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

Re: An Insulin Index of Foods (1994)

#61

Post by wdewind » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 7:56 PM UTC

JanSt wrote: post #57

wdewind wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. The problem is that there isn't any real data, on an epidemiological level, that says this matters. I don't mean to be offensive, it's just a weird obsession with the Keto community I don't really understand. Same with insulin spi…

> 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 again. You can only keep your insulin levels pathologically elevated if you are eating enough to support that over the long term, regardless of when you eat. Again, your body is very good at supplementing energy needs with fat when it needs to. Again there is no study showing meal time having any impact when calories are balanced, and several confirming the opposite.

> It absolutely does matter, because your body does not burn a static amount of calories but adapts to the situation. Slowing metabolism is real. If you can't burn energy (low caloric input but frequent meals), your body will do what it needs to survive.

Your body adapts to a short term situation (a meal and the small post-prandial period) but in the long term (24 hour period) it makes zero difference.

> Slowing metabolism is real.

Yes but it's also reversible by, shockingly, increasing caloric demand.

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. Maybe it would change, but this would be a massive massive change in our understanding of how the human body deals with energy.

Re: An Insulin Index of Foods (1994)

#62

Post by wdewind » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 7:59 PM UTC

lawnchair_larry wrote: post #56

wdewind wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have to be more specific. T1 diabetes is almost entirely genetic, T2 diabetes is almost entirely behavioral. T2 diabetes is caused by eating too many calories. T2 diabetes is reversed by constraining calories, regardless of macronutrient composition.

What about the other fad diet boogeyman, inflammation? Is there any relevance between that and insulin responses? Or anything else?

It's the same idea: talking about spikes vs average. Calories is what matters. Yes, insulin and inflammation can be linked, but also you wont have excess of either on a calorically controlled diet.

Interestingly context can totally reverse the implications here too. For instance: as a weightlifter I want a heavy insulin response and I want a heavy inflammatory response because both of those help build muscle. So even saying that inflammation is bad requires a bit more nuance. It's very complicated, which is why Calories In Calories Out is such a powerful simplification. It doesn't tell you everything, but everything fits into that explanation, and if you can figure out how to control calories a ton of other bad things stop happening too.

Re: An Insulin Index of Foods (1994)

#63

Post by SketchySeaBeast » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 8:00 PM UTC

sioux77 wrote: post #59

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Capable, but it doesn't matter since your blood sugar level will spike higher and for longer with a single large meal even in a non-diabetic individual.

And why, when compared to a constant elevated level from many small meals, is that a bad thing?

Re: An Insulin Index of Foods (1994)

#64

Post by amanaplanacanal » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 8:07 PM UTC

wdewind wrote: post #9

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…

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 having a hard time with some of the things you are saying here, but my knowledge of how this stuff works is pretty simplistic. I'm curious specifically about the mechanisms for this stuff.

How can fat elevate blood sugar levels?

If you don't have elevated blood sugar from eating a bunch of carbs, what effect does insulin have? Does it cause blood sugar to go even lower?

On gluconeogenesis: I thought this was demand driven rather than supply driven. Insulin apparently is an inhibitor for this. So how does this work?

Re: An Insulin Index of Foods (1994)

#65

Post by will_brown » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 8:22 PM UTC

nradov wrote: post #58

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…

Is there any clinical research showing improved health outcomes for combining black pepper with turmeric?

There are published human and animal Studies showing that piperine enhances serum concentration, extent of absorption and bioavailability of curcumin by 2,000%.

Re: An Insulin Index of Foods (1994)

#66

Post by JanSt » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 8:22 PM UTC

JanSt wrote: post #57

wdewind wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. The problem is that there isn't any real data, on an epidemiological level, that says this matters. I don't mean to be offensive, it's just a weird obsession with the Keto community I don't really understand. Same with insulin spi…

> 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…

> Right but what happens when you no longer inputting calories and thus no longer have high insulin? Then you start burning the fat again. You can only keep your insulin levels pathologically elevated if you are eating enough to support that over the long term, regardless of when you eat.

