Rerun: To let low-carb right, you must check POSTPRANDIAL blood sugars

2. April 2010 William Davis (12)
Checking postprandial (after-eating) blood sugars yields extraordinary advantage in creating better diets for many people.

This idea has proven so powerful that I am running a previous Heart Scan Blog post on this practice to bring any newcomers up-to-date on this powerful way to improve diet, lose weight, reduce small LDL, reduce triglycerides, and reduce blood pressure.



To get low-carb right, you need to check blood sugars

Reducing your carbohydrate exposure, particularly to wheat, cornstarch, and sucrose (table sugar), helps with weight loss; reduction of triglycerides, small LDL, and c-reactive protein; increases HDL; reduces blood pressure. There should be no remaining doubt on these effects.

However, I am going to propose that you cannot truly get your low-carb diet right without checking blood sugars. Let me explain.

Carbohydrates are the dominant driver of blood sugar (glucose) after eating. But it's clear that we also obtain some wonderfully healthy nutrients from carbohydrate sources: Think anthocyanins from blueberries and pomegranates, vitamin C from citrus, and soluble fiber from beans. There are many good things in carbohydrate foods.

How do we weigh the need to reduce carbohydrates with their benefits?

Blood sugar after eating ("postprandial") is the best index of carbohydrate metabolism we have (not fasting blood sugar). It also provides an indirect gauge of small LDL. Checking your blood sugar (glucose) has become an easy and relatively inexpensive tool that just about anybody can incorporate into health habits. More often than not, it can also provide you with some unexpected insights about your response to diet.

If you’re not a diabetic, why bother checking blood sugar? New studies have documented the increased likelihood of cardiovascular events with increased postprandial blood sugars well below the ranges regarded as diabetic. A blood sugar level of 140 mg/dl after a meal carries 30-60% increased (relative) risk for heart attack and other events. The increase in risk begins at even lower levels, perhaps 110 mg/dl or lower after-eating.

We use a one-hour after eating blood sugar to gauge the effects of a meal. If, for instance, your dinner of baked chicken, asparagus brushed with olive oil, sauteed mushrooms, mashed potatoes, and a piece of Italian bread yields a one-hour blood sugar of 155 mg/dl, you know that something is wrong. (This is far more common than most people think.)

Doing this myself, I have been shocked at the times I've had an unexpectedly high blood sugar from seemingly "safe' foods, or when a store- or restaurant-bought meal had some concealed source of sugar or carbohydrate. (I recently had a restaurant meal of a turkey burger with cheese, mixed salad with balsamic vinegar dressing, along with a few bites of my wife's veggie omelet. Blood sugar one hour later: 127 mg/dl. I believe sugar added to the salad dressing was the culprit.)

You can now purchase your own blood glucose monitor at stores like Walmart and Walgreens for $10-20. You will also need to purchase the fingerstick lancets and test strips; the test strips are the most costly part of the picture, usually running $0.50 to $1.00 per test strip. But since people without diabetes check their blood sugar only occasionally, the cost of the test strips is, over time, modest. I've had several devices over the years, but my current favorite for ease-of-use is the LifeScan OneTouch UltraMini that cost me $18.99 at Walgreens.

Checking after-meal blood sugars is, in my view, a powerful means of managing diet when reducing carbohydrate exposure is your goal. It provides immediate feedback on the carbohydrate aspect of your diet, allowing you to adjust and tweak carbohydrate intake to your individual metabolism.

LDL glycation

1. April 2010 William Davis (11)
The proteins of the body are subject to the process of glycation, modification of protein structures by glucose (blood sugar). In the last Heart Scan Blog post, I discussed how glycated hemoglobin, available as a common test called HbA1c, can serve as a reflection of protein glycation (though it does not indicate actual Advanced Glycation End-products, or AGEs, just a surrogate indicator).

There is one very important protein that is subject to glycation: Apoprotein B.

Apoprotein B, or Apo B, is the principal protein of VLDL and LDL particles. Because there is one Apo B molecule per VLDL or LDL particle, Apo B can serve as a virtual VLDL/LDL particle count. The higher the Apo B, the greater the number of VLDL and LDL particles.

