Addictive Foods

25. June 2007 William Davis (3)
Kraft Foods, Inc. is manufacturer of Kool Aid, Oscar Mayer, Kraft Macaroni and Cheese, Velveeta, Honey Maid Grahams, and hundreds of other processed food products. Post cereals also falls under the umbrella of Kraft with products like Raisin Bran, Post Toasties, and Fruity Pebbles. Annual revenues in 2006 for Kraft: $34.4 billion. A big operation with enormous influence over our eating habits.

Nabisco is manufacturer of Oreos, Ritz Crackers, Chips Ahoy and many others. Like Kraft/Post, it is also a big player.

While Nabisco was owned for several years by tobacco giant RJ Reynolds, in 2000 it was acquired by Philip Morris, another big tobacco manufacturer.

More recently in Spring, 2007, Philip Morris (now called Altria--you'd change your name, too, if it was synonymous with dirt) spun off its Kraft subsidiary for a big profit. However, the management structures remain intertwined.

In other words, despite the shuffling of shares, the two industries, big tobacco and big food, are in many respects one and the same.

Is it any surprise that the same industry that made billions of dollars pushing addictive nicotine products responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people is now intimately involved with addictive products produced and marketed by the processed food industry?

If you believe that food manufacturers are innocently and honestly conducting their businesses, simply think back to the testimony provided in front of Congress during the tobacco industry hearings. Broad deception, concealed truths, and outright lies were commonplace. There was no conscience involved. This was about money--and lots of it.

Why should the processed food industry, intimate with the tobacco industry, be any different?

If you want control over heart disease and your heart scan score, buy produce and buy local. Spend your time in the produce aisle, not the cereal or chip aisle. Unprocessed food, unadorned by bright labels, cartoon animals, American Heart Association endorsements, that's what we should seek.

Heart Scan Curiosities #7

25. June 2007 William Davis (1)



Here's a situation that crops up once in a while, occurring in perhaps 2% of heart scans.

The white within the circled area represents calcium, and thereby atherosclerotic plaque, situated immediately at the "mouth", or opening, of the the right coronary artery. What is somewhat unusual is that this plaque is not principally coronary, but aortic. That is, the plaque is mostly situated in the large vessel called the aorta. The three coronary arteries arise from the aorta.

In this instance, the aortic plaque involves the mouth of the right coronary artery. (In views not shown, the plaque also extends into the artery as well.) I call this a "double whammy" because the same plaque can post risk for heart attack and stroke.

Generally, aortic plaques pose risk for stroke. When aortic plaque fragments, little bits and pieces can travel upward to the brain and block an artery, thus a stroke.

In the coronaries, disrupted ("ruptured") plaques don't generally shower debris, but permit blood clot formation, resulting in heart attack.

This plaque, however, poses the theoretical risk of both heart attack and stroke because of its strategic location.

Should a plaque like this be handled any differently? I don't think so. But it does provide another reason to take atherosclerotic plaque in any artery seriously.

The nutrition counterculture

23. June 2007 William Davis (2)
When we look back over our American nutritional history over the last 50 years, it's hard not to come to the conclusion that much of the innovation in nutrition did not come from official agencies like the Food and Nutrition Board of the Institute of Medicine, the National Academy of Sciences, the FDA, the USDA, or the AMA.

Instead, it came from the popular culture. It came from bold, extravagant claims made by maverick figures like Ancel Keys, Nathan Pritikin, Dean Ornish, and Robert Atkins. Of course, some ideas have now fallen by the wayside, dismissed in a broad American "experiment" as ineffective, impractical, or kooky. But it permitted experimentation on an extraordinary scale with millions of people following a particular strategy at a time.

The advice of the official agencies tended to be reactionary. When nutritional deficiencies (remember those?) of the early 1900s were prevalent, they issued advice on food choices to help alleviate deficiencies. When deficiency transformed into excess after World War II, "smart" food choices from food groups and "sensible eating" became the theme.

Unfortunately, the advice was always adulterated by the enormous influence of various special interests, anxious to protect their national franchise. Powerful groups like the meat industry, wheat producers, and the dairy industry all made sure they had a big hand in crafting and influencing what was told to the American people.

The result: the advice offered by official groups has always represented the compromise of what some agency wished to convey to the people and the very powerful input of industry. What if the government decided to advise us what automobile to buy? Imagine the uproar in the auto industry when Washington tells us to buy Toyota for fuel economy and reliability. How long would that advice last?

