Tag Archives: stroke

Carbohydrate Restriction for Diabetes I and II

Leave a reply

A great review article challenging the current low fat dogma has been published. This should be required reading for all physicians. It brings clarity, data, and perspective to the discussion.

Here is the abstract:

Abstract

“The inability of current recommendations to control the epidemic of diabetes, the specific failure of the prevailing low-fat diets to improve obesity, cardiovascular risk or general health and the persistent reports of some serious side effects of commonly prescribed diabetic medications, in combination with the continued success of low-carbohydrate diets in the treatment of diabetes and metabolic syndrome without significant side effects, point to the need for a reappraisal of dietary guidelines.”

Here are the opening paragraphs.

“The benefits of carbohydrate restriction in diabetes are immediate and well-documented. Concerns about the efficacy and safety are long-term and conjectural rather than data-driven. Dietary carbohydrate restriction reliably reduces high blood glucose, does not require weight loss (although is still best for weight loss) and leads to the reduction or elimination of medication and has never shown side effects comparable to those seen in many drugs.

Here we present 12 points of evidence supporting the use of low-carbohydrate diets as the first approach to treating type 2 diabetes and as the most effective adjunct to pharmacology in type 1. They represent the best-documented, least controversial results. The insistence on long-term random-controlled trials as the only kind of data that will be accepted is without precedent in science. The seriousness of diabetes requires that we evaluate all of the evidence that is available. The 12 points are sufficiently compelling that we feel that the burden of proof rests with those who are opposed.

“At the end of our clinic day, we go home thinking, ‘The clinical improvements are so large and obvious, why don’t other doctors understand?’ Carbohydrate restriction is easily grasped by patients: because carbohydrates in the diet raise the blood glucose, and as diabetes is defined by high blood glucose, it makes sense to lower the carbohydrate in the diet. By reducing the carbohydrate in the diet, we have been able to taper patients off as much as 150 units of insulin per day in eight days, with marked improvement in glycemic control – even normalization of glycemic parameters.”

— Eric Westman, MD, MHS [1].

Here is the link to the whole article.

Dietary Carbohydrate restriction as the first approach in diabetes management. Critical review and evidence base

Peace and good health.

Bob Hansen MD

Amputations, Gangrene and Carbohydrates

5 Replies

As an anesthesiologist I have spent more than 60,000 hours in the operating room and cared for over 30,000 patients. I often observe the end-results of bad dietary advice. I am referring to the liberal carbohydrate allowance that the American Diabetes Association and other agencies offer diabetics.

Today was a particularly poignant day as I cared for two diabetics who required amputations for complications of diabetes type II. These complications could have likely been avoided if our supermarkets were not stocked with high carb nutritionally deplete “food” AND if the ADA, physicians and nutritionists counseled diabetics to significantly reduce their carbohydrate intake. Instead, the low fat narrative has so predominated our culture, that we have taken our eyes off of the major dietary threats during the past 40 years, excessive carbohydrates and especially refined carbohydrates.

The leading cause of amputations in modern society are the complications of diabetes including peripheral arterial disease (atherosclerosis in the arteries to our limbs) and peripheral neuropathy (loss of sensation in the feet and hands). The combination of these two, or just one alone can lead to non-healing wounds and ulcers in the feet, then chronic infections and ultimately gangrene. Futile efforts to restore circulation to the legs with vascular bypass surgeries or arterial stents usually just briefly delay the inevitable series of amputations that start in the toes and progress up the leg, step by step until only a stump is left above the level once occupied by the knee.

Gangrene is an ugly thing. During the Civil War the major cause was trauma. Today the major cause is diabetes and indirectly, excess carbohydrate consumption.

The visual experience of gangrene results in a visceral reaction, even after more than 30 years of observation. The knowledge that most of these complications could be avoided by simply eating whole fresh foods instead of crap in a bag or crap in a box is frustrating. The human suffering and economic costs (lost wages, disability, medical expenses) are staggering. Diabetes type II is largely a disease of lifestyle. The lifestyle elements involved include poor dietary habits, lack of exercise, inadequate sleep, and stress. All of these contribute and all are modifiable and avoidable.

Type II diabetes is arguably reversible early in the disease process. As it progresses a patient reaches an irreversible point of no return where the pancreas has been exhausted and the insulin producing cells are no longer efficient and effective. Equally important,  the cells in the rest of the body do not respond in a normal fashion to what little insulin is produced. But even at this stage carbohydrate restriction can mitigate complications if only healthy fresh whole-foods are consumed and modest exercise is practiced on a daily basis.

Other complications of diabetes including blindness, painful neuropathy, kidney failure requiring dialysis, heart attack and stroke all are arguably avoidable with a whole foods paleolithic carbohydrate restricted diet and modest amounts of regular exercise.

What a pity, what a shame, what a waste.

Below are some links and research articles to back up my statements.

Peace, health, and harmony.

BOB

1. Type 2 Diabetes

2. American Diabetes Association Embraces Low-Carbohydrate Diets. Can You Believe It? | Richard David Feinman

3. Nutrition Science on Pinterest

4. Low-Carb for You: Low-Carb versus Low-Fat

And Many More:

Jenkins DJ, Kendall CW, McKeown-Eyssen G, Josse RG, Silverberg J, Booth GL, Vidgen E, Josse AR, Nguyen TH, Corrigan S et al: Effect of a low-glycemic index or a high-cereal fiber diet on type 2 diabetes: a randomized trial. JAMA 2008, 300(23):2742-2753.

