Vitamin D--A coronary risk factor

Look up "coronary risk factors" in any text and you'll find high cholesterol, smoking, diabetes, and high blood pressure listed. You won't find deficiency of vitamin D listed.

Ask 99% of physicians if a deficiency of vitamin D is a coronary risk factor and you'll get rolling eyes and a sigh.

Yet, in the Track Your Plaque experience, vitamin D is emerging as a very important factor in coronary plaque development. We have observed that there are a substantial number of people whose lipids and lipoproteins are not abnormal enough to fully explain their heart scan score. In other words, there seems to be something else necessary to satisfactorily explain the magnitude of coronary plaque.

I believe that severe vitamin D deficiency is at least one of the most important factors. We've seen many people with blood levels of vitamin in the range of severe deficiency (<20 ng/ml of 25-OH-Vitamin D3) yet bland lipids and lipoproteins.

Correcting vitamin D blood levels to 50 ng/ml also seems to be among the required factors in stopping coronary plaque growth, or stopping your heart scan score from increasing.

Keep your eye on this extremely important and exciting issue. Sadly, it won't be propelled into the media like the conversation about cholesterol or high-tech procedures, since no company stands to profit from it. But you and I don't have to play that game.

Cholesterol is dead!

I saw a patient in the office yesterday. He came to me for an opinion regarding his high heart scan score of 525, putting him in the 90th percentile (5% annual risk of heart attack).

His doctor had been puzzled because his LDL cholesterols had ranged from 110 to 131 mg--actually below average. (The average LDL for the U.S. is 132 mg.) Likewise, HDL was a favorable 63 mg.

Lipoprotein analysis told the story loud and clear. His LDL particle number, a far more precise measure of LDL, was 2448 nmol/l. This means that his true LDL was more like 240-250 mg! (You can get a sense for what the true LDL is from LDL particle number by dropping the last digit: 2448 becomes 244.) Conventional LDL was therefore inaccurate by over 100 mg.

He also had a severe small LDL particle pattern. The cause of his coronary plaque was a large excess of small LDL particles. LDL cholesterol (and total cholesterol, likewise) didn't even hint at this pattern. Nor did his favorable HDL.

Think of LDL particle number as an actual count of LDL particles per volume, e.g., number of particles per cc of blood. This makes it easier to conceptualize. LDL particle number is the measure you get when you have an NMR lipoprotein profile, our preferred method of lipoprotein testing. If this is unavailable to you, apoprotein B is a reasonable second choice, though not as accurate in my view. More info on NMR is available at their website, www.lipoprofile.com.

How to make a $1 million in cardiology

Want to make a $1,000,000 as a cardiologist in the next year? It's easy. All you have to do is:

1) Perform heart catheterizations or other procedures on anybody you can, even if it's not necessary. Perform them even if the patient has no symptoms and the stress test is normal.

2) Perform heart catheterizations if the patient is too timid or ill-informed to object.

3) Insert coronary stents in blockages, even when they're minor and it's not necessary.

4) Turn every heart procedure into a revenue-producing stream by looking for other profit opportunties, such as minor kidney artery blockages.

5) Heart disease is frightening. Scare the heck out of patients by exagerrating the dangers so they'll go through testing and procedures gratefully.


Sound absurd? Well, it would be if these weren't all true.

These are real examples, as awful as it sounds. I've witnessed all these behaviors. Not just occasionally, but with regularity.

Just today, I encountered a colleague who performs heart catheterizations routinely (up to several per day) when any symptom is present and the stress test is entirely normal. This is grossly inappropriate.

Your protection is being better-informed and avoid being sucked into the vast and frightening cardiovascular machine of revenue-yielding procedures. Part of your protection is to get a CT heart scan, then engage in a program of heart disease prevention.

Doctor, do I have lipoprotein (a)?

I met Joyce today for a 2nd opinion. She told me about this conversation she'd had with her cardiologist:

"Doctor, do you think I could have lipoprotein (a)? I read about how it can cause heart attacks even when cholesterol is controlled."

"What does it matter? Even if you have it, there's nothing we can do about it. There's no treatment for it."

Joyce was understandably groping for some means to prevent her coronary disease from causing more danger. At 56, she'd already survived a heart attack that resulted in two stents to her left anterior descending. Around 9 months later, she received a 3rd stent to another artery.

Her doctor had put her on Pravachol and said that was enough. "We know that cholesterol causes heart disease and the Pravachol reduces it. Why do we need to know anything more?"

