Phytosterols, or just "sterols" to its friends and neighbors, are a group of cholesterol-like compounds that are abundant in the plant world. Lately, however, sterols have proliferated in the processed food supply, thanks to the observation that sterols reduce LDL cholesterol when ingested by humans.

This must mean that sterols are good for you.

Uh oh. Wait a minute: There is a rare disease called sitosterolemia in which there is unimpeded intestinal absorption of all sterols ingested through diet. They must have really low LDL cholesterols! Nope. They develop coronary disease--heart attacks, angina, etc.--in their late teens and 20s. In other words, if sterols gain access to your bloodstream, they are bad. Very bad.

Conventional thinking is that only a modest quantity of dietary sterols gain access to the bloodstream. But there are two potentially fatal flaws in this overly simplistic line of thinking:

1) What happens when you load up your diet with "heart healthy" sterols, such as those in "heart healthy" margarines, mayonnaise, and yogurt, effectively increasing sterol intake 10-fold?

2) What happens in people with the genetic pattern, apo E4, that is carried by 25% of the general population that permits much greater intestinal absorption of sterols?

My prediction: Despite the fact that sterols reduce LDL, they may, in certain genetically-susceptible people, such as those with apo E4, increase risk for heart disease: heart unhealthy.

Here are two studies that suggest that greater sterol absorption in people without sitosterolemia are at higher risk for heart disease:

Alterations in cholesterol absorption/synthesis markers characterize Framingham offspring study participants with CHD

Plasma sitosterol elevations are associated with an increased incidence of coronary events in men: results of a nested case-control analysis of the Prospective Cardiovascular Münster (PROCAM) study

As I suggested in a previous Heart Scan Blog post, a glucose meter is your best tool to:

1) Lose weight
2) Cure diabetes
3) Reduce or eliminate small LDL particles
4) Achieve anti-aging or age-slowing effects

But it means getting hold of a glucose meter and applying it in a very different way.

Diabetics typically check fasting morning glucose and again several times during the day to assess medication effects. But you and I can measure blood glucose to assess the immediate effects of food choices--two very different approaches.

The concept is simple: Check a blood glucose just prior to a food or meal of interest, then one hour after finishing.

Let's take two hypothetical breakfasts. First, oatmeal, a so-called "low-glycemic index" food. Slow-cooked, stone ground oatmeal with skim milk, a handful of walnuts, just a few blueberries.

Blood glucose just prior: 95 mg/dl
Blood glucose one hour after finish: 175 mg/dl

I made those numbers up, but this is a fairly typical response for many adults. (This is why "low-glycemic index" is an absurd notion.) This kind of response causes 1) glycation, the adverse effects of glucose modification of proteins that leads to cataracts, kidney disease, cartilage damage and arthritis, atherosclerosis, skin wrinkles, etc., 2) high insulin response that cascades into fat deposition, especially visceral fat ("wheat belly"), and 3) glucotoxicity, i.e., direct damage to the pancreas that can, over years, lead to diabetes.

Next day, let's try a breakfast of 3-egg omelet made with green peppers, sundried tomatoes, and olive oil.

Blood glucose just prior: 95 mg/dl
Blood glucose one hour after finish: 93 mg/dl

This is a meal of virtually zero-glycemic index. This kind of response triggers none of the effects experienced following the oatmeal. Repeated over time and you fail to trigger glycation, you stop provoking insulin, and visceral fat mobilizes rather than accumulates: you lose weight, particularly around the middle.

We therefore aim to keep the one-hour blood glucose 100 mg/dl or less. If you start with a high fasting blood glucose of, say, 118 mg/dl, then we aim to keep the one-hour after-eating blood glucose no higher than the pre-meal.

It works. Plain and simple.

This makes the primary care docs crazy: "How dare you check your blood sugar! You're not diabetic." In truth, blood glucose meters are relatively simple devices to use. The test strips and lancets will cost a few bucks. (The meters themselves are either low-cost or free, just like Gillette sometimes sends you a beautiful new razor for free but expects you to buy the blades). These are direct-to-consumer products. While a prescription written by your doctor for a glucose meter and supplies helps insurance cover the costs, you can easily get these devices without a prescription. Some stores, like Target, keep their devices out on the shelves with the shampoo and bath soap.

