A tan does not equal vitamin D

14. May 2008 William Davis (8)
The sun is getting stronger and the days are getting longer, even here in Wisconsin.

Some people are coming to the office with nice tans obtained by sunning themselves for several hours. Others have come back from winter getaways to Florida, Arizona, or the tropics, also sporting nice, dark tans.

Several people, in fact, were so confident that sunning themselves provided sufficient vitamin D that they reduced their usual dose. Some even stopped their vitamin D altogether.

But, when blood levels of 25(OH) vitamin D were checked, they were virtually all low, sometimes as low as <20 ng/ml. Yet all had nice tans.

Why does this happen? Why would people with dark tans remain deficient in vitamin D?

One big factor is age: Anyone over 40 years old is fooling themselves if they think that a tan ensures raising vitamin D levels to a desirable range. Also, the more you tan, the more melanin skin pigment accumulates, and the more vitamin D activation in the skin is blocked.

Weight is another factor: Heavier people need more vitamin D, sometimes three- or four-fold more than slender people.

Why does aging result in inefficient skin activation of vitamin D? It seems that, once we are beyond our reproductively useful years, this ticking clock of aging gets triggered. The older we get, the less activation of vitamin D occurs in our skin, the less of the youth-maintaining, disease-preventing benefits of vitamin D we obtain with sun exposure.

The message: Don't rely on a tan to gauge the adequacy of vitamin D. Maybe that works when you're 16 years old, but not at age 50 or 60. There's only one way to know your vitamin D status: a blood level of 25(OH) vitamin D.


Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

Planned obsolence

12. May 2008 William Davis (1)
In the 1960s, you’d purchase a new car. If you changed the oil, adhered to the maintenance schedule—and were lucky—you might expect to get 100,000 miles out of your automobile. Only an occasional car made it beyond that odometer hurdle. Even if the engine made it past the 100,000 mile milestone, the automobile body would inevitably start to develop rusting decay at the edges of the fenders, signaling body rot that threatened to open gaping holes of metal.



Then along came Toyota and Honda, whose cars easily reached 100,000 miles and well beyond, reliably and with bodies intact. As this realization sunk into the American consciousness, many asked, “Why can’t American automakers accomplish the same sort of trouble-free longevity?” “Buy American” emerged as a mantra to preserve American jobs and prop up an economy vulnerable to the superior automotive products from Detroit’s competitors.

Of course, American automakers have since responded to the challenge posed by the Japanese auto industry and produced automobiles that essentially matched the reliability and longevity of Japanese cars. But, the great unanswered question remains: For years before the onslaught of Japanese competition, did Detroit quietly plot to maintain a policy of planned obsolescence that ensured Americans would have to scrap the old and buy a new car every few years whenever the odometer tipped over 100,000 miles?

We will never know. At worst, it may represent the behind-closed-doors, back-slapping sort of plotting that, for many years, maximized revenues, ensured shareholder returns, and secured executive paychecks. Or, perhaps it wasn’t some evil conspiracy but just complacency, a profitable position of comfort at that. There’s little incentive for industry insiders to reveal such self-incriminating information.

But the example set by the American auto industry presents an unusual learning opportunity for us, a chance to make some useful comparisons to the heart healthcare industry.

Is the American healthcare industry also guilty of practicing a policy of “planned obsolescence,” just like Detroit? The product that helplessly crumbles is, of course, not your rust-riddled automobile, but you.

When someone sees a primary care physician year after year, yet appears one morning in the emergency room, clutching his or her chest in agony from the closed coronary artery responsible for a life-threatening heart attack—prompting the flurry of activity that results in $100,000 in hospital procedures . . .

Perhaps “planned obsolescence” is not the perfect phrase to describe the situation, but the principle still applies: A failure to inform the patient that such an outcome was possible—no, probable—makes you wonder whether such an outcome was predictable and thereby preventable in the first place.

What should we do when planned obsolescence leads us down a path engineered by someone who has something, often substantial, to gain? Even if it's just complacency, or adhering to a beaten, ineffective status quo (can you say "low-fat diet?), it all points in the same direction.

You have a choice: Refuse to buy a 1962 Impala of health care, otherwise known as conventional heart disease management.

Melatonin for high blood pressure?