So Joyce came to me for another view. I explained to her that there are, in fact, several ways to deal with lipoprotein(a). It is, without a doubt, among the more difficult patterns to manage--but not impossible. In fact, we have a growing list of participants in the Track Your Plaque program who have stopped or reduced their heart scan scores.

I continue to be horrified at the level of ignorance that prevails among my colleagues, the cardiologists, and the primary care community. If your doctor gives you advice like this, get a new doctor.

Is it mainstream or alternative?

A question I get about once a week: "Is your program a kind of alternative medicine?"

Our program for control and reversal of coronary plaque using CT heart scans applies an eclectic panel of tools to achieve its goals. We use high-tech methods like lipoprotein analysis and CT heart scans; nutritional supplements like fish oil, vitamin D, and l-arginine; diet strategies and "functional foods" (using foods as a therapeutic tool); and conventional medication.

I don't consider this approach "alternative" in the sense that it uses unmeasurable or spiritual strategies. But I don't consider it mainstream, either, since current mainstream practice of heart disease prevention is far less rigorous with far less satisfactory results.

I think I can sum up the Track Your Plaque approach by saying that we use tools that work. Our measure of success is whether or not your heart scan score is stopped or reduced--that's hard to fudge. You can call it what you will, but I call it the best program for heart disease prevention I know of, alternative or mainstream.

Want to see someone turn diabetic?

If you want to witness the transformation of someone into a pre-diabetic or diabetic, put them on a low fat diet.

Dr. Dean Ornish's program, detailed in his books, Dr. Dean Ornish's Program for Reversal of Heart Disease and Eat More, Weigh Less , are woefully outdated in 2006. Yet the low fat notion continues to show up in the consciousness of people I talk to about heart disease reversal.

"I'm already on a low fat diet. Do you think my heart scan score has reversed?"

Highly unlikely. What Dr. Ornish (as a non-cardiologist, by the way) failed to recognize is that what he did manage to reverse in a small number of people is something called "endothelial dysfunction", but he did not reverse or shrink coronary plaque.

Given the limitations of technology when the Ornish concept got its start, it appeared as if reversal was obtained. In reality, all his approach accomplished was a relaxation in tone of abnormally constricted arteries, thus giving the appearance of reversal. Increased artery tone, or endothelial dysfunction, is extremely common when atherosclerotic plaque is present.

Any cardiologist will tell you that there are many ways to reverse endothelial dysfunction: exercise, weight loss, cholesterol drugs, drugs for high blood pressure, fish oil, hormonal therapy, vitamin C, l-arginine, etc. There is nothing special about a low fat diet.

In fact, Track Your Plaque followers will recognize that a low fat diet is, in fact, potentially harmful, particularly when low HDL or small LDL is part of your pattern.

Let's bury the outdated ideas of the Ornish low fat diet once and for all. It doesn't work. All it may do is confuse you and set you back from your real coronary plaque reversal program.

Inulin: A fiber for weight loss

Here's an interesting product that seems to be gaining some popularity for weight loss: Inulin.

Not to be confused with "insulin", with which it is completely unrelated, inulin is a naturally-occurring plant fiber. It's found in broccoli, asparagus, celery, etc. Like beta-glucan from oats or pectin, inulin is a so-called soluble fiber, a fiber that assumes a gel-like consistency when exposed to water.

Inulin has the effect of increasing satiety, or the sensation of fullness. This cuts your craving for foods. I've tried it recently and I prefer it over glucomannan, another soluble fiber for satiety.

The people at Stonyfield Farms have been adding inulin to their yogurts from some time. The nutritionist at the company tells me that there's 2-3 grams of inulin per 6 ounce container of their yogurt.

You can also find inulin as a supplement that you can add to foods, available from some health food stores and online supplement companies. I came across a neat product called Fiber Choice that's now being distributed widely throughout the U.S. I tried their Weight Management version. It was a delicous strawberry taste. The label says take two chewable tablets twice a day, but I found that two tablets three times a day somewhat better. It's best taken around 30-60 minutes prior to each meal and it causes you to be fuller with less food. One caution: It'll cause loads of gas, especially in the beginning. For that reason, you might try starting with a smaller dose, or start on the weekends when you have the option of some privacy!

More info on the Fiber Choice product can be found at their website, http://www.fiberchoice.com.

Disclaimer: I have no relationship with the manufacturer of this product. I'm simply passing on some thoughts on my experience with this interesting possibility for weight loss.

Will you recognize the truth when you see it?

Do you ever wonder that, if the truth were given to you, that you'd recognize it as such? Or would you dismiss it as just another bunch of nonsense?

