Bosom buddies

Male breast reduction surgery is a booming business. While most industries are in a downward tailspin, breast reduction surgery in men is growing at double-digit rates.

Other efforts, some legitimate, some not, are also cropping up, all intended to help men deal with this embarassing problem:

Exercise programs to reduce male breast size.

Liposuction--Not just for the belly!

Plastic surgery

Gynexin--a supplement that purportedly reduces male breast size.

Conventional medical treatment also includes estrogen blocking drugs, the same ones used to treat breast cancer, drugs like tamoxifen. There's even clothing intended to make breasts less obvious.


While male breast enlargement--"gynecomastia"--can occasionally occur due to rare endocrinologic problems, such as high prolactin hormone levels (hyperprolactinemia) or somewhat more commonly as failed testosterone production (hypogonadism), the vast majority of men who suffer with this problem simply have high estrogen levels.

Makes sense: Women develop larger breasts during development mostly due to increased levels of estrogen. A parallel situation in men likewise stimulates breast tissue.

So where does the excess estrogen come from?

Visceral fat converts testosterone to estrogen. Men with excess visceral fat therefore develop low levels of testosterone and high levels of estrogen. Estrogen levels can, in fact, be substantially higher compared to slender males.

So what foods cause the accumulation of visceral fat and, thereby, increased estrogen and decreased testosterone?

Foods that increase blood glucose and insulin to the greatest degree are the foods that begin this cascade. The common foods that increase blood sugar the most? Here's a list, starting with most blood glucose-insulin provoke at the top, least at the bottom:

Gluten-free foods (dried, pulverized cornstarch, rice starch, potato starch, tapioca starch)
Whole wheat bread
Sucrose
Milky Way bars
Snickers bars

So the whole wheat sandwiches you've been eating increase blood sugar and insulin, leading to visceral fat. (And, yes, whole wheat bread increases blood sugar higher than Milky Way bars and Snickers bars.) The more visceral fat grows, the more resistant to the effects of insulin you become, further escalating blood sugar. Estrogen increases, testosterone drops, mammary gland tissue grows, normal male breasts grow to B- or C-cup size.

Yet again, an entire industry is growing from the unintended consequence of conventional advice. In this instance, the advice to "eat more healthy whole grains" leads to this booming industry of male breast reduction efforts from surgery to medications to clothing. The REAL solution: Eliminate the foods that start the process in the first place.

Don't be a dipstick

If I want to know how much oil is in my car's engine, I check the dipstick.

The dipstick provides a gauge of the amount of oil in my engine. If the dipstick registers "full" because there an oil mark at one inch, I understand that there's more than one inch of oil in my engine. The dipstick provides an indirect gauge of the amount of oil in my engine.

That's what cholesterol was meant to provide: A gauge, a "dipstick," for the kind of lipoproteins (lipid-carrying proteins) in the bloodstream.

Lipoproteins are a collection of particles that are larger than a single cholesterol molecule but much smaller than a red blood cell. Lipoproteins consist of many components: various proteins, phospholipids, lots of triglycerides, as well as cholesterol. In the 1960s, methods to characterize lipoproteins were not widely available, so the cholesterol in lipoproteins were used as a "dipstick" to assess low-density lipoproteins ("LDL cholesterol") and high-density lipoproteins ("HDL cholesterol"). (Actually, even "LDL cholesterol" was not measured, but was derived from "total cholesterol," the quantity of cholesterol in all lipoprotein fractions.)

Some other component of lipoproteins could have been measured instead of cholesterol, such as apoprotein B, apoprotein C, or others, all meant to act as the "dipstick" for various lipoproteins.

Relying on cholesterol to characterize lipoproteins provides a misleading picture. Imagine watching cars go by at high speed while standing on the side of the highway. You want to count how many people--not cars, but people--go by in a given amount of time. Because you cannot make out the detail of each and every car whizzing by, you count the number of cars and assume that each car carries two people. Whether it's rush hour, Sunday morning, late evening, rainy, sunny, or snowing, you make the same assumption: two people per car.

That's what cholesterol does: It is assuming that each and every lipoprotein particle (car) carries the same amount of cholesterol (people).

But that may, obviously, not be true. A bus goes by carrying 25 people. Plenty of cars may carry just the driver. People carpooling may be in cars carrying 3 or 4 people. Assuming just 2 people per car can send your estimates way off course.

That is precisely what happens when your doctor tries to use conventional cholesterol values (total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol) to gauge the lipoproteins in your bloodstream. Measuring cholesterol can also provide the false impression that cholesterol is the cause of heart disease, even though it was originally meant to simply serve as a "dipstick."

What we need to do is to characterize lipoproteins themselves. We can distinguish them by size, number, density, charge, and the type and form of proteins contained within. It provides greater insight into the composition of lipoproteins in the blood. It provides greater insight into the causes underlying coronary atherosclerotic plaque. It can also tell us what dietary changes trigger different particle patterns and how to correct them.

Until you have a full lipoprotein analysis, you can never know for certain 1) if you will have heart disease in your future, or 2) how your heart disease was caused.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of doctors are perfectly content to just count cars going by and assume two people per car, i.e., confine assessment of your heart disease risk using cholesterol . . . just as drug industry marketing has instructed them.

It's not your job to educate your doctor. If he or she refuses to provide access to lipoprotein testing to better determine your heart disease risk, then consider going out on your own. Many of our Track Your Plaque program followers have obtained lipoprotein testing on their own through Direct Labs.

The ultimate insurance company cost savings

I had a very disturbing conversation with a physician who is employed by an insurance company last week.

I admitted a patient in the hospital for very clear-cut reasons. She is one of my few non-compliant patients, doing none of the strategies I advocate--no fish oil, no vitamin D, no correction of her substantial lipoprotein abnormalities, not even medication. Much of this was because of difficult finances, some of it is because she is from the generation (she is in her late 70s) that tends to ignore preventive health, some of it is because she is a kind of happy-go-lucky personality. So her disease has been progressive and, now, life-threatening, including an abdominal aneurysm near-bursting in size (well above the 5.5 cm cutoff). The patient is also a sweet, cuddly grandmother. I have a hard time bullying nice little old ladies.

While she was in the hospital, the social worker told me that her case was being reviewed by her insurer and would likely be denied. Their medical officer wanted to speak to me.

So the medical officer called me and started asking pointed questions. "Why did you do that test? You know that she's not been compliant. Are you sure you want to do that? I don't think that's a good idea." In other words, this was not just a review of the case. This was an opportunity for the insurance company to intervene in the actual care of the patient.