10. May 2008 William Davis (15)
Melatonin is fascinating stuff.

In addition to its use as a sleep aid, melatonin exerts possible effects on cardiovascular parameters, including anti-oxidative action on LDL, reduction in sympathetic (adrenaline-driven) tone, and reduction in blood pressure.

Several studies document the blood pressure-reducing effect of melatonin:

Daily nighttime melatonin reduces blood pressure in male patients with essential hypertension.

Melatonin reduces night blood pressure in patients with nocturnal hypertension.

Prolonged melatonin administration decreases nocturnal blood pressure in women.

Blood pressure-lowering effect of melatonin in type 1 diabetes.


But blood pressure may be increased when melatonin is added to nifedipine, a calcium channel blocker:

Cardiovascular effects of melatonin in hypertensive patients well controlled by nifedipine: a 24-hour study.


Effects on BP tend to be modest, on the order of 5-8 mmHg reduction in systolic, half that in diastolic.

But don't pooh-pooh such small reductions, however, as small reductions exert mani-fold larger reductions in cardiovascular events like heart attack and stroke. NIH-sponsored NHANES data (see JNC VII), for example, document a doubling of risk for each increment of BP of 20/10. The Camelot Study demonstrated a reduction in cardiovascular events from 23% in placebo subjects to 16.7% in subjects taking amlodipine (Norvasc) with a 5 mm reduction in systolic pressure, 2 mmHg drop in diastolic pressure. Small changes, big benefits.

Many people take melatonin at bedtime and are disappointed with the effects. However, a much better way is to take melatonin several hours before bedtime, e.g., take at 7 pm to fall asleep at 10 pm. Don't think of melatonin as a sleeping pill; think of it as a sleep hormone, something that simply prepares your body for sleep by slowing heart rate, reducing body temperature, and reducing blood pressure. (You may need to modify the interval between taking melatonin and sleep, since individual responsiveness varies quite a bit.)

I also favor the sustained-release preparations, e.g., 5 mg sustained-release. Immediate-release, while it exerts a more rapid onset of sleep, allows you to wake up prematurely, The sustained-release preparations last longer and allow longer sleep.

The dose varies with age, with 1 mg effective in people younger than 40 years, higher doses of 3, 5, even 10 or 12 mg in older people. Sustained-release preparations also should be taken in slightly higher doses.

The only side-effect I've seen with melatonin is vivid, colorful dreams. Perhaps that's a plus!

The forces that shape heatlh care

8. May 2008 William Davis (5)
Thinking about the programs for health care reform proposed by the three Presidential candidates highlights a distinct peculiarity of American style health care.

American health care is shaped to an unprecedented degree by five forces:

1) The drug industry

2) The health insurance industry

3) Hospitals

4) Fear of litigation

5) The uniquely American attitude of refusing compromise in access to health care services or products, regardless of the cost (for those who can afford health insurance)


All five of these unique forces have created this thing (monster?) we call health care. Remove or modify any one of these forces, and the health care landscape would look dramatically different.

The drug industry has recently been on the receiving end of plenty of negative press. This warms my bones. Decades of heavy-handed lobbying, sleazy marketing to physicians (all too willing to be wined and dined), and behind-the-scenes manipulation of clinical data are coming back to bite them. Sadly, the drug industry is so powerful that this bit of fuss is not likely to substantially change their ways.

I am thrilled that all three Presidential candidates agree that reimportation of drugs from outside the U.S. is a good idea. While the shrug of the shoulders federal and state attitude towards importation of drugs from Canada has not resulted in cost savings sufficient to impact on overall costs, it surely will lead to savings when practiced on a broad basis by pharmacies, distributors, and other bulk buyers of pharmaceuticals.

Senator Obama, in particular, has used strong language in his criticism of the health insurance industry, tough talk that is needed in an age in which insurance executives bring home salaries in the hundreds of millions of dollars and stock prices are climbing due to substantial profit gains within the industry, going against the grain of increasingly costly premiums. However, the Clinton experiment of federalizing health care during Bill Clinton's term that caused all the big boys to band together (most notably health insurance companies and drug industry) has tempered enthusiasm for attacking the insurance industry head-on. In both Democrats' health care reform proposals, the option of private insurance is preserved, as it is in the McCain proposal.

