• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
- - - - -

Purposely Eating A Highly Insulinogenic Diet

low-carb insulin igf-1 anabolic potatoes cortisol lipolysis diabetes glycemic index obesity

  • Please log in to reply
44 replies to this topic

#1 misterE

  • Guest
  • 1,034 posts
  • -81
  • Location:Texas
  • NO

Posted 17 October 2013 - 03:07 AM


Why would anyone do this? Why in the world would someone purposely eat a highly insulinogenic diet? After all, high insulin levels causes insulin-resistance, diabetes and makes you obese… right?

There is much misconception about insulin and insulin-resistance floating around on the web. Many folks blame insulin in causing diabetes, or obesity, but in reality it is the lack of insulin that causes these symptoms.

Diabetics are constantly undergoing gluconeogenesis, lipolysis and proteolysis, processes that are all inhibited by insulin. Since the body is resistant to insulin, these processes stay uninhibited thus you see elevated glucose, FFA’s and BCAA’s in diabetics. This reflects an inability to store nutrients within the body, due to the body’s resistance to the storage hormone: insulin.

On top of all that, since your body isn’t receiving the signals that you are storing energy, you body never becomes satiated and your appetite hormones become unbalanced (which promotes overeating).

An inability to store glucose in the cells causes fatigue and low energy. It also damages the endothelium and promotes atherosclerosis. An inability to store away fatty-acids causes ectopic-fat accumulation (insulin-resistance) and also contributes to atherosclerosis. And an inability to store amino-acids causes bone-loss and muscle-loss and damages the kidneys as they filter out the protein.

But insulin does so much more. It stimulates the synthesis of sex-hormones, which increase libido and sexual-function. Insulin dilates the blood-vessels and stimulates angiogenesis. It builds muscle. It redistributes fat from visceral areas to subcutaneous areas (which in women are the breast and buttocks). It counteracts cortisol. Insulin stimulates collagen production; it stimulates hair-growth and a whole host of other great things.

However, you only get these benefits if you are sensitive to insulin and are eating insulinogenic foods. Becoming insulin-sensitive is all about exercising, lowering fat intake (to 15% or below) and increasing consumption of insulinogenic-foods.
Interestingly enough, spiking insulin actually increases insulin-sensitivity. How is this possible? FFA’s which are released during lipolysis actually accumulate in cells (like the muscles and liver) and down regulate insulin-receptors. Conversely, inhibiting lipolysis (by secreting insulin) reduces the concentration of FFA’s in cells which then improves insulin-sensitivity.

Just like a type-1 diabetic will eventually die without their insulin shot. A normal person will also become sick and die if they deprive themselves of insulin (like in starvation or very high-fat/ ketogenic diets). For the normal healthy insulin-sensitive person, eating insulinogenic-foods would be “their way” of taking the much needed insulin shot of the day.

Take it for what it is: I’ve been eating a very insulinogenic-diet for quite some time now. I have noticed positive results such as increased muscle-mass, better libido, less depression and anxiety. My cholesterol is 120mg/dl and my triglycerides are 57mg/dl. Glucose is at 70mg/dl.

Most insulinogenic-foods.

Potatoes
Beans
Flour
Dairy-protein
Sucrose
  • dislike x 6
  • Informative x 2
  • like x 2
  • Good Point x 1

#2 Thorsten3

  • Guest
  • 1,121 posts
  • 2
  • Location:Bristol UK
  • NO

Posted 17 October 2013 - 07:44 AM

A diabetic needs insulin to get rid of excess blood sugar. What causes more blood sugar, the pork chop or the 2 litre bottle of cola?

You're talking about foods that drive up blood sugar. This causes the pancreas to pump out insulin to deal with the issue. Insulin resistance is caused by the receptors becoming unresponsive to the insulin over the course of time. I assume it's a gradual process and not something that just happens.

So your implying that the insulin receptors display a rare paradox, where they actually up regulate in response to more insulin.

I think a lot of the issues with fat are that some of these lipid compounds are highly unstable when subjected to heat. I don't doubt that these toxic compounds play a part in some way. Oxidised cholesterol is a big problem for your arteries. PUFAs, should just be restricted full stop. But you can't vilify fat in its raw state. Cholesterol is absolutely a crucial nutrient, so much so , your body will do whatever it takes to make it.

I think a lot of the diets being pimped on here are inferior. Nobody talks about raw food. Everything here, is about working under the assumption that cooking is what's best for us. Incorporating more raw foods into your diet can improve many parameters of your health. Not touching cholesterol that is oxidised.

