Do stents prevent reversal?

I've seen this phenomenon several times now: A highly-motivated Track Your Plaque participant with a stent in one artery will do all the right things--lose weight, achieve 60:60:60 in basic lipids, identify and correct hidden lipoprotein disorders, take fish oil, correct vitamin D, etc.

Follow-up heart scan shows dramatic reduction in scoring in the two arteries without stents--30% per artery. But the artery with the stent will show marked increase in scoring above and/or below the stent. (It's impossible to tell what happens in or around the stent itself from a calcium scoring standpoint, since steel looks just like calcium on a CT heart scan.) In other words, there is marked plaque growth in the vicinity of the stent, despite the fact that dramatic reversal of atherosclerosis has occurred in other arteries without stents.

Should we take this to mean that a stent destroys the opportunity for atherosclerotic plaque reversal in the stented artery? I don't know, but I fear this may be true. What dangers does this different sort of plaque pose? Is it the result of the injury imposed at time of stent implantation, some modification of flow or biologic responses as a result of the presence of the stent?

These are all unanswered questions. But I believe that it is yet another suggestive piece of evidence that the best stent is no stent at all.

At what score should I have a heart cath?

This question comes up frequently: At what specific heart scan score should a heart catheterization be performed? In other words, is there a specific cut-off that automatically triggers a need for catheterization?

In my view, there is no such score. We can't say, for instance, that everybody with a score above 1000 should have a catheterization. It is true that the higher your score, the greater the likelihood of a plaque blocking flow. A score of 1000 carries an approximately 25-30% likelihood of reduced blood flow sufficient to consider a stent or bypass. This can nearly always be settled with a stress test. Recall that, despite their pitfalls for uncovering hidden heart disease in the first place, stress tests are useful as gauges of coronary blood flow.

But even a score of 1000 carries a 70-75% likelihood that a procedure will not be necesary. This is too high to justify doing heart catheterizations willy-nilly.

Unfortunately, some my colleagues will say that any heart scan score justifies a heart cath. I believe this is absolutely, unquestionably, and inexcusably wrong. More often than not, this attitude is borne out of ignorance, laziness, or a desire for profit.

Does every lump or bump justify surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy on the chance it could represent cancer? Of course not. There is indeed a time and place for these things, but judgment is involved.

In my view, no heart scan score should autmatically prompt a major heart procedure like heart catheterization in a person without symptoms.

Niacin makes NY Times

In the wake of the crash and burn of Pfizer's torcetrapib, media attention has turned up the miracles of . . .good old niacin. The NY Times carried a well-written report on niacin in its recent report, An Old Cholesterol Remedy Is New Again.


(Read the entire report at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/23/health/23consume.html?em&ex=1169701200&en=670fa84ae2ea648c&ei=5087%0A)

Among their comments:

...torcetrapib worked primarily by increasing HDL, or good cholesterol. Among other functions, HDL carries dangerous forms of cholesterol from artery walls to the liver for excretion. The process, called reverse cholesterol transport, is thought to be crucial to preventing clogged arteries.

Many scientists still believe that a statin combined with a drug that raises HDL would mark a significant advance in the treatment of heart disease. But for patients now at high risk of heart attack or stroke, the news is better than it sounds. An effective HDL booster already exists.

It is niacin, the ordinary B vitamin.

In its therapeutic form, nicotinic acid, niacin can increase HDL as much as 35 percent when taken in high doses, usually about 2,000 milligrams per day. It also lowers LDL, though not as sharply as statins do, and it has been shown to reduce serum levels of artery-clogging triglycerides as much as 50 percent. Its principal side effect is an irritating flush caused by the vitamin’s dilation of blood vessels.

Despite its effectiveness, niacin has been the ugly duckling of heart medications, an old remedy that few scientists cared to examine. But that seems likely to change.

“There’s a great unfilled need for something that raises HDL,” said Dr. Steven E. Nissen, a cardiologist at the Cleveland Clinic and president of the American College of Cardiology. “Right now, in the wake of the failure of torcetrapib, niacin is really it. Nothing else available is that effective.”

In 1975, long before statins, a landmark study of 8,341 men who had suffered heart attacks found that niacin was the only treatment among five tested that prevented second heart attacks. Compared with men on placebos, those on niacin had a 26 percent reduction in heart attacks and a 27 percent reduction in strokes. Fifteen years later, the mortality rate among the men on niacin was 11 percent lower than among those who had received placebos.

'Here you have a drug that was about as effective as the early statins, and it just never caught on,' said Dr. B. Greg Brown, professor of medicine at the University of Washington in Seattle. 'It’s a mystery to me. But if you’re a drug company, I guess you can’t make money on a vitamin.'