Then the kicker: "Have you considered not doing anything and . . . just letting nature take its course?"

At first, I was stunned. "You mean let the patient die?"

Expressed in such blatant terms, while he was trying to be diplomatic, made him back down. "Well, uh, no, but she is a high-risk patient."

Anyway, this was the first instance I've encountered in which the insurance company is not just in the business of reviewing a case, but actually trying to intervene during the hospital stay, to the point of making the ultimate healthcare cost savings: Letting the patient die.

Unfortunately, never having had an experience like this before, I did not think to record the conversation or take notes. I am wondering if this is an issue to be taken up by the Insurance Board . . . or is this a taste of things to come as the health insurers fall under increasing pressure with the legislative changes underway?

Salvation from halogenation

Iodine is a halogen.

On the periodic table of elements (remember the big chart of the elements in science class?), the ingenious table that lays out all known atomic elements, elements with similar characteristics are listed in the same column. The elegant genius of the periodic table has even allowed prediction of new, undiscovered elements that conform to the "laws" of atomic behavior.

Column 17 (also called "group VIIa") contains all the halogens, of which iodine is one member. Other halogens include fluorine, chlorine, and bromine.

Odd phenomenon in biologic systems: One halogen can often not be distinguished from another. Thus, a chlorinated compound can cleverly disguise itself as an iodinated compound, a brominated compound can mimic an iodinated compound, etc.

What this means in thyroid health is that, should sufficient iodine be lacking in the body, i.e., iodine deficiency, other halogens can gain entry into the thyroid gland.

While a polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) molecule may be recognized as an iodinated compound, it certainly doesn't act like an iodinated compound once it's in the thyroid's cells and can disrupt thyroid function (Porterfield 1998). Another group of chlorine-containing compounds, perchlorates, that contaminate groundwater and are found as pesticide residues in produce, are extremely potent thyroid-blockers (Greer 2002). Likewise, bromine-containing compounds, such as polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), widely used as flame retardants, also disrupt thyroid function (Zhou 2001). Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), found in Teflon non-stick cookware and stain-resistant products,  has been associated with thyroid dysfunction (Melzer 2010). PFOA, incidentally, can disrupt thyroid dysfunction that will not show up in the TSH test used by primary care physicians and endocrinologists to screen for thyroid dysfunction. (In fact, the presumed champions of thyroid health, the endocrinology community, have proven a miserable failure in translating and implementing the findings from  toxicological science findings to that of preserving or restoring thyroid health. They have largely chosen to ignore it.)

We therefore navigate through a world teeming with halogenated thyroid blocking compounds. We should all therefore avoid such exposures as perchlorates in produce by rinsing thoroughly or purchasing organic, avoid non-stick cookware, avoid use or exposure to pesticides and herbicides.

Another crucial means to block the entry of various halogenated compounds into your vulnerable thyroid: Be sure you are getting sufficient iodine. While it doesn't make your thyroid impervious to injury, iodine circulating in the blood in sufficient quantities and residing in sufficient stores in the thyroid gland provides at least partial protection from the halogenated impostors in your life.

I make this point in the context of heart disease prevention, since even the most subtle degrees of thyroid dysfunction can easily double, triple, or quadruple heart disease risk. See related posts, Is normal TSH too high? and Thyroid perspective update.

Lipitor-ologist

One of the things I do in practice is consult in complex hyperlipidemias, the collection of lipoprotein disorders that usually, but not always, lead to atherosclerosis.

First order of business: Make the diagnosis--familial combined hyperlipidemia, hypoalphalipoproteinemia, lipoprotein(a), familial heterozygous hypercholesterolemia, familial hypertriglyceridemia, hyperapoprotein B with metabolic syndrome, etc. These are the disorders that start with a genetic variant, e.g., a missing or dysfunctional enzyme or signal protein, such as lipoprotein lipase or apo C3.

I then ask: What can be done that is easy and safe and preferably related to diet and lifestyle?

By following an effective diet, many of these abnormalities can be dramatically corrected, sometimes completely. Familial hypertriglyceridemia, for instance, an inherited disorder of lipoprotein lipase in which triglyceride levels can exceed 1000 mg/dl, high enough to cause pancreatic damage, responds incredibly well to carbohydrate restriction and over-the-counter fish oil. I have a number of these people who enjoy triglyceride levels below 100 mg/dl--unheard of in conventionally treated people with this disorder.

Then why is it that, time after time, I see these people in consult, often as second or third opinions from lipidologists (presumed lipid specialists) or cardiologists, when the only solutions offered are 1) Lipitor or other statin drug, and 2) a low-fat diet? Occasionally, an aggressive lipidologist might offer niacin, a fibrate drug (Tricor or fenofibrate), or Lovaza (prescription fish oil).

Sadly, the world of lipid disorders has been reduced to prescribing a statin drug and little else, 9 times out of 10.

I don't mean to rant, but I continue to be shocked at the incredible influence the drug industry has over not just prescribing patterns, but thinking patterns. Perhaps I should say non-thinking patterns. The drugs make it too easy to feel like the doctor is doing something when, in truth, they are doing the minimum (at best) and missing an opportunity to provide true health-empowering advice that is far more likely to yield maximum control over these patterns with little to no medication.

All in all, I am grateful that there is a growing discipline of "lipidology," a specialty devoted to diagnosing and treating hyperlipidemias. Unfortunately, much of the education of the lipidologist is too heavily influenced by the pharmaceutical industry. Not surprisingly, the drug people favor "education" that highlights their high-revenue products.

Seeing a lipidologist is still better than seeing most primary care physicians or cardiologists. Just beware that you might be walking into the hands of someone who is simply the unwitting puppet of the pharmaceutical industry.

Robb Wolf's new Paleo Solution

The Paleo Solution: The Original Human Diet


The Paleo Solution: The Original Human Diet

I have to say: I'm impressed. If you would like insight into why a "Paleo" nutritional approach works on a biochemical level--why you lose weight, burn fat, and gain overall better health--then Robb's book is worth devoting a few hours to, of not a reread or two.

Robb has a particular knack for organizing and presenting information in a way that makes it immediately accessible. You will gain an appreciation for how far American nutritional habits have veered off course.

