Total cholesterol and cardiovascular disease: A U-curve relationship

The hypothesis that blood cholesterol levels are positively correlated with heart disease (the lipid hypothesis) dates back to Rudolph Virchow in the mid-1800s.

One famous study that supported this hypothesis was Ancel Keys's Seven Countries Study, conducted between the 1950s and 1970s. This study eventually served as the foundation on which much of the advice that we receive today from doctors is based, even though several other studies have been published since that provide little support for the lipid hypothesis.

The graph below (from O Primitivo) shows the results of one study, involving many more countries than Key's Seven Countries Study, that actually suggests a NEGATIVE linear correlation between total cholesterol and cardiovascular disease.

Now, most relationships in nature are nonlinear, with quite a few following a pattern that looks like a U-curve (plain or inverted); sometimes called a J-curve pattern. The graph below (also from O Primitivo) shows the U-curve relationship between total cholesterol and mortality, with cardiovascular disease mortality indicated through a dotted red line at the bottom.

This graph has been obtained through a nonlinear analysis, and I think it provides a better picture of the relationship between total cholesterol (TC) and mortality. Based on this graph, the best range of TC that one can be at is somewhere between 210, where cardiovascular disease mortality is minimized; and 220, where total mortality is minimized.

The total mortality curve is the one indicated through the full blue line at the top. In fact, it suggests that mortality increases sharply as TC decreases below 200.

Now, these graphs relate TC with disease and mortality, and say nothing about LDL cholesterol (LDL). In my own experience, and that of many people I know, a TC of about 200 will typically be associated with a slightly elevated LDL (e.g., 110 to 150), even if one has a high HDL cholesterol (i.e., greater than 60).

Yet, most people who have a LDL greater than 100 will be told by their doctors, usually with the best of the intentions, to take statins, so that they can "keep their LDL under control". (LDL levels are usually calculated, not measured directly, which itself creates a whole new set of problems.)

Alas, reducing LDL to 100 or less will typically reduce TC below 200. If we go by the graphs above, especially the one showing the U-curves, these folks' risk for cardiovascular disease and mortality will go up - exactly the opposite effect that they and their doctors expected. And that will cost them financially as well, as statin drugs are expensive, in part to pay for all those TV ads.

The China Study one more time: Are raw plant foods giving people cancer?

In this previous post I analyzed some data from the China Study that included counties where there were cases of schistosomiasis infection. Following one of Denise Minger’s suggestions, I removed all those counties from the data. I was left with 29 counties, a much smaller sample size. I then ran a multivariate analysis using WarpPLS (warppls.com), like in the previous post, but this time I used an algorithm that identifies nonlinear relationships between variables.

Below is the model with the results. (Click on it to enlarge. Use the "CRTL" and "+" keys to zoom in, and CRTL" and "-" to zoom out.) As in the previous post, the arrows explore associations between variables. The variables are shown within ovals. The meaning of each variable is the following: aprotein = animal protein consumption; pprotein = plant protein consumption; cholest = total cholesterol; crcancer = colorectal cancer.

What is total cholesterol doing at the right part of the graph? It is there because I am analyzing the associations between animal protein and plant protein consumption with colorectal cancer, controlling for the possible confounding effect of total cholesterol.

I am not hypothesizing anything regarding total cholesterol, even though this variable is shown as pointing at colorectal cancer. I am just controlling for it. This is the type of thing one can do in multivariate analyzes. This is how you “control for the effect of a variable” in an analysis like this.

ins Since the sample is fairly small, we end up with nonsignificant beta coefficients that would normally be statistically significant with a larger sample. But it helps that we are using nonparametric statistics, because they are still robust in the presence of small samples, and deviations from normality. Also the nonlinear algorithm is more sensitive to relationships that do not fit a classic linear pattern. We can summarize the findings as follows:

- As animal protein consumption increases, plant protein consumption decreases significantly (beta=-0.36; P<0.01). This is to be expected and helpful in the analysis, as it differentiates somewhat animal from plant protein consumers. Those folks who got more of their protein from animal foods tended to get significantly less protein from plant foods.

- As animal protein consumption increases, colorectal cancer decreases, but not in a statistically significant way (beta=-0.31; P=0.10). The beta here is certainly high, and the likelihood that the relationship is real is 90 percent, even with such a small sample.

- As plant protein consumption increases, colorectal cancer increases significantly (beta=0.47; P<0.01). The small sample size was not enough to make this association nonsignificant. The reason is that the distribution pattern of the data here is very indicative of a real association, which is reflected in the low P value.

