Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

An Insulin Index of Foods (1994)

fermatslibrary.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 122 posts

Re: An Insulin Index of Foods (1994)

#101

Post by otabdeveloper2 »

wdewind wrote: post #88
soulbadguy wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Any resource to validate this claim. This is just a reformulation of the CICO argument. Saying the body "is good at smoothing this out" is tautological at saying that the distribution of the calories across the time domain (the IF crow) or accros the macro domain ( paleo peps) doesn't matter…

> Any resource to validate this claim. Most IF studies do not show any metabolic difference, and the ones that do do not control for calories. I'm sorry to shift the burden of proof, but I feel like CICO is the default position and additional nuance requires proof, not the opposite. Also I am lazy. > Again any claim to this ? Most reference i see have this causation relationship reversed.... Yeah totally, so the clai…

> CICO is the default position

CICO is demonstrably bullshit. Vodka and Coca-Cola have the same number of calories, but vastly different effects on a person's metabolism. Just compare a vodka binge drinker with a coke binge drinker.

Re: An Insulin Index of Foods (1994)

#102

Post by m0zg »

INTPenis wrote: post #83

I need to give this a good read. My dad is diabetic and his doctor told him that cinnamon is good for blood sugar levels. It's not in this study though. He was also told to avoid rice and potatoes. He manages quite well and the doctors are astonished at his low blood sugar measurements every day.

>> cinnamon is good for blood sugar levels

Medical errors are the third most common cause of death in the US. Let's just say this is strong evidence that not all doctors know how to do all that doctor-related stuff. Some of them just charge you through the nose and hope that you won't die.

Re: An Insulin Index of Foods (1994)

#103

Post by wdewind »

otabdeveloper2 wrote: post #100
wdewind wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry to just repost my paragraph from above, but I believe I already responded to this: > The IF people (along with the Keto people) use a variety of tricks to try and prove their point. There is absolutely not a single paper showing calorically balanced food intake has clinically significant outcomes. Period, full stop etc. There are tons of papers saying things like if you force people to eat in constrained wi…

> They never are, because if this did happen it would have massive implications for our understanding of the human body. It would require us to be wrong about a lot of things. Yeah, welcome to medicine. If you've ever encountered these things in a non-theoretic perspective (i.e., having some condition), you quickly see that doctors don't know shit. Perhaps not surprising, given that human experimentation is taboo. An…

> Yeah, welcome to medicine. If you've ever encountered these things in a non-theoretic perspective (i.e., having some condition), you quickly see that doctors don't know shit.

That is, unfortunately, exactly why I am so acquainted with this stuff, and yeah, it is pretty frightening to have doctors tell you they just don't know. But to be fair, I'm talking about being wrong about fundamental biology, not medicine, in which massive shake ups like that are far rarer. It's also not like this stuff hasn't been studied.

> Anyways, how does what you're saying mesh with the fact that extra glucose is stored in your body's reserves while ketones are secreted with urine and breath?

Not sure what you mean but fwiw glucose is also secreted in urine and breath.

Re: An Insulin Index of Foods (1994)

#104

Post by wdewind »

otabdeveloper2 wrote: post #101
wdewind wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Any resource to validate this claim. Most IF studies do not show any metabolic difference, and the ones that do do not control for calories. I'm sorry to shift the burden of proof, but I feel like CICO is the default position and additional nuance requires proof, not the opposite. Also I am lazy. > Again any claim to this ? Most reference i see have this causation relationship reversed.... Yeah totally, so the clai…

> CICO is the default position CICO is demonstrably bullshit. Vodka and Coca-Cola have the same number of calories, but vastly different effects on a person's metabolism. Just compare a vodka binge drinker with a coke binge drinker.

Also you can't drink gasoline, which has a ton of calories, straight up, so CICO is bullshit.

But to steel man your argument: yes, macronutrient composition obviously matters, but you can lose weight with a low calorie diet of any composition and you cannot lose weight with a high calorie, macronutriently balanced diet.

Re: An Insulin Index of Foods (1994)

#105

Post by dorfsmay »

wdewind wrote: post #15
SilasX wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intuitively, you would expect that "drinking from the firehose" is not going to let you capture as much of the water as if you sipped from a trickle, and that same dynamic should apply generally: all customers come at the same time vs an hour, all enemies attack at once vs individually, etc. Unless, of course, the human body historically faced strong selective pressures to efficiently store energy when you have to ea…

> Unless, of course, the human body historically faced strong selective pressures to efficiently store energy when you have to eat a lot at once. Right, and the intermittent fasting crowd uses the same tricks as Gary Taubes but in reverse: look what happens when you fast! All these great reparative things happen. But it's all basic science and ignores a long term (even 24 hour) view of consumption. Ultimately there m…

Are you you saying the work of Valter Longo on repairs, increase autophagy, etc... during long fasts (6 to 10 days) is not valid?

Re: An Insulin Index of Foods (1994)

#106

Post by fierro »

avinium wrote: post #95
wdewind wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. T…

I'm experimenting with IF/keto at the moment, mainly to see if it helps put on lean muscle. For context, I've also been eating relatively clean (low carb, high protein/fibre) for years now. I take all the internet commentary about low insulin levels (etc) with a grain of salt. I just don't know enough about endocrinology or the current state of research. That being said, higher carbohydrate intake causes a noticeable…

as a data point, keto helped me put on a ton of muscle. I do lift weights 6 days per week, but I attribute it to increased testosterone. I've been fairly principled in my approach to experimenting with keto, including doing regular bloodwork.

