Afib elimination via calcium and vitamin D control without ablation

For nearly seven years I have been free of afib (previously a very heavy sufferer of Lone AF), and free of ectopic beats except for minor occurrences when experimenting, without having used either ablation or medications. Full details of my approach are at the link below.

The site was in need of an update. Well, in the Topic, below, "Staying out in front of afib?" the question was asked of GeorgeN (and answered by him): "Why have you never had an Ablation to tame the AFIB BEAST instead of the strict regimen you seem to religiously adhere to?". I also felt the need to give my own answer to that question, which I did in that Topic thread, but it also prompted me to fully update my own story, adding significant new info, and to significantly rewrite the main ("front") page so that it has a much better focus on the most important points and is easier to read.

I really believe that it is absolutely clear that calcium metabolism (as largely mediated by vitamin D) is completely at the heart of the otherwise unexplained "Lone" afib, and hope that this info can help others, although people of course need to be serious and careful in their efforts, and there are many cases of afib where experimenting is probably not so wise.

Full updated explanation and details at https://www.carrafibdietinfo.com/

Thanks for sharing! I'm going to definitely look into this! Can I ask which specific brands you take for your daily regiment? I would appreciate it. Hope you continue on a healthy path!

Great read that Steve. Well done you! I'm well over half way to your approach as it is, so might as well go all the way for the overall health benefits as well as to minimise ectopics (I still get a lot after my Aug 18 ablation in Bordeaux). You and me both AF history-wise i.e. always early hours attacks etc. even a cold draft on my neck in winter increases ectopics - I have always 99% fitted into the 'vagal' category as regards AF.

I've always thought that my own inherited (mother's side) problem is electrolyte handling at the cellular level. I had an Exatest back in 2010 and that found Mg way below bottom of range (31 point something IIRC) and Ca at 7 (range 3-5) so my own ectopy and AF to me has always been about way too much Ca in cardiac cells and not enough Mg. I've messed with Vid D but have maybe misunderstood the situation as I'd always thought that Vit D increasing Ca absorption was a bad thing, but maybe its a good thing? I must profess I'm still a bit confused in that regard - could you please be so kind as to elaborate??

Anyway; hugely impressed with your efforts and success and thanks for sharing here. And congrats to all of your kids (and for you and your missus having obviously done a great job of bringing them up) on doing so well career-wise! Long may your success continue.

Cheers,

Mike

Don't you need vit D WITH vit K? I was researching it recently.

For example: [www.healthline.com]

Quote
vitamin D ensures that your blood levels of calcium are high enough to meet your body's demands.
However, vitamin D does not fully control where the calcium in your body ends up. That's where vitamin K steps in.

FWIW, my take on the sorts of things you are asking (but we are getting deep into what are clearly still not fully scientifically understood aspects of the exquisitely controlled calcium metabolism system -- otherwise modern medicine would easily ensure that no one had osteoporosis, no-one had calcification of their vasculature, etc -- so this is more speculative on my part compared to the simple facts that the calcium intakes I talk about, and the VitD serum levels I talk about, would have been typical for millions of years and that they work, with very fine control in both cases, superbly on my ectopics/afib) is that yes, higher VitD levels cause more calcium absorption and less calcium secretion (and other effects too). So on the one hand I am reducing Ca intake and on the other I seem to be increasing net % absorption of that smaller Ca input. And yes, it is true that my serum Ca comes back beautifully midrange every time. So you might say "What's the net difference, and why bother?" (and I might also not worry at all about osteoporosis for this reason -- as I don't). But my view is that, re the "It is the same net Ca absorption" argument, there is actually a major difference in some very important way or other.

It could be as simple as the fact that VitD strongly suppresses parathyroid hormone secretion (and therefore PTH serum levels). Higher PTH also means more Ca absorption and less Ca secretion and other complex effects. And lower PTH means the opposite. But PTH also has a very pronounced natural diurnal range in the human body, with, very suspiciously from my point of view, its greatest variation in the morning hours -- around the sort of time when masses of vagal afibbers report their most frequent attacks! And, also very suspiciously, when I did not have my current lower Ca intake or as high serum VitD levels, my serum Ca levels (at the blood collection centre opening times when I gave the bloods, so 7am or 7.30am etc) used to be much more erratic -- still within the "normal" pathology lab "reference range", but often much further from the midpoint than they always are now.

So, as I say, these are my speculations (if they weren't speculations I'd be winning prizes), but I think that the natural, "solar-saturation" type VitD levels suppress the PT organ (suppress PTH levels) and thus stabilise it and the PTH levels in some way, resulting either not in excessive Ca absorption at certain times of the day which would otherwise occur, or enough Ca absorption at certain times of the day when it would otherwise not occur. Whatever the exact mechanism, my speculation (and small degree of evidence re my own bloods offered above) is that high-VitD/low-Ca-intake is much better for overall proper Ca metabolism than the reverse (low-VitD/high-Ca-intake, which is what most people in Western societies have), even tho on the face of it net Ca absorption seems like it might be similar; and the reason that it is better probably has to do with the high-VitD's suppressing and stabilising effect on the PT gland preventing large "excursions" of excessive Ca absorption or the opposite.

In reality, all of these components (and a few other exquisitely refined Ca-sensing and Ca-manipulating cogs in the Ca metabolism) all have extremely delicate feedback mechanisms and controls upon each other -- so the whole Ca metabolism apparatus is very complex (it is the only electrolyte with its own entire organ dedicated to its exquisite control -- the PT gland -- strongly suggesting that it is meant to be controlled at very tight levels) and is known to be still not fully understood, as I indicated above. Suffice to say that I believe that when we chuck in these massive modern (post-dairying) amounts of Ca, and struggle along at levels of VitD barely enough to ward off rickets, and far below the solar-saturation of VitD that we all evolved with, we throw the Ca metabolism far out of gear, and that those of us unlucky enough to have the particular genetic quirks then get afib. But I also think, as I wrote in some of the "back" pages of my website, that there is reasonable global epidemiological evidence that even those who don't get afib may well be getting both osteoporosis and calcification of the vasculature (basically, cardiovascular diseases of many types) from the same general misalignments! Something about Western society is very successfully moving masses of Ca from where it should be in the body to exactly where it shouldn't be, compared to billions of people with much lower Ca intake and much higher VitD!

Anyway, you have basically asked me to speculate, so I have. I prefer to stick to the simple fact that the arrangements I have described work like a charm, and they fit in with absolutely everything we know about human evolution, history, eating patterns and lifestyles.

Re VitK : Yes, another part of the exquisite Ca metabolism web. I know of no actual evidence that VitK is any more necessary with high-VitD/low-Ca-intake than it is with the reverse, low-VitD/high-Ca-intake. Indeed, the contrary may very well be true!