Because Apo B is a protein, it too is subject to the process of glycation. The interesting thing about the glycation of Apo B is that its "glycatability" depends on LDL particle size: The smaller the LDL particle, the more glycation-prone the Apo B contained within.

Younis et al have documented an extraordinary variation in glycatability between large and small LDL, with small LDL showing an 8-fold increased potential.

Think about it: Carbohydrates in the diet, such as wheat products and sugars, trigger formation of small LDL particles. Small LDL particles are then more glycation-prone by up to a factor of 8. Interestingly, HbA1c is tightly correlated with glycation of Apo B. Diabetics with high HbA1c, in particular, have the greatest quantity of glycated Apo B. They are also the group most likely to develop coronary atherosclerosis, as well as other consequences of excessive AGEs.

No matter how you spin it, the story of carbohydrates is getting uglier and uglier. Carbohydrates, such as those in your whole grain bagel, drive small LDL up, while making them prone to a glycating process that makes them more likely to contribute to formation of coronary atherosclerotic plaque.

High HbA1c: You're getting older . . . faster

28. March 2010 William Davis (16)
Over the years, we all accumulate Advanced Glycation End-products, or AGEs.

AGEs are part of aging; they are part of human disease. AGEs are the result of modification of proteins by glucose. AGEs form the basis for many disease conditions.

Accumulated AGEs have been associated with aging, dementia, cataracts, osteoporosis, deafness, cancer, and atherosclerosis. Most of the complications of diabetes have been attributable to AGEs.

There's one readily available method to assess your recent AGE status: HbA1c.

Hemoglobin is the oxygen-carrying protein of red blood cells. Like other proteins, hemoglobin becomes glycated in the presence of glucose. Hemoglobin glycation increases linearly with glucose: The higher the serum or tissue glucose level, the more glycation of hemoglobin develops. Glycated hemoglobin is available as the common test, HbA1c.

Ideal HbA1c is 4.5% or less, i.e., 4.5% of hemoglobin molecules are glycated. Diabetics typically have HbA1c 7.0% or greater, not uncommonly greater than 10%.

In other words, repetitive and sustained high blood glucose leads to greater hemoglobin glycation, higher HbA1c, and indicates greater glycation of proteins in nerve cells, the lens of your eye, proteins lining arteries, and apoprotein B in LDL cholesterol particles.

If AGEs accumulate as a sign of aging, and high blood sugars lead to greater degrees of glycation, it only follows that higher HbA1c marks a tendency for accelerated aging and disease.

Indeed, that is what plays out in real life. People with diabetes, for instance, have kidney failure, heart disease, stroke, cataracts, etc. at a much higher rate than people without diabetes. People with pre-diabetes likewise.

The higher your HbA1c, the greater the degree of glycation of other proteins beyond hemoglobin, the faster you are aging and subject to all the phenomena that accompany aging. So that blood glucose of 175 mg/dl you experience after oatmeal is not a good idea. 

The lesson: Keep HbA1c really low. First, slash carbohydrates, the only foods that substantially increase blood glucose. Second, maintain ideal weight, since normal insulin responsiveness requires normal body weight. Third, stay physically active, since exercise and physical activity exerts a powerful glucose-reducing effect. Fourth, consider use of glucose-reducing supplements, an issue for another day.

While HbA1c cannot indicate cumulative AGE status, it can reflect your recent (preceding 60 to 90 days) exposure to this age-accelerating thing called glucose.

If your doctor refuses to accommodate your request for a HbA1c test, you can perform your own fingerstick test.

Slash carbs . . . What happens?

26. March 2010 William Davis (20)
Cut the carbohydrates in your diet and what sorts of results can you expect?

Carbohydrate reduction results in:

Reduced small LDL--This effect is profound. Carbohydrates increase small LDL; reduction of carbohydrates reduce small LDL. People are often confused by this because the effect will not be evident in the crude, calculated (Friedewald) LDL that your doctor provides.

Increased HDL--The HDL-increasing effect of carbohydrate reduction may require 1-2 years. In fact, in the first 2 months, HDL will drop, only to be followed by a slow, gradual increase. This is the reason why, in a number of low-carb diet studies, HDL was shown to be reduced.--Had the timeline been longer, HDL would show a significant increase.