Because Robb brings expertise from his academic biochemistry background, as well as personal trainer and educator running a successful gym in northern California, NorCal Strength and Conditioning, he delivers a book packed with information that is extremely easy to convert to immediate action in health and exercise. He seems to anticipate all the little problems and objections that people come up with along the way, dealing with them in his characteristic lighthearted way, providing practical, rational solutions.

Robb's book nicely complements what Dr. Loren Cordain has written in his The Paleo Diet: Lose Weight and Get Healthy by Eating the Food You Were Designed to Eat and The Paleo Diet for Athletes: A Nutritional Formula for Peak Athletic Performance. (My wife is now reading The Paleo Diet for Athletes and loves it. I'm going to add Robb's book to her reading list for her to read next.)

If nutrition has you stumped, if the USDA food pyramid still sounds like a reasonable path, or if you just would like to understand nutrition a little bitter, especially its biochemical ins and outs, Robb's book is a wonderful place to start.

Human foie gras

If you want to make foie gras, you feed ducks and geese copious quantities of grains, such as corn and wheat.

The carbohydrate-rich diet causes fat deposition in the liver via processes such as de novo lipogenesis, the conversion of carbohydrates to triglycerides. Ducks and geese are particularly good at this, since they store plentiful fats in the liver to draw from during sustained periods of not eating during annual migration.

Modern humans are trying awfully hard to create their own version of foie gras-yielding livers. While nobody is shoving a tube down our gullets, the modern lifestyle of grotesque carbohydrate overconsumption, like soft drinks, chips, pretzels, crackers, and--yes--"healthy whole grains" causes fat accumulation in the human liver.

Over the past few years, there has been an explosion of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and non-alcoholic steatosis, two forms of liver disease that result from excess fat deposition. The situation gets so bad in some people that it progresses to cirrhosis, i.e., a hard, poorly-functioning liver that paints a very ugly health picture. The end-result is identical to that experienced by longstanding alcoholics.



While Hannibal Lecter might celebrate the proliferation of human fatty livers with a glass of claret, fatty liver disease is an entirely preventable condition. All it requires is not eating the foods that create it in the first place.

Let go of my love handles

When is fat not just fat?

When it's visceral fat. Visceral fat is the fat that infiltrates the intestinal lining, the liver, kidneys, even your heart. It's the stuff of love handles, the flabby fat that hangs over your belt, or what I call "wheat belly."

Unlike visceral fat, the fat in your thighs or bottom is metabolically quiescent. Thigh and bottom fat may prevent you from fitting into your "skinny jeans," but its mainly a passive repository for excess calories.

Visceral fat, on the other hand, is metabolically active. It produces large quantities of inflammatory signals ("cytokines"), such as various interleukins, leptin, and tumor necrosis factor, that can trigger inflammatory responses in other parts of the body. Visceral fat also oddly fails to produce the protective cytokine, adiponectin, that protects us from diabetes, cancer, and heart disease.

Visceral fat also allows free fatty acids to leave and enter fat cells, resulting in a flood of fatty acids and triglycerides (= 3 fatty acids on a glycerol "backbone") in the bloodstream. This worsens insulin responses ("insulin resistance") and contributes to fatty liver. The situation is worsened when the very powerful process of de novo lipogenesis is triggered, the liver's conversion of sugar to triglycerides.

Visceral fat is also itself inflamed. Biopsies of visceral fat show plenty of inflammatory white blood cells (macrophages) infiltrating its structure.

So what causes visceral fat? Anything that triggers abnormal increases in blood glucose, followed by insulin, will cause visceral fat to grow.

It follows logically that foods that increase blood glucose the most will thereby trigger the greatest increase in visceral fat. Eggs don't lead to visceral fat, nor do salmon, olive oil, beef, broccoli, or almonds. But wheat, cornstarch, potato starch, rice starch, tapioca starch, and sugars will all trigger glucose-insulin that leads to visceral fat accumulation.

Fructose is also an extravagant trigger of visceral fat. Fructose is found in sucrose (50% fructose), high-fructose corn syrup, agave syrup, maple syrup, and honey.

Increased visceral fat can be suggested by increased waist circumference. The inflammatory hotbed created by excess visceral fat has therefore been associated with increased likelihood of heart attack, cardiovascular mortality, diabetes, cancer, and total mortality.

So I'm not so worried that you can't squeeze your bottom into your size 8 jeans. I am worried, however, when you need to let your belt out a notch . . . or two or three.

Surviving a widow maker

Gwen came to me 5 years ago. In her late 60s, she'd been having feelings of chest pressure for the past 4 weeks with small physical efforts, such as climbing a flight of stairs or lifting her grandchildren.

She sat in my office, heaving small sobs, accompanied by her daughter.

Gwen had already undergone a heart catheterization at a hospital near home by a cardiologist who I knew to be honest and competent. She'd been told that she had a 90% stenosis ("blockage") of her proximal left anterior descending (LAD) coronary artery. He called it a "widow maker," since closure of the artery at this point can be fatal within minutes. He advised bypass surgery as soon as possible. Though a stent could be placed at this location, he felt that its proximity to the left main stem (i.e., the "trunk" that divides into the LAD and circumflex arteries) might be jeopardized by expanding a stent in this bulky plaque, what I felt was a reasonable concern.

I reviewed the images that she brought with her. Yes, indeed: a widow maker. The portion of the left ventricle (heart muscle) fed by the LAD was also impaired ("hypokinetic"), reflecting reduced flow through the artery.

I advised Gwen that her first cardiologist's advice was sound: This was a potentially dangerous and severe condition. Either a bypass or stent should be performed near-future, the less delay the better.

But Gwen and her daughter would have no talk of any more procedures. She'd come to me because she heard about the (then rudimentary) effort I'd been making at reversing coronary plaque. "I admire your commitment, Gwen, but I am concerned that there may not be sufficient time to implement a program of prevention or reversal. Prevention is very powerful, but very slow. When symptoms like yours are active, also, it can mean that we won't have full control over the plaque causing the symptoms. This risks closure of the vessel, since flow characteristics in the plaque are abnormal. I think that you should go through a stent or bypass. We can then start your prevention/reversal program once we know you're safe."

Gwen would still have none of it. I asked her to return in a few days after thinking it over. In the meantime, we drew her lipoprotein blood samples while she added fish oil, l-arginine (back then I used a lot of l-arginine for its endothelial health effects), and began the Track Your Plaque diet a la 2004. This was in addition to the aspirin, beta blocker, and statin prescribed by the first cardiologist.

Several days later, Gwen and her daughter returned, as committed as ever to not having a procedure and proceeding with our prevention/reversal efforts.

