The Glucose Theory of Aging
(The Gospel only According to Saint Ellis...)
The Correct Interpretation of Blood Glucose
NOTE: See another opinion below... Chad: "I feel obligated, based on my knowledge of this subject, to attempt to prevent people (particularly diabetics) from reading the advice on your website and going out there and attempting it... and killing themselves."
"EAT IN SUCH A WAY THAT YOU KEEP YOUR FASTING BLOOD
GLUCOSE LEVEL BETWEEN 70 AND 85 mg/dl, AND (AT MOST) 70 - 100 mg/dl. AFTER EATING.
EVERY MOMENT THAT YOUR GLUCOSE LEVEL IS HIGHER THAN 85 mg/dl YOU
ARE AGING A LITTLE BIT FASTER THAN THE MINIMUM. THIS IS TRUE EVEN IF
IT IS "NORMAL". THE HIGHER ABOVE 85 YOU GO, THE LONGER IT WILL TAKE FOR
BLOOD GLUCOSE TO COME DOWN TO 85 AGAIN, AND THE FASTER AND MORE SERIOUSLY
WILL YOU AGE.
- Ellis Toussier, June 2001
Aging does not occur as a function of the passing of time: hours, or days...
Aging occurs as a function of events that occur during the passing of time, the passing of a unit which I will call "high glucose level seconds" or hours, or days... - Ellis Toussier, May, 2006
The following table is my interpretation of the meaning of the
various glucose levels. The figure on the right is my educated guess
of the relative damage in seconds that you might be suffering at various glucose levels... it is not just "more damage" the higher up you go, but "more damage, squared" because a red hot iron will then cool off to a very hot iron, and then to a hot iron... you suffer damage going up, then you also suffer damage going down. Perhaps the figures are mistaken, but the idea that damage is much worse the higher the glucose goes up is correct.
My interpretation of blood glucose levels is as follows:
|> 200 mg/dl
|70 to 85 mg/dl
|55 to 69 mg/dl
HOW HEALTHY DO YOU CHOOSE TO BE? HOW SOON WOULD YOU LIKE TO LOSE YOUR BRAIN AND NERVOUS SYSTEM?
||> 200 mg/dl
||Even Worse: SUICIDAL
||Kidney Failure, ANEMIA, Neuropathy, AMPUTATIONS, BLINDNESS, Damage to Circulatory System, HEART ATTACKS, STROKES, Impotence, Very Dry Wrinkled Skin
| HbA1c 7.3%
||KIDNEY FAILURE, BLINDNESS Neuropathy, Amputations, Loss of Vision, Damage to Circulatory System, Impotence, Very Dry Wrinkled Skin
||Neuropathy (loss of sensation, amputations) Loss of Vision Damage to Circulatory System, Erectile Dysfunction, Wrinkles, Dry Skin
||Damage to Circulatory System, Loss of Vision, Erectile Dysfunction More wrinkles, Dry Skin
||More wrinkles, Dry Skin
||"Normal, but High"
||VERY SLOW AGING
||EXTRA BONUS LIFE
||SLOWEST POSSIBLE AGING, LONGEST POSSIBLE HEALTHSPAN
||55 to 69 mg/dl
||- . -
(note: 50 mg/dl (fifty mg/dl) and less is "hypoglycemia" and can be VERY BAD to DEATHLY (you can actually pass out and go into a coma and die or have brain damage if blood glucose drops below 25 mg/dl), but if you are healthy you will probably never get a reading much below 70. Your body has several mechanisms for pushing glucose levels above 70, so this is not a worry in healthy persons.)
It is now well established that the process of glycosylation is one of the most important causes of ageing, perhaps equally or more important than the process of free radical damage. During everyday metabolism, sugar molecules (such as glucose and fructose) may attach to free amino groups on proteins. This is a process called "non-enzymatic glycosylation" or "glycation." This results in a glycated protein, i.e. a protein carrying sugar (or similar) molecules bonded to it. This glycated protein may then react with any other proteins resulting in irreversible bonding between the two. This bonding process is named "cross-linking".
What so many doctors and scientists seem to have missed about glycosilation is that it does not occur in a vacume... The single
most important factor that affects the rate of glycosilation is blood
glucose level. Glycosilation occurs in high sugar, ie, when blood glucose levels are high. It depends on HOW MUCH, and HOW MUCH TIME blood glucose
levels are high.
