Diabetes: Better than hedge funds 7. آذار 2011 William Davis (23) Diabetes is where the action is. While, for virtually all of history, type 2 diabetes was an uncommon condition of adults, the disease has spread so much to all levels of American society that even kids are now developing the adult form. Researchers from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention predict that, by 2050, one in three adults will be diabetic. The diabetes market is booming, handily surpassing growth of the oil industry, the housing market, even technology. It makes Bernie Madoff’s billions look like small potatoes. In health, few markets are growing as fast as diabetes—-not osteoporosis, not heart disease, not cancer. Americans are getting fat from carbohydrate consumption, becoming diabetic along with it. While kids hanging around the convenience store gulp down 26 teaspoons of sugar in 32-ounce sodas and 56-grams-of-sugar in 16-ounce frozen ices, health-minded adults are more likely eating two slices of 6-teaspoons sugar-equivalent “healthy whole grain” bread, wondering why last year’s jeans are too tight. The U.S. is not the only nation affected. Globally, 2.8% of the world’s population are diabetic, a number expected to double over the next 20 years. Pharmaceutical companies boast double-digit growth for diabetes drugs, growth rates that keep profit-hungry investors happy. Merck’s Januvia, for instance, introduced in 2006, recently catalogued 30% growth in sales, with annual sales approaching $1 billion. Recently FDA-approved Victoza, requiring once-a-day injection, is expected to reap $4 billion in sales per year for manufacturer Novo Nordisk. Such numbers can only warm a drug company CEO’s heart. Most diabetics don’t just take one medication, but several. A typical regimen for an adult diabetic after a couple of years of treatment and following the dietary advice of the American Diabetes Association includes metformin, Januvia, and Actos, a triple-drug treatment that costs around $420 per month. Two forms of insulin (slow- and fast-acting), along with two or three oral medications, is not at all uncommon. “Collateral” revenues from the other health conditions that develop from a diet rich in “healthy whole grains,” such as drugs for hypertension, drugs to slow the progression of kidney disease in diabetes, drugs for “high cholesterol,” and drugs for high triglycerides, and you have a pharmaceutical drug bonanza. You, too, would throw all-expenses-paid, fly-the-entire-sales-force-to-the-Caribbean sales meetings. The global diabetes market has already topped $25 billion and is growing at double-digit rates. Forget the Internet, gold stocks, or solar energy—-diabetes is where the money is. This fact has not been lost on the very market-savvy pharmaceutical industry. As with any successful business, they have devoted substantial resources to develop and grow this booming business.
270 lb man in diapers 5. آذار 2011 William Davis (20) Alex is a big guy: 6 ft 4 inches, 273 lbs. On 10,000 units per day of vitamin D in gelcap form, his 25-hydroxy vitamin D level was 38.4 ng/ml. One year earlier, his 25-hydroxy vitamin D level, prior to any vitamin D supplementation was 9.8 ng/ml. According to the latest assessment offered by the Institute of Medicine (IOM):Vitamin D need for a 13-month old infant: 600 units per dayVitamin D need for a 6 ft 4 in, 273 lb male: 600 units per dayI paint this picture to highlight some of the absurdity built into the smug assumptions of the IOM's report. It would be like trying to fit a large, full-grown man into the diapers of a 13-month old. Few nutrients or hormones (in fact, I can't think of a single one) are required in similar quantity by an infant or toddler and a full grown adult. However, according to the IOM's logic, their vitamin D needs are identical, regardless of age, body size, skin color, genetics, etc. One size fits all.Just as the original RDA assessment by the Institute of Medicine kept thinking about vitamin D somewhere in the Stone Age, so does this most recent assessment.
90% small LDL: Good news, bad news 4. آذار 2011 William Davis (11) Chris has 90% small LDL particles. On his (NMR) lipoprotein panel, of the total 2432 nmol/L LDL particles ("LDL particle number"), 2157 nmol/L are small, approximately 90% (2157/2432).Bad news: Having this severe excess of small LDL particles virtually guarantees heart attack and stroke in Chris' future.Good news: It means that Chris potentially has spectacular control over his lipoprotein and lipid values, achieving statin-like values without statin drugs.Typically, extravagant quantities of small LDL particles are accompanied by low HDL, high triglycerides, and pre-diabetes or diabetes. Chris' HDL is 26 mg/dl, triglycerides 204 mg/dl; HbA1c 5.9% (a reflection of prior 60-90 days average blood glucose; desirable 4.8% or less), fitting neatly into the expected pattern.Chris' pattern tells me several things:1) He overconsumes carbohydrates, since carbohydrates trigger this pattern.2) He likely has a genetic susceptibility to this effect (e.g., a variant of the gene for cholesteryl ester transfer protein, perhaps hepatic lipase). Only the most gluttonous and overweight carbohydrate consumers can generate this high a percentage small LDL without an underlying genetic susceptibility. 3) Provided he follows the diet advised, i.e., elimination of all wheat, cornstarch, oats, and sugars, he is likely to have an extavagant drop in LDL particle number. Should he achieve the goal I set of small LDL of 300 nmol/L or less, his LDL particle number will likely be around 500 nmol/L. This translates to an LDL cholesterol of 50 mg/dl . . . 50 mg/dl. In many people, this notion of taking statin drugs for "high cholesterol" is an absurd oversimplification. But it is a situation that, for many, is wonderfully controllable with the right diet.
