Whole Health Source: Insulin Resistance Predicts a Variety of Age-related Diseases

Insulin Resistance Predicts a Variety of Age-related Diseases

Thursday, June 4, 2015

In the last post, I reviewed a study by Gerald Reaven's group showing
that insulin resistance strongly predicts the risk of cardiovascular
disease over a 5-year period.  In 2001, Reaven's group published an even
more striking follow-up result from the same cohort (1).
 This study shows that not only does insulin resistance predict
cardiovascular disease risk, it also predicts a variety of age-related
diseases, including hypertension, coronary heart disease, stroke,
cancer, type 2 diabetes, and even overall mortality risk.





The study



The study was very similar to the previous one: first, they recruited
147 lean and overweight middle-aged volunteers without diabetes or
diagnosed cardiovascular disease.  Then, they measured the volunteers'
insulin sensitivity.  While most studies of this nature indirectly
estimate insulin sensitivity simply by using a formula based on fasting
insulin and glucose measurements (HOMA-IR), which can be inaccurate,
Reaven's group directly measured insulin sensitivity using a gold
standard method**.



Next, they waited 6 years and watched who developed a variety of diseases over that period.



The results



As in the previous study, they divided the volunteers into three
equal-sized groups based on their degree of insulin resistance. Group I
had the lowest level of insulin resistance, group II had an intermediate
level, and group III had the highest level.  The following graph
illustrates the number of people who were diagnosed with disease (and/or
died) in each group over the course of the study:

As you can see, over the 6-year period, none of the people in the least insulin-resistant group developed disease or died.  In contrast, 36 percent
of the people in the most insulin-resistant group developed disease
and/or died, from a variety of causes including hypertension, coronary
heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes, and cancer.  People in the
middle group had an intermediate rate of disease.



This is an incredibly striking result.



Again, people who were most insulin-sensitive also had a variety of
other healthy signs, including less body fatness, higher physical
activity, lower blood pressure, lower levels of LDL ("bad") cholesterol,
and the higher levels of HDL ("good") cholesterol.  And again, after
mathematically adjusting for all of these other factors, "only insulin
resistance was an independent predictor of the 40 age-related clinical
events."



Discussion



Many researchers, including myself, believe that insulin resistance is a
central feature of a metabolic dysfunction syndrome that drives much of
the chronic disease of the modern affluent world.  Reaven's results
strongly support this contention, since they show that insulin
resistance clusters not only with a variety of other metabolic
disturbances, but also with the risk of a variety of common chronic
diseases.



These results don't allow us to know whether insulin resistance caused
the other metabolic disturbances and/or diseases, rather than simply
being associated with them, but other research gives us good reason to
suspect that it does play at least somewhat of a causal role.  Insulin
resistance is intimately involved in the development of type 2 diabetes,
which is itself damaging to the cardiovascular system.  Insulin
resistance also contributes to disturbed blood lipid levels, including
elevated LDL particle number and reduced HDL-cholesterol, which further
damage cardiovascular health.  The relationship of insulin resistance
with cancer is less straightforward, but the elevated insulin levels
that accompany insulin resistance are thought to drive the progression
of certain cancers.  Also, insulin resistance is typically associated
with chronic, low-grade inflammation, another factor that can promote
the development of cancer.



Even though insulin resistance and elevated insulin levels don't reliably predict weight gain over time (2, 3),
insulin resistance does predict chronic disease risk.  This suggests
that even though insulin resistance probably doesn't play a major role
in body fatness, it's still a metabolic characteristic we should care
quite a bit about.

Posted by



Stephan Guyenet




at

9:57 AM

what whole wheat bread, sugar, and vegetable oil does to the cells of your body (STOP eating these)

The Fat Burning Kitchen - Foods that Burn Fat, Foods that Make You Fat



Here's EXACTLY what whole wheat bread, sugar, and vegetable oil does to the cells of your body (STOP eating these)



These foods are silently KILLING you and
your family, causing Diabetes, Heart Disease, Cancer & excess body
fat... I'll also show you why you should eat MORE foods such as
delicious butter, cream, cheese, coconut fat, avocados and juicy
steaks.  If this sounds odd to you, I'll explain more in the article
below...



by Mike Geary, aka 'The Nutrition Watchdog'

Certified Nutrition Specialist, Best-Selling Author

  Invalid date 

You often hear vague claims in the news that "sugar is bad for you" or that "wheat and gluten are bad for you", but do you truly understand what these foods do to your insides?



Most people DON'T understand the reasons... and the fact is that some
of the foods I listed in the article title above can not only DESTROY your hormones and metabolism, but can also CAUSE you to get heart disease, type 2 diabetes, Alzheimers, and even cancer.



Not only that, but as you'll see below, there's a common plant-based
food that you probably eat in restaurants frequently (I bet you ate this
at least ONCE in the last week), and this common plant food is proven to CAUSE heart attacks!  You'll see what I mean as you read the article below.



We'll also show you exactly what you need to understand to eat in a
way that BOOSTS your metabolism, balances hormones, PREVENTS heart
attacks, STOPS cancer from forming in your body, and assures that you
NEVER get type 2 diabetes, regardless of your "bad genetics".



So let's get right to it...





Why Wheat is KILLING you -- Yes, even "whole wheat"



There are 3 main reasons why wheat is a terrible food for your body and does more harm than good...





Reason
#1 -- Wheat causes blood sugar disruption, Glycation of your cells,
increases AGING, weight gain & boosts Diabetes risk







Before I tell you why wheat can actually speed up the aging process
in your body, let's clarify some simple biochemistry in your body...



This deals with "glycation" in your body, and substances called Advanced Glycation End Products (AGEs).  These nasty little compounds called AGEs speed up the aging process in your body including damage over time to your organs, your joints, and of course, wrinkled skin.



So with that said, what is one of the biggest factors that increase
production of AGEs inside your body?  This may surprise you, but high blood sugar levels
over time dramatically increase age-accelerating AGEs in your body. 
This is why type 2 diabetics many times appear that they have not aged
well and look older than their real age.  But this age-increasing effect
is NOT just limited to diabetics.



So, let's get back to how "whole wheat" relates to this...



Here is a little-known fact that's often covered up by the massive
marketing campaigns by giant food companies that want you to believe
that "whole wheat" is healthy for you... but the fact is that wheat
contains a very unusual type of carbohydrate (not found in other foods) called Amylopectin-A, which has been found in some tests to spike your blood sugar HIGHER than even pure table sugar.



In fact, amylopectin-A (from wheat) raises your blood sugar MORE than
almost any other carbohydrate source on earth based on blood sugar
response testing that's documented in studies.



This means that wheat-based foods such as breads, bagels, cereals, muffins, and other baked goods
often cause MUCH higher blood sugar levels than most other carbohydrate
sources.  If you don't believe me, here's something you should know... I
ran personal blood sugar tests on myself using a blood glucometer about
45 minutes after eating 2 slices of wheat bread vs eating a bowl of
oatmeal, with equivalent grams of carbohydrates.