Westman EC, Yancy WS, Mavropoulos JC, Marquart M, McDuffie JR: The Effect of a Low-Carbohydrate, Ketogenic Diet Versus a Low-Glycemic Index Diet on Glycemic Control in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. Nutr Metab (Lond) 2008, 5(36).

Gannon MC, Hoover H, Nuttall FQ: Further decrease in glycated hemoglobin following ingestion of a LoBAG30 diet for 10 weeks compared to 5 weeks in people with untreated type 2 diabetes. Nutr Metab (Lond) 2010, 7:64.

Gannon MC, Nuttall FQ: Control of blood glucose in type 2 diabetes without weight loss by modification of diet composition. Nutr Metab (Lond) 2006, 3:16.

Gannon MC, Nuttall FQ: Effect of a high-protein, low-carbohydrate diet on blood glucose control in people with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes 2004, 53(9):2375-2382.

Forsythe CE, Phinney SD, Feinman RD, Volk BM, Freidenreich D, Quann E, Ballard K, Puglisi MJ, Maresh CM, Kraemer WJ et al: Limited effect of dietary saturated fat on plasma saturated fat in the context of a low carbohydrate diet. Lipids 2010, 45(10):947-962.

Jakobsen MU, Overvad K, Dyerberg J, Schroll M, Heitmann BL: Dietary fat and risk of coronary heart disease: possible effect modification by gender and age. Am J Epidemiol 2004, 160(2):141-149.

Siri-Tarino PW, Sun Q, Hu FB, Krauss RM: Saturated fat, carbohydrate, and cardiovascular disease. Am J Clin Nutr 2010, 91(3):502-509.

Int J Cardiol. 2006 Jun 16;110(2):212-6. Epub 2005 Nov 16. Effect of a low-carbohydrate, ketogenic diet program compared to a low-fat diet on fasting lipoprotein subclasses. Westman EC, Yancy WS Jr, Olsen MK, Dudley T, Guyton JR.

Mol Cell Biochem. 2007 Aug;302(1-2):249-56. Epub 2007 Apr 20.Beneficial effects of ketogenic diet in obese diabetic subjects. Dashti HM, Mathew TC, Khadada M, Al-Mousawi M, Talib H, Asfar SK, Behbahani AI, Al-Zaid NS.

 

 

Addendum to lose weight, control blood sugar, decrease inflammation

Leave a reply

To those of you who have subscribed to my blog by e-mail, I must apologize that I hit the “publish button” by mistake before I completed the finished article. So if you would like to read the full article, please go to the website for the updated and completed version.

Thanks

Bob Hansen MD

Don’t Give More Patients Statins

3 Replies
On November 14, the following editorial was published in the New York Times.

Don’t Give More Patients Statins

By JOHN D. ABRAMSON and RITA F. REDBERG

New guidelines published on Tuesday of last week widely expand the category of who should take statins.

Two physicians authored the article providing an excellent analysis and warning against implementation of the new guidelines which are unfortunately and again, not based on sound evidence or reasonable analysis.

” based on the same data the new guidelines rely on, 140 people in this risk group would need to be treated with statins in order to prevent a single heart attack or stroke, without any overall reduction in death or serious illness.”

“At the same time, 18 percent or more of this group would experience side effects, including muscle pain or weakness, decreased cognitive function, increased risk of diabetes  (especially for women),  cataracts or sexual dysfunction.”

“We believe that the new guidelines are not adequately supported by objective data, and that statins should not be recommended for this vastly expanded class of healthy Americans. Instead of converting millions of people into statin customers, we should be focusing on the real factors that undeniably reduce the risk of heart disease: healthy diets, exercise and avoiding smoking. Patients should be skeptical about the guidelines, and have a meaningful dialogue with their doctors about statins, including what the evidence does and does not show, before deciding what is best for them.”

History repeats itself, soon the AHA and ACA will want statins in the water. The 18% estimate of serious side effects in my opinion is understated. Every week in the pain clinic I diagnose statin myopathy and/or cognitive impairment on at least one patient. Here are some stories about patients that appeared in the comments section of the oped on-line.

Noreen stated:

I am a victim of statin “therapy.” At the age of 72, with just a moderately high LDL, Simvastatin was prescribed. I took it for approximately 2 weeks, and severe pain developed in my whole body, but, primarily in my lower legs. I read the side effects on line and stopped taking it.
The pain went away, but my legs were weak. After much investigation by neurologists at University of California, SFMC, I was diagnosed with statin-induced neuropathy. The calf muscle in both legs has totally gone — nothing left but sinew. My life has been severely damaged by an inability to walk properly. I cannot raise on my toes. It has been three years since I took this medication, and there is no further hope of recovery. Prior to taking Simvastatin I was an athlete all my life. At the time of this pharmaceutical invasion I was still, hiking, exercising regularly and downhill skiing. Shame of this hired committee of “experts.”

Here is how a physician/patient described his experience.

I agree with Abramson and Redburg that treating a numbers instead of the patient is wrong. I am in a high risk group and I would hope to prevent another heart attack (I had one in 2009), yet I cannot take statins as I repeatedly developed muscle pain and then progressive weakness and loss of balance with all the statins I tried. My cardiologists (including Mayo physicians) and internists continued to push trying different statins and other cholesterol lowering medications even though I complained of side effects. Although some of my loss of power is due to aging and not statins, I used to be able to hike 10 to 20 miles with up to 5 to 6,000 feet elevation gain in a day before my statin era and now I can barely manage 4-5 miles at a slow pace. I’ve seen this in others taking statins. Even though the percentage who develop weakness may be low compared to the majority, it is a real debilitating effect for some. Doctors are brain washed (and the lay public too by TV and other ad bombardment), by the pharmaceutical industry to treat numbers rather than individuals. The result is the standard of care is now to treat the lab test instead of the person. Statins are dangerous medications and should not be prescribed lightly. SD Markowitz, MD

George from CA describes his experience as follows.