If you think that fat 'sludges' your blood and 'clogs' your arteries, you need to do more research because that ain't how it works.

Edited by Thorsten2, 17 October 2013 - 07:49 AM.

  • like x 2
  • dislike x 1
  • Off-Topic x 1

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Click HERE to rent this advertising spot for NUTRITION to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#3 rwac

  • Member
  • 4,764 posts
  • 61
  • Location:Dimension X

Posted 17 October 2013 - 04:34 PM

Take it for what it is: I’ve been eating a very insulinogenic-diet for quite some time now. I have noticed positive results such as increased muscle-mass, better libido, less depression and anxiety.


Ah, but is it the insulin or is it just using carbohydrate as a source (as opposed to fat) that is beneficial?

I would argue that it's the carbs that are actually beneficial.

Sucrose has a powerful pick-me-up effect, although it generates much less (about half that of glucose) of an insulin response compared to say rice, that would point to carbs being the cause.

If you think that fat 'sludges' your blood and 'clogs' your arteries, you need to do more research because that ain't how it works.

Fat is generally an inferior source of energy though.
Hence athletes "hitting the wall" when the glycogen gets depleted.
  • like x 1

#4 lemonhead

  • Guest
  • 165 posts
  • 161
  • Location:The Uncanny Valley
  • NO

Posted 17 October 2013 - 11:27 PM

What do you make of this Ted Talk:
Peter Attia: Is the obesity crisis hiding a bigger problem?

#5 misterE

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,034 posts
  • -81
  • Location:Texas
  • NO

Posted 18 October 2013 - 01:07 AM

So your implying that the insulin receptors display a rare paradox, where they actually up regulate in response to more insulin.



Yes. Anything that inhibits lipolysis will increase insulin-sensitivity. Insulin actually up regulates itself. It’s the absence of insulin that causes increased lipolysis. Increased lipolysis exports FFA’s into peripheral tissues, which then interfere with insulin signaling. This explains why rapid weight-loss and prolonged fasting causes NAFLD and an increased amount of intramyocelluar-lipids.

Drinking alcohol is well known for its insulin-sensitizing effects. The main mechism behind this phenomenon is that ethanol is metabolized into a compound called acetate. Acetate is a potent inhibitor of lipolysis, and since acetate in turn decreases blood levels of FFA’s, it thus improves the potency and effectiveness of insulin.






If you think that fat 'sludges' your blood and 'clogs' your arteries, you need to do more research because that ain't how it works.



Are you familiar with postprandial-lipemia? Even one high-fat meal will increase (sometimes double) your triglycerides, which will clump the red-blood cells together and slow their passage thru blood vessels. The increase in blood triglycerides also contributes to insulin-resistance.

Edited by misterE, 18 October 2013 - 01:35 AM.

  • like x 3
  • dislike x 2
  • Informative x 1

#6 misterE

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,034 posts
  • -81
  • Location:Texas
  • NO

Posted 18 October 2013 - 01:30 AM

Ah, but is it the insulin or is it just using carbohydrate as a source (as opposed to fat) that is beneficial?



Sucrose has a powerful pick-me-up effect, although it generates much less (about half that of glucose) of an insulin response compared to say rice, that would point to carbs being the cause.






Well, I think the question really is this: is it the insulin the carbohydrates provide or the absence of insulin that fat doesn’t provide. Remember that even if you fast, you are technically on a high-fat diet via FFA’s. To answer your question thou: I think it is both; the reason why carbohydrate fuel is better than fat fuel, is because it does stimulate insulin-secretion.



Sucrose is a quick insulin-surge that has benefits in extreme situations of stress (like exercise or prolonged fasting). Infact I believe that the reason why diabetics crave sugar is because that is exactly what their bodies need to shut down their excessive cortisol levels, unfortuantly the sugar they do eventually eat doesn’t make it to the cells and the cortisol never lowers in response (due to insulin-resistance of course).



But the point you made about sucrose-being less insulinogenic that starch (rice) is wrong. Sucrose has less glycemic-impact than starch (for instance, potatoes increase blood-glucose more than sucrose), this is due to the fructose fraction in sucrose which doesn’t have any glycemic effects. But since simple-sugar is highly digestible and quickly assimilated, it actually stimulates a ton of insulin (as much as a potato).