Warning: Anyone taking diabetes drugs will have to consult with their doctors about the safety of such an approach. Because this approach can actually cure diabetes in some people, if you are taking some diabetes drugs, especially glyburide, glipidize, and glimepiride, you can experience dangerously low blood sugars, just as any non-diabetic taking these drugs would.

Here are the results of the week-long poll asking the question:

Have you experienced a wheat re-exposure syndrome?

Yes, undesirable gastrointestinal effects 223 (41%)
Yes, asthma or sinus problems 51 (9%)
Yes, joint pains and/or swelling 85 (15%)
Yes, emotional or other nervous system effects 59 (10%) No, nothing, nada 107 (19%)

No. Wheat is sacred and you're all nuts 13 (2%)

There are several interesting observations to make from this informal poll. First, as I have observed, the most common wheat re-exposure syndrome is gastrointestinal, usually involving cramps, diarrhea, and lame explanations to your dinner partner.

Second most common: joint pains and/or swelling.

Third: asthma or sinus congestion.

The incidence of emotional or nervous system effects surprised me a bit. I didn't expect 10% of people to share this effect. This is an effect I also experience personally, along with the gastrointestinal consequences.

To be sure, this is a skewed poll, since many people likely come to this blog in the first place because of such issues. But I was nonetheless impressed with the relatively modest proportion of people who did not share such a re-exposure syndrome: only 19%.

Beyond the interesting numbers provided by readers, a good many also provided some fascinating and graphic comments. Here's a sample:

Sassy said:

Reflux -- starts a day later and goes for up to a week. And Bloat:2-5 inches on my waistline in a day, lasting up to three. Miserable. And why, having experienced this once, have I done it often enough to verify the connection with certainty? I am working on that one.

Anonymous said:

Wheat increased hunger with even with only a small amount. Crackers in soup was enough to set it off.

Also, when I was trying to get off wheat, I noticed that 2 eggs and 2 bacon and I could go 5 hours before hunger, or 2 eggs and 2 bacon and toast was good for three hours before hunger. That was the final step to giving up wheat. Now three years and 59 Kg [130 lbs!] loss later, there is no doubt in my mind that wheat is evil, and I do not regard it as suitable for human food. I speculate that it increases ghrelin or cortisol.

Anna said:

For me, in the two years since I began eating Gluten-Free (Low Carb for 6 years), the few times I've had re-exposure to wheat, I've experienced fast onset and intense abdominal pain (known exposure during the daytime) and heartburn, indigestion, intense nausea, and disrupted sleep (exposures during evening meal not discovered until the next day).

My husband wants to think he's fine with wheat (though I know that he has at least one gene that predisposes to celiac), but IMO, he isn't. He eats no wheat at home because that's the default, and he's OK with that. But if he goes out to dinner at a restaurant that serves "good" artisan bread, he will indulge in a few bites (he does restrict his carb intake, so it's still a limited amount). More often than not, he will sleep fitfully on those nights, snore more, and wake in the night with indigestion. He wants to bury his head in the sand and will only acknowledge the discomfort being due to eating too many carbs, not the wheat itself. I notice he sleeps fine if he eats a small amount of potato or rice. Go figure.

Our 12 yo son has been eating GF for two years also. About 6 months into GF, he unknowingly ate wheat a number of times (licorice candy laces at a friend's house), which resulted in outbreaks of canker sores in his mouth each time. He also exhibits mood and behavior changes when he eats wheat, which is what prompted me to test him for gluten intolerance in the first place.

Mark said:

If I go for 3-4 days without wheat, grains or sugar and then go out and binge on a pizza and ice cream or something like that I become explosive within 20 minutes to an hour. It's like a wheat and sugar rage.(I'm not saying this is an excuse for rage, I'm saying it has happened to me and I believe partly do to re-exposure) It seems the combination of the wheat plus sugar can be the worst.

I get red rashes around my neck sometimes right away and sometimes up to a day or later and sometimes get bad diarrhea.

I think it can be almost dangerous to cut things like gluten and sugar suddenly out of the diet without being very serious about keeping them out. I have found it very hard to cut out wheat without binging on it later after 4 or 5 days. I don't believe that my symptoms are just psychological either.

I was also diagnosed with ADHD as a young kid and then rediagnosed with adult ADHD by 3 different doctors. I also have bouts of mania at times too. I am considering trying to go completely gluten/refined carbohydrate free to see if it helps with the symptoms and gives me some relief.

