Free the Animal

Triglycerides: 93.5% Reduction in Three Weeks - 3,100 to 202

So there you have it: the punchline, right there in the title.

But who did it, and how? That would be none other than Dr. William Davis, cardiologist. So then, what sort of medical procedure did he perform? What sorts of pharmaceuticals did he prescribe? To what level did he admonish his patient, Daniel, to cut the arterycloggingsaturatedfat and to eat lots more servings of hearthealthywholegrians?

Of course, anyone who actually reads and thinks for themselves -- rather than swallowing the cloistered expert-&-authority-protectionism of conventional "wisdom" -- should know, he did none of those things; which, given the other successes he's blogged about -- some of which I've highlighted here -- exposes most if not all of the "lipid establishment" (i.e., cloistered expert-&-authority-protection racket) as con men: most physicians in that role, all the drug companies, and our beloved (not!) FDA.

Got it? Good, so let's move on.

Since most of you who should know, know, what then, dear supplicant to cloistered expert-&-authority-protection rackets, did Dr. Davis do? I'm glad you asked! It's actually simple: step one is that he "prescribed" 3,600 mg of over-the-counter omega-3 fatty acids per day, i.e., plain ol' fish oil caps. Depending on concentration, that could be anywhere from 5 to 10 1g caps per day, guesstimating. After 10 days, Trigs had dropped from 3,100 to 1,100. Step two was to continue on the OTC fish oil and eliminate wheat, corn starch, and sugar from the diet (in other words: less hearthealthywholegrains, more arterycloggingsaturatedfat). This took him from 1,100 to 202 in another 10 days.

Daniel, a sufferer of what's known as familial hypertriglyceridemia, now has lower Trigs than whole bunches of people walking about without such a genetic disorder. For those who don't know, triglycerides are fat circulating in your blood. The more hearthealthwholegrains and sugar you eat, the higher will be your triglyceride levels. The more arterycloggingsaturatedfat you eat, the less will be your levels. Almost all paleo and low-carb eaters have levels less than 100, and most of us hang out in a range of 40-60. I believe the average in the US is around 150 or so, and climbing (all while the cloistered expert-&-authority-protection racket claps and cheers over irrelevant, non-associated lower LDL levels). Lots of people are walking around at 400 and higher. But, hey, they lowered their LDL by eating lots of hearthealthywholegrains, and thus helping out Big Agra, who, in gracious turn, helps the cloistered expert-&-authority-protection racket. It's all quite cozy, incestuous...and insanely profitable.

High triglycerides are bad, very bad, and in my opinion, far worse than "elevated" serum cholesterol (lipoproteins). High triglycerides are well associated with death from heart disease, while half of those who die from heart disease have low cholesterol and half have high cholesterol.

Well, that about sums up the story (but not the rant), so the rest is devoted to Dr. Davis himself, who tells the brief story here and here.

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.

Could Dr. Davis be referring to his own colleagues in the medical profession -- most, probably?

Uh, yep:

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!"

Dr. Davis has previously blogged about the Lovaza rip off; punchline: $3,600 per year vs. $150 per year (all while so many in America clamor to have everyone pay for everyone else's "health" care...).

He says further:

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.

Good for Daniel, and good for the heroic Dr. Davis, who gives a great prognosis.

He's got just a little further to go to achieve the biologically ideal level of less than 60 mg/dl. You can see that it is not really that difficult--provided someone didn't load you down with nonsense about "cutting your fat," or statin or fibrate drugs.

And guess what, on a related topic? I just heard from a very well respected health blogger in email that a guy who'd contacted him about fatty liver disease got his enzymes back to normal in a single month. This, after 9 whole years of a fatty liver. What advice did this health blogger give him? Drop the sugar, vegetable oils, and take fish oil.

Let's be clear who the enemies are in all this: many of Dr. Davis' colleagues, all pharmaceutical companies, the FDA, and the whores in the mainstream media who can't wait to bend over for each and every one of the foregoing as often as they possibly can.

You didn't hear that here first, but you'll hear it often.

Reader Feedback - Doctors and Cholesterol

First up, an email from Robert, who'll become a medical doctor in under a week. He must be completely thrilled, eh?

~~~

Just wanted to say hello. I’ve been a regular reader for several months now and thought I should take a moment to introduce myself. My name is Robert and I will be an MD in about six days. I’ll be starting an internal medicine residency in Reno, NV in July. I am both excited and nervous about starting, nervous largely because my patience with “modern” medicine is in rapid decline and I have three years of attending physicians to deal with. Yes, Richard, all of the doctors I have worked with personally approach health and nutrition in as mindless a manner as you think and often rant about.

~~~

I know, Robert, and isn't it the damnedest thing? Here you spend all that time, money and effort -- all the while enduring an enormous burden in terms of mental and physical stress and fatigue -- and it would certainly be an appropriate reward to be held in the sort of superman high esteem doctors have traditionally and often deservedly been held.

But I think it's safe to say that owing to the Internet, with its legions of people like me who deal in facts, logic and principles -- and not so much in titles, degrees and positions -- that we're in a situation where the gig is up. Doctors have largely squandered the goodwill they've earned over a century of hard, dedicated, lifesaving work. Thankfully, there are a growing number of docs like your very-soon-to-be self who have come to see the light. It's going to be an uphill battle for a long time.

For instance, Tim, another reader, sent me his lipid panel for comment. Though I don't expect you to comment, Robert, I have an idea that you would interpret it far differently from Tim's doctor. So, as frustrating as it is, this is a step in the right direction. There's that.

~~~

February, 2008, 225 lbs, years on the Standard American Diet:

Total 173
Trig 109
HDL 60
LDL (calc) 91
VLDL 22
Ratio 2.9

July, 2008, 160 lbs, through calorie counting, semi starvation, yet semi-low carb:

Total 145
Trig 38
HDL 69
LDL (calc) 68
VLDL 8
Ratio 2.1

Been going Paleo(!) since Sept 08, intermittent fasting, 3 days a week lifting hard efforts, sprints, eating tons of meat! Actually heading down the road for 90 days of meat only (2+ weeks in right now) so I did another panel:

May 1, 2009, 170 lbs, more muscle!

Total 226
Trig 34
HDL 82
LDL (calc) 137
VLDL 7
Ratio 2.8

Should I be concerned of the rise in Total and LDL?  From what I've read on your blog, Dr. Eades, and other sources, I don't think so.  I am more fearful of the 145 total number (cancer! etc) than the 226!  But my doctor is of the opposite opinion.

~~~

His doctor is of the opposite opinion, but why? Has the doctor been reading Eades, Davis, Sears, Briffa, or the many others out there and concluded that they are wrong? I doubt it. Tim's doctor is probably what I now refer to as a "regurgitator," i.e., as applied to the medical profession: someone who is trained to expertly diagnose and treat in accordance with conventional "wisdom," right or wrong. My non-medical opinion is that we ought to be cheering his great success in improving his health in a way that reflects every well done study and observation of this sort of thing I've seen.