But large VitK doses currently have no known adverse effects; it does seem that we probably got a reasonable amount in nature; and it is possible that we don't get as much now (altho my eggs supply a very reliable amount). So on the basis that it is hopefully at least harmless, I take a significant K1/K2 supplement -- the only thing beyond my VitD.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/22/2019 04:03AM by SteveCarr.

Steve,

Wonderfully structured research into PAF and an absolute credit to you. This will certainly help many afibbers who want to arrest their PAF by natural means and who are hesitant to go down the antiarrythmic drug / ablation route.

As you know I am still afib free (no ablation) after 15yrs by religously eating 50g natto food every second day. I have a good diet and don't take any supplements. I have done my own extensive study of why natto food works for me and after scouring PubMed research articals have come to a similar conclusion to you in that the Ca,K, Mg and Na ion pumps in the cardiac cells get out of whack due to poor diet and other unknown reasons. So in effect we are reading from the same page here but coming from different directions.

The one thing in natto food that has stood out is the high amount of phytoestrogen such as Genistin and Diadazem which is then converted into Equol. All these things affect the cardiac cell ion channels and researchers in PubMed articles back this up in the hope of developing antiarrythmic drugs from phytoestrogens to alter these cardiac ion channels in the hope of eliminating afib.

As your research is very comprehensive I will have to study it further.

Dean

Appreciate the update, Steve! Thank you! I find the N1 experiences very helpful!
Looking at your diet i think that mine is not dissimilar except for the chocolate - my only addiction i have to work on. Maybe, hopefully, once i fine-tune my diet i'll be able to drop the 50mg Flec/day. Have been AF free for one year + but do have some what feels and look like double beats and missed beats.
It is probably beyond the scope but i would be interested in blood glucose levels (high/low/ A1C) and thyroid function. While my blood glucose is not of concern to medicos it is not in the ideal range of 82 (4.6 mmol/l?) as per Dr Bernstein. My thyroid is hypo @ about 6. T3 about 13.5.
From my readings i suspect there are many possible factors (e.g. mitochondrial function) that can dip one into AF.
As you say, getting away from the whack a mole approach to your more holistic one appears to be the way for early AFers?

Quote

But I also think, as I wrote in some of the "back" pages of my website, that there is reasonable global epidemiological evidence that even those who don't get afib may well be getting both osteoporosis and calcification of the vasculature (basically, cardiovascular diseases of many types) from the same general misalignments! Something about Western society is very successfully moving masses of Ca from where it should be in the body to exactly where it shouldn't be, compared to billions of people with much lower Ca intake and much higher VitD!

Chronic inflammation might have something to do with that???

All the best and hope you can give regular updates!

Steve, Dean,

Natto is high in vitamin K2 which has an effect on calcium levels.

"An increased intake of vitamin K2 could be a means of lowering calcium-associated health risks."

[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

The Vitamin K2 in natto could be one of the factors why some of us are getting relief from our afib burden.

Colin

Steve, aren't cranberries acidic? (If so it wouldn't be good for some of us)

Quote
cirenepurzalot
Don't you need vit D WITH vit K? I was researching it recently.

Vitamin K2 MK7.

Vitamin D3 will increase intestinal absorption of calcium. The K2 MK7 helps direct that calcium into the bones as opposed to muscle cells where it causes cramps or arterial walls where it causes stiffening and high blood pressure.

Thank you all for your replies. Three people have raised VitK, and you have reminded me that I specifically meant to be very clear about that in my website article, as follows, because it had previously occurred to me that people might wonder if it had some direct roll in my afib/ectopics control.

I can be certain about this (at least in my case).

Because VitK and its known effects on Ca metabolism seemed like an obvious place (the most obvious place) to experiment following my early success with VitD and calcium itself, I followed my usual absolutely rigorous two-week test (actually, VitK seemed like such a likely bet that I checked it multiple times and for much longer than 2 weeks) during which I held all other factors constant and varied only the VitK to be either present or not present, in large daily doses of VitK1 and VitK2, and (separately) for daily 50gms Natto. In no case, unfortunately, could I detect any difference whatsoever, even in ectopics abundance. Great pity, cos that would have made a beautifully "neat" story along with the Ca and VitD!

In fact I remember being extremely disappointed when I couldn't get any response out of VitK or its variants! It had seemed virtually guaranteed to be a player!

So I do take VitK, for the reason and with the attitude that I expressed 5 posts above in this thread, but I am certain it has no direct effect on my ectopics/AF.

Dean's results are with natto, not VitK alone. So I would think that some other factor, such as the phytoestrogens he mentions, would be at work. But as I say, I was definitely unable to detect anything with natto either.

cirenepurzalot : no doubt any brand of high-dose VitD would be fine. I do think that 5,000 iu is probably the dose to experiment with -- it's large enough to make a difference but small enough (unlike 10,000 or more) to easily manipulate into an exact personalised weekly ritual (like 5 x 5,000 per week, or 7 x 5,000 per week) once one is trying to nail a steady blood serum level like 160 nmol/L (~65 ng/mL). But the ABSOLUTELY VITAL thing is to get VitD blood tests : it is totally impossible to nail your own required dose otherwise, let alone to use any kind of "loading dose" to get to the maintenance dose within a week or two as opposed to months! TESTS ARE VITAL! Also, it is definitely necessary to significantly reduce Ca intake once one's serum VitD starts to increase -- otherwise one will definitely notice one's ectopics (and maybe afib) INCREASE as more Ca is absorbed!!. FWIW, I use Healthy Origins brand, but I seriously doubt that is relevant.

colindo : cranberries are about as acidic as lemons in a direct sense (and bitter). But I blend them with various other fruits and find the tangy result delicious. Unlike lemons (and nearly every other fruit) they are also acidic in a metabolic sense, whereas lemons produce a highly alkaline result.

Another thought : it is probably true that only those who have an "escape mechanism", such as pill-in-the-pocket flecainide which they have previously tested to work for them, should experiment with greatly increasing their VitD unless or until they already have Ca intake far reduced from typical Western levels, otherwise they may simply provoke more ectopics and afib.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/11/2019 11:01PM by SteveCarr.

Here is the post that I entered yesterday on the separate "Staying out in front of afib?" Topic thread in response to another poster's question directed to GeorgeN: "Why have you never had an Ablation to tame the AFIB BEAST instead of the strict regimen you seem to religiously adhere to?" . Decided it is best to put the related stuff that I have to say all in one place.

... (That) question to GeorgeN provokes me to answer, and my answer has stuff in common with George's:

Compared to eliminating afib by diet etc, ablation = absolute last resort!!! Many, many possible horrors!!!