So off we went. I was nervous about Gwen's safety, but she had clearly made her mind made up. Gwen's lipoprotein analysis revealed a severe small LDL pattern along with markers for prediabetes (high insulin, high blood glucose, hypertension, along with the loose tummy of visceral fat). So I counseled her intensively in diet and added niacin.

Within 2 weeks, Gwen no longer had chest pain. Whether this was due to her efforts or to some resolution of an intraplaque phenomenon (e.g., resorption of internal plaque hemorrhage), I don't know. But her symptoms did not return.

As the program evolved, we added the new strategies along the way--vitamin D supplementation; elimination of all wheat along with other changes in diet; iodine and thyroid normalization; as well as discontinuing l-arginine after the initial two years. She also got rid of the statin drug after losing around 20 lbs on the diet.

It's now been six years with her "widow maker" and Gwen has been fine: no recurrence of her symptoms, all stress tests performed have been normal, reflecting normal blood flow in her coronary arteries.

Should ALL people with symptomatic widow makers undergo such an effort and avoid procedures? No, not yet. Prevention and reversal efforts are indeed powerful, but slow. Some people just may not have sufficient time to accomplish what Gwen did. The fact that Gwen showed evidence for reduced flow in the LAD worried me in particular. There is no question that mortality benefits for stenting or bypass of this location are not as large as previously thought (see here, for instance), but each case needs to be viewed individually, factoring in flow characteristics in the artery, appearance of "stability" or "instability" of the plaque itself, not to mention commitment of the person.

But it can be done.

Fred Hahn's Slow Burn

I just had a workout with personal trainer and fitness expert, Fred Hahn. After a workout that quickly taught me that I had a lot to learn about exercise and strength training, Fred and I had a nice low-carbohydrate dinner at a Manhattan restaurant and shared ideas.

Fred is coauthor of Slow Burn Fitness Revolution: The slow motion exercise that will change your body in 30 minutes a week, written in collaboration with the Drs. Eades, Michael and Mary Dan. Fred also blogs here.

I had heard about Fred's "slow-burn" concept in past, but made little of it. I then met Fred on Jimmy Moore's low-carb cruise this past year, where I gave a talk on how carbohydrate-reduced diets reduce small LDL particles. Fred provided a group demonstration on his slow-burn techniques. I watched the demonstration, even tried it a few times back home in the gym, but never really applied them, losing patience most of the time and just going back to my usual routine.

Well, Fred showed me today how to do his slow-burn. In a nutshell, it is the slow, methodical use of weight resistance until the muscle is exhausted. It involves slow movement--e.g., 5 seconds for a lat pulldown from top to bottom--repeated until exhaustion using a weight that allows, perhaps, 6 repetitions over a 60-second effort.

I've been strength training since I was a teenager. I've seen lots of bad training techniques, injuries, and hocum when it comes to how to use resistance training techniques. But I believe that Fred Hahn's slow-burn technique really provides something unique that I hadn't experienced before.

For one, the burn is nothing like I've felt before. Two, there appears to be nearly zero risk for injury, since the usual momentum-driven, herky-jerky motion often employed with weight machines is entirely gone. Three, if what Fred is seeing is true--enhanced visceral (abdominal) fat loss, reduced blood glucose, increased HDL, decreased LDL/total cholesterol--then there's something really interesting going on here.

I also discovered that Fred is no ordinary personal trainer. He has insights into metabolism that I found truly impressive. After all, he's been hanging around with Mike Eades, who's a pretty sharp guy. What Mike Eades is to metabolic insights is what Fred Hahn is to exercise physiology.

I'm going to take Fred's slow burn training insights home with me. I'll let you know how it goes. Some aspects I'd like to explore: Will strength, muscle mass, and blood sugar responses change?



Fred Hahn's latest book, adapting slow burn techniques for kids.
Genetic vs. lifestyle small LDL

Genetic vs. lifestyle small LDL

Let me explain what I mean by "genetic small LDL." I think it helps to illustrate with two common examples.

Ollie is 50 years old, 5 ft 10 inches tall, and weighs 253 lbs. BMI = 36.4 (obese). Starting lipoproteins (NMR):

LDL particle number 2310 nmol/L
Small LDL: 1893 nmol/L
(1893/2310 = 81.9% of total, a severe small LDL pattern)


Stan is 50 years old, also, 5 ft 10 inches tall, and weighs 148 lbs. BMI = 21.3. Starting lipoproteins:

LDL particle number 1424 nmol/L
Small LDL 1288 nmol/L
(1288/1424 = 90.4% of total, also severe)


Both Ollie and Stan go on the New Track Your Plaque diet and eliminate wheat, cornstarch, and sugars, while increasing oils, meats and fish, unlimited raw nuts, and vegetables. They add fish oil and vitamin D and achieve perfect levels of both. Six months later, Ollie has lost 55 lbs, Stan has lost 4 lbs. A second round of lipoproteins:

Ollie:

LDL particle number 1810 nmol/L
Small LDL: 193 nmol/L
(193/1810 = 10.6% of total)


Stan:

LDL particle number 1113 nmol/L
Small LDL 729 nmool/L
(729/1113 = 65.4% of total)


Ollie has reduced, nearly eliminated, small LDL through elimination of wheat, cornstarch, and sugars, along with weight loss, fish oil, and vitamin D.

Stan, beginning at a much more favorable weight, reduced both total and small LDL with the same efforts, but retains a substantial proportion (65.4%) of small LDL.

Stan's pattern is what I call "genetic small LDL." Of course, this is a presumptive designation, since we've not identified the specific gene(s) that allow this (e.g., gene for variants of cholesteryl ester transfer protein, hepatic lipase, lipoprotein lipase, and others). But it is such a sharp distinction that I am convinced that people like Stan have this persistent pattern as a genetically-determined trait.

Comments (59) -

  • Onschedule

    2/18/2010 8:25:54 PM |

    Your blog entry appears to have been truncated.

  • Anonymous

    2/18/2010 8:29:46 PM |

    How are Stan's blood sugars?

  • zach

    2/18/2010 8:59:48 PM |

    Sounds like Stan is screwed. Of course, there may be other factors mitigating his lipid pattern because he avoids the neolithic agents. Stan would be more susceptible to heart disease than ollie on the SAD, but not when they both have good diets?

  • Jeff

    2/18/2010 10:23:31 PM |

    Is it possible that a different diet might work for Stan? I don't know what it would be, I just wonder if it's possible.