The blood sugar test results of wheat vs oatmeal:



2 slices of whole wheat toast:

45 minutes after consumption:  Blood sugar spiked from 86 fasting level to 155



1 Bowl of Oatmeal (equivalent grams of carbs to 2 slices wheat toast)

45 minutes after consumption:   Blood sugar increased from 86 fasting level to 112



As you know now, the higher your average blood sugar levels are over
time, the more AGEs are formed inside your body, which makes you age
FASTER.  Clearly, the whole wheat spiked blood sugar MUCH higher than
the oatmeal, and if you don't know, 155 is a massive blood sugar reading
that will certainly contribute to faster aging if you eat wheat
frequently... and most people eat wheat without even thinking about it
at almost EVERY meal...Yikes!



Not only that, but the high blood sugar spikes caused by wheat also makes your body pump out more insulin which makes you pack on more body fat... Not fun at all!



These massive blood sugar spikes from eating wheat daily also cause damage over time to your blood sugar regulation system, harming your pancreas, causing insulin resistance, and eventually causing type 2 Diabetes.  I think we have a strong case against eating so-called "healthy" wheat!





Reason #2 -- Gluten and other gut-damaging compounds



The
topic of gluten is on fire in the media lately... But most people are
confused as to whether there's any real health risks with gluten for the
average person that doesn't have Celiac disease.



The truth is that even if you are not officially "gluten intolerant" or "gluten sensitive", there are hundreds of published studies that indicate that gluten can cause inflammation in your digestive system, and even cause "permeability" in your gut, which can lead to a health condition that's on the rise lately called Leaky Gut, as well as other digestive issues and autoimmune problems.



Scientists theorize that the reason gluten is causing these digestive
system problems is due to the excessive hybridization of wheat over the
last 50 years, which has created newly modified gluten molecules that
are foreign to the human digestive system compared to the ancient wheat
that humans ate for several thousand years historically, and even
compared to the wheat that your grandparents ate 50+ years ago.





Reason #3 -- Antinutrients and mineral blockers in wheat



The third reason that wheat is terrible for you is that it contains what's called "antinutrients",
which are naturally occurring compounds in the wheat plant, but can
cause undesirable effects in humans that eat too much of them.  One of
these antinutrients is called phytates, which blocks the
absorption in your body of certain minerals like zinc, iron, manganese,
and calcium if you eat wheat too often.



Again, most people eat wheat with almost every meal (cereal in the
morning, bread on sandwich at lunch, and pasta or bread at dinner), so
this can cause a mineral deficiency in your body over time that leads to many health conditions.



Wheat has other mineral blockers and antinutrients aside from
phytates, such as lectins.  Lectins are another constituent of wheat
that causes gut irritation.  Yet another reason to minimize or eliminate
wheat from your diet.  There's absolutely nothing "essential" about
wheat in the human diet...It simply does more harm than good...period.



Many people often ask me... "But what about the FIBER in wheat?  I thought that's why it's supposed to be healthy?"



Sorry, you can get ALL of the fiber you need from fruits, veggies,
and nuts, without the digestive system damage and massive blood sugar
issues that are caused by wheat.



Note:  It's
important to keep reading this page because I'll show you how to get
access to ALL of my best secrets for AVOIDING wheat, but still eating
amazingly delicious meals that BOOST your metabolism, BALANCE your
hormones, FIGHT diabetes & cancer, and also help reduce abdominal
fat.  It's easier than you think, so don't think that eating healthy has
to be "boring" like so many people foolishly believe.





Why Vegetable oil is KILLING you...



Although
vegetable oil has a healthy sounding name, it's NOT made from
vegetables...As you might already know, vegetable oil actually comes
from any combination of corn oil, soybean oil, canola oil, safflower
oil, and/or cottonseed oil, ALL of which are absolutely terrible for
your health.



In fact, they are downright deadly, and I'm not exaggerating.  Here's why...





Reason #1 -- Vegetable oils usually contain deadly trans fats, even if non-hydrogenated



You already KNOW that trans fats are deadly, so I won't go into all
of the science as to why trans fats kill you and DAMAGE your cell
membranes in your body...leading to all sorts of scary health problems
like cancer, obesity, Alzheimer's, heart disease, and more.



Knowing these facts, I'm sure you already know to stay away from
foods that contain partially hydrogenated vegetable oils. You've heard
that a million times before.



However, what you probably DON'T know is that even non-hydrogenated
vegetable oils (all vegetable oils are refined) also contain some trans
fats due to the extremely high heat, solvents, and pressure they are
exposed to during the refining process.  And yes, this includes
so-called "expeller pressed" vegetable oils as well.



All of this high heat and high pressure processing along with the use
of hexane solvents actually forces some of the polyunsaturated content
of vegetable oils (yes, even so-called "healthy" canola oil) to be
transformed into trans fats and something even worse that we'll talk
about in a minute called "MegaTrans".



According to Dr. Mary Enig, PhD, and Nutritional Biochemist, "Although
the Canadian government lists the trans fat content of canola at a
minimal 0.2 percent, research at the University of Florida at
Gainesville, found trans fat levels as high as 4.6 percent in commercial
liquid canola oil".



And this is the garbage that the government and giant food
conglomerates are marketing to you as a "healthy oil"!  Don't fall for
it.





Reason #2 -- Vegetable oils contain oxidized "mutated fats" that are worse than trans fat & CAUSE heart attacks



All
vegetable oils contain oxidized fats due to the refining process and
chemical reactions with the polyunsaturated fat content of vegetable
oils.  Expert Nutrition author, Catherine Shanahan, MD, calls the fats
in vegetable oils "MegaTrans", because they are similar in chemistry to
trans fats, but even WORSE.



And MegaTrans from vegetable oils are found in almost ALL processed packaged foods, as well as virtually ALL restaurant fryers.



French Fries proven to immediately harm your arteries after eating them:



Free radicals formed during the refining of vegetable oils create these "mutant" fats, which damage your cell membranes & chromosomes, and create massive inflammation in your body.



The free radicals in vegetable oils also damage your arteries, which can directly lead to a heart attack.  Please be aware that this isn't just a long-term risk of eating vegetable oils daily.  There are also studies that show immediate dysfunction in your arteries, also called endothelial function.



Catherine Shanahan, MD, cites in her book Deep Nutrition a
study from New Zealand that showed that subjects who ate french fries
from a restaurant fryer displayed immediate harm to their endothelial
function of their arteries, going from a normal 7% dilation before eating the french fries to almost NO dilation at all (only 1%) AFTER eating the french fries. This is one thing that can cause a heart attack.



If you think I'm exaggerating, think again... Dr Shanahan also
surveyed hundreds of patients that were admitted to the hospital for a
heart attack, and discovered that every single patient that just had a heart attack had consumed foods made with vegetable oils with their last meal before the heart attack...Scary huh!



Think about THAT next time you order the fries with that sandwich on the menu!  It really is THAT serious.
Always ask to replace french fries that come with most meals with side
veggies, fruit, or a salad instead.  That may very well be the
difference between dying tomorrow or enjoying many more years on this
beautiful planet.







Reason #3 -- Vegetable oils cause massive imbalances with your Omega-6 to Omega-3 fats ratio



One
of the other MAJOR reasons that vegetable oils are killing you is they
are mostly made up of inflammatory omega-6 fats, while having very
little anti-inflammatory omega-3 fats.



