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

21–30 of 122 posts

Re: An Insulin Index of Foods (1994)

#21

Post by JohnJamesRambo »

SilasX wrote: post #14
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…

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…

As far as I know the human body absorbs pretty much all the nutrition from the food it consumes, so yes you can drink from the firehose and get it all. Our feces is just the waste we were never going to absorb anyway like fiber and lots of dead fungi and bacteria that grew along the way.

Re: An Insulin Index of Foods (1994)

#23

Post by estsauver »

wdewind wrote: post #7
estsauver wrote: post #2

The 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 hea…

* Agreed on blood sugar vs. dietary sugar. * This paper launched a whole series of mouse studies.

Re: An Insulin Index of Foods (1994)

#24

Post by gibsjose »

joduplessis wrote: post #17

By far the biggest contribution I've made to my health has been being aware of insulin responses, so this is awesome. People don't realise how optional that mid-afternoon slump is or how un-necessary erratic energy levels are.

I'd love to hear more about this. Could you expand on how you measure your insulin response and as a result how you avoid erratic energy levels?

Re: An Insulin Index of Foods (1994)

#26

Post by miguelrochefort »

jwr wrote: post #13

Link to the page with the article downloadable as a PDF: https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/66/5/1264/4655967 (I really really hate web pages that take over a PDF, present a poorly-implemented crappy PDF reader experience and do not offer an easily-accessible "Download and read in a sane reader app" button)

Their PDF reader actually freezes Chrome on my phone. I was forced to kill it.

Re: An Insulin Index of Foods (1994)

#27

Post by bad_user »

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 simple.

Note that fruits have insoluble fiber that delay digestion and feed your gut bacteria so fruits in their raw form are very different from sweets or even from fruit juice. So unless you’re metabolically deranged, you shouldn’t fear fruits, but you should fear fruit juice.

Re: An Insulin Index of Foods (1994)

#28

Post by will_brown »

JohnJamesRambo wrote: post #21
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…

As far as I know the human body absorbs pretty much all the nutrition from the food it consumes, so yes you can drink from the firehose and get it all. Our feces is just the waste we were never going to absorb anyway like fiber and lots of dead fungi and bacteria that grew along the way.

>As far as I know the human body absorbs pretty much all the nutrition from the food it consumes

Not even close, especially when it comes to vitamins, nutrients and minerals. For example, take turmeric which is praised for its anti-inflammatory and anti-oxidant benefits...we will usually not readily absorb the active ingredients unless taken together with black pepper.

Black pepper will also improve nutrient availability in general, because it helps digestive enzyme secretion.

Another example is iron, which generally we readily absorb from meat but not plants, however, consuming iron rich plants together with vitamin c improves our iron absorption up to 6x.

Re: An Insulin Index of Foods (1994)

#29

Post by bad_user »

rocgf wrote: post #19
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…

Sorry for the dumb question, but given the total calories are the same, does this mean that it is generally healthier to eat one big meal per day rather than 10 small ones? Given my current understanding from all the intermittent fasting hype lately, it is indeed better to eat big meals rarely rather than small meals frequently. For some reason, your post got me slightly confused because I lack the necessary knowledg…

The answer to your question is yes.

I’m doing 18:6 or 20:4 protocols, I eat 2 meals per day usually and I like measurements. My blood ketones during my fasting are through the roof, over 1.5 mmol/L after 15 hours of fasting, which indicates deep nutritional ketosis and an indication that lypolisis is efficient.

I can tell you this would not happen if I ate 6 small meals per day. And I know because I measured myself. But it’s also how the body works ... ketosis happens after the liver’s glycogen stores are depleted, which takes 10-12 hours and the switch to burning fat isn’t very efficient and getting less so with age. Your body needs a break from food in order to mobilize the energy in your adipose tissue.

With 6 small meals what actually happens is constant hunger because you’re interrupting lipolysis every time you eat. This happens even with the ketogenic diet, because even meat triggers a hormonal response, small but not insignificant.

Also speaking from my own experience, I suffered from hunger at night, which made me binge. Switched to IF, hunger is now gone. Sounds like a paradox but it really isn’t.

Re: An Insulin Index of Foods (1994)

#30

Post by sioux77 »

rocgf wrote: post #19
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…

Sorry for the dumb question, but given the total calories are the same, does this mean that it is generally healthier to eat one big meal per day rather than 10 small ones? Given my current understanding from all the intermittent fasting hype lately, it is indeed better to eat big meals rarely rather than small meals frequently. For some reason, your post got me slightly confused because I lack the necessary knowledg…

Healthier is subjective. Diabetics are taught to eat multiple small meals a day to manage blood sugar levels better.
Post reply on HN