What's more, I've always believed that the fact that there's some sort of deeply "mysterious" cause to Lone AF which modern science hasn't supposedly identified, and which in my opinion is BOUND to eventually be revealed to be something adverse in diet and/or lifestyle, means that it is well worth searching for what factor(s) affect AF frequency etc and then experiment with them. And furthermore, if there are factors causing something as serious as AF, they are bound to be doing LOTS more long-term damage as well! That would be additional to all the other highly destructive aspects of modern diet, adjustment of which we already KNOW can prolong life. For me (and George, and others) it is an absolute no-brainer to do what one can do to identify these factors, eliminate them, and optimise healthspan!!!

My many hundreds of experiments on myself cause me to be 100% convinced that too much calcium in modern diets, combined with too-low VitD levels, is the largest factor BY FAR in Lone atrial fibrillation. George does what I do : restrict calcium intake and maintain high (very high by most people's standards) serum vitamin D -- by substantial VitD supplementation. (Full details of my own 100% successful approach are on my website -- which has badly needed updating and which I'm now doing -- but brief details below). George also does other stuff, and I also do other (different) stuff, but both of us have those two major, major threads in common and both of us also strive to optimise all factors as we (separately) see best. [Actually, the calcium and VitD are so intimately intertwined that they are effectively one single factor -- by far the largest one!]

In June on this site, "safib" reported that he too had gained full remission from AF by calcium intake reduction.

In my case (and George's now also, I have previously read), I consume a level of Ca commensurate with that consumed by all humans and all human ancestors for untold millions of years before the invention of dairying a maximum of only 5,000 years ago (but becoming more widespread for only the last thousand or so -- as also unequivocally highlighted by the lack of full human evolution to dairy foods in other ways, like very widespread lactose-intolerance). I also maintain serum vitamin D (by supplement use) right where all our millions of years of ancestors automatically had it by being outdoors and fully solar-saturated (I believe that George maintains it even higher). This juxtaposition of lower Ca intake and high blood-serum VitD (or actually evolutionarily normal calcium intake and normal VitD levels, as I say) yields superb and steady serum Ca levels. Interestingly, what is the most universal feature of all cardiovascular problems (at least in Westerners)? It is progressive calcification of the vasculature (that's how CAT-scan Ca scores work!). So, re my earlier comment : "And furthermore, if there are factors causing something as serious as AF, they're bound to be doing LOTS more long-term damage as well", well that's what I also now believe (since my experience with afib and its elimination) -- that a totally unnatural surfeit of Ca and a serious deficit of VitD devastate our Ca metabolism and have caused, and are causing, an epidemic of vascular calcification, and I am very optimistic that I am having even greater benefits for myself than eliminating Afib (which is pretty huge itself!) by fully restoring my Ca metabolism to that which all humans naturally had for endless millions of years! Certainly my cardiovasculature seems in pretty good nick judging from my 66yo rapid thrice-weekly runs and twice-weekly sprint sessions. So that is my personal view re smackman's question "Why have you never had a Ablation to tame the AFIB BEAST instead of the strict regiment you seem to religiously adhere to?", and the related statement "let modern technology work its magic". To me, like medication, that is just putting the proverbial lipstick on the ... , and is a second-best approach. Much, much better to find the natural factors which must underlie the mysterious "Lone" afib, and change them.

If one can do that, one will virtually certainly be doing even more good for oneself than "just" avoiding afib (and ablations), as if that wasn't enough reason anyway.

Like George, as I say, I do a variety of other stuff. I eat almost entirely a diet highly plausible for our millions of years prior to just the last few thousand when agriculture took over -- 4 eggs per day; lean (basically grass-fed in US terms) beef; and the remainder mainly low sweetness fruits. [I don't regard the fruits as essential to my Afib elimination and have seen no sign that veggies wouldn't do just as well, but I'm punting on the anthocyaninins etc in dark fruits for other benefits.] Unlike George, I eat very little added fat, and I do not add magnesium.

The above is only a brief outline of my dietary approach. I stick to it pretty rigorously (finding it all perfectly tasty), but then also consciously break out from it with individual delectable treats multiple times per week, rather than just shoving in acres of the junk that surrounds us everywhere.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/11/2019 11:14PM by SteveCarr.

Great stuff Steve and many thanks for the further posts.

Wolfpack is kind of on it I think in the sense that maybe the D3 (and for some folks at least K2) help direct the Ca where it SHOULD be going i.e. bones rather than letting an excess of it wash around ending up where it shouldn't be i.e. muscle tissue. As such, cutting Ca to 500mg or so AND taking D3 means that the 500mg one is taking gets to where it should be rather than taking 2-3g Ca a day and most of it ending up where one really doesn't want it.

Anyway, I've just binned the milk, yoghurt and cheese and have started the D3. I've always tested a bit low D3-wise in the past. So I already have the jar of 5000iu D3 caps ready to start and I just took one with my white fish and mushroom lunch!

Also good to see Dean around posting still doing well with the natto! I did buy some genistein (sp?!) caps a while back and might add those in as well.

Cheers,

Mike F

Steve,

Most of us couldn't change our diet to yours and George's but we can take a vitmin K2 and D supplements.
The problem is the vitamin D testing that's required. Testing is quite expensive at $75.00 a pop, so how often and how many of these tests would be required.

Quote
colindo
Testing is quite expensive at $75.00 a pop, so how often and how many of these tests would be required.

A beginning test, then maybe one in 4-6 months. You can then adjust dosage and maybe in another 4-6 months.

When I noticed excess calcium was an issue for me, I didn't know what my 25 OHD (D3) level was. I also don't remember now if and how much D3 I was supplementing. That was in 2012 and I didn't test until 2014 when it was 63 ng/mL. I've subsequently run it much higher (as high as 150 ng/mL) as directed by my doc. I do consume a lot of K2 as MK7 and MK4. Also, excess calcium did not present as an issue for me from 2004-2011.

My metric for trying various approaches to put afib in remission is asymmetric risk. In other words a very low downside and large upside. When I created the approach I use now, that was the metric I subjectively applied before I tried something. I think Steve has done great work and commend him for posting it. It certainly would be worth trying (not that his or any other approach will work for everyone).

Thank you for your various kind comments.

Re VitD testing : yes, it is inconvenient and the cost is annoying (altho I'd say totally justified and recommended for the benefit one can gain). It's possible to say the following things to help a bit:

1) Unless anyone gets pretty heavy solar exposure they are certainly gonna be able to take 2,500iu per day (which is another readily available capsule size, or is obviously just a 5,000 iu every second day) without exceeding the "solar saturation" serum level of 160 nmol/L (~65 ng/mL). If they don't get much solar exposure their serum VitD test will probably then come back around 100 nmol/L (~40 ng/mL). They can therefore easily take levels like that without any testing.