The healthiest ratio from the scientific literature appears to be a
ratio of 2:1 or even 1:1 for your omega-6 to omega-3 ratio.  However,
most vegetable oils skew your ratio as high as 20:1 or even 30:1 in
favor of harmful inflammatory omega-6 fats.



And worse yet, these omega-6 fats are NOT the innocent type found in nuts, they are the "mutant" damaged MegaTrans type that harm the tissues of your body.



This Omega fat imbalance can be YET another reason why vegetable oils
lead to heart disease, cancer, obesity, and many other degenerative
diseases that WILL shorten your life significantly if you don't cut out
the vegetable oils ASAP.



As a quick note, the solution to all of these major
problems with vegetable oils is to use healthy oils like coconut oil,
olive oil, macadamia oil, avocado oil, and grass-fed butter, all of
which are MUCH healthier than vegetable oils and don't cause any of the
problems we've described in this section of the article.





Why Sugar is KILLING you... You can't just "burn off" sugar...



You've
heard a million times from health experts, bloggers, and on the news
that sugar is terrible for you, but most people don't truly understand
WHY it's so bad...



In fact, most people falsely think that if they eat
sugar, they can just exercise a little bit harder that day or the next
day so they can "burn it off"... Unfortunately, that kind of thinking
will lead you to an early grave.



It's not as simple as just "burning off sugar" -- It's about what
sugar does internally to the cells of your body, and how sugar gums up
your internal workings, causing disease.



Once again, I'm not exaggerating here, so pay close attention...



If you knew exactly why sugar is so bad for you and exactly what it
does to your cells in your body, I promise that you would think twice
about eating that piece of cake, candy, sugary soft drink, fruit juice,
or ice cream, or feeding them to your children.



Here are just a few of the reasons that sugar is killing you...

• Just like we talked about above with wheat, sugar also causes extreme fluctuations in your blood sugar, and excess blood sugar causes Glycation inside your body, which accelerates the rate of aging of your organs, skin, arteries, and joints.
• Sugar also raises your triglycerides to dangerous levels, which can lead you to heart disease.
• If that weren't bad enough, eating sugar too frequently also causes type 2 diabetes in the long run because you wear out your pancreas and insulin sensitivity.
• And if you need even MORE reasons why sugar will kill you, sugar also slows down your white blood cells, making infection more likely, and even allowing CANCER cells a better chance to form in your body.

Scary stuff huh!



Of course, you already know that sugar makes you fat, and gives you excess calories without any beneficial nutrients whatsoever.



To clarify, when we talk about how much damage sugar does to
your body, we're NOT talking about tiny amounts such as having 5 grams
of sugar from a teaspoon of honey in your tea... Small amounts of
natural sugar like that are not a problem.



The REAL damage occurs when you eat that piece of cake and ingest
40-50 grams of sugar in one sitting, or that bag of candy with 35+ grams
of sugar, or that soft drink with 45 grams of sugar or more... Or even
that so-called "healthy" smoothie at the local smoothie shop that contains a whopping 80 grams of sugar because of all of the fruit syrups they use in them.



Now that you know why sugar, wheat, and vegetable oils
are killing you and your family, maybe you'll think twice about eating
cereals, breads, bagels, muffins, candy, and processed foods or fried
foods from restaurants that are cooked in vegetable oil.



Here are some examples of foods below that you might be eating and
didn't even realize they are making you fatter, and causing diabetes,
heart disease, and cancer...




So-Called "Health Foods" That Are Causing You to GAIN More Body Fat?



I can't tell you how many times I've walked into the kitchen of a
client of mine that has hired me for nutritional counseling, and I'm
shocked by what I see...

Almost every time, I see their kitchen cabinets and fridge LOADED
with foods that they think are "healthy" (or have been deceived by
clever food labels into believing are healthy), but in reality are
fat-storing traps in disguise.

It's not uncommon to see foods such as:

• whole grain breads
• whole grain cereals
• whole grain crackers (more of that wheat that's killing you)
• soy milk
• tofu or "veggie burgers" (non-fermented soy can be harmful to your hormones)
• orange juice (loaded with too much fructose that raises your triglycerides)
• apple juice
• skim milk or homogenized milk
  
  
• margarine (deadly trans fat or even "MegaTrans")
• pre-packaged "diet" dinners 
• sport drinks
• protein bars (most are candy bars in disguise!)
• overly processed meal replacements (with more junk than healthy ingredients)
• rice cakes (massive blood sugar spike)
• pasta (more wheat to age you faster)
• diet ice cream or diet desserts
• so-called "energy" drinks
• low-fat foods (usually replaces fat with more sugar)
• low-carb processed foods
• soybean oil, corn oil, canola oil
• etc, etc

I see this trend over and over again with almost every client when I
first inspect their cabinets and the foods that they were buying that
they thought were healthy.

What they don't realize is that it's these exact foods that are sabotaging their fat loss
efforts, increasing their cravings, throwing their hormones out of
whack, and CAUSING terrible diseases like Diabetes, Heart Disease, and
Cancer.

Your Simple Solution for Eating a Healthy Diet That Promotes Fat Loss (Permanently)

I'm
going to show you that eating for permanent fat loss and prevention of
terrible diseases like diabetes, heart disease or cancer does NOT have
to be complicated.

In fact, if you choose the RIGHT foods, and understand how these
foods react with your body, this method is a way for you to
automatically attain the right calorie level without the need to EVER
count calories again.

That's why I've teamed up with expert nutrition researcher, Catherine Ebeling, and we've co-authored this new program for you:

The Fat Burning Kitchen  

Your 24-Hour Diet Transformation to Make Your Body a Fat-Burning Machine

Inside this brand new program, you'll find:

• The true secret to making calorie-counting obsolete... this is the same principle that will automatically eliminate your cravings
  and control your appetite permanently (it's the same reason that I
  personally haven't had a real "craving" in at least 7 years) -- pg 1-2
• The truth about polyunsaturated fats (omega-6's and omega-3's) that most food companies don't want you to know -- pg.18
• Which protein bars or energy bars are actually candy bars in disguise and which bars are actually good for you -- pg.50
• The real deal on saturated fat and cholesterol, and why they are essential in your diet -- pg.59  (Without enough saturated fats and cholesterol in your diet, you can actually HARM your hormone balance)
• The "whole grain" deception and why whole grain crackers, breads, and cereals are packing more bodyfat on you -- pg.9
• Why that skim milk may not be so good for you after all, and the dirty truth about homogenized milk too -- pg.29
• The one time when tilapia and salmon are NOT health foods (plus the best alternatives) -- pg.36
• A healthy fat-burning burger option?  Yes -- pg.60
• Why soymilk, tofu, and veggie burgers could be increasing your belly fat -- pg.41
• Are sports drinks stifling your fat-burning and making you AGE faster? -- pg.46
• The ONLY truly healthy options for sweeteners... even non-caloric sweeteners -- pg.83
• A surprisingly healthy fat in some animal products that actually helps you burn fat & build muscle (it even helps to fight cancer) -- pg.60
• Why egg whites are actually WORSE for you than whole eggs -- pg.65
• Do diet sodas and other diet drinks hurt your fat loss efforts? -- pg.22
• Is whole milk actually better for you than skim milk?  There's more to the story -- pg.67
• A type of saturated fat that actually helps to stimulate your metabolism -- pg. 112
• The one time when delicious creamy chocolate can even help to prevent your sweet tooth cravings (It even helps improve your blood pressure too!)  -- pg.88
• Does green tea or oolong tea really increase your metabolism and help fat loss?  The truth -- pg.90
• Which fruits & veggies are okay to choose non-organic -- pg.94
• ...and TONS more secrets to help you permanently transform your diet to force your body to burn fat more effectively, while also preventing cancer, diabetes, and heart disease.

