Showing posts with label CVD. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CVD. Show all posts

Saturday, July 20, 2013

Did low fat diets cause the obesity epidemic in the US?

click to enlarge
The title of this post is a common theme repeated by the likes of Swedish diet doctor Andreas Eenfeldt - That somehow going low fat (thus high carb) has caused the obesity epidemic.  At best, by percentage only, the USofA has decreased fat consumption from 37% to 33% (or 36% to 33% for women) ... this 3-4% reduction in fat percentage has been accompanied by a 7% increase in carbs (42-to-49% men, 45-to-52% women).  As you can see in the graphs, absolute fat content is basically flatlined -- we didn't cut fat, women (who tended to "comply" on the fat recs moreso than men)  even added a small amount.  Any way you cut it, this relatively insignificant change would be insufficient to cause some sort of carb triggered, insulin-induced fat cell mutiny!  Confronted with such facts the insulin hypothesis, or what I call TWICHOO, is changed ever so slightly to focus on how carbs cause you to eat more -- to the tune of some 300-500 calories/day and gain weight.   (I would note that NuSI discounts any ineffectiveness of various LC diets that are not really LC and use 40% carbs -- If you don't see an effect there, you will do nothing to pin the obesity epidemic on the lowly carbohydrate.)
Read more »

Thursday, July 4, 2013

July 4, 2013 Over the Hump Bump: Where does insulin resistance start? The adipose tissue

The readership in this blog continues to grow and it is not lost on me that a vast majority of current readers are unfamiliar with the bulk of my work here on this blog.  I think I'm closing in on 1000 posts which would make me one of the more prolific bloggers around ... for better or worse!  As such, I more than understand that it would be darned near impossible to catch up, etc.  So a few comments in that vein.  
Read more »

Thursday, November 8, 2012

Is there any such thing as "safe fat" for diabetics?

So some of the AHS12 videos are now online, HERE.  I'll have some comments on particular presentations, though by no means a majority.  Still, I had to, of course, watch the Safe Starches panel.   For the record, I think Paul & Chris did a good job, especially considering the circumstances, but this thing was an abomination in the making from the get-go.  I'll have more on that in another post.

The whole "debate" goes back to Jimmy Moore's "data dump" post on safe starches.  You remember that one, right?  Is There Any Such Thing As ‘Safe Starches’ On A Low-Carb Diet?  As I said, I'll have more to say on this follow-up, but as one would expect Jimmy expresses his concerns over the safety of starches, and around the 5 minute mark essentially tries to take Paul to task for using the term "safe"!  Citing Webster's Medical Dictionary 
SAFE: not causing harm or injury; especially : having a low incidence of adverse reactions and significant side effects when adequate instructions for use are given and having a low potential for harm under conditions of widespread availability
Read more »

Sunday, September 30, 2012

Does a high animal protein/fat diet forestall obesity?

Don Matesz had an interesting blog post the other day that I tweeted:  Grass-Fed Animal Products Prevent Obesity and Cardiovascular Disease?  He writes:
Not for Mongolians.

Mongols eat a diet largely composed of milk products, meat, and fat from free-ranging, organic, grass-fed animals. They consume few plant foods because few edible plants grow in the cold continental climate of Mongolia. The climate forced them into a natural experiment in low-carb nutrition based on grass-fed animal products.
I have an interest in Mongolians because there's definitely some influence of these people in my husband's ancestral line.   I went looking for any peer review literature that might address the Mongolians and found an interesting article.  But before that, I also found some other info.  Don points out in a note to WAPF (presumably aimed at their promotion of raw milk) that the Mongols boiled their milk and made cheese from it.  But one of the accountings of the diets comes from the WAPF site:  Diet of Mongolia.  

Read more »

Tuesday, September 11, 2012

Obesity Paradox ~ Can Losing Weight be Bad?