Decreased triglycerides--Like reduction of small LDL, the effect is substantial. Triglyceride reductions of several hundred milligrams are not at all uncommon. In people with familial hypertriglyceridemia with triglyceride levels in the thousands of milligrams per deciliter, triglyceride levels will plummet with carbohydrate restriction. (Ironically, conventional treatment for familial hypertriglyceridemia is fat restriction, a practice that can reduce triglycerides modestly in these people, but not anywhere near as effectively as carbohydrate restriction.) Triglyceride reduction is crucial, because triglycerides are required by the process to make small LDL--less triglycerides, less small LDL.

Decreased inflammation--This will be reflected in the crude surface marker, c-reactive protein--Yes, the test that the drug industry has tried to convince you to take statins drugs to reduce. In my view, it is an absurd notion that you need to take a drug like Crestor to reduce risk associated with increased CRP. If you want to reduce CRP to the floor, eliminate wheat and other junk carbohydrates. (You should also add vitamin D, another potent CRP-reducing strategy.)

Reduced blood pressure--Like HDL, blood pressure will respond over an extended period of months to years, not days or weeks. The blood pressure reduction will be proportion to the amount of reduction in your "wheat belly."

Reduced blood sugar--Whether you watch fasting blood sugar, postprandial (after-meal) blood sugars, or HbA1c, you will witness dramatic reductions by eliminating or reducing the foods that generate the high blood sugar responses in the first place. Diabetics, in particular, will see the biggest reductions, despite the fact that the American Diabetes Association persists in advising diabetics to eat all the carbohydrates they want. Reductions in postprandial (after-eating) blood sugars, in particular, will reduce the process of LDL glycation, the modification of LDL particles by glucose that makes them more plaque-causing.


You may notice that the above list corresponds to the list of common plagues targeted by the pharmaceutical industry: blood pressure, diabetes (diabetes being the growth industry of the 21st century), high cholesterol. In other words, high-carbohydrate, low-fat foods from the food industry create the list of problems; the pharmaceutical industry steps in to treat the consequences.

In the Track Your Plaque approach, we focus specifically on elimination of wheat, cornstarch, and sugars, the most offensive among the carbohydrates. The need to avoid other carbohydrates, e.g., barley, oats, quinoa, spelt, etc., depends on individual carbohydrate sensitivty, though I tend to suggest minimal exposure.

Normal fasting glucose with high HbA1c

23. March 2010 William Davis (24)
Jonathan's fasting glucose: 85 mg/dl
His HbA1c: 6.7%

Jonathan's high HbA1c reflects blood glucose fluctuations over the preceding 60-90 days and can be used to calculate an estimated average glucose (eAG) with the following equation:

eAG = 28.7 X A1c – 46.7

(For glucose in mmol/L, the equation is eAG = 1.59 × A1C - 2.59)

Jonathan's HbA1c therefore equates to an eAG of 145.59 mg/dl--yet his fasting glucose value is 85 mg/dl. 

This is a common situation: Normal fasting glucose, high HbA1c. It comes from high postprandial glucose values, high values after meals. 

It suggests that, despite having normal glucose while fasting, Jonathan experiences high postprandial glucose values after many or most of his meals. After a breakfast of oatmeal, for instance, he likely has a blood glucose of 150 mg/dl or greater. After breakfast cereal, blood glucose likely exceeds 180 mg/dl. With two slices of whole wheat bread, glucose likewise likely runs 150-180 mg/dl. 

The best measure of all is a postprandial glucose one hour after the completion of a meal, a measure you can easily obtain yourself with a home glucose meter. Second best: fasting glucose with HbA1c.

Gain control over this phenomenon and you 1) reduce fasting blood sugar, 2) reduce expression of small LDL particles, and 3) lose weight.  

Can you handle fat?

21. March 2010 William Davis (19)
No question: Low-carbohydrate diets generate improved postprandial lipoprotein responses.

Here's a graph from one of Jeff Volek's great studies:



Participants followed a low-carb diet of less than 50 g per day carbohydrate ("ketogenic") with 61% fat.   The curves were generated by administering a 123 g fat challenge with triglyceride levels assessed postprandially. The solid line represents the postprandial response at the start; dotted line after the 6-week low-carb effort.