I PROPOSE that glycosilation occurs at a rate that is not a straight
line, but rather goes up sharply as glucose levels go higher.
Or put another way, we are born with roughly 3,000 MILLION units of
"glucose level seconds" to last us a 100 year life span (roughly,
100 years x 365 days x 24 hours x 60 minutes x 60 seconds)...
Let us suppose that at glucose level 100, "one glucose level second" is
spent in one second... I am saying that at glucose level 120 mg/dl, one second on the clock ages us "2 glucose level seconds"... At 180 mg/dl, we lose 16 "glucose level seconds"... At more than 180 mg/dl, one second might age us 32
"glucose level seconds" or more...
And on the contrary, at glucose level 70 mg/dl, we lose "one glucose level second" in two seconds... Or said in other words: we lose "one half glucose level second" per second...
So it would take two years for us to lose one year (365 x 24 x 60 x 60) of "glucose level seconds"!
If this is true, then we are aging slower when our blood glucose is 70 than when our blood glucose is 100... And we age slower when our blood glucose is 100 than when it is 120, and much less than when our blood glucose is 180, etc.
This might, in fact, be true, because at glucose level 70 mg/dl our body releases more growth hormone that at higher glucose levels... (And we who use injected growth hormone believe that a little bit more growth hormone released by our pituitary gland is a good thing for us!)
I propose that we are born with roughly "3,000 million glucose level
seconds" units in our account, and we "pay" the number of "glucose
level seconds" shown in the right hand column of my table above.
(this is only an illustration, and a not-so-wild guess...)
For example, as shown in the table, if what I propose is correct, then, for every second that our blood glucose levels are at 100 mg/dl we lose "1 glucose-level second." If our glucose levels are 180 mg/dl, then we lose "32 glucose-level seconds" from our account of 3,000 million "glucose level seconds"... When our account reaches zero, we are "mildly diabetic"... As our account has a greater negative balance, we progress further and further into a more serious diabetes.
In theory, if we lose "1 glucose level second" per second for 100 years we will be mildly diabetic at age 100 (if we are still alive at that age... or, if we died younger, then we were never diabetic.) If we lose our account of glucose level seconds faster than 1 second per second, then we become mildly diabetic sooner: at whatever age our account reaches zero.
According to this, glycosilation, or aging, does not occur as a function of the passage of time alone... Aging occurs mostly as a function of the passage of high blood glucose over time... but it also occurs from other events such as radiation, poison, accidents, a lack of various hormones in our body, and a lack of oxygen, water, and food to various parts of our body which might happen as a result of high blood glucose levels.
Glycosilation can be measured very accurately with a blood test for
glycosilated hemoglobin, or Hb-A1c, which shows a molecule of glucose
bonded to a molecule of hemoglobin. If we can bring down or control high
glucose levels, Hb-A1c and glycosilation in general are held to a minimum.
Besides hemoglobin, affected molecules can be anything from neurons, collagen and elastin, to enzymes and immunoproteins. Facilitators during cross-linking are the carbonyl groups (+ C=O -) which act like glue, fixing the two proteins together. Carbonyls are chemical groups which are formed as a result of a sugar (or an aldehyde or a ketone or a free radical) reacting with aminoacids on a protein. (This suggests that an enzyme is involved as a catalyst. Perhaps someday something will be found to prevent this enzyme from allowing the reaction of glucose with an aminoacid.)
Cross-linking results in formation of large insoluble aggregates of damaged proteins in the tissues. These aggregates have been named AGEs (Advanced Glycosylation End products) (or "glycotoxins".) They might then go on to interact with free radicals and cause further tissue injury, through chronic oxidation.
Although a steady rate of AGE formation happens as a result of normal ageing (starting after the age of 20), formation of AGEs is accelerated when glucose levels are high, such as occurs in diabetes, or "normal" high glucose levels in non-diabetics.
Once formed, AGEs inhibit cellular transport processes, stimulate cells to produce more free radicals (such as superoxide and nitric oxide), and activate pro-inflammatory cytokines such as Tumour Necrosis Factor alpha (TNF-a) and interleukin 6.
In addition, some AGEs are immunogenic (causing age-related auto-immunity) or mutagenic (causing mutations which increase the risk of cancer), whereas others increase the activity of adhesion molecules, reduce protein degradation rate and reduce cell proliferation. All of these increase the risk of degenerative disease.