From Heartwire (free reg):  Obesity paradox strengthened by new SCAAR data in ACS.  Lest the acronyms drive you nuts, they are not mine (for a change!).  
SCAAR =  Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty RegistryACS = Acute Coronary Syndromes
PCI = Percutaneous coronary intervention (coronary angioplasty, angioplasty)
From the article:
Those who were deemed overweight or obese by body-mass index (BMI) had a lower risk of death after PCI than normal-weight or underweight participants up to three years after hospitalization ...
"In patients who have a chronic disease, obesity seems to have some kind of protective effect—what this is we don't know, it's difficult to say," coauthor of the new research, Dr Kristjan Karason (University of Gothenburg, Sweden), told heartwire. ...
Drs Stephan von Haehlin, Oliver Hartmann, and Dr Stefan D Anker (Charité Medical School, Berlin, Germany) agree that this research strengthens the existing evidence for the obesity paradox. They conclude that weight loss in patients with chronic illness and a BMI of <40 a="a" always="always" and="and" bad="bad" blockquote="blockquote" chronic="chronic" exists="exists" fact="fact" illness="illness" in="in" is="is" kg="kg" live="live" longer.="longer." loss="loss" m2="m2" makes="makes" not="not" patients="patients" single="single" study="study" suggest="suggest" that="that" to="to" weight="weight">
Things that make you go hmmmmm.  One caveat, this study doesn't address one's risk of cardiac disease that may be due to obesity/overweight.  But once you're sick?  It seems plausible that the excess weight = energy = perhaps endogenous DHA source and/or losing weight at this point causes more stress-induced negative impacts than benefit.  I'll still be trying to avoid any need for PCI ;-)

Monday, April 16, 2012

Maybe Glycation isn't so bad after all

Higher HbA1c levels predict better outcomes in advanced heart failure with diabetes  (free registration required)

"We're finding that in heart failure [plus diabetes], higher HbA1C levels are associated not with worse outcomes, but with better outcomes," lead investigator Dr Tamara Horwich (University of California, Los Angeles) told heartwire. This suggests that for patients with both diseases, "the focus should not be on lowering the HbA1C levels to as low as possible," she said, adding that "aiming for a midrange of 7.2% to 8.2% may be very reasonable."
OK, this is in people with established heart disease and diabetes, but lower is, apparently, not always better.  And what is it we keep hearing about all these damaged metabolisms and all ...

Friday, October 28, 2011

Keep the Leptinade flowing! I'm going to die from my glucose anyway ...

A few general thoughts on this whole "safe starches" tangent into Ron  "Everyone's a Diabetic" Rosedale's contentions.  I was prompted to look into many of the claims of Rosedale by a short conversation I had with him over at PaleoHacks that can be found scrolling down to his responses here.  When one goes and reads the Facebook links in the root post, it is clear that Rosedale's views are pretty extreme as regards blood glucose levels, diabetes, etc.  It comes down, really, to viewing all blood glucose, leading to any level of glycation, as harmful.  Basically through Rosedale-colored glasses we see circulating glucose as always harmful and to be kept minimal both in circulation and as cellular fuel as much as possible for optimal health.  He also advocates getting virtually no glucose from your diet, relying, instead on your liver for all glucose needs.   Glycation debilitates, deteriorates and ultimately kills you, and in Rosedale's opinion, there's no "safe" level of glucose and its insidious glycation that causes no harm.  

As such, Jimmy Moore published a rebuttal to the rebuttal of sorts by Rosedale in response to Paul Jaminet of Perfect Health Diet.  Now, I think it's probably known to most of my readers that Paul is perfectly capable of responding eloquently to this, and I most certainly do not want to be seen as stepping on any toes.  But I think Jimmy's massive data dump blog posts -- liberally speckled with various uncalled for responses from LC luminaries -- deserve as many dismantlings as bloggers out there are willing to put up.  Law of numbers and all that, and hopefully some of this nonsense can be dispelled before we layer even more myths on a list that is already too long in low carb circles.