Note that:

1) The postprandial triglyceride (area-under-the-curve) response was reduced by 29% in the low-carb diet.  That's a good thing.

2) The large fat challenge generated high triglycerides of greater than 160 mg/dl even in the low-carb group. That's a bad thing. 

In other words, low-carb improves postprandial responses substantially--but postprandial phenomena still occur. Postprandial triglycerides of 88 mg/dl or greater are associated with greater heart attack risk because they signify the presence of greater quantities of atherogenic (plaque-causing) postprandial lipoproteins.

A full discussion of these phenomena can be found in the Track Your Plaque Special Report, Postprandial Responses: The Storm After the Quiet!, part of a 3-part series on postprandial phenomena.

Statin stupid

19. March 2010 William Davis (0)
If we followed the lead of the pharmaceutical industry and my cardiology colleagues, we would all subscribe to the "statins for all" philosophy. There is now $2 billion of clinical "research" to back up this "evidence-based" practice.

I do not endorse this "statins for all" philosophy. I believe it is a product of the raw profiteering of the pharmaceutical industry, who are adept at recruiting physicians to their cause.

But lost in the confusion of tainted studies and over-the-top media saturation is the fact that there are small groups of people who likely do obtain benefit from statin drugs. They would certainly benefit from better informed scrutiny of their lipoprotein and metabolic abnormalities. But treatment may involve statins.

This is entirely distinct from the "statins for all" argument, the simpleminded rule that primary care physicians and cardiologist are told to follow.

Groups who may indeed benefit from statin therapy include:

Homozygous or heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia--Lacking a receptor for LDL particles, LDL piles up to very high levels in these people. LDLs of 300+ are common and lead to heart disease and stroke at relatively young ages.

Combined mixed hyperlipidemia--Among the one or more genetic defects underlying this condition involves excessive production of apoprotein B and VLDL particles. This leads to high risk for heart disease.

People unable to follow a diet to correct their lipid disorder--I have 80+-year old patients, for instance, who say, "I've eaten this way for 82 years. I'm not going to change now!" In the absence of diet and other efforts (e.g., omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil), drugs may be the answer.

In other words, of the $27 billion annual bill for statin drugs, perhaps a tiny fraction is truly necessary. The majority of people taking statin drugs would not really need them if they had the real answers. But don't let that confuse us: There are some people who do indeed benefit.

Butter and insulin

19. March 2010 William Davis (83)
In a previous post, Atkins Diet: Common Errors, I commented on butter's unusual ability to provoke insulin responses. I offer this as a possible reason why, after a period of effective weight loss on a low-carbohydrate program, inclusion of some foods, such as butter, will trigger weight gain or stall weight loss efforts.

This develops because of butter's insulin-triggering effect, doubling or tripling insulin responses (postprandial area-under-the-curve). If insulin is triggered, fat gain follows.

Here's one such study documenting this effect: Distinctive postprandial modulation of ß cell function and insulin sensitivity by dietary fats: monounsaturated compared with saturated fatty acids

López et al 2008


From Lopez et al 2008. Mean (± SD) plasma glucose, insulin, triglyceride, and free fatty acid (FFA) concentrations during glucose and triglyceride tolerance test meal (GTTTM) with no fat (control), enriched in monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFAs) from refined olive oil (ROO meal), with added butter, with a mixture of vegetable and fish oils (VEFO) or with high-palmitic sunflower oil (HPSO). N = 14.

The postprandial (after-eating) area-under-the-curve is substantially greater when butter is included in the mixed composition meal. This effect is not unique to butter, but is shared by most other dairy products.

Fat, in general, does not make you fat. But butter makes you fat.

Vitamin D as a cardiovascular risk factor gains ground

18. March 2010 William Davis (0)
If you were reading The Heart Scan Blog back in 2007, or read my Life Extension article on vitamin D deficiency as a cardiovascular risk factor, you already knew that vitamin D deficiency is rampant and adds to cardiovascular risk.

Results of a study from the Intermountain Medical Center Heart Institute in Utah bolster the concept that vitamin D deficiency is a cardiovascular risk factor, vitamin D normalization/supplementation reduces cardiovascular risk.