The American Heart Association has a PR problem 2. آذار 2011 William Davis (17) The results of the latest Heart Scan Blog poll are in. The poll was prompted by yet another observation that the American Heart Association diet is a destructive diet that, in this case, made a monkey fat. Because I am skeptical of "official" organizations that purport to provide health advice, particularly nutritional advice, I thought this poll might provide some interesting feedback. I asked:The American Heart Association is an organization that:The responses:Tries to maintain the procedural and medication status quo to benefit the medical system and pharmaceutical industry for money240 (64%)Doesn't know its ass from a hole in the ground121 (32%)Is generally helpful but is misguided in some of its advice79 (21%)Accomplishes tremendous good and you people are nuts6 (1%)Worrisome. Now, perhaps the people reading this blog are a skeptical bunch. Or perhaps they are better informed. Nonetheless, one thing is clear: The American Heart Association (and possibly other organizations like the American Diabetes Association and USDA) have a serious PR problem. They are facing an increasingly critical and skeptical public. Just telling people to "cut the fat and cholesterol" is beginning to fall on deaf ears. After all, the advice to cut fat, cut saturated fat, cut cholesterol and increase consumption of "healthy whole grains" in 1985 began the upward ascent of body weight and diabetes in the American public.Believe it or not, my vote would be for something between choices 1 and 3. I believe that the American Heart Association achieves a lot of good. But I also believe that there are forces within organizations that are there to serve their own agendas. In this case, I believe there is a substantial push to maintain the procedural and medication status quo, the "treatments" that generate the most generous revenues. I believe that I will forward these poll results to the marketing people at the American Heart Association. That'll be interesting!
The formula for aortic valve disease? 28. شباط 2011 William Davis (60) I've discussed this question before:Can aortic valve stenosis be stopped or reversed using a regimen of nutritional supplements?I had a striking experience this past week. Don has coronary plaque and began the Track Your Plaque program. However, discovery of a murmur led to an echocardiogram that measured his effective aortic valve area at 1.5 cm2. (Normal is between 2.5-3.0 cm2.) Because of his aortic valve issue, I suggested that, in addition to the 10,000 units of vitamin D required to increase his 25-hydroxy vitamin D level to 70 ng/ml, he also add vitamin K2, 1000 mcg per day, along with elimination of all calcium supplements. (I asked Don to use a K2 supplement that contained both forms, short-acting MK-4 and long-acting MK-7.) One year later, another echocardiogram: aortic valve area 2.6 cm2--an incredible increase. This is not supposed to happen. By conventional thinking, aortic valve stenosis can only get worse, never get better. But I've now witnessed this in approximately 10% of the people with aortic valve stenosis. The majority just stop getting worse, an occasional person gets worse, while a few, like Don, get better. Aortic valve stenosis is to the aortic valve as degenerative arthritis is to your knees: A form of wear-and-tear that leads to progressive dysfunction. When the aortic valve becomes stiff enough (i.e., "stenotic"), then it leads to chest pains, lightheadedness or losing consciousness, heart failure, and, eventually, death. Bad problem. Aortic stenosis typically starts in your 50s with calcification of the valve, getting worse and worse until the calcium makes the valve "leaflets" unable to move. The treatment: a new valve, a major undertaking involving an open heart procedure. What if taking vitamins D and K2 and avoiding calcium do not just reverse or stop aortic valve stenosis once established, but prevents it in the first place? Tantalizing possibility.Pressures on my time being what they are, I've not had the freedom to put together a prospective study to further examine this fascinating question. But it is definitely worth pursuing.