That's why almost no knowledgeable adult follows the advice of the USDA, the National Academy of Sciences, or the Food Pyramid. I believe that we all intuitively recognize that the advice is watered-down, sometimes silly, sometimes downright unhealthy.

Nonetheless, the national experiment in diet that has taken place since 1950 has led to a collective wisdom of what is good and what is bad. The most productive conversations on nutrition therefore take place outside of the USDA and Washington. It occurs, instead, in places like bookstores, websites, and the media. Of course, there's lots of misinformation and profiteering in these sectors, as well. But like the enormous force unleashed by the collective wisdom of those contributing to the Wikipedia phemonenon, we've zig-zagged to something closer to the truth than ever uttered by an official agency.

Prescription vitamin D

23. June 2007 William Davis (32)
Niacin:

Over-the-counter: $2-5 per month
Prescription: $120 per month


Fish oil:

Over-the-counter: $3-6 per month
Prescription: $120 per month


Vitamin D:

Over-the-counter: $2 per month
Prescription: $70 per month



With vitamin D in particular, the prescription form is vastly inferior to the over-the-counter preparation. This is because the prescription form is ergocalciferol, or vitamin D2, not the effective human form, vitamin D3 or cholecalciferol.

When you're exposed to sun, what form of vitamin D is activated in the skin? It's all vitamin D3, no vitamin D2 whatsoever. Vitamin D3 is also far more effective than D2. People taking D3 (as long as it's oil-based) easily obtain healthy levels of vitamin D in the blood. People taking 50,000 units per day of D2 (the recommended quantity) remain miserably deficient, with minor increases in vitamin D blood levels. In short, D2 barely works at all. D3 works easily and effectively.

Moreover, D2 is the plant-based form. It is a form not found naturally in humans. D3 is the mammalian form, the same found in humans that exerts all its biologic benefits.

Then why is the prescription form of vitamin D2 (brand names Driscol and Calciferol) more expensive?

It's the same old pharmaceutical industry scam: Look for something patent protectable, regardless of whether it's superior to the non-patent protectable product, then sell it for exagerated profits. Though it is inferior and the science and clinical experience prove that it's inferior, you can still fool lots of people, including prescribing physicians. So what if you only make $50 or $100 million?

Don't fall for it. Prescription doesn't necessarily mean superior. In fact, the prescription form may be significantly inferior, as with vitamin D2. But the pharmaceutical industry carries such power and persuasion, who's going to know?

Nutrition activist Mike Adams

20. June 2007 William Davis (1)












I borrowed the above comic from the website of nutritionist, more properly nutrition activist and author, Mike Adams. His website, www.newstarget.com, was a pleasant surprise.

I was actually looking for some thoughts on pharmaceutical advertising and its pervasive and destructive effects and came across one of Adam's reports, Pharmaceutical television advertising is a grand hoax at http://www.newstarget.com/021526.html. The piece is a rant against the pharmaceutical industry's constant bombardment of the media, who have also been co-opted into their service, enticed by the enormous advertising revenues the drug industry brings.

But I was surprised to find an insightful, informative website on health issues, particularly healthy eating that rejects the manufactured food industry's intensive effort to persuade us to eat their products. While I don't agree with everything Adams has to say, his website provides some great food for thought. He also provides lots of downloadable information.

There's also some great laughs at his poke at the pharmaceutical industry with his Disease Mongering Engine at http://www.newstarget.com/disease-mongering-engine.asp, in which you get to create your own diseases. I got a real kick out of this.

CT scans and radiation exposure

19. June 2007 William Davis (8)


The NY Times ran an article called

With Rise in Radiation Exposure, Experts Urge Caution on Tests at

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/19/health/19cons.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1182254102-vQpytpx6W/Z9gvAaNPDZvA



“This is an absolutely sentinel event, a wake-up call,” said Dr. Fred A. Mettler Jr., principal investigator for the study, by the National Council on Radiation Protection. “Medical exposure now dwarfs that of all other sources.”


Where do CT heart scans fall?

Let's first take a look at exposure measured for different sorts of tests:



Typical effective radiation dose values

Computed tomography Milliseverts (mSv)

Head CT 1 – 2 mSv
Pelvis CT 3 – 4 mSv
Chest CT 5 – 7 mSv
Abdomen CT 5 – 7 mSv
Abdomen/pelvis CT 8 – 11 mSv
Coronary CT angiography 5 – 12 mSv

Non-CT Milliseverts (mSv)

Hand radiograph Less than 0.1 mSv
Chest radiograph Less than 0.1 mSv
Mammogram 0.3 – 0.6 mSv
Barium enema exam 3 – 6 mSv
Coronary angiogram 5 – 10 mSv
Sestamibi myocardial perfusion (per injection) 6 – 9 mSv
Thallium myocardial perfusion (per injection) 26 – 35 mSv

Source: Cynthia H. McCullough, Ph.D., Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN


If you have a heart scan on an EBT device, then your exposure is 0.5-0.6 mSv, roughly the same as a mammogram or several standard chest x-rays.