I have never been tested for celiac or gluten intolerance but I would like to be. I think it would help explain to my girlfriend, family and friends why I can't go out and eat pizza or have a beer or ice cream. Right now they all think I'm a hypochondriac. At times I have experienced an intense fatigue the next day like I can't wake up and also sharp pains in my body and headaches.

Anonymous said:

I ditched wheat a year ago after my wife was diagnosed celiac. I immediately experienced a number of health improvements (blood lipids, sleep, allergies, etc.).

Fast forward: We all suffered some inadvertent wheat exposure yesterday via some chocolate covered Brazil nuts (of all things). This accidental A-B-A experimental design resulted in the following:

1. My celiac wife experienced what she calls "the flip" within an hour of exposure (i.e., intense GI distress).
2. My five-year old son went to bed with some wicked reflux.
3. I woke up with some twinges in my lower back and an ache in my football-weary left shoulder. I was also complaining to my wife about fuzzy-headedness that refused to respond to caffeine or hydration. I could only describe it as "carb flu"...

And then I read your post!

Anne said:

Depression, agitation and brain fog if I get glutened. Some times this comes with abdominal pain and a rash on my back - I think it is dose dependent. Cross contamination with wheat is a big issue when eating out. Needless to say, I eat out infrequently and then try to stick with the restaurants that are the most aware of gluten issues.

Terrence said:

Several weeks ago, I started Robb Wolf's 30 day challenge.

The first two weeks were brutal - calling it a withdrawal flu was a massive understatement. So, I thought I would try some wheat and see what happened (could not be worse, I thought). Well, it was.

I still felt extremely crappy, but I was now MASSIVELY GASSY - AMAZINGLY GASSY, for about 48 hours - flatulence on wheels, in spades. I did not go out at all in those 48 hours - when the gas came on, it went out, LONG, and QUICKLY and LOUDLY.

I am easing back into wheat and grain free. I am gluten free today and tomorrow (Sunday and Monday). I expect to try a small amount of wheat on Thursday, then maybe a little more the following Thursday.

Donald said:

I have limited wheat consumption severely over the last 8 months. I have lost 120 pounds, no longer have bouts of illness, asthma, depression, or low energy. I also take vitamin D and other supplements that have helped (many are from your blog recommendations).

Last week I ate a small piece of cake and dessert pizza. Shortly thereafter I started sneezing, had a scratchy throat, and runny nose. I called off sick the next day for fear of being contagious. My symptoms subsided quickly and I am now attributing them to the processed flour eaten at my work luncheon. I think it was an allergic reaction since I recall having much more severe symptoms fairly regularly in my wheat eating days. Those were attributed to an "allergy" of unknown origin back then.

John said:

I suffered from Ankylosing Spondylitis, Iritis, Plantar Fasciits, etc for a number of years. I restricted carbs, especially wheat and I've been symptom free for the past two years now.

Lori said:

I found wheat to be one of the worst things for giving me gas bloating and acid reflux, and I'd had sinus and nasal congestion my whole life. When I ate that cookie, it just re-introduced old problems. I can occasionally eat a gluten-free, grainy goody at my party place without any side effects. I also have a little sprouted rice protein powder every day.

Another odd thing about wheat: it was hard for me to stop eating it once I started. I could go through a whole box of cookies in one sitting, even though I wasn't a binge eater. But I can have a couple of gluten-free cookies and stop.

Paul said:

Except for one slip up this recently past holiday season, I've been sugar-grain-starch free since July 2008. Mental fog was the most noticable re-exposure symptom I had.

My mom has had the worst acid-reflux for 40-plus years. It had become so bad that she was on three medications just to deal with the symptoms. After much training and coaxing, I finally got across to her how to totally get off wheat. Not at all to my surprise, after being wheat free for a few weeks, she lost weight and her acid reflux was GONE!

But she had been addicted to wheat for so long, she relapsed, and the reflux fire soon returned. Wheat must be akin to heroin with some people. Even though they know it's very bad for them, they can't help themselves.

Onschedule said:

Re-exposure often leads to diarrhea for me, or such a heavy feeling of tiredness that all I can do is lay down and pass out. A local pizzeria makes a darn good pie, but since I started practicing wheat-avoidance, I can't keep my eyes open after eating there. I can't say for sure that it's the wheat causing it, but definitely something in the crust. Diarrhea, on the other hand, is definitely triggered by the wheat for me.