For example, his C-reactive protein was .3 (a "BTW" in another part of his email), where "normal" is < 3 mg/l. This is a strong marker for inflammation -- the very thing that small, dense LDL acts upon to cause heart disease. Also, the ratios they have given Tim are of Total/HDL, which remain steady, as his HDL went from 60 to 82 (all the while you hear great cheering amongst the ignorant masses when someone goes from 45-50 and credits oatmeal or Cheerios). Normal for that ratio is 4-6, because grain and sugar eaters have such miserably low HDL. Ideal is 2-3. Mine was 2.1, so was my wife's, thereabouts, so there's three data points on that for Paleo: IDEAL.

The more important ratio by far, in my opinion, is Trigs/HDL. This is one of the biggest associations with cardiovascular disease (CVD). Again, grain and sugar eaters have abysmally low HDL (the thing that carries oxidized LDL out of your arteries and back to the liver for recycling) combined with elevated triglycerides, which is dissolved fat in the blood. Yes, ironic, isn't it? You want low levels of circulating fat in your blood? Replace grain and sugar with fat in your diet and the very first thing that will happen is that your Trigs (fat in your blood) drop precipitously. Guaranteed.

Tim went from a decent level of 109 ("normal" is considered < 150, but that's only because it's based on normal for grain and sugar eaters) to a whopping low of 34. Of course, he did it by replacing crap in his diet (grain and sugar) with real food like animals and their fat. 

Now, in case you're suspicious about the veracity of this Trig/HDL ratio being of prime importance, there's a lot out there. How about this, a 1990 (!) interview with then director of the massive, long-term Framingham Heart Study, Dr. William Castelli.

"There's a subgroup of people who have an HDL under 40 and triglycerides over 150," he explains. "These people have galloping proression of their cholesterol deposits, which will eventually lead to heart disease, and the average physician is not picking it up."

You can read the whole interview.

So, what did Tim's Trig/HDL ratio do while progressing from SAD to Paleo? It went from 1.8, which is on the very low side of ideal (< 2), to .4, which is on the screaming bleeding high side of ideal. Mine is also .4, so is my wife's, thereabouts, so three more data points for ya. Tim achieves a 4.5 magnitude improvement on his Trig/HDL ratio.

I wonder what Cheerios would have done for him.

But that's not all. His LDL is calculated, and rather than rehashing the pitfalls of calculated LDL, I'll just refer you to my 2-part series: What Do You Think You Know About LDL Cholesterol? (part 1; part 2). For another reference, here's how LDL ought to be measured: NMR LippoProfile.

But what can we glean from the information provided? Well, it turns out that the Trig/HDL ratio is a reasonable marker for LDL particle size. Remember, and you can find out more here, but small & dense LDL particles are the real danger. Guess what else? grains and sugar give you a profile where most of your LDL is small and dense, while a high fat (natural, i.e., animal) diet gives you LDL that's large and fluffy, which is inversely associated with CVD, so far as I can tell.

Ratio of Triglycerides to HDL Cholesterol Is an Indicator of LDL Particle Size in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes and Normal HDL Cholesterol Levels

RESULTS — Clinical characteristics, pharmacological therapies, lifestyle, and prevalence of diabetes-related complications were similar in both patient groups. LDL size correlated negatively with plasma triglycerides (TGs) (R2= 0.52) and positively with HDL cholesterol (R2=0.14). However, an inverse correlation between the TG–to–HDL cholesterol molar ratio and LDL size was even stronger (R2= 0.59). The ratio was >1.33 in 90% of the patients with small LDL particles (95% CI 79.3–100) and 16.5% of those with larger LDL particles. A cutoff point of 1.33 for the TG–to–HDL cholesterol ratio distinguishes between patients having small LDL values better than TG cutoff of 1.70 and 1.45 mmol/l.

Let's unpack this, and by the way, while this may look incomprehensible to many of you, do know that a couple of years ago it would have been to me too. I can only encourage you to persevere. You can develop an ability to pretty well understand this stuff. Yes, consult a doctor (hopefully one like new-doc Robert), but go in knowing and understanding what you're talking about. If a doctor is ever offended by your accumulated knowledge and insistence on questions and clear explanations, you need to find a new one.

• LDL size correlated negatively with plasma triglycerides: higher Trigs = smaller LDL particles (bad)
• ...and positively with HDL cholesterol: lower HDL = smaller LDL particles (bad)
• However, an inverse correlation between the TG–to–HDL cholesterol molar ratio and LDL size was even stronger: the ratio is even more important, i.e., the higher the ratio, the smaller (badder) the LDL particles. Stunningly striking: 90% of those with small dense LDL (bad bad bad) had a Trig/HDL ratio greater than 1.33.

So, what's an average Trig/HDL ratio? I don't have time to look up averages and verify sources, but let's just assume an "on the edge" level for both Trigs (150) and HDL (40). 

That's a whopping ratio of 3.75, well above that 1.33 "cutoff"!!! So, if you present to your medical professional with better-than-"normal" triglycerides of 149 and HDLs of 41, he's going to give you a big high 5, and tell you you're on the right track. He's probably not going to even measure your C-reactive protein to determine inflammation markers, nor your Lipoprotein(a), or even homocysteine. And Tim? Before his transformation? Even with a very moderate Trig level by "normal" standards, he had a ratio of 1.8, well over that 1.33 "cutoff" between likely (with 90% confidence) small dense LDL and large fluffy. And now, at .4? Fergettaboutit. He's going to have an NMR per a subsequent email, but I can already tell you what it's going to show.

[Late edit: Note that as commenter below, GoEd, has correctly pointed out, that 1.33 ratio is based on European units for Trigs and cholesterol, i.e., mmol/l instead of mg/dl. That would all be fine and good, but Trigs and cholesterol convert differently. Dumb mistake, as I've made these conversions a number of times. So, at any rate, the ratio for Trigs and cholesterol based upon mg/dl is about 3.0, not 1.33. So, still, our example of a "normal, excellent" profile at a ratio of 3.75 is still well above the cutoff, albeit not quite as dramatically as I first implied.]

Though it is probably achievable to have a a small percentage of small LDL on a standard diet, I'm far more certain that it's going to be far easier accomplishing it on a paleo-like diet.

By the way, my lipid panels over the last year are here and here, my last with HDLs of 133. Yes: 133.

Afterthought: Tim has VLDL measurements, and the only thing I know is that lower is better. However, I've no idea how they are measured, how reliable they are as a marker, or any relevant studies. If an astute reader can educate me and the rest of us, please do so -- with my sincere gratitude.

Vitamin K1 vs. Vitamin K2

I've written a healthy bit on the enormous benefits of vitamin K2 (MK-4) Menatetrenone. To access those posts, click here.

Via Dr. Eades' excellent Twitter feed, I just got wind of this study on K1 (Phylloquinone) and its ability to modestly slow the progression of coronary artery calcium ("CAC" - 6% less progression than the control).

Conclusions: Phylloquinone supplementation slows the progression of CAC in healthy older adults with preexisting CAC, independent of its effect on total MGP concentrations.

There's also a media writeup on the affair. Let's probe.

Speaking to NutraIngredients.com at the recent Vitafoods show in Geneva, vitamin K expert Professor Cees Vermeer from VitaK at the University of Maastricht explained that matrix Gla protein (MGP) in the vessel walls is a hot topic.

