Men with cardiovascular disease may be at considerably increased risk for
death even when their blood sugar level remains in the "normal" range.
Cardiovascular disease includes coronary heart disease, stroke, angina and
peripheral vascular disease. Currently, doctors consider a glucose level of
100 or less to be normal, 101-126 to be impaired and above 126 to be
diabetic.
"Our findings suggest that for men with cardiovascular disease, there is
apparently no 'normal' blood sugar level," said Sidney Port, UCLA professor
emeritus of mathematics and statistics, and lead author of the study. "For
these men, across the normal range, the lower their blood sugar, the better.
Their death rate over a 2-year period soars from slightly more than 4% at a
glucose level of 70 mg/dL to more than 12% at 100 mg/dL -- an enormous
increase."
Surprisingly, however, and contrary to conventional belief, above 100 mg/dL,
their risk does not seem to change -- it stays at the same high level -- no
matter how high above the normal range, Port said. Their death rate at 100
and 150 is the same.
Although these data suggest that blood sugar for men with cardiovascular
disease should be as low as possible, co-author Mark Goodarzi, assistant
professor-in-residence at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center's Division of
Endocrinology, cautions that their study by no means proves that
deliberately lowering glucose would reduce mortality.
"Such a fact can be established only by a suitable clinical trial," Goodarzi
said.
Currently, no such trials are scheduled.
In another surprising result that Port and his co-authors cannot explain,
women with cardiovascular disease show a dramatically different response
from men. "For women, we found no evidence of any change in risk across the
normal range, from 70 to 100, but then their risk seems to rise quickly
through the impaired range and continues to increase with higher glucose in
the diabetic range; therefore a blood sugar level of 100 seems to be a
sensible cut point for women with cardiovascular disease."
"Why there should be such a profound difference between men and women with
respect to how glucose affects mortality in the presence of atherosclerosis
is a mystery that needs to be further pursued," Goodarzi said. "To date, we
and colleagues we have consulted can offer no explanation."
"These large gender differences may have previously remained undetected
because earlier studies looked either at men and women together or a
younger, healthier group of men," said Port, whose study analyzed men and
women with cardiovascular disease separately. "If you look at men and women
combined, you get a highly distorted picture because they respond so
differently."
Using extensive heart study data from the town of Framingham, Mass.,
collected every second year since 1948, Port and his co-authors performed a
sophisticated statistical analysis, which made adjustments for factors such
as the patients' cholesterol levels, blood pressure, cigarette smoking, body
mass index and antihypertensive drug use. The researchers analyzed more than
1,200 people (686 men and 517 women), ages 45 to 74, diagnosed with
cardiovascular disease. Because the researchers' statistical technique
allowed them to take advantage of the fact that many patients were examined
over multiple two-year periods, they report on more than 3,800 observations.
In a follow-up study, they are analyzing whether blood sugar levels are
linked with death or development of cardiovascular disease in people who
have not been diagnosed with cardiovascular disease.
American Journal of Epidemiology. Feb 15th
http://www.diabetesincontrol.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3515
jbuch - 02 Mar 2006 16:38 GMT
> Men with cardiovascular disease may be at considerably increased risk for
> death even when their blood sugar level remains in the "normal" range.
[quoted text clipped - 65 lines]
>
> http://www.diabetesincontrol.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3515
The human body is much more difficult to understand and troubleshoot
than is a NASA rocket or space shuttle, apparently.
I like it when one researcher says "the lower, the better" and then
another says "such a fact can only be established by a clinical trial."
A portion of our current dietary mess comes from the great problem
complexity (human body) and researchers making larger leaps to
conclusions from some data hints .... without the detailed research to
establish any degree of actual cause and effect.
Nobody here makes unsubstantiated conclusions :-). Well they may not do
it every hour of every day.

Signature
1) Eat Till SATISFIED, Not STUFFED... Atkins repeated 9 times in the book
2) Exercise: It's Non-Negotiable..... Chapter 22 title, Atkins book
3) Don't Diet Without Supplimental Nutrients... Chapter 23 title, Atkins
book
4) A sensible eating plan, and follow it. (Atkins, Self Made or Other)
Hannah Gruen - 03 Mar 2006 12:02 GMT
> The human body is much more difficult to understand and troubleshoot than
> is a NASA rocket or space shuttle, apparently.
Apparently!
> I like it when one researcher says "the lower, the better" and then
> another says "such a fact can only be established by a clinical trial."
Yep.
> A portion of our current dietary mess comes from the great problem
> complexity (human body) and researchers making larger leaps to conclusions
> from some data hints .... without the detailed research to establish any
> degree of actual cause and effect.
Yes, such as: "Whole grains are better than doughnuts for cardiovascular
health. Hmmm... therefore everybody should eat lots of whole grains.
Especially those diabetics, because they have problems re cardiovascular
health."
> Nobody here makes unsubstantiated conclusions :-). Well they may not do
> it every hour of every day.
Of course not. 8-]
HG
Marengo - 04 Mar 2006 22:06 GMT
|| Men with cardiovascular disease may be at considerably increased
|| risk for death even when their blood sugar level remains in the
|| "normal" range.
In this study the administrators are mystified that they can't correlate the
elevated blood sugars over 100 in men with increased heart disease, and
can't correllate the results in the men with the results in the women
subjects. To me, the logical conclusion of this (yet another) study is that
it just shows what we already knew:
Elevated blood sugar levels in and of themselves are not a disease that
causes cardiovascular disease. Rather, they are a symptom of a larger
underlying metabolic disease or syndrome that causes both heart disease and
diabetes. It's the same scenario as the cholesterol confusion. Lowering
cholesterol doesn't in and of itself prevent heart disease, but eliminating
the underlying cause of the high cholesterol levels does. That's why I've
refused to take statins and choose to control both my cholesterol levels and
blood sugar with diet and nutrition. Just treating symptoms masks the
problem rather than curing or correcting them.
I'm not a medical expert by any stretch of the imagination. But my common
sense is as good -- or apparently better -- than that of some of the
so-called "scientists" that come to dumb conclusions and then can't figure
out why their study results aren't consistent. And while many will claim
that the empirical evidence of these studies are valid and anecdotal
evidence is not, I know what works for me. Regardless of what anyone, or
anyone's interpretation of any 'study,' may say.
Roger Zoul - 04 Mar 2006 22:39 GMT
:: x-no-archive: yes
::
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
:: Regardless of what anyone, or anyone's interpretation of any
:: 'study,' may say.
The best study is your own study! On you, by you, that is.