Science Daily reported:

For the first study, researchers followed two groups of patients for an average of one year each. In the first study group, over 9,400 patients, mostly female, reported low initial vitamin D levels, and had at least one follow up exam during that time period. Researchers found that 47 percent of the patients who increased their levels of vitamin D between the two visits showed a reduced risk for cardiovascular disease.


In the second study, researchers placed over 31,000 patients into three categories based on their levels of vitamin D. The patients in each category who increased their vitamin D levels to 43 nanograms per milliliter of blood or higher had lower rates of death, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, myocardial infarction, heart failure, high blood pressure, depression, and kidney failure. Currently, a level of 30 nanograms per milliliter is considered "normal."


Over the past 4 years, people in our program have been enjoying the extravagant benefits of vitamin D restoration. Cardiovascular benefits are becoming better documented and the bone health, cancer-preventing, insulin-normalizing, mood-adjusting, and anti-inflammatory effects likewise.

Atkins Diet: Common errors

18. March 2010 William Davis (74)
No doubt: The diet approach advocated by the late Dr. Robert Atkins was a heck of a lot closer to an ideal diet than the knuckleheaded advice emitting from the USDA, American Heart Association, American Diabetes Association, and the Surgeon General's office.

But having just spent a week with Atkins low-carbers, here are some common errors that I see many make, errors that I believe have long-term health consequences, including impairment of weight loss.

Excessive consumption of animal products--Non-restriction of fat often leads to over-reliance on animal products. Higher intakes of red meats (heme proteins?) have been strongly associated with increased risk for colon and other gastrointestinal tract cancers. It is not a fat issue; it is an animal product issue. We should consume less meat, more vegetables and other plant-sourced foods.

Consumption of cured meats--Cured, processed meats, such as sausage, hot dogs, salami, bologna, and bacon, have a color fixative called sodium nitrite, an additive that has been confidently linked to gastrointestinal cancers. Risk is likely dose-dependent: The more you ingest, the greater the long-term risk.

Overconsumption of dairy products--Dairy products, especially milk, yogurt, cottage cheese, and butter, are potent insulinotropic foods, i.e., foods that trigger insulin release. There can be up to a tripling of insulin (area-under-the-curve) levels. This is not good in a world populated with tired, overworked pancreases, exhausted from a lifetime of high-carbohydrate eating.

Too many calories--While I agree that "a calorie is a calorie" and "calories in, calories out" are faulty concepts, I have anecdotally observed that long-time low-carbers often trend towards unlimited consumption of food, a phenomenon that seems to result in weight gain, especially in the sedentary. I wonder if this is a reflection of the insulinotropic action of dairy products and other proteins, compounded by the poor insulin responsiveness that develops with lack of physical activity. Factor into this conversation that lower calorie intake extends life, probably substantially (Sirt-2 activation and related phenomena, a la resveratrol). If lower calorie intake extends life, unlimited calorie intake likely shortens life.

Please don't hear this as low-carb bashing--it is not. It is a call to improve diets and not stumble into common traps that can impair heart health, weight loss, and longevity.
Extreme carbohydrate intolerance

Extreme carbohydrate intolerance

25. August 2010 William Davis (26)
Here's an interesting example of what you might call "extreme carbohydrate intolerance."

May is a 44-year woman who has now had her 7th stent placed in her coronary arteries. She lives on a diet dominated by breads, breakfast cereals, muffins, rice, corn products, along with some real foods.

Her conventional lipid panel and other lab values:

Total cholesterol 346 mg/dl
Triglycerides: 877 mg/dl
HDL cholesterol: 22 mg/dl
LDL cholesterol: incalculable
(Recall that LDL cholesterol is usually a calculated, not a measured value. The excessively high triglycerides make the standard calculation invalid--more invalid than usual.)

Fasting blood glucose: 210 mg/dl
HbA1c (a reflection of previous 60-90 days average glucose): 7.2% (desirable 4.5% or less)
ALT (a "liver enzyme"): 438 (about five-fold normal)


At 5 ft even and 138 lbs (BMI 27.0), May appears small. But the modest excess weight is all concentrated in her abdomen, i.e., in visceral fat.