AGEs also stimulate apoptosis, or death of cells, resulting in excessive loss of cells and contributing further to the risk of degeneration. Some AGEs up-regulate genes which are involved in chronic inflammation reactions.
At the clinical level, cross-linking contributes significantly to diabetic complications, lower immunity and increased risk of cancer, atherosclerosis and hypertension, Alzheimer's disease (through the formation of amyloid, which is a type of AGE), cataract, kidney damage, skin ageing, loss of muscles, loss of cognitive functions, and other age- related diseases. (2)
I cannot overemphasize how important I think it is to keep your glucose levels low. It is the single most essential requirement of the most important anti-aging therapy: Good Nutrition. Keeping your glucose levels between normal fasting glucose levels is, in fact, the single most important anti-aging therapy you can do. It is even more important than taking growth hormone, because if you keep your glucose levels under control, it will delay the early loss of neurons and cognitive functions, and it will prevent or delay the onset of diabetes. Diabetes is the underlying cause of about 80% of all other bad diseases, including heart, cancer, kidney (kidney is at the bottom of circulatory diseases, which complicates many others, such as nervous system, brain, perhaps macular degeneration, etc.) increase of fat and loss of muscle strength.
Note: (ACCORDING TO ME, I UNDERSTAND DIABETES AND INSULIN AND THE INTERPRETATION OF BLOOD GLUCOSE BETTER THAN MOST DIABETES SPECIALIST DOCTORS. I state this without any doubt in my mind, after seeing the terribly bad advice and recipes and diets that many diabetes specialists recommend, and after reading the totally bad advice that many diabetes specialists tell their patients: that excess SUGAR does not cause diabetes (FALSE); that they don't need to test blood glucose if they are not diabetic type 2 (FALSE), and that they don't have to test many times per day (FALSE); that they should take that single blood glucose test BEFORE eating (FALSE); bad advice given to a patient with blood glucose at 240 who is preparing to eat 180 grams of carbohydrates, showing him how to compensate for the excess carbs with extra insulin (FALSE, this patient should not eat any carbohydrates at all until his glucose level is brought down... This is as if a fire department would decide to throw a bucket of gasoline into a burning building on fire, and increase the amount of water used to put out the fire to compensate for the hotter flames !
This bad advice shows a basic misunderstanding by a reknowned diabetes "specialist" with a degree in medicine, but who (in my opinion) does not seem to understand the very nature of blood glucose and insulin... and not even of diabetes!)
A glucose test taken before eating cannot show how they reacted to the food they ate. A test before eating is useful too, but only as the baseline to understand and interpret a series of tests.
I know many diabetes specialists DO NOT UNDERSTAND BLOOD GLUCOSE TESTS because they have told patients that they are "improving" or have their diabetes under control on the basis of several single glucose tests taken weeks apart... for example: 320, 220, 120... taken BEFORE breakfast... this shows absolutely NOTHING... it CANNOT BE INTERPRETED, (except I can say without any doubt the person is a diabetic on the basis of the "320" and "220".)
I base the Glucose Theory of Aging on the fact that 70 to 85 is PERFECT FASTING GLUCOSE LEVELS. It is the BEST range that you can get, where 70 is better than 85.
If blood glucose is lower than 70 mg/dl, it is too low... (below 50 mg/dl is "hypo-glycemia" which means: "too little blood sugar". You can faint from lack of energy...)
If it is higher, complications from diabetes are worse the higher up you go.
Even if 100 or 105 is "normal" after eating a healthy low carbohydrate meal, and even if most doctors don't think 120 is bad since the pancreas will lower it to 85 or 90 in a few hours, I know these levels are causing a slightly faster loss of neurons. There isn't any minimum loss of neurons that I find "acceptable" even if it is "normal," so I want to get my glucose levels down to 85, or 90, as soon as possible.
Now, I do get my glucose levels down, "by hook or by crook" because I have learned how to use insulin correctly.
Dr. Richard K. Bernstein (the Father of blood glucose testing for diabetics) says in his book Diabetes Solution (chapter 1, p. 42):
"I have seen non-diabetics with sustained blood sugars averaging 120 mg/dl develop diabetic complications." - Dr. Richard K. Bernstein
So from that statement, I know that even "peaks" of 120 mg/dl are BAD and should be avoided. To think that 120 mg/dl is "acceptable" would be like saying that taking "a little poison" is acceptable. It is "bad" even if the consequence is not easy to see immediately. But it is easy to see the consequence in the long run, over many years.