My mom complained of gastric reflux for years, but never filled the prescriptions that her doctors would give her. I suggested wheat-avoidance- gastric reflux disappeared within 3 days and hasn't returned (has been 6 months now). I've already commented elsewhere on this blog about how much weight and bloating she has lost...

Steve said:

Interesting that I should sit down, turn on my computer and find your poll. Having gone several weeks, maybe months, avoiding gluten, I took my daughter and her boyfriend out to eat because my wife has been working late at the office lately. Although I was thinking I would just eat my steak and chicken, I succumbed to the temptation of eating about a dozen greasy, breaded shrimp that my daughter and her boyfriend ordered. It's 1:39am and I still do not feel sleepy. My left nostril is completely blocked, my stomach feels bloated, really, really full and I've been burping. In your poll I checked sinus problems but could have chose gastrointestinal or nervous problems just as well.

A few weeks ago my daughter brought home a pizza and, once again, despite my knowing that I shouldn't, I ate a couple of pieces. I was sick for two days. The pain in what I think was my transverse colon was so bad I thought I might have to go to ther emergency room. Before I ate the pizza I had never gone grain-free that long before. I did this after reading Robb Wolf's book.

I AM CONVINCED. No more wheat for me! Please, Lord, give me strength.

LV said:

What don't I experience! I typically avoid wheat (and gluten for that matter) as I'm pretty sure it makes me sick, but when I slip (or someone else slips me some) I end up with massive amounts of joint swelling and tenderness, diarhea, cramping, gas, bloating and brain fog. I'm absolutely miserable. Just that alone is enough to keep me off gluten. I have RA, so if I have repeated exposures I'll have a flare which SUCKS!

A carpenter wouldn't build a house using just his bare hands. You shouldn't stumble your way through nutritional blunders without the proper tools to guide you.

Best tool to lose weight:

Best tool to cure diabetes:

Best tool to reduce small LDL particles:

Best tool for anti-aging:

Observing blood sugar excursions after eating is proving to be among the most powerful tools I have come across.

Pretend I'm a mad food scientist. I'd like to create a food that:

1) Wreaks gastrointestinal havoc and cause intractable diarrhea, cramps, and anemia.
2) Kills some people who consume it after a long, painful course of illness.
3) Damages the brain and nervous system such that some people wet their pants, lose balance, and lose the ability to feel their feet and legs.
4) Brings out the mania of bipolar illness.
5) Amplifies auditory hallucinations in people with paranoid schizophrenia.
6) Makes people diabetic by increasing blood sugars.
7) Worsens arthritis, such as osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis.
8) Triggers addictive eating behavior.
9) Punishes you with a withdrawal process if you try to remove it from your diet.

I will develop a strain that is exceptionally hardy and tolerates diverse conditions so that it can grow in just about any climate. It should also be an exceptionally high yield crop, so that I can sell it cheaply to the masses.

Now, if my evil scheme goes as planned, I will then persuade the USDA that not only is my food harmless, but it is good for health. If they really take the bait, they might even endorse it, create a diet program around it.

Dag nabit! Such a plan has already been implemented. Another evil food scientist already beat me to the punch. The food is called wheat.

Diabetics experience long-term health difficulties, including atherosclerosis/heart attacks, peripheral vascular disease, hypertension, cataracts, kidney disease, neuropathies, male erectile dysfunction, osteoarthritis, and colorectal cancer. They also die, on average, 10 years earlier than non-diabetics.

In effect, diabetics compress their lives into a shorter period of time. They experience all the "complications" of aging at a younger age. People without diabetes, of course, can develop atherosclerosis, cataracts, kidney disease, etc., but they tend to do so later in life compared to diabetics.

One index of the rate of aging (but not chronologic age itself) is hemoglobin A1c, or HbA1c, a "moving average" of glycated hemoglobin, i.e., glucose-modified hemoglobin. Blood glucose glycates hemoglobin linearly and irreversibly; measuring HbA1c thereby provides an index of the last 60 or so days average blood glucose.

To put HbA1c values into perspective:

Average HbA1c of hunter-gatherers: 4.5%
Average HbA1c for Americans: 5.6%
American Diabetes Association definition of diabetes: 6.5% or greater
American Diabetes Association definition of adequate control of diabetes: 7.0% or less

Why do diabetics age faster? There are likely several reasons. One important reason is glycation, as indexed by HbA1c. Glycated proteins in the lens of the eye causes cataracts. Glycated proteins in cartilage leads to arthritis. Glycated LDL particles (apo B) leads to atherosclerosis. Glycated nerve cells causes neuropathy. And so on.

