My stress test was normal. I don't need a heart scan!

28. June 2006 William Davis (0)
Katy had undergone a stress test while being seen in an emergency room, where she'd gone one weekend because of a dull pain on the right side of her chest. After her stress test proved normal, she was diagnosed (I believe correctly) with esophageal reflux, or regurgitation of stomach acid up the esophagus. She was prescrbed an acid-suppressing medication with complete relief.

But Katy also had coronary plaque. Three years ago, her CT heart scan score was 157. She'd made efforts to correct the multiple causes, though she still struggled with keeping weight down to gain full control over her small LDL particle pattern.

I felt it was time for a reassessment: another heart scan. After three years, without any preventive efforts, Katy's score would be expected to have reached 345! (That's 30% per year plaque growth.) It's a good idea to get feedback on just how much slowing you've accomplished.

But Katy declared, "But I didn't think another heart scan was necessary. My stress test was normal!"

What Katy was struggling to understand was that even at the time of her first scan, a stress test would have been normal. Plaque can be present with a normal stress test.

Plaque can even show explosive growth all while stress tests remain normal. Just ask former President, Bill Clinton, how much he should have relied on stress tests. (Mr. Clinton underwent annual stress nuclear tests. All were normal and he had no symptoms--all the way up 'til the time he needed urgent bypass surgery!)

Of course, at some point even a crude stress test will reveal abnormal results. But that's years into your disease and a lot closer to needing procedures and experiencing heart attack.

So, yes, Katy would benefit from another heart scan despite her normal stress test.

The message: Don't rely on stress tests to gauge whether or not plaque has grown, stabilized, or reversed. Stress tests can be used to gauge the safety of exercise, blood pressure response, and the potential for abnormal heart rhythms. Stress tests can be used as a method to determine whether blood flow in your coronary arteries is normal through an area with plaque.

But a stress test cannot be used to gauge whether plaque has grown. It's as simple as that. Gauging plaque growth requires a heart scan.
Tags :

Add comment

Loading
What role DHEA?

What role DHEA?

9. August 2006 William Davis (2)



DHEA, the adrenal gland hormone, has suffered its share of ups and downs over the years.

Initially, DHEA was held up as the fountain of youth with hopes of turning back the clock 20 years. Such extravagant dreams have not held up. But DHEA can still be helpful for your program.

All of us had oodles of DHEA in our bodies when we were in our 20s and 30s. Gradually diminishing levels usually reach nearly blood levels of around zero by age 70.



In our heart disease prevention program, of course, we aim to stop or reduce your CT heart scan score. Does DHEA reduce your score? No, it most certainly does not. But it can be helpful for gaining control over some of the causes behind coronary plaque.

For instance, DHEA can:

--Help reduce abdominal fat and increase muscle mass (slightly)
--Provide more physical stamina.
--Boost mood.
--It may modestly reduce some of the phenomena associated with the metabolic syndrome (high blood pressure, high blood sugar, high insulin, low HDL, small LDL, etc.)

In my experience, people who feel better do better on their overall program. If you're always tired and run down and run out of steam by 3 pm, I won't see you riding your bicycle outdoors or at the aerobics class. But if you're bursting with energy until you put your head on the pillow, you're more inclined to walk, bike, dance, play with the kids, dance, take Tai Chi, etc.

Some downsides to DHEA: Some people experience aggression. Backing off on the dose usually relieves it. Also, sleeplessness. Taking your DHEA in the morning usually fixes it.



The dose is best tailored to your age and blood levels. People less than 40 years old should not take DHEA. The older you are, the higher the dose, though we rarely ever have to exceed 50 mg per day. If you've never had a blood level and your doctor refuses to obtain one, 25 mg per day is a reasonable dose (10-15 mg in women 40-50 years old). It's always best to discuss your supplement use, particularly agents like DHEA, with your doctor.

Track Your Plaque Members: Stay tuned to the www.cureality.com website for a Special Report more completely detailing the hows and whys behind DHEA.
Tags :

Comments (2) -

  • Charles Lin M.D.

    11/10/2007 11:56:00 PM |

    DHEA has many benefits which include anti-obesity , anti-diabetes and Anti-Autoimmune Disease . Dhea dosage should be limited to 25 and 150 mg’s daily.