(* SEE BELOW FOR FURTHER SUPPORT FOR MY IDEA THAT 120 mg/dl IS "BAD")
Glucose of 140 mg/dl or 160 mg/dl and higher are necessarily worse... At 180 mg/dl sugar spills through the kidneys into the urine and kidney damage is possible. If glucose levels are 180 mg/dl and above for about 10 to 15 years, kidney damage is expected... from this I know that 180 mg/dl and above has to be (and it is) "DEATHLY" or "SUICIDAL".
The short advice of the Glucose Theory of Aging is: "EAT IN SUCH A WAY THAT YOU KEEP YOUR GLUCOSE LEVELS UNDER CONTROL, EVEN IF YOU ARE NOT YET A DIABETIC (AS DEFINED BY THE AMERICAN DIABETES ASSOCIATION.)" (note: there is plenty of time to be "defined" as a diabetic... I can almost guarantee you will be diabetic according to the ADA in the future, if you don't keep your glucose levels down NOW...)
This is probably the least expensive, most effective, and most practical anti-aging therapy or advice that you will ever be given. If you lower glucose levels, you also will lower a process known as "glycosilation" which is a glucose molecule bonded to a protein molecule. "Glycosilation" is a known process of aging. In most cases, glycosilation results in the destruction of the protein molecule. When glucose levels are high, more glucose will combine with oxygen, thus creating more free radicals. We KNOW that high glucose causes a loss of neurons in diabetics, so I ASSUME that it also causes a slow but certain loss of neurons in non-diabetics. High Glucose levels is the single most important cause of the loss of neurons, including brain cells. That is unacceptable to me, since now I think I know it happens, and I also know how to avoid it (ie, try my best to keep glucose levels controlled, 24 hours a day, every day from today, on.)
The Glucose theory of aging is very practical advice because (unlike the free radical theory of aging, which is probably true but you cannot measure how many free radicals your food is causing) you can easily learn to eat in such a way that you keep your glucose levels below 100 after eating. All you must do is learn to avoid the foods that cause your glucose to rise above 100. This is all that you need to know to grow older at the slowest possible pace, and to avoid bad health due to diabetes, now, or in the future.
If people would control their glucose levels within 70 to 85 most of the time, and 100 at worst, it could reduce the incidence of diabetes on earth, reduce the number of heart attacks, and reduce the incidence of cancer. It could prevent or delay age related senility for many years. It could extend the productive and healthy lifespan of Mankind much more than Louis Pasteur's rabies shots, or Salk's polio vaccine. (Note: My hat is off to Louis Pasteur and Jonas Salk, and hundreds of other scientists and doctors who made MY life better today.)
I am not a doctor. I know that most doctors today do not agree with what I am saying, but this is mostly because nobody has said it before, so they haven't thought about it... but when they read the logic behind what I am saying, many doctors have already agreed with me. Those who don't will have to agree with me someday... My interpretation of the blood glucose test (see table above) is MUCH MORE STRICT than 140 RECOMMENDED by most DIABETES SPECIALISTS to diabetics, or than the American Diabetes Association, or than endocrinologists, today (Oct. 2002). MY INTERPRETATION OF GLUCOSE IS CORRECT,
for everybody including diabetics, and if you see that glucose of 120 mg/dl is BAD, then there is no argument that the theory is correct. It does not need to be proven. It is a Law, like the Law of Gravity... it is true and it is unbending, it is true for everybody, even if it is cruel.
So who am I to say with such conviction that I am right and they are wrong? I am nobody. I never studied a formal course in diabetes, nutrition, or medicine. And yet I know I am right, because when you see the harm that high glucose levels cause diabetics, it makes sense that low glucose levels
are the ideal..
The "experts" of the U.S.D.A. who have advised us to eat 60% carbohydrates of 2000 calories per day are responsible for the diabetes epidemic that has become evident all over the world in the past 30 years.
Their bad advice is equivalent to unwitting genocide, because they have caused and are still causing the death of millions of people around the world.
After I bought a $75 glucose meter, I discovered by testing my foods that everything I had been taught by the attrocious U.S.D.A. Food Guide Pyramid is completely mistaken. How is it possible that with a $75 instrument I can show that their billion dollar advice is mistaken?