If glycation underlies many of the phenomena of aging, then we might surmise that:

1) The less you glycate, the slower you age.
2) The more you glycate, the faster you age.

Therefore, the higher the HbA1c, the faster you are aging.

What foods increase HbA1c? Carbohydrates. That bowl of slow-cooked, stone ground oatmeal? A one-hour after-eating blood sugar of 170 mg/dl is common. Your doctor says that's okay because it's below 200 mg/dl and you don't "need" medication yet.

If you have a choice, the triglyceride form of fish oil is preferable. The triglyceride form, i.e., 3 omega-3 fatty acids on a glycerol "backbone," is the form found in the body of fish that protects them from cold temperatures (i.e., they remain liquid at low ambient temperatures).

Most fish oils on the market are the ethyl ester form. This means that the omega-3 fatty acids have been removed from the glycerol backbone; the fatty acids are then reacted with ethanol to form the ethyl ester.

If the form is not specified on your fish oil bottle, it is likely ethyl ester, since the triglyceride form is more costly to process and most manufacturers therefore boast about it. Also, prescription Lovaza--nearly 20 times more costly than the most expensive fish oil triglyceride liquid on a milligram for milligram basis--is the ethyl ester form. That's not even factoring in reduced absorption of ethyl esters compared to triglyceride forms. Remember: FDA approval is not necessarily a stamp of superiority. It just means somebody had the money and ambition to pursue FDA approval. Period.

Taking any kind of fish oil, provided it is not overly oxidized (and thereby yields a smelly fish odor), is better than taking none at all. All fish oil will reduce triglycerides, accelerate clearance of postprandial (after-eating) lipoprotein byproducts of a meal (via activation of lipoprotein lipase), enhance endothelial responsiveness, reduce small LDL particles, and provide a physical stabilizing effect on atherosclerotic plaque.

But if you desire enhanced absorption and potentially lower dose to achieve equivalent RBC omega-3 levels, then triglyceride forms are better.

Here are cut-and-pasted abstracts of two of the studies comparing forms of fish oil.

Bioavailability of marine n-3 fatty acid formulations.

Dyerberg J, Madsen P, Moller JM et al.

Department of Human Nutrition, Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Abstract

The use of marine n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (n-3 PUFA) as supplements has prompted the development of concentrated formulations to overcome compliance problems. The present study compares three concentrated preparations - ethyl esters, free fatty acids and re-esterified triglycerides - with placebo oil in a double-blinded design, and with fish body oil and cod liver oil in single-blinded arms. Seventy-two volunteers were given approximately 3.3g of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) plus docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) daily for 2 weeks. Increases in absolute amounts of EPA and DHA in fasting serum triglycerides, cholesterol esters and phospholipids were examined. Bioavailability of EPA+DHA from re-esterified triglycerides was superior (124%) compared with natural fish oil, whereas the bioavailability from ethyl esters was inferior (73%). Free fatty acid bioavailability (91%) did not differ significantly from natural triglycerides. The stereochemistry of fatty acid in acylglycerols did not influence the bioavailability of EPA and DHA.

(Full text of the Dyerberg et al study made available at the Nordic Naturals website here.)

Eur J Clin Nutr 2010 Nov 10.

Enhanced increase of omega-3 index in response to long-term n-3 fatty acid supplementation from triacylglycerides versus ethyl esters.

Neubronner J, Schuchardt JP, Kressel G et al.

Institute of Food Science and Human Nutrition, Leibniz Universität Hannover, Am Kleinen Felde 30, Hannover, Germany.