“It is the most powerful inhibitor of soft tissue calcification presently known, and it definitely needs the vitamin K to be active in that way. So, vessel walls have only MGP to defend themselves against calcification,” he said.

So, what's "MGP," or, matrix gla protein? Lets close the loop, and Wikipedia will do just fine.

Matrix gla protein (MGP) is a protein found in numerous body tissues that requires vitamin K for its optimum function. It is present in bone (together with the related vitamin K-dependent protein osteocalcin), as well as in heart, kidney and lung. In bone, its production is increased by vitamin D.

Ah, vitamin D, again, eh (click here for my many posts)? So, what, all the experts be dammed, and get your unblocked sunshine and eat plenty of leafy green vegetables? Uh, no problem, but it's not my approach -- although I eat plenty of leafy greens. Let's continue with the article.

Overall, no significant differences in the groups were observed. However, in people with pre-existing CAC who took at least 85 per cent of the assigned supplements experienced a retardation of CAC progression of 6 per cent, compared to the control group. Such decreases occurred independently of changes in serum MGP, said Booth and her co-workers.

“Vitamin K supplementation reduced the progression of existing CAC in asymptomatic older men and women when taken with recommended amounts of calcium and vitamin D. The mechanisms by which vitamin K conferred a protective role are still uncertain,” wrote the researchers.

So, is it really the K1, the vitamin D, or could it perhaps be that just an added bit of K helped the K and D work in better sync (something that happens naturally on a paleo diet with plenty of sunshine, BTW)?

But so now let me get to the far bigger news, something I've blogged on before. Though there are no studies in humans I'm aware of, yet, it is well known that in rats, high-dose K2 (MK-4 - Menatetrenone) doesn't just slow the progression of CAC, it actually reverses it and does so significantly. Stephan at Whole Health Source tracked that down some time ago. This is a must read post, folks. A couple of things to highlight.

In the group fed high K1 but no warfarin, there was about three times more K2 MK-4 in the aortas than K1, suggesting that they had converted it effectively and that vascular tissue selectively accumulates K2 MK-4. A high K1 intake was required for this effect, however, since the normal K1 diet did not reverse calcification. The rats fed high K2 MK-4 had only K2 MK-4 in their aortas, as expected.

[emphasis added]

I just had a brief email exchange with Stephan about this and speculated that emphasized bit before even looking up his posts (that's not to say he agrees, but he may post on this too, and we'll know). Essentially, since we're so bad at converting K1 to K2, perhaps a big enough dose of K1 helps.

But why not just go for the K2, as that's where the benefit really is? Well, then, instead of recommending people eat leafy greens, you've got to recommend they eat things like bone marrow, liver, meat, animal fat, eggs, fish eggs, foie gras and such. Can't do that, because those things clog arteries; uh, right? So we're in a sort of bizarre estoppel situation, where they're now finding important nutritional benefits for preventing and reversing heart disease, and these super nutrients are found primarily in the things we've been told will give us heart disease. A perfect storm of modern ignorance.

Now, stop and consider that for a second. Everything ads up, here. The Japanese have been hot on the trail of K2 and its ability to halt and reverse osteoporosis for years. Then there's the vitamin D. Huh, pretty paleo: sunshine, meat, animal fat, & eggs. Sound a lot like what primitive people experienced and ate for eons. Here's Stephan from the same post, again.

K2 MK-4 (and perhaps other menaquinones like MK-7) may turn out to be an effective treatment for arterial calcification and cardiovascular disease in general. It's extremely effective at preventing osteoporosis-related fractures in humans. That's a highly significant fact. Osteoporosis and arterial calcification often come hand-in-hand. Thus, they are not a result of insufficient or excessive calcium, but of a failure to use the available calcium effectively. In the warfarin-treated rats described above, the serum (blood) calcium concentration was the same in all groups. Osteoporosis and arterial calcification are two sides of the same coin, and the fact that one can be addressed with K2 MK-4 means that the other may be as well. 

In the end, it's gratifying to see daily confirmation of stuff I've blogged over the last couple of years. For me, it's pretty easy and straightforward: follow the paleo principle.

The burden of proof is on the others, and more and more, it's becoming very clear that we have been duped by government, big agra, and big pharma -- all bedfellows in a money-making scheme that has already maimed and killed millions unnecessarily.

Later: Uh, that last characteristically inflammatory bit may be a little overstated. While there's no doubt to me that the state, big agra and big pharma constitute a perfect storm of harm, whereby nutritional and health problems that didn't exist have been created, with the same villains rushing in to "solve" them, for a price (both individually and societally), it is nonetheless a fact that billions of people -- individuals -- exist because of agriculture. Wishing that away would be to wish away all those lives, and I can't do that. Equally, the pharmaceutical industry has presided over miracles.

A Good Doc

First: Kudos out to frequent commenter "Paleo Newbe" MD, who continues to brave the [some] abuse, here. He has the difficult balancing act of being a rational doc, but also keeping his license. To my mind, this sort of thing needs to be encouraged. I salute him.

The reason for that, above, is to highlight the good work of my mom's doc, as differentiated from the advice nurse.

The doctor is very pleased with my progress. He believes the problem is the Metformin. He kind of got after me for not contacting him sooner, when I started vomiting every day.

Anyway, I was taking 1,000 MG of Metforin in the morning and another 1,000 at night. He wants me to cut that in half and he wants me off it as soon as possible, but wants me to lose another 15 to 20 pounds. So that's my current goal.

I am going to try fasting, now. He thinks it's very good that I'm off the heart-burn meds, and the cholesterol meds.

He cut my blood pressure med in half. He believes that my blood pressure is weight related, so when I lose some more weight, we will try taking that away too.  He will also change my prescription to the natural thyroid (Armour). He said he will also order the lipid test that Richard wants me to have.

Take responsibility for your own health, accumulate the knowledge Google provides you, and go forth. Any honest doctor will tell you: unless you have something really weird, it's not that hard.

I'll add: a paleo-like diet will give you a step up.

Cure Dental Cavities

What if I told you that it was known worldwide in 1924 that common dental carries (cavities) could easily be cured without drilling, filling, or worse: extraction? But how could that be? Dentists make billions of dollars per year, worldwide, drilling, filling, extracting, rooting and all manner of other such things.

Oh, I know. It's one of those "natural remedy" things; probably something written up in the Farmer's Almanac of the time or tales passed along by Old Wives. That's gotta be it, eh?

Uh...no. Try the British Medical Journal (free registration) in 1924 as well as the British Dental Journal (archives only go back to 1970).

Now, Stephan did a great write-up on this, including a layman's explanation of just how a cavity in a tooth remineralizes. So, I'm not going to steal his thunder. Here's just a preview.

Drs. Mellanby set out to see if they could use their dietary principles to cure tooth decay that was already established. They divided 62 children with cavities into three different diet groups for 6 months. Group 1 ate their normal diet plus oatmeal (rich in phytic acid). Group 2 ate their normal diet plus vitamin D. Group 3 ate a grain-free diet and took vitamin D.