Imagine waking up every morning FULL of energy, heading to the bathroom
and looking at your reflection in the mirror and actually LOVING what
you see...

... Now imagine heading to your kitchen and actually feeling good
about the food and drinks you see in your refrigerator and cupboard --
no more struggling trying to understand what's healthy, what's
unhealthy, what's going to help you lose weight, what's going to make
you gain weight...

... whether a certain food fits in to the latest and greatest diet fad of the month (they seem to pop up every month, right?).

Imagine how great you'll look and feel when you KNOW the foods that are actually good for you, that boost your metabolism, heal your joints, MELT away stubborn fat, and FIGHT aging are actually DELICIOUS, loaded with nutrition, and satisfy your appetite!

Not only are you going to finally discover the truth about the foods
in your kitchen and grocery store, but you're also going to:

• Discover
  how protein from these specific types of animals, not ony HELP you burn
  fat and gain muscle, but are also high in heart-healthy fatty acids (I
  bet you didn't know THIS)
• Delicious,
  nutritious, and mouth-watering meal ideas that not only satisfy your
  appetite (which STOPS dangerous cravings), but also burn stomach fat and
  FIGHT aging
• The
  3 BEST types of wild-caught fish (a couple probably aren't what you
  think), as well as a specific type of fish you should NEVER eat
• The truth about EGGS
  - the media makes it very difficult to understand whether you should or
  should not eat eggs... and why.  Discover the truth about eggs, and why
  you should begin eating them regularly (but you must discover WHY
  first)
• Like
  cheese?  You're about to discover one of the BEST appetite-suppressants
  around... but you need to eat these specific types of cheese to get the
  benefit
• Coconut oil and stomach fat? The truth about coconut oil may surprise you!
• The
  best type of NUTS for fat loss - CAUTION: some of the most popular
  types of nuts found in grocery stores are NOT healthy, and actually
  CAUSE weight gain, but others are PROVEN in studies to reduce abdominal fat, balance blood sugar, and more!
• Discover
  "nature's vaso-dilator" and how this 1 nutrient can drastically improve
  blood flow and circulation, which not only helps your heart, but also
  boosts your energy levels
• Discover
  how 1 very FATTY food actually helps your body burn MORE fat - very
  odd, but scientifically proven.  This food is also GREAT for your brain,
  and makes a great snack for kids and toddlers.
• The BEST sweeteners to add to your food and drinks.
   You know that sugar is horrible for your waistline and health, but do
  you know the best things to use instead that add mouth-watering
  sweetness to your morning coffee, cereals, and desserts?  Yes, you CAN
  enjoy your morning coffee while getting incredible health benefits from
  it too!  Coffee is a rich source of powerful anti-aging antioxidants,
  but most people make it WRONG.
• Discover
  how chocolate can be enjoyed on a daily basis!  This tip not only helps
  you LOSE fat, but also FIGHTS the aging process!  Eat up and enjoy...
  but you must discover the very specific TYPE of chocolate first.

Try it first, and THEN decide 

Of course, as always, you have our Iron-Clad 8-week 100% money-back guarantee if you are not satisfied with the program for any reason.

So you can actually try out the program first and start transforming
your diet habits and your body, and then decide if this was right for
you.  If at any time in 8 weeks, you decide that this wasn't for you,
you can simply email us for a prompt and courteous refund.



Let's get you started right away on solving your diet problems for life
and creating a permanent fat-burning environment inside your body.

Special Bonus Section Added:

The
Super-Advanced Nutritional Tactics That I Used to Go From 10.2% Body
Fat to 6.9% Body Fat in Just Over 3 Weeks (23 days to be exact)

 That's right...
although I usually stay in great shape year round, I ended up planning a
photo shoot recently and needed to drop a couple % more body fat, and I
only had just over 3 weeks to prepare for it.

When you're already
fairly lean (I was right around 10% bodyfat at the time), that is when
it's hardest to lose that last bit of "stubborn fat", so it takes some advanced strategies to get rid of the last bit of fat.

After studying advanced
fat loss techniques for years, I knew exactly what I needed to do and it
was just a matter of taking action on it.  So I put together all of my
most advanced fat loss techniques I've learned over the years and got to
work.

 

In this advanced
nutritional fat-burning bonus section, I give you all the dirty details
about exactly how I went from 10.2% body fat to 6.9% body fat in only 23
days.  Don't worry, there's absolutely no "fluff" in this section with
bland and boring generic advice like "eat lots of fruits and veggies"...
Everybody knows that...

Instead, this is the
real nitty gritty details of everything I ate, meal timing,
carb/protein/fat ratios and the exact timing in relation to workouts to
maximize fat burning... and the advanced methods I used for the specific
types of exercises and workouts that were necessary to maximize fat loss and lean muscle maintenance for such a short time period.

I even give you the
details for the really advanced tactics that involved specific foods,
teas, nutrients, spices, etc that I used to get the fastest results
during these 23 days.

The powerful thing is...
if these techniques worked for me, for that hardest to lose "stubborn
fat", then it will work even better for you if you have a little bit
more fat to lose. 

 These methods should
ONLY be used for 3-4 weeks and ONLY on occasion when you need to really
drop body fat and get leaner FAST for perhaps an event that you're
preparing for... maybe a wedding, or a beach vacation, or a cruise, or
your own photo shoot... whenever you need that extra "burst" of fat loss in just 3-4 weeks time frame.

Grab your copy of The Fat Burning Kitchen
today, because this Advanced Fat Burning section is so good and so
detailed that we'll be selling it separately for $34.95 in the near
future

You'll get the entire 23-Day Advanced Nutritional Fat Burning Blueprint Bonus Section for FREE if you order today.

Engineer eats ONE KILO a month of Marmite | Daily Mail Online

Engineer eats ONE KILO a month of Marmite | Daily Mail Online

Is this Britain's fussiest eater? Engineer who
'hates food' and only eats 10 things says he is being kept healthy by
his ONE KILO a month Marmite addiction

• John Pearson from Burton-upon-Trent, Derbys, eats 1kg of spread a month
• Claims the yeast extract is the only reason he stays healthy 
• Will only consume plain crisps, cheese, chips and chocolate cake

By

Anucyia Victor for MailOnline

Published:
23:45 EST, 20 February 2015

|
Updated:
08:19 EST, 21 February 2015

423

View comments

Meet the man who claims to hate food and says he is only kept alive by his Marmite addiction. 

