Translating deep thinking into common sense
Skipping Breakfast may be Good for You, and for Your Child
By Vinay Kolhatkar
March 15, 2015
SUBSCRIBE TO SAVVY STREET (It's Free)
What if the elixir that gave us a longer and better life, was available today? A life perhaps five to ten years longer, and with less chronic ailments—shouldn’t we at least know of this potion?
What if the elixir that gave us a longer and better life, was available today? A life perhaps five to ten years longer, and with less chronic ailments—shouldn’t we at least know of this potion?
The problem is that much of our advice on health comes from officials funded by the public purse. When it comes to economics, we know that public officials routinely misstate the effects of public policy—e.g., they grossly misrepresent the damaging effects of money supply manipulation as being beneficial, and of the deleterious effects of government policy as being necessary. It is not that they lie; often they believe the nonsense they churn out. It is rationalization.
When health authorities give health advice, your health is not what is driving them. The authorities are trained to think in terms of “public” health and public health outcomes.
When health authorities give health advice, your health is not what is driving them. The authorities are trained to think in terms of “public” health and public health outcomes. What if a drug has widespread benefits to the population as a whole? The public official thinks immediately in terms of the cost of subsidizing the drug, and whether the public purse could afford it. If not, it is best not to tell anyone.
But what if the drug, unsubsidized, would cost you $5,000 a year in after-tax money? And that drug would not only extend your lifespan by eight years, but also make those eight and indeed the previous eight, better quality than otherwise? That should be your decision—can I afford it? Will I spend the money? But the public official is unable to think in terms of individual outcomes. If the drug is this beneficial and we say so, everyone will want it. Then we must subsidize it by 80%, i.e. by $4,000 a year. And that cost, when multiplied by a hundred million aging citizens a year, will become unaffordable to the “system”. In fact, for much larger levels of productions, the drug would cost less per unit due to economies of scale, but the official cannot think in those terms.
Metformin could be that drug. In 2010, Julius Goepp, MD, suggested that this is a drug virtually everyone should ask their doctor about, arguing that apart from its usage as a first line of defense in Type II diabetes, it had benefits in prevention of several cancers.
Research suggests that the single biggest factor in longevity and quality of life for middle age and aged people in western, affluent economies is the blood glucose level of the person. In 2014, Dr. Max Pemberton, writing in The Spectator stated that, “the prognosis for those with type 2 diabetes is much worse than for those with HIV.” As a doctor, he said, he would rather have HIV than diabetes.
Levels of glucose in the blood increase when humans ingest food. A like for like comparison necessitates comparing average levels, over long periods like ten to twelve weeks (measured by the HbA1c test), or levels achieved after a 12-hour fast (including a sleep period).
At a certain high level, the level at which micro-vessel damage becomes endemic, the condition is diagnosed as diabetes, and then medication is prescribed. As the medication then brings average glucose levels under control, the individual benefits from the diagnosis. Yet, average levels that are below, even well below the diabetes level, are arguably dangerous and affect the quality of life as well as the prognosis for longevity. Absent the diabetes diagnosis and consequent medication, the condition remains unabated. And the diagnosis is absent if you remain under a somewhat arbitrarily determined cutoff.
Arterial plaque formation, which leads to heart attacks, and atherosclerosis, which leads to strokes, are both accelerated by higher blood glucose levels. The Mayo Clinic reports that higher blood glucose levels also cause or accelerate conditions ranging from cancer to serious eye disease, kidney disease, loss of hearing, skin conditions, nerve damage, foot damage, and Alzheimer’s. Not to mention a tendency to gain weight.
So numerous age-related chronic diseases are caused by, or accelerated by, high levels of blood glucose. Absent those high levels, we should have longer and healthier lives.
But what is high?
Depending on where you live, a fasting glucose level of 110mg/dL, or 6.1mmol/L, may be considered high, but a diagnosis of diabetes may elude you unless you reach 115% that level. Often the gold standard is the Glycated Haemoglobin (HbA1c) Test. The HbA1c test shows an average of your blood glucose level over the previous 10-12 weeks, and a 7%/ 53mmol/mol may be the mark at which you are “diagnosed.”
In January 2011, Life Enhancement Magazine reported that “Excess glucose not used for energy production converts to triglycerides that are either stored as unwanted body fat or accumulate in the blood where they contribute to the formation of atherosclerotic plaque.”