2) The difficulty lies firstly with trying to individually get one's levels close to 160 nmol/L (~65 ng/mL) -- especially if one's solar exposure varies a lot, which many people's do because they solar expose themselves in summer and get zero solar the rest of the year. It lies secondly with trying to get one's serum VitD rapidly enough to a significantly high enough level to run any kind of experiment on one's ectopics -- as George correctly intimates, merely commencing and then continuing a fixed dose like 5,000iu will take months (eg 4 months like he says) to reach a plateau serum level, which is a very long time to wait to see if there is any benefit! More productive from an experimenting point of view is to ramp one's VitD up more rapidly by (short-term) using a higher loading dose like 20,000iu per day. BUT IN THAT CASE ONE CERTAINLY NEEDS AN INITIAL TEST LIKE GEORGE SAYS, AND TO THEN MAKE AN ESTIMATE OF WHEN ONE WILL HIT 160 nmol/L (~65 ng/mL), AND TO GET TESTED AGAIN AROUND THAT DATE ALSO (dropping back to 5,000/day while awaiting the results). If the result is anywhere near 160 nmol/L (~65 ng/mL) one can then proceed with, say, 7 x 5,000/week or 5 x 5,000/week (depending on larger/smaller physique) and test again after one month (assuming no significant summertime solar exposure over that month). If the serum VitD has then increased further between the 2nd and 3rd tests one needs to cut the dose a bit. If the serum VitD has fallen between the 2nd and 3rd tests, one can increase the dose a bit.

3) If anyone wishes to try that "loading dose" approach, I offer the following rough rule of thumb that I observed in multiple such efforts : an oral dose of, say, 40,000iu, in any given few days (eg 4 days x 10,000/day, or 2 days x 20,000/day), roughly raised my serum VitD by 20 nmol/L (~8 ng/mL). So if one obtains a "starting" serum VitD test and it came back 60 nmol/L (~24 ng/mL) -- which would be a common level -- and if one wished to get quickly to the 160 nmol/L (~65 ng/mL) solar saturation level, one needs to raise it 100 nmol/L (~40 ng/mL). My experience is that something like 200,000 iu in total would be necessary to do that if, say, it was taken as 10 days of 20,000iu/day (preferably spreading the 20,000 over smaller sub-doses over each day). BUT IF ONE IS GOING TO MUCK AROUND TRYING THIS THEN TWO THINGS DEFINITELY HAVE TO BE DONE : FIRSTLY, DO THE VIT D TESTS AS OUTLINED -- A STARTING TEST, FOLLOWED BY A CALCULATION OF HOW MANY DAYS HEAVY DOSING REQUIRED, THEN THE 2ND TEST AFTER THOSE DAYS, AND SECONDLY, HEAVILY REDUCE ONE'S CALCIUM INTAKE WHILE ONE IS RAMPING ONE'S VITD UP LIKE THIS AND UNTIL ONE HAS SEEN WHAT THE EFFECT ON ECTOPICS IS AT THE NEW HIGHER SERUM VITD LEVEL.

4) Note also that just because 200,000iu in 10 days puts your serum VitD up by 100 nmol/L (~40 ng/mL), that does NOT mean that 40 days of 5,000iu/day (despite the fact that 40 x 5,000 = 200,000) will also achieve that!! Like George says, my experience is that just taking the 5,000/day may take more like 4 months to plateau at the 160 nmol/L (~65 ng/mL) level! The reason is that, without the constant solar VitD input that would have been present throughout our past history, 5,000/day is only enough to slightly/slowly exceed the amount needed to cause any increase. ie it only delivers a slight net increase/day -- until it reaches its plateau level, which will be somewhat above or somewhat below 160 nmol/L (~65 ng/mL) depending on the individual. [We are not talking about exact linear relationships in any of this, but the numbers I have quoted give a pretty good idea of how the dose/result curve tends to work.]

5) Given that it is very tricky to really hit and maintain 160 nmol/L (~65 ng/mL) -- and the VitD assay results are probably plus or minus 10nmol/L accuracy anyway -- my overall impression is that it is better to be a bit under that level than over it, especially when one is first experimenting with how successfully one can get one's Ca intake down and testing what the effect on ectopics is. CERTAINLY, EXCEEDING 160 nmol/L (~65 ng/mL) WHILE STILL HAVING A HIGH Ca INTAKE IS VERY UNWISE.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/17/2019 07:27PM by SteveCarr.

Sorry about all these posts.

Colindo : On re-reading, your post could possibly imply that you envisage chucking in more VitD but with no Ca-intake reduction. Hopefully that is my wrong interpretation, but if that is correct then I seriously don't recommend that for anyone who already suffers from ectopics/afib.

In fact, knowing what I know now, and if I was about to trial lower Ca-intake and higher VitD for the first time, and desperately wanted to know if it would work for my ectopics/afib, I would do it "properly" in one shot (the shortest possible time) as follows :

I would test my VitD then immediately ramp it up as per the calculations in the post above with a goal somewhere just below 160 nmol/L (~65 ng/mL).

At exactly the same time I would immediately transition (rigorously) to the lowest Ca intake I could easily achieve on a normo-caloric diet. This could be easily done and easily maintained 100% for a few weeks at least. On your normal calorie intake, even if you cut out 100% of dairy, all nuts, dried fruits, Ca-supplemented foods and Ca-bearing-multivits, etc, you are still gonna get around 250mg of Ca/day. It is hard to get below that. You are definitely not gonna fall apart health-wise, especially when your VitD is rapidly zooming upwards, from a few weeks of 250mg/day (and, realistically, you probably won't actually reach that low, maybe not anywhere near that low).

In my experience, ectopics should reduce and then disappear rapidly -- eg three days after the VitD reaches good levels, or three days after the Ca reduction if one's VitD is already at good levels. Of course, if one can't normally detect one's ectopics (then probably best to get an electronic monitoring device like those often discussed on this site) and one is normally just struck by afib attacks without any predisposing ectopics being apparent, then one is gonna be waiting longer to find out.

But either way, either just a few days after the Ca-reduction/VitD-elevation, or a few months if you can only await an afib attack, you are gonna know whether you have won or lost.

Anyone can drain the calcium swamp (sorry, bad joke) for that long and not fall apart, and, if they gain a significant benefit, can then begin inching their Ca intake back up. Believe me, if they find they have eliminated their ectopics, and then they find the higher Ca intake where the ectopics reappear, they probably won't find it too hard to restrain their dairy food (main culprit) and/or find substitutes (lots around, but watch out for the almost-always added calcium!) for the long-term.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/11/2019 11:22PM by SteveCarr.