How about hospitals? Hospitals, though on a smaller scale than the nationwide reach of the drug and insurance industries, aim to maintain health service delivery in hospitals. For instance, the high-tech bypass service in the hospital gets plenty of local media coverage, as does the newest DaVinci robotic surgery, bariatric surgery, and other revenue-rich services. Many hospitals have forgotten that their mission is delivery of health, of which revenue creation and profiting from disease should only be part.

How big is fear of litigation? Estimates vary, but several have quoted numbers in the neighborhood of 20 to 30% of overall health care costs. At the street level from what I see, I'd say at least that much. Fear of litigation is rampant, often unrestrained, and sometimes leads to the craziest, illogical sequence of testing. Chest pain, for instance, no matter how trivial, will typically trigger around $5000 worth of testing (nuclear stress test, echocardiogram, laboratory work, etc.) Emergency room visit for a minor injury? CT scan of head, chest, abdomen. A formula to minimize this aspect of fear in health care delivery would generate enormous savings.

The last issue, the uncompromising nature of Americans in health--always wanting the latest new drug, new procedure, "best" surgeon--often simply causes the health care consumer to fall victim to marketing. If a hospital advertises the newest procedure, people want it regardless of whether it represents genuine improvement over the older procedure. The newest sleeping pill, antidepressant, antihypertensive, etc. replaces the old yet equivalent product, but at considerably greater cost.

I am optimistic that, regardless of which candidate gains the White House, that some reform is on the way. I do fear, however, that progress will be small and incremental, since major change of the sort that would slash hundreds of billions of dollars in costs would rouse the powers-that-be (drug industry, health insurers, etc.) to once again combine forces and combat the disruption of their franchise.

Until you and I see real change and cost savings coming through either legislation or free market advances, we need to continue to make full use of the self-empowering health information that we gain through venues like the web.



Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

Lipoprotein(a): Surprising Poll Results

6. May 2008 William Davis (5)
No doubt, our little informal poll asking readers whether they have lipoprotein(a), is skewed towards people inclined to respond because they have this genetic trait.

Nonetheless, the response is telling. Of 82 respondents:

--40 (48%) said they did have Lp(a)

--16 (19%) said that they did not have Lp(a)

--26 (31%) said that they did not know whether or not they had Lp(a)


Though admittedly an informal analysis, I'd draw several conclusions from this simple "experiment".

One, while the proportion of people responding that they have Lp(a) may not be accurate, it is a prevalent genetic risk factor that, according to formal studies, is present in 17% of people with coronary or vascular disease, 11% of the broader population. This number may be even higher if the newer particle number assays (measurements) are used (with results expressed in nmol/L), since an occasional person with a "normal" Lp(a) in mg/dl (weight-based) will prove to have increased Lp(a) by nmol/L (particle number-based). (The reason for this phenomenon is not clear. It may be consequent to variation in apo(a) size, with larger apo(a) varieties of Lp(a) occasionally escaping detection .) As our little poll shows, plenty of people have Lp(a).

Two, readers of this blog tend to be highly motivated, sophisticated, and knowledgeable about health and heart disease. Yet a substantial portion--31%--did not know whether they have this crucial risk factor. That shouldn't be. The unnecessary difficulty of getting this simple blood test performed has been driven home to me repeatedly when I identify this factor in someone and then suggest that their grown children and parents, each of whom have a 50% chance of having Lp(a), be tested. It's not uncommon for a 35-year old son, for instance, to say that his doctor refused, claiming it is an unproven risk marker, or to simply say that he/she doesn't know what it is.

No doubt, just knowing whether you have Lp(a) or not is not the end of the story. Reducing Lp(a) and its associated co-factors is no easy matter. With several hundred patients in my practice with Lp(a), it occupies much of my time and energy. Sometimes it leads to enormous successes , but it can also pose a real challenge.

There should no longer be any doubt that Lp(a) is associated with significantly increased risk of cardiovascular disease. This has been demonstrated conclusively across dozens of studies. Risk from Lp(a) is over and above that posed by other risk factors; it also amplifies the risk posed by other factors, e.g., small LDL, inflammatory phenemena, homocysteine, total LDL, low HDL.