By lipoprotein analysis via NMR (Liposcience), May's LDL particle number was 2912 nmol/L, or what I would call a "true" LDL of 291 mg/dl. (Drop the last digit.) Of the 2912 nmol/L LDL particles, 2678 nmol/L, or 92%, were small.

The bad news: This pattern of extremely high triglycerides, extremely high LDL particle number, low HDL, predominant small LDL, and diabetes poses high-risk for heart disease--no surprise. It earned her 7 stents so far. (Unfortunately, she has made no effort whatsoever to correct these patterns, despite repeated advice to do so.)

The good news: This collection is wonderfully responsive to diet. LDL particle number, small LDL, triglycerides, blood glucose, and HbA1c drop dramatically, while HDL increases. Heart disease will at least slow, if not stop.

It's amazing how far off human metabolism can go while indulging in carbohydrates, particularly a genetically carbohydrate-intolerance person. (Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if May's diet, as bad as it seems to you and me, still fits within the dictates of the USDA food pyramid.) The crucial step in diet to correct this smorgasbord of disaster is elimination of carbohydrates, especially that from wheat, cornstarch, and sugars.
Tags :

Comments (26) -

  • john

    8/24/2010 9:57:22 PM |

    Wow, these numbers are wild.  It'd be great to see where they are in six months, assuming a change in diet.

  • Tuck

    8/24/2010 10:03:12 PM |

    Did you see the WSJ article today?

    "Giving Up Gluten to Lose Weight? Not So Fast"

    The last sentence is priceless:

    “Also, for dieters, going back to gluten after avoiding it can lead to stomach cramps, bloating, diarrhea and other symptoms, at least temporarily.”

    If an egg had that effect on you, they'd do a recall.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703846604575447413874799110.html

  • qualia

    8/24/2010 10:59:36 PM |

    great post! would be cool if you could pipe the links to your posts into your twitter account as well (there are online services), so that it can easier be forwarded by followers of you.

  • Anonymous

    8/24/2010 11:06:26 PM |

    The WSJ should give up the diet reporting and stick to what they (supposedly) know - financial news.  

    There's giving up gluten and then there's giving up gluten but maintaining a high starch alternative grain  GF diet.   Of course replacing one starch with another won't result in weight loss if one is overweight.  It's even possible to gain weight on such a GF diet.    

    Are people really silly enough to take diet advice from "creaky bones" Gwenyth Paltrow?

  • dan

    8/25/2010 1:01:04 AM |

    I watched the WSJ video.  It wasn't bad.  It was mainly ridiculing "gluten-free" imitation products.  The lady recommended eating natural foods that are gluten free.

  • Tommy

    8/25/2010 1:50:03 AM |

    I am completely baffled by some of the lipid panel numbers I see. She had 7 stents put in but there are many out there seemingly with no problems, with high numbers like that. Meanwhile I have eaten right and exercised seriously for the last 30 years, have never been overweight, always been in shape, had good lipid panel results but suffered a heart attack last year anyway. I just had bloodwork shortly before the attack and once again (as had been the case for years) I was told I was in perfect health. My triglycerides were good as was my CRP and my complete lipid panel. Actually any test I took ever, always produced good results. Even after my heart attack they couldn't get my heart rate up high enough in my stress test unless I ran longer and at the steepest incline. I'm still in great shape.....but I had a heart attack.  I never had a belly or bulge and still don't. 5'10" 169 lbs.  Go  figure.

  • 42

    8/25/2010 4:28:11 AM |

    My results after eight months: http://paleohacks.com/questions/9124/first-post-paleo-blood-work-results

    After 8 months and -50lbs  I can safely say that the std American flour/sugar diet is complete bullshit.

  • Lori Miller

    8/25/2010 4:36:29 AM |

    I bet that poor woman has forgotten what it's like to feel good. She'll surely feel better with an improved diet. I wish her the best.

    Re: WSJ article, I got a stomach ache that lasted two days the last time I ate a chocolate chip cookie made of wheat flour. That's some kind of "temporarily"!

  • Anonymous

    8/25/2010 5:58:01 AM |

    Lipids after two years of high-fat, moderate-protein, very low-carb eating:
    Total Cholesterol: 220, Triglycerides: 69,
    HDL: 98,
    LDL: 108.
    I think I'll carry on that way.