  • buy jeans

    11/2/2010 7:57:29 PM |

    If you've never had a blood level and your doctor refuses to obtain one, 25 mg per day is a reasonable dose (10-15 mg in women 40-50 years old). It's always best to discuss your supplement use, particularly agents like DHEA, with your doctor.

Add comment

Loading
Glycemic gobbledygook

Glycemic gobbledygook

13. May 2010 William Davis (14)
The concept of glycemic index is meant to help determine what foods raise blood sugar a lot vs. what foods raise blood sugar a little. Dr. Jennie Brand-Miller's searchable database can be found here.

I have to admit that glycemic index provided me with a sense of false assurance for some years. It screwed up my health until I came to understand the issues a lot better.

For those of you just starting out in nutritional conversations, glycemic index (GI) represents a comparison of the blood glucose area-under-the-curve (AUC) over 2 hours after consuming 50 grams of the food in question compared to the AUC of glucose or white bread. Volunteers involved in developing these values are healthy people who are generally of normal weight.

Glucose, by definition, has a GI of 100. An equal quantity of sucrose (50% glucose, 50% fructose) has a GI of 60, lower than glucose. An equal quantity of whole wheat bread has a GI of 68-77 (Yes: The GI of whole wheat is higher than sucrose). Non-carbohydrate foods, such as eggs or avocado, have no GI since they do not impact on blood glucose.

Because the GI is also sensitive to how much carbohydrate is contained, the concept of Glycemic Load (GL) was introduced:

GL = (GI x amount of carbohydrate) / 100

GL is therefore the GI that incorporates the glycemic potential of the food of interest. GI does not vary with portion size; GL varies with portion size.

Let's take whole wheat pasta, a food regarded by most people as a healthy choice. Whole wheat pasta has a GI of 55--fairly low--and a GL of 29. A serving of 180 g (approximately 6 oz cooked) provides 50 g carbohydrates.

People who advocate that low-glycemic index foods would say that this is a desirable profile and should therefore replace high-glycemic index foods.

I say WRONG. First of all, most of us are not slender 20-somethings. We will therefore not show the same response as a young, slender person (like the GI volunteers), but will show exagerrated blood sugar responses. So this much low-glyemic index whole wheat pasta will typically yield a blood sugar of 120-200 mg/dl in non-diabetic people, high enough to trigger glycation. Sure, a high-glycemic index food, such as white flour birthday cake with plenty of sugary icing, might trigger a blood sugar of 140-250 mg/dl, much worse. But that doesn't make the lower blood sugar following pasta any less bad--it's still terrible.

Another issue: GI is assessed over a 2-hour timeline. What if blood sugar remains high in a sustained way, say, over 6 hours? That's precisely what whole wheat pasta will do: Keep blood sugar high for an extended period.

So not only does a low-glycemic index food like pasta increase blood sugar in most of us extravagantly, it does so in a sustained way.

Lastly, low-glycemic index pasta still triggers small LDL particles to an extreme degree, as I discussed in the previous Heart Scan Blog post, Small LDL: Complex vs. simple carbohydrates.

Don't be false reassured by the notion of low GI or GL. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that NO glycemic index is a GOOD glycemic index (or load). The foods we want to dominate our diet are the foods that aren't even listed in the GI database.
Tags :

Comments (14) -

  • Santiago

    5/12/2010 11:12:07 PM |

    Hi
    I've seen many posts like this, but all of them seem a bit ambiguous about whether small LDL is related to BG spikes or an independent effect of carbohidrates.
    Say, someone that eats that 180g of pasta but BG stays under 100 will still produce tons of small LDL?

  • Anna

    5/12/2010 11:55:06 PM |

    Amen!

  • Michael Barker

    5/13/2010 1:32:59 AM |

    My big problem with GI or GL was fructose. It does not raise blood sugar but it does attack the liver.

  • Matt Stone

    5/13/2010 2:44:16 AM |

    If 6 measly ounces of whole wheat pasta sends your blood sugar over 120, much less to 200, you're probably seriously ill. But you talk about it like it's impossible to lower blood glucose levels to a set number of carbohydrates. That's not true at all. It's easy actually, and there's so much more complexity to this overall issue that posts like these are aggravating. I've even gotten to the point where I could eat double that glycemic load without my blood sugar spiking above 75.