Of course, you and I don't have to wait for the media to endorse something. I'm nonetheless thrilled that this hugely helpful vitamin is gaining greater recognition. My preferred form nowadays is over-the-counter SloNiacin (Upsher Smith). Weve seen no liver side-effects and a minimal quantity of flushing. It's also reasonably priced, $13.99 for 100 tablets of 500 mg at Walgreen's. That's a lot cheaper than prescription Niaspan at $130 for 60 tablets.

Perhaps the notoriety will cut back on the silly responses from some physicians that I still hear about from patients: "My doctor said to stop the niacin because it's going to destroy my liver."

Wheat: the nicotine of food

Yes, we know that wheat contributes to creating small LDL, drops HDL, raises triglycerides, and VLDL. We also know it indirectly slows the clearance of after-eating fats from the blood (curious, I know). Wheat products also increase inflammation (C-reactive protein), raise blood sugar, and contribute tremendously to diabetes.

What many people don't know is that wheat products also have an addictive quality: have one donut and you want another. It's true for bread, breakfast cereals, pretzels, cookies, etc. How many times have you had just one Oreo cookie?

Curiously, elimination of wheat products, unlike elimination of nicotine, usually causes the cravings to disappear. In other words, if you stop smoking cigarettes, the desire to smoke doesn't go away. With wheat products, the often overwhelming desire for more wheat products often just goes away.

But most people are simply unable to dramatically reduce or eliminate wheat products from their daily diet and therefore struggle each and every day with excessive cravings for bagels, donuts, cookies, breads, etc.

Try this useful experiment: Eliminate wheat products for a month and see what happens. Most people drop blood pressure, lose the tummy excess, feel more alert, see a drop in blood sugar, experience improvements in lipoproteins, and regain control over appetite.

Good time for a heart attack?

Man Has Heart Attack At Right Place, Right Time

If Robert Ricard had picked the wrong restaurant for lunch, he might have died.

The 71-year-old Michigan man suffered a heart attack shortly after ordering a glass of wine with friends at Bentley's Roadhouse on Saturday.

Luckily, a disaster medical team was sitting nearby.



A TV station in Michigan reported the above story. You've heard these "if it wasn't for ___, so and so would have died" stories. They're reported in all cities at one time or another.

What amazes me about these common local stories is that they're accepted at all. The question that comes to my mind is "Why couldn't the heart attack have been averted in the first place?" Early identification then, as close as humanly possible, elimination of risk would have been a preferable path.

Of course, it may not be the role of the media to cast judgement on why and how the entire episode could have been completely prevented from occurring. But you shouldn't fall into the same trap of complacency. We cannot expect others to save us when the "big one" hits. Your best assurance is to never have one in the first place.

How good is the South Beach Diet?

I'm a fan of the South Beach Diet.

Though it is billed as a program for weight loss (for which it is very effective), it is really a program for health. The basic approach of South Beach involves:

Eat good fats — Choose good fats from olive oil, canola oil, peanut oil, flaxseed oil, walnut oil, avocados, nuts, and fish. Omega-3 (fish oil) supplements are also fine.


Eat good carbs — Good carbs include high-fiber, nutrient-dense fruits, vegetables, legumes, and whole grains.

Eat lean protein — Good sources include eggs, low-fat dairy, nuts, seeds, legumes, skinless white-meat poultry, fish, shellfish, lean cuts of meat, and vegetarian options such as tofu.

(From The South Beach Diet, Dr. Arthur Agatston)


There's no doubt that South Beach can yield dramatic weight loss. In my experience, the success in weight loss depends on 1) how unhealthy your diet was in the first place, and 2) how long you can stick to Phase I, the inital phase during which weight loss is most dramatic. Some people have to periodically cycle back to Phase I to break a "plateau" or to lose faster.

But South Beach is also healthy. It has all the ingredients of a healthy eating program: Low saturated and hydrogenated fats, rich in monounsaturated fats, high fiber, low- to moderate- glycemic index, vegetables and fruits, lean proteins.

The Atkins' diet, in contrast, while very effective for weiglht loss, is an unhealthy process. I've seen lots of bladder infections, constipation, skin rashes, and kidney stones. That's just in the short term. If you stick to the "induction phase" (the no carbohydrate, low fiber, indiscriminate fat initial phase) for an extended period, I suspect that other adverse internal phenemena also develop that might not show for years, like cancer. But--it does work for weight loss!

South Beach's Phase I is also carbohydrate restricted, but steers you towards healthier foods, such as healthy oils from olive and canola, raw or dry roasted nuts, and lean proteins and vegetables.

