Cholesterol effects of carbohydrates

24. March 2009 William Davis (31)
Let's take a hypothetical person, say, a 50-year old male. 5 ft 10 inches, 160 lbs, BMI 23.0. He's slender and in good health.

Our hypothetical man eats a simple diet of vegetables, some fruit, nuts, and meats but avoids processed industrial foods. By macronutrient composition, his diet is approximately 30% protein, 40-50% fat, 20-30% carbohydrate. His starting lipid panel:

Total cholesterol 149 mg/dl
LDL cholesterol 80 mg/dl
HDL 60 mg/dl
Triglycerides 45 mg/dl

His starting lipids are quite favorable (though I don't often see this kind of starting panel nowadays except in athletes). We begin here because this hypothetical man is going to serve as our test subject.

We ask our hypothetical man to load his diet up on "healthy whole grains." He complies by eating whole grain cereals for breakfast, whole wheat toast; sandwiches made with whole grain bread; dinners of whole wheat pasta; snacks of granola bars, whole wheat pretzels and crackers.

Three months later, his lipids show:

Total cholesterol 175 mg/dl
LDL cholesterol 130 mg/dl
HDL 45 mg/dl
Triglycerides 150 mg/dl


You can see that LDL cholesterol has increased, HDL has dropped, and triglycerides have increased. This wave of change is the hallmark of carbohydrate excess, but more specifically of overreliance on wheat products. Beyond his lipid panel, the man has gained 10 lbs, all concentrated in a soft roll around his abdomen, his blood sugar is now in the "borderline range" of between 110 and 126 mg/dl, i.e., pre-diabetic.

If we were to examine this man's advanced lipoproteins (e.g., NMR from Liposcience, or VAP from Atherotech), we would see that there has been an explosive increase in small LDL particles, along with a shift of large HDL to small, and the appearance of multiple abnormal classes of particles called VLDL and IDL (signalling abnormally slowed clearance of dietary by-products from the blood).

Familiar scenario? The "after-carbohydrate" situation is the rule among the people who I first meet who claim to be eating a "healthy" diet, though their patterns are usually much worse, with higher LDL, lower HDL, and much higher triglycerides, an exaggeration of our hypothetical man's abnormalities.

What if our hypothetical man now goes to his conventionally thinking (read "taught medicine by the pharmaceutical industry") physician? What will likely be the advice he receives? Reduce his saturated fat intake, eat plenty of healthy whole grains, take a statin drug.

Although my illustrative man is hypothetical, I've seen this scenario play out many thousands of times. It happens in real life all the time. It is predictable, it is highly manipulable. Sadly, it is rarely recognized for what it is: the result of excess carbohydrates, or what I call "Carbohydrate Intolerance Syndrome."

The misinterpretation of this condition has created 1) an epidemic of diabetes and pre-diabetes, 2) a nation of frustrated obese Americans, 3) a $27 billion per year statin industry, 4) another growth opportunity for the drug industry in diabetes drugs.

Wheat Belly Revisited

23. March 2009 William Davis (24)
Do you have a wheat belly?

When I first coined this phrase back in July, 2007, I had witnessed the phenomenal health effects of wheat elimination in several hundred patients.

In the nearly two years that have passed since my original post, I have witnessed hundreds more people who have done the same: eliminate pretzels, crackers, breads of all sorts, bagels, pasta, muffins, waffles, pancakes, etc.

If anything, I am convinced now more than ever that wheat is among the most destructive foods in the human diet. At least 70% of people who eliminate wheat from their diet obtain at least one, if not several, substantial health benefits.

Now, if I were trying to sell you something, say, an alternative to wheat, then you should be skeptical. If I tell you that drug or nutritional supplement X is great and you should take it, only to follow it with a sales pitch, you should be skeptical.

What am I selling? Nothing. I gain nothing by telling everyone to avoid wheat. In fact, I wish it wasn't true. Wheat foods taste good. Wheat flour makes great comfort foods. In years past, I spent many hours sitting at the bagel shop reviewing papers over a cup of coffee and a bagel. No longer.

So here, back by popular demand, the original Wheat Belly post:



Wheat Belly

You've heard of "beer bellies," the protuberant, sagging abdomen of someone who drinks excessive quantities of beer.

How about "wheat belly"?

That's the same protuberant, sagging abdomen that develops when you overindulge in processed wheat products like pretzels, crackers, breads, waffles, pancakes, breakfast cereals and pasta.



(By the way, this image, borrowed from the wonderful people at Wikipedia, is that of a teenager, who supplied a photo of himself.)

It represents the excessive visceral fat that laces the intestines and triggers a drop in HDL, rise in triglycerides, inflames small LDL particles, C-reactive protein, raises blood sugar, raises blood pressure, creates poor insulin responsiveness, etc.

How common is it? Just look around you and you'll quickly recognize it in dozens or hundreds of people in the next few minutes. It's everywhere.

Wheat bellies are created and propagated by the sea of mis-information that is delivered to your door every day by food manufacturers. It's the same campaign of mis-information that caused the wife of a patient of mine who was in the hospital (one of my rare hospitalizations) to balk in disbelief when I told her that her husband's 18 lb weight gain over the past 6 months was due to the Shredded Wheat Cereal for breakfast, turkey sandwiches for lunch, and whole wheat pasta for dinner.

"But that's what they told us to eat after Dan left the hospital after his last stent!"

Dan, at 260 lbs with a typical wheat belly, had small LDL, low HDL, high triglycerides, etc.

