an hour); fat at the least doesn't make me more hungry.
Just my observations of what is working for me.

Here's the funny thing. If not for reading things on the internet I'd probably keep going thinking I was doing fine. I mean, basically I am. My weight is excellent. My bodyfat is good. I feel good, I'm in shape. My bloodwork is good and all is well. I could just leave it at that and keep going but the internet leaves me with questions all the time.  You know, I can get someone looking to lose weight and probably ask them "how they would like to do it." "Do you like carbs? There is a site that is very successful in their members losing weight consuming high carbs (Matt Stone). Do you like meat? There is a site that has huge numbers of followers losing weight eating lots of meat and animal fat (Mark Sisson). Do you like low fat? there are low fat diets that some swear by also.  How about high protein? (Michael Eades), What about traditional and middle road? (Sally Fallon)."
Then you have Atkins and like minded and McDougal and like minded. Everyone has followers who claim all the same beifits as the next guy on the opposite end. Weight loss, better numbers in bloodwork, more energy, less cavities, no joint aches and on and on.

There really are a lot of choices out there and a lot of conflicting information. I think my worst move was to gain a little knowledge...lol.

Thanks...interesting info.

I for one eat LOTS of saturated fat and my labs are all the proof I need to know they don't cause inflammation.  In fat, they definitely seem to lower it.  I don't follow anything on blind faith. "The proof is in the pudding".  And I dear friends, have never been healthier in my life.  Nor has my cholesterol and inflammation been lower.  Nay say all you want, but try it out and have a good hard look at your labs for the proof you need.

Thank you, Dr. Davis for reposting this so we can all view it more easily.