And so, with my previous post, I decided to focus on this notion that there is no such thing as a safe starch because there's no such thing as a safe glucose level, and look at some of the references Rosedale provided to make the case that this is "clearly" so.
Read more »

Saturday, July 16, 2011

Join the discussion on: LF Diet & CVD Risk in the WHI Trial

There were actually two different papers from the Women's Health Initiative low fat diet trial brought up in the comments of another post.  It seems this one engendered more discussion and I mixed up who cited which paper.  So I started this thread.  

Since this is a new concept, I'll briefly describe what I'm doing here and let y'all have at it!  I am embedding a discussion topic from the Meeting Rooms in this blog post (this time I'll shut off comments, if you want to give some input/feedback on this concept in general, add your thoughts to the comments on the inaugural post).   All are welcome to join and I hope you will!  I have some thoughts on this one, too, but will probably lurk and wait until hopefully a few folks have added their says.  I realize some made comments already on another thread regarding this.  If I haven't done so already by the time you read this, I will copy them to the discussion.   Hat tip to Lucas Tafur for bringing this topic up.

Let's discuss!



Howard BV, Van Horn L, Hsia J, Manson JE, Stefanick ML, Wassertheil-Smoller S, Kuller LH, LaCroix AZ, Langer RD, Lasser NL, Lewis CE, Limacher MC, Margolis KL, Mysiw WJ, Ockene JK, Parker LM, Perri MG, Phillips L, Prentice RL, Robbins J, Rossouw JE, Sarto GE, Schatz IJ, Snetselaar LG, Stevens VJ, Tinker LF, Trevisan M, Vitolins MZ, Anderson GL, Assaf AR, Bassford T, Beresford SA, Black HR, Brunner RL, Brzyski RG, Caan B, Chlebowski RT, Gass M, Granek I, Greenland P, Hays J, Heber D, Heiss G, Hendrix SL, Hubbell FA, Johnson KC, Kotchen JM.
JAMA. 2006 Feb 8;295(6):655-66.


Read more »

Tuesday, May 3, 2011

The Metabolic Advantage of Fructose

Is fructose making us fat?  Apparently the answer is no if you get your fructose in the form of candy!

Thanks to MM for sending me this paper.

Candy consumption was not associated with body weight measures, risk factors for cardiovascular disease, or metabolic syndrome in US adults: NHANES 1999-2004 

For the purposes of this study, candies were defined as follows:

Sugar candy consists of sugar in crystalline form or semisolid (amorphous) forms with other ingredients including flavors and colors; examples include peppermint, lollipops, licorice, and gum drops. Chocolate candy is a mixture of processed cacao, cocoa butter, and sugar and often contains other ingredients, including milk, fruit, nuts, and caramels.
 This group analyzed 3 sets of NHANES data to look at candy consumption defined as:

Candy consumers were defined as those participants consuming any amounts of candy/confection except gum and were placed in 1of 3 overlapping consumption groups: (a) any candy (including chocolate candy and sugar candy), (b) chocolate candy only, and (c) sugar candy only
Read more »

Wednesday, December 1, 2010

Dr. Michael Dansinger on Weight Loss and Diabetes

I recently listened to an interview Jimmy Moore did with Dr. Michael Dansinger available HERE    My reason for sharing this here is that Dansinger makes a point of discussing how the big secret to weight loss is ..... drumroll please ..... achieving a calorie deficit!!!   In my opinion, it will be through the likes of Dr. Dansinger that low carbohydrate approaches take their rightful place among the mainstream approaches for weight loss, healthy living and disease management.  No gimmicks.  No wild claims.  Just the facts ma'am.  And a plug for compliance/consistency being the real key in the end.

For those who don't recognize the name, Dansinger is the lead author on probably the first famous diet comparison study to compare a real LC diet with other approaches:  Comparison of the Atkins, Ornish, Weight Watchers, and Zone Diets for Weight Loss and Heart Disease Risk Reduction.  While the results were mostly a wash, this study demonstrated that LC performed similarly to other approaches for CVD markers, misperceptions being something that plagues LC diets to this day.   