“As an aging human, you face a daily onslaught of excess glucose that poses a greater risk to your safety than overflowing gasoline. Surplus glucose relentlessly reacts with your body’s proteins, causing damaging glycation reactions while fueling the fires of chronic inflammation and inciting the production of destructive free radicals.”
Blood glucose levels considered high but in the normal range contribute very significantly to an acceleration of various diseases that significantly impair the quality of your life and lower your life expectancy.
One of the most universal changes with age is a progressive loss of glucose tolerance.
Says Dr. Ward Dean, an anti-aging specialist: “One of the most universal changes with age is a progressive loss of glucose tolerance. When this loss of glucose tolerance becomes pronounced, it is diagnosed as diabetes. The diagnostic criteria for older people are much less strict than the criteria for younger people. If the same criteria were used for older people as are used for younger people, nearly every senior citizen would be diagnosed as diabetic.” The public official gulps at this. He cannot fathom a society in which every senior citizen seeks to obtain a drug that reduces his glucose levels.
Dr. Dean recommends using Metformin for virtually all people over forty, as an anti-aging and life-extending drug. Metformin is otherwise only prescribed for patients “diagnosed” with Type II diabetes, by which time the condition is quite acute.
Scientific research has long argued that calorie restriction increases life span and quality of life in mammals. Calorie restriction fights against Metabolic Syndrome, the primary marker of aging. By 2013, Life Enhancement Magazine had run a feature titled—”Is Metformin the Metabolic Holy Grail?” The sub-title of the story: “Top scientists agree that metformin is an antiaging drug”; the quotable quote: “researchers show that treatment with metformin mimics some of the benefits of calorie restriction, including improved physical performance, increased insulin sensitivity, and reduced low-density lipoprotein and cholesterol levels without a lower intake of calories.”
If you are over forty, and your blood glucose levels are at the high end of “normal” or worse, and if your doctor will not prescribe Metformin, find one that will. What if you can’t find a physician that will prescribe Metformin, the wonder drug? What if you are, as some individuals may be, at high risk of other complications from taking this drug? Is there a natural way of reducing your average blood glucose levels?
Scientists at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies have found that regular eating times and extending the daily fasting period (which occurs naturally during sleep) may override the adverse health effects of a high-fat diet and prevent obesity, diabetes, and liver disease. Proponents of “Intermittent Fasting” do find a significant reduction in their fasting and average blood glucose levels.
When eating frequently, the body continues to make and store fat, ballooning fat cells and liver cells, which can result in liver damage.
“The Salk study found the body stores fat while eating and starts to burn fat and breakdown cholesterol into beneficial bile acids only after a few hours of fasting. When eating frequently, the body continues to make and store fat, ballooning fat cells and liver cells, which can result in liver damage. Under such conditions, the liver also continues to make glucose, which raises blood sugar levels. Time-restricted feeding, on the other hand, reduces production of free fat, glucose, and cholesterol, and makes better use of them. It cuts down fat storage and turns on fat burning mechanisms when the animals undergo daily fasting, thereby keeping the liver cells healthy, and reducing overall body fat.
The daily feeding-fasting cycle activates liver enzymes that breakdown cholesterol into bile acids, spurring the metabolism of brown fat – a type of “good fat” in our body that converts extra calories to heat. Thus, the body literally burns fat during fasting. The liver also shuts down glucose production for several hours, which helps lower blood glucose.”
The wisdom of eating frequent, and smaller meals, is thus, turned on its head. Not eating for long periods is in fact beneficial for us. In the Salk Study, rats who ate smaller meals frequently through the day, had much higher blood glucose levels, and lower health and fitness outcomes, than rats who ate the same overall amount and the same type of food, but consumed the lot in an eight-hour window.
Proponents of Intermittent Fasting (IF) follow various plans—eating minimally every alternate day, or two days a week, or eating very little in a 14-, 16-, or 18-hour window every day.
One of the easiest ways to extend the body’s natural fast during sleep is to delay or better still, skip breakfast entirely. And plenty of IF-fan parents, such as Peggy the primal mom are recommending it for children; some are even suggesting this method will make your child taller. Many religions have often had prescriptive fasts that adults, and even children of a certain age, were required to follow. Perhaps years of observation had yielded the wisdom that was imparted into religious rituals.
Now it is time for science to decipher these rituals into the good and the bad—into the healthy habits and the arbitrary, and for individuals to take charge of their lifespan and health outcomes, independent of public health officials.
About the Author: Vinay Kolhatkar
