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

41–50 of 122 posts

Re: An Insulin Index of Foods (1994)

#41

Post by sickrumbear »

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.

Re: An Insulin Index of Foods (1994)

#42

Post by wdewind »

RHSeeger wrote: post #33
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…

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.

Yes, I want to point out that diabetics react differently and really do have to manage insulin, it's the idea that metabolically healthy people also have to that is a red herring. Obesity is not an insulin disorder just because insulin is involved. Diabetes is absolutely an insulin disorder.

Re: An Insulin Index of Foods (1994)

#43

Post by SketchySeaBeast »

sioux77 wrote: post #30
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…

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

That of course assuming you're diabetic, otherwise you are totally capable of consuming food either way.

Re: An Insulin Index of Foods (1994)

#44

Post by wdewind »

airstrike wrote: post #37
wdewind wrote: post #32

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? 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?

> In other words, should we all just be eating as if we were diabetics?

I assume you mean low glycemic load. I don't think so. I think we should all focus primarily on eating the right number of calories, and the behaviors that get us to do that. If that is Keto, or IF, or Low GI, even something random like afternoon naps then great.

Also, for some populations, like athletes, a low-gi diet would end up resulting in decreased performance. I think it's really difficult to make sweeping dietary recommendations because there are just so many confounding factors.

Re: An Insulin Index of Foods (1994)

#45

Post by trentlott »

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?

Walmart blood strip tester?

Re: An Insulin Index of Foods (1994)

#46

Post by yaronhadad »

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...

Re: An Insulin Index of Foods (1994)

#47

Post by wdewind »

enraged_camel wrote: post #36
wdewind wrote: post #32

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? 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)

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 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.

1. These papers do not show different outcomes with calorically controlled inputs, as I mentioned. One of the tricks used by the IF scientific community is to serve the same number of calories and so it looks like the same number of calories were consumed in the abstract. 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.

2. There is a difference between statistical significance (which could be, but has not been, shown in calorically controlled diets), and clinical significance (which definitely has not been shown in calorically controlled diets, and likely will not).

Re: An Insulin Index of Foods (1994)

#48

Post by yaronhadad »

gibsjose wrote: post #24
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?

There isn't an easy way to measure insulin levels today. For glucose one can use CGMs

Re: An Insulin Index of Foods (1994)

#49

Post by coldtea »

enraged_camel wrote: post #36
wdewind wrote: post #32

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? 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)

>Supporting papers linked at the end

Not really "supporting papers". Just random papers on the subject, most non-supporting.

E.g. one of linked papers covers a research on "alternate day IF" and concludes: "Alternate-day fasting did not produce superior adherence, weight loss, weight maintenance, or cardioprotection vs daily calorie restriction."

Another is a meta-study that concludes: "Although both treatment interventions achieved similar changes in body weight (approximately 7 kg), the pooled estimate for studies that investigated the effect of intermittent energy restriction in comparison to continuous energy restriction revealed no significant difference in weight loss".

A third of the linked studies concludes: "Research has not demonstrated that alternate-day fasting regimens produce superior weight loss in comparison to standard, continuous calorie restriction weight-loss plans."

So it's just a random "blog" style post, on health.harvard.edu nonetheless, that gives several links, that do not support its thesis.

But a casual reader will think "hmm, the post says IF is good, and gives links to several studies, so the science is solid" (assuming that the links support IF).

Re: An Insulin Index of Foods (1994)

#50

Post by yaronhadad »

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…

You can use the Nutrino FoodPrint app to measure it
Post reply on HN