Since then, Dansinger has been tapped to head up the Diabetes Community over at WebMD.  He is also a consultant on The Biggest Loser.  He discusses REVERSING diabetes on his WebMD blog and in that podcast.  I like this and don't get hung up on his semantics:  using remission v. cure.  It's a cautionary use of the word that is appropriate:  return to former habits, diabetes comes back, the underlying genetics, propensity towards metabolic disturbances and perhaps damage remain.   

Apparently many on TBL employ a low fat version of Atkins.  I swear I heard Jimmy Moore gasp in that interview at that!!  But here is a mainstream doctor with a lot of cred saying this and treating people with this approach with considerable success.  He also discusses using moderate low carb (80g range) in treating diabetes, doesn't shun fruits, etc.

Kudos Doc!

Thursday, November 18, 2010

Insulin Is an Anti-inflammatory and Anti-atherosclerotic Hormone

Insulin Is an Anti-inflammatory and Anti-atherosclerotic Hormone  (full text free until end of the month)


Fasting hyperinsulinemia is associated with an increased risk of atherosclerotic complications of heart attack and stroke. This has resulted in the concept that insulin may promote atherosclerosis in spite of the absence of any evidence that insulin is atherogenic either in the human or in experimental models. Recent evidence shows that insulin exerts vasodilatory, anti-platelet and anti-inflammatory effects at the cellular level in vitro and in the human in vivo. Since atherosclerosis is a chronic inflammatory process of the arterial wall, insulin may be potentially anti-atherosclerotic in the long term. More recent data on experimental atherosclerosis in the mouse shows that (1) insulin administration reduces the number and the size of atherosclerotic lesions in apo E null mice and (2) in IRS-2 null mice, the interruption in insulin signal transduction results in enhanced atherogenicity. Finally, the use of a low dose of insulin infusion in patients with acute myocardial infarction has been shown to markedly improve clinical outcomes, both in diabetic and nondiabetic patients. Our own most recent data show that a low dose infusion of insulin in patients with acute myocardial infarction induces a reduction in nflammation (C-reactive protein and serum amyloid A) and oxidative stress, and promotes fibrinolysis. We conclude that insulin is anti-inflammatory and potentially antiatherogenic and may be of use in the treatment of cardiovascular inflammatory conditions.
It seems that the demonization of insulin has followed much the same path as the correlation = causality logic of LDL and atherosclerosis.  Elevated LDL correlates with CVD, but there is not a whole lot of actual evidence demonstrating that the LDL itself directly causing atherosclerosis.   LDL remains a fairly reliable marker for determining risk (though it must be considered along with other factors), and whatever the flaws (and there are many) in cholesterol theories, this shouldn't be ignored out of hand.  If A causes B, and A causes C, then someone with B likely has C.

So with the insulin, we have hyperinsulinemia correlating with CVD, but as stated in the abstract above, there's little evidence that it causes it directly.  The "A" in this scenario seems to be elevated free fatty acids (NEFA/FFA) leading to "B" = hyperinsulinemia and "C" = atherosclerosis.  But in this case the correlation/causation connection may be even more convoluted.  Because there's an intermediate factor in all this -- the ever-increasingly apparent root of all evil: insulin resistance.  The way I see it is this:  Fat stores exceeding an individual's storage capacity lead to IR of the fat cells and/or excessive release of NEFA.  Elevated NEFA induces IR in peripheral tissues.  It is cellular resistance to insulin's inhibitory roles  in these cells that ultimately lead to metabolic dysfunction and/or cell damage/death.  In this regard, the relationship is not so much one of insulin not being the cause of atherosclerosis, etc., but the resistance masks the fact that it would appear that insulin is actually protective against it!  

