An Insulin Index of Foods (1994)
fermatslibrary.com
An Insulin Index of Foods (1994)
1–10 of 122 posts
Re: An Insulin Index of Foods (1994)
#2The really crazy effect of insulin is how it interacts with aging. The link between insulin and aging is super well understood.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2906894/
If you're interested in the Ted talk version:
https://www.ted.com/talks/cynthia_kenyon_experiments_that_hi...
She now works at Calico, Google's longevity play. If there was one area I was going to do something besides agriculture this is what I would work on.
Re: An Insulin Index of Foods (1994)
#32015 study finds that the glycemic index varies widely depending on the individual:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2015/1...
Re: An Insulin Index of Foods (1994)
#4My wife had gestational diabetes. She had to mesure and log the values and her food. She is from the north of europe and I am from the south europe. Actually, her body gave permutated values between potatoes and pasta. In a same condition (starting G level, same plate, same quantities, same level of activity, same hour, etc), she could eat potatoes without issue, pasta (even whole wheat) was systematically making her GI skyrocket. It was the opposite for me. A tool to mesure your G level is very instructive.
Re: An Insulin Index of Foods (1994)
#5"Why should you read this paper? Glucose and insulin are two of the most important elements of metabolism. In an oversimplified nutshell - when we consume food our blood glucose usually increases. Consequently, the pancreas secretes insulin which lowers the glucose levels back to normal. Insulin is a hormone and is often considered to be the principal regulator of fat storage in the body (this is a bit controversial, but is mostly considered correct. Read the book "Why we get fat" by Gary Taubes for more info). Therefore knowing how the foods we eat spike our insulin levels can be helpful in determining what should be eaten for weight loss."
Re: An Insulin Index of Foods (1994)
#62015 study finds that the glycemic index varies widely depending on the individual: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2015/1...
Particularly on the level of insulin resistance/diabetes.
Re: An Insulin Index of Foods (1994)
#7The really crazy effect of insulin is how it interacts with aging. The link between insulin and aging is super well understood. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2906894/ If you're interested in the Ted talk version: https://www.ted.com/talks/cynthia_kenyon_experiments_that_hi... She now works at Calico, Google's longevity play. If there was one area I was going to do something besides agriculture this is…
> The link between insulin and aging is super well understood.
This is really overstated. The paper is a paper on round worms, which is really one step above basic cellular science (which is important but only a building block of the whole picture). We do not have large scale, epidemiological studies about sugar, and the ones that we do don't point to sugar behaving differently than other calories with regards to health outcomes. The problem is blood sugar not dietary sugar, and it turns out high blood sugar can come from many places that are not dietary sugar, and a calorically controlled diet that is high in sugar does not result in high average blood sugar levels.
Re: An Insulin Index of Foods (1994)
#8> However, some proteinand fat-rich foods (eggs, beef, fish, lentils, cheese, cake, anddoughnuts) induced as much insulin secretion as did some carbohydrate-rich foods (eg, beef was equal to brown rice andfish was equal to grain bread).
what? that makes zero sense, at least in case with fat. anybody got quick explanation for this?
Edit: found the TLDR explanation in another part of the paper
> postprandial insulin responses are not always proportional to blood glucose concentrations or to a meal's totalcarbohydrate content. Several insulinotropic factors are knownto potentiate the stimulatory effect of glucose and mediatepostprandial insulin secretion. These include fructose, certainamino acids and fatty acids, and gastrointestinal hormones suchas gastric inhibitory peptide, glucagon, and cholecystokiin(25, 26). Thus, protein- and fat-rich foods may induce substantial insulin secretion despite producing relatively small bloodglucose responses.
Re: An Insulin Index of Foods (1994)
#9> However, some proteinand fat-rich foods (eggs, beef, fish, lentils, cheese, cake, anddoughnuts) induced as much insulin secretion as did some carbohydrate-rich foods (eg, beef was equal to brown rice andfish was equal to grain bread). what? that makes zero sense, at least in case with fat. anybody got quick explanation for this? Edit: found the TLDR explanation in another part of the paper > postprandial insulin re…
This actually makes a ton of sense and is what people on the sidelines of the insulin debate have been screaming since Gary Taubes starting publishing his work about dietary sugar. Unfortunately it's given people a very non-nuanced view of the science.
The problem is not dietary sugar, it is blood sugar levels, which are elevated by many things (including protein and fat), but more than anything by excess calories. The problem is not peak blood sugar levels, it is average blood sugar levels.
Edit: to quickly reply to your TLDR edit:
> Thus, protein- and fat-rich foods may induce substantial insulin secretion despite producing relatively small bloodglucose responses.
This is only true if you completely ignore everything else going on in the body. Gluconeogenesis is a thing, and just because dietary fat or protein doesn't immediately increase blood sugar levels does not mean long term they don't. This stuff can't just be looked at as "input/output" you have to take into consideration the existing state of the person before the input. /edit
You can reason about this fairly easily: take a caloric intake of 2000 calories consumed all at once vs in 10 meals over the day. The all at once crowd gets a huge insulin spike. Oh no! Fat storage, right? Sure, but what happens the rest of the day when there is no dietary input? Fat burn! The 10 meals/day crowd probably never gets as high blood sugar levels, but also has much higher throughout the day, and accesses fat stores less. But guess what? Net the body is really pretty good at smoothing this stuff out, it's sort of the entire point of fat storage.
Where this gets tricky is that high insulin can eventually lead to low blood sugar dips. People without diabetes can simply wait this out, and the body will start burning fat again and raise the blood sugar. But this also makes many people feel hungry, and so they eat more, which raises their average blood sugar levels, and the cycle continues. Some people have a hard time with this, others do not, but it's really important to understand that the insulin is causing people to consume more calories which is causing damage, not the insulin itself.
Re: An Insulin Index of Foods (1994)
#10My wife had gestational diabetes. She had to mesure and log the values and her food. She is from the north of europe and I am from the south europe. Actually, her body gave permutated values between potatoes and pasta. In a same condition (starting G level, same plate, same quantities, same level of activity, same hour, etc), she could eat potatoes without issue, pasta (even whole wheat) was systematically making her…
So many people don't realize this. There is a lot more to it than just this sandwich has 200 carbs.
Each person is processing things differently. I'm hoping someday for a startup that makes it easy for me to track my insulin response for all my favorite foods so I can make better choices.
After testing on my own I found that the "sugar free Worthers candy" I was eating on my failing low carb diet, actually triggered the same change in my blood sugar as the non "sugar free" version of the candy. I guess this is because some artificial sweeteners act like REAL sugar for some people.