Steve,
Hope you don't mind but for those afibbers who are not as educated about Ca, VitD and VitK and would like to experiment with your regime could you put it in layman's terms like in steps or dot points on where to start, when you need testing, and the quantities etc?

Thanks
Dean

Dean : I'm worried about annoying everyone with so many long posts. But you're right that dot points are always easier to interpret than dense blocks of text.

So, following is a dot point version of what I would say is a "proper", test -- one done so as to yield the clearest result in the shortest time (within reason).

So that the "action" dot points are as simple as possible, I am leaving out all reasons for any particular action -- if people want those, they should look in the posts above or on my website.

By the way, the instructions below are based on someone who is not getting any significant solar VitD. For someone who is, the easiest thing is to stop all significant solar VitD doses while one does the stuff below, because solar doses are so erratic, and can be 20,000 iu per day themselves, so they make it impossible to judge required oral doses.

The reason to do a full-scale "proper" test, right from the get-go, is because what is the point of a half-way one? Then in some (most?) cases, one has just wasted weeks of effort (and $ on VitD tests etc) and still doesn't really know whether Ca is a/the major factor in one's ectopics/afib. In contrast, if one does a thorough test and finds that there is a Ca link, then one can immediately inch one's Ca intake back upwards and find out where the problem level is. Also, regardless of how difficult keeping Ca intake down is (eg), one can then make one's own fully informed decision about how far one is prepared to trade ectopics (and afib risk) for calcium-containing indulgences. And finally, the discovery that there is any Ca connection may allow one to play around more with VitD levels and/or the daily time of Ca consumption, etc.

1) Get a serum VitD test (synonyms = 25 Hydroxycolecalciferol, 25 OH Vit D, Vitamin D, Vitamin D3). In most countries, these days, there are commercial services that don't require a Doc's request form. In Australia they are iMedical and i-screen; VitD costs $49 (so that's ~35USD). In any country, you may be able to get your Doc to request the test -- but you may have to explain (or actually bleat on quite a bit!) that you're getting older and never get out in the sun, or other such good reason!! A further major benefit of simply paying direct for the test is that the result comes quickly, direct to you by email, allowing you to proceed rapidly with your experiment, otherwise you have to wait to confirm that the result has arrived at the Doc's and then make an appt who-knows-how-far-off, thus vastly prolonging what is already a burdensome dietary effort!!!

2) The result of the test will be in nmol/L or ng/mL depending on your country. For ease of the following calculation, if the result is in ng/mL, multiply the number by 2.5 (so 18 ng/mL becomes 45nmol/L, for example).

3) Subtract this number (your VitD level in nmol/L) from 160. That produces the "gap" number of nmol/L which you want to increase your serum VitD by. The gap number will be a number less than 160, almost certainly between 40 and 120.

4) Divide the gap number by ten. So a gap of 90 (nmol/L) will become 9. This is the approximate number of days that you need to take 20,000iu of VitD3 each day to increase your current serum VitD3 to 160 nmol/L (~65ng/mL). This number of days, and/or the final serum figure that you actually reach, will not be exact. It is just an estimate -- the best guide I can give. But any overshoot or undershoot that could arise from this calculation (if you calculate correctly) could not possibly produce harmful VitD levels. (Serum VitD levels up to 250 nmol/L are officially no cause for panic).

5) Immediately commence to take 4 doses of 5,000iu VitD3 per day, ie a total of 20,000iu per day (preferably spread to 4 separate dose times, or to two separate dose times, in each day, just to increase absorption). Take that same daily amount each day for the number of days you calculated in point (4)

6) After that number of days is complete (at 20,000iu/day) immediately switch to taking only 5,000iu/day and temporarily continue on that dose.

7) Also after that number of days is complete (at 20,000iu/day), also immediately do another serum VitD test (you want to have this second test already booked/paid for/etc so you can get it the day after the last day of taking 20,000iu).

8) Also on the day that you commence point (5), ie the day you COMMENCE 20,000iu of VitD per day, IMMEDIATELY withdraw ALL obvious calcium sources from your diet and keep them withdrawn until the upshot of your experiment becomes clear. Some info is at the bottom of this post.

9) While continuing the Ca withdrawal : when your second blood test comes back, if it is under 160 nmol/L (~65 ng/mL) then continue with 5,000iu VitD3 every day. If it is around 160 nmol/L (~65 ng/mL) then continue with 5000iu only on Mondays to Fridays (so 5/week). If it is over 160 nmol/L (~65 ng/mL) then miss one day of dosing for every 5 nmol/L that it is over 160 nmol/L (so miss 4 days if it is 180nmol/L, eg) and then continue with 5000iu only on Mondays to Fridays (so 5/week).

10) Get another (third) serum VitD test one month after ceasing the 20,000iu/day doses, ie one month after commencing the 5000iu dosing. If the result is under 160 nmol/L (~65 ng/mL) then probably continue with your VitD dose (depending on what you have learnt about your Ca/VitD vulnerability etc, and what you want to do next). If the result is over 160 nmol/L (~65 ng/mL) then drop to 6, 5, or 4, doses of 5,000iu VitD3 per week depending upon what number per week you were on (and depending on what you have learnt about your Ca/VitD vulnerability etc, and what you want to do next).

As I said in posts above, my experience is that ectopics diminish on a sort of 3-day time scale after Ca reductions. This may occur even without VitD adjustments for some people, depending on what their VitD status already is. In any case, if the scheme above is followed, any required VitD adjustments are also gonna be complete in less than 14 days. So I would think that anyone who tried the above would have a clear idea what the overall effect was within a fortnight, and certainly by three weeks.

So that is three weeks (probably less) that I am saying one would make a fairly maximum effort to keep Ca out of one's diet -- a perfectly manageable task -- (That assumes that one can detect ectopics and the lack thereof -- either with or without an electronic device. If one's only available measure of success is avoidance of afib, then one could be waiting and maintaining Ca restriction for longer -- which, personally, I would certainly do, but each to his own).