Remember, these results are not confounded by schistosomiasis infection, because we are only looking at counties where there were no cases of schistosomiasis infection. These results are not confounded by total cholesterol either, because we controlled for that possible confounding effect. Now, control variable or not, you would be correct to point out that the association between total cholesterol and colorectal cancer is high (beta=0.58; P=0.01). So let us take a look at the shape of that association:

Does this graph remind you of the one on this post; the one with several U curves? Yes. And why is that? Maybe it reflects a tendency among the folks who had low cholesterol to have more cancer because the body needs cholesterol to fight disease, and cancer is a disease. And maybe it reflects a tendency among the folks who have high total cholesterol to do so because total cholesterol (and particularly its main component, LDL cholesterol) is in part a marker of disease, and cancer is often a culmination of various metabolic disorders (e.g., the metabolic syndrome) that are nothing but one disease after another.

To believe that total cholesterol causes colorectal cancer is nonsensical because total cholesterol is generally increased by consumption of animal products, of which animal protein consumption is a proxy. (In this reduced dataset, the linear univariate correlation between animal protein consumption and total cholesterol is a significant and positive 0.36.) And animal protein consumption seems to be protective again colorectal cancer in this dataset (negative association on the model graph).

Now comes the part that I find the most ironic about this whole discussion in the blogosphere that has been going on recently about the China Study; and the answer to the question posed in the title of this post: Are raw plant foods giving people cancer? If you think that the answer is “yes”, think again. The variable that is strongly associated with colorectal cancer is plant protein consumption.

Do fruits, veggies, and other plant foods that can be consumed raw have a lot of protein?

With a few exceptions, like nuts, they do not. Most raw plant foods have trace amounts of protein, especially when compared with foods made from refined grains and seeds (e.g., wheat grains, soybean seeds). So the contribution of raw fruits and veggies in general could not have influenced much the variable plant protein consumption. To put this in perspective, the average plant protein consumption per day in this dataset was 63 g; even if they were eating 30 bananas a day, the study participants would not get half that much protein from bananas.

Refined foods made from grains and seeds are made from those plant parts that the plants absolutely do not “want” animals to eat. They are the plants’ “children” or “children’s nutritional reserves”, so to speak. This is why they are packed with nutrients, including protein and carbohydrates, but also often toxic and/or unpalatable to animals (including humans) when eaten raw.

But humans are so smart; they learned how to industrially refine grains and seeds for consumption. The resulting human-engineered products (usually engineered to sell as many units as possible, not to make you healthy) normally taste delicious, so you tend to eat a lot of them. They also tend to raise blood sugar to abnormally high levels, because industrial refining makes their high carbohydrate content easily digestible. Refined foods made from grains and seeds also tend to cause leaky gut problems, and autoimmune disorders like celiac disease. Yep, we humans are really smart.

Thanks again to Dr. Campbell and his colleagues for collecting and compiling the China Study data, and to Ms. Minger for making the data available in easily downloadable format and for doing some superb analyses herself.

How much alcohol is optimal? Maybe less than you think

I have been regularly recommending to users of the software HCE () to include a column in their health data reflecting their alcohol consumption. Why? Because I suspect that alcohol consumption is behind many of what we call the “diseases of affluence”.

A while ago I recall watching an interview with a centenarian, a very lucid woman. When asked about her “secret” to live a long life, she said that she added a little bit of whiskey to her coffee every morning. It was something like a tablespoon of whiskey, or about 15 g, which amounted to approximately 6 g of ethanol every single day.

Well, she might have been drinking very close to the optimal amount of alcohol per day for the average person, if the study reviewed in this post is correct.

Studies of the effect of alcohol consumption on health generally show results in terms of averages within fixed ranges of consumption. For example, they will show average mortality risks for people consuming 1, 2, 3 etc. drinks per day. These studies suggest that there is a J-curve relationship between alcohol consumption and health (). That is, drinking a little is better than not drinking; and drinking a lot is worse than drinking a little.

However, using “rough” ranges of 1, 2, 3 etc. drinks per day prevents those studies from getting to a more fine-grained picture of the beneficial effects of alcohol consumption.

Contrary to popular belief, the positive health effects of moderate alcohol consumption have little, if anything, to do with polyphenols such as resveratrol. Resveratrol, once believed to be the fountain of youth, is found in the skin of red grapes.

It is in fact the alcohol content that has positive effects, apparently reducing the incidence of coronary heart disease, diabetes, hypertension, congestive heart failure, stroke, dementia, Raynaud’s phenomenon, and all-cause mortality. Raynaud's phenomenon is associated with poor circulation in the extremities (e.g., toes, fingers), which in some cases can progress to gangrene.