There are only two possiblilities: (1) They gave us this bad advice out of ignorance and ineptitude, or (2) They purposely gave us this bad advice to shorten the lives of Americans so that it would cost the Social Security less money. I am not a cynic to believe the second possibility... so I have to believe they are inept and ignorant.
This disastrous advice to eat high carbs and low fat is probably the main cause of the health disaster in the form of more obesity, and the higher incidence of diabetes in children and adults that has been observed AROUND THE WORLD in the past 30 years.
Note: The following investigation lends support to my theory that higher glucose levels cause a greater and faster loss of brain neurons. - Ellis
Archives of Internal Medicine, Vol. 164, No. 12, page 1327-1333, June 28, 2004
Original Investigation by Alka M. Kanaya, MD; Elizabeth Barrett-Connor, MD; Ginny Gildengorin, PhD; Kristine Yaffe, MD
Change in Cognitive Function by Glucose Tolerance Status in Older Adults A 4-Year Prospective Study of the Rancho Bernardo Study Cohort
Background A few studies have examined change in cognitive performance by diabetes status with disparate results. We examined the 4-year change in cognitive performance among older adults according to glucose tolerance status.
Methods Three cognitive tests (Mini-Mental State Examination, Verbal Fluency [VF] test, and Trail-Making Test B) were measured 4 years apart in 999 white men and women aged 42 to 89 years, who were enrolled in the Rancho Bernardo Study.
Participants were classified with normal (NGT), impaired (IGT) or diabetic glucose tolerance.
Sex-specific linear regression models adjusted for age, education, depression score, apolipoprotein E 4 allele, and current estrogen use. We checked for mediation by further adjusting for total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and triglyceride levels; blood pressure; glycohemoglobin level; and microalbuminuria, retinopathy, stroke, or coronary heart disease.
Results At baseline, mean cognitive function scores did not differ between glucose tolerance groups. Women with diabetes mellitus had a 4-fold increased risk of a major cognitive decline on the VF test after 4 years compared with nondiabetic women. After multivariate adjustment, VF test scores at follow-up for women were 15.2 ± 0.6 for those with diabetes, 16.7 ± 0.4 for those with IGT, and 17.2 ± 0.2 for those with NGT (P = .007). Glycohemoglobin attenuated this effect, but lipid levels, blood pressure, and microvascular or macrovascular disease did not. Performance on Mini-Mental State Examination and Trail-Making Test B did not differ by baseline glucose status.
Conclusions Elderly white women with Diabetes glucose tolerance had a more rapid decline in performance on the VF test compared with women with Impaired Glucose Tolerance or Normal Glucose Tolerance. Better glucose control might ameliorate this decline.
From the Division of General Internal Medicine (Drs Kanaya and Gildengorin) and Departments of Neurology and Psychiatry (Dr Yaffe), University of California, San Francisco; and the Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, University of California, San Diego (Dr Barrett-Connor). The authors have no relevant financial interest in this article.
Used with permission from: Life Extension Foundation, Weekly Update, Dec. 17, 2003
High blood sugar levels correlate with intensive care mortality
Research published in the December 2003 issue of Mayo Clinic Proceedings has found an association between an elevation of blood glucose and the chance of dying in an intensive care unit. The finding was valid for diabetic and nondiabetic patients.
Clinical professor of medicine at the Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, James Stephen Krinsley MD, analyzed data for 1,826 individuals who had been patients in the intensive care unit at The Stamford Hospital in Stamford, Connecticut. Diabetes was present in 22.4 percent of the group.
Dr. Krinsley found that even a small elevation in blood glucose was associated with a significant increase in the deaths of patients with a variety of diagnoses. Among patients whose mean glucose levels were between 80 and 99 milligrams per deciliter, mortality rates were 9.6 percent. For those whose mean glucose levels were between 100 and 119 milligrams per deciliter (considered normal) mortality rose to 12.2 percent. Mortality rates increased to 42.5 percent among patients whose mean glucose values were in excess of 300 milligrams per deciliter.
Hyperglycemia, or elevated blood sugar, is a common finding among the critically ill. Although it has been standard practice to tolerate a mild elevation in blood glucose in these patients, this study's findings suggest that glucose should be better managed and that additional studies should be conducted.
