What is Cureality all about?


“Looking over your medical record, Nancy, I’m a bit concerned about your risk for osteoporosis and hip fracture. It looks like your mom had a hip fracture at age 67. Is that right? ”

“Yes, she did,” Nancy responded. “And her life was never quite the same for the 15 years she lived after that.

“You’re 53 year old. Bone thinning develops over many years. Let’s get you scheduled for a bone scan.”

Two weeks later:

“Your z-score is 1.5, Nancy. This means you’ve got a mild form of osteoporosis called ‘osteopenia.’ Here: This is a prescription for alendronate, what used to be called Fosamax.”

“Aren’t there side-effects with that drug? A friend of mine said that her mom had a leg fracture from it.”

“Well, yes. All prescription drugs have potential side-effects. They’re rare, but they can happen and we can’t predict it. Besides leg fracture, there’s something called jaw osteonecrosis in which the jawbone dies and has to be surgically replaced. But would you rather run the risk of a hip fracture?”

“Before we jump to drugs, aren’t there natural things I could do first?”

(Big sigh.) “You can take calcium, but that only helps a bit. You’ve got to make a choice: Take the drug or risk a hip fracture.”

“I’m going to explore some natural remedies on my own first.”

Nancy’s dialogue with her doctor is fictional but based on similar encounters that occur thousands of times every day nationwide. Identify a problem, prescribe a drug. Natural remedies? “They don’t work.” “I don’t know anything about that.” “None of that is proven.” “I only practice evidence-based medicine.” You’ve probably heard a few of these explanations yourself if you ever question the wisdom of conventional medical care.

Each of Nancy’s fictitious interactions were no more 10 minutes long. If she is like most people, she will have one or two such interactions over the course of a year, unless she develops some acute illness. So she’s got something like 20-30 minutes per year to compress all of her “health” advice into the time allotted. 20-30 minutes per year to discuss bone health, nutrition, blood sugar issues, cholesterol issues, blood pressure, female issues, and all the other facets of health. Perhaps she has developed some chronic gastrointestinal complaints, too, and an odd rash on her elbows, maybe headaches a few times per week that she didn’t have before. Regardless, she’s going to have to make do with those few minutes, likely receiving one or more prescriptions or imaging procedures for each.

Such is the nature of modern healthcare: Provide the minimum interaction, address only a few, perhaps no more than one, problem, then prescribe a drug. This is, more often than not, wrong. Plain wrong. Tragically, awfully, unethically, unnecessarily wrong.

Let’s pick up again with Nancy. Upon learning of her osteopenia and long-term risk for hip fractures of the sort that changed her mom’s life and health irretrievably, Nancy started searching for solutions. Not only did she discover that, yes, there are indeed a number of safe and effective ways to deal with osteopenia. She also learned that such strategies have even been examined in clinical trials, some of the strategies pitted head-to-head with drugs and performed on a par, sometimes better, than prescription drugs. She also found that there are online communities that she could join and discuss her health situation with people all sharing the same health interests. During one such interaction at the start of her effort, when she was still a bit unsure and tentative, a woman she didn’t know but who shared a similar interest in restoring bone health, commented to Nancy, “Don’t sweat it, Nancy. I was in your shoes a little over a year ago. I followed a program for bone health: vitamin D, vitamin K2, magnesium, I made sure that I included leafy green vegetables at least once or twice per day, and I added strength training for a few minutes twice per week. I started with osteoporosis. My most recent bone density test showed that I reversed it completely—it’s entirely normal! So hang in there and be sure to share your questions and concerns with us here.”

THAT is what Cureality is all about. Cureality fills the gap of knowledge in health that is not being provided in a few minute-long medical interaction. Cureality reveals the astounding amount of credible, safe, scientific information that allows you to participate, sometimes take over completely, various aspects of health. You don’t have to fire your doctor; these efforts supplement the information and advice you obtain (or don’t obtain) in the doctor’s office. While critics may sometimes say that this can be dangerous or that misdiagnoses and dangerous treatments might be risked, our experience is the exact opposite: People do better by taking the reins of health themselves, choosing to use the health care system for acute or catastrophic illness—but not necessarily for health.

Our fictional woman, Nancy, returns to her doctor one year later after undergoing a repeat bone scan. The doctor opened her chart, clearly expecting to scold her for her foolhardy and careless attitude. Instead, he was speechless. After a pause, he said, “I don’t know how you did it, but your bone density is now normal, the density of a healthy 30-year old woman. Just continue doing what you’re doing.” He closed the chart and walked out.

Yes: “Just continue what you are doing”—not “Please tell me what you did so that I might learn something new,” or “Where did you learn about such strategies? I knew nothing about this!” Just “do what you’re doing.” Too often, that is the response you get that defines what modern health care has become.

You don’t want that kind of health care. Sure, it’s reassuring to know that the doctor and hospital are there in case you injure yourself or develop pneumonia. But obtain day-to-day health advice of the sort that keeps you slender, keeps blood pressure normal, maintains normal insulin and blood pressure responses, helps keep bowel health ideal, can even be used to reverse conditions such as autoimmune joint pain, diabetes, osteoporosis, or skin rashes, while costing next to nothing and yielding health care benefits for you and your family in multiple areas of health? That is the kind of health care you want.

That’s why we developed Cureality.


William Davis, MD
Author of 
#1 New York Times Bestseller Wheat Belly: Lose the wheat, lose the weight and find your path back to health, The Wheat Belly Cookbook, and Wheat Belly 30-Minute (or Less!) Cookbook published by Rodale, Inc.  
Author, Track Your Plaque: The only heart disease prevention program that shows how the new CT heart scans can be used to detect, track, and control coronary plaque
Is it mainstream or alternative?

Is it mainstream or alternative?

A question I get about once a week: "Is your program a kind of alternative medicine?"

Our program for control and reversal of coronary plaque using CT heart scans applies an eclectic panel of tools to achieve its goals. We use high-tech methods like lipoprotein analysis and CT heart scans; nutritional supplements like fish oil, vitamin D, and l-arginine; diet strategies and "functional foods" (using foods as a therapeutic tool); and conventional medication.

I don't consider this approach "alternative" in the sense that it uses unmeasurable or spiritual strategies. But I don't consider it mainstream, either, since current mainstream practice of heart disease prevention is far less rigorous with far less satisfactory results.

I think I can sum up the Track Your Plaque approach by saying that we use tools that work. Our measure of success is whether or not your heart scan score is stopped or reduced--that's hard to fudge. You can call it what you will, but I call it the best program for heart disease prevention I know of, alternative or mainstream.
Loading
Don't be satisfied with "deceleration"

Don't be satisfied with "deceleration"

In the Track Your Plaque program, we aim to stop or reduce your heart scan score.

Recall that, without any preventive efforts, heart scan scores can be expected to increase at the average rate of 30% per year (faster at lower scores, slower at higher scores by a quirk of arithmetic).

I am continually surprised at how often people--that is, people not in the Track Your Plaque program--are often content with what I term "deceleration," or the slowing of plaque growth. In truth, most people are content with deceleration of plaque growth because they simply don't know that plaque continues to grow.

For instance, the BELLES Trial (Beyond Endorsed Lipid Lowering with EBT Scanning (BELLES)), reported in 2005 showed that 650 women participants continued to increase heart scan scores 15% whether they took "high-intensity" statin therapy in the form of Lipitor 80 mg or "low-intensity" statin therapy as pravastatin 40 mg, even though the group taking Lipitor experienced twice the amount of LDL reduction. In other words, heart scan scores continued to increase at the same rate of 15% per year regardless of the intensity of LDL lowering by statin drug.

Another study reported in 2006, Effect of intensive versus standard lipid-lowering treatment with atorvastatin on the progression of calcified coronary atherosclerosis over 12 months: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial reported similar results. Of the 471 participants, those taking Lipitor 80 mg per day experienced 27% per year plaque growth (LDL cholesterol 87 mg/dl); those taking 10 mg Lipitor experienced 25% plaque growth (LDL 107 mg/dl). The intensity of statin therapy made no difference on the rate of plaque growth.

In other words, if we are content to sit back and take Lipitor or other statin drug, follow the conventional American Heart Association low-fat, low-cholesterol diet, we will experience somewhere between 15 to 27% annual plaque growth--year after year.

No wonder that conventional advice offered by your friendly neighborhood doctor will avoid (postpone?) only one heart attack in four.

Such is the nature of coronary plaque deceleration: growth is modestly slowed, but is not stopped. Nor is it reversed.

In the Track Your Plaque program, we grade deceleration of plaque growth into three distinct stages out of a total of five. (See Winning Your Personal War with Heart Disease: The Track Your Plaque 5 Stages of Success.)

Why be satisfied with deceleration? Why not aim for a total stop to plaque growth? Why not aim for stage 5 of Track Your Plaque success: reversal?

Comments (2) -

  • Nancy M.

    11/16/2007 3:36:00 PM |

    Dr. Davis,

    I wish all doctors were as receptive of self-education as you are.  There's an article in Time Magazine about how many doctors are contemptuous of patients with initiative that take it upon themselves to learn about their ailments.

    http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1681838,00.html?imw=Y

    Keep up the great work!

  • Dr. Davis

    11/17/2007 1:44:00 PM |

    Hi, Nancy--

    Thanks for pointing out the Time article.

    The article is sadly representative of the prevailing view my colleagues hold on people struggling to get answers by helping themselves. As the author says, "When to punt is not a topic taught in medical school."

    Instead, the focus should be on how to develop BETTER information tools so that patients are empowered to overcome the jargon, sift through irrelevant information, and hone in on what is helpful and relevant.

Loading
Super-carbohydrate

Super-carbohydrate

Wheat starches are composed of polymers (repeating chains) of the sugar, glucose. 75% of wheat carbohydrate is the chain of branching glucose units, amylopectin, and 25% is the linear chain of glucose units, amylose.

