Good cholesterol, bad cholesterol - is there such thing?

OK. I rolled up my sleeves, warmed up my fingers, so I could get onto my would-be-favourite-if-it-wouldn’t-be-so-darn-tragic topic: the cholesterol myth.

For the past three decades the medical and pharmaceutical industry has the population at large convinced that cholesterol is our number one enemy, as it causes atherosclerosis, thus posing as a risk factor for cardiovascular disease. Just like every children’s story, this one also has a villain and a hero. In this story LDL is the villain, HDL (and if we don’t have enough of it, naturally cholesterol lowering drugs called “statins) is/are the hero/s. Most people know LDL as the "bad cholesterol" and HDL as the "good cholesterol".
What is cholesterol? Cholesterol is a molecule essential to human life. 
Here are some of cholesterol's functions:

• Maintains the integrity of cell membranes - cholesterol is part of every cell's membrane in the human body
• Maintains fluidity of the cell membranes
• Part of the digestion process as precursors of bile acids and bile salts
• Essential for bone health as the precursor (starting molecule) of Vitamin D
• Precursor to ALL steroid hormones (cortisol, which has a role in sugar metabolism, mineralocorticoids responsible for mineral metabolism and blood pressure regulation, sex hormones responsible for keeping the human race alive)
• Has a central role in memory and learning as essential part of the myelin sheath covering axons (nerve fibres) and synapses (connection between nerves)

It is quite clear that cholesterol is fundamental to human life and health.

Is LDL really "bad cholesterol" while "HDL" is good cholesterol?

LDL and HDL are not cholesterol. They are lipoproteins, a combination of fats and proteins. Their function is to transport fats in the blood, as fats are not water soluble and cannot be dissolved in blood, which in large part is water.  There is an envelope of phospholipids with cholesterol, triglyceride molecules along with fat soluble vitamins and CoQ10 inside. We can think of LDL and HDL as little cargo ships that deliver molecules manufactured in the liver to tissues and back to the liver in the river of blood. They are neither good nor bad, they are just doing their jobs. 

If there is an inflammation in the arteries caused by several factors, such as stress, oxidants from the air, water and processed foods, inflammatory molecules promoted by Insulin in response to high carbohydrate diet, then we have a problem: the body is trying to fix these inflammatory lesions created inside the artery walls and that process leads to the development of arterial plaques which eventually can lead to heart attacks and strokes. Cholesterol is part of the plaque, part of the “fixing” of the oxidative damage. Therefore the solution is not to eliminate/reduce cholesterol, but to decrease the oxidative damage by eliminating, or at least drastically decreasing exposure to oxidizing agents and taking antioxidants in the form of vegetables and fruits, and by supplementation.
Risk factors for oxidative damage, hence cardiovascular disease:

• stress
• smoking
• processed foods
• high insulin levels - high carbohydrate diet
• lack of or excessive physical activity
• high levels of homocysteine in the blood (high homocysteine levels are much more indicative of cardiovascular disease risk than cholesterol, yet not part of a screening panel)

Studies have shown that stress can actually cause more damage despite of consuming nutritious healthy food than eating less than optimal nutrient poor food. It's been shown that stress causes oxidative damage to proteins, fats and even DNA molecules.

Does dietary cholesterol effect cholesterol levels in the blood?

Majority of the cholesterol in our bodies is produced by the liver and other tissue cells, only a small percentage originates from dietary intake. If you restrict your cholesterol intake, your liver and your other tissues will have to manufacture more of it. Even the person responsible for the original study that is widely quoted to support the cholesterol-heart disease connection admits that. Ancel Keys the "father" of the cholesterol-heart disease hypothesis made this statement in 1997: "There is no connection whatsoever between the cholesterol in food and cholesterol in the blood. And we've known that all along. Cholesterol in the diet doesn't matter at all unless you happen to be a chicken or a rabbit."

I am quite happy to know that the nutrient-packed little wonder food called egg does not need to be abolished from my diet because of it's cholesterol content as many would suggest, as it is a very convenient and delicious way to consume wholesome proteins,  monounsaturated fatty acids, vitamins A, D, E and K, B vitamins, choline and minerals. 

