Lipoprotein(a) and small LDL

4. May 2006 William Davis (1)
It's been my suspicion for some time that the combination of lipoprotein(a), or Lp(a), in combination with small LDL particles is a really bad risk for heart disease. People with this combination seem to have much higher heart scan scores for age than others. This seems to be a pattern that we'll see in the occasional woman less than 50 years old who already has a high heaert scan score. (It's unusual for women to have detectable coronary plaque before age 50.)

Very little data exists to support this idea and we are in the process of performing a small study to see whether it's true or not. My gut sense: it's among the most potent causes of coronary plaque around.

Case in point: Even though I spend a great deal of my time and energy advocating heart disease prevention, I still maintain my hospital privileges and skills. I had to cover one of the emergency rooms in town this past weekend (a requirement to maintain my hospital privileges).

One of the patients I saw was a 40-year old man--we'll call him Roland-- suffering a very large heart attack, a so-called "anterior myocardial infarction", or a heart attack involving the most important front portion of the heart. Thankfully, he came to the ER within 45 minutes after his chest pain started. The situation was immediately obvious and I was called to the ER. We quickly took him to the cardiac catheterization laboratory and put a stent in the left anterior descending artery and flow was restored. His chest pain dissipated over the next few minutes.

Nonetheless, Roland was left with a large area of reduced contraction of his heart muscle. Only time will tell how much recovery he'll have.

Roland was extremely lucky. The majority of people with closure of the artery that he'd experienced die within minutes. He did, in fact, "arrest" briefly, i.e., his heart became electrically unstable, though he recovered promptly.

Along with the multiple tubes of blood we required to run tests for his heart attack management, we had Roland's lipids and other measures sent off, as well. Wouldn't you know: Lp(a) and small LDL. This may have accounted for a heart attack at age 40.

Keep a lookout for this when you have lipoprotein testing. Conveniently, niacin can be used to treat both patterns, though higher doses are generally required for the Lp(a) part of the pattern. It's also my belief that the sort of Lp(a) measurement performed by the Liposcience laboratory (www.liposcience.com) is superior. They use a particle number based measure, not a weight-based measure. It is therefore independent of particle size, which can vary. Further work will, I believe, reveal some very important insights into the dreaded Lp(a).
Tags :

Comments (1) -

  • wccaguy

    10/20/2007 4:18:00 PM |

    Just getting around to reading some of your older blog posts.

    Although I'm not completely certain, it's my impression that Marcovina was a student of Professor Sally McCormick of Otago University in New Zealand.

    http://biochem.otago.ac.nz/staff/mccormick/smccormick.html

    Notice they both participated in this seminal article.

    Sharp RH, Perugini MA, Marcovina SM, McCormick SPA: Structural features of apolipoprotein B synthetic peptides that inhibit lipoprotein(a) assembly. J Lipid Res 45:2227-2234, 2004.

    I'm very certain that Rebeca Sharp was a student at Otago.

    More importantly, Sally McCormick has applied for a patent mirroring the article title linked to above at wipo.int.  Don't have the link handy.

Add comment

Loading
When is a calorie not a calorie?

When is a calorie not a calorie?

10. April 2008 William Davis (8)
One ounce of raw almonds (about 23 nuts) contains:


6 grams protein

14 grams fat

6 grams carbohydrate

3.5 grams fiber

For a total of 163 calories per ounce.


(From the USDA Nutrient Database)


Calorie content of foods is determined by summing up the calories from each constituent: 1 gram of fat = 9 calories; 1 gram protein = 4 calories; 1 gram carbohydrate = 4 calories. Calorie content can also be directly measured using a device called a burn calorimeter, in which the amount of energy released from a specific food is measured by literally burning it and gauging precisely how much energy is released.


The problem with both of these methods is that it is assumed that all foods are digested with equal efficiency. That is, it assumes that a potato chip is as readily digested and absorbed as energy from table sugar, a pretzel, oatmeal, a piece of steak, or a handful of nuts. In real life, of course this is not true. Different foods are absorbed with varying efficiency.

For a long time I've suspected that some foods are very inefficiently absorbed. I've particularly suspected that raw nuts are relatively poorly absorbed and thus yield only a fraction of the calories ingested.

Among the studies recently reported at the Federation of the Association of Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB) meetings I attended in San Diego this past week were several devoted to almonds.

One study, to my surprise, documented this phenomenon. In Manipulation of lipid bioaccessibility of almonds influences postprandial lipemia in healthy human subjects, it was determined that, of 100 calories ingested from the fat fraction of almonds, only about half was actually absorbed. The remaining half passed out in the stool. (They did this by collecting stool samples and comparing the fat composition after eating the different almonds prepartions. This is not discussed in the limited text of the abstract.) In addition, postprandial (after-eating) surges in triglycerides were much less with whole almonds compared to the oil separated from the nut (i.e., broken down into almond oil + defatted almond flour). The researchers attributed the difference to the inhibitory effects of the almond nut's "food matrix," or the structural properties of chewed foods.

