5 ms·

> Chemically it is insulin that triggers the signal in our body to store fat. A misleading oversimplification. Maintaing a net-energy-surplus is the causes of

by jp555 13y ago

> Chemically it is insulin that triggers the signal in our body to store fat. A misleading oversimplification. Maintaing a net-energy-surplus is the causes of fat storage. Insulin is just one piece of the mechanics of how surplus energy gets stored as fat. There's no need to worry at all about insulin; just don't eat too much, and you don't get fat. > Carbohydrates trigger a large insulin response while fats cause no insulin response (protein is somewhere in the middle) ORLY? Show me a biochemistry text book that dares to tout this nonsense. Bust insulin mythology: http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=319 http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=319 Gary Taubes again.... sigh.... > The nutrients in dairy are all fat soluble Sorry but I don't think those words mean what you think they mean.

ajcarpy2005 13y ago
/// The results showed that both protein and fat reduced the glycemic response elicited by oral glucose in normal humans. The effects of protein and fat were independent of each other, but gram-for-gram, protein had a 2 to 3 times larger effect than fat. Fat reduced glycemic responses to a greater extent in subjects with low FPI, whereas protein had more effect in subjects with a high WC and a high intake of dietary fiber. SOURCE: http://m.jn.nutrition.org/content/136/10/2506.full http://m.jn.nutrition.org/content/136/10/2506.full /// These data indicate that protein given with glucose will increase insulin secretion and reduce the plasma glucose rise in at least some type II diabetic persons. SOURCE: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6389060 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6389060 It didn't take me long to find these two papers which find evidence of the antagonistic effect on glucose & insulin by the consumption of fat and protein. It doesn't look like nonsense to me. Fat soluble vitamins and even chemicals like Caffeine or even Glutathione are absorbed more eficiently when mixed with fat. Not that nature is perfect but it does get a lot of things right...whole fat milk seems to likely be more optimal than reduced fat milk.
- jp555 13y ago
  http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/66/5/1264.full.pdf#page=1&.. http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/66/5/1264.full.pdf#page=1&.... The data shows beef causes a much larger insulinogenic response than rice. There is little there isolating fat, but your first link is interesting.
  - ajcarpy2005 13y ago
    Highly interesting! This is new info to me. It seems the Insulin Index may be a more reliable predictor of the insulin response of foods than either the glycemic index or the glycemic load index. You mentioned there is very little other than fat in beef but don't forget that there's mostly protein. Now we just need studies showing which Amino Acids are the 'worst offenders.' I tried finding any info about whether meat contains any actual insulin based on a hunch/hypothesis but did not find anything. Anyway, from what I've read, both blood glucose & insulin should be kept at reasonably stable levels. (ie. not too high) Therefore, maybe a combination of glycemic load index and insulin index would be helpful. Also, knowing now the effect of beef on insulin, I think it means we should be careful to eat small portions of meat or limit how often we eat meat. I'm really amazed that these findings are only now being made.
    - jp555 13y ago
      > You mentioned there is very little other than fat in beef but don't forget that there's mostly protein. No, I meant that the experiment I linked to didn't test fat's insulin stimulating ability in isolation. I didn't mean to suggest there's little other than fat in beef. Testing the various amino acids would probably not be very useful. Do not subjugate fundamental principles to minor details. Which is also important when considering the effects of insulin. Basically it's not important at all as long as you don't eat too much food. Eating appropriate amounts of food is a fundamental principle; worrying about insulin levels is a minor detail. > I think it means we should be careful to eat small portions of meat or limit how often we eat meat. No, it does not. That may be confirmation bias at play. Are you a vegetarian/vegan? Remember that one of insulin's roles it to move nutrients from the bloodstream and into cells. beef is a very nutritionally dense food; you would need to eat 5 pounds of broccoli to get he same protein in an 8oz steak (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=100g+steak+vs.+1000g+broccoli http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=100g+steak+vs.+1000g+br...). So it makes sense that when more nutrients enter the bloodstream, more insulin is required to move it all into our tissues. Carbs are the macronutrient "closest" in form to cellular fuel (glycogen). It takes a LOT more work to use protein as fuel than it does to use carbs. This is known as the "thermal effect" of food; how much energy is required to convert food into cellular fuel. .... and now I'm rambling... :P
alexc05 13y ago
Thanks so much for your feedback. Clearly I've presented my understanding of things (with references to where that information came from) While I'm not sure that "Taubes again sigh" is an argument I'm on board with (ad hominem fallacy?), nor is ORLY? A compelling argument (ad CAPS et meme fallacy?) I'm happy to adjust my understanding based on new evidence. I'll happily read your reference and try determine if there is anything of value in it. As well, fat solubility was presented to me as I passed it on in my comment, if my understanding is off I'd happily adjust to newer and better information.
- jp555 13y ago
  You're right I shouldn't have been so crass. It's just that the more I learn the facts about nutrition science the more I rage at the mythology; and Taubes is a king of myth. When I started learning, I fell for the fallacious claims of Lustig, Taubes, the low-carbers, the paloetards; damn I was convinced! But then I switched to biochemistry & nutrition college textbooks and now a couple years later I've shed most of my overconfidence-of-a-novice. But I get very frustrated to see so many other people like I was, believing things that are just not true. The most important advice I've ever read about nutrition is: NO NOT SUBJUGATE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES TO MINOR DETAILS. Net-energy balance is a fundamental principle. Obsessing over carb-types and insulin levels are minor details. It's like worrying about the candied-cherry on top of a HUGE piece of cake. The calories in the cake contribute 1000x more to your body-comp than the cherry. Another example is that adding every supplement you read is "good for you" will not contribute to your health anywhere nearly as much as a daily 45 min walk. Do not subjugate fundamental principles to minor details.