Trickier is the list of high-Ca foods to avoid (roughly descending order of overall threat):
a) Obviously all "white" dairy products (so that doesn't include butter or ghee, etc)
b) Any Ca supplements, including multivits containing Ca (virtually all) and Ca-containing "antacids" etc
c) Any foods with added Ca -- this is now an absolutely huge number!! One needs to be extremely vigilant to successfully achieve this avoidance (See my tale on my website about molasses with -- undeclared -- nine times the USDA FoodData Central figure for Ca in molasses, or the fact that Ca is now added to most packaged flours and virtually all cereals!)
d) All dried fruits; and simplest is to avoid all nuts (altho a couple of less common ones are not too high)
e) Most tofu
f) Edible bones in fish like sardines and salmon, and bones ground into fish pastes and other pates etc.
g) Chocolate, carob, etc
h) Then there is a large range of even completely natural, unprocessed vegetables and fruits which have much higher calcium contents than other fruit & veg. These may not normally be a problem eaten in typical quantities, but since one is gonna definitely fail at excluding 100% of the above high-Ca items, then my recommendation, so as to make a serious effort at overall Ca reduction for just a couple of weeks, is to eliminate even these less threatening things for just that period. The truth is that far from all of these things or the other things above are going to be "spotted", mixed in with all sorts of cooked and pre-prepared foods, so whatever effort one makes it is still gonna have more Ca in than you think! As I said earlier, even with a diet intended to be nothing but boiled meat and low-calcium vegetables, grains and fruits, it would be hard to get below 250mg of Ca per day.

So I recommend eliminating as far as possible, just for the serious test period, even such things as sweet potato; all brassica vegetables (broccoli, cabbage, etc); carrot; all citrus fruits; all pulses (beans, peas, etc); figs. From an overall health point of view, presumably these would be the things to gradually return to one's diet as one inched Ca intake back up after a successful experiment. If in doubt, best during the test period would always be to look up any uncertain food.

Final comment : for anyone who tries this, please report results of Ca reduction and/or VitD elevation.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 12/17/2019 07:37PM by SteveCarr.

All good, but wondering why this is the General Health section and not the Afibbers if its pertaining to AF?

Wondering the same myself hwkmn05.

Steve had vagally-mediated AF from age 50-58 but now following his low Ca intake and D3 supplementation regime has now been AF-free for 7 years since.

Now absolutely no disrespect to the mods of this forum, but that certainly gets my attention from an AF perspective. I know George N here also closely manages his Ca intake to help keep him in remission AF-wise also.

As a "Vagal" afib guy who got the gift of it in my 50s and relies on diet, supplements and sleep modification, it certainly has my best interest at heart, pun intended. I ditched the standing meds 3 months after second episode 10 years ago and am in the unending search for that elusive cure. 7 years in NSR rivals the best ablation and certainly deserves a closer look on the afib section.

From my last labs for D levels.
VITAMIN D,25-OH,TOTAL,IA/ RESULTS 48 ng/mL.
I was told this was an acceptable level by doctors.
Does having a medical condition such as afib call for higher levels?

Thanks for that Steve.

Very interesting. Being 7yrs afib free gives you the right to produce long posts as we all have a thirst for any knowledge to reduce our PAF burden and you have helped greatly so don't worry about that!

As Jackie always reminds us "knowledge is power".

Yes, I too was wondering why it was moved.
Dean

For people's comfort, perhaps I should have clarified that the sort of VitD doses I am talking about are known to be completely harmless. Immensely greater doses are given to patients by the medical profession all the time. I have suggested 20,000 iu/day as a loading dose for a period of up to ~ten days maximum (but only for as many days as your own prior VitD testing indicates, as per my posts above), so a total loading dose of 200,000iu maximum. This is merely a typical dose from sunbathing -- 20,000iu per day (10 days of outdoor exposure in total).

In contrast, below are ten references to scientific research studies, published in reputable medical journals, which utilised single doses of at least 300,000iu (actually, nearly all 500,000iu or greater!!!). Obviously all such studies passed various ethics committees etc before proceeding and all the many relevant medical practitioners involved were completely relaxed about using such doses and publishing that they had done so. There are hundreds and hundreds of studies published which used similar doses, and numerous physicians actively and currently treat their patients with such doses. I simply searched high dose vitamin d in Google Scholar and selected the first ten I found. The medical profession is 100% relaxed about the use of such doses, including in infants, the elderly, and every other sort of patient.

Note : none of these references below have direct links between Ca, VitD and afib. They are simply the first ten examples of medical treatment, selected by the method outlined above from many hundreds or thousands available, using oral VitD doses immensely larger than I have suggested. A clickable link is at the end of each reference so that the actual article or abstract, with exact details of the VitD dose used, can be clearly seen for oneself.


Sanders KM, Stuart AL, Williamson EJ, et al. Annual High-Dose Oral Vitamin D and Falls and Fractures in Older Women: A Randomized Controlled Trial. JAMA. 2010;303(18):1815–1822. doi:[doi.org]

T Markestad, V Hesse, M Siebenhuner, G Jahreis, L Aksnes, W Plenert, D Aarskog, Intermittent high-dose vitamin D prophylaxis during infancy: effect on vitamin D metabolites, calcium, and phosphorus, The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Volume 46, Issue 4, October 1987, Pages 652–658, [doi.org]

Amrein K, Schnedl C, Holl A, et al. Effect of High-Dose Vitamin D3 on Hospital Length of Stay in Critically Ill Patients With Vitamin D Deficiency: The VITdAL-ICU Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2014;312(15):1520–1530. doi:[doi.org]

Sanders, K., Stuart, A., Williamson, E., Jacka, F., Dodd, S., Nicholson, G., & Berk, M. (2011). Annual high-dose vitamin D3 and mental well-being: Randomised controlled trial. British Journal of Psychiatry, 198(5), 357-364. doi:10.1192/bjp.bp.110.087544 Link

Bacon, C.J., Gamble, G.D., Horne, A.M. et al. High-dose oral vitamin D3 supplementation in the elderly Osteoporos Int (2009) 20: 1407. [doi.org]

Cesur , Y., Çaksen , H., Gündem , A., et al. (2011). Comparison of Low and High Dose of Vitamin D Treatment in Nutritional Vitamin D Deficiency Rickets. Journal of Pediatric Endocrinology and Metabolism, 16(8), pp. 1105-1110. doi:10.1515/JPEM.2003.16.8.1105 Link

P. Leventis & P. D. W. Kiely (2009) The tolerability and biochemical effects of high‐dose bolus vitamin D2 and D3 supplementation in patients with vitamin D insufficiency, Scandinavian Journal of Rheumatology, 38:2, 149-153, DOI: 10.1080/03009740802419081 Link

Amrein, K., Sourij, H., Wagner, G. et al. Short-term effects of high-dose oral vitamin D3 in critically ill vitamin D deficient patients: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot study. Crit Care 15, R104 (2011) doi:10.1186/cc10120 Link

Günsel Kutluk, Feyzullah Çetinkaya, Muzaffer Basak, Comparisons of Oral Calcium, High Dose Vitamin D and a Combination of These in the Treatment of Nutritional Rickets in Children, Journal of Tropical Pediatrics, Volume 48, Issue 6, December 2002, Pages 351–353, [doi.org]

Boyle MP, Noschese ML, Watts SL, et al. .Failure of high-dose ergocalciferol to correct vitamin D deficiency in adults with cystic fibrosis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2005;172:212–7. Link



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/13/2019 08:11PM by SteveCarr.