Add to this the fact that, of 6 grams of carbohydrate per ounce of whole almonds, 3.5 grams are indigestible fibers. This means that 6 - 3.5 = 2.5 grams of digestible carbohydrates are present per ounce (assuming 100% release).

If we follow the reasoning that only about half the fat fraction of almonds are absorbed, and assume that the protein and carbohydrate (minus the indigestible fibers) are absorbed efficiently (100%), then we would re-calculate the calorie content of almonds to be 97 calories per ounce, or 40% less than calories calculated by composition or measured with a calorimeter.

If we were to assume that protein and carbohydrates were, like fats, inefficiently absorbed because of the effects of the food matrix, then one ounce of almonds yields 88 calories per ounce, or 46% less. This is, in fact, a likely scenario, since the food matrix is largely created by the cell wall and should impede digestive access to fat, protein, and carbohydrate equally.

My point? Almonds and other nuts at first appear to be calorically dense due to fat composition. However, this simplistic view of nuts is misleading because of the confounding effects of the food matrix. Stated differently: Whole foods yield less calories. And, judging by the postprandial triglyceride effects: Whole foods yield less undesirable effects, such as postprandial rises in triglycerides.

Some other observations with almonds included:

The effect of almonds on plasma lipids in persons with prediabetes This study confirmed the LDL-reducing and modest HDL-raising effects of almonds.

Almonds (Amygdalus communis L.) as a possible source of prebiotic functional food This curious observation suggests that almonds modify the bacterial flora of the intestinal tract in a positive way (like the cultures in yogurts).



Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD
Tags :

Comments (8) -

  • Anna

    4/11/2008 1:46:00 AM |

    I often soak raw almonds (and other nuts) about 24 hours in filtered water with sea salt, then dry them a day or two at about 150°F in the oven.  I doubt the studies take this kind of "processing" into account, but any idea how that might change the absorption scenario?

  • Anonymous

    4/11/2008 4:27:00 PM |

    I'm glad you posted this.  A few women I know have been wary of eating many nuts for fear that fatty nuts would cause them to gain weight.  

    Really like the little bit on healthy gut flora caused by almonds too.  A healthy gut is important to me.

  • Peter

    4/11/2008 8:19:00 PM |

    I would certainly agree that it is possible to eat enormous quantities of nuts without absorbing all of their calories. I noticed I could remain weight stable while sedentary and eating 3,500 calories back when I used to eat large quantities of nuts. Even when well chewed a proportion of them end up you-know-where! Just flush...

    Peter

  • brian

    4/12/2008 4:22:00 PM |

    Dr. Davis, this is a great example. Thanks for posting it. I have a question on the 88 calories. I tried to work through the calculations to demonstrate this to one of my clients. I couldn't come up with 88 calories per ounce.

    I kept coming up with 80 and here's how. 50% calories from fat is 63. I used 50% for protein and digestible carbs - based on the info provided. For protein, that leaves 3 gms or 12 calories. For carbs, half of 2.5 gms is 1.25 gms, which equals 5 cals. These add up to 80 (63 + 12 + 5).

    I’m probably making a silly mistake but I’d like to come up with the same numbers when demonstrating this to clients – makes me feel kind of silly.

    Thanks again for the blog, I greatly appreciate the information you post.

    Brian

  • Anne

    4/13/2008 9:57:00 PM |

    Does pasteurization affect the positive effect almonds have on gut bacteria? Last year it became manditory that all California almonds must be pastuerized by one of these methods: fumigation with propylene oxide, blanching and oil roasting. This is to prevent salmonella. http://www.almondboard.com/Programs/content.cfm?ItemNumber=890&snItemNumber=450

    I eat a handful of almonds just about every day. I have wondered if there benefits have been compromised.

  • Anonymous

    4/14/2008 12:25:00 PM |

    The study was sponsored by The Californian Almond Association

  • Katherine

    10/21/2008 6:30:00 AM |

    In the era of the 64-oz. soda, the 1,200-calorie burger, food companies now produce enough each day for every American to consume 3,800 calories per day as compared to the 2,350 needed for survival. Not only adults but kids are also consuming far more calories than they can possibly use. http://www.phentermine-effects.com

  • buy jeans

    11/3/2010 6:53:22 PM |

    For a long time I've suspected that some foods are very inefficiently absorbed. I've particularly suspected that raw nuts are relatively poorly absorbed and thus yield only a fraction of the calories ingested.

Add comment

Loading