In group 1, oatmeal prevented healing and encouraged new cavities, presumably due to its ability to prevent mineral absorption. In group 2, simply adding vitamin D to the diet caused most cavities to heal and fewer to form. The most striking effect was in group 3, the group eating a grain-free diet plus vitamin D, in which nearly all cavities healed and very few new cavities developed. Grains are the main source of phytic acid in the modern diet, although we can't rule out the possibility that grains were promoting tooth decay through another mechanism as well.

Go read the whole interesting story, including others who were curing cavities in the 1920s.

On a personal note, for those who haven't heard this from me before: I had gum disease. I had two surgeries seven years ago, then regular cleanings, but was getting marginally worse again. Getting off grains not only stopped the progression almost immediately, but completely reversed my declining gums within months. However, I still had major plaque buildup problems. Supplementation with vitamin D and K2 (MK-4) has now completely solved that to the point where I really don't need to brush, anymore. A toothpick suffices and I only brush now and then for the cool minty feeling. I wake up every morning with smooth pearls in my mouth.

I am amazed daily at how ignorant we have allowed outselves to become, and I only don't mean in terms of a cure. How about dammed preventing them in the first place?

A friend of mine might call this an example of what he's dubbed: The Endarkenment. The more and more of this sort of thing I see -- and I see it more and more -- the more I see what he means.

D Cold and D Flu

I got this abstract from the Archives of Internal Medicine, courtesy of several readers last week (along with related articles), so thanks to one and all.

~~~

Background Recent studies suggest a role for vitamin D in innate immunity, including the prevention of respiratory tract infections (RTIs). We hypothesize that serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) levels are inversely associated with self-reported recent upper RTI (URTI).

Methods We performed a secondary analysis of the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, a probability survey of the US population conducted between 1988 and 1994. We examined the association between 25(OH)D level and recent URTI in 18 883 participants 12 years and older. The analysis adjusted for demographics and clinical factors (season, body mass index, smoking history, asthma, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease).

Results The median serum 25(OH)D level was 29 ng/mL (to convert to nanomoles per liter, multiply by 2.496) (interquartile range, 21-37 ng/mL), and 19% (95% confidence interval [CI], 18%-20%) of participants reported a recent URTI. Recent URTI was reported by 24% of participants with 25(OH)D levels less than 10 ng/mL, by 20% with levels of 10 to less than 30 ng/mL, and by 17% with levels of 30 ng/mL or more (P < .001). Even after adjusting for demographic and clinical characteristics, lower 25(OH)D levels were independently associated with recent URTI (compared with 25[OH]D levels of 30 ng/mL: odds ratio [OR], 1.36; 95% CI, 1.01-1.84 for <10 ng/mL and 1.24; 1.07-1.43 for 10 to <30 ng/mL). The association between 25(OH)D level and URTI seemed to be stronger in individuals with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR, 5.67 and 2.26, respectively).

Conclusions Serum 25(OH)D levels are inversely associated with recent URTI. This association may be stronger in those with respiratory tract diseases. Randomized controlled trials are warranted to explore the effects of vitamin D supplementation on RTI.

~~~

In simpler terms, the higher the vitamin D level, the less cold and flu. Second, the association is looking more and more like an independent one; that is, regardless of your other risk factors, adequate vitamin D levels appear to be generally protective (this is what they mean when they say they "adjust" for age, gender, and other risk factors, etc.). In fact, the strongest association was found in those with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

It's important to understand what was done here, and the importance of data collection and storage over the long term. Basically, they were able to go back and query the database for those who had reported recent colds and flu (almost 19,000 records), and then compare those answers with the patients' vitamin D levels, also in the database.

This is decent epidemiological science; but it is, of course, only a precursor to gold-standard science: actual intervention by means of double-blind, randomized, placebo control. That means that the researchers intervene by supplementing half of a group with D and the other half with a placebo, with the spit between the group being random, and neither the researchers nor the subjects know who's getting the real thing and who's getting placebo. In this fashion, when done correctly and with statistically significant results, actual cause and effect can be established.

Here's an example of decent vitamin D science, a randomized controlled trial that demonstrated a 60% reduced risk for all cancer with supplementation of only 1,000 IU per day. As reported:

A four-year clinical trial involving 1,200 women found those taking the vitamin had about a 60-per-cent reduction in cancer incidence, compared with those who didn't take it, a drop so large — twice the impact on cancer attributed to smoking — it almost looks like a typographical error.

There's other "good science," too, only not in the way it was intended. These researchers determined that there was no noticeable benefit to supplementation at twice the USRDA of 200 IU per day (400 IU).

There's an old saying: "every experiment is a success." Get it?

And keep in mind: Getting plenty of sun may not be enough. Your ability to synthesize D diminishes with age, dark skin is less efficient, and latitude and time of year play a roll (father away from the equator, the less absorption, the less time per year the sun is high enough, and the less time per day when it is). The best way is to get tested and supplement until your level is 60 or better.

Paleo for Everyone, All the Time, for Universal Health Improvement

I noted this a few days back, here. And now Stephan-the-Great has really done a wonderful and fascinating job interpreting the whole deal. Read the whole thing, please, but here's the punchline.

On to the results. Participants, on average, saw large improvements in nearly every meaningful measure of health in just 10 days on the "paleolithic" diet. Remember, these people were supposedly healthy to begin with. Total cholesterol and LDL dropped, if you care about that. Triglycerides decreased by 35%. Fasting insulin plummeted by 68%. HOMA-IR, a measure of insulin resistance, decreased by 72%. Blood pressure decreased and blood vessel distensibility (a measure of vessel elasticity) increased. It's interesting to note that measures of glucose metabolism improved dramatically despite no change in carbohydrate intake. Some of these results were statistically significant, but not all of them. However, the authors note that:

In all these measured variables, either eight or all nine participants had identical directional responses when switched to paleolithic type diet, that is, near consistently improved status of circulatory, carbohydrate and lipid metabolism/physiology.

Translation: everyone improved. That's a very meaningful point, because even if the average improves, in many studies a certain percentage of people get worse. This study adds to the evidence that no matter what your gender or genetic background, a diet roughly consistent with our evolutionary past can bring major health benefits. Here's another way to say it: ditching certain modern foods can be immensely beneficial to health, even in people who already appear healthy. This is true regardless of whether or not one loses weight.

This solidifies my thinking along several lines:

1. It's not about weight / fat loss, primarily (these study participants were overfed to keep them from losing weight during the study).
2. It's not about carbohydrate within reason (they kept the same carb ingestion levels as before).
3. It is all about Real Food all the time. Just dump the shit. Eliminate all grains, all legumes, all sugar, all processed vegetable oils, and all products derived therefrom. Eat as much as you want of the following: natural fats (animal, olive, avocado, coconut), meat / fowl / seafood, vegetables (starchy ones within reason), fruits (focus on berries), and nuts (peanuts aren't nuts).

It is so simple, so enjoyable, you'll feel better than you can remember in your entire life, and it works 100% of the time for 100% of the people.

Shit: Don't. Eat. It.

Later: I see Dr. Eades has a post on it, too.

High Intensity Sprinting for Diabetes

In the BBC, and I believe I saw this on Art's private blog.