I hold the food companies responsible for this state of affairs, selling foods that are clearly causing enormous weight gain nationwide. Unfortunately, the idiocy that emits from Nabisco, Kraft, and Post (AKA Philip Morris); General Mills; Kelloggs; and their kind is aided and abetted by organizations like the American Heart Association, with the AHA stamp of approval on Cocoa Puffs, Cookie Crisp Cereal, and Berry Kix; and the American Diabetes Association, whose number one corporate sponsor is Cadbury Schweppes, the biggest soft drink and candy manufacturer in the world.

As I've said many times before, if you don't believe it, try this experiment: Eliminate all forms of wheat for a 4 week period--no breakfast cereals, no breads of any sort, no pasta, no crackers, no pretzels, etc. Instead, increase your vegetables, healthy oils, lean proteins (raw nuts, seeds, lean red meats, chicken, fish, turkey, eggs, Egg Beaters, low-fat yogurt and cottage cheese), fruits. Of course, avoid fruit drinks, candy, and other garbage foods, even if they're wheat-free.

Most people will report that a cloud has been lifted from their brains. Thinking is clearer, you have more energy, you don't poop out in the afternoon, you sleep more deeply, some rashes disappear. You will also notice that hunger ratchets down substantially. Most people lose the insatiable hunger pangs that occur 2-3 hours after a wheat-containing meal. Instead, hunger is a soft signal that gently prods you that it's time to consider eating again.

You will also make considerable gains towards gaining control over your risk for heart disease and your heart scan score, a crucial step in the Track Your Plaque program.

Thank you, Crestor

20. March 2009 William Davis (9)
I'm sure everyone by now has seen the Crestor ads run by drugmaker, AstraZeneca. TV ads, magazine ads, and the Crestor website all echoing the same message:

"While I was busy building my life, something else was busy building in my arteries: dangerous plaque."

While previous drug trials with Mevacor, Pravachol, Zocor, and Lipitor have focused mostly on examining whether the drugs reduced incidence of cardiovascular events, Crestor studies have also focused on effects on atherosclerotic plaque volume. The best example is the ASTEROID trial that demonstrated approximately 7% reduction in plaque volume by intracoronary ultrasound.

So the AstraZeneca decision makers took the leap from cholesterol reduction to plaque reduction.

I'm sure this switch wasn't taken lightly, but was the topic of discussion at many meetings before the decision to make plaque reduction the focus of hundreds of millions of dollars of advertising. After all, billions of dollars are at stake in this bloated statin market.

Ordinarily, I couldn't care less about how the drug manufacturers conduct their advertising campaigns. But this one I paid attention to because the Crestor ads are helping fuel a new way of thinking about coronary heart disease: It's not about the cholesterol; it's about the atherosclerotic plaque that accumulates in arteries.

It's not cholesterol that grows, limits coronary blood flow, and causes angina. It's not cholesterol that "ruptures" its internal contents to the surface within the interior of the blood vessel and causes blood clot and heart attack. It's not cholesterol that fragments from the carotid arteries and showers debris to the brain, causing stroke. It's all plaque.

I took the same leap years ago, though not backed by hundreds of millions of dollars of marketing money. When I first called my book Track Your Plaque, some of the feedback I got from editors included comments like "I thought this was a book about teeth!" Even now, the word "plaque" in the book title and website is responsible for confusion.

But AstraZeneca is helping me clear up the confusion. As the word plaque gains hold in public consciousness, it will become increasingly clear that cholesterol reduction is not what we're after. We are looking for reduction of plaque.

If you are trying to develop an effective means to reduce or reverse coronary heart disease, then there are two simple equations to keep in mind:


Plaque = coronary heart disease

Cholesterol ? coronary heart disease


Plaque is the disease, cholesterol is not. Cholesterol is simply a crude risk for plaque.

While I'm no friend to the drug industry nor to AstraZeneca, some good will come of their efforts.

Supermarkets and buggy whips

17. March 2009 William Davis (17)
Will supermarkets eventually phase out, joining the history books as a phenomenon of the past? Or are supermarkets here to stay, an emblem of the industrialization of our food--easy access to foods that are convenient, suit the undiscriminating masses, stripped of nutritional value despite the prominent health claim on the package front?

Anna left an insightful comment on the last Heart Scan Blog post, Sterols should be outlawed, along with some useful advice on how to avoid this trap for poor health called a supermarket:


I rarely shop in regular supermarkets anymore (farm subscription for veggies, meat bought in bulk for the freezer, eggs from a local individual, fish from a fish market, freshly roasted coffee from a local coffee place, etc.). What little else I need comes from quirky Trader Joe's (dark chocolate!), the fish market, farmer's markets, a small natural foods store, or mail order.

When I do need to go into one of the many huge supermarkets near me, not being a regular shopper there, I never know where anything is, so I have to ramble a bit around the aisles before I find what I'm looking for (and I almost always can grab a hand basket, instead of a trolley cart).

It's almost like being on another planet! There's always so many new products (most of them I hesitate to even call food). It's really a shock to the senses now to see how much stuff supermarkets sell that I wouldn't even pick up to read the label, let alone put in a cart or want to taste. I'm not even tempted by 99% of the tasting samples handed out by the sweet senior ladies in at Costco anymore (only thing I remember tasting at Costco in at least 6 mos was the Kerrygold Irish cheese, because I know their cows have pasture access and it's real food).

What's really shocking to me is how large some sections of the markets have become in recent years. While Americans got larger, so did some sections of the supermarket (hint - good idea to limit the consumption of products from those areas). Meat and seafood counters have shrunk, though. Produce areas seem to be about the same size as always (but more of it is pre-prepped and RTE in packaging.