What really makes South Beach special, however, are its clever recipes. Dr. Arthur Agatston (the author) involved chefs from the restaurants in the South Beach area of Miami to help create healthy yet delicious recipes. We've tried many of them and, while they are different from traditional fare, are delicious and satisfying for the most part.

Criticisms? None, really. But, when my patients choose South Beach (which I often encourage), I often have to impress on them that the Track Your Plaque program is not about weight loss. It is about seizing control of a potentially life-threatening disease. It is a far more important goal with greater implications. Weight loss is just one aspect of a coronary plaque control effort. For this reason, we sometimes have to make changes in the South Beach program to allow for correction of specific lipoprotein patterns.

The most common modification is in people with small LDL particles. This pattern often does indeed respond to weight loss and/or niacin. However, it occasionally persists despite these efforts. We then will ask the patient to continue to restrict the re-introduction of wheat products, though it is allowed after Phase I in South Beach. In other words, for this specific and sometimes difficult to control lipoprotein pattern, a spedific modification of the off-the-shelf South Beach program is sometimes necessary. Of course, the diet is created to suit everybody. Lipoprotein analysis permits detailed insight into your patterns and it's only to be expected that specific modifications might be needed.

But, as written, you can do quite well in your plaque control program by sticking to South Beach.

Be patient with niacin

Mel's HDL started at 37 mg/dl one year ago. Mel had several other abnormal lipoprotein patterns along with his HDL (inc. small LDL and Lp(a)), but HDL was clearly a crucial factor in his panel.

With a heart scan score of 1166, we needed to raise Mel's HDL to the Track Your Plaque target of 60 mg/dl. So Mel started niacin, our number one method to raise HDL, in addition to reducing his exposure to wheat products and other high glycemic index foods; increasing his physical activity; trying to reduce his excess tummy fat; fish oil; dark chocolate (2 oz per day) and red wine (1-2 glasses per day, preferably dark French reds). The form of niacin we often choose is SloNiacin (Upsher Smith), available over-the-counter for about $12-14 per 100 tablets.

Mel started out with niacin 500 mg per day at dinner, increased to 1000 mg at dinner after four weeks. Although this is usually too soon to reassess HDL, Mel insisted. His HDL 41 mg/dl. Mel's disappointment was palpable. He was the usual type A personality: he wanted his HDL higher--now! So Mel insisted that we increase niacin to 1500 mg per day. (We never go higher than this if low HDL or small LDL is the indication for niacin; only when Lp(a) is present do we go higher.)

Six months into this process, HDL: 45 mg/dl. Still a sluggish response.

One year later, HDL: 68 mg/dl. Finally!

That is typical for niacin, as well as combination of lifestyle changes Mel made. None of them result in an immediate rise in HDL; all take months to 1-2 years to exert full HDL-raising effect.

Think of HDL as the 82-year old grandma who takes a long time to cross the street-she does get there!

Note: Doses of niacin >500 mg per day should be taken with medical supervision.

Can vitamin D be a SOLE risk factor?

Here's a crazy question. It occurred to me as I was talking to Drew, a slender, active 54-year old dentist with no bad habits including no smoking.

Drew's heart scan score was 222. His lipoprotein analysis mostly revealed a lot of nothing, which is unusual. The only pattern that showed up was a modestly high LDL of 122 mg/dl with a very slight excess of small LDL. That's it. I would not be satisfied that these were sufficient cause for Drew's level of coronary plaque.

Drew's 25-OH-vitamin D3 level: 15 ng/ml--severe deficiency--despite the fact that his doctor had suggested that he take a vitamin D2 preparation. In other words, Drew had been profoundly deficient, probably for years.

Given the unimpressive cholesterol and lipoprotein values, could vitamin D serve as a trigger for coronary plaque all by itself?

I don't have an answer and know of nobody else who does. However, my opinion is that vitamin D is indeed a potent risk that can cause heart disease as a sole risk factor.

Perhaps it's another piece of circumstantial evidence suggesting that vitamin D has an enormous influence on health, including coronary plaque. Interestingly, the only other health problem Drew has had is prostate cancer, treated a few years ago with prostate removal and radiation. Good evidence suggests that vitamin D deficiency escalates risk of prostate cancer substantially.

By the way, I've seen people taking vitamin D2 preparations, called "ergocalciferol," who are every bit as deficient as those who take no vitamin D at all. Avoid D2 or ergocalciferol preparations: they're worthless.

Does fish oil raise LDL cholesterol?

Katie had an LDL (conventionally calculated) of 87 mg/dl, HDL of 48 mg/dl.