  • Anonymous

    8/25/2010 6:19:42 AM |

    After 7 stents and she still refuses to change her eating habits? I think that got my attention more than anything else in your report of this patient. I guess I am baffled on why people do not take charge of their health especially when expert advice is offered on a "silver platter".

  • Derek

    8/25/2010 2:11:31 PM |

    Tommy,

    Sorry to hear that.  I guess it goes to show nothing is a guarantee.  No matter what we do, the chance is always there.

  • Jonathan

    8/25/2010 3:39:40 PM |

    Tommy, your case only goes to prove that cholesterol doesn't cause heart attacks.  
    There is something else causing CVD.
    Inflammation from Poly fat and grains seem the most plausible to me.

  • Tommy

    8/25/2010 4:04:49 PM |

    "Tommy, your case only goes to prove that cholesterol doesn't cause heart attacks.
    There is something else causing CVD.
    Inflammation from Poly fat and grains seem the most plausible to me."

    I had my CRP checked and it was below 4 just before my HA. After taking care of myself for the last 30 years and always doing well in every aspect I really felt backed against the wall afterward. My numbers are very low now (pretty close to 60's across the board) but all of this is more complexed than just numbers.

  • Dr. William Davis

    8/25/2010 5:05:28 PM |

    Hi, Tuck--

    That's great!

    It reminds me of the USDA's request for public commentary on the food pyramid revision, prefaced by "We don't understand why, after we tell people to increase consumption of whole grains, they keep on gaining weight and becoming diabetic."

  • Dr. William Davis

    8/25/2010 5:07:20 PM |

    42--

    Well said!

  • Jonathan

    8/25/2010 5:20:01 PM |

    "eating right" and "taking care of myself" only tells me you were healthy by your standards or by the governments standards.  Most of the people I hear say "I eat healthy" means they eat lower fat but mostly trans fat when they do.

    There has to be something causing your problem.  I would suspect what ever makes you extra hungry would be a possible cause.  Maybe it's too low cholesterol.  Agreed; very complicated.  Maybe it's just genetics.  Maybe there's something in the past 30 years that was not right but what?  A lot of maybes there.  Have you had a calcium score?

  • David

    8/25/2010 7:46:48 PM |

    Tommy-

    Do you have Lipoprotein(a)? You sound to me like a textbook Lp(a) case. Better get it checked and address it.

  • Tommy

    8/25/2010 8:41:00 PM |

    Trans fat? nooooooooo...lol.
    No refined crap, no processed anything. Damn...I don't even eat ketchup(sugar)!! I consider AMA snobish about food intake. I had a conversation with a "heart healthy" dietitian from the hospital after my heart attack and she wanted me to have less than 50 g of fat per day (impossible). I told her I go by percentages of total calories consumed and explained it to her. She had no clue and didn't understand it in simplest terms. "Ok what if I wanted to consume more fat and just added non fat calories to my total intake....that would lower my percentage right? Uhhh....what? lol

    @ David
    I am thinking I may be LP(a) and I have been taking extra Vitamin D as well as a high dose of fish oil. Next cardiologist visit I will discuss Niacin as well as pattern B possibilities.

  • David

    8/26/2010 7:41:39 AM |

    Tommy, what about stress and sleep?  Stress is a killer...

  • Tommy

    8/26/2010 12:42:21 PM |

    David, that is my suspicion. It's complicated because a lot of things happened at once at that time. Through July and August I was under stress from problems at work combined with personal family issues. In September i went on a cruise an ate up a storm as well as drank more than normal gaining 14 lbs. (my prior good blood labs gave me confidence ..ha ha ha.) Then I came home, worked out hard and lost all the weight in a week. Then my grand daughter got sick and I was very stressed out about it while my work issues were still mounting. In October I had an argument in the morning before leaving work (I had been switched to an overnight shift)and was stewing when I went to sleep. I woke up a few hours later having a heart attack. The rest is history.

  • Ned Kock

    8/26/2010 2:50:39 PM |

    Hi Dr. Davis.