But the chilled juice section is h-u-g-e! And no, I don't think there is a Florida orange grove behind the cases. Come on, how much juice do people need? Juice glasses used to be teeny tiny, for a good reason. To me it looks like a long wall stocked full of sugar water. Avoiding that section will put a nice dent in the grocery expenses.

The yogurt case is also e-n-o-r-m-o-u-s! Your 115 yo Bulgarian "grandmother" wouldn't know what to make of all these "pseudo-yogurts"! Chock full of every possible variety, but very little fit to eat. The only yogurts I'll look at are made with plain whole milk, without added gums, emulsifiers, or non-fat milk solids, and live cultures (I mostly buy yogurt now and then to refresh my starter culture at home). I can flavor them at home if needed. The sterols are showing up in processed yogurts, too, along with patented new strains of probiotic cultures (I'll stick to my old fashioned, but time-proven homemade lacto-cultured veggies and yogurt instead).

I found the same "cooler spread" in the butter & "spread" section. The spread options were just grotesque sounding. Actually, the butter options weren't much better, as many were blended with other ingredients to increase spreadability, reduce calories or cholesterol/saturated fat, etc. A few plain butters were enhanced with "butter flavor" - say what? And on no package could it be determined if the butter came from cows that were naturally fed on pasture or on grain in confined pens.


Well said, Anna.

There's a huge supermarket about 1 mile away from my house similar to the one Anna describes with aisle after aisle of eye-catching cellophane-wrapped foods. I go there about every 3 or 4 months, and then I only go to get something I need in a pinch. Every time I go, I too am reminded just how many products there are that look more like junk food than real food.

But there's no real money in real food. Who gets rich off of selling green peppers, tomatoes, and eggs?

Supermarkets sell these modern industrial foods because people buy it: Look around you. You don't get to be a 250 lb 5 ft 2 inch-woman by eating too many cucumbers.

Like Anna, I drive an additional several miles to Trader Joes', buy at farmers' markets whenever possible, buy some odds and ends like wine and cheese and raw nuts at specialty stores. I grow my own basil in a big pot I keep in the kitchen and we are just about to start turning over the soil in the back yard for our vegetable garden. I don't need nor do I miss having the choice among 40 different chips, 25 brands of ready-made microwavable dinners, an entire aisle of breakfast cereasl (all of which are virtually the same with different names and labels), or 75 varieties of salad dressing.

The supermarket for me--and I hope for many of you--has become a place rarely frequented, and only for the odd forgotten item. Oh, I forgot the dog chewies the grocery does have--my dogs love them. So perhaps they are good for something after all.

Sterols should be outlawed

14. March 2009 William Davis (10)
While sterols occur naturally in small quantities in food (nuts, vegetables, oils), food manufacturers are adding them to processed foods in order to earn a "heart healthy" claim.

The FDA approved a cholesterol-reducing indication for sterols , the American Heart Association recommends 200 mg per day as part of its Therapeutic Lifestyle Change diet, and WebMD gushes about the LDL-reducing benefits of sterols added to foods.


Sterols--the same substance that, when absorbed to high levels into the blood in a genetic disorder called "sitosterolemia"--causes extravagant atherosclerosis in young people.

The case against sterols, studies documenting its coronary disease- and valve disease-promoting effects, is building:

Higher blood levels of sterols increase cardiovascular events:
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.

Sterols can be recovered from diseased aortic valves:
Accumulation of cholesterol precursors and plant sterols in human stenotic aortic valves.

Sterols are incorporated into carotid atherosclerotic plaque:
Plant sterols in serum and in atherosclerotic plaques of patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy.




Though the data are mixed:

Moderately elevated plant sterol levels are associated with reduced cardiovascular risk--the LASA study.

No association between plasma levels of plant sterols and atherosclerosis in mice and men.




The food industry has vigorously pursued the sterol-as-heart-healthy strategy, based on studies conclusively demonstrating LDL-reducing effects. But do sterols that gain entry into the blood increase atherosclerosis regardless of LDL reduction? That's the huge unanswered question.

Despite the uncertainties, the list of sterol-supplemented foods is expanding rapidly:




Each Nature Valley Healthy Heart Bar contains 400 mg sterols.












HeartWise orange juice contains 1000 mg sterols per 8 oz serving.













Promise SuperShots contains 400 mg sterols per container.














Corozonas has an entire line of chips that contain added sterols, 400 mg per 1 oz serving.














MonaVie Acai juice, "Pulse," contains 400 mg sterols per 2 oz serving.














Kardea olive oil has 500 mg sterols per 14 gram serving.










WebMD has a table that they say can help you choose "foods" that are sterol-rich.

In my view, sterols should not have been approved without more extensive safety data. Just as Vioxx's potential for increasing heart attack did not become apparent until after FDA approval and widespread use, I fear the same may be ahead for sterols: dissemination throughout the processed food supply, people using large, unnatural quantities from multiple products, eventually . . . increased heart attacks, strokes, aortic valve disease.

Until there is clarification on this issue, I would urge everyone to avoid sterol-added "heart healthy" products.


Some more info on sterols in a previous Heart Scan Blog post: Are sterols the new trans fat? .

Texas today, tomorrow . . . the world?

10. March 2009 William Davis (0)
Texas state representative, Rene Oliveira, has introduced legislation that mandates heart scans for adults in the state of Texas.