In most studies of the effects of alcohol consumption on health, the J-curves emerge from visual inspection of the plots of averages across ranges of consumption. Rarely you find studies where nonlinear relationships are “discovered” by software tools such as WarpPLS (), with effects being adjusted accordingly.

You do find, however, some studies that fit reasonably justified functions to the data. Di Castelnuovo and colleagues’ study, published in JAMA Internal Medicine in 2006 (), is probably the most widely cited among these studies. This study is a meta-analysis; i.e., a study that builds on various other empirical studies.

I think that the journal in which this study appeared was formerly known as Archives of Internal Medicine, a fairly selective and prestigious journal, even though this did not seem to be reflected in its Wikipedia article at the time of this writing ().

What Di Castelnuovo and colleagues found is interesting. They fitted a bunch of nonlinear functions to the data, all with J-curve shapes. The results suggest a lot of variation in the maximum amount one can drink before mortality becomes higher than not drinking at all; that maximum amount ranges from about 4 to 6 drinks per day.

But there is little variation in one respect. The optimal amount of alcohol is somewhere around 5 and 7 g/d, which translates into about the following every day: half a can of beer, half a glass of wine, or half a “shot” of spirit. This is clearly a common trait of all of the nonlinear functions that they generated. This is illustrated in the figure below, from the article.

As you can seen from the curves above, a little bit of alcohol every day seems to have an acute effect on mortality reduction. And it seems that taking little doses every day is much better than taking the equivalent dose over a larger period of time; for instance, the equivalent per week, taken once a week. This is suggested by other studies as well ().

The curves above do not clearly reflect a couple of problems with alcohol consumption. One is that alcohol seems to be treated by the body as a toxin, which causes some harm and some good at the same time, the good being often ascribed to hormesis (). Someone who is more sensitive to alcohol’s harmful effects, on the liver for example, may not benefit as much from its positive effects.

The curves are averages that pass through points, after which the points are forgotten; even though they are real people.

The other problem with alcohol is that most people who are introduced to it in highly urbanized areas (where most people live) tend to drink it because of its mood-altering effects. This leads to a major danger of addiction and abuse. And drinking a lot of alcohol is much worse than not drinking at all.

Interestingly, in traditional Mediterranean Cultures where wine is consumed regularly, people tend to generally frown upon drunkenness ().

Moderate alcohol consumption’s benefits: Blood flow or hormesis?

Moderate alcohol consumption has been found again and again to be beneficial to health (, , ). Even somewhat pessimistic studies linking alcohol consumption with health suggest that 6 drinks per week is optimal (). One drink is generally defined as: a 4-ounce glass of wine, a 12-ounce bottle or can of beer, or a 1.5-ounce shot of hard liquor. The amounts of ethanol vary, with more in hard liquor: 4 ounces of wine = 10.8 g of ethanol, 12 ounces of beer = 13.2 g of ethanol, and 1.5 ounces of spirits = 15.1 g of ethanol.

Contrary to popular belief, the positive health effects of moderate alcohol consumption have little, if anything, to do with polyphenols such as resveratrol. It is in fact the ethanol content that leads to the positive effects, apparently reducing the incidence of coronary heart disease, diabetes, hypertension, congestive heart failure, stroke, dementia, Raynaud’s phenomenon, and all-cause mortality. Raynaud's phenomenon is associated with poor circulation in the extremities (e.g., toes, fingers), which in some cases can progress to gangrene.

Two main explanations for the positive health effects of moderate alcohol consumption are: (a) that it improves blood flow; and (b) that it improves liver function via hormesis. These two explanations are not mutually exclusive and may both be right. The latter explanation is based on the assumption that often a favorable biological response results from low exposures to toxins and other stressors. This is fundamentally a compensatory adaptation response ().

It is not very easy to find evidence in favor of the first explanation above – that moderate alcohol consumption improves blood flow. An old study by Fewings and colleagues is a welcome exception. The study was published in 1966 in the British Journal of Pharmacology. It is titled: “The effects of ethyl alcohol on the blood vessels of the hand and forearm in man” ().

The figure below, from the study, shows average measures for 5 people who consumed 100 ml of brandy. This is equivalent to about 2 drinks. Each set of points reflects measurements taken at 30-minute intervals. The top graph shows the variation in blood alcohol content over time in mg / 100 ml. The middle graph shows the variation in hand blood flow over time in what the authors reported to be ml / 100 ml / min. The bottom graph shows the variation in forearm blood flow over time in the same scale as hand blood flow.

Many other measures are reported by the authors of the study, including measures in response to direct intra-arterial injection of ethanol. When injected, ethanol appears to have a nonlinear effect, opposite to that of oral consumption at first. Injected ethanol seems to impair blood flow at first, and then improve it significantly after a while.