  • Kurt G. Harris MD

    2/18/2010 10:29:07 PM |

    So Ollie and Stan BOTH show substantial improvement on their LC diets.

    The difference between them may well be due to genetics, but where is the evidence that Stan needs to avoid saturated fat?

    Did you advise Stan to increase sat fat and then watch his sdLDL get worse?

    If they accomplished this with "oils" at the expense of saturated fats (oils are liquid due to the paucity of saturated fats in them), then it looks like they both have a saturated fat deficiency, and one could speculate that Stan is even more deficient than Ollie.

    Swap out the nasty oils for more butter and beef fat and coconut fat and maybe Ollie will have sdLDL of 0 (like I do on 35% of calories from sat fat) and Stan will improve even further.

  • Peter

    2/18/2010 10:44:33 PM |

    Hi Dr Davis,

    You describe a fascinating scenario.

    Ollie has clearly lost weight. He has lost 55 lb in 6 months. That is nearly 10 pounds of "lard-equivalents" each month. This has not evaporated. It is exactly what he has been running his metabolism on. Whatever nuts and vegetables he has eaten can have been nothing in comparison to the 4 times half pound blocks of lard he has "eaten" from his own adipose tissue, every week. Result: Metabolism runs on lard and sdLDL plummet.

    Stan has lost minimal weight so has run his metabolism on  his food alone. If this is low in lard he may well be running his metabolism on vegetable derived carbohydrate and nut derived omega 6 PUFA. It's possible he has NOT been eating 2lb of lard a week in his diet, because obviously this might raise his LDL. So he has NOT used lard to fuel his metabolism, he has used nuts and vegetables when Ollie has used lard from his adipose stores.

    Before I would blame genetics I would get rid of the nuts and unlimited vegetables from Stan's diet and replace them with exactly the same the adipose tissue derived fuel that Ollie was using. If Stan cannot spare it from his butt (he certainly cannot at BMI 21), it's going to have to go on his plate. Two pounds of lard a week.

    Then compare sdLDL values, when you have similar metabolic situations... Until then Stan just has nut and vegetable poisoning showing as sdLDL.

    There do not have to be any genetics involved. There might be, but let's keep it simple for the time being... Ollie is on lard while he is losing weight. Mimic that.

    Peter

  • Sue

    2/18/2010 11:16:15 PM |

    Stan did improve.  Maybe he will improve further, the longer on diet?

  • Anonymous

    2/18/2010 11:52:16 PM |

    I think it's somewhat telling that you advise your patients to eat "oils."  What kind of "oils" are they eating?  Why are your patients eating unlimited nuts?

    Until you get off the Omega-6-loaded "heatlhy" polyunstaturated fats bandwagon, it's hard to take your clinical observations on "fats" very seriously.

  • stcrim

    2/19/2010 12:15:07 AM |

    Dr. Davis,

    Help me understand the part about not eliminating meats or fats.  First, here is my blood work 15 days apart.

    Total cholesterol 295 - 15 days later 156
    LDL 200 - 15 days later 102
    HDL   46 - 15 days later  32  (have added 1500mg of niacin since then)
    Triglycerides   242 - 15 days later 109
    VLDL  49 - 15 days later 22
    Vitamin D was 28 – 15 days later it’s 56 (using 10,000 of Carlson’s D3)

    FYI my heart scan was 899 (54 year old male)

    I started on all the main nutrients you recommend here plus a few.  I dropped dairy like a hot potato including 6 or more ounces of cheese a day.  During those 15 days I ate only plant based foods (have since added some salmon and egg whites)

    The only oil I use now (sparingly) is olive.  I have a couple of gallons of coconut oil I assumed would have to be tossed sooner or later.

    Guess you could say I became fat paranoid and downright phobic about any saturated fat.

    Am I understanding I could add back Grass-fed beef (omega-3) pastured chicken and Omega-3 whole eggs?  Coconut oil?   If so, is there some safe percentage of a person’s diet to include those proteins/fats?

    By the way, my doctor wouldn’t let me out of his office without a copy of your book.  He’s one in a million as are you!

    Steve

  • Daddy

    2/19/2010 1:05:49 AM |

    Doc, would you say family history could be a clue towards small-particle tendencies?   I have zero family members with heart issues yet I was given pause by your recent post on saturated fats having a disproportionate affect on these genetically challenged folks.  I ask because I eat a ton of rib eyes and bacon.

  • Dr. William Davis

    2/19/2010 3:08:19 AM |

    I have indeed had many people with presumed "genetic small LDL" load their diets with oils and fats with only minor improvement. Loaded with saturated fat, however, and there seems to be deterioration.

    I know this flies in the face of the "saturated fat is great" dogma, but I don't make this stuff up. Just as I don't make up the deterioration of postprandial triglycerides and chylomicron remnant effect when saturated fats are loaded heavily in the diet.

    The persistence of small LDL is also long-term, i.e., it persists for years despite continuing efforts.

  • Dr. William Davis

    2/19/2010 3:09:48 AM |

    Oils = olive oil, flaxseed oil, canola oil (yes, yes, I know), avocado, almond, oils from raw nuts and meats.

    No polyunsaturates here. You've go the wrong guy.

  • Richard A.

    2/19/2010 3:41:23 AM |

    On Doctor's orders, Ollie did indeed lose a massive amount of weight.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYAeYj8-G4w

  • LynP

    2/19/2010 3:41:52 AM |

    @Peter, fascinating...eat lard when slim in attempt to reduce sdLDL.  Doc D thanks for 'splaining 'genetic' tendency to sdLDL & why numbers not reduced on sat fat & only reduced mildly on mono sats.  Great info guys!

  • Kurt G. Harris MD

    2/19/2010 3:52:12 AM |

    "Oils = olive oil, flaxseed oil, canola oil (yes, yes, I know), avocado, almond, oils from raw nuts and meats.

    No polyunsaturates here. You've got the wrong guy."

    But Dr. Davis, those all chock full of PUFAs

    Linseed oil (flax oil) is 71% LA and ALA

    Rapeseed oil (Canola oil) is 33%  LA and ALA

    Almond oil is about 25% PUFA

    Even olive oil can be up to 20% PUFA

    And all of these are mostly Linoleic acid.

    All best left as industrial lubricants and paint additives rather than eaten.

  • LeenaS

    2/19/2010 4:10:32 AM |

    So, you have a fat guy, who has been living on (his own) saturated animal fats, and he has improved a lot.