John
Pearson claims he will only eat 10 bland foods - including plain
crisps, chips and chocolate cake - and has to top up his vitamin intake
by eating a kilo of the yeast extract.

The engineer, from Burton-upon-Trent, Derbys, says the love it or hate it condiment is the only reason he stays healthy.

+4

John Pearson says he hates food and is only being kept alive by his Marmite addiction

The 48-year-old spends a paltry £10 a week on his limited diet and was even nicknamed 'Breadroll' when he was at school.

Mr
Pearson said: 'Marmite has been my life-saver. I hate food. I don't eat
for pleasure, only because I'm hungry. I eat to stay alive.'

Mr Pearson's kitchen cupboards are virtually empty and he only keeps butter, cheese and milk in his fridge.

There is only bread in his freezer and his cupboards are home to his beloved Marmite and a couple of boxes of cereal.

'I go to the supermarket and buy everything I need for the week and it costs me about £10,' he said.

'Obviously, I get a massive jar of Marmite, loaves of bread, cheese and butter. I get some coke and skimmed milk.'

+4

The 48-year-old's fussy eating habits started when he was 18-months-old and has cost him two marriages 

Mr Pearson believes his problems with food started when he was just 18-months-old and a virus meant he vomited everywhere.

'I
got ill as a toddler and I think that's what triggered
everything.Before I got sick, I ate vegetables and fruit. I literally
had the same meals as my mum and dad but smaller.

'After
I got better, there was nothing I wanted to eat. All the food reminded
me of being sick. Mum tried everything to help me enjoy food but she
says I just wouldn't.

'I had an issue with colours and textures and I just couldn't eat it.'

As a child he dreaded lunchtime when the dinner ladies would force him to eat his school meal.

THE TEN FOODS JOHN WILL  EAT:  

• Milk
• Bread
• Cereal
• Coke
• Skimmed milk
• Plain crisps
• Chips
• Chocolate cake
• Butter
• Cheese

As he grew up Mr Pearson was warned that his poor diet could lead to blindness, rickets and scurvy.

John
said: 'I ate bread and butter and that was about all I could manage.
I'd sit there feeling really miserable just staring at my plate of food.
I knew I wouldn't be able to eat any of it. When the dinner lady took
my plate away I'd smile with relief.

'The head teacher at school called my mum in to talk to her about my eating habits.

'She was worried about how little I ate and my mum tried to explain why I hated food so much.

'She
told them about my illness when I was little. I don't think they really
understood but life got a whole lot easier when I got to secondary
school.'

+4

Mr Pearson gets ready to bite into a slice of bread and butter smeared with Marmite 

Hot meals - apart from chips - are out of the question. 

Mr Pearson does not eat vegetables or meat and hates a traditional Sunday lunch.

John
said: 'I have chips on a Saturday with my brother. But in the week, I
pretty much live on sandwiches or toast. I like bread and butter so
that's one good thing.

'When I get in from work, I have toast or Marmite sandwiches with a bag of plain crisps.

'Later in the evening, I might have some more.

'In the day, I sometimes have Marmite too. I eat at least one kilogram of the stuff every month.'

He is so fussy that his two ex-wives partly blamed his eating habits on their break-up.

 'I hate the fact that I hate food. It really does ruin things,' he said. 

'My issue with food was never the main reason why my marriages ended but both women said it was a contributing factor.

'I suppose living with someone like me, who has a huge problem with food, takes its toll.'

Mr Pearson rarely goes to restaurants and the most he can achieve is a pint in the pub followed by a bowl of salty chips.

Next month, his parents have invited him out to celebrate their 50th wedding anniversary.

John
said: 'Thankfully, my parents like one particular restaurant and
they've already asked if I can just have a plate of roast potatoes.

+4

The engineers said he will only
consume plain crisps, chips, chocolate cake, butter, cheese, milk,
bread, cereal, coke and skimmed milk

'I've been there before and I'm sure the staff will help me. They know that I'm fussy.'

Despite his huge food fetish, John has not passed his problem to his two children, Chloe, 21, and Michael, 20.

Mr Pearson  said: 'I remember once, when Chloe was just a baby, I was feeding her beans in her highchair.

'I
absolutely hate them but I was doing ok spooning them into her mouth.
Then the phone rang and distracted me. I picked up the phone and left
the bowl and spoon on the tray of her highchair.

'When
I got back, she flicked the spoon and it landed in my face. I had beans
all over my cheek and I literally froze. I ran upstairs, stripped off
all my clothes and got in the shower.

'Twenty
minutes later, when I was clean, I went back down to sort Chloe out.
She was crying by now and I felt awful, but I had to go and have a
wash.'

Sessions
of hypnosis and psychotherapy have failed to cure him but, despite his
food fad, he is fighting fit and is a 2nd Dan black belt in karate.

After sessions with a psychotherapist, he managed to eat raw carrots, grapes and bananas but couldn't keep it up.

 'I couldn't keep it up. I used to dread going home from work because I knew I had to try and eat some banana or grape,' he said

'Now I don't care. I am what I am and I can't change. I know I have a problem with food but I am too old to be cured.

'I'll stick to my 10 things and that will do for me.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/food/article-2961506/Engineer-eats-ONE-KILO-month-Marmite.html#ixzz3SM8jbY8n

Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

▶ Astroturf and manipulation of media messages | Sharyl Attkisson | TEDxUniversityofNevada - YouTube

Published on 6 Feb 2015

In
this eye-opening talk, veteran investigative journalist Sharyl
Attkisson shows how astroturf, or fake grassroots movements funded by
political, corporate, or other special interests very effectively
manipulate and distort media messages.



Sharyl Attkisson is an
investigative journalist based in Washington D.C. She is currently
writing a book entitled Stonewalled (Harper Collins), which addresses
the unseen influences of corporations and special interests on the
information and images the public receives every day in the news and
elsewhere. For twenty years (through March 2014), Attkisson was a
correspondent for CBS News. In 2013, she received an Emmy Award for
Outstanding Investigative Journalism for her reporting on “The Business
of Congress,” which included an undercover investigation into
fundraising by Republican freshmen. She also received Emmy nominations
in 2013 for Benghazi: Dying for Security and Green Energy Going Red.
Additionally, Attkisson received a 2013 Daytime Emmy Award as part of
the CBS Sunday Morning team’s entry for Outstanding Morning Program for
her report: “Washington Lobbying: K-Street Behind Closed Doors.” In
September 2012, Attkisson also received an Emmy for Oustanding
Investigative Journalism for the “Gunwalker: Fast and Furious” story.
She received the RTNDA Edward R. Murrow Award for Excellence in
Investigative Reporting for the same story. Attkisson received an
Investigative Emmy Award in 2009 for her exclusive investigations into
TARP and the bank bailout. She received an Investigative Emmy Award in
2002 for her series of exclusive reports about mismanagement at the Red
Cross.



This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED
conference format but independently organized by a local community.
Learn more at http://ted.com/tedx

▶ Astroturf and manipulation of media messages | Sharyl Attkisson | TEDxUniversityofNevada - YouTube

The Katering Show – WE QUIT SUGAR

Published on 10 Feb 2015

In
an attempt to live forever, and become just like their Instagram idol,
Sarah Wilson, McCartney and McLennan give up the sweet stuff; sugar.
Please Note: This episode is booze, sugar, gluten, fructose, lactose and
personality-free.



