Showing posts with label hormone - insulin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hormone - insulin. Show all posts

10.7.11

"Insulin spikes = fat gain" - more doubts expressed

My Carb Sane-Asylum: See? I Told You So!!

by Carbsane:

I've got to say, I about fell off my chair reading the following comment from Stephan Guyenet over at Whole Health Source blog as it flittered through my feed reader. In response to a comment by Thomas, basically asking if insulin surges or calories ultimately govern weight loss/gain, Stephan had this to say:
Yes, the excess calorie consumption is the key. Insulin spikes do not increase food intake unless they cause hypoglycemia. In fact, insulin is kind of like leptin's kid brother: it acts in the brain to constrain fat mass.
Also, insulin is co-secreted with amylin, which also constrains fat mass by increasing satiation and possibly leptin sensitivity.

All this postprandial insulin spikes = fat gain stuff is nonsense as far as I can tell. I still haven't seen a shred of convincing evidence to support it, and in fact, the evidence I've seen mostly supports the opposite hypothesis, that insulin spikes oppose fat gain. The idea that postprandial insulin causes fat gain is contradicted by the most basic empirical facts in both human and animal studies. As I said before, I don't know a single person who studies metabolism/endocrinology professionally who takes that idea seriously-- it is confined to the popular press and internet blogs/forums.
Been saying this and backing it up with citations galore for over a year now. I'm excited to see others finally setting the record straight publicly. First Stephan comes out as a not-so-closet potato eater. Now he's forthrightly rejected Taubes' insulin hypothesis. What next? Dancing with the Stars? Or perhaps the next institution of higher learning inclined to invite Gary Taubes to lecture their medical students might be better served inviting someone else.

2.7.11

Sugar, Estrogen and thyroid disease

The Root of All Evil: Sugar or Estrogen? - The Danny Roddy Weblog - Animal-Based Nutrition For Hair & Health

Extract:

Ray Peat's ideas are unorthodox, thought provoking, and awesome.

No matter what your criticism of him, he is doing his own thing, which I respect. Having said that, it doesn't mean that I didn't think some of his nutritional recommendations were completely batshit insane upon first glance.

I could not even begin to grasp [Peat's decisions] until I remembered a [fasting] technique that Dr. Datis Kharrazian uses to "unwind" insulin resistance in his patients:

Dr. Kharrazian explains that the fast consists of maple syrup, water and freshly squeezed lemon or lime juice. He instructs his patients to sip the syrup drink every 15 minutes during waking hours. Dr. Kharrazian suggests that the fast calms the digestive tracts and decreases inflammation of his patients with Hashimoto's disease (gluten intolerance).

What's with the maple syrup you ask?

27.6.11

Study - inflammation in fat tissue after overeating

Short-term overfeeding may induce peripheral insul... [Diabetes. 2010] - PubMed result

Diabetes. 2010 Sep;59(9):2164-70. Epub 2010 Jun 14.

Short-term overfeeding may induce peripheral insulin resistance without altering subcutaneous adipose tissue macrophages in humans.

Source

Diabetes & Obesity Research Program, Garvan Institute of Medical Research, Sydney, Australia.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:

Chronic low-grade inflammation is a feature of obesity and is postulated to be causal in the development of insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes. The aim of this study was to assess whether overfeeding induces peripheral insulin resistance in lean and overweight humans, and, if so, whether it is associated with increased systemic and adipose tissue inflammation.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS:

Thirty-six healthy individuals undertook 28 days of overfeeding by +1,250 kcal/day (45% fat). Weight, body composition, insulin sensitivity (hyperinsulinemic-euglycemic clamp), serum and gene expression of inflammation markers, immune cell activation, fat cell size, macrophage and T-cell numbers in abdominal subcutaneous adipose tissue (flow cytometry and immunohistochemistry) were assessed at baseline and after 28 days.

RESULTS:

Subjects gained 2.7 +/- 1.6 kg (P < 0.001) and increased fat mass by 1.1 +/- 1.6% (P < 0.001). Insulin sensitivity decreased by 11% from 54.6 +/- 18.7 to 48.9 +/- 15.7 micromol/(kg of FFM)/min (P = 0.01). There was a significant increase in circulating C-reactive protein (P = 0.002) and monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 (P = 0.01), but no change in interleukin-6 and intercellular adhesion molecule-1. There were no changes in fat cell size, the number of adipose tissue macrophages or T-cells, or inflammatory gene expression and no change in circulating immune cell number or expression of their surface activation markers after overfeeding.

CONCLUSIONS:

Weight gain-induced insulin resistance was observed in the absence of a significant inflammatory state, suggesting that inflammation in subcutaneous adipose tissue occurs subsequent to peripheral insulin resistance in humans.