I had been on statins for over 15 years. Slowly, I began experiencing cognitive dysfunction, balance issues, muscle weakness, etc. even though I exercised both my body and brain. I quit several months ago and have been feeling better all around every day with improvement in every area. I’d rather die feeling good in 10 or 20 years than be miserable for however long this terrible medicine might extend my life.

JR Hoffman MD from Los Angeles provided further insight.

Congratulations to Drs Abramson and Redberg for their outstanding editorial, and to the NYT for having the courage to print it. As the authors note, this new guideline’s major beneficiary will be the pharmaceutical industry, while the American people will likely be its primary victim.

The British Medical Journal has recently printed a series of papers (disclosure — I co-authored one of those papers) addressing the biases and distortions that enter far too many published clinical guidelines, because a large majority of panel members and panel chairs have a financial conflict of interest, and because panels are stacked to support viewpoints reflecting those conflicts, independent of the evidence. This is particularly true of guidelines from prominent medical specialty societies … societies which themselves receive major financial support from industry. 

How many people targeted by the new guidelines would take one of these medicines if they were told that far more than 9 out of 10 (in fact probably more than 99%) would get no possible benefit whatever? And essentially none would get an overall reduction in major morbidity or mortality? And that this would come at a substantial cost in the side effects that a good many would suffer (not even considering the cost in dollars)?

If your physician tells you that you “need” a statin, please ask her for the details of how likely you as an individual are to benefit, and at what chance of harm.

Statin drugs interfere with the human production of many important substances. One of these is Coenzyme Q 10 also called uibiquinone. Co Q 10 functions as an important anti-oxidant and as an essential component of the apparatus inside every cell that produces ATP, the fundamental unit of energy that provides energy for every cellular function. Without ATP the cells in every organ shut down and cannot do any work.

Statin side effects can include not only muscle pain and weakness but also nerve damage, dementia, amnesia.  Shortness of breath can be the only symptoms when the muscles of respiration are affected.  Diabetes can be caused by any of the statin drugs and this can be permanent.  Rarely, statins can cause death . This happens when a massive amount of muscle damage causes a flood of debris that overwhelms the body’s ability to clear the debris. Damage to muscles and nerves can be permanent without any recovery after  the statin is stopped. A former astronaut and flight surgeon suffered transient global amnesia which fortunately cleared after stopping the statin drug. He has since published a few books about the dangers and inappropriate use of statins. Kidney failure requiring dialysis or kidney transplant is also a rare but potential result of statin medication.

Cardiologists and primary care physicians often ignore complaints about muscle pain, fatigue, weakness and forgetfulness in older patients and attribute it to old age. But even when these complaints are recognized as a side effect, rarely does a physician report it  to the FDA. As a result, post marketing surveillance data underestimates tremendously the frequency of side effects.

Be careful out there. Read my first post about statin medications. it provides risk-benefit data. Remember, we do not know with certainty the frequency of side effects and permanent damage, but you can be sure it happens more often than the drug company states. It happens more often than most physicians realize.

Peace

Bob Hansen MD

Sugar, a serious addiction

1 Reply

Sugar affects the pleasure centers of the brain in a manner much the same as cocaine, heroin, and other addictive substances. In that respect Americans are addicted to sugar. The average American consumes 136 pounds of added sugar per year. This includes 68 pounds of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) and other corn-derived sweetener. These figures do not include the amount of natural sugar found in whole foods. These figures cover only the sugar added to food and beverages to make them sweeter.

From wikipedia:

“Sugar is the generalized name for a class of chemically-related sweet-flavored substances, most of which are used as food. They are carbohydrates, composed of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen. There are various types of sugar derived from different sources. Simple sugars are called monosaccharides and include glucose (also known as dextrose), fructose and galactose. The table or granulated sugar most customarily used as food is sucrose, a disaccharide (in the body, sucrose hydrolyses into fructose and glucose). Other disaccharides include maltose and lactose. Chemically-different substances may also have a sweet taste, but are not classified as sugars. Some are used as lower-calorie food substitutes for sugar described as artificial sweeteners.”

“The most widely used varieties of HFCS are: HFCS 55 (mostly used in soft drinks), approximately 55% fructose and 42% glucose; and HFCS 42 (used in beverages, processed foods, cereals, and baked goods), approximately 42% fructose and 53% glucose”

also from Wikipedia:

“It used to be believed that sugar raised blood glucose levels more quickly than did starch because of its simpler chemical structure. However, it turned out that white bread or French fries have the same effect on blood sugar as pure glucose, while fructose, although a simple carbohydrate, has a minimal effect on blood sugar. As a result, as far as blood sugar is concerned, carbohydrates are classified according to their glycemic index, a system for measuring how quickly a food that is eaten raises blood sugar levels, and glycemic load, which takes into account both the glycemic index and the amount of carbohydrate in the food.[60]”

Our blood sugars (glucose level measured as milligrams per deciliter or mg/dl) rise after every meal or snack and our body responds with the secretion of insulin from the pancreas to enable efficient processing of the sugar. Insulin facilitates the uptake of glucose into cells for utilization as energy and storage as starch (glycogen) or fat. Since glycogen storage capacity in the human body is relatively small (equivalent to two hours of hard labor) and filled quickly, most caloric intake that is not used immediately for work gets stored as fat.