Get more Katering:

Explore Katering: thekateringshow.com

Follow Katering: twitter.com/thekateringshow

See Katering: instagram.com/thekateringshow

Like Katering: facebook.com/thekateringshow

Insulin: An Undeserved Bad Reputation, Part 5: Addressing the Critics » Weightology Weekly

Insulin: An Undeserved Bad Reputation, Part 5: Addressing the Critics » Weightology Weekly

This series on insulin
has stimulated numerous threads of discussion on various sites on the
internet.  I have seen some of these discussions and some unfounded
criticisms by some individuals who appear to adhere to the
"carbohydrates drive insulin which drives fat storage" mantra.  However,
this thinking is an example of cognitive miserliness, and I will address some of the comments of these critics here.

Some people have argued that my series on insulin only applies to
healthy people and not people with glucose intolerance, obese people, or
diabetics.  I briefly explained how this is not true here, but either these critics did not read that section of the article or ignored it.  To elaborate, some of the research I cited on protein and insulin secretion showed protein to be more insulinemic in obese people than lean people, yet we know that high protein intakes have been shown to be beneficial to helping obese people lose weight.  Obviously stimulation of insulin secretion is not a problem here.  Also, protein and carbohydrate tend to have a synergistic effect on insulin secretion when consumed together, creating a greater insulin response than when either one is consumed alone.  Yet, we know that a high protein, moderate-to-high carbohydrate, low-fat diet has been shown to be beneficial for weight loss.
 We would expect such a diet to cause significant postprandial insulin
secretion based on the combination of protein and carbohydrate, yet the
diet causes significant weight loss.  Why?  Because of the effects of
protein on satiety, resulting in people simply eating less.  Therefore,
it comes down to a matter of energy balance.  The postprandial insulin
secretion is irrelevant...insulin cannot trump the laws of physics.


To further illustrate how all of this data applies to all individuals
and not just healthy people, let's take a look at the effects of dairy
on insulin.  I
wrote extensively about how dairy products can be just as insulinemic,
if not more insulinemic, than high carbohydrate foods, including the
dreaded white bread.  If augmented postprandial insulin secretion is
a problem for obese people, type 2 diabetics, or glucose intolerant
people, then we would expect dairy to be a problem for these populations
as well.  However, we know that they are not.  Diets high in dairy do not impair weight loss or blood sugar control in overweight people, and they improve insulin sensitivity and attenuate weight gain in animal models.  We also know that a high intake of dairy products is associated with a lower risk of metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes.
 Thus, it is obvious that augmented postprandial insulin secretion is
not the problem that some have made it out to be, even for people with
health issues.


Some critics claimed that it is the combination of high postprandial
insulin and high postprandial glucose that is the problem, not insulin
itself.  However, if this were truly the issue, then we would still
expect dairy to increase risk of weight and fat gain, since most people
consume dairy along with foods that elevate glucose (most people do not
consume dairy alone).  Yet, we know from a large number of studies that dairy does not increase weight gain risk, and decreases weight gain in animals.
 This is despite the fact that dairy is being consumed with
glucose-elevating foods.  The problem here is that the critics are
taking an overly reductionistic view of insulin and body fat deposition.
 Since insulin enhances glucose uptake of fat cells, and since insulin
also inhibits lipolysis, these critics are concluding that the
combination of high insulin and high glucose will cause fat gain.
 However, this view is incorrect.  In fact, dairy products will increase the uptake of glucose into fat cells, yet result in less fat and weight gain.  Thus, things are not as simple as the critics make them out to be.


One critic pointed out how I had discussed insulin's inhibition of
lipolysis, and then insinuated that this is how insulin leads to fat
gain.  Yet, on the same token, this same critic stated that it was the
high insulin and high glucose that is the problem, not high insulin
itself.  This was an inconsistency in this critic's position.  Obviously
the latter assertion is incorrect based on what I discussed in the
previous paragraph.  Regarding the former insinuation, it again is an
overly reductionistic view of insulin in the body.  Yes, insulin
inhibits lipolysis, but it only takes small elevations in insulin to do
this, and this does not address what happens over a 24-hour period.  It
also does not address all of the other dozens of hormones and other
factors simultaneously interacting on fat tissue.  Not only that, but if
the former insinuation were true, then we would again expect dairy
products to promote fat gain in animals and humans, yet we know that
they do not.


Some critics claimed that the protein/insulin secretion studies I cited in this article mainly involved liquid and not solid foods.  However, only some of the studies involved liquids.  Other studies (such as this one and this one) involved solid foods.


Some critics created a straw man and stated that I was claiming that protein is just as insulinemic as carbohydrate.  In fact, one critic said, "I can't believe Krieger is here trying to say that protein causes more insulin release than sugar!"  However, I only said that protein can
be just as insulinemic as carbohydrate (can is the key word here).
 Certainly, when you average across all foods, carbohydrate produces the
greatest insulin responses, and protein comes in second.  However, when
you start looking at individual foods, some protein sources can produce
similar insulin responses to some carbohydrate foods (even some
carbohydrate foods that create rapid rises in blood glucose).  And this
is not to mention the synergistic effect that protein and carbohydrate
can have on insulin secretion when consumed together.  Yet, studies that
have combined the two have shown large amounts of weight and fat loss.


One particular critic that I saw created a huge load of straw men and other fallacies.   First, this individual said, "Unlike
what Krieger says, insulin release actually first starts when you start
to put the food in your mouth...It is wrong to say that insulin
secretion starts only after the glucose is already in the blood." This individual is referring to cephalic phase insulin secretion,
and the statement is a straw man because I never claimed that cephalic
phase insulin secretion does not exist or that insulin secretion starts
only after glucose is already in the blood.  This individual then said
that nobody claims that high carbohydrate diets lead to chronically high
insulin levels.  I am not sure what this critic has been reading as I
see this claim made quite often from numerous individuals all over the
internet, including low carbohydrate diet gurus.  Perhaps this
individual has never said this, but that does not mean that others have
not.   This individual went on to make the claim that "Our argument is high insulin tends to drive fat storage."
 Again, if the statement were true, then dairy products should promote
fat storage, yet they do not.  Also, if that statement were true, then
that would mean that insulin levels should predict future weight gain.
 However, the
vast majority of prospective studies have failed to show a relationship
between either basal or postprandial insulin levels and future weight
gain; in fact, some studies have shown higher insulin levels to be predictive of less weight gain in overweight people.  Also, insulin levels are not predictive of weight loss.  Thus, the concept that high insulin drives fat storage is a concept not supported by the scientific data.