She added fish oil, 6000 mg per day. Three months later her LDL was 118 mg/dl, HDL 54 mg/dl. In other words, LDL increased by 31 mg. What gives?

Several studies have, indeed, shown that fish oil raises LDL cholesterol, usually by 5-10 mg/dl. Occasionally, it may be as much as 20-30.

Unfortunately, many physicians often assume that it's the (minor) cholesterol content of fish oil capsules, or some vague, undesirable effect of fish oil. It's nothing of the kind.

Since we based Katie's program on (NMR) lipoprotein analysis, not conventional lipids (HDL, calculated LDL, triglycerides, total cholesterol), I knew that Katie also had a severe excess of intermediate-density lipoprotein, or IDL, and very-low density lipoproteins, VLDL. This signifies that after a meal, dietary fats persist for 12, 24,or more hours. Fish oil is a very effective method to clear IDL and VLDL, though sometimes it also causes a shift of some IDL and VLDL into the LDL class. Thus, the apparent increase in LDL.

Another contributor: Conventional LDL is a calculated value, not measured. The calculation for LDL is thrown off by any reduction in HDL or rise in triglycerides. In Katie's case, the rise in HDL from 48 to 54 means that calculated LDL is becoming more accurate and rising towards the true measured value. At the start, Katie's true measured LDL was 122 mg/dl, 35 mg higher than the calculated value. Calculated LDL is therefore approximating measured LDL more accurately as HDL rises.

The most important lesson to learn is that, if LDL rises significantly on fish oil and you haven't had lipoproteins formally measured, there may have been a substantial postprandial abnormality like IDL that was unrecognized.

Heart disease is everywhere

If you ever need convincing that heart disease is everywhere, you should do what I do: subscribe to Google Alerts and have them forward news anytime the search phrase "heart attack" crosses the web. (Just go to Google, click on "more" to the right of the search bar, and follow the links.)


Some recent samples:


Workmates resuscitate driver after heart attack

A woman coal mine truck driver had a heart attack and required resuscitation with a defibrillator 3 times on the way to the hospital.





Heart attack kills groom at reception
A 34-year old man died during his wedding reception, leaving behind his 26-year old new wife.






Heart attack ruled as cause of crash

An Alabama man drove his pick-up truck into oncoming traffic while suffering a heart attack.






Heart-attack victim to return to Hamburg stage


Country music artist, Michael Harding, suffered a heart attack and cardiac arrest during a performance. He is apparently recovered and returning to the stage.



That's just a sample from the last two days. While you and I are carry on a conversation on reversal of heart disease, our neighbors and friends drop over every day. Even though I witness successful heart disease reversal routinely, the rest of the world is not participating.

Pass it on: Coronary disease is identifiable, preventable, controllable, and reversible.
More on blood sugar

More on blood sugar

Take any of the following foods:

One chicken breast
Quarter-pound ground beef
6 oz salmon steak
½ cup raw almonds
3 eggs scrambled in olive oil

How much is blood sugar increased by any item in the above list?

If you said virtually zero, you’re correct. Eat any of these foods, regardless of portion size, and blood sugar won’t change substantially. If you started with a blood sugar of, say, 90 mg/dl, 1-2 hours later it would be 90 mg/dl. It might go up or even down a few milligrams, but for all practical purposes it remains substantially unchanged.

How much is blood sugar increased by the foods in this list:

2 slices multigrain bread
1 whole wheat bagel
4 oz high-fiber breakfast cereal
2 whole grain pancakes, 2 oz maple syrup

The foods in this list are a different story from the first. Depending on your body weight, exercise habits, and other factors, a typical blood sugar response in an otherwise healthy non-diabetic person would be 120 mg/dl to 160 mg/dl. In someone with diabetes, it could easily exceed 200 mg/dl.

That isn’t good. Large blood sugar excursions to 140 mg/dl have been clearly associated with greater risk for heart attack, progression to diabetes, inflammatory responses, and other adverse health effects. In fact, blood sugars as low as 100 mg/dl after eating have been associated with increased cardiovascular risk.

Then why are the USDA, American Heart Association, the American Dietetic Association, and the American Diabetes Association telling us to eat more of the foods that shoot blood sugar up to such high levels? “Eat more healthy whole grains”?

To see how much the issue of exaggerated blood sugars after eating applies to you, a simple blood sugar check 1-2 hours after eating can show you. Either your doctor can have the test drawn or you can purchase your own inexpensive glucose meter (e.g., Walmart, Wagreens).

My prediction: You will be very surprised at blood sugar responses after common foods, including “healthy whole grains.” And, by the way, keeping blood sugar excursions to a minimum will facilitate weight loss.