Steve, why not ADK instead of just D? [www.allergyresearchgroup.com]

Following are some further thoughts and info, in case they assist anyone to get their heads around what is involved. I had already written this (all the black text), but wasn't sure whether to post it. But following "The Anti-Fib's" new report, in the Topic on the main forum, of his likely current success by Ca reduction, I am posting this because it covers his situation, amongst other things. (Blue text = newly added comments since The Anti-Fib's post).

The most common difficulty that a few seem to have with my approach is what seems to them an apparent contradiction between, on the one hand, lowering one's total oral Ca ingestion, while on the other hand raising the proportion of that ingested Ca which is then absorbed from the intestines (because it is certainly scientifically well-documented that higher blood levels of VitD do exactly that : increase Ca absorption in the gut, and also decrease Ca excretion from the body -- thus increasing the overall % retention of whatever Ca has been ingested).

At a superficial level, I can understand that it does seem a contradictory approach to follow. But vitamin D has many, many other effects. It is a very powerful and -- up to the natural "solar-saturation" blood level plateau which is naturally and routinely obtained from any extensive sun exposure -- a very beneficial natural hormone with many well-documented positives. (That natural blood test plateau is about 160nmol/L, equaling ~65ng/mL).

As discussed, many (but not all) of its actions occur within the body's exquisitely finely-tuned and complex Ca-homeostasis mechanisms (Ca-stabilising mechanisms), where VitD itself acts directly upon Ca and upon blood Ca levels, but also upon magnesium, upon parathyroid hormone (PTH) and upon various other important biochemical players within this whole Ca-tuning apparatus. But, in addition, all of these players also have exquisitely sensitive feedback mechanisms upon each other! So the upshot is a stupendously complex and delicately balanced labyrinth (to mix metaphors). The result is that it definitely is not valid to simply assume that high-Ca-intake/low-VitD-levels has the same overall bodily or health result as low-Ca-intake/high-VitD-levels, even at any particular Ca and VitD intake combinations where the overall net amount of Ca retained by the body ends up the same!! Therefore there is no inherent contradiction whatsoever in seeking or observing a benefit from raising VitD blood levels while lowering Ca-ingestion. This is a crucial point to understand. (And especially if one is simply adjusting the Ca-ingestion and VitD levels to those which applied for millions of years in our past until extremely recently).

On the contrary, there appears to be a clear difference in at least the effects on ectopic beats and afib.

A summary of what I say that at least some people can and will observe is as follows :

1) If a person simply maintains their current total daily Ca ingestion and increases their supplement VitD intake or sun-exposure, they can expect their numbers of ectopics to INCREASE and also afib attacks if they are paroxysmal, because their net Ca retention will increase. (Not if their Ca ingestion was already very low -- but that is pretty unlikely to be the case). Note also that blood levels of VitD increase so slowly from typical supplement doses that the resulting increased ectopics etc often take months to show up, so the connection is not obvious to the observer! Heavy sun exposure in summer could cause a faster VitD increase and therefore faster ectopics increase, even within days, because each day can equal an oral dose of 20,000iu of vitamin D3. These facts are no doubt the explanation for the well-known "Holiday Heart" cases occurring on sunny holidays or immediately after return therefrom, and for various past reports on this site of increased ectopics/afib in summer/autumn.

2) If a person significantly reduces their Ca ingestion while leaving their levels of VitD roughly unchanged, they may or may not obtain reductions in the numbers of ectopics and afib attacks, depending upon whether their levels of VitD were already at a more or less desirable level. AS I SAY ABOVE, I HAD ALREADY WRITTEN THIS WHOLE POST, BUT THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT "THE ANTI-FIB" HAS NOW REPORTED, BECAUSE HIS VitD LEVEL WAS APPARENTLY ALREADY TESTED AT A "HIGH-NORMAL LEVEL"!!

3) If a person gets their blood levels of VitD well toward 160nmol/L (~65ng/mL) AND significantly reduces their Ca ingestion, they are more likely to obtain reductions in the numbers of ectopics and afib attacks.

I would say that ANYONE who has ever noticed even a bit of the effects described in either (1) or (2) is already showing strong signs of being Ca sensitive, and could potentially gain GREAT benefit by experimenting fully and carefully with (3)!

Another, perhaps startling, way of putting this is that if anyone has EVER noticed that their ectopics/afib seemed to WORSEN because of ANY of the following things, that is a GOOD thing not a bad thing(!), because it means there is an excellent chance that they can gain great improvement by full attention to this Ca/VitD angle!! :

Increased Ca intake;
Increased VitD intake;
A period of heavy sun exposure;
Late summer generally;
Even a winter tendency or any other distinct seasonal tendency (tho I don't have space/time to fully explain why even this latter can apply).

Note that anyone who does wish to experiment, eg as in (3) above, needs to do it seriously and methodically, at least to start with -- till they find out what's what.

In the past, there have been MANY posters on this forum, right from its very earliest days until the present, who have reported at least some sensitivity to calcium and/or VitD. But often in a rather confused or half-hearted way. If I was any one of those people, then personally I would fully experiment with this whole angle! IN HIS POST, "THE ANTI-FIB" HAS JUST MENTIONED THESE PAST REPORTS ALSO.

Please note :
a) It is not being suggested that anyone ever dose themselves with VitD beyond the blood level that it naturally plateaus at in extensive sun exposure.
b) That level is the same blood level which 99.99% of all of your ancestors had throughout almost their entire lives, over several million years (as hunter-gatherers then agricultural workers)!

Other new stuff added since The Anti-Fib's post:

In case anyone wonders : Yes, I saw that The Anti-Fib carefully (and appropriately) noted that he changed some other factors around the same time that his recent success began. Personally, I am extremely confident that, now he is hot on the trail, he will now gradually find that the key is the Ca & VitD. I have experimented the absolute .... out of this on myself, and have had it under control like a tap for years -- I can turn the ectopics on and off at will (I've never allowed it to go near afib for years of course!). What I haven't yet mentioned (because describing their details would only complicate things more, and I'm conscious that my posts are well and truly long enough), is that I have also successfully instituted the same protocol re afib and ectopic elimination in two other family members! One is a practising medical doctor. Plus there are other indicators.

