• 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

#31 misterE

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

Posted 15 November 2013 - 12:27 AM






Well, a lot of people have stored PUFAs which, when released can cause problems. They are toxic to oxidize.






It’s my belief that polyunsaturated-fats aren’t used as energy or fuel (like glucose or saturated-fat is). Polyunsaturated-fats are used as hormonal substrate. The deleterious effects of polyunsaturated-fats stems from the inflammatory cytokines produced from the excessive linoleic-acid (from vegetables-oils) or arachidonic-acid (from animal-fats) that have build up in our subcutaneous-tissue. In the modern industrialized nations, people are full of these inflammatory precursors.



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).




Insulin defiantly is a satiety hormone. Fat and fructose are “invisible calories”. The body doesn’t recognize these calories as they pass the lips, because they don’t stimulate insulin secretion. Overeating on fat is very easy. For instance, according to cron-o-meter: one cup of white-rice is 675 calories… now if you add a stick of melted butter to the rice, you increase the calorie-count to 1485 (a 120% increase), but the butter doesn’t have any bulk. Nor like I said, does it stimulate satiety... plus it makes the food taste a lot better. All three reasons (calorie-dense, lack of satiety, hyperpalatablity) is why consuming a high-fat diet, enables you to effortless achieve a calorie-surplus, eventually leading to lipotoxicty (if sustained long-term)!

The reason why people who eat low-carb/high-fat diets don’t become obese (like Gary Taubes for instance) is because they now have altered the Randle-Cycle to oxidize fatty-acids in favor of glucose (which causes body-fat loss)… but as you and I both know, doing that makes you diabetic.

Edited by misterE, 15 November 2013 - 12:36 AM.

  • dislike x 5
  • Informative x 1
  • Agree x 1

#32 misterE

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

Posted 15 November 2013 - 12:46 AM

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.


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!






I have a hard time buying this. Insulin inhibits glucagon systhesis… how is it then that dietary-protein stimulates the systhesis of both hormones simultaneously?

The “insulin-index” study by Holt et al is the only study we have to go on at this point (and I really do believe the study is true… although this classic study caused me to have a major paradigm-shift in terms of my dietary philosophy). And I stand by my beliefs!

Protein… especially protein rich in essential amino-acids (like meat or especially milk) causes insulin-secretion and subsequent glucagon suppression. Studies on whey-protein found that it is nearly as insulinogenic as potatoes or sucrose! Of course the reason why whey-protein is supposedly good for you metabolically is actually due to the fact that it stimulates a shitload of insulin secretion (which is very beneficial considering you are sensitive to the insulin you produce).

Edited by misterE, 15 November 2013 - 12:51 AM.

  • dislike x 1
  • Informative x 1

sponsored ad

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

#33 Hebbeh

  • Guest
  • 1,599 posts
  • 668

Posted 15 November 2013 - 04:30 AM

Have another potato

http://www.plosgenet...al.pgen.1003941

Reduced insulin/IGF signaling increases lifespan in many animals.


Bai, Tatar, and their co-authors began the study armed with the understanding that a reduction in insulin signaling lengthens fly life span because when there is less insulin there is more of a protein called dFOXO.


Looks like Reason beat me to it...

http://www.longecity...g-in-longevity/

Edited by Hebbeh, 15 November 2013 - 05:10 AM.


#34 Adaptogen

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

Posted 15 November 2013 - 08:32 AM

There seems to be some conflicting evidence in regards to igf-1, at least with males

http://www.longecity...fespan-for-men/
http://www.scienceda...80527084252.htm

#35 Dolph

  • Guest
  • 512 posts
  • 123
  • Location:Germany

Posted 15 November 2013 - 08:35 AM

It’s my belief that polyunsaturated-fats aren’t used as energy or fuel (like glucose or saturated-fat is). Polyunsaturated-fats are used as hormonal substrate.


I like many things you write, but this is utter nonsense.

#36 rwac

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

Posted 15 November 2013 - 06:22 PM

I have a hard time buying this. Insulin inhibits glucagon systhesis… how is it then that dietary-protein stimulates the systhesis of both hormones simultaneously?

The “insulin-index” study by Holt et al is the only study we have to go on at this point (and I really do believe the study is true… although this classic study caused me to have a major paradigm-shift in terms of my dietary philosophy). And I stand by my beliefs!