Comments (36) -

  • Anonymous

    1/25/2010 5:20:16 PM |

    Dr. Davis,

    Does the context of a mixed meal blunt the impact of some of those grain choices listed? For example, if you have someone who consumes a lean source of protein and some fibrous vegetables at a meal but also happened to add a bagel or a slice or two of bread, would there be the same exaggerated response or would it be lessened on account of the protein and added fiber?

    Or in the case of protein and a source of quality, undamaged fat, would this also mitigate the impact at all?

    I'm not looking for a license to eat grains and such, just curious if the impact is at all close to what it is in someone who ate the grains or the pancake/syrup combo as a standalone as a standalone.

    ~Ralph Backstrom

  • Laura

    1/25/2010 7:10:51 PM |

    I started checking my post meal glucose last Saturday.  So far, the only thing that raised it was the diluted cup of fruit juice.  I don't drink juice any longer and this provided some evidence as to why.

    Thanks for the wisdom!

  • Anonymous

    1/25/2010 7:35:04 PM |

    Behold the power of the dominant paradigm.  Go to Google and you find:

    2,160,000 for "whole grain"
    1,770,000 for "healthy whole grain"
    502,000 for "heart-healthy whole grain"

    4,980,000 for saturated fat/fats
    524,000 for "limit saturated fat"
    245,000 for "artery-clogging saturated fat"
    206,000 for "unhealthy saturated fat"

    And the voices in the wilderness
    152,000 for "healthy saturated fat"

    Freya

  • Anonymous

    1/25/2010 7:50:31 PM |

    Alas, this is only true for someone who doesn't already have T2 diabetes.  I am a small woman, 5'2", weighing about 120 pounds.  If I ate 6 oz of salmon at one sitting my blood sugar would easily go to 130 at the least, and would stay high for awhile --and I'd be insulin resistant for a day or so after. I can handle only 3 ounces of protein food at a time, and even then I get some rise.

    But your point is well taken for someone who can handle larger portions.

  • lindaharper

    1/25/2010 7:57:56 PM |

    You are so correct.  I really try to eat properly for my diabetes doing this very thing and testing what raises it and what does not.  I recently got home from a trip with family where I could not control my eating but I still kept track of my blood sugars.  I was shocked at what changing my diet did to me for those few days (while still taking some diabetic medication).  I am so glad to be home so I can eat properly!

  • Kurt

    1/25/2010 9:12:40 PM |

    And checking your blood sugar helps you determine your individual response to different foods. For example, my blood sugar increases more when I eat rice than when I eat potatoes, even when the amount of carbs is the same.

    Using a glucose meter, I have been able to keep my postprandial glucose under 120 mg/dl. Thanks for the suggestion.

  • I Pull 400 Watts

    1/25/2010 9:39:53 PM |

    What are your thoughts on fruit and veggies. With their effect on BG and a low carb diet, are you recommending lowering those as well? The only problem I have with a low carb diet is it may mean low fruit and vegetables as well.

  • Dr. William Davis

    1/25/2010 11:43:42 PM |

    Hi, Ralph--

    It does indeed. However, the effect of the precise mix of foods and portions can be best gauged by checking your postprandial blood sugars to be certain.

  • Dr. William Davis

    1/25/2010 11:44:18 PM |

    Hi, Freya--

    That's fabulous!

    It offers an interesting insight into what the "masses" are thinking.

  • Katelyn

    1/26/2010 1:25:16 AM |

    We don't need fruits and vegetables at all, particularly the former. Fruit are sugar bombs with trace nutrients.

  • steve

    1/26/2010 1:39:08 AM |

    is it really necessary to do this if you do not eat grains except ground flax with a diet of vegetables, meat fish, chicken and Greek yogurt such as Fage and only a handful of berries a couple times a week with a Whey protein shake?

  • Anonymous

    1/26/2010 5:45:09 AM |

    I think some of us are going a bit overboard on the anti-fruit/vegetable crusade here.  It is impossible to eat too much kale, broccoli, and other greens.  Vegetables are the healthiest things you can eat, and I've made them the center of my diet.  Fruit jucies are dangerous, definitely.  (I wish I knew that when I was younger.)  But fruits, I think, are much, much better, because of the fiber content. Really, eating a bowl of blueberries, and apple, and a banana is not going to give you diabetes, and will do far more good than harm.  

    - Vladimir

  • Anonymous

    1/26/2010 11:30:17 AM |

    So what about 4 oz of rolled oats?

    I avoid 95% of grains except for oats.

    Here they claim that oats are low- glycemic...

    http://blog.nutritiondata.com/

    Others say that oats do not have gluten...or at least not the same type as in wheat.