My sweet life... without sugar

Day 1

Sugar's ill effects on health is no news to me. I have been aware of it since my childhood. I have learnt about it in depth in naturopathic college, as a matter of fact even my biochemistry professor in medical school have ingrained it in us that sugar is detrimental to health.
Yet, for reasons known and some unknown I have had periods in my life when I have been eating more sugar than what I would call healthy levels. I don't add sugar to any foods or drinks, I don't even have sugar in the cupboard, but there are days when I have chocolate, ice cream, cake or pastries.
Having attended a webinar on Insulin resistance and metabolic syndrome not too long ago, then reading  about "dr. Lustig's "Sugar, The Bitter Truth" video, and most recently having had a family member diagnosed with diabetes I have reached my tipping point.

Today was day one of "My sweet life without sugar".

I am planning to log. blog my experiences, good or bad, primarily for my own education and self observation. If anybody else learns from it, that's just "icing on the cake". Wait a minute... that's sugar, which is bad... but it would sound odd if I said: "nuts on the salad"... which I have just about every day, and the truth is, that I enjoy it more than icing on the cake.

I will get into details about sugar and it's effects on cells, tissues, organs, body systems later. For now, I am just observing that my first day without sugar was a good day. I had no cravings. I was quite emotional which may have been partially related to not having any sugar, although I can't prove that and I have a few other reasons that may have provided sufficient reason to feel kind of blue.

Let's hope my liver is grateful for not having to process any sugar and I will have a good restful sleep tonight.

How much is too much?

You've probably heard the saying “too much of a good thing can be bad”; but what about too much of a bad thing? Well, if you ask me, that would be even worse! What am I talking about? Well, I am referring to the news overload we are bombarded with in the 21st century real-time, up-to-the-minute streaming media era that would be appropriate to call infomania.
Is the human body and psyche equipped to deal with all the bad news of our planet on a day-to-day, minute-by-minute basis? I am of the opinion that we are not designed to efficiently cope with that amount of stressors.

Eustress vs distress
Hans Selye, Hungarian-Canadian endocrinologist, who first described and coined the term “stress” differentiated between “eustress”, or good stress and “distress”, negative stress. The difference is that while good stress can provide a healthy challenge and the body has the ability to adapt to it, distress can lead to anxiety and depression, due to the lack of ability to adapt well, leading to maladaptive behavior and negative coping mechanisms such as substance use, aggression or social withdrawal.
One of the main determinants whether a stressor will cause eustress or distress is how much control we feel we have over it. Consider the news: let’s take the example of the recent earthquake and tsunami in Japan. How much control do we have over what happened? None, although we may have some on the outcome. Yet, many of us tend to watch the news, ever-so available 24/7 and fret over what happened. Even worse than the reports of disasters that have occurred is the media’s favourite activity: fear mongering, like the constant “reports” of an imminent threat of nuclear meltdown at the Fukushima nuclear plant.  The more time we spend in front of the television or computer watching horrific footage of the events, or yet another analysis and “worst-case-scenario” prediction of the nuclear plant, the less time and energy we are going to have to do something that could positively influence the outcome. What am I referring to?

These are some examples of what we can do to affect the outcome:
- look for ways of helping the victims and their loved ones
- learn from the events for your future benefit i.e. what can you do to prepare to deal with a disaster - every household should have a contingency plan for emergency situations
- stay positive and spread your positivity; example: a friend of mine who lives in Tokyo keeps posting informative, focused and positive writings in his blog ever-since the earthquake occurred

Even if you don’t feel that you can affect the outcome of the disaster, you can certainly alter the impact it will have on you and your family.
Some ways to diminish or eliminate distress caused by the news of disaster:
- limit watching the news to a manageable amount. Everybody has a different tolerance level; our tolerance for bad news is unique and individual. Mine is quite low, so I don’t even watch the news every day. I will skim Google news and read what I find necessary instead of allowing a network decide for me what I should be watching and hearing.
- keep your routine, don’t let news of a disaster stop you from having dinner with your family, or doing your workout, going for a walk etc.
- stay physically active or even add more activity as it has been shown to be beneficial in coping with stress
- don’t discuss the bad news constantly with your coworkers, friends and family, instead initiate conversations with positive, uplifting topics

Ever since I allowed the news of 9/11 affect my life way more then I should have by constantly watching the repetitious footage of the towers crumbling and the chaos following, I decided to be better prepared for news of disasters and wars: moderate my news-intake, be selective, keep positive and and be proactive. While being informed has its benefits, being bombarded with information can definitely be detrimental. I decided to equip myself with good coping skills and not to become a volunteer collateral damage to disasters that occur on faraway lands. Sure we can find thousands of websites with advice on how to cope with stress. I am suggesting that we can prevent the distress by not becoming around-the-clock news consumers.