Diabetics have higher blood sugars than “normal” people after an overnight fast as well as after a meal. But the definition of a “normal” fasting blood sugar as compared to a diabetic or “pre-diabetic” level is quite arbitrary. Likewise the definition of a “normal” blood sugar 2 hours after swallowing 75 grams of sugar ( oral glucose tolerance test or OGTT) is also quite arbitrary.

Now the story becomes alarming. Blood sugar levels measured 2 hours after a challenge with 50 or 75 grams of oral sugar intake  that are below the diabetic range are associated with a significantly  increased risk of heart attack and stroke. Likewise, hemoglobin A1c levels (A1c) below the diabetic range are also associated with increased risk of heart attack. Hemoglobin is the protein in red blood cells that carries and delivers oxygen throughout our bodies. A1c is a measurement of the %  hemoglobin that has a molecule of sugar attached to it. A1c is thought to reflect the average amount of blood sugar during the prior 3 months (the average life of a red blood cell is 3 months). A1c is also called glycated hemoglobin.

So let’s discuss some data.

The Whitehall study followed 17,869 male civil servants aged 40-64 in England for 33 years. They measured the blood sugar 2 hours after consumption of 50 grams of glucose at the start of the study and recorded death from all causes, cardiovascular causes, and respiratory causes and cancers during the 33 year period. They found a direct linear relationship between the baseline 2 hour blood sugar measurement and the risk of coronary death over 33 years. The higher the blood sugar two hours after the sugar drink, the greater the risk of death from a cardiac event. This relationship held true for blood sugars starting at 83 mg/dl (considered normal). There was a dose response relationship between 83 mg/dl and 200 mg/dl. The linear relationship was attenuated by 45% after adjustment for baseline coronary heart disease, BMI, systolic blood pressure, blood cholesterol, smoking, physical activity, lung function and employment grade. They also found that glucose intolerance (post-load blood glucose level 96-200 mg/dl) is associated with increased mortality risk from all causes, stroke, and respiratory disease but not all cancers. At the time of this study publication diabetes was defined as a two hour blood sugar response greater than 200 mg/dl, responses between 96 and 200 were labeled glucose intolerance.

They stated:

Our findings are consistent with recent meta-analyses of post-load glucose and CVD mortality that have assembled results from diverse population-based studies of non diabetic subjects and shown the effect of glucose intolerance on risk over median follow-up of 9-12 years.

Relation between blood glucose and coronary mortality over 33 years in theWhitehall Study.

A study in 2009 showed that patients who did not meet the ADA definition of diabetes (2 hour blood sugar  > 140 mg/dl using 75 gm of glucose) but had elevated  one hour glucose tolerance test (> 155 mg/dl) had “sub clinical inflammation, high lipid ratios and insulin resistance.” These translate into increased cardiovascular risk.

Inflammation markers and metabolic characteristics of subjects with one-hour plasma glucose levels

Hemoglobin A1c is a measurement of the amount of sugar attached to the hemoglobin protein in the red blood cells that carry oxygen in the blood. It is thought to reflect an average blood sugar level during the previous 2-3 months. A1c > 6.5% is considered diagnostic for diabetes. But cardiovascular risk increases at  A1c levels well below the level associated with diabetes. In one non-diabetic adults with A1c below 5% had the lowest rates of cardiovascular disease. Cardiovascular disease and death increased by 24 % for every 1% rise above A1c of 5% in non-diabetics.

Association of Hemoglobin A1c with Cardiovascular Disease and Mortality in Adults: The European Prospective Investigation into Cancer in Norfolk.

In another study heart disease risk increased as A1c rose above 4.6%, a level that corresponds to an average blood sugar level of 86 mg/dl, remarkably close to the threshold of 83 mg/dl found in the Whitehall study.

“In non diabetic adults, HbA1c level was not related to CHD risk below a level of 4.6% but was significantly related to risk above that level (P<.001). In diabetic adults, the risk of CHD increased throughout the range of HbA1c levels. In the adjusted model, the Risk Ratio of CHD for a 1 percentage point increase in HbA1c level was 2.36 (95% CI, 1.43-3.90) in persons without diabetes but with an HbA1c level greater than 4.6%. In diabetic adults, the Risk Ratio was 1.14 (95% CI, 1.07-1.21) per 1 percentage point increase in HbA1c across the full range of HbA1c values.”

In other words, A1c level of 5.6% vs 4.6% was associated with more than doubling the risk of CHD. That is a profound difference. (Statin drugs  reduced risk of cardiac mortality by 13%  in studies that mixed primary and secondary prophylaxis populations)

Glycemic Control and Coronary Heart Disease Risk in Persons With and Without Diabetes. The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study.

In a study that followed 11,092 adults without diabetes or cardiovascular disease for 15 years the associations between A1c at baseline and the development of diabetes, coronary artery disease and stroke were evaluated.

Multivariate-Adjusted Hazard Ratio
A1c at baseline            coronary disease risk   diabetes risk                stroke risk
<5%                             0.96 (0.74-1.24)         0.52 (0.40 to 0.69)      1.09 (0.67-1.76)
5% to < 5.5%:             1.00 (reference)           1.00 (reference)           1.00
5.5% to < 6%:              1.23 (1.07-1.41)         1.86 (1.67 to 2.08)      1.23 (1.07-1.41)
6% to < 6.5%:              1.78 (1.48-2.15)         4.48 (3.92 to 5.13)      1.78 (1.48-2.15)
>= 6.5%:                     1.95 (1.53-2.48)          16.47 (14.22-19.08)    1.95 (1.53-2.48)

So below the range for diabetes, A1c levels in the range of 6 to <6.5% are associated with an increased the risk of heart disease and stroke by 78% an astounding amount in comparison to the purported effects of blood cholesterol. But this study had another interesting result.