  • Darrin

    5/13/2010 3:22:07 AM |

    Yeah, GI and GL are best for diabetics and others with strong insulin resistance. Although I agree that foods without GI values should be the basis of our diets (meats, most vegetables), if you have strong insulin sensitivity you'll probably be just fine with some roots, dairy, fruit, and nuts.

  • 2012

    5/13/2010 3:29:50 AM |

    perfect one.

  • Lance

    5/13/2010 12:51:59 PM |

    Several points:

    Isn't there a pretty big difference between raising your blood sugar to 120 mg/dl after a meal, as opposed to 200?

    The American Association of Clinical Endoctrinologists suggests an upper limit of 140 mg/dl two-hour postprandial blood glucose.  The International Diabetes Federation has the same figure.

    In contrast, 200 is usually considered a symptom of full-blown diabetes.  So it would really seem to depend on which figure we are talking about.

    I personally find the glycemic load a helpful piece of data.    Almost all fruits and vegetables have some kind of glycemic load.   Spinach, for example, consists of 56% carbohydrate, 14% fat, and 30% protein.  But a 10 oz. bag only has a glycemic load of 4, vs. 14 for  piece of white bread.  (Granted, you're only getting 65 calories of energy from all that spinach.)

    Regarding whole wheat pasta: perhaps different websites give different glycemic load values. Nutritiondata.com gives a value of 16 for a full cup of cooked whole wheat elbow noodles, vs. the 29 you quoted.

    http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts/cereal-grains-and-pasta/5769/2

    I find it helpful to know I can cut the glycemic load of that pasta from 16 to 8 just by eating a half-cup instead of a cup (though in fact I rarely eat pasta at all.)  The glycemic load deals with real effects of quantifiable portions of food, and as such is an interesting piece of the puzzle. But, as you have wisely pointed out many times, checking your own blood sugar is the best way to understand what is really going on...with you.

  • KENNY10021

    5/13/2010 1:06:55 PM |

    Yes it will still produce tons of small LDL.....two different issues.....carbohydrate effect LDL particle size tremendously....I can attest to this first hand......while the high BG levels have a whole host of other bad effects related to damaging cells at the core and thus disease ramifications, insulin issues, etc.

  • Ned Kock

    5/13/2010 2:44:17 PM |

    Hi Dr. Davis.

    It is worth noting that there is a huge gap between glycemic loads of refined and unrefined carbohydrate-rich foods:

    http://healthcorrelator.blogspot.com/2010/04/huge-gap-between-glycemic-loads-of.html

  • homertobias

    5/13/2010 2:59:57 PM |

    Very nicely said.  I mean it.  Maybe I'll use it in my practice.

  • Dr. William Davis

    5/13/2010 9:24:43 PM |

    Hi, Lance--

    I understand your concerns. However, I am less concerned with what the "official" organizations tell us is normal or abnormal, and more concerned with levels in which glycation develops.

    Glycation develops in a continuous fashion with blood glucose: The higher it is, the more glycation results . . . starting in the "normal" range fasting and postprandial.

  • DrStrange

    5/14/2010 1:37:11 AM |

    5/15/10  6:35 p.m. PDT

    Matt Stone, just went to your website and got attacked by Malware.

  • Apra -- The Shaman

    5/14/2010 6:47:57 PM |

    "I've even gotten to the point where I could eat double that glycemic load without my blood sugar spiking above 75."

    There's a guy in India who claims he can live on nothing but air too.

  • jpatti

    7/2/2010 2:14:40 PM |

    The reasons sucrose has such a "good" GI is cause it's half fructose.  Fructose doesn't convert to glucose so doesn't raise bg.  It is cleared from the blood by the liver which converts it to triglycerides.  So it raises serum triglycerides at least for a while.  It eventually gets cleared from the blood by adipose.

    Bread, potatoes, other starchy foods... starch is long chains of glucose, so it raises bg.  But if you have a normal system and can handle bg, you burn it as fuel instead of having fat floating in your blood until it gets deposited around your belly.  So for those without bg problems, the worse GI foods are better for health!  

    for those who DO have bg issues, the GI and GL are useless.  You don't care what happens to some average group of people, but what happens to YOUR bg.  This is what is useful whether you have diabetes or not: http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org/new.php

Add comment

Loading