That would be fine and all, unfortunately the fructose fraction gets us into trouble metabolically. 50% of the energy in sucrose (the fructose fraction) is up for conversion into triglycerides. However 30% of the fructose is lost during this conversion into triglycerides. For instance you you drank a coca-cola that contained 150 calories from sucrose; you would synthesize nearly 6 grams of fat from the sucrose in the soda.



So in essence, you would get your much needed insulin spike, but it comes along with a bit of body-fat. However when you eat starch, you get your much needed insulin spike, without any triglyceride synthesis and fat gain. Do you agree with this?
  • dislike x 3
  • like x 2

#7 Eruditus

  • Guest
  • 100 posts
  • 32
  • Location:Belgium

Posted 24 October 2013 - 04:38 PM

Eating a diet high in carbohydrates is known to increase IGF's which would account for your increased muscle mass; IGF overproduction is also correlated with a decreased lifespan. Just because it seems at this point in time that your diet has alleviated your mental disorders do not make the mistake of thinking it is forever. Any diet high in simple carbs with a high glycemic index will lead to insulin peaks and unstable blood sugar levels eventually, unstable blood sugar levels put you in ketosis on the off chance when you haven't had sufficient carb intake leading to impulsive food cravings for junk foods. It's a downward spiral path you are threading on.

If you are trying to justify your own eating habits to yourself by seeking scientific confirmation here; I very much doubt you will get it here.
  • like x 5
  • dislike x 2

#8 misterE

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,034 posts
  • -81
  • Location:Texas
  • NO

Posted 24 October 2013 - 10:06 PM

Eating a diet high in carbohydrates is known to increase IGF's which would account for your increased muscle mass




Rather a diet high in protein (especially milk-protein). Carbohydrates and the insulin they create, does help convert GH into IGF-1 (by lowering FFA’s). But it is the protein content of the diet that really has an influence over the GH/IGF-1 axis.




IGF overproduction is also correlated with a decreased lifespan.




I doubt this… and I know there is a lot of animal-research suggesting this. But IGF-1 is protective against diabetes and atherosclerosis. Folks with metabolic-syndrome have decreased levels of IGF-1.




It's a downward spiral path you are threading on.




I don’t think so. That was the purpose of the title of the thread, because most folks think insulin and its growth-factors are evil and bad (I use to think this), but now, after more years of research, I’ve come to the conclusion that they are both beneficial for metabolic-health. Purposely spiking your insulin (according to my research) has major health benefits (like lower blood-sugar and less ectopic-fat accumulation, among others).







seeking scientific confirmation here? I very much doubt you will get it.



I know. Unfortunately most folks here think that eating grease is better than eating starch (because it doesn’t cause insulin to rise as high or whatever).
However, there are other members here that understand the science I bring forth. I invited rwac to the conversation, ‘cause I feel like he is one of the few folks here that (at least somewhat) understands the science I mention.

A lot of my views on insulin are not mainstream and at first glance seem weird or contradictory… but everything I talk about (in terms of insulin) is well backed by the scientific-literature.
  • dislike x 4
  • like x 3

#9 Thorsten3

  • Guest
  • 1,121 posts
  • 2
  • Location:Bristol UK
  • NO

Posted 25 October 2013 - 10:05 PM

Oops wrong thread

Edited by Thorsten2, 25 October 2013 - 10:11 PM.


#10 misterE

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,034 posts
  • -81
  • Location:Texas
  • NO

Posted 11 November 2013 - 04:00 AM

HOT DAMN! Five downvotes on an opening thread... I'm on a roll!
  • like x 2
  • dislike x 2
  • Cheerful x 1
  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1

#11 rwac

  • Member
  • 4,764 posts
  • 61
  • Location:Dimension X

Posted 11 November 2013 - 04:50 AM

spiking insulin actually increases insulin-sensitivity


I imagine this is due to the Randle cycle.
http://en.wikipedia....ki/Randle_cycle
http://peatarian.com...e-randle-cycle/

To paraphrase, Fatty acid oxidation inhibits glucose utilization and vice versa.
  • like x 1

#12 misterE

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,034 posts
  • -81
  • Location:Texas
  • NO

Posted 11 November 2013 - 05:40 AM

Do you believe that prolonged fasting (or high-fat/low-carb feeding) contributes to insulin-resistance, due to a change in metabolic fuel sources? Such as: more fatty-acid oxidation in place of glucose oxidation?

Edited by misterE, 11 November 2013 - 05:42 AM.