Short fast sprints 'cut' diabetes

Rather than slaving away for hours in the gym, people should focus their attention on quick "sprints" with each workout lasting just a few minutes. James Timmons, Heriot-Watt University professor of exercise biology has studied the effects of quick exercise.

He recommends 4 x 30 second sprints on an exercise bike three times a week. He said people could reduce their risk of diabetes and heart disease substantially with short, intense workouts - with such "time-efficient" exercising appealing to busy workers. [...]

This involved the men going as fast as they could for 30 seconds and then taking a few minutes of complete rest between each sprint. After two weeks, Prof Timmons said the results were "substantial", with a 23% improvement in insulin function.

While his research focused on young men, Prof Timmons said it would work for people of all ages and for both men and women. He said: "This study looked at the way we break down stores of glycogen.

"Think about diabetes as being glucose circulating in the blood rather than stored in the muscles where it should be.

"If we take out the glycogen from the muscles through exercise, then the muscles draw in that excess glucose from the blood."

Exactly what I and others have been saying for a long time with respect to the GENE EXPRESSION benefits of HIT (high intensity training). This takes no time at all and is a lot of fun (sprinting in now my favorite, since I've retrained myself to run all-out at 48-yrs-old). And, if you can't run, you can use a stationary bike, but put a bit of resistance on it, and just go all out -- everything you have.

And, as many have also been saying, chronic cardio gets you nowhere. It probably harms you.

He added: "If you go for a jog or a run you oxidise glycogen but you are not depleting the glycogen in your muscles.

"The only way to get to this glycogen is through very intense contractions of the muscles.

"If we can get people in their 20s, 30s and 40s doing these exercises twice a week then it could have a very dramatic effect on the future prevalence of diabetes." He said the effects were bigger than the traditional "one hour of running per day".

Marisa's Comment and Bratty Kids

This comment came through on an older post from November on evolutionary nutrition. Let me quote Marisa.

Hi! I stumbled upon this "paleo" eating quite by accident. I have a gluten/casein allergy that has wreaked havoc on my health, and has induced autistic symptoms in one of my children. Since removing it from our diet, my eczema has abated, and my child's ability to cross-pattern appeared for the first time, along with her toe-walking (symptom of neurological damage) being a thing of the past ... except when we get wheat contamination, and then she walks around like a ballerina again. (along with the diarrhea, aggression, and general malaise)

We experiemented with the whole GFCF (gluten-free/casein-free) world of other grains, but literally spent a fortune. In the hopes of reeling in the finances, I dropped all the "fun" foods, and stuck to non-allergenic foods that were readily available to us: grass-fed, organic beef, pork, chicken, vegetables, nuts, organic oils (EVOO, coconut and palm mostly), coconut milk, and some fruits (thank god for Whole Foods). Because of our leaky guts I shied away from legumes (mold). Well, there you have it: the paleo diet. As we progressed along this line, I was astonished at my kids' recovery: they were happier, less tantrum-y, their skin (which had always been dry) became dewy soft, their chapped lips were a thing of the past too.

This is purely anecdotal, but I have noticed a tremendous difference in the behavior of children in rough correlation to the things I see them eating. Kids eating lots of cereal, mac & cheese, cookies, boxed juices, sodas, candy and so forth often behave as awful brats.

On the other hand, my wife has some relatives with two young children that are perhaps the best behaved I have ever witnessed in my life. The mother is a fish-eating vegetarian, I never observe much junk in their house, and though not Paleo, it's always real food served up around there.

Coincidence? Well, one of the things that Weston Price often remarked about during his world travels to study people living on traditional, non-industrial diets was the good behavior of the children, and that he never saw any sort of harsh discipline or corporal punishment involved.

Then, there's this from Stephan some months ago. Go see how closely the increased use of industrial vegetable oils tracks with homicide

Vegetable Oil and Homicide

One of the major dietary changes that has accompanied the downward slide of American health is the replacement of animal fats with industrially processed vegetable oils. Soybean oil, corn oil, cottonseed oil and other industrial creations have replaced milk and meat fat in our diet, while total fat consumption has remained relatively constant. The result is that we're eating a lot more polyunsaturated fat than we were just 30 years ago, most of it linoleic acid (omega-6). Corn oil may taste so bad it inspires you to violence, but its insidiousness goes beyond the flavor.

Stephan also has a follow up post well worth a read (The Omega Ratio), as in addition to the epidemiological correlations, he lists a number of intervention studies suggesting that improving the omega 3/6 ratio ameliorates some behavioral problems.

- EPA supplementation (a long-chain n-3 fatty acid) reduced aggression and depression in a group of women with borderline personality disorder.

- DHA supplementation improved aggression in young Thai students.

- n-3 supplementation improved symptoms of bipolar disorder.

- EPA supplementation improved symptoms of unipolar depression.

- n-3 supplementation improved perinatal depression.

- n-3 supplementation improved symptoms of major depression.

- DHA and EPA supplementation reduced suicidal behaviors and improved markers of well-being in patients with recurrent self-harm.

- n-3 supplementation decreased anger and anxiety in substance abusers.

So, are your kids brats, and you think that's just the way it is? How about stop with the poison (flour, sugar, processed vegetable oils and all the crap made from some combination of them)? feed 'em all the meat, natural fat, vegetables, fruits and nuts they want, only that, and just see what happens.

Vitamin D Anecdotes

Dr. Davis has a post up the other day on "high-dose" vitamin D. Says the doc:

Judging by my experiences, now numbering well over 1000 patients over three years time, I'd regard this dose range not as "high dose," nor moderate dose, perhaps not even low dose. I'd regard it as barely adequate.

Though needs vary widely, the majority of men require 6000 units per day, women 5000 units per day. Only then do most men and women achieve what I'd define as desirable: 60-70 ng/ml 25-hydroxy vitamin D blood level.

I base this target level by extrapolating from several simple observations:

--In epidemiologic studies, a blood level of 52 ng/ml seems to be an eerily consistent value: >52 ng/ml and cancer of the colon, breast, and prostate become far less common; <52 ng/ml and cancers are far more likely. I don't know about you, but I'd like to have a little larger margin of safety than just achieving 52.1 ng/ml.

Regarding the epidemiology of cancer and vitamin D levels, take a close look at the last image on my post on cancer the other day.

However, I also posted a comment on the entry relating an anecdote (or coincidence) I recently had with the sunshine vitamin.

I just had a very interesting experience, but keep in mind: this is purely anecdotal.

I've been taking 6k IU per day for a few months and I'll soon get tested to see what my level is. However, week before last was the holiday party week and I was at parties like 5 days in a row, LOTS of drink (scotch, mostly), staying up late, getting up early, etc.

Predictably, I came down with a cold. On that first day, with that odd scratchy feeling in the back of my throat, I did 18k units of D. Next morning, no symptoms, to the point I though I might be mistaken about a cold coming on. Next morning, bang, the nose starts running, sneezes, but very mild -- like 25% of a cold. 18K units again, and within hours, no more symptoms. Next morning, same thing with the runny nose, so I did another 18K units and within a few hours all symptoms were gone, it's now almost a week later and they have not returned.

I almost can't wait to catch another cold just to see if I can duplicate.