Protein… especially protein rich in essential amino-acids (like meat or especially milk) causes insulin-secretion and subsequent glucagon suppression. Studies on whey-protein found that it is nearly as insulinogenic as potatoes or sucrose! Of course the reason why whey-protein is supposedly good for you metabolically is actually due to the fact that it stimulates a shitload of insulin secretion (which is very beneficial considering you are sensitive to the insulin you produce).


You are mistaken. Insulin will drive both protein and glucose into cells. So blood sugar is lowered, and if glycogen stores are inadequate, then gluconeogensis has to be triggered via glucagon and cortisol.

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/18167171
"Insulin and glucagon responses increased with increasing protein load [...] but the effect was more pronounced for glucagon"

#37 misterE

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

Posted 15 November 2013 - 10:12 PM

Even if protein does raise glucagon levels, that isn’t a good thing. Glucagon is a catabolic-hormone used to literate glucose into the blood-stream. Diabetics are resistant to the suppressive effects of insulin on glucagon secretion, thus glucagon levels in diabetics are increased! Glucagon is one of the main hormones that causes elevated blood-sugar in diabetes. Insulin lowers blood-sugar.


Diabetes Obes Metab. 2011 Oct;13 Suppl 1:126-32.
The role of dysregulated glucagon secretion in type 2 diabetes.

D'Alessio D.
Abstract
Excessive production of glucose by the liver contributes to fasting and postprandial hyperglycaemia, hallmarks of type 2 diabetes. A central feature of this pathologic response is insufficient hepatic insulin action, due to a combination of insulin resistance and impaired β-cell function. However, a case can be made that glucagon also plays a role in dysregulated hepatic glucose production and abnormal glucose homeostasis. Plasma glucagon concentrations are inappropriately elevated in diabetic individuals , and α-cell suppression by hyperglycaemia is blunted. Experimental evidence suggests that this contributes to greater rates of hepatic glucose production in the fasting state and attenuated reduction after meals. Recent studies in animal models indicate that reduction of glucagon action can have profound effects to mitigate hyperglycaemia even in the face of severe hypoinsulinaemia. While there are no specific treatments for diabetic patients yet available that act specifically on the glucagon signalling pathway, newer agents including glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors reduce plasma glucagon and this is thought to contribute to their action to lower blood glucose. The α-cell and glucagon receptor remain tempting targets for novel diabetes treatments, but it is important to understand the magnitude of benefit new strategies would provide as preclinical models suggest that chronic interference with glucagon action could entail adverse effects as well.

Edited by misterE, 15 November 2013 - 10:19 PM.

  • like x 1
  • dislike x 1
  • Informative x 1

#38 misterE

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

Posted 15 November 2013 - 10:27 PM

It’s my belief that polyunsaturated-fats aren’t used as energy or fuel (like glucose or saturated-fat is). Polyunsaturated-fats are used as hormonal substrate.


I like many things you write, but this is utter nonsense.









Hi Dolph, I respect your opinion. But I really do believe this. That is the reason why polyunsaturated-fats are “anti-metabolic” because they are stored as body-fat (like other fats), but not registered as energy. Omega-3 and omega-6 are hormone precursors with signaling properties.
  • like x 2
  • dislike x 1

#39 Thorsten3

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

Posted 05 March 2014 - 12:21 PM

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?


If you think this statement is true, look at the hardcore 80/10/10ers who are probably the skinniest people on earth. They consume 3,000-5,000 calories per day from fruits. Fat gain? Fructose doesn't make you fat. Being a former fruitarian myself, I can definitely tell you that fruit will lean you out more than anything you've ever tried. Fruit is pretty much superior to starch in every area that I can think of, although, I wouldn't mind it being more anabolic in nature, like starch. That's one cool thing about insulin that I do like.

Starch, on the other hand, definitely feeds endotoxins and will sit around in your gut for far longer than fruit. It's nowhere near as nutritious as fruit, and certainly causes issues with your blood sugar (which then has knock on effects affecting your appetite, and degree of satiability). If you do have to eat lots of starch, make sure you eat fruits during your day, at strategic moments, to protect your inevitable dipping blood sugar levels from starch consumption. But then, you should be eating lots of fruits on a starch based diet anyway, because the nutritional quality of rice and potato is not something a healthy person would be basing their diet on.
  • Informative x 2

#40 Gerrans

  • Guest
  • 371 posts
  • 60
  • Location:UK

Posted 06 March 2014 - 02:16 AM

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.