Both amylopectin and amylose are digested by the salivary and stomach enzyme, amylase, in the human gastrointestinal tract. Amylopectin is more efficiently digested to glucose, while amylose is less efficiently digested, some of it making its way to the colon undigested.

Amylopectin is therefore the “complex carbohydrate” in wheat that is most closely linked to its blood sugar-increasing effect. But not all amylopectin is created equal. The structure of amylopectin varies depending on its source, differing in its branching structure and thereby efficiency of amylase accessibility.

Legumes like kidney beans contain amylopectin C, the least digestible—hence the gas characteristic of beans, since undigested amylopectin fragments make their way to the colon, whereupon colonic bacteria feast on the undigested starches and generate gas, making the sugars unavailable for you to absorb.

Amylopectin B is the form found in bananas and potatoes and, while more digestible than bean amylopectin C, still resists digestion to some degree.

The most digestible is amylopectin A, the form found in wheat. Because it is the most readily digested by amylase, it is the form that most enthusiastically increases blood sugar. This explains why, gram for gram, wheat increases blood sugar to a much greater degree than, say, chickpeas.

The amylopectin A of wheat products, “complex” or no, might be regarded as a super-carbohydrate, a form of highly digestible carbohydrate that is more efficiently converted to blood sugar than nearly all other carbohydrate foods.

Comments (18) -

  • Jim Purdy

    5/22/2010 3:30:00 PM |

    QUOTE:
    "... gram for gram, wheat increases blood sugar to a much greater degree than, say, chickpeas. "

    Well, that ain't good.

  • David

    5/22/2010 4:21:52 PM |

    I've really enjoyed these last couple of posts about wheat. Very informative and accessible. Thanks for taking the time to make this kind of info available to the wider audience.

    David

  • Anonymous

    5/22/2010 5:12:17 PM |

    fascinating

  • pjnoir

    5/22/2010 8:48:14 PM |

    WOW- a classic lose-lose. 25% remains in your colon, to become a bacteria feast and the rest (75%) increases blood sugar and insulin production to store it as a fat cell.  hmmmmm, thank goodness for science, we may save ourselves.

  • Anonymous

    5/22/2010 10:15:53 PM |

    Dr. Davis,

    While not on a directly related note, do you have any general feelings on moderate consumption of buckwheat as a carbohydrate source? From what I have read, this "pseudo" grain seems to be far less problematic than true grains. It would still not give most folks a license to consume it ad libitum, but I am curious if you'd consider this a decent choice in controlled amounts (with the actual amount varying by context and the overall health of the person in question).

    -Dave Balon

  • Mike

    5/22/2010 10:37:12 PM |

    Excellent explaination, Dr Davis.

  • Anonymous

    5/23/2010 1:55:46 AM |

    I'm really enjoying your posts about wheat.  Very interesting.  Thanks

  • Apolloswabbie

    5/23/2010 3:27:45 PM |

    Thank you Dr. D

  • Jill

    5/24/2010 3:04:47 PM |

    Dear Heart Scan Blog,

    I am a student at the  University of Rochester working on an internship project in conjunction with RateADrug.com to collect primary user data about side effects and benefits from commonly used treatments for Atherosclerosis & Arterial Disease.  The goal is to build a large, public access database of unbiased, anecdotal data about Atherosclerosis & Arterial Disease treatments.

    We want to let both patients and practitioners know about how they can participate in or benefit from the project.  Users can add their experiences with a treatment and learn more about how the treatment is affecting them by taking a short, confidential survey. They can also use RateADrug to compare aggregate data for different Atherosclerosis & Arterial Disease treatments- both conventional and alternative (http://www.rateadrug.com/Atherosclerosis-and-Arterial-Disease-symptoms-feedback.aspx) - and forward the results of their own surveys to their doctors or family members.

    Rateadrug is an independent data gathering and information website that does not accept funding or advertisement from drug companies.

    Would it be possible for you to make this information available to your viewers so they can help us collect important data on Atherosclerosis & Arterial Disease treatments?

    Thank you in advance. I'd be happy to speak with you if you have any questions or comments.

    University of Rochester
    www.RateADrug.com student intern
    jillian@radpprep2.com

  • Dr. William Davis

    5/24/2010 10:28:41 PM |

    Hi, Paul--

    Yes, indeed. The data relating high-carbohydrate intake with multiple forms of cancer is getting very scary.

  • Anonymous

    5/25/2010 4:18:17 AM |

    Wow, I am a long time fan of heartscanblog, but Paul's citation is the most misleading EVER.   The authors found that carbs were associated with pancreatic cancer only in the FIRST FOUR years of follow-up, whereas fat and saturated fat were associated with pancreatic cancer during follow-up GREATER than four years.  Since pancreatic cancer takes years to develop, the authors conclude that carbohydrates are NOT CAUSAL to pancreatic cancer - fat may be.

  • DrStrange

    5/25/2010 2:43:32 PM |

    "The data relating high-carbohydrate intake with multiple forms of cancer is getting very scary."

    I would think at least in part from the higher blood sugars.  Much less problematic w/ whole, intact grains (boiled vs ground into flour and refined (and then higher temp. baked or fried)!

  • discombobulated

    5/25/2010 7:50:36 PM |

    I love your blog.  We have switched out diets to something much closer to what you recommend due to the fact that my husband's psoriasis gets so much better if he avoids wheat,potatoes, corn, refined sugars, and dairy.  We figure it's better than using steroids for the problem.  We also have one son who has been biopsied for celiac after is blood work and we were told he doesn't have the correct atrophy but does have a damaged intestine.  

    So we are committed to eating this way.  But one thing I have wondered about is if you feel that carb blockers work for blocking starch.  There are times when I would kill for a baked potato but try not to because it starts a negative cycle.  And now I know that it's not so hot for my heart either.  

    This post made me wonder if there isn't some merit in them.

  • Breast Augmentation Los Angeles

    5/26/2010 6:20:52 PM |

    Thanks for discussing this.I thought whet is sort of better than the white bread for the diabetic and the heart patients.

  • best pharmacy

    12/7/2011 11:28:22 PM |

    This is one of greatest blogs I’ve read since ever. Your site contains a lot of useful information and I’m sure many people will like it as I do. I'll keep visiting your blog very frequently.

  • best pharmacy

    12/7/2011 11:28:46 PM |

    This is one of greatest blogs I’ve read since ever. Your site contains a lot of useful information and I’m sure many people will like it as I do. I’ll keep visiting your blog very frequently.

  • Mary Wier

    7/10/2012 8:38:03 AM |

    Bill and I found our Wheatbelly book and have been off gluten for 9 months, it was hard at first but we now
    feel so different, Bill's blood sugar dropped 25 points, and we look at all our food so differently now!
    The display of wheat rolls and pastry at our buffet looks more and more like hidden poison.
    We are off sugar, too it is so tempting but our body says, Thank you Dr. Davis!

Loading
Getting vitamin D right

Getting vitamin D right

Vitamin D is, without a doubt, the most incredible "vitamin"/prohormone/neurosteroid I have ever encountered. Frankly, I don't know how we got anything accomplished in health pre-D.

Unfortunately, people I meet rarely take their vitamin D in a way that accomplishes full restoration of vitamin D blood levels. It really isn't that tough.

Here's a list of common tripping points with vitamin D:

"I take vitamin D: 1000 units a day."
This is probably the most common mistake I see: Taking a dose that is unlikely to yield a desirable blood level. (We use 60-70 ng/ml of 25-hydroxy vitamin D as our target.) Most men and women require 6000 units per day to achieve this level. There is substantial individual variation, however, with an occasional person needing much more, a rare person requiring as little as 1000 units.


"I bought some vitamin D on sale. They were white tablets."
Time and again, patients in my office who initially have had successful vitamin D replacement, despite being reminded that only oil-based forms should be taken, switch to tablets. While they initially showed a 25-hydroxy vitamin D blood level, for instance, of 67 ng/ml on 8000 units per day with an oil-based capsule, they switch to a tablet form and the next blood level is 25 ng/ml. In other words, tablets are very poorly or erratically absorbed.

I have had people use tablets successfully, however, by taking their vitamin D tablets with a teaspoon of oil, e.g., olive oil. Oil is necessary for full absorption.


"I'm going to Florida. I'll stop my vitamin D because I'm going to lay in the sun."
Wrong. 90% of adults over 40 years old have lost the majority of their ability to activate vitamin D in the skin. A typical response might be an increase in blood level from 25 to 35 ng/ml--a 10 ng increase with a dark brown tan.

There is an occasional person who, with sun exposure, increases blood levels substantially. This can occur in both fair-skinned and dark-skinned people, though I've never seen it happen in an African-American person. The occasional person who maintains the ability to convert vitamin D with sun exposure, or young people, should seasonally adjust their vitamin D dose, e.g., 6000 units winter, 3000 units summer, or some other regimen that maintains desirable blood levels. You can see that monitoring blood levels (we check levels every 6 months for the first 2 years) is crucial: You cannot know what your vitamin D needs are unless you assess 25-hydroxy vitamin D levels.


"I drink plenty of milk. I don't think I need to take vitamin D."
Oh, boy. This is so wrong on so many levels.

First of all, no adult should be drinking plenty of cow's milk. (A discussion for another day.) Second of all, cow's milk averages 70 units of vitamin D, often the D2 form (ergocalciferol), per 8 oz. Even if the FDA-mandated 100 units per day were present, an average adult dose of 6000 units would require 60 glasses of milk per day. Can you say "diarrhea"?

Likewise, other food sources of vitamin D, such as fish (300-400 units per serving) and egg yolks (20 units per yolk), are inadequate. This makes sense: Humans are not meant to obtain vitamin D from food, but from sun exposure over a large body surface area. And this is a phenomenon that is meant to occur only in the youthful, ensuring that nature takes its course and us older folks get old and make way for the young (i.e., unless we intervene by taking vitamin D supplements).


"My doctor said that my vitamin D blood level was fine. It was 32 ng/ml."