Oral ethanol intake, through drinking alcoholic beverages, is the main focus of this post.

The authors also show evidence that the improvement in blood flow maintains itself for more than 2 h, and that flow becomes impaired at very high levels of blood alcohol.

So, as we can see, moderate alcohol consumption seems to improve blood flow. Why would this enhance one’s health?

One reason is that many important chemicals flow through the blood, which is about 90 percent water. Among these chemicals are free fatty acids, glucose, vitamins, minerals and oxygen. Without these chemicals, organs cannot operate properly, and in fact their tissues may die rather quickly. For example, for normal function the brain requires 3.3 ml / min of oxygen per 100 g of brain mass.

Another reason is that impaired blood flow seems to be significantly associated with accelerated atherosclerotic plaque growth, via a phenomenon known as endothelial cell apoptosis ().

Alcohol consumption, mortality, and cardiovascular disease

The graphs below summarize key results from a study published in April of 2018 by the highly influential journal The Lancet (). The study reported having included at least 599,912 drinkers in the analysis and having recorded 40,310 deaths and 39,018 cardiovascular disease events. The authors of the study concluded that “For all-cause mortality, we recorded a positive and curvilinear association with the level of alcohol consumption, with the minimum mortality risk around or below 100 g per week.”

The study was presented as being somewhat pessimistic: one cannot drink as much as previous data suggested. Let’s see. Two drinks of a spirit (e.g., whiskey) served “neat” (i.e., with nothing added to it) will typically add up to about 84 g; or 3 oz. If the alcohol content is 40 percent, such a double drink will contain about 33 g of alcohol. So, according to this study, you can still enjoy three double drinks of spirit per week, or six single drinks – which is almost one per day. That is not so little.

This study is consistent with most studies of the effect of alcohol consumption on health, which generally show results in terms of averages within fixed ranges of consumption. For example, they will show average mortality risks for people consuming 1, 2, 3 etc. drinks per day. These studies suggest that there is a J-curve relationship between alcohol consumption and health. That is, drinking a little is better than not drinking; and drinking a lot is worse than drinking a little.

Contrary to popular belief, the positive health effects of moderate alcohol consumption have little, if anything, to do with polyphenols such as resveratrol. Resveratrol, once believed to be the fountain of youth, is found in the skin of red grapes.

It is in fact the alcohol content that has positive effects, apparently reducing the incidence of coronary heart disease, diabetes, hypertension, congestive heart failure, stroke, dementia, Raynaud’s phenomenon, and all-cause mortality. Raynaud's phenomenon is associated with poor circulation in the extremities (e.g., toes, fingers), which in some cases can progress to gangrene.

In most studies of the effects of alcohol consumption on health, the J-curves emerge from visual inspection of the plots of averages across ranges of consumption. Rarely you find studies where nonlinear relationships are “discovered” by software tools such as WarpPLS (), with effects being adjusted accordingly.

Still, this study is indeed consistent with some past studies suggesting that the amount of alcohol intake that is optimal maybe less than most of us think ().

Book review: Perfect Health Diet

Perfect Health Diet is a book that one should own. It is not the type of book that you can get from your local library and just do a quick read over (and, maybe, write a review about it). If you do that, you will probably miss several important ideas that form the foundation of this book, which is a deep foundation.

The book is titled “Perfect Health Diet”, not “The Perfect Health Diet”. If you think that this is a mistake, consider that the most successful social networking web site of all time started as “The Facebook”, and then changed to simply “Facebook”; which was perceived later as a major improvement.

Moreover, “Perfect Health Diet” makes for a cool and not at all inappropriate acronym – “PHD”.

What people eat has an enormous influence on their lives, and also on the lives of those around them. Nutrition is clearly one of the most important topics in the modern world - it is the source of much happiness and suffering for entire populations. If Albert Einstein and Marie Curie were alive today, they would probably be interested in nutrition, as they were about important topics of their time that were outside their main disciplines and research areas (e.g., the consequences of war, and future war deterrence).

Nutrition attracts the interest of many bright people today. Those who are not professional nutrition researchers often fund their own research, spending hours and hours of their own time studying the literature and even experimenting on themselves. Several of them decide to think deeply and carefully about it. A few, like Paul Jaminet and Shou-Ching Jaminet, decide to write about it, and all of us benefit from their effort.

The Jaminets have PhDs (not copies of their books, degrees). Their main PhD disciplines are somewhat similar to Einstein’s and Curie’s; which is an interesting coincidence. What the Jaminets have written about nutrition is probably analogous, in broad terms, to what Einstein and Curie would have written about nutrition if they were alive today. They would have written about a “unified field theory” of nutrition, informed by chemistry.