“The association between the fasting glucose levels and the risk of cardiovascular disease or death from any cause was not significant in models with adjustment for all co-variates as well as glycated hemoglobin. For coronary heart disease, measures of risk discrimination showed significant improvement when glycated hemoglobin was added to models including fasting glucose.”

In other words, when A1c was included in a mathematical model of multiple risk factors the effect of fasting glucose on risk of cardiovascular disease disappeared. There are theoretical reasons to explain this but that is the topic of another post.

The authors summarized by saying.

“In this community-based population of non diabetic adults, glycated hemoglobin was similarly associated with a risk of diabetes and more strongly associated with risks of cardiovascular disease and death from any cause as compared with fasting glucose.”

Glycated Hemoglobin, Diabetes, and Cardiovascular Risk in Nondiabetic Adults.

Now some folks are concerned that the 2 hour blood sugar response to swallowing 75 grams of sugar does not reflect the reality of a real meal.  Although the literature has revealed that the results of an OGTT  is a better predictor of cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality than fasting blood glucose (FBG) the OGTT is not a real meal and represents only a surrogate for a real meal. So a group of researchers decided

“To evaluate whether postprandial blood glucose predicts cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality in type 2 diabetes in a long term follow-up taking into account A1c and the main cardiovascular risk factors.”

They found that both A1c and blood sugars measured 2 hours after lunch were predictors of cardiovascular events and death.

Postprandial Blood Glucose Predicts Cardiovascular Events and All-Cause Mortality in Type 2 Diabetes in a 14-Year Follow-Up Lessons from the San Luigi Gonzaga Diabetes Study

Remember, association does not prove causation. So what is going on here? How could higher blood sugar, even below the levels associated with diabetes, cause heart attacks, strokes and death?

Many complex mechanisms are likely involved.  Three to consider include

  1. modification of LDL particles
  2. glycation of proteins throughout the body
  3. increased inflammation.

Recall that LDL particles carry cholesterol and fat (fatty acids) in the blood to deliver both cholesterol and fat to cells that need them. The various cells of our body have LDL receptors that engage the particle for docking and delivery.

As  mentioned in previous posts, modified LDL particles are great stimulators for the development of atherosclerotic plaques in the walls of arteries. Modified LDL particles stimulate cells of the immune system to transform and become disposal units for the modified LDL. Unfortunately, the disposal process leads to deposition of the remnants of this process in the wall of our artery, creating a plaque (atherosclerotic plaque).

LDL particles can be modified by oxidation  (the polyunsaturated fats on the surface of LDL become oxidized, remember saturated fats are not easily oxidized ) or by having sugar attach to the protein that envelopes the LDL particle (creating glycated LDL). Both forms of modified LDL (glycated and oxidized) are involved with atherosclerosis. Both forms stimulate the immune system to react as described above.

So far we have discussed the data for “normal blood sugar” levels wreaking havoc with respect to heart attack and stroke, but the same applies to other potential forms of damage including peripheral artery disease, kidney failure, peripheral neuropathy, cataracts, and dementia to name a few. All of these involve increased risk associated with higher blood sugar levels,  inflammation and probably the glycation of various proteins in the body that are essential to normal function of our cells. When this glycation occurs we refer to the glycated proteins as advanced glycation end products (AGEs).

Glycosylation weakens the tight junction between the endothelial cells that line the arteries making them leaky and vulnerable to tears. Glycosylation of proteins in the lens of the eye creates cataracts. Glycosylation in the tiny blood vessels in the back of the eye makes them leak and bleed and can cause diabetic retinopathy, a leading cause of blindness. Glycosylation of the collagen in the skin makes skin less elastic and stiffer (aging skin). Glycosylation of collagen in your joints impairs joint mobility and can lead to arthritis. Glycosylation of the elastic tissue in lungs can impair pulmonary function.

AGEs disrupt the normal function of cells, no matter what organ is involved, and as AGEs accumulate we literally age. The human body has a way to deal with AGEs. There are mechanisms to rid ourselves of AGEs but if production exceeds elimination the imbalance leads to disease and this can occur anywhere in the body.

We have been talking about blood glucose but what about fructose? Fructose is handled by the human body in a manner very different from glucose. In overweight and obese humans fructose compared to glucose in equal caloric amounts over a 10 week period causes.

  1. increased fasting glucose
  2. increased fasting insulin levels,
  3. decreased insulin sensitivity,
  4. increased production of fat in the liver,
  5. increased fasting levels of oxidized LDL,
  6. increased fasting levels of small dense LDL (considered to be more atherogenic than large buoyant LDL)
  7. increased blood levels of pro-inflammatory and pro-thrombotic (blood clot forming) mediators
  8. Increased uric acid

This list represents some but not all of the differences as discussed in many papers including the following.

Consuming fructose-sweetened, not glucose-sweetened, beverages increases visceral adiposity and lipids and decreases insulin sensitivity in overweight/obese humans.

Consumption of fructose– but not glucose-sweetened beverages for 10 weeks increases circulating concentrations of uric acid, retinol binding protein-4, and gamma-glutamyl transferase activity in overweight/obese humans.