I think processed foods with a lot of fat, sugar, and salt in them might evade satiety signals, leading--as the food designers intend--to overeating. But I believe that non-engineered fat is satiating.

I carried out a series of self-experiments on the satiating quality of fats, in which I ate nothing but certain individual fats on certain days. The following all produced satiation: coconut oil, butter, virgin olive oil, virgin peanut oil, and virgin walnut oil. I believe the mechanism involves the sphincter between the stomach and the small intestine, which acts to prevent more fat coming through than the body can process at a time. Coconut oil was the most satiating--beyond a certain point, eating any more became impossible. The effect lasts for many hours.

Try this: on one day, set out to eat 1500 calories of coconut oil and nothing else. Spread it out over as long a timeframe as you like. I will be very surprised if you can do it.

Edited by Gerrans, 06 March 2014 - 02:21 AM.

  • like x 1

#41 Gerrans

  • Guest
  • 371 posts
  • 60
  • Location:UK

Posted 06 March 2014 - 02:27 AM

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?


If you think this statement is true, look at the hardcore 80/10/10ers who are probably the skinniest people on earth. They consume 3,000-5,000 calories per day from fruits. Fat gain? Fructose doesn't make you fat. Being a former fruitarian myself, I can definitely tell you that fruit will lean you out more than anything you've ever tried. Fruit is pretty much superior to starch in every area that I can think of, although, I wouldn't mind it being more anabolic in nature, like starch. That's one cool thing about insulin that I do like.

Starch, on the other hand, definitely feeds endotoxins and will sit around in your gut for far longer than fruit. It's nowhere near as nutritious as fruit, and certainly causes issues with your blood sugar (which then has knock on effects affecting your appetite, and degree of satiability). If you do have to eat lots of starch, make sure you eat fruits during your day, at strategic moments, to protect your inevitable dipping blood sugar levels from starch consumption. But then, you should be eating lots of fruits on a starch based diet anyway, because the nutritional quality of rice and potato is not something a healthy person would be basing their diet on.


Fruit might be technically superior to starch, but, for my part, I cannot eat my daily calories in fruit: it is just too much to get through. On the other hand a combination of fruit and starchy foods such as bananas and potatoes is manageable and enjoyable. Hats off to these people who can eat 3,000-5,000 calories of fruit a day. Do they take a wheelbarrow for their weekly shop?

Edited by Gerrans, 06 March 2014 - 02:27 AM.


#42 theconomist

  • Member
  • 314 posts
  • 137
  • Location:France

Posted 14 March 2014 - 01:21 AM

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?


If you think this statement is true, look at the hardcore 80/10/10ers who are probably the skinniest people on earth. They consume 3,000-5,000 calories per day from fruits. Fat gain? Fructose doesn't make you fat. Being a former fruitarian myself, I can definitely tell you that fruit will lean you out more than anything you've ever tried. Fruit is pretty much superior to starch in every area that I can think of, although, I wouldn't mind it being more anabolic in nature, like starch. That's one cool thing about insulin that I do like.

Starch, on the other hand, definitely feeds endotoxins and will sit around in your gut for far longer than fruit. It's nowhere near as nutritious as fruit, and certainly causes issues with your blood sugar (which then has knock on effects affecting your appetite, and degree of satiability). If you do have to eat lots of starch, make sure you eat fruits during your day, at strategic moments, to protect your inevitable dipping blood sugar levels from starch consumption. But then, you should be eating lots of fruits on a starch based diet anyway, because the nutritional quality of rice and potato is not something a healthy person would be basing their diet on.


Fruit might be technically superior to starch, but, for my part, I cannot eat my daily calories in fruit: it is just too much to get through. On the other hand a combination of fruit and starchy foods such as bananas and potatoes is manageable and enjoyable. Hats off to these people who can eat 3,000-5,000 calories of fruit a day. Do they take a wheelbarrow for their weekly shop?


Just tried making a fruit only diet at 3000 kcal on cronometer. It's possible w/o needing any supplements beyond b12 and D as usual but you'd be eating half a kilo of sugar a day.
Then again many people consume this amount with a diet which doesn't even include the benefits fruits give you . Interesting thing too: 7 kgs will give you all your micronutrients needs for a day. You'll only be eating 1600 kcal but 200g of protein and carbs. Great omega 3 to 6 ratio too. Only bad thing about this spinach only diet is (besides chowing down on 7kg of spinach a day) the 5.5g of sodium you'll be eating daily. But with such a diet I doubt high blood pressure will be your number 1 issue. - cronometer is great at 2 am when you're bored .