To put it simply, the main idea behind this book is to find the “sweet spot” for each major macronutrient (e.g., protein and fat) and micronutrient (e.g., vitamins and minerals) that is important for humans. The sweet spot is the area indicated on the graph below. This is my own simplified interpretation of the authors' more complex graphs on marginal benefits from nutrients.

The book provides detailed information about each of the major nutrients that are important to humans, what their “sweet spot” levels are, and how to obtain them. In this respect the book is very thorough, and also very clear, including plenty of good arguments and empirical research results to back up the recommendations. But this book is much more than that.

Why do I refer to this book as proposing a “unified field theory” of nutrition? The reason is that this book clearly aims at unifying all of the current state of the art knowledge about nutrition, departing from a few fundamental ideas.

One of those fundamental ideas is that a good diet would provide nutrients in the same ratio as those provided by our own tissues when we “cannibalize” them – i.e., when we fast. Another is that human breast milk is a good basis for the estimation of the ratios of macronutrients a human adult would need for optimal health.

And here is where the depth and brilliance with which the authors address these issues can lead to misunderstandings.

For example, when our body “cannibalizes” itself (e.g., at the 16-h mark of a water fast), there is no digestion going on. And, as the authors point out, what you eat, in terms of nutrients, is often not what you get after digestion. It may surprise many to know that a diet rich in vegetables is actually a high fat diet (if you are surprised, you should read the book). One needs to keep these things in mind to understand that not all dietary macronutrient ratios will lead to the same ratios of nutrients after digestion, and that the dietary equivalent of “cannibalizing” oneself is not a beef-only diet.

Another example relates to the issue of human breast milk. Many seem to have misunderstood the authors as implying that the macronutrient ratios in human breast milk are optimal for adult humans. The authors say nothing of the kind. What they do is to use human breast milk as a basis for their estimation of what an adult human should get, based on a few reasonable assumptions. One of the assumptions is that a human adult’s brain consumes proportionally much less sugar than an infant’s.

Yet another example is the idea of “safe starches”, which many seem to have taken as a recommendation that diabetics should eat lots of white rice and potato. The authors have never said such a thing in the book; not even close. "Safe starches", like white rice and sweet potatoes (as well as white potatoes), are presented in the book as good sources of carbohydrates that are also generally free from harmful plant toxins. And they are, if consumed after cooking.

By the way, I have a colleague who has type 2 diabetes and can eat meat with white potatoes without experiencing hyperglycemia, as long as the amount of potato is very small and is eaten after a few bites of meat.

Do I disagree with some of the things that the authors say? Sure I do, but not in a way that would lead to significantly different dietary recommendations. And, who knows, maybe I am wrong.

For example, the authors seem to think that dietary advanced glycation end-products (AGEs) can be a problem for humans, and therefore recommend that you avoid cooking meat at high temperatures (no barbecuing, for example). I have not found any convincing evidence that this is true in healthy people, but following the authors’ advice will not hurt you at all. And if your digestive tract is compromised to the point that undigested food particles are entering your bloodstream, then maybe you should avoid dietary sources of AGEs.

Also, I think that humans tend to adapt to different macronutrient ratios in more fundamental ways than the authors seem to believe they can. These adaptations are long-term ones, and are better understood based on the notion of compensatory adaptation. For instance, a very low carbohydrate diet may bring about some problems in the short term, but long-term adaptations may reverse those problems, without a change in the diet.

The authors should be careful about small errors that may give a bad impression to some experts, and open them up to undue criticism; as experts tend to be very picky and frequently generalize based on small errors. Here is one. The authors seem to imply that eating coconut oil will help feed colon cells, which indeed seem to feed on short-chain fats; not exactly the medium-chain fats abundantly found in coconut oil, but okay. (This may be the main reason why indigestible fiber contributes to colon health, by being converted by bacteria to short-chain fats.) The main problem with the authors' implied claim is that coconut oil, as a fat, will be absorbed in the small intestine, and thus will not reach colon cells in any significant amounts.

Finally, I don’t think that increased animal protein consumption causes decreased longevity; an idea that the authors seem to lean toward. One reason is that seafood consumption is almost universally associated with increased longevity, even when it is heavily consumed, and seafood in general has a very high protein-to-fat ratio (much higher than beef). The connection between high animal protein consumption and decreased longevity suggested by many studies, some of which are cited in the book, is unlikely to be due to the protein itself, in my opinion. That connection is more likely to be due to some patterns that may be associated in certain populations with animal protein consumption (e.g., refined wheat and industrial seed oils consumption).