A heart scan on a 16- or 64-slice multidetector device, your exposure is around 1.0-2.0 mSv, about the same as 2-3 mammograms, though dose can vary with this technology depending on how it is performed (gated to the EKG, device settings, etc.)

CT coronary angiography presents a different story. This is where radiation really escalates and puts the radiation exposure issue in the spotlight. As Dr. Cynthia McCullough's chart shows above, the radiation exposure with CT coronary angiograms is 5-12 mSv, the equivalent of 100 chest x-rays or 20 mammograms. Now that's a problem.

The exposure is about the same for a pelvic or abdominal CT. The problem is that some centers are using CT coronary angiograms as screening procedures and even advocating their use annually. This is where the alarm needs to be sounded. These tests, as wonderful as the information and image quality can be, are not screening tests. Just like a pelvic CT, they are diagnostic tests done for legimate medical questions. They are not screening tests to be applied broadly and used year after year.

Always be mindful of your radiation exposure, as the NY Times article rightly advises. However, don't be so frightened that you are kept from obtaining truly useful information from, for instance, a CT heart scan (not angiography) at a modest radiation cost.



Detail on radiation exposure with CT coronary angiograms on multidetector devices can be found at Hausleiter J, Meyer T, Hadamitzyky M et al. Radiation Dose Estimates From Cardiac Multislice Computed Tomography in Daily Practice: Impact of Different Scanning Protocols on Effective Dose Estimates. Circulation 2006;113:1305-1310, one of several studies on this issue.

Mediterranean diet vs. American Heart Association Diet

18. June 2007 William Davis (4)
In 1994, the Lyon Heart Study demonstrated a 50-70% reduction in coronary events in participants who followed a diet rich in vegetables, olive oil, fish, nuts, red wine, and enjoyed meals as a family activity. Various other studies have documented similar phenomena with less metabolic syndrome, better lipid patterns, less obesity with the Mediterranean lifestyle.

There are two fundamental differences between the Mediterranean diet and the diet advocated by the American Heart Association (AHA) for people with heart disease: the Mediterranean diet uses olive oil more liberally, such that fat calories can reach 40% of total; and, unlike the AHA diet, processed foods are not a part of the Mediterranean diet. Greeks, for instance, are far less likely to eat Count Chocula cereal for breakfast, or snack on Healthy Choice Premium Caramel Swirl Sandwich (ice cream sandwiches) or Malt-O-Meal Honey Nut Scooters. All three of these foods on listed on the AHA Heart-Check Mark heart-healthy program.

In other words, remove all the processed foods, and the AHA diet pretty closely resembles the Mediterranean diet. There are differences but they tend to be relatively small. If the only major difference is the presence of processed foods, wouldn't you therefore expect the AHA to embrace the Mediterranean diet?

Here's what their official stand on the Mediterranean diet states:

Does a Mediterranean-style diet follow American Heart Association dietary recommendations?

Mediterranean-style diets are often close to our dietary recommendations, but they don’t follow them exactly. In general, the diets of Mediterranean peoples contain a relatively high percentage of calories from fat. This is thought to contribute to the increasing obesity in these countries, which is becoming a concern.



The AHA is actually lukewarm towards the diet that was the first to show a dramatic decrease in heart attack and death. Why?

The answer is obvious, once cast in this light. To wholeheartedly endorse the Mediterranean diet might be seen as an indirect rejection of American processed foods. You know, the foods that have caused an extraordinary and unprecedented epidemic of obesity in the U.S., the foods that are manufactured by ConAgra, General Mills, Kelloggs--all also major financial contributors to the AHA, according to the AHA Annual Report.

I tell my patients: If you want heart disease, follow the American Heart Association diet. In my view, it is a diet founded on politics and money, not on health. How else could Cocoa Puffs be regarded as heart healthy?

Track Your Plaque in 50,000 BC

16. June 2007 William Davis (3)
Imagine we could send you back in a time machine to 50,000 BC.

However, our agreement: no modern tools or equipment. Just your brain, hands, and legs. And your landing spot will be tropical or semi-tropical, the same climate that humans spent much of their evolutionary time in.

