An Insulin Index of Foods (1994) • Hacker News Board

Re: An Insulin Index of Foods (1994)

#31

Post by GordonS » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 5:56 PM UTC

will_brown wrote: post #16

keymone wrote: post #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 re…

I have personally had to work through this concept... When in deep ketosis I was experimenting with various types of protein supplements and (surprisingly) found whey would spike my insulin. Of course this seemed odd as my supplement was pure and contained no sugar/no carbs. After researching come to find out this is well known and in fact whey has a bigger impact on insulin levels than pure glucose. Apparently the a…

I'm not aware of any way to check insulin levels from home - how did you do that?

Re: An Insulin Index of Foods (1994)

#32

Post by wdewind » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 5:58 PM UTC

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…

> 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?

We can't answer this confidently, the way I would say it is: there isn't strong evidence to support the idea that either is better.

> 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 knowledge to have a proper model about nutrition in place.

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 different clinically significant outcomes. Period, full stop etc. There are tons of papers saying things like if you force people to eat in constrained windows they eat fewer calories (or if you force people to eat high fat diets they eat fewer calories etc.). Those are all useful outcomes: they are "compliance hacks." But they idea that any of these are significantly metabolically different is not at all supported by the science.

As for yourself: nutritional science is weak, and if the nutritional science says do something, and you observe a bad outcome in yourself from doing it, I'd take your own personal data over the nutritional science, frankly. For instance: fiber is a great modulator. If you go to a GI specialist and say "I'm having dietary issues," increasing fiber is usually the first thing they recommend. But also, sometimes that doesn't work and then the next thing is decreasing fiber (FODMAP diet). So it's really hard to make sweeping recommendations because the body is so complex and nutrition involves so many different cooperating systems that can all go slightly wrong.

Re: An Insulin Index of Foods (1994)

#33

Post by RHSeeger » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 5:59 PM UTC

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…

As a Type 1 diabetic, it's certainly easier to control one's blood sugar eating multiple, smaller meals per day. Specifically, the rate at which the food and insulin are absorbed into the system can vary by a large amount. The smaller the meal (and insulin does needed for it), the less extrme a high/lower blood sugar spike is likely to be.

Re: An Insulin Index of Foods (1994)

#34

Post by hodder » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 6:00 PM UTC

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…

Spot on. But one of the main reasons fasting protocols “work” is that people are likely to reduce caloric intake and count macros/calories when they only eat in a tiny time window. It is difficult to eat 2k+ calories in a few hours and if you adhere to an intermittent fasting diet you will be much more likely to alter the nutritional profile and caloric intake of food you consume. It is no shocker people are noticing anecdotal improvements in bodyfat composition.

So while the actual intermittent fasting may not make much of a statistical metabolic difference if you hold caloric and macro consumption flat, in reality when people follow a fasting protocol they do not hold consumption flat.

Similarly when people follow ketogenic diets, they tend to eat far less calories. These diets tend to “work” mostly due to caloric restriction.

Re: An Insulin Index of Foods (1994)

#35

Post by JohnJamesRambo » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 6:00 PM UTC

will_brown wrote: post #28

JohnJamesRambo wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 availabi…

nu·tri·ent

noun

a substance that provides nourishment essential for growth and the maintenance of life.

Turmeric isn't a nutrient. I'm talking about fats, sugars, proteins, which your body hoards every bit of no matter how much is eaten in one meal or spaced out. Of course there are exceptions like if you drink a gallon of oil and you get oily diarrhea, but a normal person absorbs all the calories and energy that is available from the food they consume.

Iron has its own regulation system of absorption and excretion, based on the iron status of the individual. If only we had those checks and balances on our caloric intake!

Re: An Insulin Index of Foods (1994)

#36

Post by enraged_camel » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 6:07 PM UTC

wdewind wrote: post #32

rocgf wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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? We can't answer this confidently, the way I would say it is: there isn't strong evidence to support the idea that either is better. > Given my current understanding from all the intermittent fasting hype lately, it is indeed better to eat big me…

>>But they idea that any of these are significantly metabolically different is not at all supported by the science.

This doesn't seem correct. IF has statistically significant benefits:

https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/intermittent-fasting-sur...

(Supporting papers linked at the end)

Re: An Insulin Index of Foods (1994)

#37

Post by airstrike » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 6:19 PM UTC

wdewind wrote: post #32

rocgf wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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? We can't answer this confidently, the way I would say it is: there isn't strong evidence to support the idea that either is better. > Given my current understanding from all the intermittent fasting hype lately, it is indeed better to eat big me…

Somewhat unrelated, but you seem knowledgeable enough and I have this burning need to ask this question to someone: when prescribed to the average non-diabetic person, does the average diet for diabetics promote improved health? In other words, should we all just be eating as if we were diabetics?

Re: An Insulin Index of Foods (1994)

#38

Post by will_brown » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 6:22 PM UTC

JohnJamesRambo wrote: post #35

will_brown wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 availabi…

nu·tri·ent noun a substance that provides nourishment essential for growth and the maintenance of life. Turmeric isn't a nutrient. I'm talking about fats, sugars, proteins, which your body hoards every bit of no matter how much is eaten in one meal or spaced out. Of course there are exceptions like if you drink a gallon of oil and you get oily diarrhea, but a normal person absorbs all the calories and energy that is…

Yes, turmeric isn’t a nutrient, it’s a spice made up of nutrients.

Believe it or not vitamins and minerals are nutrients.

In nutrition science vitamins and minerals are generally referred to as micronutrients whereas fats, sugars, proteins are referred to as macronutrients.

And no macros are not all absorbed the same. As a general rule the longer someone’s intestines the more macro absorption they will have than someone with a shorter intestinal track. As I have already suggested digestive enzymes play a role, so if someone ate black pepper as I suggested before, that will secrete more digestive enzymes allowing for more absorption of calories and macros. There is also gut bacteria (microbiome) take for example the study of African twins where one is healthy and the other malnourished, where it was determined the malnourished twin with the same diet wasn’t absorbing the same amount of nutrients as the healthy twin because of the difference in their microbiome.

Re: An Insulin Index of Foods (1994)

#39

Post by johnkpaul » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 6:26 PM UTC

ghostbrainalpha wrote: post #10

IdontRememberIt wrote: post #4

My 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…

I found the same with the amount of sugar that's in a Splenda packet. Some of us are just very very sensitive to carbohydrates and live our whole lives without realizing.

Re: An Insulin Index of Foods (1994)

#40

Post by will_brown » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 6:32 PM UTC

GordonS wrote: post #31

will_brown wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have personally had to work through this concept... When in deep ketosis I was experimenting with various types of protein supplements and (surprisingly) found whey would spike my insulin. Of course this seemed odd as my supplement was pure and contained no sugar/no carbs. After researching come to find out this is well known and in fact whey has a bigger impact on insulin levels than pure glucose. Apparently the a…

I'm not aware of any way to check insulin levels from home - how did you do that?

In my case I wasn’t measuring for insulin in the blood I was measuring ketones before and after intake of the various proteins. In the case of whey my ketone readings would be around or above 3 mmol/L and after whey it would be <.5 mmol/L which would be indicative of being knocked out of ketosis through an insulin spike.