Blood glucose 160 26. شباط 2011 William Davis (28) What happens when blood glucose hits 160 mg/dl? A blood glucose at this level is typical after, say, a bowl of slow-cooked oatmeal with no added sugar, a small serving of Cheerios, or even an apple in the ultra carb-sensitive. Normal blood sugar with an empty stomach, i.e., fasting; high blood sugars after eating. Conventional wisdom is that a blood sugar of 160 mg/dl is okay, since your friendly primary care doctor says that any postprandial glucose of 200 mg/dl or less is fine because you don't "need" medication. But what sort of phenomena occur when blood sugars are in this range? Here's a list:--Glycation (i.e., glucose modification of proteins) of various tissues, including the lens of your eyes (cataracts), kidney tissue leading to kidney disease, skin leading to wrinkles, cartilage leading to stiffness, degeneration, and arthritis. --Glycation of LDL particles. Glycated LDL particles are more prone to oxidation. --VLDL and triglyceride production by the liver, i.e., de novo lipogenesis.--Small LDL particle formation--The increased VLDL/triglyceride production leads to the CETP-mediated reaction that creates small LDL particles which are, in turn, more glycation- and oxidation-prone. --Glucotoxicity--i.e., a direct toxic effect of high blood glucose. This is especially an issue for the vulnerable beta cells of the pancreas that produce insulin. Repeated glucotoxic poundings by high glucose levels lead to fewer functional beta cells. A blood glucose of 160 mg/dl is definitely not okay. While it is not an immediate threat to your health, repeated exposures will lead you down the same path that diabetics tread with all of its health problems.
Indian buffet 24. شباط 2011 William Davis (56) I took my family to a local all-you-can-eat Indian buffet. It was delicious. I confined my food choices mostly to vegetables and soups. Within about 30 minutes, I started to get that odd buzz in my head that usually signals a high blood sugar. When I got home, my fingerstick blood glucose: 173 mg/dl. Darn it! Must have been cornstarch or other sugars in the sauces. I got on my supine stationary bike and pedaled for 40 minutes at a moderate pace while I played Modern Warfare on XBox. (A great way, by the way, to fit in some low- to moderate-intensity exercise while occupying your brain. My wife often has to yell at me to get off, it's so much fun.) Blood glucose at the conclusion of exercise: 93 mg/dl-- a nice 80 mg/dl drop. This is a useful strategy to use in a pinch when you've either been inadvertently exposed to more carbohydrate than you can tolerate, or if you'd like to blunt the adverse glucose effects of a bowl of ice cream or other carbohydrate indulgence. Should we explore the idea of a "morning-after" pill, or actually a "meal-after" pill, a supplement pill or liquid that blunts or eliminates the blood glucose rise after a meal? I've considered such an idea, but have been fearful that people would start to use it habitually. Thoughts?
American Heart Association diet makes a monkey out of you 21. شباط 2011 William Davis (38) Heart Scan Blog reader, Roger, brought this New York Times article to my attention. In an effort to develop a better experimental model for obesity than mice, scientists have turned to monkeys and other primates. The emerging observations are eerily reminiscent of what you and I witness just by going to the local grocery store or fast food outlet:"'It wasn’t until we added those carbs that we got all those other changes, including those changes in body fat,' said Anthony G. Comuzzie, who helped create an obese baboon colony at the Southwest National Primate Research Center in San Antonio.""Fat Albert, one of her monkeys who she said was at one time the world’s heaviest rhesus, at 70 pounds, ate “nothing but American Heart Association-recommended diet,” she said."Yes, indeed: The American Heart Association diet makes monkeys fat. Extrapolate this a little higher on the evolutionary ladder and guess what? This is one of the many reasons why, when I have a patient who is counseled by the hospital dietitian on the American Heart Association diet, I advise them to 1) ignore everything the dietitian told them, and then 2) follow the wheat-free, cornstarch-free, sugar-free, whole food diet I advocate. Not unexpectedly, much of this primate research is not being devoted to just manipulating diet to achieve weight loss and health, but to develop new drugs to "treat" obesity. Would you like a banana?