No, diabetics have an elevated insulin levels for hours after a meal. Like, after 4 hours it's still at the level a non-diabetic peaks at after 0.5-1 hour. Eating many meals will keep your insulin levels high all-day.

> Again, your body is very good at supplementing energy needs with fat when it needs to. Again there is no study showing meal time having any impact when calories are balanced, and several confirming the opposite.

Your body is very bad at burning fat in the presence of insulin. Meal time is only important as to not keep your insulin level elevated all the time.

> Your body adapts to a short term situation (a meal and the small post-prandial period) but in the long term (24 hour period) it makes zero difference.

If you are eating all the time, the short term situation becomes the long term situation, not barely on 24 hour periods but for years on end. This is especially true for diabetics and pre-diabetics, as their insulin level will lower way slower.

This is not to say you can't avoid the whole situation by lowering your calories BEFORE you become diabetic. It may actually be the best way, but the science is far from being set because it's such a complex problem.

> Yes but it's also reversible by, shockingly, increasing caloric demand.

It's reversible by either supplementing more food or allowing your body to access its own resources (low insulin!). Increasing caloric demand (exercise!) will help insofar as you're burning of sugar -> less insulin.

> 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.

While I'm not a fan of isocaloric studys, this should work, yes. You would also have to factor in a lot of other parameters, like established insulin resistance (probably using Kraft-Patterns)

> This has never happened, and based on our current understanding of metabolism never will. Maybe it would change, but this would be a massive massive change in our understanding of how the human body deals with energy.

I'm genuinely interested as to what your understanding of insulins / glucagons effect on your body's ability to access fat is.

Re: An Insulin Index of Foods (1994)

#67

Post by wdewind » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 8:22 PM UTC

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #64

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 having a hard time with some of the things you are saying here, but my knowledge of how this stuff works is pretty simplistic. I'm curious specifically about the mechanisms for this stuff. How can fat elevate blood sugar levels? If you don't have elevated blood sugar from eating a bunch of carbs, what effect does insulin have? Does it cause blood sugar to go even lower? On gluconeogenesis: I thought this was dema…

> How can fat elevate blood sugar levels?

Via gluconeogenesis, but it is, for sure, less effective than protein based gluconeogenesis.

> If you don't have elevated blood sugar from eating a bunch of carbs, what effect does insulin have?

You have elevated blood sugar from having an excess of calories. Dietary sugar is most rapidly converted to blood sugar, but all excess calories are eventually converted via gluconeogenesis.

> Does it cause blood sugar to go even lower?

Yes, and in extremes can cause death.

> On gluconeogenesis: I thought this was demand driven rather than supply driven. Insulin apparently is an inhibitor for this. So how does this work?

Gluconeogenesis first causes the breakdown of protein into available glucose. What the body does with it after that has a lot to do with the body's current energy demands. Insulin is an inhibitor for this, but insulin is also only elevated post-prandial, and most gluconeogenesis happens off schedule from eating (or at the very least after the initial insulin response).

The major error people make when trying to understand this stuff is to focus on too short of a time frame, in this case the very small period right after a meal is consumed, rather than something longer, like a 24 hour period. As soon as you zoom out to 24 hours a lot of these ideas stop making sense because your body has a large amount of resources dedicated to effectively regulating energy expenditure.

Re: An Insulin Index of Foods (1994)

#68

Post by DavideNL » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 8:28 PM UTC

miguelrochefort wrote: post #26

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.

...and Firefox on macOS

Re: An Insulin Index of Foods (1994)

#69

Post by keymone » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 8:35 PM UTC

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.

What diabetics are told to eat has generally been bullshit for good half a century. The whole low-fat craze and cholesterol horror stories I mean.

Re: An Insulin Index of Foods (1994)

#70

Post by echelon » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 8:37 PM UTC

wdewind wrote: post #9

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…

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…

It's far too simplistic to argue that it's the average insulin intake that matters. The complex kinetics depends both on rate as well as average / basal dosages. This is a complex system that behaves differently across individuals with varying metabolisms and diets. Spikes can trigger different biological responses that respond to thresholds and equilibria. It's a differential problem, and the answer isn't easy.