Circulating concentrations of monocyte chemoattractant protein-1, plasminogen activator inhibitor-1, and soluble leukocyte adhesion molecule-1 in overweight/obese men and women consuming fructose– or glucose-sweetened beverages for 10 weeks.

In addition,

  1. Fructose is 10 times more reactive in the formation of AGEs than is glucose.
  2. Fructose appears to cause changes in the brain that may lead to overeating. These findings are published in the January 2, 2013 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association.
  3. Fructose consumption in young men and women increases LDL-cholesterol, apolipprotein B and triglycerides.
  4. In rhesus monkeys fructose consumption provides a model for insulin resistance, metabolic syndrome, and type 2 diabetes.
  5. Fructose consumption for 10 weeks reduces energy expenditure and the burning of fat in overweight and obese men and women.

Arguably, the 68 pounds per year of corn syryp that American adults consume (along with the other 68 pounds of added sugar) have contributed significantly to the obesity epidemic in the US.

Dietary sugars: a fat difference.

And along with obesity and diabetes come increased risk of cognitive decline (demetia);

“The incidence of obesity has increased dramatically over the past several years, and in parallel, so has the prevalence of type 2 diabetes (T2D). Numerous studies have demonstrated that both obesity and T2D are associated with lower cognitive performance, cognitive decline, and dementia. Intake of dietary fructose has also increased. In fact, high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) accounts for as much as 40% of caloric sweeteners used in the United States. Given the increase in the incidence of Alzheimer’s disease (AD), characterized by an age-related decline in memory and cognitive functioning, in this report we review the effects of obesity on cognitive performance and the impact of high fructose intake in promoting cognitive decline. The paper then considers the effects of omega-3 fatty acids (FAs), which have been linked to promising results in cognitive function including ameliorating the impact of a high-fructose diet.”

The emerging role of dietary fructose in obesity and … [Nutr J. 2013] – PubMed – NCBI

The relationship between dietary sugar, refined carbohydrates and obesity are explored in great detail in Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes. Taubes presents convincing and consistent data that supports the thesis that dietary sugar and refined carbohydrates contribute significantly to our obesity epidemic and that fat consumption from whole foods including animal fat do not cause obesity or cardiovascular disease. The simple logic is that sugar and refined carbohydrates increase insulin levels which in turn causes storage of carbohydrate as fat and impairs the utilization of fat for energy. While many criticize Taubes thesis for being to simple, the physiologic effects of insulin on fat storage and energy utilization are not disputed.

The issue of blood sugar levels and glycosylation appears to be one of level and duration of exposure. If we plot blood sugar over time and draw a graph, the area under the curve of the graph represents total exposure to  levels of blood sugar. If we draw a straight horizontal line under this curve that represents a toxic threshold (levels that result in glycosylation that exceed our ability to eliminate AGEs)  then the area of toxicity is equal to the area above the threshold line and below the curve of blood sugar. In theory then we should live a lifestyle (nutrition, sleep, exercise, stress reduction) that results in keeping our blood sugars as close as possible to the threshold of toxicity. The Whitehall study suggests that line would be drawn at 86 mg/dl. this discussion provides a conceptual framework. There is no proof of this argument, just data that support the concept that as blood sugars stay elevated above a certain level, this elevation increases the risk of disease. When we examine this argument in the light of evolutionary medicine/health it makes sense. Before the onset of agriculture we did not consume added sweeteners, refined carbohydrates, refined “vegetable” oils (oils from seeds, grains and legumes), nor did we consume manufactured trans fats. So draw a horizontal line in the graph below at some level, make it 86 mg/dl, and look at the area between the blood sugar level and that horizontal line. That is the theoretical toxicity zone.

blood sugar curve

The association between “normal blood sugar levels” and risk of heart attack and stroke have been observed for a long time but this association has received much less attention than the concern over consumption of fat and cholesterol in the diet. In previous posts I have pointed out the evidence that contradicts the notion that  consumption of saturated fat and cholesterol is a problem. Instead, there is growing evidence that easily oxidized polyunsaturated fat (vegetable oil) contributes to atherosclerosis , cardiovascular disease and chronic inflammation. Likewise, there is growing evidence that consumption of sweetened foods and beverages, as well as refined flour foods (which increase blood sugars much more than whole foods) are wreaking havoc in many ways.

So if there is a link between dietary sugar/refined carbohydrate consumption, blood sugar levels and disease, mediated by inflammation and glycosylation, what can we do about it? If there is a link between excessive consumption of pro-inflammatory and easily oxidized refined vegetable oils (linoleic acid) what can we do about it?

  • Avoid sweetened food and beverages
  • Drink only water and modest amounts of coffee or tea.
  • Avoid flour foods and other forms of refined carbohydrate which result in blood sugar surges and over time stress the pancreas
  • Eat only whole foods
  • Save your carbs for dinner
  • Walk for 15 minutes after every meal or 30-45 minutes per day
  • Engage in resistance training (weight lifting, resistance bands) for 20-30 minutes twice per week.
  • Get 8-9 hours of sleep each night
  • And if you really want to get serious about nutritional changes,  eat only the foods we have evolved to eat. Eat like a hunter-gatherer. Eat only pastured meat, free range poultry and free range eggs, fresh  wild fish and seafood, fresh  vegetables, fresh fruits and nuts.  Avoid grains, legumes, dairy. Avoid refined vegetable oils. Do not eat any food with “partially hydrogenated oil” or “hydrogenated oil” of any kind.

Resistance training twice per week for just 20-30 minutes will increase muscle mass and insulin sensitivity, lower blood sugars, preserve bone density, and provide many health benefits.