Let's face it: By necessity, your overworked primary care physician, who manages gout, hip arthritis, migraine headaches, stomach aches, prostate enlargement, H1N1, depression, etc., is an amateur at nearly everything, expert in nothing. Nobody can do it all and get it right. Likewise vitamin D. The uncertain primary care physician will simply follow the dictates of the laboratory form that specifies "30-100 ng/ml" as the "normal" or "reference range." Unfortunately, the laboratory often quotes population distributions of a lab measure, not an ideal or desirable level.

To illustrate the folly of population distributions of a measure, imagine you and I want to know what women weigh. We go to a local mall and weigh several thousand women. We tally up the results and find that women weigh 172 lbs +/- 25 lbs (the mean +/- 2 standard deviations). (That's true, by the way.) Is that desirable? Of course it isn't. Population average or population distribution does not necessarily mean ideal or desirable.


"My husband's doctor said he should take 4000 units per day. So I just take the same dose."
That would be fine if all adults required the same dose. However, individual needs can vary enormously. A dose that is grossly insufficient for one person may be excessive for another. Once again, vitamin D dose needs can be individualized by assessing 25-hydroxy vitamin levels in the blood.


"I don't need to take vitamin D. I already take fish oil."
I suspect this mistaken belief occurs either because people confuse fish oil with cod liver oil, which does contain some vitamin D. (Cod liver oil is not the best source of vitamin D, mostly because of the vitamin A content; also a discussion for another time), or because they've heard that eating fish provides vitamin D. However, fish oil capsules do not contain vitamin D unless it is added, in which case it should be prominently and explicitly stated on the label.


"I don't have to take vitamin D. It's summer."

For most people I know, if it's a bright, sunny July day, where are they likely to be? In an office, store, or home--NOT lying in the sun with a large body surface area exposed. Also, most people expose no more than 5-10% of surface area in public. I doubt you cut the grass in a bathing suit. Because of modern indoor lifestyles and fashion, the majority of adults need vitamin D supplementation year-round.


I advise everyone that gelcap vitamin D is preferable. Some, though not all, liquid drop forms have also worked. Take a dose that yields desirable blood levels. And blood levels of 25-hydroxy vitamin D are ideally checked every 6 months: in summer and in winter to provide feedback on how much sun activation of D you obtain.

If your doctor is unwilling or unable to perform vitamin D testing, fingerstick vitamin D test kits can be obtained from Track Your Plaque.

Comments (90) -

  • Peter S

    1/11/2010 2:23:47 PM |

    Dr Davis

    Many thanks for your blog! I just ordered your book, too, and look forward to getting into that.

    I have a question about lab reference values which you discuss in your post.

    I just saw my physician, and am expecting Vitamin D results at the end of this week. This is the first time I have been checked for Vit D levels. At the same time, we are also checking for ferritin levels (I just finished PPLP by the Doctors Eades).

    When we looked back at my ferritin result from last year, my doctor cautioned me against taking the levels recommended in books as a criterion for judging my lab results. His argument was: every machine is calibrated differently, and the same blood sample can give widely different readings depending on the machine used. One should therefore always judge levels in terms of the reference level developed by the lab in question, which will be adapted to their machines.

    Could you comment on this? In particular, how can I know when the reference level cited on the results print out is a true reference level, and when it is a population distribution? (I leave out of the picture for now the issue as to whether the reference level is also adequately high/low in the light of the evolutionary health perspective).

    Thanks in advance for any guidance you can offer on this:
    Peter, Brussels, Belgium

  • Anonymous

    1/11/2010 2:42:33 PM |

    I'm not sure if the Vitamin D I have is oil-based or not. It's in clear softgels, it says D-3 on the front but the supplement information lists it as just Vitamin D.

    What are some good references on supplements? Scientifically based?

  • Anonymous

    1/11/2010 3:05:28 PM |

    I know that getting to optimum Vitamin D3 levels often takes a concerted effort.  On first testing of my blood levels a couple of years ago, I was shocked to only have a level of 27!  I was taking a multivitamin, and an additional 2,000 IU's of Vitamin D daily, and I live very far south in Houston.

    Long story short, I upped my daily dosage of a quality, oil-based Vitamin D3 to 4,000 IU... then to 6,000 IU...  to 8,000 IU... to 10,000 IU... to 12,000IU... all to reach a measly 51!!!  Each of these increases was preceded by testing by a blood draw at Labcorp, authorized by my doctor.  My last increase was in August to 15,000 IU's daily, accomplished by taking 3 X 5,000 IU's of an olive oil-based Vitamin D3.

    I was tested again on 12/31 and this time the Labcorp results came in at 61.3!!! Success at last!

    I would like to get my levels closer to 70, but gee... I wonder how much more I would have to take to get there?  I have had no ill effects from the current dosage, but I don't want to make this an obsession, either.

    Obviously most people won't have to take this high a dosage, or be this relentless, to reach optimum levels... but some of us will.

    Fortunately, Vitamin D3 is relatively cheap and easy to obtain... just make sure it is oil-based and/or taken with some kind of healthy oil... and taken daily.

    Thanks for the great blog, Dr. Davis!

    madcook

  • Marc

    1/11/2010 3:59:40 PM |

    Thank you as always for your great blog! I very much appreciate it.

    I use the Carlson vit d3 drops. Do you think they are ok?

    What Gelcap brand do you recommend?

    thank you and have a great week.

    Marc

  • Venkat

    1/11/2010 5:18:58 PM |

    Thanks Dr.

    I tested D3 during Apr 09 and I had 30 ng/ml.

    Dec 2009 I retested again after 8 months consuming Carlson Vitamin D oil based capsules - 6000 IU every day.

    The Dec 09 test showed me I have 77ng/ml (D3). I remember reading from a user comment in Protein power blog that for every 25 lbs of body weight, one should consume 1000 IU of D3. Since I am 130 lbs, I calculated to consume 6000 IU. The calculation came to 5000 IU, I added a 1000 IU more since it is a 2000 IU tablets.

    Just wanted to share with everyone.

    Thanks, Venkat

  • Sara

    1/11/2010 5:34:43 PM |

    Wow, great post!!

  • gibby1979

    1/11/2010 6:14:22 PM |

    hey doc
    Would taking your vitamin D at the same time as taking your fish oil end up working the same as taking it with oil?

  • zach

    1/11/2010 6:36:35 PM |

    Thanks for the post. I have some questions. What's wrong with raw, full fat milk from grass fed cows? I assume you have more sophisticated reasons than "it's meant for calfs, so adults don't need it." I question this strongly because milk, butter and cream, unprocessed from pastured animals has noticeable improved my health.

    Also, where did the Inuit and other northern dwellers get their Vitamiin D in winter if not from food? Where they chronically deficient?

  • Anonymous

    1/11/2010 7:45:57 PM |

    Dr. Davis,

    Given your comments about the shortcomings of sun exposure (in the majority of cases) for adults over 40, why do you think the vitamin D Council links to 3 tanning systems on their website, namely the D-Lite, Renew, & SunSplash UV/Tanning Systems?

    While I recognize that any strategy to attempt to optimize Vitamin D levels still revolves around getting the proper test done to assess/re-assess levels, it seems like you wouldn't have enough time to use the light to assess its true efficacy in individual cases prior to the point where you'd be able to return it if it proved to be ineffective.

    I'd be curious to hear your general thoughts, that is if you feel comfortable sharing them, on why they would recommend these lights if they would potentially be of little to no use in anyone over 40.

    Thank you for your time and any input.

    Ray Mardsden

  • Dr. William Davis

    1/11/2010 8:45:33 PM |

    Hi, Peter--

    The only substantial difference are the units: ng/ml in the U.S. and nmol/L everywhere else.

    To convert nmol/L to ng/ml, divide by 2.5.

    Also, the Diasorin assay is the more accurate.

  • Dr. William Davis

    1/11/2010 8:46:39 PM |

    Hi, Madcook--

    Thanks for sharing your experience.

    Your case highlights the great individual variation in vitamin D needs, which can range several-fold.

  • Dr. William Davis

    1/11/2010 8:47:12 PM |

    Hi, Marc--

    Not enough experience with this preparation. However, a future blood level of vit D should clear this up.

  • Matt Stone

    1/11/2010 10:29:22 PM |

    Thanks Doc.  Currently trying to bring my girlfriend's vitamin D level up from 20 ng/dl.  Your post rings true in many ways as she is Norweigen (fair-skinned) and spends all summer outdoors for work with no sunscreen to little avail.  I do wonder if it's a Vitamin D receptor problem and not an issue of intake a la Marshall protocol.

  • x.ds

    1/12/2010 12:06:56 AM |

    zach said...

        Thanks for the post. I have some questions. What's wrong with raw, full fat milk from grass fed cows?

    ************
    The problem with raw milk is lactose that causes atherosclerosis and cataract and is linked to Parkinson's disease.

  • AJ

    1/12/2010 1:38:39 AM |

    Dr. Davis,

    Quick question for you regarding Vitamin D and sunlight. If one has both tanned and untanned skin (say farmers tan) will exposure of the untanned skin to the sun help synthesize more Vitamin D than the already tanned part? In other words, is the rate at which one can synthesize Vitamin D from sunlight locally controlled or centrally controlled?

    I've tried to find this answer without much success via Google, ect. Curious if you know definitively.

    Thanks

  • LynP

    1/12/2010 3:55:43 AM |

    Hi Doc.  16 months with increasing amts of D3 (final was/is 8K/day) finally saw my initial 15 rise to 66...hippee! Been using huge amts to battle a respiratory bug (120K/day, what do I need to know about when to stop if bug lingers, ie, is it dangerous to take such lg amts for a wk or more?  Smaller amnts are useless as I am obese (losing but still obese).  

    PS My HDL went to 60 from 47.