    Then you have a skinny guy, who has been living on "healthy vegetable fats" with surprisingly much LA in them, and he has not improved that much.

    So, it seems to tell that without saturated fats LDL improvement is much harder in LC, to say it kindly.

    And it sounds as if butter and saturated animal fats would be advantageous for the latter guy, too. Have they ever tried this, under your coucelling?

    With regards,
    LeenaS

  • Anonymous

    2/19/2010 4:30:07 AM |

    Dr. Davis,

    While body composition certainly isn't a prerequisite for being part of a classic comedy team, I couldn't help but notice that Stan had the makings of a skinny-fat bean pole checking in at 5' 10" and only 148 pounds. Those stats make him sound like a diehard distance runner or a chain smoker.

    While it was clearly just for illustrative purposes, I couldn't help but think that, if "Stan" exercises at all, he must not be exerting himself very much. I'm not advocating that every older gentleman suddenly attempt to impersonate Mr. Olympia, but I have to wonder seeing such a lightweight. That's not to say that I think sufficiently intense exercise would remove the problem that is genetically-based small LDL, but it is enough to make me raise an eyebrow when I see that type of weight for a male listed as 5'10".

  • Anonymous

    2/19/2010 4:32:12 AM |

    Dr. Davis,

    Would a take-home point simply be to let the numbers from proper testing be the guide versus what we "think" is right based upon generally-sound dietary advice that may apply to many, but not all, situations?

    Bill Lindvall

  • Anonymous

    2/19/2010 7:25:27 AM |

    Olive oil is monounsaturated but flaxseed oil, canola oil, avocado oil, almond oil, and oils from raw nuts are all polyunsaturated oils!  Yes, flax oil is omega 3 and canola has more omega 3 than omega 6, but both omega 3 and omega 6 are polyunsaturated.

  • Sue

    2/19/2010 8:10:06 AM |

    Do you know how much saturated fat was eaten?

  • Sue

    2/19/2010 8:28:08 AM |

    Maybe too much mono-unsaturates?

  • Anonymous

    2/19/2010 11:18:48 AM |

    In another post, you said that blood sugars parallel small LDL.  Do Stan's blood sugars follow the pattern you would predict for someone with a lot of small LDL?

    http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2009/12/to-track-small-ldl-track-blood-sugar.html

  • lightcan

    2/19/2010 12:46:27 PM |

    No polyunsaturates?
    Because olive, flax, canola oils, nuts have no polyunsaturated fats?
    I found something different.
    Even avocados have 10 % PUFAs.
    http://curezone.com/foods/fatspercent.asp

  • Anonymous

    2/19/2010 2:01:52 PM |

    So what about epigenetics? Any way to modify this unknown gene or set of genes?  Pomegranate, etc?

  • Adolfo David

    2/19/2010 2:27:14 PM |

    Please guys, find so other monounsaturated (MUFA) fats with less PUFA..

    I eat almonds, walnuts, extra virgin olive oil as fats and my diet is low in Omega 6, 10% or 20% of Omega 6 PUFA is nothing compared with 70 or 85% of MUFA.

    My experience taking a lot of saturated fats with low carbs is bad, I prefer a diet high in MUFA and low carb.

  • Anonymous

    2/19/2010 3:18:19 PM |

    Maybe the mental stress of having to worry about what to eat is a factor.
    I do find my self stressing about that often and wonder if just enjoying the food would give me a longer nicer life quality which is in then end what matters.

    Which reminds me somehting I have never read in this blog is about cortisol.
    Have you ever tracked cortisol levels in your patients?

  • ET

    2/19/2010 5:37:36 PM |

    A yea ago, i went off niacin and zocor due to elevated liver enzymes.  Before I restarted niacin, an NMR lipoprotein analysis showed:
    LDL particle number - 2197
    Small LDL-P - 1614
    LDL Particle size - 20.3
    Saturated fat (% of calories) - 21%

    Six months later, after radically increasing the amount of coconut oil I consumed, the results were:
    LDL particle number - 896
    Small LDL-P - 466
    LDL Particle size - 21.6
    Saturated fat (% of calories) - 45%


    Five months after that:
    LDL particle number - 946
    Small LDL-P - 120
    LDL Particle size - 21.1
    Saturated fat (% of calories) - 52%

    Carbohydrate consumption has held fairly steady at 10% of calories.

  • Vladimir

    2/19/2010 5:41:33 PM |

    I agree 100% with these comments.  Not a drop of dogma in them; pure science.  Yes, omega-6 is evil; avoid foods with any of it. No nuts, no seeds. Soy -- dangerous.  Milk -- cavemen didn't drink it and it's possibly dangerous too.  Vegetables -- no, no, goodness no, they're mostly made of dreaded carbohydrates, have little fat, an fiber isn't important!  Saturated fat?  I don't know about you, but I'm too scared to go hog wild on it.

    I know, I know!  Let's not eat at all.  That would drive small LDL to 0!  That would end heart disease -- and everything else -- in a flash.

    Or, just maybe, we could be moderate and sensible.  Take some fish oil to balance whatever omega-6 you get in the olive & canola oils and in nuts.  Eat some, but not too much, animal protein, and mostly fish and lean meats at that, because saturated fat isn't out of the woods yet. (Just because saturated fat's risks have been over-hyped doesn't mean that we should eat all meat all the time, because the evidence is not in yet that saturated fat is a panacea.) Eat some, but not tons, of fruits, because they have antioxidants.  And for goodness sake, eat your vegatables -- lots of them, and all kinds of them -- because your mother was right to make sit at the table until you finished them.

  • Anonymous

    2/19/2010 5:51:09 PM |

    "I couldn't help but notice that Stan had the makings of a skinny-fat bean pole checking in at 5' 10" and only 148 pounds. Those stats make him sound like a diehard distance runner or a chain smoker."

    I'm 5'10" and under 145 lbs., and I'm neither.

  • Anonymous

    2/19/2010 6:15:07 PM |

    Kurt G & Lightcan,

    I think when Dr. D said no "No polyunsaturates here. You've got the wrong guy."...he probably meant to say "No (high omega 6) polyunsaturates here.".

    Lastly...I have a question for Dr. Davis:

    Dr. D., is this "genetic small LDL" the same as when you talked about people with ApoE4 in your November 17, 2008 post? If so, do you think it would be helpful to test ApoE before experimenting with diet??

    Thanx!

    John M.

  • zach

    2/19/2010 6:20:59 PM |

    Aren't most nuts full of N-6 PUFA?