PMID:
20547978
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
PMCID: PMC2927938
[Available on 2011/9/1]
Free full text

LinkOut - more resources

9.6.11

Sugar vs. Starch - Matt Stone on Ray Peat

180 Degree Health: Ray Peat - Sugar vs. Starch: by Matt Stone

Extract:

Insulin converting carbohydrate into fat? That’s not how insulin works at all. In fact, a solid debunking took place a couple months back at http://www.carbsanity.blogspot.com/ in which it was shown that the body is in negative fat balance (burning more fat than storing) during postprandial insulin spikes – like the kind you get after having some good old corn starch. On top of that, the easiest carbohydrate to convert to fat has been shown time and time and time and time and time again to be the one that travels to the liver and is digested most slowly. It’s called fructose. 


Not only does the presence of fat make fat storage easier, if fructose is converted to fat in the liver (which it can be under certain circumstances) it increases insulin resistance, which can lead to increased fat storage (insulin lowers appetite and increases metabolic rate, so becoming unresponsive to the hormone has a tendency to increase appetite and reduce metabolic rate).


Insulin is also intricately tied to leptin, the master hormone of managing the calories in/calories out equation. Surges in insulin cause surges in leptin, which lowers appetite and increases the metabolic rate. Stating that making insulin rise leads to becoming fat is a complete misrepresentation of the bigger picture. In fact, starch-based diets usually lower appetite dramatically, and many starchy foods like potatoes and oats are known to satisfy the appetite on fewer calories than just about any foods known (higher “satiety index”).


Speaking of corn starch specifically, this has actually been used successfully by Francine Kauffman of the American Diabetes Association in the prevention of early morning hypoglycemia in diabetics – more evidence that absorption rate is not the prime determinant of whether or not a particular carbohydrate goes on to trigger hypoglycemia and general blood glucose dysregulation.


Anyway, don’t get the wrong idea here. I’ve been eating simple sugars in favor of starches myself for many months now and have noticed some apparent benefits. Many seem to do better with sugars than starches for keeping hands and feet warm, producing more energy, getting better sleep – probably due to enhanced liver glycogen storage, and so forth. Many fare better from a digestive standpoint on fruit, juice, and sugar than more complex carbohydrate molecules. Some even report a lowering of appetite on sugar vs. starches, especially with the consumption of whole fruits which, like most starchy staples, are very high satiety index foods. Fruit is also generally more nutritious and hypoallergenic.


So be open to either, or a combination of the two. It’s up to everyone to experiment for themselves to see what the relative benefits and drawbacks of the two basic types of carbohydrates are. But the point here is to shoot down Peat’s wacky and erroneous biochemical justification of the outright superiority of sugar over starch. There is not a clear cut right or wrong carbohydrate, and the mainstream belief that “complex” carbohydrates are superior to simple sugars is not the result of a governmental or agribusiness conspiracy.


In the next episode, we will continue looking closer at Ray’s cookie-cutter and false portrayal of insulin as being a hormone that, if driven up, will drive blood sugar down and cause hypoglycemia. Don’t worry, Ray’s got some tremendous gems in this article as well, as he is one of the few that actually does have some understanding of type 2 diabetes, realizes that it is a shortage, not a surplus of glucose at the cellular level, and so on.


For more discussion on the sugar and starch issue, read this free book on how to raise your metabolism.

Befriending Insulin - Starch Lowers Insulin

Befriending Insulin  by Matt Stone:

Make no mistake, there are some insulin haters out there. They have managed to pollute the minds of good folks like you and me into thinking that insulin is like Insulin Bin Laden – a bad dude with no redeeming qualities.














Newcomers to www.180degreehealth.com are often still under the influence of low-carbism. Yeah, I know Taubes had a lot of references. I get it. I read the book multiple times as well as many of the references which provide ample refutation to the belief that carbohydrates are inherently toxic and lead to obesity and metabolic disease (like the works of T.L. Cleave and Denis Burkitt for starters).

But insulin is a beautiful thing. Insulin, for starters, helps take food energy out of our bloodstream after digestion takes place and packs it away into muscle cells. Wow! I bet that feels really good, stimulates your metabolism, improves your immune system, satisfies your appetite, and makes your muscles grow…. It does.

The problem is, most people’s bodies are NOT working correctly, and the muscle cells are resistant to insulin. This is where the problem lies, and there is no single piece of evidence the world over that suggests, in the slightest degree, that unrefined carbohydrate staples consumed by human beings over the past 10,000 years has anything to do with causing that dysfunction.

So the problem is the overcompensation that occurs when insulin is not communicating with muscle cells efficiently. The result is that the benefits of insulin are not realized by the body. It’s kinda like water. You only get the benefits of water for cellular hydration if you drink with your mouth open.

