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

Diets high in advanced glycation end products promote insulin resistance

examine.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 46 posts

Re: Diets high in advanced glycation end products promote insulin resistance

#31

Post by HumanOstrich »

FooBarBizBazz wrote: post #29
HumanOstrich wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, "calories in, calories out" is a popular myth, usually used as a way to insult and degrade people who are overweight. You could drink your body's caloric needs in gasoline each day, but you'd quickly find out that WHAT you consume affects your body's response too. Biology is surprisingly complex.

Spreading "cope" hurts other people who read it and believe. Bomb-calorimeter energy is an upper bound on what your body can extract from the food, and limiting an upper bound works. But ok, there is a problem with "CICO": Although true, it does psychologically put "CI" and "CO" on an equal footing -- whereas 90% of your attention really needs to be on "CI". The body is very efficient; exercising doesn't burn much. I…

Your body doesn't absorb all the calories you consume, nor does it expend or store as energy all the calories you absorb. Biology is complicated and CICO is a flawed and condescending oversimplification. It's like telling people "well, you know, if you eat more than you need to, you'll gain weight". Duh, not helpful.

Re: Diets high in advanced glycation end products promote insulin resistance

#32

Post by 00N8 »

HumanOstrich wrote: post #25
hetthakkar wrote: post #13

Wonder if these negative outcomes still exist if high and low AGE diets were iso-caloric

No, "calories in, calories out" is a popular myth, usually used as a way to insult and degrade people who are overweight. You could drink your body's caloric needs in gasoline each day, but you'd quickly find out that WHAT you consume affects your body's response too. Biology is surprisingly complex.

The "calories in" part is usually understood to mean "metabolically available calories from food (& drink) in a human or other animal's diet". Calories from heat, electricity, gasoline, etc., wouldn't count.

There can be some edge cases around water retention, foods an individual happens to metabolize more/less effectively than average, & practical considerations like negative-satiety foods (things like candy or beer that contain calories but end up making you more hungry after a short while). Metabolic & activity level changes are another confounding variable one might need to track. But overall the CICO model gives accurate predictions for weight change in most cases as far as I know. I pay attention to my diet & weight & it's been perfectly reliable for me (although maybe that makes me biased to think it's a better model than it really is -- sorry if that's the case)

Anyway, you'll need to provide some evidence other than a straw-man/non-sequitur about drinking gasoline if you want to convince me CICO is a "myth"

Re: Diets high in advanced glycation end products promote insulin resistance

#33

Post by UncleOxidant »

formerly_proven wrote: post #12
tjohns wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a good first-order approximation, but is missing some nuance. An example they use is eggs: Pan-fried eggs are listed as high in AGEs, whereas scrambled eggs aren't. Admittedly my diet isn't the best, but I wouldn't have expected a meaningful difference between ordering my eggs scrambled vs sunnyside-up. Or for meat, stewed meat would be healthier than roasted meat. I'm suddenly curious about coffee, now that t…

Scrambled eggs don't have any browning, sunny side up does.

That depends. Some people like to brown their scrambled eggs a bit.

Re: Diets high in advanced glycation end products promote insulin resistance

#34

Post by s1artibartfast »

HumanOstrich wrote: post #31
FooBarBizBazz wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spreading "cope" hurts other people who read it and believe. Bomb-calorimeter energy is an upper bound on what your body can extract from the food, and limiting an upper bound works. But ok, there is a problem with "CICO": Although true, it does psychologically put "CI" and "CO" on an equal footing -- whereas 90% of your attention really needs to be on "CI". The body is very efficient; exercising doesn't burn much. I…

Your body doesn't absorb all the calories you consume, nor does it expend or store as energy all the calories you absorb. Biology is complicated and CICO is a flawed and condescending oversimplification. It's like telling people "well, you know, if you eat more than you need to, you'll gain weight". Duh, not helpful.

>It's like telling people "well, you know, if you eat more than you need to, you'll gain weight". Duh, not helpful.

It is a foundation to work from. Far better than believing that you can cheat thermodynamics, which is generally the alternative.

There are some fringe cases and nuances, but I have never heard of one that was relevant. Do you have a use case where deviations would matter?

Absorbed calories don't match label calories, but weight loss and gain are studied in terms of label calories, so it is irrelevant unless you are doing chemistry or particle physics.

Labels could be in terms of arbitrary moon units instead of calories and it would still be true. Weight loss is a function of moon units in and moon units out.