by jp555 13y ago

ajcarpy2005 13y ago

/// The results showed that both protein and fat reduced the glycemic response elicited by oral glucose in normal humans. The effects of protein and fat were independent of each other, but gram-for-gram, protein had a 2 to 3 times larger effect than fat. Fat reduced glycemic responses to a greater extent in subjects with low FPI, whereas protein had more effect in subjects with a high WC and a high intake of dietary fiber. SOURCE: http://m.jn.nutrition.org/content/136/10/2506.full http://m.jn.nutrition.org/content/136/10/2506.full /// These data indicate that protein given with glucose will increase insulin secretion and reduce the plasma glucose rise in at least some type II diabetic persons. SOURCE: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6389060 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6389060 It didn't take me long to find these two papers which find evidence of the antagonistic effect on glucose & insulin by the consumption of fat and protein. It doesn't look like nonsense to me. Fat soluble vitamins and even chemicals like Caffeine or even Glutathione are absorbed more eficiently when mixed with fat. Not that nature is perfect but it does get a lot of things right...whole fat milk seems to likely be more optimal than reduced fat milk.

jp555 13y ago
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/66/5/1264.full.pdf#page=1&.. http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/66/5/1264.full.pdf#page=1&.... The data shows beef causes a much larger insulinogenic response than rice. There is little there isolating fat, but your first link is interesting.
- ajcarpy2005 13y ago
  Highly interesting! This is new info to me. It seems the Insulin Index may be a more reliable predictor of the insulin response of foods than either the glycemic index or the glycemic load index. You mentioned there is very little other than fat in beef but don't forget that there's mostly protein. Now we just need studies showing which Amino Acids are the 'worst offenders.' I tried finding any info about whether meat contains any actual insulin based on a hunch/hypothesis but did not find anything. Anyway, from what I've read, both blood glucose & insulin should be kept at reasonably stable levels. (ie. not too high) Therefore, maybe a combination of glycemic load index and insulin index would be helpful. Also, knowing now the effect of beef on insulin, I think it means we should be careful to eat small portions of meat or limit how often we eat meat. I'm really amazed that these findings are only now being made.
  - jp555 13y ago
    > You mentioned there is very little other than fat in beef but don't forget that there's mostly protein. No, I meant that the experiment I linked to didn't test fat's insulin stimulating ability in isolation. I didn't mean to suggest there's little other than fat in beef. Testing the various amino acids would probably not be very useful. Do not subjugate fundamental principles to minor details. Which is also important when considering the effects of insulin. Basically it's not important at all as long as you don't eat too much food. Eating appropriate amounts of food is a fundamental principle; worrying about insulin levels is a minor detail. > I think it means we should be careful to eat small portions of meat or limit how often we eat meat. No, it does not. That may be confirmation bias at play. Are you a vegetarian/vegan? Remember that one of insulin's roles it to move nutrients from the bloodstream and into cells. beef is a very nutritionally dense food; you would need to eat 5 pounds of broccoli to get he same protein in an 8oz steak (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=100g+steak+vs.+1000g+broccoli http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=100g+steak+vs.+1000g+br...). So it makes sense that when more nutrients enter the bloodstream, more insulin is required to move it all into our tissues. Carbs are the macronutrient "closest" in form to cellular fuel (glycogen). It takes a LOT more work to use protein as fuel than it does to use carbs. This is known as the "thermal effect" of food; how much energy is required to convert food into cellular fuel. .... and now I'm rambling... :P

alexc05 13y ago

Thanks so much for your feedback. Clearly I've presented my understanding of things (with references to where that information came from) While I'm not sure that "Taubes again sigh" is an argument I'm on board with (ad hominem fallacy?), nor is ORLY? A compelling argument (ad CAPS et meme fallacy?) I'm happy to adjust my understanding based on new evidence. I'll happily read your reference and try determine if there is anything of value in it. As well, fat solubility was presented to me as I passed it on in my comment, if my understanding is off I'd happily adjust to newer and better information.

jp555 13y ago
You're right I shouldn't have been so crass. It's just that the more I learn the facts about nutrition science the more I rage at the mythology; and Taubes is a king of myth. When I started learning, I fell for the fallacious claims of Lustig, Taubes, the low-carbers, the paloetards; damn I was convinced! But then I switched to biochemistry & nutrition college textbooks and now a couple years later I've shed most of my overconfidence-of-a-novice. But I get very frustrated to see so many other people like I was, believing things that are just not true. The most important advice I've ever read about nutrition is: NO NOT SUBJUGATE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES TO MINOR DETAILS. Net-energy balance is a fundamental principle. Obsessing over carb-types and insulin levels are minor details. It's like worrying about the candied-cherry on top of a HUGE piece of cake. The calories in the cake contribute 1000x more to your body-comp than the cherry. Another example is that adding every supplement you read is "good for you" will not contribute to your health anywhere nearly as much as a daily 45 min walk. Do not subjugate fundamental principles to minor details.