Not only might you rub elbows with contemporaries like homo erectus and neanderthalensis, you'd also have to fend for your life and survival.

To eat, you will have to chase and kill wild game, all with your bare hands or crude tools crafted from sticks and stones. You will have to learn what wild berries, roots, and plants are edible and distingusih them from those that make you retch, make your bowels run, or kill you. You won't be able to cultivate grain, at least for a good long time, since you don't have a community that makes such an undertaking easier.

Instead, you are constantly on the run, from the moment you awake until you finally settle back as the sun sets, hopefully with a full stomach, but often empty and growling, anticipating the hunt and forage of tomorrow.

You are outdoors all day, except for the period when you hide in your cave or self-made shelter. You wear what little clothing you can make yourself from your kills, a skin or two. Your skin becomes a dark brown, a 5 foot 10 inch male will weigh 140 lbs, a 5 foot 5 inch woman 95 lbs. There are obvious downsides: your teeth will rot, you will be prone to infections, and predators view you as fair game.

But the result will be that many chronic diseases of modern life will no longer be worries for you. Heart disease? Highly unlikely. Do you need vitamin D? No, because you are outdoors virtually all day with most of your body surface area exposed to sun. Omega-3 fatty acids? You get those from the wild game you eat, since they have higher omega-3 content feeding in the wild, not eating corn like modern livestock. Since your body fat is minimal, just enough for survival, you don't need niacin.

In other words, many of the strategies of the Track Your Plaque program are modern necessities, responses to the "deficiencies" of modern life. Of course, I don't really have a time machine. I also doubt that you wish to hunt wild game every day, forage for plants and roots, run nearly-naked in the sun. You probably also have become accustomed to brushing your teeth and not viewing every animal as a potential threat to your life.

Nonetheless, I find this an interesting exercise for understanding the role of all the tools we use in the Track Your Plaque program for plaque control.

When pessimism wins

15. June 2007 William Davis (3)
When I first met Hank, I immediately sensed it: anger, hostility, fear. His heart scan score of 685 just made it worse.


He didn't want to be there talking to me. His wife was giving him a hard time. Work was a constant source of irritation. The receptionist at the front desk screwed up his paperwork. Our office charges were too much.


In short, Hank was a pessimist. A bad one.


All the nutrition information out there is bunk. Only he knew how he should eat right. It's stupid to take a lot of fish oil. "You want me to grow gills?"


Among the parameters we use in the Track Your Plaque program is blood pressure during exercise, which provides a surrogate measure of blood pressure during emotional stress, anxiety, etc. "No, I don't need that. I already exercise." No amount of justification could change his mind. "A guy at work had a stress test. They said everything was fine, then Bang! He drops dead. What good is that?"


Hank did go along with a few pieces of advice.


A repeat heart scan 12 months after the first: 870, a 27% per year rate of increase. That's about what would happen if Hank had done nothing, had taken no action to try and stop or reduce his heart scan score.


I don't know if Hank will ever succeed in dropping his score. In fact, I suspect that he will fail, meaning that plaque will grow and he will eventually, perhaps in a year, two or three, require several stents, heart bypass, or have a heart attack. In other words, Hank's pessimism is a self-fulfilling phenomenon: If he believes he will fail, he will. If he believes the world is a rotten place, it is.


Is it possible to "cure" someone like Hank of his deeply-rooted pessimistic attitudes? I don't know of any easy solutions for someone with attitudes as deeply-ingrained as Hank's. (See my prior post, "Cure for pessimism?" at http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2007_05_01_archive.html.)

I believe it does help to make someone aware of their attitudes and that it does indeed exert ill health-effects--if they will believe it. But this is a very tough nut to crack.

Bad news on CoQ10?

13. June 2007 William Davis (8)
A review of the effects of Coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10) on the muscle aches and weakness (myopathy) of statin drug therapy was just published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

(Marcoff L, Thompson PD. The role of coenzyme Q10 in statin-associated myopathy. J Amer Coll Cardiol 2007;49(23):2231-2237.)

This is not a study, but a review of the existing scientific and clinical data available on this topic. The study authors conclude with a lukewarm statement:

". . .there is insufficient evidence to prove the etiologic [causal] role of CoQ10 deficiency in statin-associated myopathy and that large, well-designed clinical trials are required to address this issue. The routine use of CoQ10 cannot be recommended in statin-treated patients. Nevertheless, there are no known risks to this supplement and there is some anecdotal and preliminary trial evidence of its effectiveness. Consequently, CoQ10 can be tested in patients requiring statin treatment, who develop statin myalgia, and who cannot besatisfactorily treated with other agents. Some patients may respond, if only via placebo effect."