Inflammation, shmimflamation!  :
Atherosclerosis is an inflammatory process.7 All the major classical risk factors for atherosclerosis, hypercholesterolemia, diabetes, hypertension, smoking, and menopause are associated with (and probably cause) inflammation. If high insulin levels are atherogenic, one would expect it also to exert part of its negative effect on the vessel wall through inflammatory processes. Recent evidence which we shall now review shows that just the opposite is the case, i.e., that insulin is anti-inflammatory.
The article goes on to summarize such research.  I'll let the more science minded read that for themselves (heck, I'm just too lazy at the moment to do a decent summary), but this section concludes with:
In view of the anti-inflammatory and vasodilatory effect of insulin, insulin resistance may be expected to be pro-inflammatory and a proconstrictor state. This indeed is the case.  Obesity,31 type 2 diabetes,32 and other insulin resistant states, such as polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS),33 are pro-inflammatory and are associated with abnormal vascular reactivity and platelet hyperaggregability.  (clumping & clotting)
........... Insulin sensitizers have been shown to exert anti-inflammatory43–46 and anti-atherosclerotic effects.47,48  Thiazolidinediones (TZD) exert anti-inflammatory effects at the molecular and cellular levels. 
The article goes on to conclude as follows:

These facts, should encourage us to increase our understanding of these novel effects of insulin so that
(1) we have an improved conceptualization of inflammation in states of insulin resistance and the relationship of these states to atherogenesis;
(2) we explore the potential therapeutic role of insulin in inflammatory conditions, such as acute myocardial infarction; and
(3) we investigate novel potential therapeutic application of insulin sensitizers such as thiazolidinediones as anti-inflammatory agents.
I broke these out in more bullet form to address them.

(1)  I take this to mean the lipid hypothesizers need to rethink as much as the carbohydrate hypothesizers do. Both need to re-think the role of dietary composition (and total intake) in terms of its impact on insulin SENSITIVITY, not insulin per se.

(2)  Insulin is, as Martha Stewart would say, a GOOD thing.  There's much promise in using it.  Insulin therapies have evolved from slow acting secretagogues (substances that enhance insulin secretion), to pumps delivering a more consistent, physiological basal level in T1's etc.

(3)  OK, I'm probably in agreement with many who disdain the whole "this gives us more reason to look into more drugs" angle, but we have to be pragmatic about it.  A Type 1 does not make insulin.  In that regard, whatever technology allows them to mimic insulin levels in a normal person, I would be grateful for it.  Type 2 is a far more varied diagnosis as the degree of irreversible damage (as opposed to suppressed function) cannot be assessed with mere fasting glucose levels or tolerance tests.   If you're hyperinsulinemic, you still have functional beta cells.  Temporarily giving them a rest with LC while you lose weight and reverse the IR that is causing the elevated insulin is a great strategy.  But if you cannot adhere to this, or if LC doesn't result in the desired weight loss, then it may well be worthwhile to at least temporarily look into pharmaceutical intervention that allows for insulin to "do its thing".  I wonder, even, if insulin might be helpful to the hyperinsulinemic T2 -- enough exogenous insulin may keep the pancreas from having to work overtime to produce the elevated levels that your body is telling it to anyway.  There's nothing about the hormone that is deleterious!!!!!!!!

Sunday, May 30, 2010

Sudden Cardiac Death and Free Fatty Acids

Here is the Heart Rhythm Society's Definition:
Sudden cardiac death (SCD), also called cardiac arrest, is used to describe a situation in which the heart abruptly and without warning stops working, so no blood can be pumped to the rest of the body. It is responsible for half of all heart disease deaths.
Sudden cardiac death occurs when the heart’s electrical system malfunctions. It is not a heart attack (also known as a myocardial infarcation). A heart attack is when a blockage in a blood vessel interrupts the flow of oxygen-rich blood to the heart, causing heart muscle to die. So if the heart can be compared to a house, SCD occurs when there is an electrical problem and a heart attack – when the problem is the plumbing.
Later in that summary it is stated that 75% showed evidence of prior heart attack, and 80% evidence of CVD.  So that leaves 25% with no evidence of prior heart attack and 20% with no CVD.