  • mongander

    1/12/2010 4:06:50 AM |

    My wife was diagnosed with cancer 2 years ago.  When tested for vit D level her doc commented it was the lowest level he'd ever seen.  I had her supplement 50,000iu/day for weeks and got her up to the 30s.  Sadly, the damage was too much and she died in Nov.

    I take 10,000/day in the "R" months and 5,000/day the rest of the year.  My level is 79 ng/ml.  At 70, I have prostate cancer and am in the "watch & wait" mode.

  • Michaela

    1/12/2010 4:35:55 AM |

    Thanks Dr Davis as always for your wealth of information. The timing of this post couldn't have been better as I've just this week been posting links to your blog to other parents in my position. I've been suggesting they read up on Vitamin D and it's benefits for heart disease. Like me 8 months ago, they had no idea of the necessity of this Vitamin or in fact any of the nutritional supplements you recommend. Since following your recommendations my son Lee has has gone from strength to strength and is leaving his Australian Cardiologist's scratching their heads!
    Keep up the great work Doc, you've been a Godsend to me.

    michaela

  • Ajana

    1/12/2010 9:10:34 AM |

    "90% of adults over 40 years old have lost the majority of their ability to activate vitamin D in the skin."

    Please can you direct me to the literature on this. Have a friend (Asian - 49 y.o.) who thinks she does need to take Vit D as she gets a few minutes of sun (face mainly) most days.

  • Kathryn

    1/12/2010 9:26:39 AM |

    I'd be curious about your opinion of another (well-known) doc's push of krill oil.  Thanks.

  • moblogs

    1/12/2010 11:02:48 AM |

    What's very concerning is that 'from' 21nmol/L up to 128nmol/L is seen as sufficient according to guidelines in London, England. At 141nmol/L I'm a real rebel!

  • TedHutchinson

    1/12/2010 12:31:21 PM |

    Deer and Reindeer feed in winter on lichen which is good source of vitamin D.
    It is reasonable to suppose eating meat with a high vitamin D status would eek out the vitamin D stored in summer.
    Eskimos tradionally fermented, in grass-lined holes, whole fish, fish heads, walrus, sea lion and whale flippers, beaver tails, seal oil, birds, etc for an extended period of time. Several of these are likely to be good sources of Vitamin D3 that would help them survive the long winter.
    Human stores of D3 would not deplete so fast in peoples not consuming grain, fructose or pro inflammatory industrially made omega 6 vegetable/seed oils.
    It isn't just reindeer and caribou that eat vitamin D rich lichen Snails, sea slugs, lemmings, musk ox, and insects also eat them, as do Eskimo groups in the Arctic.

    It is possible birds eating lichen grazing snails also have higher vitamin D status. People eating those birds would thus benefit.

    Muktuk Inuit/Eskimo meal of frozen whale skin and blubber also contains vitamin d.

    Here is a 2004 quote from a woman talking about her childhood Discover The Inuit Paradox
    Our meat was seal and walrus, marine mammals that live in cold water and have lots of fat. We used seal oil for our cooking and as a dipping sauce for food. We had moose, caribou, and reindeer. We hunted ducks, geese, and little land birds like quail, called ptarmigan. We caught crab and lots of fish—salmon, whitefish, tomcod, pike, and char. Our fish were cooked, dried, smoked, or frozen. We ate frozen raw whitefish, sliced thin. The elders liked stinkfish, fish buried in seal bags or cans in the tundra and left to ferment. And fermented seal flipper, they liked that too.”

    This 2007 study found YUP’IK ESKIMOS who consumed the most traditional foods obtained on average 1232iu/D from food.
    That is a lot more than most UK adults get from current dietary intakes.

  • TedHutchinson

    1/12/2010 12:56:42 PM |

    This Study of Belgium older women Rural Urban shows that some older women living in the less polluted rural location were still capable of making vitamin D. It was living in a polluted urban environment that made the most difference between the groups.

    But the only way you have of knowing how well your skin responds to sunlight or UVB from tubes is to get a 25(OH)D3 test.

    If you look at the plot from that study you will see there are a lot of older women (both town and country dwellers) with very low 25(OH)D status.
    So although older skin is less able to respond to UVB it MAY make useful amounts of vitamin D if given the chance (but it also MAY NOT
    A daily effective strength oil based gel capsule WILL improve 25(OH)D3 level.

  • Henry North London

    1/12/2010 3:30:04 PM |

    My blood levels of Vitamin D3 are 83ng/ml

    I achieved that by taking 50000 iu units of Vitamin D3 through September, October and November daily, I then dropped to 20000 iu ( primarily through cost and then did a fingerstick and sent it off in Mid December) I still take 20000iu a day

    I have not had a sniffle or a chest infection or anyother infection since I took it.

    Nothing,  Zip Nada,  It has been the best winter ever, because my aches and pains have gone, my health has been good and I have positively enjoyed not getting unwell at all.

    Most people look at me as if Im completely crazy when I shovel down four gel caps a day or more but I take the view that this is what my body would make in June in high summer in a bathing suit daily

    So Im happy and I have another fingerstick in 6 months time

    My grip strength has improved and I never get colds for any length of time, they are gone in 24 hours

    I  spend most of my days indoors so Im very happy now and I have darker skin too. But I had to be really ott with the gel caps to bump it up to 83ng/ml

  • SMK

    1/12/2010 4:40:12 PM |

    Dr Davis

    Thanks will be small words to decribe your blog and the immense benefits we as regular people can avail ,due to your excellent blogging efforts.

    My husband and me just got our LabCorp 25(OH) results, each severely deficient with <10 ng/ml.We have started supplementing with 6000 IU Carlson Soft gels.
    Your article did not address one question of how long does it take to bring up the numbers to about 60-70ng/ml?We have plans to add a new mmber to our family and am concerned that we should not do this until..I am not sure.Your response is much appreciated.

  • Dr. William Davis

    1/12/2010 6:20:34 PM |

    Aj--

    While I know of no study directly studying this, it would make sense that untanned skin would generate the most vitamin D, since vitamin D activation is limited with tanned skin as a self-limiting phenomenon.

  • Dr. William Davis

    1/12/2010 6:24:45 PM |

    Hi, Michaela--

    I'm glad your son continues to do well.

    Please stay in touch. You bring an aspect of this conversation that we don't hear much about. It might help spread the word with your enlightening experience.

  • Dr. William Davis

    1/12/2010 6:25:59 PM |

    Kathryn-

    While I believe that krill has some interesting potential properties, I believe that its manufacturer has done us a disservice with its extragant and misleading claims. This will be the topic of a future blog post.


    Ted--

    Thanks for the great comments!

  • TedHutchinson

    1/12/2010 6:32:51 PM |

    @ SMK
    Circulating 25-Hydroxyvitamin D Levels in Fully Breastfed Infants on Oral Vitamin D Supplementation
    This free full text online paper details some of the work Hollis and others have done on vitamin D supplementing in pregnancy and during breastfeeding. 6400iu in total was required at latitude 32n to achieve optimum vitamin D3 in breast milk.
    This paper explains how higher vitamin D status is linked to higher testosterone levels (the full text talks about other fertility benefits) so it isn't just the mother that needs  optimum vitamin D levels.

    Grassrootshealth response chart
    there are some other graphs showing response to 5000iu/d here in the LEF SURVEY of 13000iu people
    When you study both these sources you will see it's impossible to say   for certain that 6000iu/daily WILL definitely take you over the 60ng/ml level.
    Figure 3 from the LEF article shows 5000iu only got people to average just over 40ng/ml in 3~9 months. 6000iu will do better and you may find, if you are good responders that in 2~3months a 25(OH)D test will prove you are around 60ng/ml but if you want to speed the job up, a little more D3 at this time of year (January)until April may be advantageous.

  • Rayboy

    1/12/2010 8:02:44 PM |

    There are five different forms of Vitamin D.  

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_D

    Do we really know if taking a large supplement of just one of them, D3, is the absolute optimal nutritional strategy for health?  It would seem like in addition to supplements, getting some sunshine whenever possible would be a good idea, to aid our body in producing the form and amount of Vitamin D it needs.

  • Rayboy

    1/12/2010 8:32:03 PM |

    Follow-up: This site allows you to calculate how much sun exposure you need for your skin to manufacture 25 mcg of Vitamin D.  It is quite sophisticated, with fields for latitude and longitude, cloud conditions and reflective surfaces.

    http://nadir.nilu.no/~olaeng/fastrt/VitD-ez_quartMED.html

  • pmpctek

    1/12/2010 10:21:29 PM |

    "Cod liver oil is not the best source of vitamin D, mostly because of the vitamin A content; also a discussion for another time." - Dr. Davis

    Is this due to a risk of vitamin A toxicity and osteoporosis from too much synthetic forms of vitamin A and/or when vitamin D blood levels are below optimal as described in your article?

    I've read from many sources that vitamin A toxicity is not a concern as long as the sources of vitamin A are natural, such as from green leafy vegetables, organ meats, or CLO, and D3 blood levels are optimal.

    I take Garden of Life Icelandic Cod Liver Oil, which preserve the natural forms of vitamin A and D in their processes.  Most brands of CLO (especially the cheap ones) use a distillation process which destroy these vitamins.  These cheaper brands then add them back into the final product with synthetic forms.  Green Pasture's Blue Ice and Radiant Life are other brands that keep natural forms of vitamin A and D in their products.

    I take an additional 6,000IU/day D-3 gelcaps and I've been able to maintain my serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 levels at ~60ng/ml.

  • Anonymous

    1/12/2010 11:09:57 PM |

    Dr.,

    I've tried taking 1000IU of Vitamin D Gelcaps and got short of breath and felt slightly nauseous after just one dose.  I've talked to several people about this but nobody seems to have an answer.  If you have any insight, I'd appreciate it.

  • Dr. William Davis

    1/13/2010 12:15:45 AM |

    Hi, Rayboy--

    I agree: Getting some sun is even better, if you have that option.