Construct your glucose curve 19. شباط 2011 William Davis (24) In a previous Heart Scan Blog post, I discussed how to make use of postprandial (after-meal) blood sugars to reduce triglycerides, reduce small LDL, increase HDL, reduce blood pressure and inflammatory measures, and accelerate weight loss. In that post, I suggested checking blood glucose one hour after finishing a meal. However, this is a bit of an oversimplification. Let me explain. A number of factors influence the magnitude of blood glucose rise after a meal:--Quantity of carbohydrates--Digestibility of carbohydrates--The amylopectin A of wheat, for example, is among the most digestible of all, increasing blood sugar higher and faster.--Fat and protein, both of which blunt the glucose rise (though only modestly).--Inclusion of foods that slow gastric emptying, such as vinegar and fibers.--Body weight, age, recent exerciseJust to name a few. Even if 10 people are fed identical meals, each person will have a somewhat different blood glucose pattern. So it can be helpful to not just assume that 60 minutes will be your peak, but to establish your individual peak. It will vary from meal-to-meal, day-to-day, but you can get a pretty good sense of blood glucose behavior by constructing your own postprandial glucose curve. Say I have a breakfast of oatmeal: slow-cooked, stoneground oatmeal with skim milk, a few walnuts, blueberries. Blood glucose prior: 95 mg/dl. Blood glucose one-hour postprandial: 160 mg/dl. Rather than taking a one-hour blood glucose, let's instead take it every 15 minutes after you finish eating your oatmeal:In this instance, the glucose peak occurred at 90-minutes after eating. 90-minute postprandial checks may therefore better reflect postprandial glucose peaks for this theoretical individual. I previously picked 60-minutes postprandial to approximate the peak. You have the option of going a step better by, at least one time, performing your own every-15-minute glucose check to establish your own curve.
Why is type 1 diabetes on the rise? 16. شباط 2011 William Davis (43) Type 1 diabetes, also called "childhood" or "insulin-dependent" diabetes, is on the rise. Type 2 diabetes, or "adult," diabetes, is also sharply escalating. But the causes for this are easy-to-identify: overconsumption of carbohydrates and resultant weight gain/obesity, inactivity, as well as genetic predisposition. A formerly rare disease is rapidly becoming the scourge of the century, expected to affect 1 in 3 adults within the next several decades. Type 1 diabetes, on the other hand, generally occurs in young children, not uncommonly age 3 or 4. Type 1 diabetes also shares a genetic basis to some degree. But the genetic predisposition should be a constant. Obviously, lifestyle issues cannot be blamed in young children.Then why would type 1 diabetes be on the rise? For instance, this study by Vehik et al from the University of Colorado documents the approximate 3% per year increase in incidence in children with type 1 diabetes between 1978 and 2004:(From Vehik 2007)(For an excellent discussion of the increase in type 1 diabetes in the 20th century, see this review.)This is no small matter. Just ask any parent of a child diagnosed with type 1 diabetes who, after recovering from hearing the devastating diagnosis, then has to stick her child's fingers to check glucose several times per day, mind carefully what he or she eats or doesn't eat, watch carefully for signs of life-threatening hypoglycemic episodes, not to mention worry about her child's long-term health. Type 1 diabetes is a life-changing diagnosis for both child and parents.Various explanations have been offered to account for this disturbing trend. Some attribute it to the increase in breast feeding since 1980 (highly unlikely), exposure to some unidentified virus, or other exposures.I'd like to offer another explanation: wheat.Lest you accuse me of becoming obsessed with this issue, let me point out the four observations that lead me to even consider such an association:1) Children diagnosed with celiac disease, i.e., the immune disease of wheat gluten exposure, have 10-fold greater likelihood of developing type 1 diabetes.2) Children diagnosed with type 1 diabetes are 10-fold more likely to have abnormal levels of antibodies (e.g., transglutaminase antibodies) to wheat gluten.3) Experimental models, such as in these mice genetically susceptible to type 1 diabetes, showed a reduction of type 1 diabetes from 64% to 15% with avoidance of wheat.4) The increase in type 1 diabetes corresponds to the introduction of new strains of wheat that resulted from the extensive genetics research and hybridizations carried out on this plant in the 1960s. In particular, unique protein antigens (immune-provoking sequences) were introduced with the dwarf variant attributable to alterations in the "D" genome of modern Triticum aestivum.Proving the point is tough: Would you enroll your newborn in a study of wheat-containing diet versus no wheat, then watch for 10 years to see which group develops more type 1 diabetes? It is a doable study, just a logistical nightmare. Perhaps the point will be settled as more and more people catch onto the fact that modern wheat--or this thing we are being sold called "wheat"--is a corrupt and destructive "foodstuff" and eliminate it from their lives and the lives of their young children from birth onwards. Then a comparison of wheat-consuming versus non-wheat-consuming populations could be made. But it will be many years before this crucial question is settled.Yet again, however, the footprints in the sand seem to lead back to wheat as potentially underlying an incredible amount of human illness and suffering. Yes, the stuff our USDA puts at the bottom, widest part of the food pyramid.