52 replies to this topic

[misterE]

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.

[misterE]

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.

[Hebbeh]

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.

[Adaptogen]

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

[Dolph]

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.

[rwac]

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"

[misterE]

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.

[misterE]

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.

[Thorsten3]

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.

[Gerrans]

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.

[Gerrans]

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.

[theconomist]

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 .

[Gerrans]

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.

[rwac]

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.

[Gerrans]

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.

[QuestforLife]

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.

 

Thanks for this super interesting thread, I can't believe I never spotted it before now.

 

I've tried various things, keto, carnivore, high-saturated fat diet - so I know from personal experience that many of the things you are saying are true.

 

What does your diet look like now, are you still focused on starchy foods? Do you eat 3 meals a day? What about alcohol consumption?

 

Thanks in advance.

[sensei]

An insulinogenic diet will age your cells and body prematurely by chronically OVER ACTIVATING MTORC1.

"Insulin also directly activates MTORC1"

https://www.ncbi.nlm...les/PMC5707648/

MTORC1 activation inhibits SIRT and autophagy, as well as primes and/or DIRECTLY ACTIVATES the NLRP3 inflammasome.

Chronic MTORC1 activation in combination with a high insulinogenic diet is seen in two very specific groups: lineman in the NFL (American Football) and SUMO.

It is of note, both populations have a drastically reduced life expectancy of approximately 60 years.

[Phoebus]

Its important to note that not all insulin spikes are equal 

 

drink some coke/pepsi and your insulin will spike up hard, then drop down hard. Not good. 

 

Eat some beans (which have lots of fiber) and your insulin will gently slope up, then gently slope down. 

 

These two are not the same! The spike up hard then down hard is very rough on your arteries in a way the gentle spike up and gentle slope down is not. So lets at least acknowledge that going forward and not pretend that a pepsi insulin spike and a bean insulin spike are the same. 

[QuestforLife]

Its important to note that not all insulin spikes are equal

drink some coke/pepsi and your insulin will spike up hard, then drop down hard. Not good.

Eat some beans (which have lots of fiber) and your insulin will gently slope up, then gently slope down.

These two are not the same! The spike up hard then down hard is very rough on your arteries in a way the gentle spike up and gentle slope down is not. So lets at least acknowledge that going forward and not pretend that a pepsi insulin spike and a bean insulin spike are the same.

Perhaps you are right. But I look at it slightly differently. What is often overlooked is fasting insulin level. This seems to be correlated with being over weight and developing diabetes.

So sharp spikes in insulin may be harmful, but to my mind the most important thing is for your insulin level to return to a very low level, particularly over night, and not remain chronically active.

[Phoebus]

I agree but the spiking your insulin hard up and down with simple sugars is a great way to mess up your fasting insulin levels. Insulin spikes from beans or high fiber fruit is not going to do that. 

[Woody42]

Here is an interesting little vidio about a low fat, low protein and high carb diet.  Sorry for the brief commercial.

 

 

[Harkijn]

Thanks for posting this video! For me was new that a short period of very low protein intake is already enough to have a measurable effect on for instance blood pressure.

Those who want to counter sarcopenia will combine resistance training with some supplementary protein but they could vary with short periods of very low protein intake. I am doing resistance training  myself and I am certainly going to test this approach.

Edited by Harkijn, 13 February 2022 - 11:49 AM.

[Woody42]

Here is an article about protein timing and muscle building indicating if we simply ate most of our protein earlier in the day we wouldn't need as much to build muscle.  Then I read a mouse study where the sweetener alluose  helped older mice retain lean body mass so I just wonder if that worked in humans if using alluose and having most of our protein at breakfast might complement each other and let us lower our protein requirement even more.  

 

https://www.scienced...007129?via=ihub