One of insulin’s wonderful qualities in preventing obesity and metabolic disease is the fact that it is a primary satiating hormone. Yeah Taubes, you heard me. The only reason in animal studies that little critters ate themselves to death when insulin was injected is because insulin lowers blood sugar – and the animals kept eating and eating and eating in order to keep from dying from hypoglycemia.

Insulin, in the ABSENCE of food, definitely isn’t satiating. It’s deadly.

But insulin, under normal circumstances, is an appetite suppressant.

Insulin is also the primary driver of muscle growth. Because it packs amino acids and glucose needed for muscle growth into muscle cells, muscle tissue cannot be added very efficiently without insulin present in sizeable quantity.

Because of this, among other actions of insulin (such as working in concert with leptin to raise metabolism, suppress appetite, increase lipolysis/fat burning, and so forth), insulin is a profound stimulator of the metabolic rate as well – which is probably why very low-carbohydrate diets, and low-calorie diets, produce huge drops in T3 – the active hormone that regulates metabolism.

Along with the drop in T3 comes drops in testosterone as well – another of the primary hormones involved in building muscle mass and decreasing body fat, which depends upon ample amounts of insulin to be stimulated.

Insulin also works on an axis with the catecholamines – which includes cortisol. When insulin goes up, adrenal activity falls. When insulin goes down, adrenal activity picks up. Keep insulin too low for too long and you run the risk of adrenal fatigue. You are also likely to increase the activity of cortisol (which, unlike carbohydrate ingestion, actually DOES cause insulin resistance) by keeping insulin levels suppressed, which increases insulin resistance, decreases testosterone, decreases fat burning, and otherwise takes you ever-closer to metabolic syndrome.

The result is more body fat and less lean muscle tissue – not to mention a slower metabolism in general, which all ties into the fact that your muscle cells are literally starving. There is no insulin to pump vital matter into cells when insulin is low, and if you return to eating lots of carbohydrates, they are very fattening until the point at which your cortisol levels fall, your metabolism rises, your insulin resistance decreases, and then… finally, your muscle cells start receiving nutrients and you feel better for once - something nearly everyone patient enough to give RRARF a full course has experienced in full. 

The point of this post is simple. You NEED insulin. Insulin can do some amazing things for you, first and foremost allow you to experience life at your full physical potential. But you have to be insulin sensitive to receive those benefits.

The ever-popular way to deal with insulin resistance by taking carbohydrates away from a person may have all kinds of benefits in the short-term. This is because chronically-high insulin levels as a result of insulin resistance (not caused by unrefined carbs) are lowered, and many other systems are able to come into balance because of this drop in insulin.

However, it is a dead end, and is not fixing the problem. Eventually, a person on a low-carb diet will run into negative symptoms of insulin deficiency, such as decreased metabolic rate, suppressed fat burning, weight regain, lowered testosterone, decreased immune function, and so forth. This takes a lot longer to take place in an overweight, insulin resistant person, and happens VERY quickly in an insulin sensitive lean person that has no business being on a low-carb diet in the first place.

Insulin resistance, most likely, is a development that takes place as an anti-starvation system in the body – preventing fat burning while also preventing energy from being packed into muscle cells where it would raise the metabolism and build calorically-expensive muscle tissue. As we’ve discussed and will continue to discuss, the human famine response exists to prevent starvation, but any chronic form of stress from sleep deprivation to anxiety to chronic inflammation or dental infection to overexercising to nutrient deficiency is capable of triggering that chain of hormonal events… a theme seen in response to all kinds of deficiencies and stressors according to the work of true health pioneers (not to discredit Suzanne Somers, Susan Powter, or my favorite Richard Simmons) such as Robert McCarrison and Hans Selye.

The best way to bring metabolic syndrome under control? Eat unrefined, nutritious foods to appetite or beyond without severe macronutrient restriction (but an emphasis on starch to increase insulin sensitivity and lower cortisol most quickly), get lots of rest and relaxation, lots of sleep, and whatever else you can do to minimize your burden of stress, inflammation, etc. – ranging from having root canals pulled to treating sleep apnea to decreasing the omega 6 polyunsaturated fat content of your diet. Read more about this strategy that I call RRARF (Rehabilitative Rest and Aggressive Re-Feeding) in THIS FREE EBOOK.

Ironically, the hyperinsulinemia epidemic that is sweeping the globe is best solved by befriending insulin and eating plenty of high-quality, nutritious, starchy carbohydrates (as well as other foods that stimulate insulin, like beef and cheese.... mmm, cheeseburger). Going to war against insulin with a low-carbohydrate or low-calorie diet may result in many victorious battles, but that war can never be won on a collective basis with that strategy… Even if a large percentage of people could follow such a diet long-term, which they cannot and never will, because most people’s bodies are too damn smart to let them get away with it for long.