Thankfully, controversial issues and small errors can be easily addressed online. The authors maintain a popular blog, and they do so in such a way that the blog is truly an extension of the book. This blog is one of my favorites. Perhaps we will see some of the above issues addressed in the blog.

All in all, this seems like a bargain to me. For about 25 bucks (less than that, if you trade in quid; and more, if you do in Yuan), and with some self-determination, you may save thousands of dollars in medical bills. More importantly, you may change your life, and those of the ones around you, for the better.

Fasting blood glucose of 83 mg/dl and heart disease: Fact and fiction

If you are interested in the connection between blood glucose control and heart disease, you have probably done your homework. This is a scary connection, and sometimes the information on the Internetz make people even more scared. You have probably seen something to this effect mentioned:

Heart disease risk increases in a linear fashion as fasting blood glucose rises beyond 83 mg/dl.

In fact, I have seen this many times, including on some very respectable blogs. I suspect it started with one blogger, and then got repeated over and over again by others; sometimes things become “true” through repetition. Frequently the reference cited is a study by Brunner and colleagues, published in Diabetes Care in 2006. I doubt very much the bloggers in question actually read this article. Sometimes a study by Coutinho and colleagues is also cited, but this latter study is actually a meta-analysis.

So I decided to take a look at the Brunner and colleagues study. It covers, among other things, the relationship between cardiovascular disease (they use the acronym CHD for this), and 2-hour blood glucose levels after a 50-g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT). They tested thousands of men at one point in time, and then followed them for over 30 years, which is really impressive. The graph below shows the relationship between CHD and blood glucose in mmol/l. Here is a calculator to convert the values to mg/dl.

The authors note in the limitations section that: “Fasting glucose was not measured.” So these results have nothing to do with fasting glucose, as we are led to believe when we see this study cited on the web. Also, on the abstract, the authors say that there is “no evidence of nonlinearity”, but in the results section they say that the data provides “evidence of a nonlinear relationship”. The relationship sure looks nonlinear to me. I tried to approximate it manually below.

Note that CHD mortality really goes up more clearly after a glucose level of 5.5 mmol/l (100 mg/dl). But it also varies significantly more widely after that level; the magnitudes of the error bars reflect that. Also, you can see that at around 6.7 mmol/l (121 mg/dl), CHD mortality is on average about the same as at 5.5 mmol/l (100 mg/dl) and 3.5 mmol/l (63 mg/dl). This last level suggests an abnormally high insulin response, bringing blood glucose levels down too much at the 2-hour mark – i.e., reactive hypoglycemia, which the study completely ignores.

These findings are consistent with the somewhat chaotic nature of blood glucose variations in normoglycemic individuals, and also with evidence suggesting that average blood glucose levels go up with age in a J-curve fashion even in long-lived individuals.

We also know that traits vary along a bell curve for any population of individuals. Research results are often reported as averages, but the average individual does not exist. The average individual is an abstraction, and you are not it. Glucose metabolism is a complex trait, which is influenced by many factors. This is why there is so much variation in mortality for different glucose levels, as indicated by the magnitudes of the error bars.

In any event, these findings are clearly inconsistent with the statement that "heart disease risk increases in a linear fashion as fasting blood glucose rises beyond 83 mg/dl". The authors even state early in the article that another study based on the same dataset, to which theirs was a follow-up, suggested that:

…. [CHD was associated with levels above] a postload glucose of 5.3 mmol/l [95 mg/dl], but below this level the degree of glycemia was not associated with coronary risk.

Now, exaggerating the facts, to the point of creating fictitious results, may have a positive effect. It may scare people enough that they will actually check their blood glucose levels. Perhaps people will remove certain foods like doughnuts and jelly beans from their diets, or at least reduce their consumption dramatically. However, many people may find themselves with higher fasting blood glucose levels, even after removing those foods from their diets, as their bodies try to adapt to lower circulating insulin levels. Some may see higher levels for doing other things that are likely to improve their health in the long term. Others may see higher levels as they get older.

Many of the complications from diabetes, including heart disease, stem from poor glucose control. But it seems increasingly clear that blood glucose control does not have to be perfect to keep those complications at bay. For most people, blood glucose levels can be maintained within a certain range with the proper diet and lifestyle. You may be looking at a long life if you catch the problem early, even if your blood glucose is not always at 83 mg/dl (4.6 mmol/l). More on this on my next post.

