In the last article we discovered that the blood sugar targets established by the American Diabetes Association are far too high, and do not protect people from developing heart disease, diabetes or other complications. And we looked at what the scientific literature indicates are safer targets for fasting blood sugar, hemoglobin A1c and either OGTT or post-meal blood sugar.

In this article I’m going to introduce a simple technique that, when used properly, is one of the most effective ways to maintain healthy blood sugar and prevent cardiovascular and metabolic disease – without unnecessary drugs.

I love this technique because it’s:

• Cheap. You can buy the equipment you need for $16 online.
• Convenient. You can perform the tests in the comfort of your home, in your car, or wherever else you might be.
• Personalized. Instead of following some formula for how much carbohydrate you can safely eat, this method will tell you exactly what your carbohydrate tolerance is, and which carbs are “safe” and “unsafe” for you.
• Safe. Unlike the oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT), which can produce dangerous and horribly uncomfortable spikes in blood sugar, this strategy simply involves testing your blood sugar after your normal meals.

The strategy I’m referring to is using a glucometer to test your post-meal blood sugars. It’s simple, accessible and completely bypasses the medical establishment and pharmaceutical companies by putting the power of knowledge in your hands.

It’s one of the most powerful diagnostic tools available, and I use it with nearly all of my patients. Here’s how to do it.

Step one: buy a glucometer and test strips

A glucometer is a device that measures blood sugar. You’ve probably seen them before – they’re commonly used by diabetics. You prick your finger with a sterilized lancet, and then you apply the drop of blood to a “test strip” that has been inserted into the glucometer, and it measures your blood sugar.

There are literally hundreds of glucometers out there, and their accuracy, quality and price varies considerably. The one I recommend to my patients is called the Relion Ultima, which can be purchased with 20 test strips for $16.00 online at Walmart.com. (Note: as a rule I don’t like to support Walmart, but I haven’t been able to find this unit anywhere else at a similar price.) Even better, the test strips, which you’ll need on an ongoing basis to monitor your blood sugar, are relatively cheap for the Relion Ultima. You can get a 100 of them for $39 at Walmart online ($0.39/strip).

I’m sure there are many other choices that work well, but this is the unit I have the most experience with, and in general it is very reliable. Another good choice is the TrueTrack meter drugstores sell under their own brand name (i.e. Walgreens, Sav-on, etc.). Other models to consider are the One Touch Ultra or one of the Accu-Chek meters. The problem with these, however, is that the test strips tend to be more expensive than the Relion Ultima.

Step two: test your blood sugar

1. Test your blood sugar first thing in the morning after fasting for at least 12 hours. Drink a little bit of water just after rising, but don’t eat anything or exercise before the test. This is your fasting blood sugar level.
2. Test your blood sugar again just before lunch.
3. Eat your typical lunch. Do not eat anything for the next three hours.
Test your blood sugar one hour after lunch.
4. Test your blood sugar two hours after lunch.
5. Test your blood sugar three hours after lunch.

Record the results, along with what you ate for lunch. Do this for two days. This will tell you how the foods you normally eat affect your blood sugar levels.

On the third day, you’re going to do it a little differently. On step 3, instead of eating your typical lunch, you’re going to eat 60 – 70 grams of fast acting carbohydrate. A large (8 oz) boiled potato or a cup of cooked white rice will do. For the purposes of this test only, avoid eating any fat with your rice or potato because it will slow down the absorption of glucose.

Then follow steps 4-6 as described above, and record your results.

Step three: interpret your results

If you recall from the last article, healthy targets for blood sugar according to the scientific literature are as follows:

*To convert these numbers to mmol/L, use this online calculator.

Hemoglobin A1c doesn’t apply here because you can’t test it using a glucometer. We’re concerned with the fasting blood sugar reading, and more importantly, the 1- and 2-hour post-meal readings.

The goal is to make sure your blood sugar never rises higher than 140 mg/dL an hour after a meal, drops below 120 mg/dL two hours after a meal, and returns to baseline (i.e. what it was before you ate) by three hours after a meal.

There are a few caveats to this kind of testing. First, even reliable glucometers have about a 10% margin of error. You need to take that into account when you interpret your results. A reading of 100 mg/dL could be anything between 90 mg/dL and 110 mg/dL if you had it tested in a lab. This is okay, because what we’re doing here is trying to identify patterns – not nit-pick over specific readings.

Second, if you normally eat low-carb (less than 75g/d), your post-meal readings on the third day following the simple carbohydrate (rice or potato) challenge will be abnormally high. I explained why this occurs in the last article, but in short when you are adapted to burning fat your tolerance for carbohydrates declines. That’s why your doctor would tell you to eat at least 150g/d of carbs for three days before an OGTT if you were having that test done in a lab.