  • Rainer

    2/19/2010 6:23:53 PM |

    Hi Dr. Davis,

    and what is happend with the triclycerides of Stan. Are they high too?

  • Anonymous

    2/19/2010 7:14:40 PM |

    This is usually when the good doctor stops answering comments.

    Come on, Dr. D, prove me wrong!

  • Anonymous

    2/19/2010 7:24:49 PM |

    You have really great taste on catch article titles, even when you are not interested in this topic you push to read it

  • Donny

    2/19/2010 7:33:02 PM |

    I'm going to steal a page from T. Colin Campbell here (yechh!)

    Dr Davis, you say that

    "I have indeed had many people with presumed "genetic small LDL" load their diets with oils and fats with only minor improvement. Loaded with saturated fat, however, and there seems to be deterioration."

    Campbell makes the contention that studies showing that low saturated fat intake is beneficial (never mind whether they actually exist or not, just for the sake of argument here) might actually have nothing to do with the type of fat in the diet, and everything to do with the protein which accompanies the fat; most animal fat in our culture comes attached to meat (protein.)

    Adding plant fats and oils to the diet, including nuts, would tend to increase total percentage fat in the diet at the expense of both carbohydrate and protein. Adding animal fat, attached to meat might increase total protein percentage even as it increases total saturated fat.

    Understand, I'm not saying "protein bad," I guess I'm just echoing Peter, really, Stan may be trying to live off of a protein/fat mix that's too rich in protein, entirely aside from the whole issue of saturation.

  • Jeanie Campbell

    2/19/2010 7:57:39 PM |

    Don't tell me no one picked up on the Laurel and Hardy reference! Brilliant!

  • Anonymous

    2/19/2010 10:16:49 PM |

    Could all you saturated fat mafia people please stop polluting the comments section?

  • Sue

    2/20/2010 12:48:15 AM |

    Maybe recommend Stan use only sat fats and no poly oils and then see if there is a change.

  • Anonymous

    2/20/2010 2:29:41 AM |

    Drs. Davis and Harris,

    Googlemaps indicate you two practice your medicinal arts about 154 miles away from each other.

    May I respectfully suggest a summit meeting in Manitowoc to resolve these matters?

  • Scott Miller

    2/20/2010 3:31:43 AM |

    Flax oil, canola oil, any nut oil (except macadamia nut oil), and all of those nuts -- these are all rich with polyunsaturated fats. I never eat these oils, and my Lp(a) is 2, as last measured a few months ago.

    I always recommend nuts as a very moderate snack because of their high PUFA content.  Macadamia nuts are the ONE exception, with a fatty acid profile similar to olive oil.  Basically, I never recommend any food with a PUFA content greater that 12 percent.  That means canola oil is right out!

    Dr. Davis, perhaps try putting a few of these presumed "genetic small LDL" people on a real low PUFA diet for a while (with more coconut oil and butter--but no nuts during this period) and see if there's improvement.

    I'd bet there is.  Nothing really to lose by giving this a shot.

    If it works to your satisfaction, I'll donate $1000 to your Track-the-Plaque program, or a charity of your choice.

  • Dr. William Davis

    2/20/2010 1:58:33 PM |

    Some other features of the presumptive "genetic small LDL" pattern:

    1) It occurs in the minority of people with small LDL, likely less than 20% of people who start with substantial small LDL.

    2) It is associated with insulin resistance and a tendency towards diabetes

    3) It can occur independent of ApoE genotype. However, if it occurs with ApoE2, it means a very potent carb-sensitivity/diabetic tendency.

    4) The "floor" of 600 nmol/L can be broken. We've had success achieving really low body weight and inconsistently with several supplements, e.g., phosphatidylcholine.

    This area is fascinating, though very poorly explored. "Genetic small LDL" is truly one of the problem areas in gaining control over heart disease risk.

  • Henry North London

    2/20/2010 2:23:56 PM |

    I currently consume coconut oil and butter  I do not use any lard or pufas  I consume a moderate amount of almonds a day ( nine) and some ground almonds as a meal replacement about 10-20gs as a meal about two or three times a week

    I eat avocados maybe twice a week  about two-three

    I have started to show my abdominal muscles after two months where before I looked as if I were pregnant of about a 5 month pregnancy

    I have dropped half a stone  My BP is controlled by a sartan

    I consume a moderate amount of frozen blueberries and raspberries May be about 1 kg of each a month

    or less

    I am living on saturated fat and loving it

    My body works better on it but then I have blood group B

    You have to eat right for your blood type perhaps?

  • Miki

    2/20/2010 3:17:30 PM |

    I would like to add support to Dr. Harris' hypothesis. LDL (no NMR in our country) and TG both rise on low carb, high sat fat diet. No weight problem ever. No high protein no high PUFA for me. Pre-diabetic fasting glucose (110-120). Only complication is I had my gallbladder removed (but my brother didn't). Will increase coconut oil and olive oil on account of double cream. Feel so good on low carb it can't be wrong. Also wonder if under healthy low carb diet LDL and TG have atherogenic effect (My calcium score is low)
    In summary I think Dr. Davis is onto something but I would love to know if LDL status corresponded to increased calcium score in the said patients.

  • Donny

    2/20/2010 3:41:44 PM |

    Choline deficiency can lessen hyperglycemia in rodents with fatty livers. Maybe the inconsistent effects of phosphatidylcholine have something to do with that?

    To the person who mentioned the saturated-fat mafia; we have limited information going in here. Trying to guess at alternate explanations isn't the same as insisting that saturated fat is good in all situations for everybody, no matter what. Proper skepticism demands that we question even the most respected sources.

  • Anonymous

    2/20/2010 8:12:29 PM |

    Dr. Davis, this recent article seems congruent with some of your observations:

    http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/abstract/jn.109.115964v1

  • Anonymous

    2/20/2010 8:16:01 PM |

    To all these nutty omega-6 fatphobes - I eat lots of nuts of all sorts, probably 40% of calories, including... peanuts, which I am aware are a legume.  I have no small LDL, undetectable CRP, and lp(a) of 4, high hdl and low homocysteine, HbA1C of 5.2.

  • Anonymous

    2/20/2010 9:06:44 PM |

    Dr. Davis,
    You said "Some other features of the presumptive "genetic small LDL" pattern:

    1) It occurs in the minority of people with small LDL, likely less than 20% of people who start with substantial small LDL."