Eating most  carbs at dinner improved weight loss, lowered hunger, reduced abdominal circumference and enhanced body fat mass reductions in a calorie restricted weight loss study of obese adults.

Greater weight loss and hormonal cha… [Obesity (Silver Spring). 2011] – PubMed – NCBI

Sleep deprivation impairs insulin sensitivity, increases the risk of diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, depression, accidents and cancer, impairs immune function and wound healing, and impairs weight loss on a calorie restricted diet.

Meta-Analysis of Short Sleep Duration and Obesity in Children and Adults

Sleep duration and body mass index in twins: a gene-en… [Sleep. 2012] – PubMed – NCBI

Impact of insufficient sleep on total daily energy expenditure, food intake, and weight gain.

Neurobiological consequences of sleep deprivation.

Sleep and type 2 diabetes mellitus- clinical implications.

The influence of shift work on cognitive functions and oxidative stress.

Sleep disorders and depression: brief review of the literature, case report, and nonpharmacologic interventions for depression.

The impact of sleep deprivation on food desire in the human brain.

Walking 15 minutes after every meal in adults 60 years and older significantly improved 24 hour blood glucose control relative to control subjects who did not walk and was significantly more effective than 45 minutes of sustained morning or afternoon walking in lowering 3 hour post-dinner glucose levels.

Three 15-min bouts of moderate postmeal walking significantly improves 24-h glycemic control in older people at risk for impaired glucose tolerance.

Food, sleep, exercise and stress are the primary determinants of health.

While this post discussed two of three proposed mechanisms linking blood sugar levels to disease (modified LDL and AGEs) I did not discuss inflammation. The relationship between dietary sugar, refined carbohydrates and inflammation will be discussed in future posts.

In the meantime, stay tuned for “an egg a day keeps the doctor away”.

Peace,

Bob Hansen MD

Saturated fat, does it matter?

Leave a reply

Recommendations to reduce saturated fat consumption have pervaded our media since the AHA published its first dietary guidelines for the American public in 1961. The AMA at first opposed the recommendations but the AHA pushed on. The guidelines encouraged substitution of polyunsaturates for saturated fat. The guidelines were presented in a two page report with 1/2 page of references. A subsequent independent review of those references revealed that 1/2 of them did not support the recommendations, details, details.

My last blog looked at a meta-analysis of the major studies subsequently published on this topic and found that implementation of that recommendation does not reduce heart attacks or cardiac deaths and in fact there was a trend (not statistically significant) for worse outcomes associated with substituting PUFA (polyunsaturated fatty acids, primarily linoleic acid) for SFA (saturated fatty acids).

Please note that we are talking hard endpoints here, death and heart attack. So much of the literature that consumes this issue only looks at the effect on so called risk factors. When you actually look at the clinical outcomes (death, heart attack, stroke)  there is no benefit demonstrated when saturated fats are reduced.

In 1966 the makers of Mazola Corn Oil and Mazola Margarine sponsored publication of Your Heart Has Nine Lives, a book advocating the substitution of vegetable oils for butter and other “artery clogging” saturated fats.

The history of this campaign to demonize SFA and glorify PUFA is well described in Gary Taubes Good Calories, Bad Calories, as well as in Mary Enig’s essay The Oiling of America. I would encourage you to read both.  The latter is available on line as is Gary Taubes’ famous essay What if its all a big fat lie?

http://www.westonaprice.org/know-your-fats/the-oiling-of-america

In 2010 a highly respected lipid research group published what should have been a wake-up call study for the medical profession.

Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies evaluating the association of saturated fat with cardiovascular disease.

The data included 5 to 23 years follow up on 347,747 subjects. 11,006 developed coronary heart disease or stroke. Intake of saturated fat was not associated with an increased risk of coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke, or  cardiovascular disease (CVD =CHD plus stroke).

“there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD.”

To be clear, association (statistical correlation) does not prove or disprove causation, but if such a large amount of data from prospective studies shows no statistically significant correlation, than a causative theory should be rejected until and unless randomized controlled clinical trials suggest otherwise.

This study should have created a tsunami in the media and in the medical community but it hardly caused a ripple in the pond. Michael Eades explains why in an excellent post here.

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/lipid-hypothesis/eat-less-move-die-anyway/

The editors of the journal published a scathing rebuke of the authors but could not find anything wrong with the data and conclusions except that the data refuted their belief system. Busy physicians tend to read the editorials and place more credence in an editorial than in a study that questions or refutes a major thesis.

Lets look at some other studies that considered hard clinical endpoints.

Low-fat dietary pattern and risk of cardiovascular disease: the Women’s Health Initiative Randomized Controlled Dietary Modification Trial.

The objective of this study was:

“To test the hypothesis that a dietary intervention, intended to be low in fat and high in vegetables, fruits, and grains to reduce cancer, would reduce CVD risk.”

This study was a randomized controlled trial of 48,835 postmenopausal women aged 50-79 years of diverse backgrounds and ethnicity.

“RESULTS: By year 6, mean fat intake decreased by 8.2% of energy intake in the intervention vs the comparison group, with small decreases in saturated (2.9%), monounsaturated (3.3%), and polyunsaturated (1.5%) fat; increases occurred in intakes of vegetables/fruits (1.1 servings/d) and grains (0.5 serving/d).”

Did this decrease heart attacks or strokes? NO

“The diet had no significant effects on incidence of CHD (hazard ratio [HR], 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90-1.06), stroke (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.90-1.15), or CVD (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.92-1.05).”