Should the media get hold of this report, be prepared for the usual "Nutritional supplement no help for drug toxicity" headlines, or "Yet another nutritional supplement shows no benefit" with parallels drawn to vitamin C or E.

There are several issue that need to be factored into the discussion:

1) This is not a study, just a review. Thus, any biases of the authors are more likely to exert themselves.

2) The understanding of CoQ10 absorption among different preparations may be an issue. I just received a mailing from Life Extension that made extravagant claims about the superior absorption of ubiquinol, to be distinguished from ubiquinone, the more common form. They claim that eight-fold increased absorption and blood levels of CoQ10 are achievable with ubiquinol. Unfortunately, virtually all the supportive data are unpublished, proprietary observations, i.e., generated by companies who make or sell it. This is as reliable as drug manufacturers who publish glowing reports on their own drugs--perhaps it's true, but it requires unbiased corroboration.

3) Despite the lack of a large, well-funded clinical trial (all are small), the issue continues to live and breathe because of the powerful anecdotal experience.

In our experience, CoQ10 does work. It doesn't work all of the time, perhaps just 80-90% of the time. It does generally require higher doses (100 mg per day, occasionally more). It very clearly must be an oil-based gelcap (just like vitamin D) to work; capsules containing powder do not work.

It's difficult to doubt when someone starts a statin drug, develops the muscle aches and weakness, begins CoQ10 and obtains distinct relief, stops CoQ10 and aches and weakness return, then only to go away again with resumption of CoQ10 . I've seen this countless times.

We do need better information on CoQ10. There's no doubt about it. For people who obtain benefit from statin therapy, I think CoQ10 remains a useful solution. A better solution would be to get rid of the offending drug. But that's not always possible--e.g., LDL cholesterol 190 mg/dl despite the best diet and "adjunctive" food effort. Then CoQ10 can be very useful.
One hour blood sugar: Key to carbohydrate control and reversing diabetes

One hour blood sugar: Key to carbohydrate control and reversing diabetes

2. August 2011 William Davis (27)
Diabetics are instructed to monitor blood glucose first thing in the morning and two hours after eating. This helps determine whether blood sugar is controlled with medications like metformin, Januvia, Byetta injections, or insulin.

But that's not how you use blood sugar to use to prevent or reverse diabetes. Two-hour blood sugars are also of no help in deciding whether you have halted glycation, or glucose modification of proteins the process that leads to cataracts, brittle cartilage and arthritis, oxidation of small LDL particles, atherosclerosis, kidney disease, etc.

So the key is to check one-hour after-eating (postprandial) blood sugars, a time when blood glucose peaks after consumption of carbohydrates. (It may peak somewhat sooner or later, depending on factors such as how much fluid was in the meal; protein, fat, and fiber content; presence of foods like vinegar that slow gastric emptying; the form of carbohydrate such as amylopectin A vs. amylopectin B, amylose, fructose, along with other factors. Once in a while, you might consider constructing your own postprandial glucose curve by doing fingersticks every 15 minutes to determine when your peak occurs.)

I reject the insane notion that after-eating blood sugars of less than 200 mg/dl are acceptable, the value accepted widely as the cutoff for health. Blood sugars this high occurring with any regularity ensure cataracts, arthritis, and all the other consequences of cumulative glycation. I therefore aim to keep one-hour after-eating glucoses 100 mg/dl or less. If you start in a pre-diabetic or diabetic range of, say, 120 mg/dl, then I advise people to not allow blood glucose to go any higher. A pre-meal blood glucose of 120 mg/dl would therefore be followed by an after-eating blood glucose of no higher than 120 mg/dl.

No doubt: This is strict. But people who do this:

--Lose weight from visceral fat
--Heighten insulin sensitivity
--Drop blood pressure
--Drop HbA1c and fasting glucose over time
--Reduce small LDL and other carbohydrate-sensitive measures

By the way, if you inadvertently trigger a high blood sugar like I did when I took my kids to the all-you-can-eat Indian buffet, go for a walk, bike, or burn the sugar off with a 30-minute or longer physical effort. Check your blood sugar again and it should be back in desirable range. But then learn from your lesson: Eliminate or reduce portion size of the culprit carbohydrate food.
Tags :

Comments (27) -

  • Might-o'chonri-AL

    8/2/2011 6:11:40 AM |

    Glyco-sylation occurs inside a cell's endoplasmic reticulum lumen when certain  carbohydrates  (in the form of N-linked oligo-saccharides) meld with a newly folded protein that gets translated into  a glyco-protein.  There are different rates of activation and de-activation  between glyco-sylated and un-glycosylated proteins; this affects how that protein migrates as it tries to perform it's job and how  glycation can induce degenerative states.  Tissue cells with endoplasmic reticulum stress can exasperate certain disease progression because such "stress" there promotes more glycosylation.