In the world of Lp(a), our two most desperate needs for the future are:

1) Better education of physicians and the public, and

2) More effective treatment options.

Thus, our reasons to form The Lipoprotein(a) Research Foundation. Steps to gain tax-exempt status are being pursued as we speak.

I can't help but wonder whether, like vitamin D, a solution is right beneath our noses. An investment in research to fund the trials to better explore both basic science as well as practical treatment options might yield an answer more readily than we think. Wouldn't that be great?

Are endogenous nutritional supplements better?

4. May 2008 William Davis (6)
Just a muse.

Endogenous substances are those that are already contained within our bodies. They are part of basic human equipment.

Exogenous substances are those that come from outside of our bodies. This includes various substances in foods, drugs (most, though not all), and pesticides.


I often mull over all of the tools we use in the Track Your Plaque program to achieve control over this thing called coronary plaque. It struck me that just about all the supplements we use that seem to provide outsized benefits are all endogenous substances themselves:

--Omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil
--Vitamin D
--l-arginine
--Niacin (vitamin B3)

Many of the other substances, though not directly relevant to our plaque-control efforts, but are among the most effective nutritional supplements, also supplement endogenous levels: calcium pyruvate, creatine, acetylcarnitine, DHEA, testosterone, progesterone, growth hormone, pregnenolone, phenylalanine, tyrosine, melatonin, etc.

Curiously, most drugs are not meant to directly supplement endogenous levels, but are designed either to enhance or block an enzyme (e.g., acetylcholinesterase inhibitors that block breakdown of acetylcholine; HMG CoA reductase inhibitors to block cholesterol synthesis; angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors to reduce blood pressure), to exert toxic effects on an organism (antibiotics, antivirals), or to exert an entirely unique effect that does not ordinarily occur in the human body (some anti-cancer drugs, for instance). (This is an admitted, vast over-simplification.)

That's not to say that any endogenous substance is desirable or safe when supplemented. Cortisol, thyroid hormone, and estrogens are three examples of endogenous substances that have downsides when administered at slightly more than physiologic concentrations.

Nonetheless, it makes me wonder if the world of endogenous substance supplementation has not been fully explored. Are there other endogenous substances that are as potent and wonderful, for instance, as vitamin D but not yet fully appreciated? I'm sure there are.

Vitamin D Newsletter reprinted

1. May 2008 William Davis (2)
Reprinted here is the unfailingly informative Vitamin D Newsletter from Dr. John Cannell. Although there's little here specifically about heart disease, there's so much great information about vitamin D that I thought most would still appreciate it.



The Vitamin D Newsletter

May, 2008

Yesterday's Washington Post article, Too-Good-To-Be-True Nutrient?, sums up the April 9th vitamin D symposium at UCSD in San Diego, which was nothing short of spectacular. Carole Baggerly outdid herself organizing it and explaining how she got involved. Make no mistake; Carole is both serious and energetic. She told about her efforts to introduce resolutions at upcoming meetings of various professional groups. Then she introduced the volunteers from the San Diego Black Nurses Association who made sure the conference went off without a hitch. Then Carole introduced the four speakers. The slides of each speaker are available at Grassroots Health.

Before I tell you the highlights of the conference, I'd like to tell you about another conference, this one in Germany, this May 17th and 18th. It is the Third International Symposium on Vitamin D Analogs in Cancer Prevention and Therapy. Readers know how I feel about giving analogs to vitamin D deficient patients instead of vitamin D but speakers include Michael Holick, Reinhold Veith, Bill Grant, Tai Chen, Heidi Cross, David Feldman, and Roger Bouillon, all of whom know the importance of the nutrient. Most of this conference is for scientists, not lay people. However, Michael Holick is the first speaker and if you have not heard his latest talk about vitamin D, it might be worth a trip to Germany.