Rep. Oliveira

A press release from the SHAPE Society ( Society for Heart Attack Prevention and Eradication) reads:

Assessment of heart attack risk on the basis of traditional risk factors alone such as high cholesterol and high blood pressure and so forth, while useful, misses many who are at high risk and also incorrectly flags some for high risk who are in fact at very low risk of near term heart attack; on the other hand detection of atherosclerosis by non-invasive imaging, as suggested by the SHAPE group, accurately identifies plaque and improves the ability to identify at-risk individuals who could benefit from aggressive preventive intervention while sparing low-risk subjects from unnecessary aggressive medical therapy," said Dr. P.K. Shah, Director of Cardiology at Cedars Sinai Heart Institute in Los Angeles, a leading member of the SHAPE Task Force who is also an active member of the American Heart Association. "Sadly, these vulnerable patients go undetected until struck by a heart attack, because insurance companies don't cover the newer heart attack screening imaging tests."


Rep. Oliveira, whose coronary disease was first uncovered by a heart scan and prompted a bypass operation, states:

"It is about time that we cover preventive screening for the number one killer in Texas, and take action to reduce healthcare costs through preventive healthcare. Right now, we are extending the lives of those who can afford the procedure while hundreds of thousands of Texans with hidden heart disease go undetected because of antiquated thinking. The time has come for this change."


Is this what we've come to? Since practicing physicians are either so entranced by the drug and procedural solutions to heart disease, do we need to resort to heart scan by legislation?

It does indeed appear that we've come to this point. Should this trend catch on, it will surely mean an upfront increase in healthcare costs to cover the expense of heart scans. But in the long run, it will mean reduction in healthcare costs--dramatic reduction--if heart scans prompt effective preventive action.

What your doctor doesn't know about heart disease

9. March 2009 William Davis (12)
What causes coronary heart disease or coronary atherosclerotic plaque, this thing that we track with heart scans?

Well, here are a few little-publicized facts about heart disease that you are unlikely to hear from your When's-the-next-stent? cardiologist or the What is there besides statins? primary care doctor.

(Since everybody knows that smoking is a modifiable risk for heart disease that can be readily identified, let's focus on the blood tests that reveal heart disease causes.)


What's the number one most common cause for heart disease?

Small LDL particles. The proliferation and popularity of the snack food/processed food culture, compounded with the "eat more healthy whole grain " propaganda has launched small LDL solidly to first place as the most common reason to have heart attacks, stents, and bypass. All that advice to increase your "healthy whole grain" intake? It increases heart attack risk.


What's the number one most aggressive cause for heart disease?

That's lipoprotein(a), or Lp(a). It's certainly not high cholesterol, though the drug industry loves that you think that. We could argue over whether smoking is more aggressive, but the two are pretty darned close. Combine the two--Lp(a) in a smoker--and the combination is an explosively powerful trigger for heart disease and stroke.


What's the number two cause for heart disease?

After small LDL comes low HDL cholesterol. Ask anyone who has had a heart attack: What was your cholesterol panel like? 9 out of 10 will say "My LDL cholesterol was 135 mg/dl" while knowing little or nothing about HDL, which is commonly in the 30-42 mg/dl range--sufficient to contribute to heart disease risk considerably.


Can "normal" thyroid hormone tests still contribute to heart disease?

Yes. Hypothyroidism is an exceptionally powerful risk factor for heart disease. Many people have been told that their thyroid tests are "normal," when in reality risk for heart disease may be as much as tripled from low thyroid with thyroid blood tests in the "normal" range.


Does a "balanced, healthy diet" prevent heart disease?

No, it does not. In fact, the modern notion of a "balanced, healthy diet" increases risk for heart disease. Of course, the dangers of such diets vary, depending on how you define it. If it's the diet advocated by the USDA Food Pyramid, then it is an enormously destructive diet that causes your health to careen towards both diabetes and heart disease. The American Heart Association TLC diet is little better.


Does eating fish twice a month reduce heart attack risk?

Yes, it does--but just barely. Unfortunately, large studies that show that eating fish as infrequently as twice per month reduce risk for dying from heart attack have led some authorities to suggest that's all you need to do. What they fail to understand is that the benefit is dose-dependent--the greater the intake of omega-3 fatty acids, the greater the benefit (within reason, of course). So, while the effect can be detected by eating fish twice per month, it doesn't mean that full benefits are achieved with this "dose." Full benefits are obtained by mimicking the omega-3 intake of the Japanese.


Do nutritional supplements reduce risk for heart attack?

If you are referring to vitamin D, then, yes, nutritional supplements reduce risk for heart attack . . . enormously. We need more data to validate this phenomenon, though epidemiologic observations strongly bear this out, including the Health Professionals Follow-up Study, the Framingham Heart Study and NHANES, all of which demonstrate a graded effect: the lower the vitamin D blood level, the greater the risk for heart attack.

Over the years, we've experienced more than our share of disappointments in nutritional supplements for heart disease, including vitamin E and B vitamins to reduce homocysteine. But I believe that nothing approaches the solid feel of vitamin D--no other nutritional supplement raises HDL, reduces triglycerides, reduces blood sugar, enhances insulin responses, reduces the inflammatory C-reactive protein, reduces blood pressure like vitamin D. Vitamin D is here to stay--and I'm very grateful.

And don't forget omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil, yet another supplement with unquestioned benefits for reduction of heart attack and death from heart attack.


Why didn't your doctor counsel you on the importance of these issues?

The primary reasons your doctor didn't tell you any of the above:

1) He/she has been persuaded that only drugs are of any real use in health. Nutritional supplements? Hah!

2) Neither the number one cause of heart disease in the U.S.--small LDL particles--nor the most aggressive cause for heart disease--Lp(a)--are corrected by patent-protectable, high profit pharmaceutical agents promoted to your doctor. Instead, these abnormalities can be corrected inexpensively, without prescription. That means no expensive commercials, no media spots, no write-ups in magazines.

3) Your doctor's business is to treat crisis: sore throat, broken ankle, lung tumor, heart attack. Prevent heart disease 10 or 20 years before it shows itself? Heck, no (unless the marketing pull of the drug industry is involved, of course).