  • Annabel

    8/2/2011 12:40:42 PM |

    I couldn't agree more with the advice to test every 15 minutes as a means of discovering your own "sugar curve." When I tried this, I found that my own peak falls pretty consistently at 75 minutes after beginning a meal. Testing at 2 hours completely overlooks my highest blood glucose levels.

    It's a particularly good technique for those folks whose A1c levels are higher than their fingersticks would predict...it's almost surely because they're doing their sticks way past their glucose peak.

    When test strips cost up to a buck apiece, it may feel hard to justify using six or eight of them on a single meal--but what you learn may save tens of thousands in medical bills!

  • Curt

    8/2/2011 1:31:12 PM |

    Another great article - thank you! I'm curious about your thoughts on controlled 1 hour blood sugars (mine are rarely over 110) but baseline levels that aren't much lower. Typically in the 95-105 range. I will get something in the 80s occasionally, but 100 is more common. I never really spike - even a high carb meal will only get me to 130s or so and that never really happens as I don't eat much sugar/starch at all.

    Another quick question: You've mentioned a couple times recently about this way of eating being particularly good for VISCERAL fat. That is exactly what I've found. Tremendous benefits and I feel great. I have leveled out for a while (months) in fat loss, however, with a good amount of subcutaneous fat still present. Is there another protocol for getting after this type of fat? I'm already no wheat, low carb, paleo.

    Thanks again for your excellent articles! Always learning something new.......

  • ShottleBop

    8/2/2011 1:38:20 PM |

    Do you have citations to support your statement that glycation occurs at BGs of 100 or more?  This is one of the more-commonly discussed issues on diabetes discussion boards--but folks are wont to ask for backup.

  • Jeff C

    8/2/2011 1:47:11 PM |

    Regarding glycation specifically...

    1. Do you agree that fructose ("frucation") causes more AGE than glucose?
    2. What to you make of Ray Peat's assertion that poly-fats are much more glycalating than glucose?

    "The so-called "advanced glycation end products," that have been blamed on glucose excess, are mostly derived from the peroxidation of the "essential fatty acids." The name, “glycation,” indicates the addition of sugar groups to proteins, such as occurs in diabetes and old age, but when tested in a controlled experiment, lipid peroxidation of polyunsaturated fatty acids produces the protein damage about 23 times faster than the simple sugars do." (Fu, et al., 1996)." - Ray Peat

  • Richard

    8/2/2011 3:21:55 PM |

    Thanks for the great article!
    I've just begun tracking blood sugars closely, changed my diet to one very low in carbs and no grains, and am determined to find ways to keep at it. I've started a blog just track my progress and keep me honest: http://transformation-transformative.blogspot.com/
    I'll also try the 15 minute testing to see where my personal peak in blood sugar occurs.
    Again, many thanks!

  • steve

    8/2/2011 3:31:08 PM |

    Hi Dr. Davis:  What is the relationship between fasting BG taken at the Dr's office and A!C?  My fasting BG level is 73.5 but my A1C is 5.4.  I would have expected the A1C to more correspond to the fasting measurement; in the case of my wife it does.  Is it related more to the red blood cells lingering around longer or lipoprotein particles which increases the chance of glycation?  Recently had a larger than normal amount of carbs in a meal- rice and blueberries and BG spiked to 119, not to bad, but will experiment with carb portion to keep under 100 as BG may be a contributing factor to my CAD.  I am also a hyperabsorber of fat despite being an ApoE 3/3.

    As an aside, i have sent around a link of one of your interviews regarding Wheat Belly and many eyes have been opened as well as many looking to buy the book.  Might not be a bad idea to have a link to any of your interviews on Wheat Belly posted to this site.
    Thanks for the enlightening good work!

  • Dr. William Davis

    8/3/2011 12:23:09 AM |

    Hi, Shottle--
    This will be the topic of an upcoming discussion. The documentation of this effect is quite extensive. It is no longer a matter of "if" but "how much."