As I said in point (2) above, some will gain benefit from Ca reduction alone, without increasing their VitD levels if their VitD levels are already good. That is exactly what The Anti-Fib has now done. Not everyone who ever gains any benefit will have to manipulate their VitD levels all the way to the 160nmol/L level (equaling ~65ng/mL), or will have to lower their Ca intake as far as me. Remember -- I was a pretty bad case : multi-hour afib attacks every 8 days, at its peak 10 years or so ago!! Neither of my family members has (yet?) needed to equal my particular Ca/VitD combination, although one has his Ca intake as low as mine. (So both have space "in reserve" if needed later).

But the reason for me suggesting the "full-Ca-reduction, full-VitD-increase" ten-dot-point test procedure, which I outlined two posts of mine above in this same Topic thread at Dean's request, is that that is the most clear-cut (and quickest) test I can suggest. Other testing arrangements will be less clear and take longer, often much longer. So personally I would do the full version and then wind back the Ca reduction and/or VitD dosing as my personal picture became clear.

Like The Anti-Fib, people should report their experiences around these matters in case they can help others.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/17/2019 08:30PM by SteveCarr.

For those who want to order their own lab tests in the US, Here is a resource of web links where you can do this <[www.apoe4.info] My own experience is that New Century Labs (a Quest reseller) is the least expensive. The way this typically works is that these companies are resellers of either LabCorp or Quest labs (or both). You create an account. Order and pay for the labs you want. In your account, or sent to the lab, the reseller will create a lab order requisition for you. You go to a nearby lab office with your requisition and tell them it is prepaid. In some cases, when you sign into their kiosk, your lab order will be there. They will draw your blood. When your results are ready, they will notify you by email. You will then go to your account and get a PDF with your lab results.

Steve:

Wow, I feel honored to be mentioned so profoundly with Blue text and all, this is a 1st!

My understanding of Ectopics and AFIB in particular is that this is a complex condition, multiple things have to happen to initiate and then maintain AFIB. Like I said earlier, I changed 3-4 variables prior to my last last ECV, and I don't think the Ca reduction was the most important factor, but rather the 2nd most important factor, but I don't know this at all.
I actually initiated the Ca reduction about a month prior to making the other changes, and I was in AFIB/Flutter most of the time for this month. So its not like simply reducing Ca miraculously put me back into NSR.

I am not trying to diminish your great work and hypothesis, and I defended you in this Forum. I have to be honest though, and my case is far worse than either you or Georges, so unfortunately it is harder to draw conclusions based on the increased complexity of the situation.

Also I would like to point out that although it is great that you are maintaining solid NSR all of this time, you are basing success on Ectopy prevalence, and it is possible that AFIB could manifest with little Ectopy in the future. While in general there is high correlation between Ectopy prevalence and AFIB risk, nevertheless AFIB is complex. I have started to try and look at Ectopics and AFIB somewhat separately as far as how to deal and treat them. I have had periods of time with only very few Ectopic beats, then gone into AFIB, and then had to get ECV'd out of it, and conversely I have had periods of constant PAC's going on for 6 weeks, but managed to maintain NSR throughout. I am not exaggerating, Rythmic PAC's ranging from Bigeminy to Quadrigeminy nonstop for 6 weeks, but no AFIB. Such was the case after my last ECV 3.5 months ago. I do think the Ca reduction helped save the NSR.

Agreed TAF. Over the years I'd had rampant ectopics - as in as many as a couple of thousand singles and several runs (few seconds) of ectopics in a day certain that AF would show up at some point but it didn't. And occasions when I was having an excellent day-ectopics-wise and then BAM AF just starting out of the blue with no ectopics preceding it - and on one occasion I was actually feeling my pulse at my wrist when this happened (such is life with a dicky ticker - as in I wish I had a dollar for every time I've felt my own pulse this last 25 years!!) The ONLY SURE FIRE way I could give myself AF is to ingest a good amount of MSG - AF would absolutely (well, it would have done pre-ablation, but even then I wouldn't want to tempt fate even now...) show up 1 1/2 to 2 hours later.

I'm also convinced that there are folks who hardly get any ectopics but when one or two do show up it nearly always precipitates AF, and those like me (as I was from 1999 (first AF) to 2018 (ablated) who got hundreds of ectopics but hardly any AF (one or two nocturnal episodes per year). I figure the former have more fibrosis and the latter much less. Prof Jais did tell me that he noticed no low voltage (fibrosis) areas at all whilst mapping for my ablation mid-2018 and this fits my theory/idea as aforementioned. Some folks just get an AF episode out of the blue with no history of ectopics and some go all their lives with hundreds or thousands of ectopics every day and never get AF.

Also, lots of folks have successful ablations and still get as many ectopics as they did prior to their ablation (I'm one of them), so the idea that one has to stop ectopics to get a successful ablation clearly doesn't stack up - it's way more complicated than that. What I recall Prof Jais saying to me in particular was that whilst ablating - I was in AF during the procedure - the wavelength of the AF got longer and longer as he ablated. So a key ablation result for me was to make it much harder for my heart to go into AF than previous to the ablation.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/15/2019 08:55AM by mwcf.

Quote
mwcf
I'm also convinced that there are folks who hardly get any ectopics but when one or two do show up it nearly always precipitates AF, and those like me (as I was from 1999 (first AF) to 2018 (ablated) who got hundreds of ectopics but hardly any AF (one or two nocturnal episodes per year).

Mike,

Interestingly, in the 2 month interlude between my first episode in 2004 and the start of my 2.5 month one, I got in the habit of sampling my radial pulse for a couple of minutes when in bed but before sleep. One or two would usually indicate I would have a 3 AM wake up with afib. After I got on my remission regime, I got out of the sampling habit. In 2012 & 13, when I increased my calcium intake and many more things were triggers, I distinctly recall having ectopics immediately post orgasm, which would lead to afib if I didn't immediately do something to increase my sympathetic tone (sit up, jump around & etc). On my program today, I rarely see an ectopic beat when sampling my pulse for hours.

As an aside, someplace Steve wondered if I'd ever reduced my supplemental magnesium subsequent to reducing my calcium intake. The answer is yes. A number of times, inadvertently, I'd not taken magnesium for a day, usually because of concern over dealing with a family member with a serious illness. These would commonly result in afib within 24 hours, unless I realized my mistake and corrected it by taking magnesium first thing in the morning. So for me, it is more than just a high 25OHD (D3) level and low magnesium intake. On the other hand, I'm not nearly as sensitive to increasing my calcium intake by 100-200 mg/day as Steve is. I can do that with no afib consequences. My serum calcium levels in Nov were 9.3 mg/dL (range 9.0-9.9).

Years ago, when Steve first posted his results, I noted that one thing that is likely applicable to all is the rigor and detail with which Steve approaches his testing and analysis. It is a stellar approach to trying to sort out the afib problem!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/16/2019 06:46PM by GeorgeN.