After all, you and I live in the Information Age. It means that we have access to mountains of information like never before in human history. But it also means that the truth is often drowned out by an avalanche of mis-truths, sales pitches and marketing, and just plain nonsense.

This struck me the other day when I was talking to a patient.

64 years old with a high heart scan score placing her at significant risk, she looked confused. I'd just described the multitude of causes of coronary plaque that we'd uncovered. The heart scan alone had been a shocker.

"I don't understand. My doctor told me that I had nothing to worry about. I've known him for years and he knows me really well. He did a stress test. That was fine. I don't get all this other stuff you're telling me--lipoprotein whatever..."

Despite my efforts to help her gain an understanding of our intensive approach, she just became increasingly more frustrated. "I just don't think I can do this."

That's the last I've heard from her. As far as I know, she's returned to the comfort of her family doctor who has reassured her over the years. And perhaps there's some good in that. But I do fear for the day when, unexpectedly, she suffers some catastrophe that we told her was coming sooner or later unless real preventive efforts were started.

You could say that she failed to recognize the truth when it was given to her-- boldly, unadorned, and with far greater scientific certainty than the casual reassurances she was accustomed to. But, unfortunately, that's all that some people want.

Don't neglect the basics in your heart disease reversal program

Carl loved new ideas and novel approaches. You could tell by the sheer number of nutritional supplements he took. His list had grown to 18 different supplements over the past two years.

Carl came to me for coronary plaque regression. Lipoprotein analysis did uncover several previously unsuspected abnormalties, most notably small LDL particles and lipoprotein(a). In addition, Carl's LDL cholesterol ranged between 111 mg-156 mg and he was clearly hypertensive, with systolic blood pressures consistently around 150-160. (Recall that people with Lp(a) are more prone to hypertension.)

Carl was more than willing to have his lipoprotein(a) reduced. We did so with niacin and testosterone and the level dropped to near zero. Likewise, we corrected his small LDL pattern with niacin, fish oil, and a reduction in processed carbohydrates.

But Carl really resisted doing much about his LDL cholesterol and high blood pressure. I got the sense that these "boring" issues simply didn't interest him. After all, LDL cholesterol and blood pressure were the stuff of TV commercials and the popular conversation propagated by drug companies.

Carl's follow-up heart scan, however, finally persuaded him: a 24% increase in one year, likely due to the neglect of the basic issues.

I liken Carl's case to being like the teenager with a new car who polishes the paint to a bright finish, puts new wheels and tires on it, spruces up the interior with various doodads--but then fails to change the oil. Sometimes it's the most basic issues that can diminish your success.

Issues like LDL cholesterol and high blood pressure aren't the most glamorous, but they do count in your coronary plaque control program.

Is your doctor a hospital employee?

There's a disturbing trend that's growing--silently but rapidly.

In Milwaukee, three hospital systems compete for the local health care dollar. To gain more control over revenues and the routing of patients, the hospitals are aggressively hiring physicians to work for them. I've witnessed many of my cardiology colleagues, primary care doctors, and a substantial number of procedural specialists enticed by the offers made by hospital employers.

This phenomenon is not unique to Milwaukee but is being used in many, perhaps most, major cities in the U.S.

This means that physicians are employees of the hospital. That way, employee-physicians are obliged to use only the hospital system that employs them. In the old days, your doctor could use any hospital he/she desired, depending on the quality, location, facilities, etc. Now, many physician-employees are given no choice but to use the hospital that pays their salary.

That by itself is not necessarily bad. But combine salary with incentives for bringing in patients for hospitalization and procedures--that the rub. In other words, physician-employees are incentivized to generate more revenue for the system, just as employees in many other industries.

If you're a salesman for an insurance company, your job is to bring in more business. If you're a worker on an auto production line, you're expected to meet certain quotas. These same principles are now being applied to many physicians.

How does this affect you? Well, if your physician--especially procedure-driven specialists like cardiologists, general surgeons, orthopedists, etc.--is a hospital employee, BEWARE! Do you really need that procedure, or is your doctor suggesting you have a procedure because it will add to his track record?

Prevention? In this model of health care, why bother? It certainly doesn't pay for a hospital to keep you well. Then why should your physician-employee?

Be careful who you're dealing with. If your physician is a hospital-employee, don't bet on getting preventive care. It's more likely you're that just a future source of revenue when it's time for your bypass operation, hip replacement, carotid endarterectomy, etc.

What more powerful argument is there for increased self-empowerment and information for health care consumers?
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