It's best that you bear in mind: What your doctor doesn't know can kill you.

Thank you, Dr. Eades

6. March 2009 William Davis (7)

Thanks to some readers of The Heart Scan Blog, I've become acquainted with Dr. Michael Eades' wonderful blog, Health and Nutrition by Dr. Michael R. Eades, MD.

Dr. Eades is co-author (with his wife, Mary Dan Eades, MD) of Protein Power

In one of his conversations, I stumbled on this exchange between Dr. Eades and one of his readers:



Reader: Regarding EBT scans, I looked up the topic on Google and read an informative 5-page article: EBT (Ultrafast CT) Scans - Godsend, or Scam? Dr. Fogoros says that false positives (where the EBT shows the presence of calcium, but the patient has little coronary artery blockage) occur about 50 percent of the time. The next step, if the EBT is positive, is to do a heart catherterization to find out whether there actually is coronary artery blockage. So the odds are that I’d have to worry!

Dr. Michael Eades: The info you got from Google is one of the reasons one shouldn’t get medical information online. As far as I’m concerned the EBT is the BEST way to determine the presence of plaque. If you have a positive calcium score, you have plaque, and there’s an end on’t (as Samuel Johnson would say). Now you may have a low calcium score for your age or you may have a calcium score that doesn’t change, which means you have stable plaque, but if you have a positive calcium score, you have some amount of plaque in your coronary arteries.

And whoever says that the next step to take if you receive a positive calcium score is a coronary artery cath is a real moron. That’s probably the last thing you would want to do if you are asymptomatic. All the cath procedure does is shows whether or not you have a blockage - you can have huge amounts of plaque (which are a disaster waiting to happen) and have a normal cardiac cath.

If you want to get a little more information on the validity of EBT than what you find on Google, take a look at Dr. Davis’ blog or get a copy of his book: Track Your Plaque. I’m not crazy about all of Dr. Davis’ dietary recommendations because he comes to diet from a different perspective than I, but the EBT info in his book is terrific.

Cheers–

Dr. Eades "gets" it. He understands that quantification of coronary plaque is a tool for prevention, not something to be subverted into the service of procedures for the financial benefit of my colleagues.

And I think that he is absolutely correct on the diet discussed in Track Your Plaque--it's due for a revision. I wrote the book in 2003, while we were still locked into the low-fat mindset. Much has changed.

Since then, our enormous experience in metabolic manipulation and lipoprotein analysis has shown that there is a far better way to correct the causes of coronary plaque and seizing hold of heart scan scores. In particular, the explosion of small LDL has prompted major changes in the diet, specifically removal of wheat and cornstarch, the foods that trigger small LDL particles.

(I am still in the midst of negotiations for release of a bigger and better Track Your Plaque II. In the meantime, Track Your Plaque Members can refer to the New Track Your Plaque Diet, Parts I, II, and III.)

Can millet make you diabetic?

5. March 2009 William Davis (10)















If wheat is so bad, what about all the other grains?

First of all, I demonize wheat because of its top-of-the-list role in triggering:

--Appetite--Wheat increases hunger dramatically
--Insulin
--Blood sugar--Wheat is worse than table sugar in triggering a rapid, large rise in blood sugar
--Triglycerides
--Small LDL particles--the number one cause for heart disease in the U.S.
--Reduced HDL
--Diabetes
--Autoimmune diseases--Most notably celiac disease and thyroiditis.

Most other "healthy, whole grains" aren't quite as bad. It's a matter of degree.

Millet, quinoa, oats, sorghum, bulghur, spelt, barley, cornmeal--While they don't trigger appetite nor autoimmune diseases like wheat does (oat can in some people), they still pose a significant carbohydrate load sufficient to generate the other phenomena like excessive insulin and blood sugar responses. The grams of carbohydrate of these grains are virtually identical to wheat: 43.5 grams per 1/2 cup (uncooked). The exceptions are barley, which is especially loaded with carbohydrates: 104 grams per 1/2 cup, while oats are lower: 33 g per 1/2 cup.

It's all a matter of degree. Some people who are exceptionally carbohydrate-sensitive (like me) can have diabetic blood sugars with just slow-cooked oatmeal or quinoa. Others aren't quite so sensitive and can get away with eating them.

People with high blood sugars (100 mg/dl or greater) can be very sensitive to the blood sugar effects of these grain carbohydrates. The best marker of all are small LDL particles measured on a lipoprotein panel, such as NMR. Small LDL particles are exquisitely sensitive to your carbohydrate intake: small LDL gets worse with excessive sensitivity to grain carbohydrates, gets better with reduction or elimination.

Flagrant small LDL, in combination with low HDL, high triglycerides, and pre-diabetic or diabetic patterns all develop from carbohydrate indulgence, along with "wheat belly."

Don't believe it? The prove it to yourself: Go to Walmart and buy an inexpensive glucose meter and check your blood sugar one hour after eating. You can gauge the health of these foods by observing the blood sugar increases. (Small LDL closely parallels blood sugar rises.)

The grain that fails to trigger any of these abnormal patterns? Flaxseed. Flaxseed is entirely protein, fiber, and healthy oils, with virtually no digestible starches. In fact, flaxseed is one of the few foods that reduces the quantity of small LDL particles.

Are you a tree?

5. March 2009 William Davis (6)
I assume you answered no. Then why would you consider taking the plant form of vitamin D (ergocalciferol)? That's the prescription form of vitamin D, often dispensed as 50,000 unit tablets.

There's nothing wrong with plants. Some of my favorite foods are plants, full of nutritional value.