    I look out my window and it's supposed to be another 20 degree day. I will be covered head to toe, and I don't expect this will change for another 5 months.

  • Dr. William Davis

    1/13/2010 12:16:37 AM |

    Anonymous--

    We see these rare reactions every once in a great while. But I am uncertain why they happen. We have had some success starting at very low doses, e.g., 800 units per day, and building up very gradually.

  • SMK

    1/13/2010 4:42:59 PM |

    Ted,Many thanks for all those links about breastfeeding and VitaminD in breastmilk.I was one of those unfortunate ones who did not get any breastmilk..just colostrum.The doctors did not bother to advice anything other than saying  formula will save the child now.
    I do suspect my Vitamin D was severely low then too.We live in PA .

    I am upping my IU for D3 now to8000/10000 daily for the next three months.

    Thanks again Dr.Davis for this blog!

  • TedHutchinson

    1/13/2010 4:50:39 PM |

    @  Rayboy
    25mcg = 1000iu As we have seen from the several surveys I've linked to, around 1000iu for each 25lbs is probably required. So either you need to expose more skin than just hands/face or spend a lot longer outside.

    There are some differences of opinion about the current state of knowledge underlying that calculator's computer model.
    Is the action spectrum for the UV-induced production of previtamin D3 in human skin correct?
    That paper points out using real people, rather than computer modelling, it has been shown conversion of 7-DHC to previtaminD occurred throughout the year 34N and below, but no production of vitamin D3 was found in the winter months of Nov~Feb at 42N (Boston) or Oct~March at 52N (Edmonton)
    It's what matters in practice that's important, not what the computer says.
    I don't want you laying naked in the midday winter sun freezing to death just because the calculator is saying that free vitamin D3 is theoretically possible when in practice we know it doesn't happen.

  • kilo.oscar

    1/13/2010 5:16:45 PM |

    Dr. Davis

    You recommend gelcaps over tablets, but what are your thoughts on chewables?

    I'm female, 120lbs, 6 months post femur fracture / pinning and taking:
    AM
    chewable multivitamin (400) + chewable calcium (200) for 600 IU
    PM
    'gummy' vitamin D (1000) + 2x oscal (400) for 1400 IU

  • Kevin

    1/13/2010 6:42:40 PM |

    I was in Colorado for a medical conference and noticed a lot of ads for tanning beds.  They're advertising that tanning beds increase Vitamin D substantially in just ten minutes a day under the lights.  

    kevin

  • Anonymous

    1/13/2010 7:19:39 PM |

    Robert S.

    Great write up Dr. Davis,

    When Dr.'s recommend getting patients blood levels checked, they are sent for 25(OH)D levels.  But would it be more optimal to have them checked for ONLY D3 and not the 25(OH)D?  What do you think is the best way to check d levels in blood is what I guess I'm asking, thank you. Smile

  • Dr. William Davis

    1/13/2010 7:27:27 PM |

    Anon--

    25-hydroxy vitamin D is the preferred test, the "repository" form prior to conversion to the 1,25-dihydroxy form.

  • Anonymous

    1/13/2010 9:47:35 PM |

    Robert S.

    Thanks for the quick reply.  Are there labs/hospitals that test  Vitamin D3 or do they only do 25(OH)D / 25(OH)2D?

  • Anonymous

    1/13/2010 11:40:36 PM |

    "We see these rare reactions every once in a great while. But I am uncertain why they happen. We have had some success starting at very low doses, e.g., 800 units per day, and building up very gradually."

    I experience milder symptoms when I drink Vit D fortified milk - but not so mild that I can continue drinking it.

  • Stephen

    1/14/2010 2:45:49 AM |

    I'm wondering the same thing another person asked - would taking D3 in tablet form with fish oil caps work?

    Thanks Doc.


    Stephen

  • Peter S

    1/14/2010 9:04:13 AM |

    Dear Dr Davis

    Thanks for confirming that. Apparently here in Belgium we have ng/ml readings too. Mine came in at 8!

    My physician is recommending a massive one-off dose to restore them to the 30 ng/ml that is believed to be normal here.

    Does anyone know if these large single doses (taken in oral liquid form) are more or less effective than regular supplementation in sustainably restoring levels?

    (I know you believe the ideal level should be somewhat higher at around 60, not 30)

    Thanks in advance
    Peter

  • jpatti

    1/14/2010 3:43:23 PM |

    Raw milk from cows on pasture has real vitamin D in it.

    When I started getting milk from a local farmer, my bp went WAY down even though I'd run out of Lisinopril.  I'm hooked on it now after not drinking any milk for decades.

    I still take my D3 supplements though.  I don't feel you can correct long-term deficiencies with just diet.  Maybe if I'd been drinking that good stuff all my life, I'd be fine, but I wasn't.

    You can find a source of milk near you here: http://realmilk.com

  • jpatti

    1/14/2010 3:45:31 PM |

    P.S. Raw milk contains lactase which handles the lactose just fine (unless you're already lactose-intolerant from years of drinking pasteurized milk).

  • Dr. William Davis

    1/14/2010 4:56:55 PM |

    Fish oil with vitamin D is not generally a reliable means of absorbing the vitamin D, since dissolution of the gelcaps may not be simultaneous. Of course, you can determine this with a blood level. I'd rather just take the gelcap.

  • zach

    1/14/2010 7:55:25 PM |

    jpatti,

    You are correct, at least in summer the milk has it. I have a milk cow and my level in summer was 70 ng/ml without supplementation for 5 months. Store bought milk has ineffective D2 added to it. The animals are in confinement and are fed grains so their milk is devoid of D. Store bought milk is unfit for human consumption. The animals are sick unto death and their product reflects that. And that's before the boiling and high pressure processing.

  • Electronic Medical Records

    1/15/2010 5:39:35 AM |

    This is an awesome update...I agree 200% with the update.There are these myths which engulf us half untrue...we live with them.

  • Chloe

    1/16/2010 5:20:34 AM |

    After joining Vitamin D Experiment Forum on lowcarb.org I took the plunge (no insurance) and paid for a 25-hydroxy vitamin D test in March 2007.  Result was 7.  Some background.  My paternal grandmother, father, and I suffered from severe seasonal affective disorder, sister had rickets as a child.  

    I started taking 14,000 IU (inched up to it) daily of Carlson's 2000 IU gelcaps and after joining GrassRootsHealth and doing home testing my next level 18 months later was 99.  I backed off to 8000 IU a day and next reading six months later was 94.  I am currently taking that 8000 IU daily and 10,000 IU daily when dark outside.  Next test coming up.  I watch that list of symptoms of overdose and so far no symptoms.  

    I have become a bit of a vitamin D preacher and have given books (The Vitamin D Cure) and a bottle or two to friends at high risk, but until the receiver is ready they care not.  One is the survivor of breast cancer and now chronic lymphocyti leukemia whose mother was a very popular herbalist in Southern California for over 50 years, another the survivor of a heart attack sustained after a stent was placed (the stent clogged), and another a black family, dark skinned who really are at more risk than pale old me.  Very reluctant and all have used one of the excuses you have listed.  Go figure.  

    Thanks for the information.  I will keep passing it along and keep trying.

  • Loïc Raharison

    1/16/2010 2:45:47 PM |

    Is there any difference with the oil used in the softgel? For example the NOW brand use Rice Bran Oil and the Carlson Lab uses Safflower oil. Any insight on this?

  • TedHutchinson

    1/16/2010 4:11:43 PM |

    Most Vitamin D3 oil based capsules are quite small, so the little extra oil, calories consumed isn't a major consideration.

    Carlson Labs, Solar D Gems, 4,000 IU  360 $29.19 are in Cod liver oil but total omega 3 content is a mere  115mg Omega-3. Most people will require additional omega 3 fish oil sources, so please don't think by taking a small Vitamin D3 Capsule in fish oil you are fully covering both D3 and Omega 3 requirement.


    Those who want to avoid soy, rice bran, sunflower oil or other industrially make omega 6 oil  may prefer either
    Country Life, Vitamin D3, 5,000 IU, 200 Softgels $10.20 in MCT oil. Medium Chain Triglyceride oil is readily burnt as fuel so less likely to be added to fat cells MCT is also less likely to go rancid.

    Another option for 10,000iu/users is Healthy Origins, Vitamin D3, 10,000 IU, 360  $23.95 these are in olive oil. (Other strengths available).

  • Sherrie

    1/17/2010 12:24:12 AM |

    I just wanted to share that towards the end of Autumn I had my vitamin D tested at 59 nmol which is around 23ng. In Australia the highest dose available seems to be 1000ui so I started with that but soon bought 5000ui gelcaps from the US. Towards the end of Spring (I live down south so this was through a winter) I tested at 150nmol which is around 60ng and was told to stop. I have fair skin and hair. I don't feel any the better or worse for it.

  • Anonymous

    1/20/2010 4:44:21 AM |

    I've been taking 5000 iu's of Vitamin D daily since the end of October and for the first time since I can remember I've made it thus far into the cold/flu season without so much as a sniffle.

    Regarding brands. I take Vitamin DDrops. Flavourless/odourless, 5 drops under the tongue every night.

    http://well.ca/products/adult-ddrops-liquid_11671.html?well_id=5jfcduigec2at21s3903023u81

    Dr. Davis, are you familiar with this particular brand? Would you recommend it? I only ask because you stated in this piece that only some forms of liquid actually work.

    Mike

  • drdonaldson

    1/31/2010 5:25:59 AM |

    Great information. I use a liquid D3 gelcap in a sesame oil base for maximum absorption.

  • Steven Low

    2/7/2010 11:03:20 PM |

    "Another option for 10,000iu/users is Healthy Origins, Vitamin D3, 10,000 IU, 360 $23.95 these are in olive oil. (Other strengths available)."

    That's the one I'm taking. Cheapest one out there ATM.

    After I wrote this: http://www.eatmoveimprove.com/2009/10/a-closer-look-at-vitamin-d/

    I've been on 10,000 IU for about 4 months now. Feel great.