    If one would avoid all fruits...vegs...grains...that would be a carnivore's diet?

  • Kamila

    1/26/2010 1:40:09 PM |

    Dr Davis,

    You have been writing about the benefits of a low-carb diets for yeears.  So why is only now that it "mainstream" doctors are catching up.  This article from BBC News:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/default.stm

    Low-carb diet 'heart benefits'
    A low carbohydrate diet, like Atkins, is better at cutting blood pressure than weight loss drugs, according to US research.

    In this related article, the efficacy of the "high-carb" DASH diet when used alone for the control of high blood pressure is questioned:

    http://www.reutershealth.com/archive/2010/01/25/professional/links/20100125clin014.html

    Weight management needed for DASH diet to optimize heart health

    In overweight individuals with hypertension, the health benefits of the DASH (Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension) diet can be substantially increased by weight loss and exercise, according to early results of the ongoing ENCORE study.

    National guidelines for controlling high blood pressure (BP) recommend the DASH diet, which is high in low-fat dairy products, fruits and vegetables, lower in fats, and rich in fiber. However, studies in "real life" situations have questioned its value independent of other lifestyle changes.

  • Dr. William Davis

    1/26/2010 2:10:32 PM |

    Anonymous--

    Please don't regard to "no fruits and vegetables" as my advice. I believe that vegetables and SOME fruit should be the core of your diet.

    You can always know whether a specific carbohydrate food is good for you if you check your one-hour after eating blood sugar. That will tell you for certain.

  • Laurie

    1/26/2010 8:58:30 PM |

    So, I have been eating very low carb for a few months now.  I don't have type 2 diabetes, but I am trying to lose weight, and my research is leaving me with NO doubt as to the importance of low carb eating.  My son is type 1 diabetic, so we have several meters lying around, unused.  

    Since starting low carb, I haven't really checked my blood glucose readings.  But, when I read your last two blog posts, I had just eaten a low carb lunch about an hour previous.  So, I checked my blood glucose and it was 79 mg/dl.  Perfect!

    I was curious how high it would be if I ate a high carb meal.  But since I hardly ever do that anymore, I didn't know when I'd get a chance.

    Today I got my chance.  I went out to eat with my husband to a Japanese restaurant.  I ate rice, tempura shrimp, and a salad dressing that had some sugar in it.  So, after I got home, I checked my blood glucose at 1 hour postprandial, and guess what it was...167 mg/dl!  I was very surprised to see it that high!  I checked again at 2 hours postprandial, it had dropped to 140 mg/dl.  

    So, are those pre-diabetic numbers?

    In any case, I'm glad that I'm not eating that way anymore.  I'm down almost 20 lbs, and I feel great.  I'm totally convinced that the world needs to hear your message!

  • Flowerdew Onehundred

    1/27/2010 12:24:17 AM |

    Bought a blood sugar meter on your recommendation, and it's been informative.  I found out why I can't do intermittent fasting without feeling like crap - BG was 63 before my meal!!!

  • Anonymous

    1/27/2010 1:15:01 AM |

    Laurie, I'm not an expert, but I don't think you've got enough data to know.  If you began eating rice daily, and your numbers didn't normalize, then yes, there's a problem.  However, I'm uncertain what, if anything, you'd need to do about it, given that your typical way of eating probably doesn't spike glucose.

    Yesterday's high readings are probably the result of 2 things: (1) an unprepared pancreas, and (2) physiologically insulin resistant muscle tissue.  

    Your pancreas uses the past as a predictor of the future.  On a low carb diet, your pancreas assumes that it won't need much insulin for the next meal.  It doesn't have a large stockpile waiting just in case you decide to eat high carb one day.  

    So a pancreas used to a VLC diet won't be prepared to prevent a blood sugar spike if you eat an unusual meal.  

    However, if you ate higher carb for a few days, a healthy pancreas would start making more insulin.  At that point, the spike from a rice & tempura meal would (hopefully!) be lower.

    Also, when your diet is low enough in carbs, your muscles become insulin resistant.  This is referred to as physiological or peripheral insulin resistance, which is not the same as pathological type II diabetes-causing insulin resistance.  

    When VLC, your muscles are being fueled by fatty acids, and they don't need much glucose, so they stop accepting it from your bloodstream.  Muscle insulin resistance may also help to conserve scarce glucose for your brain and red blood cells.

    Assuming that you're nondiabetic, if you ate higher carb for a while, that type of insulin resistance should reverse.