#13 rwac

  • Member
  • 4,764 posts
  • 61
  • Location:Dimension X

Posted 11 November 2013 - 05:54 AM

Indeed it does, to spare glucose for the brain.There isn't enough glucose to go around otherwise.

#14 misterE

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,034 posts
  • -81
  • Location:Texas
  • NO

Posted 11 November 2013 - 05:57 AM

Do you agree that humans should eat a starch based insulinogenic diet, with other foods on the side?

Edited by misterE, 11 November 2013 - 05:58 AM.


#15 rwac

  • Member
  • 4,764 posts
  • 61
  • Location:Dimension X

Posted 11 November 2013 - 06:19 AM

Well, a starch based diet isn't incompatible with health, but a fruit/sugar based diet is better.
Starch promotes gut bacteria, and the effect of that is rather dependent on your gut biota.

I think we can agree on a carb based diet though.

#16 misterE

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,034 posts
  • -81
  • Location:Texas
  • NO

Posted 11 November 2013 - 06:31 AM

OK. Do you think that spiking insulin is beneficial for the reason mentioned above? Also don't you think that spiking insulin with starches (likes potatoes or beans), which doesn't increase DNL, is preferable to simple-sugars (like sucrose or honey) which spikes insulin but also increases DNL at the same time?

Edited by misterE, 11 November 2013 - 06:34 AM.


#17 rwac

  • Member
  • 4,764 posts
  • 61
  • Location:Dimension X

Posted 11 November 2013 - 06:55 AM

I'm not entirely clear on the benefits of insulin. Insulin increases when you develop resistance, and that's not beneficial.
As for the sex hormones, a high metabolism will naturally increase the sex hormones, promote leanness, etc.
What's DNL?

Edited by rwac, 11 November 2013 - 06:56 AM.


#18 misterE

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,034 posts
  • -81
  • Location:Texas
  • NO

Posted 11 November 2013 - 01:04 PM

Insulin increases when you develop resistance, and that's not beneficial.







The body produces excessive amounts of insulin to compensate for the underlying resistance.











What's DNL?







De novo lipogenesis.

#19 rwac

  • Member
  • 4,764 posts
  • 61
  • Location:Dimension X

Posted 11 November 2013 - 02:38 PM

The newly created fat is mostly in the form of safe (saturated and monounsaturated) triglycerides which aren't dangerous.
A large fraction of the fructose also goes to replenishing glycogen or gets turned into glucose, so only a relatively small fraction undergoes DNL.

Edited by rwac, 11 November 2013 - 02:44 PM.


#20 Thorsten3

  • Guest
  • 1,121 posts
  • 2
  • Location:Bristol UK
  • NO

Posted 11 November 2013 - 06:17 PM

Rwac,

Doesn't excessive fruit consumption cause an increase in triglycerides? I know Ray Peat advocates lots of OJ (or fruit) to metabolize the protrein. Surely, if you're eating sufficient quantities of fruit, the fructose begins to add up and can make an impact? It's not straight up corn syrup, but I'm not aware of us even needing dietary fructose at all. I might be wrong, though.

Just going by my own experiences, I would say that I reacted much better to starches than to fruits. Much more stable energy, that, in some cases, lasted for huge amounts of hours without me feeling hungry at all (I would buy gluten free pasta, made of brown rice). One big plate of pasta in the morning and I could go 8 hours without needing to eat again. i don't do this anymore, but it was impressive how much energy it gave me.

#21 rwac

  • Member
  • 4,764 posts
  • 61
  • Location:Dimension X

Posted 11 November 2013 - 07:53 PM

Well, is high triglycerides that bad, in and of itself?
I can't find conventional research that suggests it is, apart from correlations with other markers.
Peat is of the opinion that it's a comparatively safe form of fat as opposed to Free Fatty Acids which cause insulin resistance.

As I said before, Peat is of the opinion that starch is not incompatible with health.
For instance I don't think I could do the same thing, my liver just doesn't store adequate glycogen. I have no doubt that you're in better shape than I metabolically.
Consuming lots of starch just doesn't feel that great for me.

#22 JohnD60

  • Guest
  • 540 posts
  • 70
  • Location:Colorado

Posted 11 November 2013 - 07:56 PM

On top of all that, since your body isn’t receiving the signals that you are storing energy, you body never becomes satiated and your appetite hormones become unbalanced (which promotes overeating).