Then why shouldn't vitamin D2 from plants be every bit as good as the human form of vitamin D?

I believe the issue boils down to taking hormones from non-human sources. (Remember: Vitamin D is a hormone, a very powerful one at that.) Plants can be wonderful sources of flavonoids, fibers, protein, fats, vitamins, minerals, and other healthy components. But hormones?

There are other examples of non-human hormones being given to humans with undesirable or unpredictable effects:

--Xenoestrogens, phytoestrogens, and non-human mammalian estrogens--While non-human estrogens may partially mimic human estrogens, they can also block estrogen effects, or exert altogether novel effects. Non-human mammalian estrogens like Premarin can exert very peculiar (side-)effects, despite their role as prescription estrogen supplementation in humans.

--Progestins--The synthetic versions of human progesterone, like their non-human estrogen counterparts, exert weird effects that are a world apart from real progesterone.

--Sterols--Similar in structure to human cholesterol (while not a hormone, a building block for hormones), sterols have been used to reduce intestinal cholesterol absorption. However, if sterols are absorbed into the blood, they can enormously accelerate growth of atherosclerotic plaque.

--Anabolic steroids--These modifications of the testosterone molecule build muscle, but also cause liver cancer, kidney failure, violent behavior, suicide and homicidal behavior. That's not normal.

Outside of a pharmacologic effect (e.g., prednisone in place of human cortisol), there is no reason to take a non-human hormone in place of a human hormone. For that same reason, there is NO reason to take plant vitamin D2 (prescription or over-the-counter) in place of human vitamin D3.

If the non-human hormone is identical to the human form, then there is no difficulty. The best example of this are thyroid hormones from pigs. That's what Armour Thyroid is, a thyroid hormone replacement that works wonderfully well.

You will notice that virtually all of the examples of non-human hormones substituted for human hormones share one common motivation: profit. Synthetic or modified versions are more readily patent-protectable, unlike their natural counterparts which are not.

Vitamin D2 is an anemic facsimile of the real human hormone, vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol). Stay away from it.
Interview with Jimmy Moore of Livin' La Vida Low-Carb

Interview with Jimmy Moore of Livin' La Vida Low-Carb

7. September 2011 William Davis (11)
Here's my podcast interview with Jimmy Moore, host of the Livin' La Vida Low-Carb Show. (If you want to fast forward to the interview, go to time marker 41:20 on the slidebar.)



In the podcast, I talk about how the Track Your Plaque program and its focus on lipoprotein testing, along with the need to reverse the incredible epidemic of diabetes and pre-diabetes, led to elimination of all wheat from the diet and the book, Wheat Belly.
Tags :

Comments (11) -

  • Might-o'chondri-AL

    9/8/2011 1:03:32 AM |

    To Pedro  (posted here since Server blocked),
    Journal Biological Chemistry 2003,278:54-63  "A Type 1 Diabetes-related Protein from Wheat" that refers to globulin (a storage molecule of wheat) being antigenic for autoimmune problems was where I saw wheat genome estimated in 2002 to be 16.5 gigabase. I read that article when tried to track down Doc's reason to declare wheat implicated in Type 1 diabetes. Full article at www. jbc.org/content/278/1/54.full

    A 2010 reference to wheat genome is in journal Cytogenic and Genome Research, Vol. 129, No. 1-3, 2010 abstract's 1st sentence refers to wheat genome as 1C-17Gbp. English abstract at http://content.karger.com/
    produktedb/produkte.asp?doi=313072

    As I understand it 1 giga-base   =  109 base pairs, and mega-base =  106 base pairs; it's not a formula like that used to compare computer bytes of giga-bytes and mega-bytes.

    You might have research use for the Harvard Gene Index Project's Computational Biology & Functional Genomics Laboratory; if use link below look at top of page and see a category for "Gene Indices", click there to then choose from subjects "Plants", "Animal" or several other indices.
    http://compbio.dfci.harvard.edu/tgi

  • Might-o'chondri-AL

    9/8/2011 1:06:38 AM |

    To Pedro  (Server blocked elsewhere),
    Journal Biological Chemistry 2003,278:54-63  "A Type 1 Diabetes-related Protein from Wheat" that refers to globulin (a storage molecule of wheat) being antigenic for autoimmune problems was where I saw wheat genome estimated in 2002 to be 16.5 gigabase. I read that article when tried to track down Doc's reason to declare wheat implicated in Type 1 diabetes. Full article at www. jbc.org/content/278/1/54.full

  • otterotter

    9/8/2011 2:35:31 AM |

    Dr.Davis,

    Just listened to the podcast, that's fantastic !

    I have been diagnosed with TD2 last Sept, and since then being on the very low carb. Everything went well except my total cholesterol went out of control, and in January it was 400.

    What I don't understand is my Lp(a) is close to 0 ( less than 5.0 mg/dL as it was reported).

    Here is my latest direct measurements from SPECTRACELL LAB in Huston.

    VLDL Particels: 122 nmol/L (needs to be < 85)
    Total LDL Particles : 1271 nmol/L (needs to be < 900)
    Non-HDL Particles: 1394 nmol/L (needs to be < 1000)
    RLP(Remnant Lipoprotein) 205 nmol/L (needs to be < 150)
    Small Dense LDL III: 552 nmol/L (needs to be < 300, marked as very high risk right now)
    Small Dense LDL IV: 96 nmol/L (needs to be  7000)
    Large Buoyant HDL 2b: 2045 nmol/L (needs to be > 1500)

    Apo B-100: 127 mg/dL (needs to be < 80)
    Lp(a) : less than 5 mg/dL (needs to be < 30)
    C-Reactive Protein-hs : 0.2 mg/L (needs to be < 1)
    Insulin: less than 4.0 uIU/mL (needs to be < 35)
    Homocycteine: 12.3 umol/L (needs to be < 11)

    Total Cholesterol: 259 mg/dL
    LDL: 159 mg/dL
    HDL: 59 mg/dL
    Triglycerides: 118 mg/dL
    Non-HDL-Chol : 200 mg/dL


    I already removed the cheese and eggs from the diet, I suspect I am APOE 4.