  • Dr. William Davis

    8/3/2011 12:25:11 AM |

    Hi, Jeff--
    This is one of oranges and apples comparisons.
    Fructose does indeed induce flagrant glycation. Glucose induces glycation, though less vigorously.

    However, there is a separate but very poorly named process called exogenous glycation which has less to do with glycation than with oxidation of fats.

    This will be the topic of future discussions.

  • Dr. William Davis

    8/3/2011 12:26:22 AM |

    My first thought is that, if weight loss is ongoing, there is a temporary situation of insulin resistance that generally dissipates with weight stabilization.

    It's also possible that your pancreas has inadequate baseline production of insulin. I'm hoping it's the first possibility.

  • Dr. William Davis

    8/3/2011 12:28:05 AM |

    Hi, Steve-

    You will find that, if you did frequent fingersticks around the clock, the highish A1c reflects the higher blood glucose values that occur after meals.

    Thanks for the feedback on the Wheat Belly project. I will indeed crosslink some of the more relevant discussions.

  • Might-o'chondri-AL

    8/3/2011 2:39:31 AM |

    Advanced glycation end products (AGE) involve some of haemoglobin's hydro-carbon Beta side chain valine residue linking up to non-polar "glucose" aldehyde compounds and certain non-"glucose" aldehydes. Various pathological kinds of AGEs can occur from distinct events; in one situation it is macrophage activity producing enzymatic myelo-peroxidase, which can activate hypochlorite favoring a serine amino acid wing to form up to make the AGE called glyco-aldehyde.

    Probably the AGE called methyl-glyoxal is the one most relevant to diabetes prevention; since Type 1 diabetics blood serum levels of methyl-glyoxal is +/- 6 times higher than normal. This AGE can be formed when the byproduct triose-phosphate (triose = subset of carbs) is generated from the glycolytic pathway called  Embden-Meyerhof; this  byproduct risks being made into methyl-glyoxal.

    Maybe the most well known AGEs are the non-enzymatic Amadori products formed via hydrolysis; one is called glyoxal coming from glucose oxidation. And the other Amadori type AGE is 3-deoxy-glucosone (3DG), which requires fructo-selysine and the fructos-amine 3 kinase cascade to shuffle together 3DG.

  • Might-o'chondri-AL

    8/3/2011 2:40:38 AM |

    Diabetes reveals the problem with AGEs; this is because diabetics risk incurring kidney nephro-pathy, One of the pathological results is oxidative kidney stress, which limits sodium (Na) excretion thereby fostering  hyper-tension . When AGEs like 3DG, glyoxal & methyl-glyoxal  (among others, like pentosidine ) circulate into the kidneys their carbonyl compounds  are hard to clear by the kidneys; the side effect is to engender  uric uremia problems and meanwhile levels of carbonyls build up in what is called "carbonyl stress".
    Japan research of the plant compound chamaemeloside found that in humans it lowered levels of the AGEs 3DG & pentosidne better than any other natural remedy; optimal response was reduction of down to 1/5 th of subject's starting levels.  Chamaemeloside is the active compound in chamomile (Anthemis noblis); the extraction formula was 1 Kg of chamomile flowers steeped covered in 20 Lt. water for 3 hours at 80* celcius ( a lab temperature probably not critical for home remedy preparation).

  • Peter Silverman

    8/3/2011 12:56:13 PM |

    Volek and Phinney in their new book about carbohydrate restriction think that as you increase  fat from 30% to 60% of your diet, insulin resistance increases, then it drops when you go above 60%.  It seems that among the most experienced researchers of carbohydrate restriction, there's little consensus about the optimal amount of fat or carbs.  Ron Krausse, for instance, thinks 35% to 45% is optimal.

  • steve

    8/3/2011 5:23:50 PM |

    Peter:
    When these researchers talk about carb levels are they considering vegetables to be carbs, or just fruits, grains, potatoes?

  • frank weir

    8/3/2011 6:41:32 PM |

    You must mean, "can exacerbate certain disease progression...." meaning: to increase the severity, violence, or bitterness of; aggravate

  • frank weir

    8/3/2011 6:59:22 PM |

    This is wonderful information BUT I wonder if it might be unfortunate if folks who routinely have post-prandials of 120 to 140 take your 100 level as a sign of "failure"...things are seldom so cut and dried, black and white. I don't know if I'm hitting 100 or less  after every meal, but my A1C has dropped from 7.5 to 5.8 since last November restricting carbs. And I've lost 30 pounds. I will begin to be more dogmatic about one-hour glucose checks but my rough sense is that I'm not at 100 or less a majority of the time. But I might be wrong about that. Do you see what I'm getting at? Glucose control is an ongoing process that includes lots of self education since most GP's are not keen AT ALL on restricting carbs, including mine. When I read your post, my initial feeling was, "Cripes, 100 after EVERY meal? Don't think I can do that...."