The first San Diego speaker was Dr. William Grant. Since leaving NASA to begin a full-time career as a vitamin D researcher, Bill has published dozens of studies and has another dozen in the works. Using ecological studies (from Greek oikos, house + German -logie, study or studying your own house) of UVB irradiance and cancer, Bill reported that 15 cancers (colon, esophageal, gallbladder, gastric, pancreatic, rectal, small intestinal, bladder, kidney, prostate, breast, endometrial, ovarian, Hodgkin's lymphoma, and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma) are associated with lower UVB light. He concluded that 257,000 cancer deaths in 2007 in the USA were accounted for by inadequate vitamin D levels. Of course the problem with ecological studies is that it easy to be vitamin D deficient in Miami, all you have to do is listen to your doctor's advice and stay out of the sun. Recently, a group from the Arizona Cancer Center found almost 80% of Arizonians had levels below 30 ng/ml. So much for sunny spots.

Jacobs ET, et al. Vitamin D insufficiency in southern Arizona. Am J Clin Nutr. 2008 Mar;87(3):608-13.


The next speaker was Professor Cedric Garland. I found myself wondering how he did it. I became convinced that vitamin D prevents cancer five years ago. Cedric and his brother Frank and his colleague Ed Gorham knew it 30 years ago! I know what it is like to tell someone that vitamin D prevents cancer and see them think, "Here we go again, another miracle vitamin." I know what it is like to try and explain and watch people die unnecessarily. But I've only had that experience for five years. Cedric has dealt with that frustration for thirty years. Almost thirty years ago, Cedric and Frank Garland published evidence that vitamin D prevents cancer. In fact, it was Cedric's first publication. Thankfully, the paper was recently recognized as being so important that it was republished in 2006 by the International Journal of Epidemiology. You can read the entire paper for free by clicking on the second link below and then clicking on "free final text", courtesy of Oxford Journals.

Garland CF, Garland FC. Do sunlight and vitamin D reduce the likelihood of colon cancer? Int J Epidemiol. 1980 Sep;9(3):227-31.

Garland CF, Garland FC. Do sunlight and vitamin D reduce the likelihood of colon cancer? Int J Epidemiol. 2006 Apr;35(2):217-20.


Cedric began by showing the incidence of type-1 diabetes and multiple sclerosis by latitude. I had no idea that the latitudinal data was so strong for type 1 diabetes in children. This disease is almost nonexistent around the equator. Type-1 diabetes is but one of the three modern childhood epidemics caused by the sunlight-hating dermatologists, the other two, I think, are autism and asthma. Next he showed latitude and 25(OH)D levels, which reminded me to be suspicious of high levels, unless they use accurate methods of detecting 25(OH)D. Some methods used, even in this country, are over detecting vitamin D and telling patients their levels are above 50 ng/ml when they are, in reality, much lower. Cedric's data showed Thailand had mean levels of 70 ng/ml, which I doubt and suspect were due to inaccurate 25(OH)D tests. He then reviewed evidence of the 25(OH)D levels needed to prevent numerous cancers. The safest levels are somewhere above 50 ng/ml. Cedric spent most of his time presenting an entirely new theory of carcinogenesis, one dependent on vitamin D maintaining cellular junctions. I suspect this paper will also be reprinted in 20 years. The only disagreement I have is with his recommendation for cancer patients to start at fairly low doses. For reasons I recently explained, the risk benefit analysis indicates cancer patients should take 5,000 to 10,000 IU per day and they may have no time to lose. Why worry about the phantom of vitamin D toxicity if you may be dying of cancer? Just have your calcium checked along with frequent 25(OH)D levels. Get your levels up to 70-90 ng/ml if you have cancer.



Does vitamin D treat cancer?

The next speaker was Professor Bruce Hollis. He reviewed basic physiology of vitamin D and emphasized that the entire system is designed to deal with an excess not with an insufficiency of vitamin D. Numerous mechanisms are available in your body to prevent vitamin D toxicity but few are available to deal with insufficiency. Then he briefly mentioned one of the most important discoveries about vitamin D in the last few years, one where Professor Neil Binkley of the University of Wisconsin was senior author. (In the last four years, Professor Binkley has become a prolific vitamin D expert and I hope Carol Baggerly is able to get him to speak at some of the upcoming conferences she hopes to sponsor.) As I have pointed out before, Hollis and Binkley's crucial discovery was that the body doesn't start storing the parent compound, cholecalciferol, until 25(OH)D levels reach about 50 ng/ml. They showed, using basic steroid pharmacology, that 50 ng/ml should be considered the lower limit of adequate 25(OH)D levels.