    Any comments on my pattern ?

    thanks!

    otterotter

  • Might-o'chondri-AL

    9/8/2011 2:53:25 AM |

    To DCMarc  (server blocked where belongs),
    Benfotiamine, a synthetic thiamine used in diabetic neuropathy, increases enzyme trans-keto-lase inside a cell. The use in diabetics and neuro-degeneration may (?) require professional consideration in cancer cases. Trans-keto-lase spurs cells to go into aerobic glycolysis (aerobic here refers to cell performing glycolysis despite oxygen being around for performing normal mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation) for processing cells glucose; this aerobic glycolysis is the  famous Warburg effect and experimentally administering trans-keto-lase augments cancer cell proliferation (likewise experimentally spiking up thiamin increases trans-keto-lase).

    Trans-keto-lase works for diabetics & in neuro-degeneration because  it pushes cell's glucose (via transcription once cAMP binds to it)  into the hexose mono-phosphate shunt ( of D-glucose-6p to D-glucono-lactone 6P to D-glycr-aldhehyde-3-phosphate) called the Pentose  Pathway (where hexose forms into pentose). This  process generates NADPH which boosts anti-oxidant glutathione ( & thioredoxin) production inside the cell. Also NADPH brings on the  activation of  the cell's endoplasmic reticulum's Unfolded Protein Response which helps the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) tolerate dangerous endoplasmic reticulum stress (ER stress is significant in diabetes and neuro-degeneration).

    ER stress, with protein folding complications, sees NADP+ accumulate and so augmenting trans-keto-lase pushes quicker output of NADPH to keep pace; this  triggers the Unfolded Protein Response to induce Cu,ZnSOD expression that then alleviates the ER stress (ie: helps ER tolerate demanding conditions).  This helps in that it  keeps the stressed ER  ( a state that coincides with more local super-oxide O--),  from seeding the dangerous (and largely un-neutralizable) hydroxyl radicals (hydroxyl radicals come about when super-oxide related hydrogen peroxide  provokes Fenton  & Haber/Weiss reactions reducing Cu++ or Fe+++ ). This is similarly how trans-keto-lase also benefits cancer cells ( rampant cancer cell growth demands protein folding that formally stresses the ER); the prevention against reactive oxygen species means cancer cells don't suffer apoptosis (cell death).

    Diabetics use of Befotiamine ( a dynamic fat soluble thiamine trans-keto-lase booster) will  help them similarly with their ER stress . In  their case the shift to using their regularly high glucose in the Pentose Pathway will mean quicker degradation of that glucose than if cells used mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation. This also means the glycation (Doc warns against this from high glucose)  and thus tissue cells levels of advanced glycation end products (AGE) will be less; blunting the amount of AGE messing with monocytes and less endothelial dysfunction  amount to less inflammation, less diabetic oxidative stress and likewise less alteration of the vascular tissue such as atherosclerosis.

    Experimentally induced diabetes is often done by feeding a very high  fat diet. Much of the fat in a very high fat diet  acts to drive down the level of trans-keto-lase due to a transcription adaptationum within 8 weeks in rodents. For humans thiamine (B1) is often recommended to diabetics; cauliflower is a nice thiamine source to make into trans-keto-lase.

  • Might-o'chondri-AL

    9/8/2011 6:26:09 AM |

    To  B. Smith (Server won't post where belongs ),
    Glutamine, an amino acid, is used by cancer cells to keep apoptosis (cell death) from happening in several ways. One way is how glutamine keeps the cell nucleus from condensing and stops the capsase 3 & capsase 8 cascades from starting apoptosis. The other way is how there is an increase in the  anti-oxidant glutathione synthesis when glutamine elevates NADPH (see comment above for ER stress).

    Tumor Necrosis Factor alpha (TNF) works to destroy a cancer cell by running down that cell's mitochondrial glutathione level; this needs to be replenished with glutathione from that cell's cytosol. Once there is a 35% plunge in mitochondrial glutathione that  alters the mitochondrial membrane so that it stops bringing in glutathione to the mitochondria and starts leaking out cytochrome c into that cell's cytosol (which can jump start an apoptosis program). Cancer cells' rapid growth strains the normal oxidative stress limits of a cell, so cancer cells draw in lots of glutamine to boost the level of ready glutathione inside that cell; then the cytosol can continually shore up the mitochondrial glutathione levels to prevent one of the apoptosis scenarios from starting .

    A cancer cell at some point has to "transform" to progress and needs lots of DNA at that stage; glutamine is needed for synthesis of cellular RNA & DNA. The bio-synthesis of nucleotides utilizes glutamine; and having lots of de-oxy-ribo-nucleotides around favors DNA replication at that cancer's key "transformation" stage (ie: S-phase). The use of glutamine by a cancer cell for converting into energy to run on, like some normal cells do, is not why cancer cells take up so much glutamine.

  • Galina L.