Nonlinearity and the industrial seed oils paradox

Most relationships among variables in nature are nonlinear, frequently taking the form of a J curve. The figure below illustrates this type of curve. In this illustration, the horizontal axis measures the amount of time an individual spends consuming a given dose (high) of a substance daily. The vertical axis measures a certain disease marker – e.g., a marker of systemic inflammation, such as levels of circulating tumor necrosis factor (TNF). This is just one of many measurement schemes that may lead to a J curve.

J-curve relationships and variants such as U-curve and inverted J-curve relationships are ubiquitous, and may occur due to many reasons. For example, a J curve like the one above may be due to the substance being consumed having at least one health-promoting attribute, and at least one health-impairing attribute. The latter has a delayed effect, and ends up overcoming the benefits of the former over time. In this sense, there is no “sweet spot”. People are better off not consuming the substance at all. They should look for other sources of the health-promoting factors.

So what does this have to do with industrial seed oils, like safflower and corn oil?

If you take a look at the research literature on the effects of industrial seed oils, you’ll find something interesting and rather paradoxical. Several studies show benefits, whereas several others hint at serious problems. The problems seem to be generally related to long-term consumption, and to be associated with a significant increase in the ratio of dietary omega-6 to omega-3 fats; this increase appears to lead to systemic inflammation. The benefits seem to be generally related to short-term consumption.

But what leads to the left side of the J curve, the health-promoting effects of industrial seed oils, usually seen in short-term studies?

It is very likely vitamin E, which is considered, apparently correctly, to be one of the most powerful antioxidants in nature. Oxidative stress is strongly associated with systemic inflammation. Seed oils are by far the richest sources of vitamin E around, in the form of both γ-Tocopherol and α-Tocopherol. Other good sources, with much less gram-adjusted omega-6 content, are what we generally refer to as “nuts”. And, there are many, many substances other than vitamin E that have powerful antioxidant properties.

Chris Masterjohn has talked about seed oils and vitamin E before, making a similar point (see here, and here). I acknowledged this contribution by Chris before; for example, in my June 2011 interview with Jimmy Moore. In fact, Chris has gone further and also argued that the vitamin E requirement goes up as body fat omega-6 content increases over time (see comments under this post, in addition to the links provided above).

If this is correct, I would speculate that it may create a vicious feedback-loop cycle, as the increased vitamin E requirement may lead to increased hunger for foods rich in vitamin E. For someone already consuming a diet rich in seed oils, this may drive a subconscious compulsion to add more seed oils to dishes. Not good!

Long distance running causes heart disease, unless it doesn’t

Regardless of type of exercise, disease markers are generally associated with intensity of exertion over time. This association follows a J-curve pattern. Do too little of it, and you have more disease; do too much, and incidence of disease goes up. There is always an optimal point, for each type of exercise and marker. A J curve is actually a U curve, with a shortened left end. The reason for the shortened left end is that, when measurements are taken, usually more measures fall on the right side of the curve than on the left.

The figure below (click to enlarge) shows a schematic representation that illustrates this type of relationship. (I am not very good at drawing.) Different individuals have different curves. If the vertical axis was a measure of health, as opposed to disease, then the curve would have the shape of an inverted J.

The idea that long distance running causes heart disease has been around for a while. Is it correct?

If it is, then one would expect to see certain things. For example, let’s say you take a group of long distance runners who have been doing that for a while, ideally runners above age 50. That is when heart disease becomes more frequent. This would also capture more experienced runners, with enough running experience to cause some serious damage. Let us say you measured markers of heart disease before and after a grueling long distance race. What would you see?

If long distance running causes heart disease, you would see a significant proportion with elevated makers of heart disease among the runners at baseline (i.e., before the race). After all, running is causing a cumulative problem. The levels of those markers would be correlated with practice, or participation in previous races, since the races are causing the damage. Also, you would see a uniformly bad increase in the markers after the race, as the running is messing up everybody more or less equally.

Sahlén and colleagues (2009), a group of Swedish researchers, studied males and females aged 55 or older who participated in a 30-km (about 19-mile) cross-country race. The full reference to the article is at the end of this post. The researchers included only runners who had no diagnosed medical disorders in their study. They collected data on the patterns of exercise prior to the race, and participation in previous races. Blood was taken before and after the race, and several measurements were obtained, including measurements of two possible heart disease markers: N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), and troponin T (TnT). The table below (click to enlarge) shows several of those measurements before and after the race.

We can see that NT-proBNP and TnT increased significantly after the race. So did creatinine, a byproduct of breakdown in muscle tissue of creatine phosphate; something that you would expect after such a grueling race. Yep, long distance running increases NT-proBNP and TnT, so it leads to heart disease, right?

Wait, not so fast!