In an accompanying editorial in Mayo Clinic Proceedings, the Douglas B Coursin MD and Michael J Murray PhD, MD ask whether or not the relationship between hyperglycemia and increased mortality among the severely ill is causal. Dr Krinsley commented, "Although hyperglycemia can be a marker of severity of illness, it may also worsen outcomes. We think that tight glucose control results in improved vascular function and lower risk of infection."
Additionally, diabetes experts attending the American College of Endocrinology Consensus Development Conference on Inpatient Diabetes and Metabolic Control presented new guidelines today which recommend that all hospitalized patients, especially those in the critical care unit, those undergoing surgery and those with cardiovascular disease receive intensive monitoring and treatment to control blood sugar. Conference attendees said that adding the new recommendations will revolutionize patient care, reduce complications and save lives.
(Note: I said it first!)
From Life Extension Magazine, January, 2004
In a new hypothesis that shakes the pillars of conventional wisdom, it now appears that optimal fasting blood glucose levels should probably be under 86 mg/dL. This means that those with high "normal" glucose (86-109) are at an increased risk of premature death. While the medical establishment clearly understands the lethal dangers of hyperglycemia (blood sugar over 126), they have yet to recognize that even high normal glucose levels pose a serious threat to one's health.
To support our hypothesis that higher "normal" ranges of blood glucose represent a health risk, we first investigated the multifaceted toxic effects that sugar inflicts throughout the body. We found many studies showing that sugar damages cells via multiple mechanisms and is a causative factor in common diseases of aging.1-37 It thus appears desirable to maintain the lowest level of blood glucose needed to sustain healthy metabolic function.
We then looked at the effects of caloric restriction, and noted one study in which fasting glucose declined from an average of 92 to 74 mg/dL in a group of adults who reduced their food intake. This corresponded to animal studies in which caloric restriction induced significant reductions in blood glucose levels. It is well established that cutting calorie intake reduces one's risk of age-related diseases and probably slows aging itself. One reason for this may be the reduction in blood glucose levels that occurs in response to ingesting fewer calories.
As people age, their fasting glucose levels normally increase as their health declines. Standard laboratory reference ranges show an aging person having a "normal" fasting glucose level of up to 109 mg/dL. Yet the most effective anti-aging therapy "caloric restriction" lowers glucose levels to the low 70s (mg/dL).
Many theories of aging focus on the deleterious effects of glucose itself. Only a few studies have evaluated disease risk in people whose fasting blood glucose levels are in normal ranges. One study of nearly 2,000 men looked at fasting blood glucose levels over a 22-year period. Its startling results showed that men with fasting glucose levels over 85 mg/dL had a 40% increased risk of death from cardiovascular disease. The researchers concluded, "fasting blood glucose values in the upper normal range (appear) to be an important independent predictor of cardiovascular death in nondiabetic apparently healthy middle-aged men."
The pancreas plays a major role in regulating blood glucose levels by secreting insulin to transport sugar out of the blood and into cells for energy production or storage.
Insulin also drives fat into cells, prevents fat from being released from cells, and makes people hungry. High insulin levels contribute to obesity and the disease states associated with being overweight, such as type II diabetes, cardiovascular disease, kidney failure, and certain types of cancers.
In normal health, the pancreas stops secreting insulin when glucose levels drop below 83 mg/dL.52-54 As I noted earlier, healthy aging people typically have fasting glucose levels over 90 mg/dL, and even competent doctors wait until fasting glucose is over 109 before suspecting a pre-diabetic (glucose-intolerant) condition.
But insulin continues to be secreted when blood glucose levels are over 83 mg/dL, which indicates that the pancreas is striving to drive glucose levels down to a range safer than what aging people typically are able to achieve.
(NOTE: "Injecting insulin 3 or 4 times every day (I am not a "diabetic") is the single best and most important anti-aging therapy that I am taking in my attempt to slow the aging process. It is also the least expensive." - Ellis Toussier (P.S. DON'T ASK... I DO NOT SELL INSULIN)
Chris Zervas (Boston, MA) wrote:
Subject: A1C vs mortality
Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007
Regarding your glucose theory of aging, do you know if there are any studies showing the difference in mortality rates between different A1C levels? Dr. Bernsetin claims that an average blood sugar of 90 reduces life expentancy compared to one of 85. I'm interested where this conclusion comes from.
I am not sure how you could prove it, but...
