CRP Indicator of Health

BACKGROUND:

Previous studies have suggested that low-grade systemic inflammation is involved in the pathogenesis of type 2 diabetes mellitus.

OBJECTIVE:

To investigate the association between C-reactive protein (CRP), the classic acute-phase protein, and incident type 2 diabetes mellitus among middle-aged men.

METHODS:

A total of 2052 initially nondiabetic men aged 45 to 74 years who participated in 1 of the 3 MONICA (Monitoring of Trends and Determinants in Cardiovascular Disease) Augsburg surveys between 1984 and 1995 were followed up for an average of 7.2 years. Incidence of diabetes was assessed by questionnaire mailed to participants in 1998. High-sensitive CRP was measured by an immunoradiometric assay.

RESULTS:

A total of 101 cases of incident diabetes occurred during the follow-up period. The age-standardized incidence rate was 6.9 per 1000 person-years. Men with CRP levels in the highest quartile (CRP > or = 2.91 mg/L) had a 2.7 times higher risk of developing diabetes (95% confidence interval, 1.4-5.2) compared with men in the lowest quartile (CRP < or = 0.67 mg/L) in a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for age and survey. After further adjustment for body mass index, smoking, and systolic blood pressure, the observed association was significantly reduced and became nonsignificant.

CONCLUSIONS:

Low-grade systemic inflammation is associated with an increased risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus in middle-aged men. Inflammation could be one mechanism by which known risk factors for diabetes mellitus, such as obesity, smoking, and hypertension, promote the development of diabetes mellitus.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12523922

HT:  http://healthydietsandscience.blogspot.com/2012/04/high-c-reactive-protein-levels-increase.html

Very interesting study, but note the language of the epidemiologists, for example, "risk factors", which means "mathematically related."  Put another way, when you are reading about epidemiological "risk factors", that is different than thinking of driving fast while drunk and texting, from which one could predict a greater incidence of accident, injury and/or death. 

But they seem not to be willing to connect the dots - which is that (conjecture at this point) a diet that wrecks the body's ability to regulate blood sugar is also the cause of chronic inflammation which is connected by by "risk factors" and models to the diseases of civilization.

Elevated Glucose Associated with Undetected Heart Damage

 A new study led by researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health suggests that hyperglycemia (high blood sugar) injures the heart, even in patients without a history of heart disease or diabetes. Researchers found that elevated levels of glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), a marker for chronic hyperglycemia and diabetes, were associated with minute levels of the protein troponin T (cTnT), a blood marker for heart damage. The high-sensitivity test they used detected levels of cTnT tenfold lower than those found in patients diagnosed with a heart attack. 

http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/585363/?sc=mwhn

I wouldn't say this proves anything, but it correlates well with the carbohydrate hypothesis of obesity.  Every disease of civilization is correlated with high blood sugar/metabolic syndrome.  High blood sugar is the natural, predictable consequence of excess carbohydrate consumption.  Glycemic control is the rational goal of any nutrition intervention, for either weight loss or health benefit.

Eat meat, vegetables, nuts and seeds, little fruit or starch, no sugar/wheat.

William Davis on the Gluten/Gliadin Free Commercial Options

Problem: These gluten-free ingredients, while lacking gliadin and gluten, make you fat and diabetic. They increase visceral fat, cause blood sugar to skyrocket higher than nearly all other foods (even higher than wheat, which is already pretty bad), trigger formation of small LDL and triglycerides, and are responsible for exaggerated postprandial (after-eating) lipoprotein distortions. They cause heart disease, cataracts, arthritis, and a wide range of other conditions, all driven by the extreme levels ofglycation they generate.
http://www.trackyourplaque.com/blog/2011/06/gluten-free-is-going-down.html
You can take the boy out of the country, but you can't take the country out of the boy.  


Likewise - you can try to dejunk junk food, but ... it's still junk, there's still no reason to eat it.  Unless ... you are cursed with liking food high in starch and low in nutrition.  If so, I feel for you. 


How could you tell whether this imitation bread, etc, is harmful to you?  Try the glucose meter.  My guess is it will tell you that your blood sugar skyrockets after consumption.


Eat meat, vegetables, nuts and seeds, little fruit and starch, no sugar/wheat.

Thin Equals Well?

Many overweight and obese people are metabolically healthy, while large numbers of slim people have health problems typically associated with obesity, a new study shows.

The findings, based on national health data collected from 5,440 adults, shows that weight often is not a reliable barometer for health. In addition to looking at height and weight, the study, published this week in The Archives of Internal Medicine, tracked blood pressure, “good” cholesterol, triglycerides, blood sugar and an inflammatory marker called c-reactive protein, all of which are viewed as indicators of cardiovascular health.

Overall, thin people were still metabolically healthier than people who were overweight or obese. But being a normal weight was not a reliable indicator of health. In the study, about 24 percent of thin adults, or about 16 million people, posted unhealthy levels for at least two of the risk factors.

By comparison, among the overweight, about half the people had two or more of the risk factors. But half of them were also metabolically healthy. And nearly one out of three obese people were also metabolically fit.

While it’s long been known that it’s better to be fit and fat than being thin and sedentary, the new data are believed to be the first time researchers have documented the unreliability of body size as an indicator for overall health.