So, OK, I threw that out there, but I did so and still do think it's highly speculative. While I have a lot of confidence that good levels of D will prevent colds, flu and other maladies, I'm not so sure about its ability to stop, cure, or ameliorate a sickness that has already taken hold.

Even so, I was surprised that I'm apparently not alone in my experience. Here's three follow-on comments from others.

Very interesting indeed, Richard. I had a similar experience recently.

It was a few days before Thanksgiving, and I felt myself getting sick. Not with a cold, but with the flu. I got a 102 degree fever and felt awful. I remembered Dr. Cannell and Dr. Mercola talking about "stoss" therapy, so I calculated an "influenza dose" based on my body weight. I took around 150,000 IU once per day for three days. On the morning of the third day, I was completely better and was able to eat Thanksgiving dinner with my family. All in all, I had the flu for TWO DAYS. Amazing. I've never recovered from a severe illness that fast. In the past, I have always been very slow to recover. Incredible stuff.

~~~

My experiments last winter and this one with high doses of D at the first sign of a cold have been very similar, though I have been using 8-12,000iU of D3 (Carlson Solar Gems 4000iU x 3 each morning for my husband and I, x 1 for my son). The past week we were visiting family members some of whom had a cold that was catchy, and so far, we haven't caught the cold. Of course, they were skeptical of the Vit D boosting the immune system, etc.

~~~

Richard,

your experience where Vitamin D appears to eradicate cold symptons is similar to my experience.

In past winters I always experienced major colds - typically three to five during the months of November through April. Usually they would last a couple of weeks each.

Late Spring 2008 I learned about the critical importance of vitamin D3. Now I supplement between 6,000 IU and 8,000 IU per day, and my 25(OH)D level floats in the 60 - 80 ng/ml range.

This year, sofar, I have had three experiences where I thought I caught a cold with typical symptoms. In each case the symptoms seemed to get worse during the first day, but completely resolved within 24 hours. No additional medication or supplementation of anyting, except the regular 6k - 8k IU D3.

With research indicating that vitamin D is critical to a strong immune system, my sense is that the cold virus still attacks, but has no change to survive when the immune system is strong, enabled by means of adequate Vitamin D.

By the way, my four year old son also has no persistent cold symptons this year, no ear infections. Such relief!

It is great to see that vitamin D does much more than enusring the cold virus cannot survive. The strong immune system it allows our bodies to build, appears to reduce all kinds of inflammation (CVD link) and cellular problems.

Vitamin D Deficiency and All Cancer

This is a huge presentation from GrassrootsHealth, much of it likely inaccessible to the average layman. So let me help. I could certainly use as much knowledge as possible -- and let me come clean about something.

It's weird, at the age of 47, having completed one career and then started a successful company that pays my way even when I'm not there, only to find that I probably should have studied biochemistry instead of mathematics, computer science, and ultimately, business administration. I must have been derailed by my teenage infatuation with layman physics and pop cosmology, which set my course. I ultimately became unsatisfied with high-level math because, I dunno, I didn't smoke dope (at the time). It was just too inapplicable to the practical realities that interested me then. Biology was the farthest thing from my mind, and her I am, decades later, pouring over ever study I can get my computer on.

Computer programming was cool, and it teaches you logic like nothing else, but I got impatient with the stone age way computer time was managed at the university I attended, and I just had to move on.

Alright, on to highlights of Dose-Response of Vitamin D and a Mechanism for Prevention of Cancer, by Cedric F. Garland, Dr.P.H., Edward D. Gorham, M.P.H., Ph.D., Sharif B. Mohr, M.P.H., and Frank C. Garland, Ph.D.

There are a ton of slides here, so I'll highlight a few of what I consider the most notable. First up, placebo vs. intervention. I'd call that significant.

Vitamin D Deficiency and Type 1 Diabetes

Well, via a nice Google alert for vitamin D, I stumbled upon a treasure trove, yesterday. At first, it was just one of the more common news articles I cite. In this case, however, there was this bit towards the end.

Carole Baggerly started a group called GrassrootsHealth last year in California, which focuses solely on promoting information about vitamin D. She started it after a bout with breast cancer that was followed by a diagnosis of osteoporosis. She learned she was vitamin D deficient.

This led to a whole list of discoveries about vitamin D. She read research that suggested raising vitamin D levels may prevent up to half of all breast cancer and two-thirds of colorectal cancer cases in the United States. She read a study showing women with the lowest levels of vitamin D had nearly double the risk of their breast cancer progressing, and a 73 percent greater risk of death compared to women with adequate vitamin D. She found out that the first study linking colorectal cancer and vitamin D was published in 1941.

You know, I'm seeing this more and more, and I don't blog or link even a 10th of the stuff I read. Increasingly, I'm seeing references to associations discovered in the early 1900s that should have been paid attention to, weren't, and we're suffering the consequences. It's rotten fruit, vegetable and eggs time (to be tossed at some of these "experts" and "authorities").

Moving on, I quickly located GrasstootsHealth and then this page. which just happens to be the pot of gold. Those links are to various presentations by doctors and other researchers that are chock full of associative revelations I find riveting, mind-blowing, shocking, you name it.

Let's begin with vitamin D deficiency in association with type 1 diabetes, by Frank Garland, PhD.

Vitamin D Deficiency Speculation in the Increase in Cesarean Childbirth

I got up this morning to a new report showing a significant association between vitamin D deficiency and Cesarean deliveries of children.

Vitamin D deficiency is common in pregnant women, and it may lead to an increased risk for cesarean delivery, early research suggests.

Vitamin D researcher Michael Holick, MD, PhD, and colleagues from the Boston Medical Center report that women in their study who were severely vitamin D deficient during childbirth were about four times more likely to deliver by cesarean section as women with higher vitamin D levels.

What's interesting to me is to connect dots, so here we go. The first thing this report reminded me of is how Weston Price, in Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, frequently observed that many things go together, i.e., tooth decay, along with crowded teeth, along with susceptibility to tuberculosis and other diseases not encountered in primitives consuming their traditional diets, and on to heavily labored childbirth, among other afflictions.

As an aside, and I haven't done any particular digging on this point (perhaps someone has who can lay down a comment and reference), but do wild animals existing in an environment adequate to their needs often experience undue problems birthing their offspring in the absence of veterinarians and animal hospitals? I would guess not. Biologically, humans are 100% animals. But, we're domesticated. So where does that lead your thinking? As a final tidbit, Price also documents birthing problems as well as severe deformities in domestic animals.

Here's an excerpt from Price specifically in regard to childbirth in primitives, contrasted with those who had taken on some measure of our Western diet.

One of the outstanding changes which I have found takes place in the primitive races at their point of contact with our modern civilization is a decrease in the ease and efficiency of the birth process. When I visited the Six Nation Reservation at Brantford, Ontario, I was told by the physician in charge that a change of this kind had occurred during the period of his administration, which had covered twenty-eight years and that the hospital was now used largely to care for young Indian women during abnormal childbirth (Chapter 6).