  • Ellen

    2/19/2010 3:19:55 AM |

    Dr. Davis, have you read this paper?  http://autoimmunityresearch.org/transcripts/AR-Albert-VitD.pdf

    It basically says for those who suffer from autoimmune diseases, Vitamin D supplementation may worsen disease symptoms over the long term because it acts as an immunosuppressant of reactions toward bacterial ligands to the VDR.  This allows the underlying disease to worsen over the longterm.  Your thoughts?

  • TedHutchinson

    2/19/2010 6:19:25 PM |

    Dr Davis's previous blog Marshall Protocal and Other Fairy Tales
    also consider
    Mark London's refutation of the Marshall protocol.

    It's also worth going through Mercola's detailed refutation.

    The study I refer to in Mercola's comments section (and Mark London refers to) showed that using computer modelling they found that Calcidiol, the circulating form of vitamin D, (previously regarded as inert and requiring a further hydroxylation (to become Calcitriol) before it was effective,) does in fact bind with  Calcitriol to activate the Vitamin D receptor. Calidiol isn't BLOCKING the VDR but is working in synergy with calcitriol to become effective at lower concentrations.

    There is still lots of work to be done on this but the findings that Curcumin (turmeric) also activates the VDR
    Vitamin A in excess can also bind with VDR (but in this case it does block the action and isn't helpful) The action of cucumin is helpful, it's always puzzled me why so many of the benefits of curcumin are identical to those of vitamin D3 so now we know why.
    We have to look at what actually happens in practice.
    People with higher vitamin D status generally live longer lives with less chronic illness and with fewer infections.
    If the Marshall protocol were correct  the opposite would occur. We would find in practice those with lower D3 generally had the advantage.

  • Brendan

    2/24/2010 5:59:20 PM |

    Dr Davis

    Many thanks for your post.

    I have a question. Is the presence of soy oil or corn oil in the oil-based vitamin D capsules an issue worth considering?

    I am worried about their omega 6 contents

  • TedHutchinson

    2/24/2010 7:05:46 PM |

    Country Life, Vitamin D3, 5,000 IU, 200 Softgels $10.20
    these are in MCT oil
    and
    Healthy Origins, Vitamin D3, 5,000 IU, 360 Softgels $14.95
    and these are in olive oil
    Carlson Labs, Solar D Gems, 4,000 IU, 360 Soft Gels $29.19 (note the D3 content is lower and price higher)
    these are in fish oil so provide a small (trivial) contribution to your omega 3 intake. You will still have to supplement with and EFFECTIVE amount of omega 3.

    In my view the amount of oil in these capsules isn't sufficiently great to worry about, on the whole vitamin D capsules are really quite small. So I'd rather you took the ones you have already than wait till new one without omega 6 arrive. That said I  try to eliminate every unnecessary source of omega 6 so I wouldn't choose soy, or corn oil vitamin D capsules in the first place.  

    My preference is MCT oil. MCT is very stable so doesn't readily go off. It's easily metabolized and people with inflamed or damaged digestive systems can chew them and absorb the oil/vitamin D in mouth and under tongue. Or capsule can be pierced and contents massaged into the skin preferably where the sun doesn't shine. (UVA degrades D3)

  • Jon Brassey

    4/21/2010 5:15:49 AM |

    You say that most people over the age of 40 have "have lost the majority of their ability to activate vitamin D in the skin".

    Can you point me to a reference on that please?

    Best wishes

    jon

  • TedHutchinson

    4/21/2010 1:42:08 PM |

    @  Jon Brassey
    Aging Decreases the Capacity of Human Skin to Produce Vitamin D3
    A comparison of the amount of previtamin D3 produced in the skin from the 8- and 18-yr-old subjects with the amount produced in the skin from the 77- and 82-yr-old subjects revealed that aging can decrease by greater than twofold the capacity of the skin to produce previtamin D3.

    However more recent Vitamin D research confirms providing there is sufficient cholesterol in the skin it is  possible for post menopausal women who spend time outdoors in summer to make a significant  contribution to their 25(OH)D needs (ages in that trial went up to 85yrs) However whether this is sufficient is a matter of opinion.
    I don't think it is viable to expect homes for the elderly ensure residents regularly expose sufficient skin for sufficient time to make sun exposure for the elderly a practicable route though I am sure you can guess, I personally am prepared to make the effort.

    I remember somewhere I've seen a photo of an old style UVB light suspended on the ceiling of a day lounge in an old folks home and they found it helped raise 25(OH)D.I'll try to find it.

    Who, what, where and when—influences on cutaneous vitamin D synthesis Has an interesting paragraph on age and vitamin D production you may read it here.

  • Jon Brassey

    4/22/2010 5:32:43 AM |

    @tedhutchinson thanks for the additional information.

    However, what you report appears to disagree with what Dr Davis said.

    The articles you cite indicate that those over 40 can produce Vitamin D (albeit at reduced rates).

    Dr Davis reported "90% of adults over 40 years old have lost the majority of their ability to activate vitamin D in the skin."

    Yours suggest a 2-fold decrease which - to my mind - is miles away from Dr Davis.

    I'd welcome Dr Davis's comment on this apparent discrepancy (preferably with links to citations)

  • Anonymous

    6/1/2010 11:12:34 AM |

    So last year I got on the Vitamin D wagon and went from 23 to 66 via lots of sun and 4000 IU of supplemental D. Then my doctor told me to cut back, I did to 1000IU to 2000IU per day.

    Just went for my blood test. In 4 months I am back down to 37. Ugh. The "medical" establishment makes it like keeping a healthy level of vitamin D is easy (ie just go for a walk), but it isn't. I suspect either their original information on how easy it is to get vitamin d was totally wrong, or perhaps humans have changed via over 100 years largely inside.

    I did want to say I have been using tabs and not oil based pills. Either they work for me or I take them with oily foods (I take it with my bagel in the morning with Olivio)

  • Freewoman of England

    6/1/2010 2:30:43 PM |

    Olivio?  Margarine?  That stuff kills

    Its 79% rapeseed margarine is Olivio

    I wouldn't touch it with a bargepole Butter is better for you

  • Anonymous

    6/5/2010 5:22:17 AM |

    Hi
    Very nice and intrestingss story.

  • Anonymous

    7/23/2010 5:48:08 AM |

    why should no adult drink milk?

  • josephmoss

    8/2/2010 11:48:36 AM |

    Vitamin D3 Supplements:

    NOW Vitamin D softgels supply this key vitamin in a highly-absorbable liquid softgel form. Vitamin D is normally obtained from the diet or produced by the skin from the ultraviolet energy of the sun. However, it is not abundant in food. As more people avoid sun exposure, Vitamin D supplementation becomes even more necessary to ensure that your body receives an adequate supply. Vitamin D3 Supplements on discount at NutroVita.com.

    For more details please visit:
    http://www.nutrovita.com/32760/now-foods/vitamin-d-3-2-000-iu.htm

  • charlie salem

    8/24/2010 3:38:54 PM |

    I am epileptic and getting put on a ketogenic diet. The National Hospital our place of (so called) excellence in the UK have all but given up from me and will not test my Vitamin D3. Do the the drugs i take (Keppra and Tegratol) have an effect on D3?
    Charlie Salem www.iamcharliesalem
    charliesalem883@googlemail.com

  • max

    8/26/2010 10:17:50 AM |

    vitamin d can recieve by sunlight?

  • Lucy

    9/12/2010 12:01:10 AM |

    Hello-I believe this is my first time posting a comment here.  

    I just wanted to say, because of what I've been reading, last week during a routine diabetic checkup, I asked my doctor to order a vitamin D test.  She was reluctant.  She said it wasn't something they commonly checked for.  I insisted and she wrote out the order.

    Here's what came back:
    Vitamin D, 25-OH, Total: 14
    Vitamin D, 25-OH, D3: 14
    Vitamin D, 25-OH, D2: <4

    She prescribed 1,000-1,600 of vitamin D a day plus 15 minutes in the sun w/out sunlotion.

    I don't think she knows what she's doing! I found some gel 1,000 capsules an started taking 2,000 a day. The diagnostic notes also say: Optimal levels are > or = 30 ng/ml (Whatever that means!). As for the D3 and D2, the notes say "Reference Range Not established.

    Just wanted to say THANKS YOU! for the information you provide.

  • TedHutchinson

    9/12/2010 8:25:34 AM |

    @ Lucy
    > or = 30 ng/ml (Whatever that means!)
    ABOVE or EQUAL to 30ng/ml

    The reason the < (below) 4ng/ml D2 score was not added to your D3 score is that 4ng/ml is below the test accuracy threshold, so cannot be relied upon.

    30ng/ml (or 80nmol/l)is the level below which actual damage to the skeleton can be measured and is the level at which calcium absorption is generally maximised.
    However some people do not maximise bone mineral density till well above 40ng/ml (100nmol/l).
    But vitamin D enables far more than just calcium absorption and 40ng/ml (100nmol/l) is considered the lowest level at which basic daily needs are met but this isn't sufficient to enable vitamin D3 storage in tissue. To achieve reasonable reserves of D3 a level around 60ng/ml is required.
    At that level breast milk is a vitamin D3 replete food for human babies.
    Although there is a huge individual difference in response to daily D3 supplementation in practice 5000iu/daily only just maintains status above 40ng/ml amounts nearer to the quantity full body exposure creates are required. Hollis & Wagner found 6400iu was required to optimise vitamin D in breast milk.
    Because diabetes is an inflammatory condition the demand on vitamin D resources is greater, most diabetics, (like celiacs) require substantially more D3 to obtain the same results. (Diabetes also increases magnesium usage so bear in mind Dr Davis's magnesium recommendation is generally advise supplementation with the well-absorbed forms, magnesium glycinate (400 mg twice per day) or magnesium malate (1200 mg twice per day))
    From that same post we see Dr Davis says "aim for 25-hydroxy vitamin level of 60-70 ng/ml. This usually requires 6000 units per day, though there is great individual variation in need. As you are diabetic it is likely your need will be greater rather than lesser.
    May I suggest 5000iu/daily may be more appropriate with the possibility of having to take a total of 10 capsules each week to average just over 7000iu/daily if a retest in 3 months shows 5000iu/d + sun still produces too a low a 25(OH)D. WAB666 saves $5 at IHERB whose shipping to UK is cheapest, the same item may be cheaper elsewhere.