This individual then created a strawman out of my statement of how consuming 5000 calories worth of olive oil or table sugar is not very palatable,
and tried to contradict that by claiming that it's difficult to eat
5000 calories worth of steak but easy to eat 5000 calories worth of cake
or similar high carbohydrate foods.  Well, it's not easy to consume
5000 calories worth of steak because of the high protein content and
because that would take a lot of chewing that would eventually get old.
 I could easily dump 5000 calories of a full-fat dressing (Caesar salad,
anyone?) and it would not be difficult at all to consume that amount.
 In fact, I would find that easier to consume (due to the energy
density) then 5000 calories worth of cake.  Along these lines, in the weight loss program for which I used to do research,
one client was not losing weight and swore she was following the
program.  Her husband eventually ratted her out and told the dietitian
that she was consuming over 8 tablespoons of peanut butter per day.
 That's close to 1,000 calories per day that she was not reporting.
 Eight tablespoons is a very easy way to quickly consume a large amount
of calories, despite the fact that peanut butter is mostly fat and low
in carbohydrate.  The ease of consuming a large number of calories of a
particular food depends much more on the palatability, the protein
content, the food form (solid versus liquid), the water content, the
energy density, and the fiber content, then it does on the carbohydrate
content.


This individual then stated that insulin "makes you hungry because it leads to insulin swings and hypoglycemia a few hours later."
 Well, insulin does not lead to insulin swings.  I think that this
person was referring to carbohydrate.  There is often the claim that
high glycemic carbohydrate will cause a rapid rise in blood sugar and
insulin, followed by a crash which will induce hunger.  However, this
concept is not fully supported by the scientific data.  High glycemic
foods do not necessarily have low satiating power; in fact, one
study that rated foods on their ability to create satiety found that
some high glycemic carbohydrate foods, such as potatoes and white rice,
were among the most satiating of all of the foods tested.  Another study found
a weak relationship between the glycemic response of a breakfast and
energy intake at lunch, but no relationship between the insulin response
to the meal and energy intake at lunch.  In a meta-analysis of the relationship between blood glucose responses and appetite, no relationship was observed, and higher insulin levels were actually associated with decreased hunger.


As I stated in a previous blog post, human appetite control is highly complicated.
 Things are not as simple as "glucose goes up, insulin goes up, glucose
then crashes and hunger increases."  Even if the latter were true
(which it is not given the scientific data), most people do not consume
high glycemic carbohydrates by themselves.  They generally consume them
with other foods, which dramatically changes the blood sugar and insulin
responses.


This critic goes on to say, "Type 2 diabetics are still often
hungry even though their blood sugars are constantly high. If insulin is
so good at satiating, then why do these diabetics still feel hungry?"
 Type 2 diabetics have insulin resistance in the brain, which disrupts
insulin's ability to signal the brain to reduce food intake.


This critic also states that nobody said that "carbohydrates are singularly responsible for driving insulin."  Actually Gary Taubes said it in his book, word for word.  She goes onto say that, regarding one particular study I referenced,
I claimed that 75 grams of carbohydrate was "low carbohydrate."  I
never made that claim; the study labeled it as such.  I clearly
addressed this with this paragraph:

Some people might argue that the “low-carb” condition
wasn’t really low carb because it had 75 grams of carbohydrate.  But
that’s not the point.  The point is that the high-carb condition had
nearly TWICE as much carbohydrate, along with a HIGHER glucose response,
yet insulin secretion was slightly LOWER.  The protein was just as
powerful at stimulating insulin as the carbohydrate.

This critic then goes on to my comments regarding how some in the
low-carbohydrate community claim that the insulin response to protein is
due to the gluconeogenesis from the protein.  She states, "Then he
says that 'some' might say it is due to gluconeogenesis. Really? WHo
would need to argue that when their drink has CARBOHYDRATES in it
already!" This critic completely missed the point, and needs to
look at the graphs of the blood insulin and glucose responses.  First,
the carbohydrate in the drink was quite low (only 11 grams) and did not
cause much change in blood glucose.  However, there was a very large
insulin response.  This means that the insulin response was not due to the blood glucose response.
 This completely contradicts the claims of some low-carbohydrate
advocates that the insulin response from protein is due to the protein
being converted to glucose, which would then drive up insulin.  I then
supported this further by citing research showing that amino acids directly stimulate the pancreas to produce insulin.


This individual goes on to state, "The weirder thing is this
study actually shows what we argue, ie that obese people have higher
insulin response to the same meal compared to nonobese. This will be
true of both protein AND carbs but he only talks about protein here.
Thus supporting our argument that insulin drives weight gain."  This individual is committing the cum hoc, ergo propter hoc ("with this, therefore because of this") fallacy.
 The fact that obese people present with high levels of insulin does
not mean that high insulin causes the obesity; they are simply
correlated.  In fact, not all obese people have high insulin levels.
 High insulin is not the driver of obesity; rather, it is the result of
obesity and the insulin resistance that often accompanies it.  Insulin
resistance is causing the high insulin in obese people (the high insulin
is the body's way to compensate for insulin resistance).


I will continue to address other criticisms that I have seen next week, along with continuing last week's article on how insulin regulates blood sugar.

Insulin: An Undeserved Bad Reputation, Part 4: The Biggest Insulin Myth of Them All » Weightology Weekly

Insulin: An Undeserved Bad Reputation, Part 4: The Biggest Insulin Myth of Them All » Weightology Weekly

In part 1, part 2, and part 3
of this series, you learned how there are a lot of misconceptions on
how insulin works in the body, and how it has been unfairly blamed for
weight and fat gain in our society.  In this article, I am going to
dismantle one of the biggest insulin myths of them all...a myth that has
been perpetuated in textbooks and is still taught in college
classrooms, despite the fact it was shown to be wrong over 25 years ago.

Insulin Is Not Required for Cells To Take Up Glucose


Are you surprised by the heading above?  Many people think that your
cells need insulin to take sugar out of the blood.  One of the pieces of
evidence that is offered for this is the type I diabetic.  When a type I
diabetic has no insulin, blood sugar skyrockets.  This is supposedly
because sugar can't get into cells.


However, the above scenario is not what happens in a type I diabetic
that has been taken off of insulin.  Sugar can get into the cells just
fine.  There's actually something else going on.  A review paper published in the Journal of Anasthesia
thoroughly describes how insulin has been misunderstood in its role in
blood sugar regulation, and I will summarize this paper here, along with
some of my own comments.


A Man Ahead of His Time


In 1916, Sir Edward Schafer, a professor of physiology, published a book called The Endocrine Organs.  In this book, he hypothesized the existence of what we now call insulin:

The results of  pancreas extirpation and pancreas
grafting are best explained by supposing that the islet tissue produce
an Autacoid which passes into the blood stream and effects carbohydrate
metabolism and carbohydrate storage in such a manner that there is no
undue accumulation of glucose in the blood.  Provisionally it will be
convenient to refer to this hypothetical substance as insuline.

Insulin would go onto be discovered 8 years later.  Schafer also
hypothesized that insulin was created from an inactive precursor:

It must however be stated that it has yet to be
determined whether the active substance is produced as such in the
pancreas or whether it exists there as pro-insuline which becomes
elsewhere converted into an active autacoid.

Pro-insulin was discovered nearly 50 years later.  Schafer was truly a man ahead of his time.