So I do a little math:
*  SCD deaths occurring in people with no prior cardiac event that caused discernible damage to heart:
                 (0.5 of all CD's are SCD's) *( 0.25 no prior heart attack) * 100 = 12.5%
                 That's one out of every eight.
* SCD deaths occurring in people with no evidence of CVD
   (presumably athersclerosis/blockage/etc. but could also include other heart problems):
                 (0.5 of all CD's are SCD's) *( 0.20 no evidence of CVD) * 100 = 10%
                 That's one out of every ten.

So why do I care about this?  Because the one thing that is most predictive of SCD is elevated free fatty acids (NEFA/FFA), a characteristic of Metabolic Syndrome, Diabetes (Type I & II) ... and VLCD!!  While many with pre-diabetes/IR/Type II successfully use carbohydrate restriction to successfully control blood glucose levels,  this can be at the expense of further elevation of circulating free fatty acids.  A high fat, low carb meal can have the effect on NEFA/FFA levels that a high carb meal would have on blood glucose.

1.  Elevated plasma free fatty acids predict sudden cardiac death: a 6.85-year follow-up of 3315 patients after coronary angiography
Aims Sudden cardiac death (SCD) is the most common fatal cardiovascular event. Free fatty acids (FFAs) exert several harmful effects on the myocardium and may therefore contribute to SCD. We examined whether fasting FFA predict SCD in patients who had undergone coronary angiography.
Methods and results FFAs were measured at baseline (1997–2000) in 3315 patients scheduled for coronary angiography. Angiographic coronary artery disease was found in 2231 study participants. {My Note: Although this study was in men referred for angiography, roughly 1/3rd were FREE of coronary artery disease}.  After a median time of follow-up of 6.85 years, 165 SCD occurred in the entire study population. In a Cox proportional hazards model, the unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) for SCD in the fourth when compared with the first FFA quartile was 2.95 (95% CI 1.84–4.73; P < 0.001). After adjustment for common and emerging cardiovascular risk factors, the HR remained significant at 1.76 (1.03–3.00; P = 0.038). High FFA levels were also significantly associated with all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, even after exclusion of patients with SCD.
Conclusion Our study shows that elevated plasma FFAs are an independent risk factor for future SCD in patients referred to coronary angiography. These results may suggest that modulation of myocardial fatty acid uptake and/or metabolism are a possible target of treatment, but it still remains to be clarified whether high FFA levels are a cause or a consequence of pathological processes that underlie the association between FFA and SCD.

 2.  

Circulating Nonesterified Fatty Acid Level as a Predictive Risk Factor for Sudden Death in the Population


{My Note:  This study separately analyzes a subset of data from the Paris Study where no ischemia was found}
Background— In ischemic conditions, concentration of circulating nonesterified fatty acids (NEFA) is increased and has a proarrhythmic effect that is responsible for ventricular tachyarrhythmias. In nonischemic patients, high NEFA plasma concentration has been shown to be associated with frequent premature ventricular complexes and increased familial risk of cardiovascular disease, but its relation to sudden death has not been studied. We assessed the role of circulating NEFA in sudden death in asymptomatic men in a long-term cohort study.
Methods and Results— A total of 5250 men employed by the city of Paris, aged 42 to 53 in 1967 to 1972, free of known ischemic cardiac disease, and included in the Paris Prospective Study I, completed a second annual examination and had fasting plasma circulating NEFA measured. Each subject underwent a physical examination and ECG, provided blood for laboratory tests, and answered questionnaires administered by trained interviewers. Vital status was obtained for each subject from specific inquiries until he retired; after retirement, it was obtained from death certificates. Body mass index, systolic and diastolic blood pressures, tobacco consumption, parental history of sudden death, fasting cholesterol level, and circulating NEFA concentration were independent factors associated with sudden death during follow up (average, 22 years). When adjusted for confounding factors, circulating NEFA concentration remained an independent risk factor for sudden death (relative risk, 1.70; 95% confidence interval, 1.21 to 2.13) but not for fatal myocardial infarction.