For further reading, I highly recommend THIS Series of  ARTICLES written over the summer by James Krieger (badass) that highlights many of the errors in the low-carb theories about insulin that we’ve been discussing here for the last couple of years with some very new and interesting twists.

Jimmy Moore said...
THANKS for sharing your thoughts on my situation, Matt. It's easy for someone like yourself to analyze somebody like me through the prism of your own basic philosophy. I can respect that because I have a similar perspective on others through the lens of what I've learned over the past few years. This is a continued journey that will not include the addition of carbohydrates to my diet without a purpose and a reason. I think you'd benefit me and your readers more if you would elaborate on what exactly you think will resolve this issue. Looking forward to reading your response.


25.5.11

Low carb - Gary Taubes on the evils of carbohydrates

nb: Scientists now saying carbs, not fat, are to blame for America's ills - latimes.com

below a short abc (US) feature introducing low carb proponent Gary Taubes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Taubes):



in 2002 Taubes first challenged traditional wisdom on the basis for obesity (ie: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/28/health/28zuger.html ) and provoked a lot of debate on accepted dogmas in the process.he advocates a high saturated fat dietary intake.

most recently he has written about the sugar-cancer connection (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.html ), with parallels to the the Robert Lustig's disease/sugar thesis

some "Top Comments" from You Tube ( see all ):
  • Gary Taubes is what Galileo was to Copernicus. He has basically taken the discovery of scientists prior to him, who stated that insulin causes fat accumulation, and has made that ignored information known to the masses, and for his generosity, he is experiencing a backlash from those who uphold the prevailing orthodoxy of calories in vs. calories out. I guarantee you, that a generation from now, Taubes will be revered as a science revolutionary along with Atkins, Yudkin, and Lustig.
  • Taubes’s mention of General Mill’s donations to Harvard opened my eyes to the huge influence corporations can have on top research institutions. This is an unavoidable consequence of the fact that scientific endeavors require huge amounts of time and money. I am also surprised about the scientific validity of the Atkins diet and the examples Taubes used to counter popular conceptions of obesity e.g. the Fat Louisa paradox and early twentieth century research on adiposity.

links below to 3 lectures by Taubes that reveal his approach in more detail:

Gary Taubes' "Why We Get Fat" IMS Lecture On August 12, 2010 (8 parts + 5 extras)

http://youtu.be/_WWCCUPmZcQ
http://youtu.be/dSAZ1voWjGU
http://youtu.be/xGsbszZeGIo
http://youtu.be/ph5v9iSHFYI
http://youtu.be/IDa7FxG79M4
http://youtu.be/okYWkh9YXcA
http://youtu.be/MZuEn9y5MIc
http://youtu.be/sKIhYQZuLZ8
bonus 1 - http://youtu.be/Kzs3YUSUnCA
bonus 2 - http://youtu.be/v693v3D-UeA
bonus 3 - http://youtu.be/iaZ0NWzqYDI
bonus 4 - http://youtu.be/NYSbFZSukJE
bonus 5 - http://youtu.be/tGTgpGeSH_E


Gary Taubes at Dartmouth 6/5/2009 (6 parts)

http://youtu.be/jIGV9VOOtew
http://youtu.be/cQlADI7omUQ
http://youtu.be/yEP-0TNVCEw
http://youtu.be/4SNC6Q8FcBY
http://youtu.be/HiEtsVPUXmo
http://youtu.be/XMzgo932JIw
http://youtu.be/BXaPr5v1a6k


UC Berkeley: Gary Taubes 11/7/2007 (10 parts)

http://youtu.be/_Y7cVmjFRC4
http://youtu.be/hGHgOata-IA
http://youtu.be/imX5fdR5dHk
http://youtu.be/e7W1Zpy0DtU
http://youtu.be/uhyCQ0wGFWI
http://youtu.be/qcTinoYDjtk
http://youtu.be/DZwOE1OEpsY
http://youtu.be/P2NboETKEyM
http://youtu.be/SheJ6SJSaos

Taubes has some energetic detractors ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-jbDwkHzlI&feature=fvwrel )

"Sugar: The Bitter Truth" - Dr Robert Lustig

nb: Scientists now saying carbs, not fat, are to blame for America's ills - latimes.com

first an abbreviated version of the celebrated 90 minute lecture given by Dr Robert Lustig (see here: http://youtu.be/dBnniua6-oM ) on the health impact of dietary sugar:



the broader news media have now caught on to Lustig - see example here: