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.
Exercise and blood sugar

Exercise and blood sugar

There is no doubt that exercise yields benefits across a spectrum of health: reduced blood pressure,  reduced inflammation, reduced blood coagulation, better weight control, stronger bones, less depression, reduced risk for heart attack.

Exercise also influences blood sugar. Diabetics understand this best: Exercise reduces blood sugar 20, 30, 50 or more milligrams. A starting blood sugar, for instance, of 160 mg/dl can be reduced to 80 mg/dl by jogging or riding a bicycle. (I recently had brunch at an Indian restaurant with my family. Blood sugar one-hour postprandial: 134 mg/dl. I was sleepy and foggy. I got on my stationary bike and pedalled at a moderate clip for 60 minutes. Blood sugar: 90 mg/dl.)

Could the reduction of blood sugar with exercise be THE reason that exercise and physical activity provide such substantial benefits?

Think about it. Reduced blood sugar:

1) Reduces risk for future cardiovascular events.
2) Reduces glycation of proteins, i.e., reduced glucose binding to proteins like the ones in artery walls and the lenses of your eyes.
3) Reduces blood coagulation
4) Reduces endothelial dysfunction (abnormal artery constriction that leads to atherosclerosis)

This might explain why it doesn't require high levels of aerobic activity to derive benefit from exercise, since even modest efforts (e.g., a 15-minute walk after eating) reduce blood sugar substantially.

The incredible 33-year, 18,000-participant Whitehall study tells us that a postprandial (after-eating) blood sugar of an impossibly-difficult 83 mg/dl is required to erase the excess cardiovascular risk of blood sugar. Could this simply be telling us that physical activity or exercise is required to suppress blood sugars to these low levels?

It makes me wonder if an index of the adequacy of exercise is your post-exercise blood glucose.

Comments (30) -

  • Pythonic Avocado

    3/5/2010 2:02:20 PM |

    You don't say it, but imply, that if you had not exercised, your blood sugar would have been higher than if you had not exercised. My question is how much higher? How much of the reduction is due to the exercise and how much is just normal blood sugar lowering over time? Thanks!

  • Gretchen

    3/5/2010 2:08:58 PM |

    One caveat. If you have diabetes, you may see your blood glucose levels go *up* right after strenuous exercise. This is because the body sees that as stressful, and the stress hormones cause insulin resistance.

    This is especially true if you start exercising when the BG levels are relatively low, say in the 80s. My BGs can go up to 140 if I'm moving heavy furniture or pushing a heavy mower up a steep hill. I once saw a post by a high-powered cyclist who measured the BG of his fellow racers after a race and found that they also went up to about 140. But then they came down quickly. His stayed high.

    However, later, the BG levels should go down as the body refills glycogen stores that have been deplete.

  • Anonymous

    3/5/2010 6:01:42 PM |

    I'm wondering if fasting blood sugars play a role here.  My experience confirms what you pointed out in an earlier post:  if I wake up with blood sugar of 85, then for example a banana won't take me that high 30 mins later. But if I wake up at 98, then with a banana first thing in the morning I'll hit 140 in 30 minutes, before it goes down.

    What I can't explain is why some days I wake up at 85 and other days at 98.  Could exercise be the reason? If so, then maybe the timing of exercise -- whether it's after a meal or not -- is less important than whether it happens and brings down fasting glucose, which in turn brings down Post-prandial glucose.  

    Just thinking aloud.

  • Kent

    3/5/2010 6:14:35 PM |

    If one can reduce their blood sugar down to an acceptable level of say 80-90 mg/dl by exercising after indulging in something like banannas, would this be an acceptable way of enjoying a favorite treat without negative consequinces?

    Kent

  • Mole

    3/5/2010 6:19:57 PM |

    Great insight.

  • Anonymous

    3/5/2010 6:33:23 PM |

    Dr. Davis,

    Thanks for another thought provoking post.  BTW, what glucose meter do you use?

    Thanks,
    Justin

  • Anonymous

    3/5/2010 7:26:17 PM |

    When I had GD, and religiously tracked my post-prandial blood sugars, one of the highest readings I had came after I took some exercise between the end of the meal and the one hour reading.  The exercise was in the form of about 15 minutes on the mini-trampoline.  Perhaps the form of exercise makes a difference, I don't know.  I never tried that experiment again (didn't want the hopelessly conventional nurse I was required to report to to yell at me).

  • Laura

    3/5/2010 7:26:17 PM |

    I decided to test this out.  For breakfast this morning, I had roast beef in tomatoes.  My postprandial blood glucose(1 hr) was 114 (11:02 am).  After a short, moderate walk, my blood was 85 (11:22 am).

    Wow!

  • Jolly

    3/5/2010 8:53:31 PM |

    Does exercise *always* reduce blood sugar, or does it instead regulate blood sugar.  Richard at Free The Animal states that exercise increases his blood sugar when he is in a fasting state.  

    http://freetheanimal.com/2008/01/fasting-and-blo.html

  • shel

    3/5/2010 9:18:31 PM |

    from personal experience, i completely agree with this post.

    from everything i've read and studied, worrying about macronutrient ratios is pointless in the context of a whole food diet (my bias toward paleo) when we get adequate exercise.

    perhaps, instead of sweating about our intake of apples and tubers and sitting on our butts, we should sweat a bit and take a brisk evening walk and lift some weights.

  • King

    3/5/2010 10:30:37 PM |

    Dr.  Davis,
    This post further reinforces my view that "insulin resistance" is a nature body reaction to how much fuel (glycogen/glucose) is in the muscles and liver (if they are full, no more room) as much as other often mentioned factors.  When the muscles are full there is no place for the blood sugar to go except into fat cells under the influence of elevated insulin.  With exercise the fuel supply in the muscle is reduced so that there is room for more fuel.  This would seem to be what happened in your case.  If this is the case then the amount of muscle one uses during exercise would have a most profound effect on the blood sugar level (i.e. jogging good, weight training better).  
    Maybe your "index of the adequacy of exercise" could be used to finally provide a better objective method to rate exercise methods (instead of oxygen uptake, etc.).  This would allow for comparisons of the intensity, duration and other variables that are constantly thrown around when discussing aerobic vs. anaerobic, long distance vs. intervals, etc. (might adversely affect infomercial exercise equipment sales however)   Could it be that the height of the blood sugar spike isn't as important as the duration and the duration of the spike can be significantly reduced if exercise is part of the lifestyle and properly timed.  Also, maybe this measure could be used to better define how exercise and eating cycles should be structures for optimum health, weight loss, etc.  Are there other health indicating measurements that might benefit from this same sort of post-meal/exercise analysis?  Maybe it’s been done and I haven't stumbled across (or did and it didn't stick).  Very thought provoking post.  Thanks.

  • Sifter

    3/5/2010 10:36:11 PM |

    Interesting, but what about anaroebic exercise, i.e. weight lifting fairly heavy for moderate reps, for instance? Studies always cite 'exercise' when it is really not one monolothic activity. Could clean and pressing a 50 lb dumbbell for x time give you the same blood glucose benefit of your 15 minute walk?....

  • Drs. Cynthia and David

    3/6/2010 9:22:12 AM |

    I'm not sure it's that simple, and maybe it depends on whether you're starting fed or empty (with higher glucose levels or from baseline).  I've measured post exercise blood sugars and they're usually higher than when I started- like today, started at 95 and went to 128 after a slow 4.5 mile jog.  I interpret that as the normal action of epinephrine and glucagon to produce glucose from liver glycogen during exercise, but I was surprised to see it that high when I was intentionally keeping the intensity down.  After 45 min rest, it had come down to 101. I don't know what would happen if I had started with a high blood glucose though (I usually don't eat much before running).

    Thanks for your stimulating ideas and discussion.

    Cynthia

  • Dr. William Davis

    3/6/2010 1:49:33 PM |

    The effects of physical activity on blood sugar are, indeed, more complex than a simple exercise, blood sugar goes down.

    However, in the specific situation of light exercise in the immediate postprandial period, there is, as a rule, a marked reduction in blood glucose.

    Had I not exercise, my blood glucose would have more than likely stayed around the 130-140 range for a couple of hours, given the mix of foods I consumed.