Just like a type-1 diabetic will eventually die without their insulin shot. A normal person will also become sick and die if they deprive themselves of insulin (like in starvation or very high-fat/ ketogenic diets). For the normal healthy insulin-sensitive person, eating insulinogenic-foods would be “their way” of taking the much needed insulin shot of the day.

Take it for what it is: I’ve been eating a very insulinogenic-diet for quite some time now. I have noticed positive results such as increased muscle-mass, better libido, less depression and anxiety. My cholesterol is 120mg/dl and my triglycerides are 57mg/dl. Glucose is at 70mg/dl.

I do not believe that what you describe is how satiation works in the human body. I believe the signal for satiation comes from the gastrointestional system. But I am not certain of the details.

There have been examples of people eating only meat for months. Somehow their body adapted, possibly via Ketosis, so that they did not die as you assert that they would.

How long is "quite some time now"? Your only 23, it can't be that long. There are few type 2 diabetics in their 20s. I suppose one could exist for a live time eating such a diet, and not get diabetes, if they were genetically blessed, or they ate only a couple of meals a day, and no snacks, and thus did not constantly stimulate insulin production.
  • Ill informed x 1

#23 misterE

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,034 posts
  • -81
  • Location:Texas
  • NO

Posted 12 November 2013 - 01:10 AM

The newly created fat is mostly in the form of safe (saturated and monounsaturated) triglycerides which aren't dangerous.





This is very interesting to me. Saturated and monounsaturated-fats don’t have any biological activity like polyunsaturated-fats, which are eventually converted into different signaling hormones.



I agree that saturated-fat and monounsaturated-fat are harmless to an extent. It is the overstuffing of saturated-fats into the adipocytes (which cause them to enlarge) that is the problem. The larger the adipocytes get, the less responsive they become to the effects of insulin. Without proper insulin-signaling in the adipocyte, the adipocyte begins to spew out all of its stored fat (FFA’s) into the peripheral tissues, thus causing lipotoxicity and whole-body insulin-resistance.

#24 rwac

  • Member
  • 4,764 posts
  • 61
  • Location:Dimension X

Posted 12 November 2013 - 04:56 AM

I agree that saturated-fat and monounsaturated-fat are harmless to an extent. It is the overstuffing of saturated-fats into the adipocytes (which cause them to enlarge) that is the problem. The larger the adipocytes get, the less responsive they become to the effects of insulin. Without proper insulin-signaling in the adipocyte, the adipocyte begins to spew out all of its stored fat (FFA’s) into the peripheral tissues, thus causing lipotoxicity and whole-body insulin-resistance.

Which is why Peat is insistent that weight loss should be slow.
The liver can detoxify some amount of FFAs by glucuronidation, and fat loss should be within the capacity of the liver.
Incidentally, this is why people who lose weight quickly look sick sometimes.

#25 misterE

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,034 posts
  • -81
  • Location:Texas
  • NO

Posted 12 November 2013 - 11:12 PM

FFA's from dieting or exercise isn't dangerous because these FFA's are needed by the body and are being oxidized at a fast pace. The problems arise when the adipocytes start spewing out FFA's when you don't need them (require them).



Also, the problem with high saturated-fat diets (especially when combined with simple-sugars) is that they do not stimulate satiety mechanisms like starch or protein does (due to a lack of insulin-secretion). Since fat is calorically-dense and doesn’t trigger satiety, it is very easy to overeat on, leading to enlarged fat-cells and lipotoxicity. That goes for too much fructose also, but to a much lesser extent.

Edited by misterE, 12 November 2013 - 11:55 PM.


#26 misterE

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,034 posts
  • -81
  • Location:Texas
  • NO

Posted 12 November 2013 - 11:28 PM

Well, is high triglycerides that bad, in and of itself?





I think it depends. Insulin negates the negative effects of triglycerides or high-fat diets. For instance if you were to eat a stick of butter, you would get a huge increase in riglycerides in the blood. This is called postprandial-lipemia, and it literally clumps the blood cells together or sludges the blood. The triglycerides would then accumulate in organs like the muscle or liver to be used directly as energy, however this alters the Randle-Cycle, as you are aware.



Now if you were to eat a stick of butter mixed in with mashed potatoes. You would still get a huge increase in triglycerides, but the sludging of the blood wouldn’t occur due to the increase in nitric-oxide from the insulin secreted in response to the potatoes (yes, insulin stimulates nitric-oxide synthesis). The insulin would also cause the adipocytes to uptake those triglycerides out of the circulation and into the adipose-tissue (lowering the amount in the blood and redirecting the triglycerides into subcutaneous-fat-cells instead of the muscles and liver).