  • Might-o'chondri-AL

    8/4/2011 1:05:26 AM |

    From another commentator here, in an  earlier thread of Dr. Davis' here is how to use HbA1c to determine your average blood glucose level (note: this is not a morning "fasting" level) .
    1st: multiply your HbA1c by 28.7
    2nd: subtract 46.7 from 1st amount
    3rd: take last number as your average waking hours mg/dL blood glucose over last  few months  
    ex:  HbA1c of 5.4 x 28.7 = 159.98 minus 46.7 = 108.28 mg/dL of average blood glucose level

  • Peter Silverman

    8/4/2011 2:24:31 AM |

    They don't count non-starchy vegetable as carbs.

  • ShottleBop

    8/4/2011 3:15:11 AM |

    Thanks for the heads up!

  • Find Master

    8/4/2011 1:07:59 PM |

    Dear Web Master,

    We are in process of link building of our site to increase its relevancy and traffic.
    Can you give me information on how I can place my link on your page?

    Our link details are following:
    Title: Canadian Pharmacy
    URL: http://www.canadadrugcenter.com/
    Description:

    CanadaDrugCenter.com is America's choice for safe and affordable prescription and non-prescription medications. Our licensed Canadian mail order pharmacy will provide you with substantial savings on all your medication needs.

  • Stephanie

    8/4/2011 2:13:27 PM |

    Dr. Davis,
    I have found that if I take my carb level too low (below 50g per day) that my fasting blood glucose levels actually go up rather than down.  If my carb intake is closer to 70-80, my fasting glucose is lower.

    Have you had this experience with some of your patients?  Can you shed any light onto what might be happening?

    Thanks!
    Stephanie

  • Anne

    8/4/2011 2:34:11 PM |

    Non-starchy vegetables do have carbs and I do have to count them. A half cup of broccoli can have about 6 carbs and since I limit my carbs to no more than 15g/meal, that broccoli on my plate is significant.

    I found getting a scale that reads carbs too was an important tool for me. I found I was ofter overestimating how much of a low carb veggie I could eat. If my blood sugar starts to rise, I go back to measuring and that seems to get me back on track.

    Anne

  • majkinetor

    8/14/2011 1:25:56 PM |

    I think thats normal, its commonly encountered on paleo forums/blogs. It has something to do with physiological insulin resistance, Petro @ Hyperlipid talked about. Look here:

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

  • majkinetor

    8/14/2011 1:38:24 PM |

    I wouldn't suggest that everybody blindly follow CHO < 50g / day. As always, its about the context. People usually forget that. We mostly extrapolate from results of people who already have metabolic problems.

    Anyway, I am currently perfectly healthy apart from some minor dermatology problems (eczema).
    When I have prolonged periods of reduced CHO input (around 50g / day), I eventually start having some mucus problems. Dry eyes particularly, but also joint pain. I am not 100% sure if its about low carb diet, but it looks like it. Now I target 75g < CHO < 100g per day by adding small potato and a bit more chocolate to my diet.

    I think overemphasizing carb reduction is not good thing for most people. Carbs should go down by pretty big amount for most people, but not to extreme. In anyway, its better to measure then to guess. My sugar is never above 110 after meal and fasting is always around 95.

  • John F

    8/13/2012 9:48:10 AM |

    I decided to take this advice and have been tracking my 60 mins postprandial blood glucose for the past two days to see if all the years I've been low carbing have been making any difference. Especially working my way through different foods to see how they affect me and I've ranged from 64 mg/dl to 97 mg/dl so I'm pretty hapy.

    However this evening 60 minutes after my dinner of panfried steak with a creamy cajun sauce I got a reading of just 55 mg/dl. A lot of websites say this is too low. I'm 32, healthy male, 5,9", weigh 160 lbs, not diabetic and I don't feel sick so I'm not sure what to make of this low reading. The only thing I did was finish a hard CrossFit workout about 30 mins before I had dinner... so a total of 90 minutes before the blood glucose test.

    Any advice on what this "low" reading means? I'm hoping it's normal and means I'm burning fat!

Add comment

Loading