Prior to keto my T was around 450. Post keto (~2 months in), it was close to 800. I was/am eating a ton of fat. I don't measure it (I eat intuitively based on hunger) but I would estimate my fat intake to be around 200g fat/day or more.

Just my personal anecdote. We'll see how long I live for ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Re: An Insulin Index of Foods (1994)

#107

Post by bad_user »

sickrumbear wrote: post #41
bad_user wrote: post #27

The glicemic index is basically a hoax that has nothing to do with reality simply because the glycemic response differs widely from person to person or even from one day to the next. Even more problematic is that it’s getting used on food packages as a marketing gimmick. I don’t see how an insulin index could be very different. If you care about the glycemic load, then stop eating refined carbs and sugar, it’s that s…

hmmm even if the response differs widely, wouldn't the index give an indication of the relative impact something would have? I've been reducing carbs and sugars, which aligns with lower GI foods, I don't really agree that its a hoax, it's helped me sustain energy levels throughout the day better.

No, it wouldn't be, because that relative impact also differs from person to person.

And it is more useful to just look at the carbs, sugars and fiber content.

Do you know how the glycemic index came to be? They used just 10 healthy people for the experiments. It's a hoax on the same level as homeopathy.

Re: An Insulin Index of Foods (1994)

#108

Post by dorfsmay »

wdewind wrote: post #61
JanSt wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you're eating two large meals, you're still releasing a lot of insulin, you're still doing the same amount of fat storage, you're just timing it differently. If that works for you, great. Yes, but your body won't be able to use it's stored fat in the presence of insulin. If you keep that up long enough, you can only burn calories coming in. If you eat a lot of meals AND a caloric deficit your body needs to decre…

> Yes, but your body won't be able to use it's stored fat in the presence of insulin. If you keep that up long enough, you can only burn calories coming in. If you eat a lot of meals AND a caloric deficit your body needs to decrease your metabolism, mostly heat, thus cold hands and feet. Right but what happens when you no longer inputting calories and thus no longer have high insulin? Then you start burning the fat a…

> To be very clear, the proof required for what you are suggesting is a study with a minimum of 2 groups eating the same exact meals but at different times, and being forced to finish the entire meal and experiencing different outcomes. This has never happened, and based on our current understanding of metabolism never will.

Humans, difference in body composition: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2645638/

https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/wurjhns/vol8/iss1/4/

Again difc in body composition in humans, but references to previous studies showing difference in mass in mice:

https://nature.berkeley.edu/garbelottoat/wp-content/uploads/...

Re: An Insulin Index of Foods (1994)

#109

Post by bad_user »

yaronhadad wrote: post #46
bad_user wrote: post #27

The glicemic index is basically a hoax that has nothing to do with reality simply because the glycemic response differs widely from person to person or even from one day to the next. Even more problematic is that it’s getting used on food packages as a marketing gimmick. I don’t see how an insulin index could be very different. If you care about the glycemic load, then stop eating refined carbs and sugar, it’s that s…

Glycemic and insulin index are averages and should be interpreted as such. But that being said, it doesn't mean that they are not interesting. If you don't have a way to measure them yourself (=most people) then it's better to know average values than not to know anything at all...

It isn't true that you don't know anything at all.

You simply look at the carbs and the sugars, which are required to be shown for package foods. Glucose in the bloodstream comes directly from carbs.

So here are 3 simple rules:

1. if a food is high in carbs and low on fiber, then your blood glucose is going to spike

2. if it's prepackaged / processed food and high in carbs, it doesn't matter what else they claim on the package, your blood glucose is going to spike

3. if a food is low on carbs, then your blood glucose is going to stay low

The reason for why the glycemic index is a hoax is because it gives a free pass to _fructose_, because fructose leads to a somewhat lower glucose circulating in the blood stream after your meal, because fructose needs to be metabolized in the liver first. However this mentality is a trap because as a mater of fact fructose is more toxic than glucose.

Re: An Insulin Index of Foods (1994)

#110

Post by soulbadguy »

wdewind wrote: post #99
soulbadguy wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but I feel like CICO is the default position and additional nuance requires proof Is there really a need to default position ? CICO and the fact that distribution (both in time and macro) of the calorie in matter can both be true. The assumption i do not agree with in CICO is CI is an independent and infinitely controllable variable. Now it's possible that the causal link between a certain macro distribution (let s…

> CICO and the fact that distribution (both in time and macro) of the calorie in matter can both be true. Maybe they do matter somewhat, but here's the deal: if everyone who was obese in this country all of a sudden started eating a diet that was macronutriently ideal and consumed at the perfect times, but maintained the same number of calories, there would be no difference in the prevalence of obesity. I think the s…

> if everyone who was obese in this country all of a sudden started eating a diet that was macronutriently ideal and consumed at the perfect times, but maintained the same number of calories, there would be no difference in the prevalence of obesity. I think the science really confidently supports that position, and I'd be happy to look at anything you think denies it.

Again, no. You are tautologically restating CICO. We have no evidence of this being true. You are implicitly assuming that CO will be constant and would be independent of CI... We do not know that to be true.

> I am very familiar with Dr Fung's work and don't think that any of it makes the case you are trying to make. All of his work provides proof for what I've been saying over and over in this thread: IF and Keto can be great ways to create compliance to a diet, but there is no evidence, including the work of Dr Fung, that shows these diets behaving differently from simple calorie control outside of the compliance aspect.

I seem to recall a bunch of animal models where compliance was controlled for and still showed a strong correlation between insulin and set weight.

Post reply on HN