Re: Diets high in advanced glycation end products promote insulin resistance

#35

Post by naming_the_user »

HumanOstrich wrote: post #31
FooBarBizBazz wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spreading "cope" hurts other people who read it and believe. Bomb-calorimeter energy is an upper bound on what your body can extract from the food, and limiting an upper bound works. But ok, there is a problem with "CICO": Although true, it does psychologically put "CI" and "CO" on an equal footing -- whereas 90% of your attention really needs to be on "CI". The body is very efficient; exercising doesn't burn much. I…

Your body doesn't absorb all the calories you consume, nor does it expend or store as energy all the calories you absorb. Biology is complicated and CICO is a flawed and condescending oversimplification. It's like telling people "well, you know, if you eat more than you need to, you'll gain weight". Duh, not helpful.

If you have a diet, say each week you eat X grams of meat, Y of vegetables, Z of cereals, and then next week (or for a number of weeks) you eat {X,Y,Z}1.1 or {X,Y,Z}0.9, that will have a net effect all else being equal.

There is nothing condescending about that. No-one is really claiming that all calories are equal e.g. you can replace 500 kcals of chicken with 450 kcals of olive oil and that be some sort of blockbuster great idea.

CICO does have an implicit "your diet isn't completely batshit insane" attached to it.

Re: Diets high in advanced glycation end products promote insulin resistance

#36

Post by reducesuffering »

numbsafari wrote: post #18
alliao wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

but how else will we get that sweet sweet aroma from Maillard reaction....

Cook it sous vide and then give it a quick sear. Everything in moderation.

> Cook it sous vide

Then you're getting heated plastic?

Re: Diets high in advanced glycation end products promote insulin resistance

#37

Post by kylehotchkiss »

narrator wrote: post #15
selbyk wrote: post #3

For others who also don't know what advanced glycation end-products are/are a bit confused by the headline: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_glycation_end-produ... Found in humans, they are bio markers for quite a few diseases, including diabetes (type 2 = insulin resistance). Food sources are animal products. Wiki says vegetarians have been shown to have more than non-vegetarians, discounting dietary reasons…

What's interesting about them is that if you microwave your food, you get fewer of them[1]. That's because they are primarily produced by the mallard reaction which is caused by food, such as bread, getting toasted[2]. The worst foods for this are barbecued stuff. Also, carmel color is very rich in advanced glycation end products, so avoid Diet Coke! [1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3704564/ [2] https://e…

> also, carmel color is very rich in advanced glycation end products, so avoid Diet Coke!

Interesting, why can't all of chemistry not provide a better formulation for darkening Coke? is there something difficult to mask in there?

Re: Diets high in advanced glycation end products promote insulin resistance

#38

Post by saulpw »

kylehotchkiss wrote: post #37
narrator wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's interesting about them is that if you microwave your food, you get fewer of them[1]. That's because they are primarily produced by the mallard reaction which is caused by food, such as bread, getting toasted[2]. The worst foods for this are barbecued stuff. Also, carmel color is very rich in advanced glycation end products, so avoid Diet Coke! [1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3704564/ [2] https://e…

> also, carmel color is very rich in advanced glycation end products, so avoid Diet Coke! Interesting, why can't all of chemistry not provide a better formulation for darkening Coke? is there something difficult to mask in there?

I would bet money there are many different ways to color a beverage similarly. But I would bet even more money that Coca-Cola won't ever change its formula, and especially not based on dietary research. When there's public paranoia and sales suffer, they'll introduce something like Coke Plus in an effort to win over a more health-conscious market. They'll keep making Coke Classic same as it ever was and keep selling it to everyone else.

Re: Diets high in advanced glycation end products promote insulin resistance

#39

Post by tjohns »

numbsafari wrote: post #18
alliao wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

but how else will we get that sweet sweet aroma from Maillard reaction....

Cook it sous vide and then give it a quick sear. Everything in moderation.

The “quick sear” is specifically what causes the Maillard reaction though!

Re: Diets high in advanced glycation end products promote insulin resistance

#40

Post by tjohns »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #20
eptcyka wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In short, if it tastes nice and was man-processed, it probably will be bad for you?

Well, it was good for us when we first tamed fire, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. Ain't greater modern cargo cult than "healthy food".

People didn’t live very long when we first tamed fire - not because of diet, but because something else in nature would eventually get you first. So it didn’t really matter what early humans ate as long as it gave them immediate energy.

People only needed to live long enough to reproduce, and that’s what our bodies are optimized for. Most people would prefer to live longer, though. ;)

Post reply on HN