    These numbers are awful, but I think a point must be stressed regarding natural vs. industrial carbohydrate-rich foods. These numbers are not typical for normoglycemic folks who eat natural carbohydrate-rich foods.

    Avoiding natural carbohydrate-rich foods in the absence of compromised glucose metabolism is unnecessary. Those foods do not “tire” the pancreas significantly more than protein-rich foods do.

    Protein elicits an insulin response that is comparable to that of natural carbohydrate-rich foods, on a gram-adjusted basis (but significantly lower than that of refined carbohydrate-rich foods, like doughnuts and bagels).

    http://healthcorrelator.blogspot.com/2010/04/insulin-responses-to-foods-rich-in.html

    And nobody can live without protein. It is an essential nutrient. Usually protein does not lead to a measurable glucose response because glucagon is secreted together with insulin in response to ingestion of protein, preventing hypoglycemia.

  • Anonymous

    8/26/2010 10:33:29 PM |

    I definitely get the whole low-carb thing, but I think you always use the extreme cases to make your point.  Even dietitians would not recommend that much starch.  In fact, many of the "top" dietitians limit starch quite drastically in their meal plans.  They are not as ignorant as you think.  However, because they have clinical experience (which I know you have too), they know that draconian, restrictive diets do not work.  Therefore, they work starches in the diet a bit, so people don't feel "deprived."  Still they choose "better" starch options like beans (OMG LECTINS!!!).

    I do not believe for one second that the majority of people claiming to be eating according to the USDA guidelines are doing so within the correct caloric guidelines.  They are eating far too much and making terrible choices for starches to boot.  Portion control is tough obviously.  I think people who cannot master it may find low-carb useful because they eliminate starches/sugars outright and don't have to worry about serving sizes.  Plus, ketosis gives them a metabolic advantage allowing them to consume more calories and still lose weight.  It definitely is not an end all solution though.

  • Anonymous

    8/26/2010 10:37:29 PM |

    Also, they don't bad mouth carbs in the press because people being people would start avoiding things like vegetables.

    There is nothing inherently wrong with carbs.  We just have to eat them within reason.  Just like calcium for example.  Too much calcium is linked to heart attacks and prostate cancer.  But in moderate amounts, it is helpful.

  • stop smoking help

    8/27/2010 3:47:04 AM |

    Okay, I went my two weeks without wheat carbs. My results are purely non-scientific, but here goes. I lost 4 pounds, down to 156. I wasn't hungry at all. I didn't have any bread cravings like I thought I would. But I did have a hard time sleeping, for whatever reason.

    After my two weeks I had angel hair pasta and a hamburger on a wheat roll. My stomach was slightly upset for a couple of days once I started eating wheat carbs again - probably just a coincidence though.

    So I proved I could do it and I proved to myself that I wouldn't starve or go crazy without my bread. So, I think I'll be more careful about the wheat I put into my system. On the other hand, it looks like May needs to correct things and do it sooner than later.

  • scall0way

    8/29/2010 7:19:55 PM |

    Just goes to show ya. I'd *love* to weigh what Mary weighs - but it seems there is more involved that that. I just had an NMR test recently myself. Total LDL particle count was 2018. My doctor is freaked and says it's a horrible number. Every website I consult says it's a horrible number -though my small LDL is 212, only 10.6% of the total. But all the websites I consult say the total number is far more a risk factor than paticle size.

    But what were the HDL and triglycerides of the people with high particle counts. High like Mary's? My own HDL (measured just last week) is 66 and my triglycerides 49.

    But how do you get the particle number down? I've already been low-carb for four years, gluten-free for 18 months, avoid all sugars, take D3, magenesium, K2, 1500 mg niacin.

    Might it go down if I can get my thyroid normalized? That's one issue I'm still trying to work through with my doctor. Sheesh, the older I get the harder it gets. So many things to consider I sometimes wonder how anyone manages to stay alive for a few weeks - let alone many years for most of us.

  • Tommy

    8/30/2010 1:54:37 PM |

    So for people with existing coronary artery issues and Small particle LDL is it true that increasing fat (especially saturated fat) only makes this worse? If you go low carb you need to also be low fat?
    I read that "low fat" is bad for Pattern A but beneficial to pattern B.

    Dr. Davis?

Add comment

Loading