Hollis BW, Wagner CL, Drezner MK, Binkley NC. Circulating vitamin D3 and 25-hydroxyvitamin D in humans: An important tool to define adequate nutritional vitamin D status. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2007 Mar;103(3-5):631-4.


Bruce kept the audience enthralled with a review of all the disease states that indicate 25(OH)D levels need to be much higher than they are now, that is, the multiple biomarkers that suggest the lower limit of 25(OH)D levels should be above 40 ng/ml and closer to 50 ng/ml. Then Professor Hollis spoke of his ongoing study in pregnant women and how he got approval to use 4,000 IU of vitamin D per day back in 2003, quite an accomplishment. He also reviewed another one of his research projects, one that answered an age old question, why is breast milk a poor source of vitamin D? How were pr

Track Your Plaque data abstract

10. April 2008 William Davis (7)
An extraordinary thing happened about 2 1/2 years ago.

While we have been following the Track Your Plaque program for coronary plaque regression for nearly 10 years, about 2 1/2 years ago we witnessed an extraordinary surge in success--bigger, faster, and more frequent drops in heart scan scores.

Up until then, we did witness significant reversal of coronary plaque by heart scan scores. We were planning to publish the data to validate this approach, but then . . .

Heart scan scores starting dropping not just 2%, or 8% . . . but 24%, 30%, 50% and more. Why? I attribute the surge in success to the addition of vitamin D.

Unfortunately, it also meant that the preceding 8 or so years of data lacked experience with supplementing vitamin D. The hundreds of participants in the Track Your Plaque program had not, until then, included vitamin D in their program.

So I decided to start from scratch (from the standpoint of data collection, not for the participants). That also meant that the preceding years of experience went unreported, though even that data far exceeded the results of what is achieved in conventional heart disease prevention.

Thus, the data I presented at the Experimental Biology Proceedings (FASEB 2008) in San Diego this week included only experiences in the group of participants that included vitamin D in their program, with data collected until mid-2007. The number of experiences is therefore modest.

However, the Track Your Plaque experience, as reported, far exceeds any prior experience in coronary plaque regression.

The full abstract will be published in the Track Your Plaque website.


Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

Small fish oil capsules

3. April 2008 William Davis (12)
Many people complain about the size of fish oil capsules. Let's face it: They're usually big and kind of smelly.

Women in particular struggle with big capsules. This becomes a real problem when somebody requires high-dose fish oil for treatment of post-prandial (after-eating) abnormalities, high triglycerides, or lipoprotein(a), when 6 or more--occasionally up to the equivalent of 20--standard fish oil capsules are required.

I came across a small capsule alternative for people who struggle with the big capsules. It's a product called Learn from PharmaOmega, a source of super purified fish oil.

The Learn product is actually made for children, since omega-3 fatty acid supplementation has been linked with improved intellectual performance. But the small capsule size is convenient for women and other people who would like to avoid the big standard-sized capsules.

Each capsule is about 60% of the size of a standard fish oil capsule (the smaller capsule in the photo, next to a standard size fish oil capsule), yet contains 375 mg EPA + DHA per capsule, 25% more than standard capsules (which contain 300 mg per capsule). The ratio of of EPA:DHA is a little more heavily weighted towards EPA with a 5:2 ration, compared to 3:1 of standard capsules. The capsules are also faintly orange flavored and non-fishy.





Disclosure: I receive no compensation for discussing or promoting this product.


Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

Low-carb eating for diabetes

2. April 2008 William Davis (15)
Jenny provided permission to reprint her very excellent introduction to low-carbohydrate eating for people with diabetes. You can also view the original version on her Diabetes 101 website.

Jenny is a stickler for monitoring the effects of blood sugar. We might take some lessons from her experiences for improving management of people with metabolic syndrome or borderline blood sugars. In other words, monitoring the blood sugar-raising effects of various foods and food portions can provide great feedback on what foods are preferable, what undesirable, given your physiology.

Even if you are not a diabetic, Jenny's discussion is must reading to gain a better understanding of food choices, particularly carbohydrates. Along with seizing control of health, she has also gained deep wisdom in how to best manage this disease and its physiology.


Introduction to low-carb nutrition for diabetics

It's carbohydrates that raise blood sugar.