If you’ve been eating low-carb for at least a couple of months before doing the carbohydrate challenge on day three of the test, you can subtract 10 mg/dL from your 1- and 2-hour readings. This will give you a rough estimate of what your results would be like had you eaten more carbohydrates in the days and weeks leading up to the test. It’s not precise, but it is probably accurate enough for this kind of testing.

Step four: take action (if necessary)

So what if your numbers are higher than the guidelines above? Well, that means you have impaired glucose tolerance. The higher your numbers are, the further along you are on that spectrum. If you are going above 180 mg/dL after one hour, I’d recommend getting some help – especially if you’re already on a carb-restricted diet. It’s possible to bring numbers that high down with dietary changes alone, but other possible causes of such high blood sugar (beta cell destruction, autoimmunity, etc.) should be ruled out.

If your numbers are only moderately elevated, it’s time to make some dietary changes. In particular, eating fewer carbs and more fat. Most people get enough protein and don’t need to adjust that.

And the beauty of the glucometer testing is that you don’t need to rely on someone else’s idea of how much (or what type of) carbohydrate you can eat. The glucometer will tell you. If you eat a bowl of strawberries and it spikes your blood sugar to 160 mg/dL an hour later, sorry to say, no strawberries for you. (Though you should try eating them with full-fat cream before you give up!) Likewise, if you’ve been told you can’t eat sweet potatoes because they have too much carbohydrate, but you eat one with butter and your blood sugar stays below 140 mg/dL after an hour, they’re probably safe for you. Of course if you’re trying to lose weight, you may need to avoid them anyways.

You can continue to periodically test your blood sugar this way to see how you’re progressing. You’ll probably notice that many other factors – like stress, lack of sleep and certain medications – affect your blood sugar. In any case, the glucometer is one of your most powerful tools for preventing degenerative disease and promoting optimal function.

Resources

If you haven’t already, check out Jenny Ruhl’s excellent Blood Sugar 101 site. Jenny won’t tell you this herself, but she’s an authority on blood sugar and probably knows more about it than 99.9% of health care practitioners (she’s an author). In particular, check out the “Painless Blood Sugar Testing”, “Frequently Asked Questions” and “How to Lower Your Blood Sugar” sections. I’d link to them directly, but her site uses frames and doesn’t allow it.

For more than five decades we’ve been brainwashed to believe that saturated fat causes heart disease. It’s such a deeply ingrained belief that few people even question it. It’s just part of our culture now.

Almost every day one of my patients in the clinic tells me proudly that they have a “healthy” diet because they don’t eat butter, cheese or red meat or any other foods high in saturated fat (nevermind that red meat isn’t particularly high in saturated fat, but that’s a subject for another post). Or I might overhear someone at the grocery store saying how much they prefer whole fat yogurt to the low-fat version, but they eat the low-fat stuff anyways because they want to make the “healthy” choice.

What most people don’t realize is that it took many years to convince people that eating traditional, animal fats like butter and cheese is bad for you, while eating highly-processed, industrial vegetable oils like corn and soybean oil is good for you. This simply defied common sense for most people. But the relentless, widespread campaign to discredit saturated fat and promote industrial oils was eventually successful.

What if I told you that there’s absolutely no evidence to support the idea that saturated fat consumption causes heart disease? What if I told you that the 50+ years of cultural brainwashing we have all been subject to was based on small, poorly designed studies? And what if I told you that a review of large, well-designed studies published in reputable medical journals showed that there is absolutely no association between saturated fat and heart disease?

Well, that’s what I’m telling you. We’ve beed duped. Blindsided. Lied to. And we’ve suffered greatly as a result. Not only have we suffered from being encouraged to eat packaged and processed foods made with cheap, tasteless vegetable oils, but these very oils we were told would protect us from heart disease actually promote it! See my article How to Increase Your Risk of Heart Disease for more on that.

The recent review I’m talking about is a meta-analysis published this week in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. It pooled together data from 21 unique studies that included almost 350,000 people, about 11,000 of whom developed cardiovascular disease (CVD), tracked for an average of 14 years, and concluded that there is no relationship between the intake of saturated fat and the incidence of heart disease or stroke.

Let me put that in layman’s terms for you:

There. That’s it. That’s really all you need to know. But if you’d like to read more about it, John Briffa and Chris Masterjohn have written articles about it here and here.

I wonder how long it will take for this information to trickle down into the mainstream culture? Unfortunately it’s not going to happen overnight. Paradigm shifts don’t work that way. But I’ve seen some positive signs, and I do believe the tide is turning. Let’s hope it doesn’t take another 50 years.