A similar impressive comment was made to me by Dr. Romig, the superintendent of the government hospital for Eskimos and Indians at Anchorage, Alaska. He stated that in his thirty-six years among the Eskimos, he had never been able to arrive in time to see a normal birth by a primitive Eskimo woman. But conditions have changed materially with the new generation of Eskimo girls, born after their parents began to use foods of modern civilization. Many of them are carried to his hospital after they had been in labour for several days. One Eskimo woman who had married twice, her last husband being a white man, reported to Dr. Romig and myself that she had given birth to twentysix children and that several of them had been born during the night and that she had not bothered to waken her husband, but had introduced him to the new baby in the morning.

Sherman, (10) who has made many important contributions to our knowledge of vitamin A, has shown in a recent communication that an amount of vitamin A sufficient to support normal growth and maintain every appearance of good health in animals, may still be insufficient to meet the added nutritive demands of successful reproduction and lactation. With the failure to reproduce successfully, there usually appears in early adult life an increased susceptibility to infection, and particularly a tendency to lung disease at an age corresponding to that at which pulmonary tuberculosis so often develops in young men and women. He states, further, that vitamin A must be supplied in liberal proportions not only during the growth period but during the adult period as well, if a good condition of nutrition and a high degree of health and vigor are to be maintained.

Price goes on at length about vitamin A, along with E -- both fat soluble vitamins in combination with D and K2. But let's connect more dots, OK? First, here's a very interesting look by Stephan at Whole Health Source about how all these vitamins work in combination, specifically in the context of vitamin A toxicity.

The question of optimal intake is where opinions begin to diverge. Hunter-gatherers and healthy non-industrial cultures, who almost invariably had excellent dental and skeletal development and health, often had a very high intake of vitamin A (according to Dr. Weston Price and others). This is not surprising, considering their fondness for organ meats. A meager 2 ounces of beef liver contains about 9,500 IU, or almost 200% of your U.S. and Canadian recommended daily allowance (RDA). Kidney and eye are rich in vitamin A, as are many of the marine oils consumed by the Inuit and other arctic groups.

If we can extrapolate from historical hunter-gatherers, our ancestors didn't waste organs. In fact, in times of plenty, some groups discarded the muscle tissue and ate the organs and fat. Carnivorous animals often eat the organs first, because they know exactly where the nutrients are. Zookeepers know that if you feed a lion nothing but muscle, it does not thrive.

This is the background against which we must consider the question of vitamin A toxicity. Claims of toxicity must be reconciled with the fact that healthy cultures often consumed large amounts of vitamin A without any ill effects. [...]

The only problem is, this position ignores the interactions between fat-soluble vitamins. Vitamin D strongly protects agains vitamin A toxicity and vice versa. As a matter of fact, "vitamin A toxicity" is almost certainly a relative deficiency of vitamin D. Vitamin D deficiency is also tightly correlated with low bone mineral density, osteoporosis and fracture risk. A high vitamin A intake requires vitamin D to balance it. The epidemiological studies showing an association between high-normal vitamin A intake and reduced bone health all sported populations that were moderately to severely vitamin D deficient on average. At optimal vitamin D levels, 40-70 ng/mL 25(OH)D, it would take a whopping dose of vitamin A to induce toxicity. You might get there if you eat nothing but beef liver for a week or two.

The experiment hasn't been done under controlled conditions in humans, but if you believe the animal studies, the optimal intake for bone mineral density is a high intake of both vitamins A and D. And guess what? A high intake of vitamins A and D also increases the need for vitamin K2. That's because they work together. For example, vitamin D3 increases the secretion of matrix Gla protein and vitamin K2 activates it. Is it any surprise that the optimal proportions of A, D and K occur effortlessly in a lifestyle that includes outdoor activity and whole, natural animal foods? This is the blind spot of the researchers who have warned of vitamin A toxicity: uncontrolled reductionism. Vitamins do not act in a vacuum; they interact with one another. If your theory doesn't agree with empirical observations from healthy cultures, it's back to the drawing board.

Now, here's Chris Masterjohn on some of the other roles of K2.

Our understanding of the K vitamins is rapidly expanding and we are likely to discover many new roles for them as the twenty-first century progresses.

The highest concentration of vitamin K2 exists in the salivary glands and the pancreas. These organs exhibit an overwhelming preference for K2 over K1 and retain high amounts of the vitamin even when animals consume a vitamin K-deficient diet.(15) The high presence of the vitamin in both of these organs suggests a role in activating digestive enzymes, although its apparent role in the regulation of blood sugar could explain its presence in the pancreas.(76) The testes of male rats also exhibit a high preference for and retention of vitamin K2,(16) and human sperm possess a vitamin K-dependent protein with an unknown function.(77) The kidneys likewise accumulate large amounts of vitamin K2(69) and secrete vitamin K-dependent proteins that inhibit the formation of calcium salts. Patients with kidney stones secrete this protein in its inactive form, which is between four and twenty times less effective than its active form at inhibiting the growth of calcium oxalate crystals, suggesting that vitamin K2 deficiency is a major cause of kidney stones.(77)

The use of Warfarin during pregnancy produces developmental malformations of the face; as the nasal cartilage calcifies, growth of the nose comes to an early end, resulting in a stubby appearance.(78) Vitamin K2 therefore most certainly played a role in the development of beautiful faces with broad features that Price observed among primitive peoples.

So, my speculation is that this is what happens when you don't heed Francis Bacon's keen observation: "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed." While I am all for technology, advancement, science, and medical "miracles," I believe that the downright obstinate arrogance today's modern researchers and "health authorities" get away with is a direct consequence of the general populace buying into Hobbes' fallacy, when he described man's primitive life as "solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short." Given that, what do you think of Carl P. Weiner, MD, and the other "experts?" To wit:

Not So Fast, Expert Says

But maternal-fetal medicine specialist Carl P. Weiner, MD, says more research is needed before such a recommendation would be justified. Weiner is chairman of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Kansas Medical Center.

"This is an interesting study, but very preliminary, and it should not be seen as the basis for a change in clinical practice," Weiner tells WebMD. "We really can't say if there is a downside or an upside to additional vitamin D."

Do you see right through Dr. Weiner and his brand of "expertise" like I do? I'll speculate and psychoanalyze: I think Dr. Weiner is very enamored of being considered an "expert" and being called upon to render "expert" opinion. Of course, that requires rendering opinion fully in accordance with the doctrines espoused by the "authorities."

Me, and others? We just care about health. The very well established record with respect to healthy hunter-gatherers proves beyond any shadow of any doubt that we have gone far astray of a healthful diet. People like Dr. Weiner have been contributing to that state of affairs for decades. Where once that may have been motivated more by a bright eyed but ultimately ignorant confidence in "modern science," we have come to the point where "authorities" and "experts" are simply standing in the way of proven wisdom for the sake of their fraudulent reputations.

Later: Stephan reminded me of and posted a link to an August post of his dealing with a lot of this very same issue (childbirth), with lots of archeological background. Having just re-reviewed it myself I'm putting up a link here for those who may not see the comments.

The Front Lines

Let me first say that it is rather unbelievable that so many people email me for health / fitness advice -- and I'm working up a post to show you just exactly what I mean.

Me?