However the fat-cells can only store a limited amount of triglycerides and eventually a “spill-over” occurs sending FFA’s into the muscles and liver to be burned as fuel, even if not needed by those organs, once again altering the Randle-Cycle.



Keep your fat-cells (adipocytes) small and eat insulinogenic-foods and I believe that will cure metabolic-syndrome… and there is lots of research to back this up.

Edited by misterE, 12 November 2013 - 11:58 PM.


#27 misterE

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,034 posts
  • -81
  • Location:Texas
  • NO

Posted 12 November 2013 - 11:42 PM

I do not believe that what you describe is how satiation works in the human body.



Look into “insulin as a satiety hormone” and you will see where I am coming from.




There have been examples of people eating only meat for months. Somehow their body adapted, possibly via Ketosis, so that they did not die as you assert that they would.




This is because protein (espically animal-protein, which is rich in BCAA’s) stimulates lots of insulin.

Cheese stimulates more insulin than oats.
Beef stimulates more insulin than pasta made with white-flour.
Fish stimulates more insulin than corn.




How long is "quite some time now"? Your only 23, it can't be that long.




I’ve been eating this way since 2008… so coming up on 6 years or so. Before that… my lipid panel was awful.

#28 JohnD60

  • Guest
  • 540 posts
  • 70
  • Location:Colorado

Posted 13 November 2013 - 05:40 AM

Beef stimulates more insulin than pasta made with white-flour.
Fish stimulates more insulin than corn.

No doubt this is based upon that 1997 preliminary "insulin index" study done by an Austrailian graduate student. I have issues with that study, primarily that there has never been any follow up studies done to confirm it. But assuming the study is correct, then the standard diet is Insulinogenic, and your 'special' diet is not any more insulinogenic than a standard diet. According to the study, the only diet which would not be insulinogenic would be one where fat accounted for the majority of the calories, I don't think there are a lot of people out there eating sticks of butter for lunch.

eta:
This recent study, http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/19923374 comes to the conclusion that: Protein increased insulin levels but had no effect on the insulin secretion rate, which suggests decreased hepatic insulin extraction or increased C-peptide clearance..... Over my head a bit, but I think I understand it to say that Protein does not cause insulin production, it just reduces insulin utilization. So at the cellular level protein is actually having the opposite effect of carbohydrates, carbohydrates cause insulin to be produced and said insulin triggers cells to feed, protein does not cause insulin to be produced, but it in some way it inhibits the insulin to act on the cells to feed, thus indirectly raising insulin levels. And thus protein is not insulinogenic, and all is right with the world!

Edited by JohnD60, 13 November 2013 - 06:15 AM.


#29 Adaptogen

  • Guest
  • 758 posts
  • 234
  • Location:United States

Posted 13 November 2013 - 06:10 AM

from what i understand, protein does indeed increase insulin to such an extent, yet protein consumption also results in glucagon release which acts as a counterbalance to insulin, preventing the hypoglycemia that is often associated with high carbohydrate meals

Edited by Adaptogen, 13 November 2013 - 06:13 AM.

  • like x 2
  • dislike x 1

#30 rwac

  • Member
  • 4,764 posts
  • 61
  • Location:Dimension X

Posted 13 November 2013 - 01:21 PM

FFA's from dieting or exercise isn't dangerous because these FFA's are needed by the body and are being oxidized at a fast pace. The problems arise when the adipocytes start spewing out FFA's when you don't need them (require them).

Well, a lot of people have stored PUFAs which, when released can cause problems. They are toxic to oxidize.
If you notice people who have lost a lot of weight quickly, they look somewhat worse than they did before.

Also, the problem with high saturated-fat diets (especially when combined with simple-sugars) is that they do not stimulate satiety mechanisms like starch or protein does (due to a lack of insulin-secretion). Since fat is calorically-dense and doesn’t trigger satiety, it is very easy to overeat on, leading to enlarged fat-cells and lipotoxicity. That goes for too much fructose also, but to a much lesser extent.


You have a very narrow insulin centric view of satiety. It's not that easy to overeat on fats. People don't usually grow fat on LCHF diets in the short term (There's other issues in the long term but that's another topic).
  • like x 1
  • dislike x 1





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: low-carb, insulin, igf-1, anabolic, potatoes, cortisol, lipolysis, diabetes, glycemic index, obesity

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users