Conclusions— Circulating NEFA concentration is an independent risk factor for sudden death in middle-aged men. Some form of primary prevention could be envisaged in subjects at high risk of sudden death.


These two articles contain a LOT of background in their full texts.  A lot of it is disturbing.  I won't copy all of it here, but some summaries.  If you click on my links to the free full text, you can follow active links to referenced studies, etc.

From #1:

Circulating FFAs are mainly released from triglyceride stores of the adipose tissue and serve as physiologically important energy substrates. An excess of FFA has been implicated in insulin resistance and hepatic steatosis.3,4 Furthermore, elevated FFAs are associated with atherosclerosis5 and hypertension.6 Fatty acid oxidation supplies the heart with ∼70% of its energy but an overwhelming delivery of plasma FFA to the heart, as it is observed in acute coronary syndromes (ACS) and heart failure, may contribute to myocardial dysfunction.2,7,8 High FFA and subsequent increased utilization of fatty acids for energy generation in the ischaemic myocardium may cause a ‘metabolic crisis’ in patients with CAD because fatty acid oxidation requires more oxygen when compared with the use of glucose.2,7 Apart from this, high concentrations of FFA have been shown to exert pro-arrhythmic actions.2,9,10
This study's results:  Note 1st Quartile = Fourth of subjects with lowest NEFA on up to the 4th Quartile containing the fourth of subjects with the highest NEFA levels.


I could copy the entire discussion from reference 2, but instead here's a direct link to that section:
http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/104/7/756#SEC3

Why does this concern me?  Well, I'm otherwise healthy, but when I ballooned up to the 260's-270's after my first stint on LC, I (not immediately, but when I was that weight for a while) developed a racing heart w/o exertion, listed as a risk factor in my first link.  This occurred sometimes in my sleep to the extent that the pounding of my heart in my ears woke me up!  After my second stint on LC I had the racing heart with relatively mild exercise -- I was in the low 200's at the time and feeling and looking pretty great at the time (I weigh more than I appear to).  Now I had a bunch of tests run that ruled out heart abnormality and wore a Holter monitor and even experienced a related symptom while wearing that.  My heart didn't skip any beats, and I've never had an abnormal EKG, but still ... every now and then, even now.

When one looks at fasting lipids, there is always the question of whether it is the circulating lipids themselves that are "causing" something, or if they are merely a symptom of underlying metabolic imbalance, some other factor or factors of which actually cause disease.  Fasting triglycerides are an example of this.  By now most have seen the differing triglyceride profiles of high carbers vs. low carbers, and excessive carb consumption does lead to elevated fasting trigs.  But most of the fat low carbers consume do not exist as trigs, and clearance of triglycerides from the blood has been shown to be faster (this makes sense, we're fat adapted).  Still ... is it the triglycerides themselves that exert a directly damaging effect?  Or is it that residual trigs indicate a metabolic imbalance?  Many of the references for NEFA seem to point to the fact that it is the LEVEL OF THESE IN CIRCULATION that is associated with negative implications or that can elicit a problem in an otherwise healthy animal/human.  A HF/VLC diet offers a double assault on NEFA levels.  Low insulin (the crown jewel of LC'ers) levels fail to suppress lipolysis, the major source of NEFA, although dietary fats contribute some.  I think this is something we should not be so quick to ignore when considering the benefits and risks of carbohydrate restriction.

Friday, April 16, 2010

Protein in optimal health: heart disease and type 2 diabetes

Protein in optimal health: heart disease and type 2 diabetes

Aside:  The lead author (I believe), is affiliated with the Australian CSIRO research group that is well regarded in the LC community -- except when, in the end, CSIRO's highly successful weight loss plan does not advocate for high fat  VLC after all.  I would also point out that the authors and the summit from which this article originated were highly subsidized by "Big Egg", "Big Dairy", "Big Beef" and "Big Pork".  I point this out not because I question the findings that seem pretty sound, but to point out that discounting research based on the sponsor just because one doesn't like the outcome is common practice amongst "debunkers".