A gentleman I'm working with to eventually commercialize this project, somewhat, always tells me that I'm hugely underestimating my influence, impact, et cetera, et cetera. "Bla bla bla; bla...bla." But guess what? He has obviously obtained his predictive abilities via tried & true experience, because one of the most common themes in the emails I get (more and more, every day) is: you have no idea!

Me!

Go figure. For years I gave you the deepest political insights. ...Cutting analysis and reduction to first principles far removed from the bromide & slogan drivel of any news station or print rag. Almost nobody cared. But I get a bead on health, fitness, weight loss and demonstrate some credibility vis-à-vis my own personal progress, and suddenly, we're off and running.

All that, simply to say that I can't even begin to imagine what it must be like for someone like cardiologist Dr. Davis.

I continue to see this in many, though not all, patients with aortic valve disease. Though I've more frequently witnessed either stalled progression or reversal of aortic valve stenosis (stiffness), I've now seen a handful of people with aortic valve leakiness (insufficiency) also reverse.

[...]

Prior to vitamin D, I had NEVER witnessed any aortic valve disease stop or reverse.

Go read the rest of the story.

Dr. Davis has the courage to, essentially, go it alone. In his line of work, nobody -- especially doctors -- care. Goddammit; they don''t really care. They spend 12 years getting their ticket punched, and what they care about is maintaining their position. To the extent they stray from the mainstream, they potentially compromise their position. They don't even want to consider simple, natural alternatives.

They want to practice medicine. How literal.

Steroid Supplementation (Vitamin D); and A

I'm on a bit of a project at the moment, but I wanted to shoot off another few tidbits about vitamin D. One physician's post on an endocrinology blog ("vitamin D' is actually a steroid hormone) put it thusly:

I have included the references to each of these observations [...] and draw to your attention that these have all been published in the last six months. An important exploding area of epidemiologic research. (emphasis added)

He goes on to cite seven studies, all published in the last six months. Do you want an idea of how big this is becoming? Click on this link, scroll down, and scan the headlines. Also, you can set up a Google Alert for 'vitamin d' as I have, and I get alerted to a number of new articled every single day. You can, of course, wait until I bring the best of the best to you, but I might miss something. I probably already have.

Still, you're up against a lot of idiocy, much of it from people with MDs and PhDs after their names. For instance:

Conclusions: Calcium and vitamin D supplementation did not reduce invasive breast cancer incidence in postmenopausal women. In addition, 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels were not associated with subsequent breast cancer risk. These findings do not support a relationship between total vitamin D intake and 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels with breast cancer risk.

This flies in the face of a 4-yr randomized, controlled study wherein women supplemented with vitamin D and calcium demonstrated about a 70% reduction in risk for all cancers.

The difference? In the first study, supplementation was only 400 IU per day (The USRDA for those over 50). In the second, supplementation was 1,100 IU, about three times as much daily. The first group of dimwits conclude, obviously, that vitamin D is ineffectual. I think they just want to cover their own dumb asses, because they goofed up and studied something already known: that the USRDA for vitamin D is woefully inefficient to raise blood levels (25-hyroxy) above the roughly 60 ng/mL (nanograms per milliliter) that you'd find in healthful indigenous populations that spend a lot of time outdoors and who have been verified again and again to have very low incidence of cancer (and other diseases of modern civilization).

Plus, it all makes sense from an evolutionary perspective. Being grounded in that and understanding its logic instantly alerts you to dumb-ass tomfoolery such as demostrated, above.

So, what did Rowan T. Chlebowski, et al, demonstrate? They demonstrated that the USRDA for vitamin D is horse shit, that's what they demonstrated.

So, how much should an individual take? I have no idea. How much thyroid hormone, for example, should every individual take, provided they have lower than desirable blood levels of T3 and T4? Get it? Here, let Dr. William Davis explain, a cardiologist who uses vitamin D supplementation as part of his plan of attack to detect, prevent, and reverse heart disease every day of the year (he also gets his patients 100% off all wheat and corn starch). By pure coincidence, I find that the Carlson vitamin D supplement I use is at the top of the Track You Plaque product list. I take three of those (6,000 IU) every day but fasting days. I intend to have blood levels taken soon to see where I am.

Now, a bit about vitamin A, keeping with the idiocy (Chlebowski) theme. The subject is vitamin A toxicity (fat soluble vitamins -- ADE -- have the potential to reach toxic levels, as they hang around and can build up). Anyway, I'm just going to quote Stephan the biologist at some length, with links, as I think it illustrates well what you're up against with much of the "unbridled reductionism" (idiocy) and the news media puppets that report it uncritically.

This is the background against which we must consider the question of vitamin A toxicity. Claims of toxicity must be reconciled with the fact that healthy cultures often consumed large amounts of vitamin A without any ill effects. Well, you might be surprised to hear me say that I do believe some Americans and Europeans suffer from what you might call vitamin A toxicity. There is a fairly consistent association between vitamin A intake and bone mineral density, osteoporosis and fracture risk. It holds true across cultures and sources of vitamin A. Chris Masterjohn reviewed the epidemiology here. I recommend reading his very thorough article if you want more detail. The optimum intake in some studies is 2-3,000 IU, corresponding to about 50% of the RDA. People who eat more or less than this amount tend to suffer from poorer bone health. This is where Dr. Cannell and others are coming from when they say vitamin A toxicity is common.

The only problem is, this position ignores the interactions between fat-soluble vitamins. Vitamin D strongly protects agains vitamin A toxicity and vice versa. As a matter of fact, "vitamin A toxicity" is almost certainly a relative deficiency of vitamin D. Vitamin D deficiency is also tightly correlated with low bone mineral density, osteoporosis and fracture risk. A high vitamin A intake requires vitamin D to balance it. The epidemiological studies showing an association between high-normal vitamin A intake and reduced bone health all sported populations that were moderately to severely vitamin D deficient on average. At optimal vitamin D levels, 40-70 ng/mL 25(OH)D, it would take a whopping dose of vitamin A to induce toxicity. You might get there if you eat nothing but beef liver for a week or two.

The experiment hasn't been done under controlled conditions in humans, but if you believe the animal studies, the optimal intake for bone mineral density is a high intake of both vitamins A and D. And guess what? A high intake of vitamins A and D also increases the need for vitamin K2. That's because they work together. For example, vitamin D3 increases the secretion of matrix Gla protein and vitamin K2 activates it. Is it any surprise that the optimal proportions of A, D and K occur effortlessly in a lifestyle that includes outdoor activity and whole, natural animal foods? This is the blind spot of the researchers who have warned of vitamin A toxicity: uncontrolled reductionism. Vitamins do not act in a vacuum; they interact with one another. If your theory doesn't agree with empirical observations from healthy cultures, it's back to the drawing board.

High-vitamin cod liver oil is an excellent source of vitamins A and D because it contains a balanced amount of both. Unfortunately, many brands use processing methods that reduce the amount of one or more vitamins. See the Weston Price foundation's recommendations for the highest quality cod liver oils. They also happen to be the cheapest per dose. I order Green Pasture high-vitamin cod liver oil through Live Superfoods (it's cheaper than ordering directly).

So is vitamin A toxicity a concern? Not really; the concern is vitamin D deficiency.