Schafer avoided using the term "hormone" to describe insulin. 
Instead, he used the terms "autacoid" and "chalone."  An autacoid was a
substance with excitatory action, meaning it stimulated things to happen
in your body.  An autacoid can be thought of as similar to the gas
pedal in your car; you step on the pedal and it stimulates your car to
go faster.  A chalone was a substance with inhibitory action; it slows
things down in your body.  A chalone can be thought of as similar to the
brake in your car.  Schafer correctly hypothesized that insulin acted
as both an autacoid and chalone in your body.  He also considered that
insulin acted as much more of a chalone than an autacoid in your body. 
In other words, he felt that insulin's inhibitory functions were much
more important than its excitatory or stimulatory functions.  He would
be proven correct many years later.


The Black Age of Endocrinology


However, before Schafer was proven correct, the "Black Age of
Endocrinology" ensued.  This was the time period between 1950 and 1980,
where scientists extrapolated beyond their discoveries.  They took in vitro animal data (research performed in a test tube or culture), and then assumed that the same thing happens in humans in vivo (inside the body).  In fact, one of the reasons I am so highly critical of Gary Taubes and his Good Calories, Bad Calories book
is that he relies heavily on research from this period, despite the
fact that much of what was thought then has either been overturned by
better research, or at least significantly altered.  Taubes even stated
around the 31 minute mark in this interview
that he doesn't pay attention to modern research because "all of this
should have been obvious decades ago."  This is a surprising stance for a
science writer; I would think that he would understand that conclusions in science are always tentative. 
This is particularly true in the nutritional and physiological
sciences, where advances in measurement techniques have allowed us to
measure and discover things that we could not measure before; this has
overturned or modified many hypotheses and thoughts over the years.  But
I digress.


The Black Age of Endocrinology is what led to the now mistaken belief
that insulin is needed for your cells to take up glucose.  Experiments
in the 1950s showed that insulin could stimulate bits of rat muscle and
fat to take up glucose.  This data was extrapolated to humans, and it
was then incorrectly hypothesized that a lack of insulin results in
glucose not being able to get inside your cells, and thus blood glucose
climbs to dangerous levels.  This erroneous thinking has now been taught
in textbooks and college classes all over the world for many years,
resulting in dogma.  Unfortunately, it is very difficult to overcome
dogma, and even though this concept of insulin was shown to be wrong in
the 1970's, it still continues to be taught to this day.


Glucose Transport is Not Insulin Dependent


The erroneous hypothesis that insulin withdrawal results in high
blood glucose because "glucose can't get into cells" was based on the
assumption that insulin is required for cells to take up glucose, rather than insulin merely enhancing
glucose uptake.  What the scientists in the 1950s failed to note was
how tissues can take up considerable amounts of glucose even when
insulin is absent.


Glucose enters your cells via a family of transporters.  A primary
transporter in muscle and fat cells is known as GLUT-4.  Insulin
stimulates GLUT-4 to move from the interior of a cell to the cell
surface, where the glucose can then bind to the GLUT-4 transporter and
enter the cell.  However, there are plenty of glucose transporters on
the cell surface, even when there is no insulin.  In fact, there are
enough transporters on the cell surface to allow the cell to get enough
glucose to sustain its energy needs.  Thus, glucose transport into cells
is never truly dependent upon insulin.  Insulin enhances the uptake of
glucose into cells, but it is not required for it.  In fact, when you
knock out the insulin receptor in mice so that insulin cannot stimulate
glucose uptake into muscle or fat cells (yet you keep the insulin
receptor intact on other cells like brain and liver), the animals do not become diabetic and they have normal blood sugars.


What Really Happens in a Type I Diabetic


Metabolic tracer studies have allowed us to learn how insulin operates in humans in vivo. 
When you take a type I diabetic off insulin, blood glucose climbs
sharply.  However, it's not because glucose can't get into cells.  In
fact, glucose uptake into cells actually increases.  This is because the
concentration of glucose in the blood is so much higher than the
cellular concentration that glucose must move into the cells (remember,
there's already enough glucose transporters on the cell surface even if
there's no insulin).  So why does blood glucose climb so high?  Remember
that the amount of glucose in your blood is both a function of how much
glucose is entering the blood (the rate of appearance), as well as how much glucose is leaving the blood (the rate of disappearance). 
In a fasted diabetic without insulin, all of the glucose is coming from
the liver.  Remember that your liver helps maintain blood sugar levels
when you are fasted by releasing glucose; this glucose comes from both gluconeogenesis (the formation of glucose from non-carbohydrate sources, like protein) and glycogenolysis
(the breakdown of glycogen stored in your liver).  Insulin acts as a
brake (a chalone as Dr. Schafer described it) on these processes.  Thus,
when you do not have insulin, you have runaway gluconeogenesis and
glycogenolysis.  The high blood sugar in an uncontrolled diabetic is
thus caused by overproduction of glucose from the liver, not because
glucose can't get into cells.


In fact, since insulin is not present, many processes go forth at
high rates, completely unregulated.  Insulin normally inhibits the
production of ketones by your liver; without insulin to slow down ketone
production, ketones are produced at high rates, resulting in diabetic
ketoacidosis.  This is why hyperglycemia and ketoacidosis occur
simultaneously.  Without insulin, you also have accelerated proteolysis
(the breakdown of protein) and lipolysis (the breakdown of fat).  The
elevated amino acids in the blood provide further substrate for the
liver to continue to produce large amounts of glucose.  The elevated
fatty acids provide substrate for the liver to continue to produce large
amounts of ketones.


Thus, insulin is like a traffic cop or a stop light at an
intersection.  It helps slow down and control traffic.  Without a stop
light or traffic cop, cars go through the intersection uncontrolled and
you get traffic accidents.  Likewise, without insulin in the body,
gluconeogenesis, glycolysis, proteolysis, ketogenesis, and lipolysis all
proceed at high rates without anything to stop them.  The end result is
hyperglycemia, ketoacidosis, and eventually death.


When you inject insulin into an uncontrolled diabetic, you are now
providing a brake on all of the processes mentioned earlier.  You
inhibit production of glucose by the liver, so blood sugar falls. 
Because there is no longer hyperglycemia, glucose uptake into cells
actually decreases.  Lipolysis is inhibited, so free fatty acid
concentration falls to near zero.  Because there are no longer free
fatty acids to make ketones, ketone production slows down.  Proteolysis
is also inhibited.


Insulin...More of a Traffic Cop Than a Storage Hormone


Metabolic tracer studies have proven what Schafer had hypothesized
nearly a century ago...that insulin's main role in the body is
inhibitory rather than excitatory.  While insulin certainly does have
excitatory functions, it is not primarily a "storage hormone" that many
individuals claim that it is.  Insulin is not needed for your cells to
take up and store glucose.  Certainly, it enhances uptake, but there is a
big difference between enhancing uptake and being needed for uptake.


Of course, this research only tells us what happens when insulin
is present versus when it is not present.  What about the normal
situation of a healthy person, who ingests a meal and sees a rise in
blood glucose?  What is happening to bring glucose back to normal?  And
what happens in a type II diabetic in this situation?  Learn the answers to these questions by reading part 6 of the series.  Also click here to read part 5 where I address comments made by some of the critics of this series.


REFERENCE:  Sonksen, P., and Sonksen, J.  Insulin: understanding its action in health and disease.  British Journal of Anaesthesia.  85(1):69-79, 2000.