Sugars and starches, not the fats that dietitians have been warning you about for so long. If you've been testing your blood sugar after meals, you've probably noticed that already and you are starting to understand why a healthy diabetes diet will have to be one that limits carbohydrates to an amount that doesn't push your blood sugar up over the level where you are damaging your body.

But if your previous experience with restricting carbohydrates involved doing a weight loss diet like Atkins or Protein Power, which worked well for you until you crashed off it entirely and gained back all the weight you'd lost, you may be hesitant to embark on another course of dieting that requires some carb restriction.

I've been there myself. I've done the extremely low carb diet Dr. Richard Bernstein recommends for months on end. I did Protein Power for 3 years. And I've gone on the "Eat all the carbs you didn't eat over the past three years all at once" diet, too. The following observations grew out of my 8 years of experience with learning how to make carb restriction work long-term.

Unlike much of what you've read before, there are no scholarly references for this section. It's based entirely on my own observations and the experience of many dozens of people who have participated in online discussion groups devoted to low carb dieting and diabetes.


Weight Loss Diets Usually Fail but Diabetes Diets Can't Afford To Fail

People who adopt a low carb diet to lose weight tend to start out with great enthusiasm, adapt extreme dieting strategies, swear they will never eat another piece of bread or french fry for the rest of their lives, lose some weight, stall out, burn out, and slink back to their old diets, where they gain back all the weight they lost and more.

This is not a surprise. People on any diet, including low calorie and low fat, do the same thing. The body is very resistant to weight loss and deeply buried instincts in our brains do everything they can to maintain our weights, no matter how unhealthy they might be.

But while this pattern of dieting may be tolerable for those who are dieting to shed a few pounds before their class reunion, it spells disaster for those who must change their diet in order to prevent the high blood sugars that result in amputation, blindness, kidney failure and heart attack death.

Low carbing for diabetes means low carbing for life, long after the thrill has worn off of eating that runny brie and steak. Despite the hype in the diet books, it is not easy, simple, and fun. I know only a handful of people who have been able to sustain a low carb lifestyle for more than five years. And that is after years of online participation in low carb groups.

What you'll find below is what I've found works for me. I used a low carb diet to control my blood sugar for more than five years and have gone through the whole cycle, from enthusiasm, to boredom, to burnout, to saying "To hell with it, we've all got to die some time!" to starting all over again determined to avoid the mistakes that sent me round the bend the first time.


How Many Grams of Carbs to Eat? As Many as Allow You to Reach Your Blood Sugar Targets

When people think about adopting a lower carb diet, their first question is almost always, "How many grams of carbs can I eat at each meal?" Most of the diet books will answer that question with a hard and fast number. Atkins, for example, tells you to start out with 20 grams a day. Protein Power starts you at 30 grams. And Dr. Bernstein suggests 6 grams for breakfast and snacks and 12 grams at lunch and dinner.

Adopting these very low carbohydrate limits will control your blood sugar very nicely. But over time, many people find that sticking to a diet this low in carbohydrate becomes impossible. That's why I'm going to ask you to throw away all those diet books and try a new approach to restricting carbs.

What you will do is to try the strategy used by the people from the alt.support-diabetes newsgroup who informally call themselves "The 5% Club" because their A1c test results fall in the 5% range which doctors consider normal: use your blood sugar meter after each meal to determine how many grams of carbs you can eat and still meet a healthy blood sugar target.

You will start out by measuring your blood sugar one and two hours after each meal. Write down what you ate and observe what it did to your blood sugar. If a meal allows you to reach your blood sugar targets, try eating it again on a different day and test it test again, possibly at a later time, to make sure that your good numbers weren't just a result of slow digestion.

If you end up too high after a meal, the next time you eat it, cut back on the portion size of the carbohydrate elements in the meal and test again. Do this until you can hit your targets, or flag the carbohydrate-containing foods in that meal as ones your body can't handle.

What you're doing here is creating what newsgroup activist Alan S. calls, "a low spike diet" rather than a low carb diet. He can achieve normal post meal blood sugars by eating as many as 30 or 40 grams of carbohydrates at a meal. Others will find that they need to eat a lot less than that amount to hit safe post-meal blood sugar targets.