You are all no doubt acquainted with the popular hypothesis on cholesterol and heart disease. It has two parts: first, that eating cholesterol in the diet raises cholesterol levels in the blood; and two, that high cholesterol levels in the blood cause heart disease.

You might be surprised to learn that neither of these statements is true. The first one is relatively easy to dispatch. In the Framingham Heart Study, which is the longest-running and perhaps most significant study on heart disease done to date, it was demonstrated that intake of cholesterol in the diet had absolutely no correlation with heart disease. If you look at the graph below, you’ll see that both men and women with above average intake of cholesterol had nearly identical rates of heart disease as men and women with below average intake of cholesterol.

In fact, the “diet-heart hypothesis”, which is the scientific name for the idea that eating cholesterol causes heart disease, has even been discounted by the researchers who were responsible for its genesis. Ancel Keys, who in many ways can be considered the “father” of the cholesterol-heart disease hypothesis, had this to say in 1997:

This is a reference to early studies performed on chickens and rabbits where they force-fed these animals high-levels of cholesterol. Since rabbits and chickens are mostly vegetarian, their physiology is not adapted for processing such large amounts of dietary cholesterol, so it’s no surprise they developed atherosclerosis. The mistake was assuming that the results of this experiment could be extrapolated to humans, who are omnivores with significant differences in physiology.

The second tenet of the cholesterol-heart disease hypothesis, the notion that high cholesterol levels in the blood cause heart disease, is referred to as the “lipid hypothesis” in the scientific community. Though it still accepted as gospel truth by the general public and many medical professionals, most researchers now believe the primary causes of heart disease are inflammation and oxidative stress. Unfortunately, the rest of us haven’t gotten the memo, so to speak, that cholesterol isn’t the cause of heart disease.

It would take several articles to explain this in complete detail, but I’d like to give at least a brief summary here.

If cholesterol caused heart disease, it should be a risk factor in 1) all ages, 2) both sexes and 3) all populations around the world (barring any protective factor, of course). Also, if cholesterol caused heart disease we would expect that lowering cholesterol would reduce heart disease. But none of these assumptions turn out to be true.

The rate of heart disease in 65-year old men is ten times that of 45-year old men. Yet a recent study in the Journal of American Medical Association indicated that high LDL cholesterol is not a risk factor for from coronary heart disease (CHD) mortality or total mortality (death from any cause). It is extremely unlikely that a risk factor for a disease would stop being a risk factor at a time when that disease kills the greatest number of people. That is akin to suggesting that smoking causes lung cancer in young men, but somehow stops doing so in older men!

Another consistent thorn in the side of supporters of the “lipid hypothesis” is that women suffer 300% less heart disease than men, in spite of having higher average cholesterol levels. At the recent Conference on Low Blood Cholesterol, which reviewed 11 major studies including 125,000 women, it was determined that there was absolutely no relationship between total cholesterol levels and mortality from cardiovascular or any other causes.

Nor is cholesterol a risk factor in all populations around the world. In fact, some of the populations with the highest levels of blood cholesterol have among the lowest rates of heart disease, and vice versa. Dr. Malcom Kendrick, a well-known skeptic of the lipid-hypothesis, explains this very well in the video below:

Finally, more than 40 trials have been performed to determine whether lowering cholesterol levels can prevent heart disease. In some trials heart disease rates went down, in others they went up. But when the results of all of the trials were taken together, just as many people died in the treatment groups (who had their cholesterol levels lowered by drugs) as in the control groups (who had no treatment).

If you’re still skeptical after reading all of this, perhaps William Castelli, the director of the famed Framingham Heart Study mentioned above can convince you:

Or how about Frederick Stare, a long-time American Heart Association member and (former) proponent of the lipid hypothesis:

So there you have it. Contrary to popular belief, cholesterol is not a dangerous poison that causes heart disease. Rather, it is an essential nutrient present in the cell membranes of all tissues of all mammals, and has some very important functions in the body. In fact, in many studies low cholesterol has been associated with an increase in total mortality!

Again, the Framingham Study which followed 15,000 participants over three generations:

In other words, as cholesterol fell death rates went up.

The Honolulu Heart Program study, with 8,000 participants, published in 2001:

And finally, the huge Japanese Lipid Intervention Trial with over 47,000 participants:

In other words, those with the lowest cholesterol had the highest death rate, and those with cholesterol levels that would today be called “dangerous” had the lowest death rate.