    9/8/2011 4:25:13 PM |

    @ Might-o'chondri-AL
    Dear Might, do you mind to tell what do you think about that cancer research result?
    l http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3117136/?tool=pubmed

  • Peter Silverman

    9/8/2011 6:58:08 PM |

    My cardiologist said, "look, I don't know about nutrition.  If you want to talk about nutrion, go talk to a nutritionist"

  • Might-o'chondri-AL

    9/9/2011 12:32:19 AM |

    Hi GalinaL,
    Cancer undergoes several oncongenic processes wherein the so-called epithelilial pheno-type cell (epithelial cells are +/-85% of cancer substrate cells) gets it's cell nucleus histones acetylated, which creates what is called "stemness"  (the ability of that cell to renew itself with potency, like our stem cells). This leads to a phase called epithelial-mesenchymal transition (where the morphing cell can go either way, either back to benign epithelial pheno-type or onward to dangerous mesenchymal pheno-type). It is when the enzyme histone acetyl-transferase no longer keeps that epithelial histone acetylated ( a sort of  limbo) that the epithelial cell's genetic expression gets knocked down permitting the further shift into full mesenchymal pheno-type .

    What is important to realize about cancer cell's taking over a cell's nuclear DNA is that when the pheno-type goes from epithelial to mesenchymal the cancer cell's mesenchymal pheno-type somehow still retains the ability to perform the stem cell "stemness" of indefinite replication. Your cited authors point out that keotones boost tumor growth (+/-2.5 times) and lactate boosts tumor metastasis (+/- 10 times); and  also that their metabolic use raises a cell's Acetyl-CoA and this increases the acetylation of histones causing more gene expressio. And so authors report limiting ketones and lactate in cancer seem to be the "achilles heel" to cut off in order to stop cancer's "stemness" (ie: inherent potential); their extrapolation from this is interesting as a theory..

    There are other processes beyond histone modification which show oncongenesis is not lineal. When the cancer cell is still just an epithelial pheno-type cell unit micro RNA (miRNA) of the miRNA-200 family group is un-methylated; and thus holds the epithelial pheno-type steady, because un-methylated miRNA isn't reactive enough for messenger RNA (mRNA) transcription. A 2nd stage is seen once hyper-methylation  occurs, while at the same time less miRNA is put out; this morphs the cancer cell into the mesenchymal pheno-type and at that stage metastasis is possible. While an advanced 3rd stage comes about when miRNA resurges somewhat; this is what makes extensive metastasis of cancer cells that have migrated start happening. (Lineal thinking about cancer is a trap, since it is methylation that lets cancer cells get going but later de-methylation that let's them thrive and patient outcome worsen).

    Warburg effect is suggested, by cited study, to be almost a lineal concept; which they propose to re-define as desireable if it simply limits lactate and ketone production in a cell. This theory has it's own trap because in the Warburg effect +/-60% of the carbon from glucose undergoing aerobic glycolysis in cancer cells is actually being used by cancer cells as a carbon scaffolding for "de novo" fatty acid synthesis to feed into fatty acid oxidation. In other words the elevated amount of cancer cell's aerobic glycolysis (Warburg effect) is really fostering fatty acid oxidation; and fatty acid oxidation increases cancer resistance.

    The cancer cells uncouple the mitochondria oxidative phosphorylation of glucose so that the a lot of the processing of glucose doesn't go all the way to normal completion of ATP production; instead cancer cells use the initial steps that perform oxidation of glucose to cleave off the carbon atoms from that glucose to use. In other words it is the mitochondrial uncoupling protein up-regulated by that cancer cell's genetic  transcription which, down the line, forces that cell to continue to escalate Warburg's aerobic glycolysis in order to keep up with energy demands as carbon skeletons get used up.

    Metaformin's use in cancer treatment was suggested by study's authors to support their "reverse Warburg" theory : that it is by forcing Warburg's aerobic glycolysis to occur, due to Metaformin,  which accounts for cancer control seen. This seems too lineal an interpretation of the events; especially with regard to preceding paragraph's explanation of how Warburg relates to unpredictable carbon molecule usage. Metaformin reliably does inhibit the mitochondrial complex 1; and this will stymie glucose (and also glutamate, which cancer cells prodigiously take in ) from going on to produce ATP. I would suggest that this also stops the oxidizing of glucose molecules and thus sparse carbon skeletons are available to make into fatty acids for burning.

    In addition Metaformin inhibiting mitochondrial complex 1 will also reduce fatty acid oxidation; this is because  NADH oxidation at that complex needs to happen in fatty acid oxidation. NAD+ is a crucial rate limiter in  fatty acid oxidation , but unless NADH can subsequently be re-oxidized as a molecule in the mitochondrial complex 1 it can't keep on driving fatty acid oxidation by lending out NAD+.  Metaformin use in cancer is even more complicated, because if the cancer has p53 then when glucose supply is low it manages to actually use more fatty acids to run on and then use auto-phagy house cleaning to avoid apoptosis death. Whereas, if a cancer does not have much p53 then Metaformin seems to be more effective in treating cancer.

  • Dr. William Davis

    9/9/2011 2:25:55 AM |

    Yup, and the nutritionist hawks the usual "cut your fat, eat more whole grains" line.

    It's a comedy of misinformation with advice from agencies paid for by your tax dollars.

  • Dr. William Davis

    9/9/2011 2:29:21 AM |

    Hi, otter--

    Obviously, I can provide only limited advice in a blog post.

    But I agree: Apo E4 is a prime consideration. However, keep in mind that small LDL remains the most atherogenic (plaque-causing) of all your patterns and still deserves the primary focus. Also, if this blood sample was drawn with ongoing weight loss, this alone can provide substantial distortions.

  • Galina L.

    9/9/2011 2:48:25 AM |

    Wow! I don't know who else would dissect that article like you did! I really, really appreciate you decision to replay on my question. Looks like  Metaformin could be healthful in more than one way in treating cancer.

Add comment

Loading