  • Ashley

    10/21/2010 6:01:37 AM |

    What if my level of vitamin d is 84.9 ng/mL? Should I still take a supplement?

  • TedHutchinson

    10/21/2010 8:36:28 AM |

    @ Ashleymy level of vitamin d is 84.9 ng/mL? Should I still take a supplement?"
    Really depends where you live.
    If you live in the Southern Hemisphere and will spend more time outdoors with skin exposed to sunshine over the peak summer months then maybe it would be an idea to reduce intake by 1000iu/d or use 2000iu alternate days.
    1000iu/d less should drop 25(OH)D 10ng/ml.
    If you live in the Northern Hemisphere 25(OH)D naturally declines from October until the end of Feb, so continue with the 2000iu and only consider reducing intake by 1000iu/d midsummer next year.

  • Ashley

    10/22/2010 5:13:34 AM |

    Thanks! I live in Tucson, Arizona, and am only 26.

    Perhaps I'll take the 2000 IU every other day?

    Or is taking a steady dose daily better in your opinion?

    Also, do you agree that taking calcium when having this high of a vitamin D level can lead to increased calcium/plaque? Might this explain a high Lp-pla2 test of 193 and a high HS-crp of 3.5?

  • buy jeans

    11/3/2010 3:07:28 PM |

    Likewise, other food sources of vitamin D, such as fish (300-400 units per serving) and egg yolks (20 units per yolk), are inadequate. This makes sense: Humans are not meant to obtain vitamin D from food, but from sun exposure over a large body surface area. And this is a phenomenon that is meant to occur only in the youthful, ensuring that nature takes its course and us older folks get old and make way for the young (i.e., unless we intervene by taking vitamin D supplements).

  • the Wonderer

    11/15/2010 8:30:29 PM |

    Very useful post, but I'm puzzled by this:
    "(Cod liver oil is not the best source of vitamin D, mostly because of the vitamin A content; also a discussion for another time)"

    Are you saying the vitamin A content of cod liver oil is a problem? What about the position of the Weston A. Price Foundation that A and D should be taken in a 5-to-1 ratio of A to D because they work together syngergistically and each protects against possible overdose toxicity in the other. Is there evidence to shoot that contention down?
    Thanks.

  • id scanner

    11/27/2010 3:05:11 AM |

    Vitamin D is carried in the bloodstream to the liver, where it is converted into the prohormone calcidiol.It is a fat-soluble vitamin that is naturally present in very few foods. It  is essential for promoting calcium absorption in the gut

  • Generic Viagra 100mg

    12/31/2010 5:27:05 AM |

    Wow…I am bowled by your level of knowledge. I am so impressed. I think you have got a deep insight into this topic. Could not think on those lines ever…I think you are gifted…keep going. Thumbs up!

  • Forzest

    1/4/2011 5:59:32 AM |

    Your article has given me loads of knowledge, I keep reading it daily.

  • liposculpture guide

    1/13/2011 11:05:55 AM |

    Get at least 10-30 minutes of daily sunlight. Your body naturally produces Vitamin D when skin is exposed to sunlight. I like your post.

  • Ken D Berry MD

    1/16/2011 6:10:46 PM |

    I am a Family Physician and I'll have to admit that supplementing all of my 50-plus yo patients with Vitamin D is cutting into my income!

  • online kamagra

    4/23/2011 6:48:43 AM |

    I think you have written very important and essential information about health and vitamin D..This is a great source where we get lots of data.

  • paul

    4/29/2011 6:23:40 AM |

    Vitamin D is definitely very vital for our health. We should always include this vitamin in our diet. Thanks for sharing.

    Lorna Vanderhaeghe products

  • Calina Jane

    5/4/2011 10:07:55 AM |

    Vitamin D is a fat-soluble vitamin that is naturally present in very few foods, added to others, and available as a dietary supplement. It is also produced endogenously when ultraviolet rays from sunlight strike the skin and trigger vitamin D synthesis.

  • daniel hirsch

    5/9/2011 9:19:39 AM |

    Thanks  Doctor for  the Sharing Information!!
    Regain Manhood by Using Kamagra Pills and Tablets
    Kamagra Soft

  • Sandra

    10/27/2011 8:27:57 PM |

    I am a breastfeeding mom and both I and my little one (7.5 months old) have a cold at the moment. I'm not sure how much vitamin D I should take so that my baby would get enough from my milk. Or do I need to supplement her anyway? My levels are 61.8 ng/l and I am taking 5000 IU/day, sometimes a bit more if I forget to take it some days or I feel under the weather. In case she gets the flu or a cold  like she did now, how much can I give her to boost her immune system? How much can I take?

Loading
"I have never seen regression"

"I have never seen regression"

At a presentation at the American College of Cardiology meetings in New Orleans yesterday (March 27, 2007), Dr. Arthur Agatston declared "I have been doing CT for many years, and I have never seen regression."

Whooooaaaa. Wait a minute here. I have great respect for the work Dr. Agatston has done over the years. He is, after the originator of the scoring algorithm that allows us to score CT heart scans (though a more accurate measure, the volumetric score, is the one we often use behind closed doors because of modestly increased accuracy and reproducibility). His diet program, the South Beach Diet, has achieved enormous success and is indeed an effective approach for both weight loss and correction of many weight-related causes of heart disease.

But he has never seen regression? Why would this be when we see it all the time? When we see heart scan scores drop 30%, it's hard to believe that with some savvy he has never seen regression (drop in score).

I can only attribute the difference to the more intensive endpoints we advocate (e.g., 60-60-60 for lipid values); the incorporation of adjuncts like fish oil, vitamin D, l-arginine; attention to non-cholesterol issues and intensified treatments for each. I doubt that the populations we see differ substantially.

As much as I admire Dr. Agatston's accomplishments, I believe that he is behind the times on this issue. No regression is so starkly different from the Track Your Plaque experience. I believe that relying only on statin drugs and diet will slow but will not stop plaque growth. It will also rarely, if ever, drop your score.

Attention to detail and a little insight into better preventive strategies really pays off. While not everyone in the Track Your Plaque experience will drop their score, a substantial number do. Many more slow plaque growth dramatically. And, as time goes on, our track record gets stronger and stronger.
Loading
Triglyceride buster

Triglyceride buster

Two weeks ago, Daniel started with a triglyceride level of 3100 mg/dl, a dangerous level that had potential to damage his pancreas. The inflammatory injury incurred could leave him with type I diabetes and inability to digest foods, since the insulin-producing capacity and the enzyme producing capacity of the pancreas are lost.

Daniel added 3600 mg of omega-3s per day. Within 10 days, his triglycerides dropped nearly 2000 mg to just over 1100 mg/dl--still too high, but an incredible start.

The power of omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil to reduce triglycerides is illustrated most graphically by people with a condition called "familial hypertriglyceridemia" that is responsible for triglyceride levels of 500, 1000, even several thousand milligrams. That's what Daniel has. Given appropriate doses of omega-3s, triglycerides drop hundreds, even thousands, of milligrams.

No question: Omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil are the best tool available for reduction of triglycerides. The effect is dose-dependent, i.e., the more you take, the greater the triglyceride reduction.

How omega-3s exerts this effect is unclear, though there is evidence to suggest that omega-3s suppress several nuclear receptors involved in triglyceride (VLDL) production and increase the expression or activity of the enzyme lipoprotein lipase, an enzyme that clears triglycerides from the blood.

I am continually surprised at the number of people with high triglycerides who are still treated with a fibrate drug, like Tricor, or a statin drug, when fish oil--widely available, essentially free of side-effects, with a proven cardiovascular risk-reducing track record--should clearly be the first choice by a long stretch.

Among its many benefits, omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil also:

Reduce matrix metalloproteinases (MMP)--Two fractions of MMPs, MMP-2 and MMP-9, are inflammatory enzymes present in atherosclerotic plaque that are suspected to trigger plaque "rupture." Omega-3s have been shown to reduce both forms of MMP.

Block uptake of lipids in the artery wall--Suggested by a study in mice.

Modify postprandial responses--In the first few hours after eating (the "postprandial" period), a flood of digestive byproducts of a meal are present in the bloodstream. While research exploring postprandial effects is still in its infancy, it is clear that omega-3 fatty acids have the capacity to favorably modify postprandial patterns. One common surrogate measure for postprandial abnormalities is intermediate-density lipoprotein, or IDL, that we obtain in fasting blood through lipoprotein panels like NMR and VAP. With sufficient omega-3s alone, IDL is completely eliminated.

Unfortunately, most of my colleagues, if they even think to use omega-3s, choose to use the prescription form, Lovaza. Indeed, several representatives from AstraZeneca, the pharmaceutical outfit now distributing this miserably overpriced product, frequently barge their way into my office poking fun at our use of nutritional supplements instead of the prescription Lovaza. "But insurance covers it in most cases!" they plead. "And your patients will know that they're getting the real product, not some fake. And they'll have to take fewer capsules!"

I never use Lovaza to reduce triglycerides, even in familial hypertriglyceridemia--the FDA-approved indication for Lovaza--and have not yet seen any failures, only successes.

Comments (24) -

  • Sifter

    6/16/2009 3:43:12 PM |

    I am extremely skeptical of drug company boasts, but I do wonder if they have a point here.... since supplements are not regulated at all, how DO you know you're getting the right omega-3 and the right dosage? they could give you sugar and arsenic... how could you know?