Abstract

There is a debate currently about whether different chemical forms of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) are absorbed in an identical way. The objective of this study was to investigate the response of the omega-3 index, the percentage of EPA+DHA in red blood cell membranes, to supplementation with two different omega-3 fatty acid (n-3 FA) formulations in humans. The study was conducted as a double-blinded placebo-controlled trial. A total of 150 volunteers was randomly assigned to one of the three groups: (1) fish oil concentrate with EPA+DHA (1.01?g+0.67?g) given as reesterified triacylglycerides (rTAG group); (2) corn oil (placebo group) or (3) fish oil concentrate with EPA+DHA (1.01?g+0.67?g) given as ethyl ester (EE group). Volunteers consumed four gelatine-coated soft capsules daily over a period of six months. The omega-3 index was determined at baseline (t(0)) after three months (t(3)) and at the end of the intervention period (t(6)). The omega-3 index increased significantly in both groups treated with n-3 FAs from baseline to t(3) and t(6) (P < 0.001). The omega-3 index increased to a greater extent in the rTAG group than in the EE group (t(3): 186 versus 161% (P < 0.001); t(6): 197 versus 171% (P < 0.01)). Conclusion: A six-month supplementation of identical doses of EPA+DHA led to a faster and higher increase in the omega-3 index when consumed as triacylglycerides than when consumed as ethyl esters.

Have you experienced a wheat re-exposure syndrome?

As I recently discussed, gastrointestinal distress--cramps, gas, diarrhea--is the most common "syndrome" that results from re-exposure to wheat after a period of elimination.

Others experience asthma, sinus congestion and infections, mental "fogginess" and difficulty concentrating, or joint pains and/or overt swelling.

Still others say there is no such thing.

Let's take a poll and find out what readers say.

Curious thing: People with lipoprotein(a) gravitate towards elite levels of exercise.

I tell my lipoprotein(a) patients that, if they want to see a lot of other people with lipoprotein(a), go to a marathon or triathlon.

This effect applies more to males than to females, just as the fascination with numbers seems to be confined to men, too. That's why I've posted in past about the "prototypical" lipoprotein(a) male.

I believe this is a big part, perhaps the only, reason why there seems to be a modest increased risk for cardiovascular events despite high exercise levels in marathoners. It has nothing to do with the exercise itself; it has to do with the kind of people who choose to exercise at this level.

The best fish oils available are the liquid forms. Contrary to many people's expectations, the best liquid fish oils have no fishy odor or taste.

I use a lot of liquid fish oils because of the higher doses we use in the Track Your Plaque program, as well as our strategy of high-dose fish oil to reduce lipoprotein(a). Women, in particular, don't like taking the oodles of capsules required to achieve the higher doses we need. So the ladies really like the liquid forms.

The best liquid fish oils are non-fishy, highly-concentrated, and come in the better absorbed triglyceride form. Many capsules, including prescription Lovaza, are the less well-absorbed ethyl ester form. Several studies, such as this one, have now demonstrated that the naturally-occurring triglyceride form yields higher blood (RBC) levels of omega-3 fatty acids, likely due to more efficient digestion via pancreatic lipase.

While there are many good forms of fish oil and only a few bad, these are the best of the best:

Pharmax
The Pharmax Finest Pure Fish Oil with Essential Oil of Orange contains 1800 mg EPA + DHA per teaspoon. This is the preparation I've been taking.

Nordic Naturals
The Nordic Naturals lemon-flavored ProOmega Liquid contains 2752 mg EPA + DHA per teaspoon, the most concentrated of any fish oil I've seen.

(This list is not exclusive. These are just two brands I've used extensively with good results.)

These highly-concentrated, triglyceride forms are more expensive, due to their concentrated nature. 1 teaspoon Pharmax fish oil, for example, provides an equivalent quantity of omega-3 fatty acids as 6 standard fish oil capsules on a milligram for milligram basis, but more like 8 to 9 capsules when absorption efficiency is factored in. The triglyceride form is also more laborious to manufacture. On our Track Your Plaque Marketplace, our Pharmax 500 ml runs $58.95 list. (500 ml provides 100 teaspoons or 600-capsule equivalent.)

Note that, minus the protection of the capsule, liquid fish oils will oxidize if not refrigerated. So be sure to keep your liquid fish oil in the fridge.

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.

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, â€œglycation,â€ 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 12:21:06 AM |

Well said, Annabel!

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!

Bioavailability of marine n-3 fatty acid formulations.

Abstract

Enhanced increase of omega-3 index in response to long-term n-3 fatty acid supplementation from triacylglycerides versus ethyl esters.

Abstract

Related posts

Comments (27) -

Might-o'chonri-AL

Annabel

Curt

ShottleBop

Jeff C

steve

Might-o'chondri-AL

Might-o'chondri-AL

Peter Silverman

steve

frank weir

frank weir

Might-o'chondri-AL

Peter Silverman

ShottleBop

Stephanie

Anne

majkinetor

majkinetor

John F

Add comment