As you can see, not only does high cholesterol not cause heart disease, low cholesterol can actually be dangerous to your health. So toss out your vegetable oil and start eating butter and eggs again! But more on that next week…

Recommended links

• Handouts from my recent public talk on cholesterol
• Dr. Uffe Ravnskov’s “The Cholesterol Myths”
• The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

The persistent myth that cholesterol causes heart disease has scared many of us away from eating eggs on a regular basis. But there is absolutely no research that links egg consumption to heart disease.

A recent review of the scientific literature published in Current Opinion in Clinical Nutrition and Metabolic Care clearly indicates that egg consumption has no discernible impact on blood cholesterol levels in 70% of the population. In the other 30% of the population (termed “hyperresponders”), eggs do increase both circulating LDL and HDL cholesterol.

You’ve probably been conditioned to believe that anything that raises LDL cholesterol (so-called “bad” cholesterol) should be avoided like the plague. But even the medical mainstream has come to recognize that all LDL cholesterol is not the same. It’s true that small, dense LDL particles have been linked to heart disease. This is primarily due to the fact that they are much more susceptible to oxidative damage than normal LDL cholesterol particles.

However, egg consumption increases the proportion of large, buoyant LDL particles that have been shown to be protective against heart disease. Egg consumption also shifts individuals from the LDL pattern B to pattern A. Pattern B indicates a preponderance of small, dense LDL particles (risk factors for heart disease), while pattern A indicates a preponderance of large, buoyant LDL particles (which protect us from heart disease). This is a good thing.

Eggs one of the most nutrient-dense foods available. One egg provides 13 essential nutrients, all in the yolk (contrary to popular belief, the yolk is far higher in nutrients than the white).

Eggs are an excellent source of B vitamins, which are needed for vital functions in the body, and also provide good quantities of vitamin A, essential for normal growth and development.

The vitamin E in eggs protects against heart disease and some cancers; eggs also contain vitamin D, which promotes mineral absorption and good bone health.

Eggs are rich in iodine, for making thyroid hormones, and phosphorus, essential for healthy bones and teeth.

Eggs are also good sources of antioxidants known to protect the eye. Therefore, increased plasma concentrations of lutein and zeaxanthin in individuals consuming eggs are also of interest, especially in those populations susceptible to developing macular degeneration and eye cataracts.

There’s absolutely no reason to limit your consumption of eggs to three to four per week, as recommended by “heart-healthy” nutritional guidelines. In fact, consuming two to three eggs per day would provide a better boost to your health and protection against disease than a multivitamin supplement. Eggs truly are one of nature’s superfoods.

It’s important, however, to make sure that you buy organic, pasture-raised eggs. Studies show that commercially-raised eggs are up to 19 times higher in pro-inflammatory omega-6 fatty acids. Unfortunately, almost all eggs sold in supermarkets – even the organic eggs sold at chains such as Whole Foods and Wild Oats – are not truly pasture-raised. To find these eggs, check your local farmer’s market or visit the Eat Wild website to locate a source in your area.

Attention Bay Area HEALTHY SKEPTIC readers!

I am offering a free public talk next week in Berkeley, CA which debunks the myth that cholesterol causes heart disease. We’ll also explore the true causes of heart disease as well as simple dietary and lifestyle changes you can make to protect yourself and your loved ones. See below for details. Hope to see you there!

Wednesday, May 21st from 7:00 – 9:00 PM
Acupuncture & Integrated Medicine College, Berkeley (AIMC Berkeley)
2550 Shattuck Avenue (at Blake)
10-minute walk south on Shattuck from Downtown Berkeley BART
510.666.8248 ext. 106
www.aimc.edu

For over 50 years, the medical establishment has vigorously promoted the notion that high cholesterol is a primary risk factor for coronary heart disease, and that a diet high in saturated fat and cholesterol causes heart disease. These hypotheses are widely accepted as fact by physicians and the general public alike, despite the overwhelming body of evidence that suggests otherwise.

During this two-hour talk, we’ll review scientific studies demonstrating that:

1. High cholesterol doesn’t cause heart disease
2. Low cholesterol worsens your physical and mental health and increases your chances of dying prematurely
3. Diets high in saturated fat and cholesterol don’t cause heart disease, but they do promote health and longevity
4. Consumption of so-called “heart healthy” vegetable oils is linked to heart disease, cancer and many other conditions

You’ll also learn the latest theories on what causes heart disease and a truly “heart healthy” approach to diet and lifestyle that is supported by both modern science and centuries of traditional wisdom.

The presentation draws on more than 150 peer-reviewed studies published in major journals and the work of an impressive list of physicians, scientists and researchers who question the connection between cholesterol and heart disease.