    So, based on a minority of people with small LDL, you are recommending the same diet to everyone?

  • Dr. William Davis

    2/21/2010 2:28:39 AM |

    Please don't misunderstand: I am NOT saying that saturated fat increases small LDL in most people.

    What I am suggesting is that there is a genetic minority in which saturated fat increases small LDL. These people seem to be the unusually slender, high HDL, low triglycerides, yet diabetes-prone who show apparently intractable small LDL.

    I don't know for a fact why this happens, but I speculate that it is a genetically-determined trait.

    This pattern responds best to a high-protein, high-fat, very low-carbohydrate diet. But saturated fat is the exception in this group.

  • Kurt G. Harris MD

    2/21/2010 3:25:37 AM |

    Hello Dr Davis

    I am only persisting in this as the implications might be important.

    I asked, "Did you advise Stan to increase sat fat and then watch his sdLDL get worse?"

    You later said, "Loaded with saturated fat, however, and there seems to be deterioration."  and ..

    "What I am suggesting is that there is a genetic minority in which saturated fat increases small LDL."

    and...

    "This pattern responds best to a high-protein, high-fat, very low-carbohydrate diet. But saturated fat is the exception in this group."

    Can I assume when you say "seems to be deterioration" and "there is a suggestion that saturated fat increases small LDL" and "saturated fat is the exception" that this is based on the observation of  serially increased sdLDL NMR values after increasing only saturated fat intake in these 100 or so patients?

    If this is what you have, serial NMRs that show increased sdLDL with increased saturated fat intake, why not say so explicitly?

    Or is it just a reasoned (perhaps correct, perhaps not) guess of what would happen to sdLDL in those 100 or so who have this presumed genetic pattern of persistent sdLDL?

  • Rick

    2/21/2010 3:24:07 PM |

    Dr. Davis wrote:

    "I know this flies in the face of the 'saturated fat is great' dogma, but I don't make this stuff up."


    The way that Peter described the scenario you presented, it seems to support the health benefits of saturated fat rather than deride them

    Ollie is mainlining saturated fat from his gut.  Stan is not.  Ollie's sdLDL drops like a rock.  Stan's doesn't.  

    It seems like if this phenomenon of high sdLDL specifically affects low BMI people, their lack of saturated fat intake, whether through their mouths or from their love handles, could be the culprit.

  • kilton9

    2/24/2010 10:45:35 PM |

    Dr. Harris,

    I'm a fan of your blog, but I can't help but notice that you have completely ignored Dr. Harris's questions in this entry as well as the other recent entry about saturdated fat and LDL.  I find his questions to be pertinent.

  • bovinedefenestration

    2/27/2010 7:26:50 AM |

    I'm actually a little surprised no one's brought up this blog, that indicates polyunsaturate consumption over 4% of calories can be detrimental:

    http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2009/05/eicosanoids-and-ischemic-heart-diseas.html

    Eh. Took me long enough to find. At any rate, 10-20% polyunsaturates, especially if they come from omega-6, is a huge amount for a human.

    Imma going to go away and let you argue now.

  • Henry North London

    2/27/2010 7:07:21 PM |

    Hear Hear throwing cows out of windows...  It blows the polyunsaturates out  of the window

    I have the printout of the Rose et al Paper..

    Corn oil increased the death rate

  • Janet -Mich

    2/28/2010 11:16:20 PM |

    My family has a history of high colestral and plaque build-up in the blood.  Should I stay on my Lipator and stay on a low-carb diet ?  Your article brings up some red flags for me.  Maybe I should talk to my Doctor, but my low-carb friends tell me the doctor will tell me to get off the diet !  I would like some advice.

  • dining table

    7/9/2010 9:52:12 AM |

    How did that happen? Is it possible? Different diet will work to Stan? I am curious about that. I will visit this blog again. I am hoping for an update.

  • Derek Weiss

    8/4/2010 9:49:11 PM |

    Obviously another great blog about eating and living right, but at some point we have to take a step back and live.  Food avoidance and constant stressing about food seems it could negate any benefits of just eating a sensible, well balanced, moderately low carb diet.  

    To me, all these nutrition blogs are fun to read at work. But have you ever noticed the incredible difference in opinion from one to the next?  I take all that with a large grain of salt, pun intended.

    Oh my god, I ate a walnut, surely I will be in the cath lab tomorrow getting my LAD stented;)

    You might not find yourself in the cath lab from eating the random 1/2 cup of oatmeal, but you might find yourself there from stressing about it too much.

    Read all the blogs, use all the information to help guide you.  But don't get in line with the zombies and wander off the deep end too far.

    Just a thought.

  • Liz Stanley

    9/16/2010 8:32:32 PM |

    Here's a stumper. I just had my VAP done and the results surprised me. Some background: I'm not on any medication and never have been. Never had a weight problem, body fat below 20%. I exercise regularly (CrossFit 4x/week). Never smoked. Rarely drink. I eat mostly a primal diet w/plenty of grass-fed/organic/cage-free/wild-caught meat/fish and lots of fresh veggies. Some dairy, but only hormone and antibiotic free. Hardly any grains or processed foods. Low fasting blood sugar (76 as of two weeks ago.) Here are my VAP results:

    Total cholesterol: 200
    HDL : 79
    LDL: 106
    VLDL: 14
    Lp(a): 7
    Triglycerides: 43

    With all that I'd expect to have Pattern A LDL. Yet the VAP test says I have Pattern B! I'm not aware of any history of heart disease on either side of my family. But if it's true that my LDL is small and dense, all I can figure is that it must be genetic. I'm not really sure what to make of it! Any ideas?

  • Anonymous

    9/24/2010 10:26:37 PM |

    Liz Stanley - while my HDL and LDL aren't as good as yours (63 and 185 respectively), I also just received VAP results that stumped me for a similar reason.  I exercise frequently, am not overweight, don't smoke or drink, eat low carb, etc., yet I have pattern B as well.  To add to the confusion, my cCRP is 0.7, which my doctor said was excellent and basically renders my test results a wash as I have zero other risk factors.  I don't know what to make of any of this when you put it all together, and I stumbled upon this post because I'm hoping to find some answers online.

  • buy jeans

    11/3/2010 6:33:42 PM |

    While body composition certainly isn't a prerequisite for being part of a classic comedy team, I couldn't help but notice that Stan had the makings of a skinny-fat bean pole checking in at 5' 10" and only 148 pounds. Those stats make him sound like a diehard distance runner or a chain smoker.

Loading