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/13/for-health-body-size-can-be-misleading/?pagemode=print

This is another report documenting the "fat but healthy" population, which has been reported on in various studies for at least five years.  The challenge is that with epidemiological studies - the assumption define the results.  If you decide that people with blue warts are more likely to die, aka blue warts are a risk factor, then fat people with blue warts are not "healthy".  Does that mean they are really more likely to die?  Who knows  - because most of the "risk factors" are the results of sophisticated calculations that are very rarely confirmed via intervention studies.  That said, Mike Eades (www.proteinpower.com/drmike) published a post recently that explains how the "skinny fat/unhealthy" idea could very well be true.

The basic idea is that we each become insulin resistant on a different genetic template.  Suppose a person's fat cells are the last part to become insulin resistant - if they are eating poorly, they can continue to sock away excess blood sugar in their fat cells (after conversion, by the action of insulin, to fat).  In fact, these folks can and will accumulate more fat than the rest of us, and it seems to have almost a protective effect - because they can continue to sequester excess blood sugar long after many of us would not be able to.

On the other end of the spectrum, imagine a person who's fat cells become insulin resistant at essentially the same time as other tissues - these folks will not be able to buffer their excess blood sugars, and will wind up with a large quantity of visceral fat, which is "associated" with higher mortality.  They will suffer more damage from their overconsumption of carbs and the resulting high blood glucose.

What's the bottom line?  There's no getting around the fact that a large abdomen and high blood sugars are signals of damage and causes of damage respectively.  This is why carb restriction is such a powerful tool for those already wrestling with the damage the results from too many years of a typical neolithic diet.

Heartscan - Real Men

William Davis provides a concise run down of why men will benefit from significant carb restriction, and perhaps elimination of certain foods (modern wheat variants for example) altogether.
Heartscan Real Men

Real men don’t eat carbs. At least they don’t eat them without eventually paying the price.
How do carbohydrates, especially those contained in “healthy whole grains,” impair maleness? Several ways:
–Consume carbohydrates, especially the exceptional glucose-increasing amylopectin A from wheat, and visceral fat grows. Visceral fat increases estrogen levels; estrogen, in effect, opposes the masculinizing effects of testosterone. Overweight males typically have low testosterone and high estrogen, a cause for depression, emotionality, weight gain, and low libido.
The rest of the story: 
- You get older faster via glycation
- You increase prolactin production, resulting in MOOBs (male breast reduction surgery is making plastic surgeons rich)
- These foods lead to all sorts of inflammatory remants which damage the endothelium - the linings of the blood vessel walls - which is the root of erectile disfunction, and/or the source of many millions made through sales of the blue pills.

Ever see folks that you know should not be drinking talking themselves through torturous justifications to continue their drinking behavior?  I see that same phenomenon for folks who justify continued wheat consumption - and given the opioid content of modern wheat variants, I think for much the same reason. 

Carbs are not the devil per se, but consumption of carbs at levels that are now generally viewed as "normal" IS NOT NORMAL!  That stuff will kill you.

Glucose Primer

Glucose is the predominant blood sugar and one of the body's two main fuel sources (the other is fatty acids). Glucose, in one form or another, is also the main form of digestible dietary carbohydrate in nearly all human diets. Starch is made of long chains of glucose molecules, which are rapidly liberated and absorbed during digestion. Sucrose, or table sugar, is made of one glucose and one fructose molecule, which are separated before absorption.

Blood glucose is essential for life, but it can also be damaging if there is too much of it. Therefore, the body tries to keep it within a relatively tight range. Normal fasting glucose is roughly between 70 and 90 mg/dL*, but in the same individual it's usually within about 5 mg/dL on any given day. Sustained glucose above 160 mg/dL or so causes damage to multiple organ systems. Some people would put that number closer to 140 mg/dL.
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2010/11/glucose-tolerance-in-non-industrial.html


This is just the basics, but of note - 
1.  The much maligned high fructose corn syrup is virtually identical to sucrose, except the ratio is 55/45 in favor of fructose.  IOW, table sugar's no better.
2.  Due to the tragically high numbers of type II diabetics, you can get a glucose meter at a very low cost (Tim Ferriss describes how he uses one in his new book, and William Davis often does as well) to keep track of your blood glucose levels.


Speculation - measures of the fasting lipid profile - triglycerides, HDL, LDL, total cholesterol - are correlates with poor metabolic function resulting in poor control of blood sugar levels, but not causes of any ill health per se.  It is the high carb intake and the resulting hormonal disruption that drives the sugars higher in combination with the toxic effects of chronically high sugars that do the damage via inflammation and other sub-optimizations of normal human metabolism.

Heartscan on Glycation

A glycation rock and a hard place

Glycation is one of the most well known mechanisms of aging.  Cataracts, wrinkles, arthritis - all can be traced to a degree to glycated proteins gumming up the works.  In short - high blood sugars are making you old.

What to do?


There's nothing we can do about the low-level of glycation that occurs at low blood sugar levels of, say, 90 mg/dl or less. However, we can indeed do a lot to not allow glycation to proceed more rapidly, as it inevitably will at blood sugar levels higher than 90 mg/dl.

How do you keep blood sugars below 90 mg/dl to prevent excessive glycation? Avoid or minimize the foods that cause such rises in blood sugar: carbohydrates.

What food increases blood sugar higher than nearly all other known foods? Wheat.


But don't take Dr. Davis' word for it.  Get a glucose meter and figure out which foods make you older for yourself.