    Clear as mud?  Laughing

  • Anonymous

    1/27/2010 3:02:35 PM |

    I have a question pertaining to what the above poster said about about physiological or peripheral insulin resistance.  I believe that this is what I experienced while on a low-carb diet.  After several months, my fasting blood sugars had risen to readings in the upper 110s and even low 120s.  Throughout the course of the day, they would hover around 100.  Previous to beginning the low-carb diet, my fasting blood sugars were typically in the upper 80s to low 90s, but my one-hour postprandial sugars would rise to 140 or higher with a meal containing a moderate to high amount of carbs.

    So my question is, if this type of insulin resistance can occur even when keeping carbs to a minimum, how can that be healthy in the long-term if even sugars in the 100s can cause problems?

  • Anonymous

    1/27/2010 4:41:29 PM |

    (Apologies if this is a duplicate submission.  I got an error the first time I hit the publish button.)

    Peter over at Hyperlipid has written about physiological insulin resistance and fasting blood sugar.

    http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/2007/10/physiological-insulin-resistance.html

    He's written other posts on the topic as well, which you can find by scrolling down to the labels section on the right hand side of the blog.

    Peter's argument may explain your fasting blood glucose, but that doesn't necessarily mean everything is okay.

    What is your HbA1c?  If your A1c is at or above 6%, you might want to refer to an older post on this forum (link below) and/or Bernstein's book on diabetes.

    http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2008/04/low-carb-eating-for-diabetes.html

  • Anonymous

    1/27/2010 10:15:51 PM |

    I think you should clarify things a bit. Protein certainly does get converted to glucose via gluconegenesis, and the incretin process will give you a bit of a sugar rush as well per Dr, Bernstein. Us type 1's attempting low carb lifestyles know very well that BGs most definately are affected by all consumed foods.

    John

  • Vladimir

    1/28/2010 8:42:23 AM |

    I am really confused here now.  Dr. Davis' post says that eating beef won't raise blood sugar.  But Drs. Oz & Roizen, the authors of the "You" series, and who strike me as learned and straightforward fellows, not captured by any particular industry, say that *saturated fat* -- whether from animals or coconuts or palm trees --  causes insulin resistance.  If that's right, then eating beef and other saturated fats will reek havoc on blood sugar -- if not now, then later.  

    So what gives?  Who is right?  Is the science just hopelessly confused at this point?

  • Fred

    1/28/2010 4:22:45 PM |

    For T1 and T2 diabetics:

    See Dr. Richard Bernstein's book "Diabetes Solution" for the ultimate low carb eating plan.  He advocates 30 grams of carbs per DAY - sounds extreme but he's been living with T1 diabetes (juvenile, insulin dependent) for 64 YEARS!

    Good luck

    Ed

  • malpaz

    1/29/2010 7:58:20 PM |

    im consfused too... so if saturated fat causes insulin resistance(which precedes or follow leptin resistance), and protein will spike blood sugar...

    makes meat sound like the WORST of both world... im so confused

  • Dr. William Davis

    1/30/2010 2:31:16 PM |

    A clarification: Protein and fats, including saturated fats, DO increase blood sugar. However, the magnitude of effect is much smaller than that of carbohydrates.

  • Vladimir

    1/30/2010 6:03:42 PM |

    Now I'm starting to understand why you're against grazing, Dr. Davis!  It seems like not eating for several hours -- i.e., sticking to meals -- would be quite helpful in keeping blood glucose down.

  • stcrim

    1/30/2010 8:34:43 PM |

    Dr. Davis,

    I've heard and read that sprouting grains (and beans) changes their starch content into a vegetable sugar making them much safer.  Some examples are 100 percent sprouted breads like Ezekiel Bread.

    Any truth to this that you know of???

    Steve

  • Kamila

    1/31/2010 12:51:52 AM |

    Dr Davis,

    Another article on the dangers of a "low-fat" diet:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1247216/The-Big-Fat-Lies-Britains-obesity-epidemic.html

    "While we've all been brainwashed into thinking that fat is the killer we must avoid and food manufacturers bring out more and more profitable 'low-fat' versions of foods, starch - in the shape of pasta, bread, cereals, potatoes and rice - has been quietly adding on the pounds, while we are being told that it's good for us."

  • Kamila

    1/31/2010 12:57:40 AM |

    The article title is:

    The Big Fat Lies about Britain's obesity epidemic

    "While it showed some benefits from cholesterol-lowering drugs, the assumption made by the researchers was that if you eat a diet low in cholesterol, that would have the same effect as taking cholesterol-lowering drugs.

    This conclusion prompted various agencies in the U.S. to start a campaign to lower the amount of saturated fats in our diet.

    At no time did this study look at the effect of saturated fats on heart attacks or heart disease.

    So, on the basis of a study looking at drugs lowering cholesterol, we ended up with a message to eat less saturated fat.