Now lets look at a study where women were followed after a heart attack to see if reducing saturated fat helped.

Dietary fats, carbohydrate, and progression of coronary atherosclerosis in postmenopausal women. Am J Clin Nutr. 2004 Nov;80(5):1175-84.

In this study quantitative coronary angiography was performed at baseline and after mean follow up of 3.1 years. 2243 coronary artery segments in 235 women were studied.

Here is what they found.

  • a higher saturated fat intake was associated with a smaller decline in mean minimal coronary diameter (P = 0.001) and less progression of coronary stenosis (P = 0.002) during follow-up
  • Carbohydrate intake was positively associated with atherosclerotic progression (P = 0.001), particularly when the glycemic index was high
  • Polyunsaturated fat intake was positively associated with progression (of coronary atherosclerosis) when replacing other fats (P = 0.04) but not when replacing carbohydrate or protein
  • Monounsaturated and total fat intakes were not associated with progression. (extra virgin olive oil and macadamia nuts are rich in monounsaturated fat)

The P values cited demonstrate unequivocal statistical significance for all of these associations.

So intake of carbohydrate and polyunsaturated fat was positively associated with progression of coronary atherosclerosis. Conversely, saturated fat intake was associated with less progression of coronary stenosis.  Again, I must point out that association does not prove or disprove causation. Nevertheless, there have been no prospective studies that demonstrate an association between saturated fat consumption and cardiovascular events (real clinical endpoints). Here we have data that show a negative association with saturated fat but positive association with carbohydrate and polyunsaturated fat consumption.

The logic has always been that substituting PUFA for SFA reduces cholesterol levels (short term studies) and therefore it should reduce heart attacks and strokes. But if you search the medical literature you find that the overwhelming body of data shows no reduction in hard clinical outcomes by reducing saturated fat, in fact just the opposite is true as in the two Ramsden studies cited in my previous post.

Uffe Ravnskov has pointed out that the proponents of the dietary  saturated fat-cholesterol theory often times misrepresent the data from published studies and cite those studies in support of the theory when in fact the data actually refute the theory. (as was the case for the AHA’s first dietary recommendations demonizing saturated fat in 1961) Uffe’s letters to the editor have been a nuisance to the proponents of that theory for decades.

An exhaustive review of the literature by Ravnskov was published in 1996. The summary deserves a complete quotation here.

J Clin Epidemiol. 1998 Jun;51(6):443-60.

The questionable role of saturated and polyunsaturated fatty acids in cardiovascular disease.

Source

uffe.ravnskov@swipnet.se

Abstract

A fat diet, rich in saturated fatty acids (SFA) and low in polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA), is said to be an important cause of atherosclerosis and cardiovascular diseases (CVD). The evidence for this hypothesis was sought by reviewing studies of the direct link between dietary fats and atherosclerotic vascular disease in human beings. The review included ecological, dynamic population, cross-sectional, cohort, and case-control studies, as well as controlled, randomized trials of the effect of fat reduction alone. The positive ecological correlations between national intakes of total fat (TF) and SFA and cardiovascular mortality found in earlier studies were absent or negative in the larger, more recent studies. Secular trends of national fat consumption and mortality from coronary heart disease (CHD) in 18-35 countries (four studies) during different time periods diverged from each other as often as they coincided. In cross-sectional studies of CHD and atherosclerosis, one group of studies (Bantu people vs. Caucasians) were supportive; six groups of studies (West Indians vs. Americans, Japanese, and Japanese migrants vs. Americans, Yemenite Jews vs. Yemenite migrants; Seminole and Pima Indians vs. Americans, Seven Countries) gave partly supportive, partly contradictive results; in seven groups of studies (Navajo Indians vs. Americans; pure vegetarians vs. lacto-ovo-vegetarians and non-vegetarians, Masai people vs. Americans, Asiatic Indians vs. non-Indians, north vs. south Indians, Indian migrants vs. British residents, Geographic Study of Atherosclerosis) the findings were contradictory. Among 21 cohort studies of CHD including 28 cohorts, CHD patients had eaten significantly more SFA in three cohorts and significantly less in one cohort than had CHD-free individuals; in 22 cohorts no significant difference was noted. In three cohorts, CHD patients had eaten significantly more PUFA, in 24 cohorts no significant difference was noted. In three of four cohort studies of atherosclerosis, the vascular changes were unassociated with SFA or PUFA; in one study they were inversely related to TF. No significant differences in fat intake were noted in six case-control studies of CVD patients and CVD-free controls; and neither total or CHD mortality were lowered in a meta-analysis of nine controlled, randomized dietary trials with substantial reductions of dietary fats, in six trials combined with addition of PUFA. The harmful effect of dietary SFA and the protective effect of dietary PUFA on atherosclerosis and CVD are questioned.

That was published in 1998, since then the evidence remains as Uffe described it 15 years ago. More studies show no relationship between saturated fat consumption and cardiovascular death, heart attack, or stroke.

Finally, multiple autopsy studies around the world have been conducted to investigate an association between diet and atherosclerosis. None of these studies have demonstrated a positive association between degree of atherosclerosis and saturated fat intake.

Yet the AHA continues to recommend lower levels of saturated fat consumption while showing little concern for the problem of sugar and refined carbohydrates.

In my next post I will discuss why sugar and refined carbohydrates are major players in the physiology of atherosclerosis. Future posts will address the China Study, Forks Over Knives, the Ornish Diet and related topics. Additionally I will discuss why an egg a day keeps the doctor away.

Go in peace.

Bob Hansen MD.