  • mike V

    6/16/2009 4:06:00 PM |

    Hi Doc:
    Two questions please:

    1  It's well known that cutting carbohydrates also lowers trigs. significantly.
    Do you consider increasing omega 3s your primary attack?

    2 In this case is controlling omega 6/omega 3 ratio an issue, as it is in controlling inflammation?

    Thanks

    Mike V

  • Anonymous

    6/16/2009 5:06:06 PM |

    "But insurance covers it in most cases!"

    I wonder how much of the rise in health care costs can be attributed to this mentality? Why use a cheap, effective, non-patentable alternative when you can get something more expensive "for free" through your insurance? I think insurance coverage has had the unintended effect of causing health care to cost more and more since there's been ready money from insurers to cover the costs.

  • Frank Hagan

    6/16/2009 5:37:15 PM |

    Interesting ... I lowered by triglycerides from 344 to 106 mg/l in 6 weeks, but I'm not sure what the mechanism actually was.  I had been taking 1500mg of niacin per day for quite a while with little effect, but started a low carb diet (<30 grams of carbs per day) and taking 1600 mg of EPA in fish oil per day.  Within 6 weeks my test results showed the decrease.  

    I've heard both low carb diets and fish oil help lower triglycerides.  I'm hesitant to change anything ... thinking perhaps that its a "magical mix" of approaches that is working.

  • Venkat

    6/16/2009 9:03:13 PM |

    Thanks for the article Dr. By the way, does the fish oil increase Uric acid in (certain) individuals?

    In my case, I noticed that when I started on fish oil capsules, Uric acid jumped from 5.5 to 8.0 and hence the concern.

    Thanks

    Venkat

  • Anonymous

    6/16/2009 9:56:39 PM |

    We face similar ridicule from specialists. They not only get upset with us for managing our own patients (cardiology wants referrals for high cholesterol, psychiatry wants us to refer to them our average depressed patient, GI wants referrals for initial GERD) but they also very quickly dismiss our efforts to manage patients using generic medications and Vitamin D. We are family physicians. We MANAGE patients.

    A rheumatologist stopped by our office the other day to meet our providers.

    I witnessed his introduction to each provider (so I heard the same speech 5 times) and each time, the second or third sentence began with a list of 2-3 new drugs that the FDA just approved for treatment of XYZ condition, which he is already incorporating into his practice.

    After allowing him the courtesy to make his case, two of our providers questioned his experience with Vit D. His tone turned sour (as did the conversation) and he very quickly rushed through D (commenting that the results of managing D are "mixed" and "the jury is still out on that").

    He specifically asked how we manage patients who fail bisphosphonate therapy, to which one doc replied, "I haven't written for a bisphosphonate in almost 18 months, so I can't say that I've had any patients recently that fail a therapy I haven't put them on. I manage their osteo_____ by cranking up their D level. It's great! I've seen several patients with T-scores that increase 6-8%! Patients go from losing bone to making bone! We didn’t just slow their bone degeneration; we actually made new bone! With the bisphosphonates, you're preventing a natural process from occurring, plus the half life of at least 10 years doesn't sit well with most patients."

    To which the specialist replied, "oh sure. Which is why each patient must go on a drug holiday after 5 years."

    DRUG HOLIDAY? I'd never heard such a term.

    My doc went onto discuss how his patients have been very successfully treated for many types of arthritis without the use of prescription drugs.

    The conversation got especially tense when the specialist questioned how a patient could be “ethically” treated for osteo____ without the use of FDA approved pharmaceuticals.

    Needless to say, the specialist concluded with a comment about how we could stand around and argue medicine all day but he would appreciate more referrals from us.

    Yikes.

    (He also mentioned on more than one occasion how he can see our patients same day. A same day rheumatology referral? I'm struggling to picture a rheumatology referral that would require same day access.....

    He is also only 1 of 2 rheumatologists within 50 miles....and he has same day access and has been in the area for more than 2 years? Leads me to believe that maybe those services are becoming less needed due to D. Just a thought.)


    -JL

  • Ricardo.

    6/17/2009 12:15:33 AM |

    Low carb, low glycemic index, also help reduce tryglicerides:

    http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/reprint/131/10/2772S.pdf
    http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/reprint/85/9/3085.pdf
    http://www.ebmonline.org/cgi/reprint/225/3/178.pdf

  • Anonymous

    6/17/2009 1:01:35 AM |

    That is such a typical specialist reaction to the hormone D issue.  I experience this frequently.

    BTW, Lovaza is marketed by GSK, not AZ.

  • Anonymous

    6/17/2009 1:04:09 AM |

    In the migraine world, the concept of a "drug holiday" is pretty common. It isn't fun - you avoid all meds but it helps avoid rebound or medication overuse headaches.

  • Dr. William Davis

    6/17/2009 2:23:26 AM |

    JL--
    Thanks for your great story! Tell us more.


    Anonymous--

    GSK, AZ--Can you tell the difference? I certainly cannot.

    Their representatives are the same smiling-to-your-face, can-I-please-my-supervisor-and-make-my-bonus? sorts of people after one thing: their own career advancement--whether or not health is served.

  • Richard A.

    6/17/2009 5:38:42 AM |

    Here is an interesting letter to congress from a former drug rep--

    http://aging.senate.gov/events/hr190sa.pdf

  • Nameless

    6/17/2009 3:47:46 PM |

    I ran across a forum for drug reps, while randomly searching for info on a specific drug --

    http://www.cafepharma.com/boards/forumdisplay.php?f=3

    Their practices are scary and they basically come across, for lack of a better term, as evil. Sell their drug, whatever it takes.

  • Anonymous

    6/18/2009 2:32:27 PM |

    I really appreciate this blog but seriously, some times it just scares me into a semi-anxiety attack.
    ( Oh where oh where is my valium, LOL)
    TY Dr. Davis and all who provide such great information.  Keep up the good work!

  • homertobias

    6/18/2009 3:35:00 PM |

    Yes, and everyone wants the free samples.....So the beat goes on.  Doctors are well aware of the tactics that are being used. Most feel that perhaps their colleagues may fall for drug rep tactics.  Doctors underestimate their own vulnerability.  These days the most a drug rep can provide is a free take out lunch for the staff, free pens or a cup of coffee. Most docs don't realize that some drug reps and most of their supervisors make more money than the doctors do!  No wonder lovaza is so expensive.

  • Anonymous

    9/11/2009 2:11:40 AM |

    My trigs roller coastered between 300 and 650.  I was on extreme diets, statins, and Lovaza.  Nothing touched it.  My cardiologist blamed it on genes and said there's nothing much more we can do.  The LAST time I visted him, we argued about it to the point he finally agreed to run a series of blood tests.  Hypothyroidism...  I've been on thyroid medicine for about 5 months and the last two cholesterol screens came back normal in ALL aspects!
    Rich

  • trinkwasser

    10/2/2009 12:03:29 PM |

    Result! Send him to read this blog!

    Yes there are stories of woeful undertreatment of thyroid. My current doctors are very proactive on it - a pleasant change - and report finding problems quite often, increasing with age and female gender but present in others as well.

    This should be a relatively low incidence area - high selenium soil content and iodine from seafood - but there is a large (active) elderly population which might slant the numbers the other way - but they don't have comparative information from other areas to check due to diagnostic bias.

  • dave

    10/28/2009 4:02:26 PM |

    i have high triglycerides too.  i learned a lot from this website:
    http://loweryourtriglycerides.blogspot.com/

  • LarryAJ

    1/17/2010 7:33:26 PM |

    Thanks Dr. Davis for your blog and efforts to make people healthy. I think you will find this blog (if you haven't seen it) by Dr. Mike Eades very interesting as it fits right in with your "Triglyceride buster" blog.

    Four patients who changed my life. (blog by Dr. Eades)

  • Anonymous

    3/19/2010 4:12:51 PM |

    Things are looking up.  This was posted on the CafePharma Board yesterday.
    "Not to burst your bubble, but there are 120,000 reps out of work. Don't bother. Even people with GREAT credentials are finding nothing. Companies will continue to cut back. Access is harder than ever. The only reps that do well with getting even 2 minutes of time have some HOT sample with excellent formulary coverage. Device reps bust their ass and work from 6 am to 7 pm, 5 and even 6 days a week. I am hospital and leave at 6 am to 8 am and come home at 6 pm, on the road from 2 to 5 hours a day. It takes me 30 phone calls/emails to get ONE apppointment and when I show up, I better provide something valuable to the HCP or they will NEVER see me again. Hence, I spend my weekends studying and preparing for work. If I was under age 40, I would go back to school for a tech or nursing degree."

  • Donald

    6/27/2010 5:13:15 PM |

    Being a nurse, I never thought I would see this day. Actual doctors (Dr. Davis and others) promoting alternative therapies that are really not alternative but wholistic in nature. I am just beginning my own journey with self directed preventive care and cannot say enough about the fantastic information available. Looking forward to seeing how this develops. So far my weight has dropped 35 pounds, triglycerides reduced from 323  to 151 and this is just the beginning.

  • Anonymous

    7/2/2010 5:43:43 PM |

    Well I have heard plenty of stories about Omega-3's I have looked into them all including Lovaza and found that only one stands up to the test that truly helps triglycerides to be lowered. OceanBlueProfessional.com has their Omega-3 2100 product that has such a high potency of omega-3 if you take the suggested dosage it really works I take it every day and recommend it to everyone I know.

  • Generic Cialis

    9/23/2010 8:51:39 PM |

    My father has a high level of Triglyceride, and we are all worried about him, I know he takes Omega-3 but I believe he should increase the dose.

  • buy jeans

    11/2/2010 7:43:19 PM |

    I am continually surprised at the number of people with high triglycerides who are still treated with a fibrate drug, like Tricor, or a statin drug, when fish oil--widely available, essentially free of side-effects, with a proven cardiovascular risk-reducing track record--should clearly be the first choice by a long stretch.

Loading
It really ain't that tough
Loading