    This plea for sanity over the advice on fats is not a lone cry.

    Several very influential experts such as Dr Laura Corr, consultant cardiologist at Guys and St Thomas' Hospital in London, and Dr Michael Oliver, from the National Heart and Lung Institute, have asked those in power to stop propagating an unproven message.

    Where does the FSA find such certainty among the pile of published science which is not conclusive in its findings?

    In fact, there are some statistics showing quite the contrary, especially when mixed with a low- starch and low-sugar diet.

    One report looked at 27 individual studies into the link between fats and heart disease and no link could be found."

  • stcrim

    2/2/2010 1:14:44 AM |

    The following are my cholesterol and Triglyceride numbers from 1-13-10 and 1-30-10 (dates are when the reports were issued.

    I am a male 54 year of age and considered myself in fair shape at 5’8” and 184lbs.   My starting total cholesterol was 295, LDL was 200, HDL was 46 and my VLDL was 49.  Triglycerides were 242.  Two weeks later my total cholesterol is 156, LDL is 102, HDL is 32, and VLDL is 22.  My Triglycerides are 109.

    My doctor is a huge fan of Dr. Davis.  Dr. Brock outlined a program for me that includes 10,000IU of Vitamin D (my values 2 weeks ago were 28.6, was not taken this time), one tablespoon of Carlson’s Fish Oil, K and K2 complex and magnesium.  There are several other nutrients such as mixed Vitamin E included

    On top of that I have modified my diet to a more plant based, lower saturated fat plan.

    This is where is may become a little controversial.  From what I understand, none of the above could account for a Drop from 295 t o156.

    Though my Doctor, like Dr. Davis feels the jury is still out, I decided to take 1400mg of disodium EDTA every morning and have those 2 weeks.  My goal in taking the EDTA was not to clean out calcium.  I understand that it doesn’t do that as far as anyone knows.   I had read multiple times that it lowers cholesterol and normalizes blood platelet aggregation.  

    Since there appeared to be little or no risk it seemed worth a try.  I can’t say that EDTA was the reason for such good numbers now but I also can’t find any other reason for them.  The only cholesterol test I had done before those 2 was 7 years ago and my total was 270.  295 two weeks ago and 156 today.

    I’m not posting this to drive the EDTA controversy.  I believe the second chance I have been given is a combination of Dr. Davis and Dr. Brocks research for which I am hugely grateful.  If EDTA had anything to do with the numbers so far, I also have Dr. Garry Gordon to thank for his research.

    A year from now I plan to have a second CT scan.  As you might guess my CT score was not go.  I was in the top 10 percent for my age.  Scary given that my grandfather died in 1932 of “acute indigestion” (wink) and my father died in 1989 of a heart attack.

    Thank you Dr. Davis.  By the way, Dr. Brock would not let me leave is office without a copy of “Track Your Plaque”.

    Steve

  • Santiago

    2/5/2010 1:46:59 AM |

    I bought the onetouch mini today and Im gonna do some pre-post eating tests next week.
    One thing I noticed is the manual says that after a meal the samples taken from a finger can be as much as 70 mg/dl higher than samples taken in a lab. Adding this to the 20% accuracy means that getting a 150 mg/dl after a meal with this device could be 50 mg/dl if tested in a lab

  • jpatti

    2/6/2010 3:13:47 PM |

    Protein raises bg.  I use insulin and have to use half as much for protein as for carbs; i.e. 1 unit Novolog covers 5g carb or 10g protein.

    Both protein and fat can be converted to glucose via gluceoneogenesis.  

    However, in practical experience, fat has no effect except to slow the raise caused by carb and protein (the "peak" bg after a fatty meal occurring later than for a lower-fat meal).

  • Anonymous

    3/29/2010 12:20:48 AM |

    Whoa! Not only does protein raise BG (via gluconeogenesis), but for someone on a low-carb diet, their average BG (and A1C) will be dominated by the glucose produced by protein. In fact, this is why advanced diabetics cannot ultimately control their condition by low-carb diets alone - the protein they need to survive is enough to raise their BGs to unacceptable levels.

  • C. Holesterol

    6/28/2010 6:47:14 AM |

    Stress is always a very big factor in stimulating all diseases as they arise from the mind.salt and sodium in excess also leads to many diseases of the body.

  • buy jeans

    11/3/2010 3:18:01 PM |

    That isn’t good. Large blood sugar excursions to 140 mg/dl have been clearly associated with greater risk for heart attack, progression to diabetes, inflammatory responses, and other adverse health effects. In fact, blood sugars as low as 100 mg/dl after eating have been associated with increased cardiovascular risk.

Loading