Without a doubt, an average blood sugar of 160 or 180 mg/dl reduces life expectancy compared to one of 85... and one of 160 or 180 reduces life expectancy compared to one of 120... therefore one of 160 probably also reduces life expectancy compared to one of 150... and one of 90 probably reduces life expectancy compared to one of 85...
Maybe it is not much, maybe it is only a few months, but it seems logical.
But comparing between 85 and 90, we are really splitting hairs...
If we live to 98... or 103... who is to say that we might have lived to 99, or 104, if we had kept blood glucose at 85 instead of letting it roam all the way to 90?
Where or when did Dr. Bernstein claim that an average blood sugar of 90 reduces life expectancy compared to one of 85?
I have said the same thing in my "Glucose Theory of Aging" which I wrote about 7 years ago to my forum, Rejuvenation... (I discussed it with Dr. Bernstein in April, 2007.)
Please come and join us in my forum, and let's discuss it there.
Also, I give you a new page which I put up recently... see this page:
Does HGH Cause Diabetes?
Thanks for writing,
Charlie wrote: I am following your advise and decided to cut most carbs and all sugars since they raise insulin and I know that insulin lowers IGF-1.
Ellis: No, carbs don't raise insulin, they raise GLUCOSE, and glucose raises insulin.... (and insulin does not lower IGF-1... high glucose perhaps stimulates the pancreas to release somatostatin, which then blocks release of growth hormone.)
It is a small distinction, but it is important because it is very easy for you to measure glucose, with a glucose meter, so with that you will know how your body is reacting to carbs after you eat. BUY A GLUCOSE METER. Believe me, if I would charge this advice for what it is worth, I would be a millionaire. Go and buy a glucose meter TODAY, and start to test yourself AFTER you eat FRUITS, for example.
Charlie: Because the diet version of most sodas taste so bad, I opted for Nestea's (or other brand) Unsweetend Iced Tea since it supposedly has 0% sugars and carbs (correct me if this fact is wrong).
Ellis: It might be correct, but the best way to find out is to TEST IT after you have drunk a large glass. If it really contains zero carbs the glucose will be below 105 AFTER 30 minutes. (I believe it does
contain very few carbs, but don't believe anybody, believe the glucose meter.)
Charlie: I also avoid as much as possible breads, pastas, potatoes... Something else I should avoid? I know that I need fiber so I don't want to get rid of fruits.
Ellis: I never said you can't eat fruits. What you shouldn't do is to raise glucose levels above 105, if you can avoid it. Fruits are very good because they contain vitamins and enzymes and fiber... but they are bad because they contain 12.5% sugar, and enough of that will raise your glucose levels too much. High glucose levels is what is bad, not fruits, per se. You have to recognize that fruits contain twice as much carbohydrates as vegetables do, and then you can eat them accordingly. That is, you have to eat small portions of fruits at a time or else you will shoot your glucose levels up too quickly. You can eat a large fruit in two or three portions.
I know this is uncomfortable, but this is how it is. Don't believe me, believe the glucose meter. Test your glucose 30 minutes after eating a large piece of pineapple or a large glass of orange juice. If it is below 105, then you can eat that much fruit. If it is higher, you can also eat it... just be aware that you are doing damage to your body in the long run. Or don't eat so much of it, eat a small portion.
I prefer to forego the pleasure of eating a big portion of fruits NOW in exchange for the possibility of living a few years longer in good health, so I can enjoy sailing for longer, and travelling for longer, and horseback riding, and seeing my sons grow up, etc. To me that is more important than the pleasure of eating a large portion of (delicious) pineapple, or mango, etc.
You say you can't stop eating fruits. Well, neither can I... But after testing myself with a glucose meter, I learned there is a right way and a wrong way to eat fruits... the right way is to EAT VERY LITTLE at a time... So now I only eat a chunk of a banana, not the whole banana. Or one slice of mango, not the whole mango... or a few grapes, not many grapes... Don't leave fruits completely, but do cut down on the quantity. Also avoid bread, cereals, and sweets, and of course SUGAR... See the Carbohydrate Thermometer.
You have to start seeing food as FUEL. You have to understand what fuel the food you are eating is equivalent to... measure the amount you are throwing into the fire... Once you learn to think of food as fuel for the fire, and you determine to keep the fire burning LOW, you will be able to take much better care of your pancreas, to avoid diabetes, and for your long-term health.
By the way, do fats have a significant impact in raising insuline levels like carbs do?