#43 Gerrans

  • Guest
  • 371 posts
  • 60
  • Location:UK

Posted 15 March 2014 - 05:39 PM

Just tried making a fruit only diet at 3000 kcal on cronometer. It's possible w/o needing any supplements beyond b12 and D as usual but you'd be eating half a kilo of sugar a day.
Then again many people consume this amount with a diet which doesn't even include the benefits fruits give you


When I have experimented with eating all my daily calories in non-starchy fruit--which for me is about 1900 calories' worth--I had some digestive issues. I was expecting to have these in the lower gut, but in fact they developed in my mid chest, somewhat under the ribcage to the left, which is where my pancreas is, I think. This was concerning because, whereas I have occasionally had pains around the liver/gall bladder from eating too much food or too much rich food, I had never had pains on the opposite side. I do not know if this had to do with the amount of fructose I was getting down. I wonder if what happened was related to the state Ashton Kutcher got into from eating a fruitarian diet? (He was taken to hospital, where pancreatic issues were discovered.)

I would not normally worry about fructose in fruit, because it is hard to eat too much of it in a normal diet. But when you are eating literal heaps of fruit, it seems to me that fructose overload is possible. At any rate, I concluded that not only is eating nothing but fruit hard work and (for me) tedious, but it is unlikely to be very good for me. It is one thing to plan a day's (non-starchy) fruit eating on a website or in a notebook, but the physical reality of such a diet is no picnic.

By the way, in case anyone is interested, I found I lost weight (I am normal weight) eating all my calories in either non-starchy fruits or non-starchy vegetables. Which was intriguing to discover, because in theory my weight should have been maintained by eating maintenance calories. Something similar, I remember, was found in the Paignton Zoo raw food study, where people were provided with their maintenance calories but lost weight. (That study was designed to see if the subjects' blood pressures would go down and was not intended to make them lose weight.)

Edited by Gerrans, 15 March 2014 - 05:51 PM.


#44 rwac

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

Posted 15 March 2014 - 07:06 PM

By the way, in case anyone is interested, I found I lost weight (I am normal weight) eating all my calories in either non-starchy fruits or non-starchy vegetables. Which was intriguing to discover, because in theory my weight should have been maintained by eating maintenance calories. Something similar, I remember, was found in the Paignton Zoo raw food study, where people were provided with their maintenance calories but lost weight. (That study was designed to see if the subjects' blood pressures would go down and was not intended to make them lose weight.)


Yes, consuming a lot of sugars will increase your metabolism. What sort of fruits, if you don't mind my asking.
One of the big catches with such a diet is probably inadequate good (animal) protein.
Other potential issues are inadequate calcium/copper/zinc etc
Even inadequate sodium with an abundance of potassium of such a diet can cause problems.

#45 Gerrans

  • Guest
  • 371 posts
  • 60
  • Location:UK

Posted 16 March 2014 - 11:46 AM

Yes, consuming a lot of sugars will increase your metabolism. What sort of fruits, if you don't mind my asking.
One of the big catches with such a diet is probably inadequate good (animal) protein.
Other potential issues are inadequate calcium/copper/zinc etc
Even inadequate sodium with an abundance of potassium of such a diet can cause problems.


I left out higher calorie fruit, such as banana and avocado, and I ate cherries, grapes, strawberries, oranges, melon, apple, pear, kiwi, etc. I took my normal supplements, though.

On some other occasions I ate a banana-only diet (just for experiment's sake), and I found that much easier to stomach, because a day's calories was only about 16 bananas, which is manageable. Did not lose any weight on bananas. Same thing with potatoes. But I found eating my calories in non-starchy vegetables impossible: in three big meals I was still struggling to do more than about 1200 calories.

*

As far as insulin and glucose go, I never measure my levels. But I only ever get a postprandial slump if I massively overeat. This makes me suspect that for most non-diabetics, blood sugar is unlikely to get out of hand if one stays at a good weight and does not overeat. So--famous last words--I eat a high-carb (no junk) diet and do not worry about blood sugar.





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

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users