NT-proBNP and TnT levels usually increase after endurance exercise, something that is noted by the authors in their literature review. But those levels do not stay elevated for too long after the race. Being permanently elevated, that is a sign of a problem. Also, excessive elevation during the race is also a sign of a potential problem.

Now, here is something interesting. Look at the table below, showing the variations grouped by past participation in races.

The increases in NT-proBNP and TnT are generally lower in those individuals that participated in 3 to 13 races in the past. They are higher for the inexperienced runners, and, in the case of NT-proBNP, particularly for those with 14 or more races under their belt (the last group on the right). The baseline NT-proBNP is also significantly higher for that group. They were older too, but not by much.

Can you see a possible J-curve pattern?

Now look at this table below, which shows the results of a multiple regression analysis on its right side. Look at the last column on the right, the beta coefficients. They are all significant, but the first is .81, which is quite high for a standardized partial regression coefficient. It refers to an almost perfect relationship between the log of NT-proBNP increase and the log of baseline NT-proBNP. (The log transformations reflect the nonlinear relationships between NT-proBNP, a fairly sensitive health marker, and the other variables.)

In a multiple regression analysis, the effect of each independent variable (i.e., each predictor) on the dependent variable (the log of NT-proBNP increase) is calculated controlling for the effects of all the other independent variables on the dependent variable. Thus, what the table above is telling us is that baseline NT-proBNP predicts NT-proBNP increase almost perfectly, even when we control for age, creatinine increase, and race duration (i.e., amount of time a person takes to complete the race).

Again, even when we control for: AGE, creatinine increase, and RACE DURATION.

In order words, baseline NT-proBNP is what really matters; not even age makes that much of a difference. But baseline NT-proBNP is NEGATIVELY correlated with number of previous races. The only exception is the group that participated in 14 or more previous races. Maybe that was too much for them.

Okay, one more table. This one, included below, shows regression analyses between a few predictors and the main dependent variable, which in this case is TnT elevation. No surprises here based on the discussion so far. Look at the left part, the column labeled as “B”. Those are correlation coefficients, varying from -1 to 1. Which is the predictor with the highest absolute correlation with TnT elevation? It is number of previous races, but the correlation is, again, NEGATIVE.

In follow-up tests after the race, 9 out of the 185 participants (4.9 percent) showed more decisive evidence of heart disease. One of those died while training a few months after the race. An autopsy was conducted showing abnormal left ventricular hypertrophy with myocardial fibrosis, coronary artery narrowing, and an old myocardial scar.

Who were the 9 lucky ones? You guessed it. Those were the ones who had the largest increases in NT-proBNP during the race. And large increases in NT-proBNP were more common among the runners who were too inexperienced or too experienced. The ones at the extremes.

So, here is a summary of what this study is telling us:

- The 30-km cross-country race studied is no doubt a strenuous activity. So if you have not exercised in years, perhaps you should not start with this kind of race.

- By and large, individuals who had elevated markers of heart disease prior to the race also had the highest elevations of those markers after the race.

- Participation in past races was generally protective, likely due to compensatory body adaptations, with the exception of those who did too much of that.

- Prevalence of heart disease among the runners was measured at 4.9 percent. This does not beat even the mildly westernized Inuit, but certainly does not look so bad considering that the general prevalence of ischemic heart disease in the US and Sweden is about 6.8 percent.

It seems reasonable to conclude that long distance running may be healthy, unless one does too much of it. The ubiquitous J-curve pattern again.

How much is too much? It certainly depends on each person’s particular health condition, but the bar seems to be somewhat high on average: participation in 14 or more previous 30-km races.

As for the 4.9 percent prevalence of heart disease among runners, maybe it is caused by something else, and endurance running may actually be protective, as long as it is not taken to extremes. Maybe that something else is a diet rich in refined carbohydrates and sugars, or psychological stress caused by modern life, or a combination of both.

Just for the record, I don’t do endurance running. I like walking, sprinting, moderate resistance training, and also a variety of light aerobic activities that involve some play. This is just a personal choice; nothing against endurance running.

Mark Sisson was an accomplished endurance runner; now he does not like it very much. (Click here to check his excellent book The Primal Blueprint). Arthur De Vany is not a big fan of endurance running either.

Still, maybe the Tarahumara and hunter-gatherer groups who practice persistence hunting are not such huge exceptions among humans after all.

Reference:

Sahlén, A., Gustafsson, T.P., Svensson, J.E., Marklund, T., Winter, R., Linde, C., & Braunschweig, F. (2009). Predisposing Factors and Consequences of Elevated Biomarker Levels in Long-Distance Runners Aged >55 Years. The American Journal of Cardiology, 104(10), 1434–1440.