So, that said, on to this article.  I won't repeat the whole thing.  It is a review, and although requires slow reading to digest, it's not overly clouded with technical lingo.  Some highlights of interest in no particular order:
  • Regardless of dietary makeup, LDL seems to be ultimately related to one's weight status  both in terms of degree of excess weight and whether one is maintaining, losing or gaining weight.
  • Protein's  "power" in weight loss may and glycemic control may well be its insulin stimulating action (particularly, leucine and glycine) -- this goes counter to LC theory, but makes sense to me.  If the post prandrial insulin response is increased by protein with reduced carb intake, BG's will not rise as high, and will fall more rapidly.  Protein seems to help insulin sensitivity.  If this occurs, chronic (basal) insulin levels should go down b/c the insulin manufactured in response to food is more effective, hence the pancreas is not pumping out more and more insulin in response to chronically elevated BG's.  Eggs, BTW, are particularly high in leucine.  Carbs and fats are still the prefered energy substrates, so insulin in-and-of-itself does NOT drive net fat storage, it merely directs energy traffic to the priority of available glucose or more towards fats when carbs are restricted.
  • Infused amino acids raised BG levels and insulin, while ingested whole proteins seem to have the opposite effect.  I've seen many studies demonstrating similar effects for infused vs. ingested fats, and liquid glucose vs. whole carbs.  As the review points out, this underscores the involvement of our digestive systems and livers in the whole picture.
High protein is not defined here.  But there is some info on diets in which carbs are replaced with protein (as opposed to fats as is highly recommended in the LC world these days).  For me, this seems to be where it's at for weight loss.

Tuesday, March 30, 2010

Fiber and CRP

Came across this so just putting it out there.  It's a meta study of 7 clinical trials in which fiber was studied or reported.  In 6 of 7 CRP was reduced.  One study involving just psyllium showed no effect.

The effects of dietary fibre on C-reactive protein, an inflammation marker predicting cardiovascular disease
Conclusions: In the presence of weight loss and modified saturated, monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fat intakes, significantly lower CRP concentrations (25–54%) are seen with increased fibre consumption 3.3 g/MJ). Mechanisms are inconclusive but may involve the effect of DF on weight loss, and/or changes in the secretion, turnover or metabolism of insulin, glucose, adiponectin, interleukin-6, free fatty acids and triglycerides. Clinical studies of high- and low-fibre diets are needed to explore the potential favourable effects as observed epidemiologically, and to understand individual susceptibility to its anti-inflammatory effect and long-term cardiovascular reduction.
Unfortunately for those interested, full text is not free.

Tuesday, March 2, 2010

C-Reactive Protein and Cardiovascular Disease Risk: Still an Unknown Quantity?

Just putting this one out there:

C-Reactive Protein and CVD Risk   (full text article available at link, abstract below)
The role of C-reactive protein (CRP) in cardiovascular disease risk remains controversial, and several interrelated questions are unresolved. Although it is clear that higher circulating CRP levels are associated with coronary heart disease (CHD) incidence and mortality rates in prospective studies, the magnitude of this association has been downgraded in recent years (1). It is also clear that CRP levels are strongly related to many potential confounding factors that influence CHD incidence and mortality rates. In predictive models that appropriately account for these confounders, the magnitude of the association between CRP levels and CHD outcomes is considerably attenuated toward the null (2). Whether CRP is a marker of cardiovascular disease risk or is causally related to cardiovascular disease is uncertain. Nonetheless, some authors have recently claimed that CRP itself is indeed a promoter of atherosclerosis and increased CHD risk (3, 4). If this is true, CRP would become a clear and explicit target for therapeutic intervention.