Ellis:No, they don't. But you should avoid fats if it is possible to eliminate them, for example skim milk and not whole milk, lean meat and not fat meat, chicken skin is out, chicken is in, fish skin is out, etc. Avoid fat, but it is o.k. if it comes in the food naturally, such as fat in peanuts, or fat in avocado, or fat in eggs, or fat in filet, or fat in the good part of chicken or fish. Play it by ear, and just think that you only have one body, and one life to live in it. This is a game, a game of keeping your one body in your one life in optimum physical shape.
Sometimes I wish I knew half of what I already know today 10 years ago.
Ellis: Charlie, I wish I could have known the things I know today 30 years ago... but there wasn't any injectible growth hormone then, and I didn't have a teacher like Ellis Toussier anywhere to teach me about glucose then... (and there still isn't a teacher like Ellis Toussier anywhere else but here, and that is me.) I am amazed that I ever came up with these ideas by myself.
The amazing thing is I learned some of my most important anti-aging therapies, such as the Glucose Theory, and taking insulin when I am not a diabetic, and raising my red blood cells which carry oxygen, etc... I learned these by myself, not from doctors... In particular the Glucose Theory of Aging, which I think is impossible for anybody to show it is not correct. It doesn't have to be proven, it is self-evident... (but I hope many doctors will prove it.) It is true just because we know high glucose causes complications from diabetes so it has to be true, like the sun comes up every day... we KNOW that 120 glucose is bad, and we KNOW that higher is worse. There is no discussion or arguing about that. It is simple fact.
I admire good doctors and I have learned from good doctors... But I lost my awe of doctors a long time ago when I realized they don't always agree, and I had to decide who is right and who is mistaken. To think that all doctors are good doctors is as mistaken as to think that all lawyers are good lawyers, or all accountants are good accountants... or all mechanics are good mechanics.
You have to find the ones who are good, and MOST of them are good in one thing but they give you opinions on what they don't know, too, because they think they have that title so they can boss you around. Don't let that happen. Always think for yourself, and try to learn as much or more about anti aging as doctors know.
It isn't difficult to know more about anti-aging than a bad doctor... But try to know as much as a good doctor. I think I know more than most good doctors about HGH, EPO, and Insulin, and Glucose, and Diabetes... and I think I know as much as good doctors about the use of other anti aging therapies... and you can learn everything you want from me, I don't hide anything, and many times I am glad to teach doctors.
Many doctors are opposed to many of the therapies that I am doing. I know these therapies are good for my body because I am doing them, and they are not, they have only read in books that they are dangerous, and the authors of those books are very conservative... they are afraid to write something which doctors MIGHT POSSIBLY find have side effects, so it is easier to say it is "dangerous".
So why doctors don't say so, and why doctors who should know better say 140 mg/dl glucose is acceptable, I will never understand. But you listen to ME... stay below 105, or as low as is healthy for you, whenever and as long as you can.
I am amazed that Dr. Atkins or somebody else as smart as he didn't write the Glucose Theory of Aging long before I did... the Atkins Diet is the second best diet in the world today... I agree with Atkins that carbohydrates are the Enemy, and must be kept to a minimum... And I agree with Atkins to center your meals on meat and chicken and fish and eggs, because they do contain protein and they do not contain carbohydrates... But I disagree with Atkins that you can pour on the cream cheese, fat, and olive oil... I try to eat high protein, low carbs, AND LOW FAT.
In my opinion (and nobody else I know has ever seconded my opinion) my Anti-Aging Diet is hands down light years ahead of the Atkins Diet, because it is based on the Glucose Theory of Aging and also hormone replacement... "Eggs and growth hormone for breakfast" and "insulin before each meal" if you can benefit from taking insulin... either my diet is out in outer space, or I am out in outer space... and I don't care if anybody agrees that my diet is the best: I eat this way, and it keeps my glucose levels low! To me that this is all that is important.
I am not bragging... but I know my anti-aging diet is light years ahead of Dr. Atkin's diet, which is the next best because it is high protein low carbs which is the correct way to hold down blood glucose levels... the whole key is in understanding glucose, and measuring glucose, and understanding Diabetes, which is The Enemy. Follow which ever diet you want to, but keep your glucose levels low, and eat nutrient rich foods with sufficient protein, fat, vitamins, minerals, fiber, enzymes, etc.