  • www

    3/7/2010 3:28:39 AM |

    Dr Davis,

    If you want to keep blood glucose level low would it make sense to work out before we eat a fixed amount of food or to eat after a work out?
    Thanks,

    Walter

  • Anonymous

    3/9/2010 2:45:05 PM |

    In my experience a glass or two of wine with a meal has the result of reducing post prandial blood glucose levels - presumably it inhibits the liver's production of sugar whilst it is busy removing the alcohol out of the blood stream.  Don't take my word for it - use your meter and note the difference it makes.

    Now as to whether that's a good thing or not?  Might go a little way to explaining why moderate alcohol consumption appears to have some health benefits.

    Paul Anderson

  • Anonymous

    3/9/2010 4:03:17 PM |

    I am in good shape, lean, and generally have postprandial BG less than a 100 eating the right breafast, lunch and dinner for me.

    A good hard aerobic 45 min workout spikes me to 120 area and slowly comes down - something my meals don't do!

    I wonder if I should time this differently?

  • Orlando personal injury lawyer

    3/9/2010 8:18:10 PM |

    Thanks a lot for this explanation. I enjoyed reading this article.

  • Anonymous

    3/9/2010 9:12:45 PM |

    Hmm that's amazing but frankly i have a hard time figuring it... Sure, I see the point, but it's still abit challenging... wonder how others think about this..

  • Anonymous

    3/9/2010 9:27:13 PM |

    Well... that's very interessting but to be honest i have a hard time seeing it...  wonder what others have to say..

  • automated external defibrillator

    3/21/2010 7:48:09 AM |

    Thanks for sharing such a useful article. From personal experience i agree with you.
    Beside all you said there's something in my mind.. Isn't yoga good for blood sugar patients?

  • Anonymous

    3/28/2010 6:17:44 PM |

    For those with significant IR, your intraday, between-meal BG is mainly governed by gluconeogenesis - the formation of glucose from amino acids released by continued protein digestion.  A bout of exercise will only briefly reduce your BG to fasting levels, after which it will climb back again to higher levels due to continued protein digestion.

    So exercise can't be used in any simply way to "fix" high post-meal BGs.  Rather, it's benefit comes mainly from building more muscle mass, which then results in generally lower BGs.

  • EMR

    5/12/2010 5:33:37 AM |

    Exercise is very useful and good for the body and general health.This with a well balanced diet is a perfect solution towards good health.

  • christina

    9/8/2010 7:13:07 AM |

    I am really thankful to the author of this post for making this lovely and informative article live here for us. We really appreciate your effort. Keep up the good work. . . .


    aerobics

  • buy jeans

    11/3/2010 2:32:23 PM |

    Exercise also influences blood sugar. Diabetics understand this best: Exercise reduces blood sugar 20, 30, 50 or more milligrams. A starting blood sugar, for instance, of 160 mg/dl can be reduced to 80 mg/dl by jogging or riding a bicycle. (I recently had brunch at an Indian restaurant with my family. Blood sugar one-hour postprandial: 134 mg/dl. I was sleepy and foggy. I got on my stationary bike and pedalled at a moderate clip for 60 minutes. Blood sugar: 90 mg/dl.)

  • Daniel A. Clinton, RN, BSN

    1/23/2011 4:32:16 AM |

    Jolly's post interests me. I suspect she's right. I'm sure the body moves blood sugar levels to a desirable range when under physiologic stress, be it higher or lower. Just for most Americans, that means lower.

  • Weight Loss Pills

    1/24/2011 4:47:10 PM |

    I've really enjoyed having a look around your blog today, keep up the good work!

  • Profit Monarch

    1/31/2011 6:06:48 PM |

    It's great when you are just surfing the web and find something wonderful like this!

  • J

    7/5/2011 6:26:19 PM |

    I was actually searching the web to see if I was really weird or not. (still not sure) When I exercise i often see a dramatic spike in my blood sugar. Yesterday after a 4 mile run I was 260ish and have tested into the 160's-200 on several occasions after exercising....is this as bizarre as it seems? I'm young (in my 20s), healthy, and not-diabetic.

Loading