So tune out, log off, disconnect, turn off...
Take a walk, talk to a friend... Face to face, not just on Facebook
Tune into Life... as it happens right around you...
Make someone smile, smile along...

Connect!

Wholy Food!

Back in the 50s and 60s the western world envisioned a future where taking food pills, powders, energy bars and shakes would replace eating whole foods. Consuming our nutrients this way was thought of as efficient, modern and time-saving. Yet, in 2011 there exists a movement, and it's gaining momentum, to eat local, sustainable, whole foods. Why is that?

Why eat whole foods instead of juice or other processed forms? One might think, that if a fruit, for example apple has beneficial phytonutrients, it would be even more beneficial, if we could have more by juicing or processing, therefore making it possible to consume a lot more at once. The more, the better, right? Wrong!

Just think of how many apples are needed to produce a glass of apple juice: it takes 3-4 apples. Even taking the best case scenario into consideration, where one would freshly squeeze one's own juice, the difference between eating the whole fruit versus the juice is remarkable.

What do you get in a glass of juice made from the whole fresh fruit?

• All the sugar - 42 - 50 g, the amount from 3-4 apples, equaling the sugar content of a can of pop, which can be drunk in a matter of seconds - this will cause a spike in blood glucose.
• No or minimal fibre, depending on the method of juicing used versus 10 - 15 g of fibre in 3-4 apples - nothing to slow down glucose absorption, also losing out on other benefits of fibre
• Damaged cells release polyphenol oxidase enzymes, which leads to oxidized polyphenols, causing browning of the apple; oxidized polyphenols are not affective
• Ethylane, due to cell damage
• No chewing, no affect on satiety

Advantages of eating a whole apple:

• Chewing - improved digestion and satiety - a recent study showed that people who ate one whole apple 15 minutes before eating a meal consumed 15% less calories during their meal; this is not the case when consuming apple sauce or apple juice before a meal
• Intact cells with beneficial polyphenols
• Skin, where the majority of bioflavonoids (polyphenols) are found
• Takes longer to consume, and we normally eat one whole apple in one sitting = less sugar taken in over a longer period of time with glucose regulating benefits
• Synergy - certain compounds work together, in "synergy", like pectin and polyphenols found in whole apples. They have found in studies that isolated pectin alone does not have the same affect on blood  fats as the same amount of pectin in a whole apple. 

Synergy - different compounds found in whole foods working together, making the whole greater than the sum of it’s parts - is on our side; let’s use this advantage and enjoy foods in their "wholiness" as much as possible!

An apple a day...

... keeps the doctor away. Does it really?

I was thinking about that as I was reaching for a beautiful red, round, delicious Macintosh apple earlier today. How does the apple do that?

Well, it does it in several ways: first, you have to chew your apple... that of course if you are not eating it as apple sauce. Chewing is the first step of digestion; it initiates enzyme production in the mouth and in lower parts of the digestive tract. Chewing also contributes to satiety, the feeling of fullness. That's a good thing, isn't it?

Apples also do that through their fibre content. Although they only rank as "good" source of fibre, not "excellent", however the water-soluble pectin in apple improves satiety, amongst other benefits. Pectin in combination with other phytonutrients also lowers LDL cholesterol and triglyceride levels without any harmful side effects. The only side effect of consuming pectin is increased regularity.That's also a good thing.

The "star" of apples is a group of phytonutrients called polyphenols. These compounds (quercetin, catechin, anthocyanins to name a few) have been found - besides their well-known antioxidant quality - to have antiplatelet, antiviral, anti-tumor and anti-inflammatory activity. As a result of these characteristics, eating whole apples will help you fight cardiovascular disease, cancer, viral infections, inflammatory diseases such as atherosclerosis, irritable bowel syndrome, dermatitis.

In addition these awesome compounds have an impact on glucose regulation by the following mechanisms:
1. slowing carbohydrate digestion
2. slowing glucose absorption
3. increasing Insulin production
4. increasing Insulin-receptor sensitivity

As you can see, the old saying is true: an apple a day keeps the doctor away. You do have to eat your apple as a whole fruit to get these benefits. Why? I will talk about that another time.

Happy apple crunching!