Usually how much carbohydrate you can manage has something to do with your body size. The more you weigh, the less each gram of carbohydrate you eat will raise your blood sugar. Those of us whose weight is less than 150 lbs often find that we can eat between 12 and 20 grams of carbohydrate and still reach normal blood sugar targets without the help of medications, and that we can add perhaps another 10 or 20 grams more, with medications. People who are much heavier can often eat 30 or 40 grams per meal and still reach their blood sugar targets. In general, men can eat more carbohydrates and still reach their targets than can women, again, because of their larger body size.


How to Learn How Much Carbohydrate is in Your Food

To make this system work, it helps if you start to learn how many grams of carbohydrate are in the foods you eat. That way you won't have to test hundreds of foods once you've learned how a representative sample affect you.

The best way to learn how many grams of carbohydrates are in the different foods you eat is to read food labels carefully, invest in a nutritional guide like one of Connie Netzer's books of nutritional information, download nutrition software like LifeForm (http://www.lifeform.com) or use online calculators like Fit Day (http://www.fitday.com). Software and online sites will compute the amount of carbohydrates and other nutrients in your meal for you as long as you know the portion size.


Learn about Portion Sizes!
This brings up an important point: When you estimate how many grams of carbohydrate there are in a portion of food, it is very important to find out if the amount of food on your plate corresponds to the amount in the "one serving" listed on a label, in a book, or in your software.

The best way to do this is to invest in an electronic food scale and to weigh your foods for a few weeks until you get the hang of estimating portion size. You can get a good food scale at a gourmet kitchen shop for $25 to $40 dollars. This food scale may be the best nutritional investment you'll ever make.

Once you start using your scale, you will find that the muffin you bought at the coffee shop weighs 8 ounces, which is fully four times the 2 ounces that most food databases give as "one serving" of a muffin. When you read that a mythical 2 ounce portion of muffin contains 27 grams of carbohydrate you will realize why that 8 ounce coffee shop muffin with its 108 grams of carbohydrates sends your blood sugar into the psycho zone!

With ice cream, when you weigh your ice cream on a food scale, you'll quickly see that the "one portion" listed on the package turns out to be only a few teaspoons' worth. That bowl you've been considering as one portion of ice cream weighs in as four servings or 72 grams of carbohydrate and 600 calories, which may explain its damaging effect on both your blood sugar and your waistline.

This may sound like a lot of work, and when you first start, it is. But after you do it for a few weeks you'll find you have memorized the carbohydrate gram counts and the portion sizes for the foods you usually eat, and once you have tested your blood after eating these portion sizes, you won't have to test every time you eat a favorite meal, because you will know what it is going to do to your blood sugar.


Eating Away from Home

The biggest challenge you'll encounter as you start learning what you can eat will be eating away from home. You aren't going to be able to weigh restaurant foods nor can you look up the nutritional values of many restaurant offerings--though many of the common fast food outlets do provide nutritional information online--though often without listing portion sizes.

That makes it a very good idea to avoid starchy or sugary restaurant foods or, if you do eat them, to eat only a small portion of what you are offered. Measure your blood sugar an hour or two hours after eating if you aren't sure about how a restaurant food will affect you.


Fat and Carbs Eaten Together will Digest Slowly

Foods with a lot of fat in them take longer to digest than those without a lot of fat. This is why pizza and ice cream often give deceptively good readings on your meter. If you test a meal and see a reading that is too good to be true, be sure you test at 3 or four hours after eating.


The Truth About Pasta

Pasta was long recommended to people with diabetes as a food that would not raise blood sugar and you will still see it starring in many cookbooks and magazines intended for people with diabetes.

However, if you test pasta 4 or 5 hours after eating, you may get an unpleasant surprise. This is true with the so-called "low carb" pastas, too. These foods give you excellent readings at one and two hours because they are resistant to digestion so they don't turn into glucose right away. But five hours later, they do break down into glucose and when they do, the 52 grams of carbohydrates found in each 2 ounce serving of pasta will hit your blood stream with a nasty wallop. (Not to mention that you almost need a microscope to see a 2 ounce portion of pasta. Most people's idea of a portion of pasta is closer to 6 ounces--and 156 grams of carbohydrate!)

If you have pasta for dinner and don't see a peak 3 hours l