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

Re: An Insulin Index of Foods (1994)

#91

Post by JanSt » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 10:34 PM UTC

wdewind wrote: post #79

JanSt wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 p…

> 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. I have repeatedly said in this thread this doesn't apply to diabetics, who do have an insulin pathology. Diabetics do need to worry about insulin, non-diabetics do not. > Your body is very bad at burn…

> I have repeatedly said in this thread this doesn't apply to diabetics, who do have an insulin pathology. Diabetics do need to worry about insulin, non-diabetics do not.

Point taken :-)

> There is no science that disambiguates between large spikes followed by zero food in take (IF), and small spikes continually at the same calorie levels. Please feel free to send any study you think does.

and

> No, this is only true if you are eating all the time and also eating too many calories. . Again, please send a link to a study you think says otherwise.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4079942/

> Why are you not a fan of the only kind of study that could possibly prove your point?

Because you're on a circadian clock with lots of hormonal regulations that have huge influence on you. Most people won't feel as hungry on a fat-heavy diet as on a low-calorie (mostly low-fat) diet. Long-term adherence to low-calorie diets is just not working out for most people. Yes, calorie-restriction works in basically every living thing to prolong life. No, people will not do it.

> And why hasn't this study ever been successfully completed? Why have studies that attempted to do this been unable to show any difference in outcomes?

There is evidence. Please don't tell me there is conclusive evidence on anything related to nutrition. The second statement is not true, differences have been shown.

> I don't really know what you're implying here, but I suspect you are still getting hamstrung by the prandial window. Yes, insulin can block your ability to access fat in the short term, no it will not in the long term, and it does not do so entirely either. If you are eating the same number of calories and thus constantly releasing insulin you are blocking some, but not all, lipolysis. Lipolysis is not a binary, nor is insulin release. You can have both of them happening at the same time, even though insulin is blocking some of the lipolysis.

Yes, it's not binary, but the easy way to increase lipolysis is to decrease insulin.

Re: An Insulin Index of Foods (1994)

#92

Post by wdewind » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 10:40 PM UTC

JanSt wrote: post #91

wdewind wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. I have repeatedly said in this thread this doesn't apply to diabetics, who do have an insulin pathology. Diabetics do need to worry about insulin, non-diabetics do not. > Your body is very bad at burn…

> I have repeatedly said in this thread this doesn't apply to diabetics, who do have an insulin pathology. Diabetics do need to worry about insulin, non-diabetics do not. Point taken :-) > There is no science that disambiguates between large spikes followed by zero food in take (IF), and small spikes continually at the same calorie levels. Please feel free to send any study you think does. and > No, this is only true…

> Yes, calorie-restriction works in basically every living thing to prolong life. No, people will not do it.

Right, this is the point: it's about compliance, which is real and important, but very different from metabolic change.

> Please don't tell me there is conclusive evidence on anything related to nutrition. The second statement is not true, differences have been shown.

No, there is no study showing the same number of calories consumed over different feeding schedules have any different outcomes. I am 100% confident about this. To be clear: there are studies showing people on IF eat fewer calories, and that eating few calories has net benefits. That's great, but that's compliance not metabolism.

> Yes, it's not binary, but the easy way to increase lipolysis is to decrease insulin.

Again, time windows. Please consider time windows. In a 24 hour period this stuff is all neutralized. Or maybe it's not, but we don't have any science showing it's not, and quite a bit showing it is.

Re: An Insulin Index of Foods (1994)

#93

Post by avinium » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 10:56 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…

Did the whey contain artificial sweetener?

Re: An Insulin Index of Foods (1994)

#94

Post by wdewind » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 11:07 PM UTC

will_brown wrote: post #74

nradov wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes but is there any hard evidence that leads to improved health outcomes in humans?

What’s “hard evidence”? There are no shortage of published studies about the health benefits in humans. You might start with “Curcumin: A review of its effects on Human Health”. “Research suggests that curcumin can help in the management of oxidative and inflammatory conditions, metabolic syndrome, arthritis, Anxiety, and hyperlipidemia.” The same study finds it may also help with exercise induced inflammation and mu…

I think what he's asking for is long term epidemiological studies, which are hard to come by. I'd have to see the studies you are referring to, but most likely they refer to measurements occurring over a relatively short time period, on a relatively small sample size (or in a lab on animals, or just cells, etc. etc.). This stuff is totally valid, but a lot of it is really hard to detect at a large scale level. You can justify many kinds of diets by looking at the short term biological impact of them, but the reality is that if these diets are so much better it shouldn't be so difficult to detect them in epidemiological studies. The classic example is the widely misinterpreted "China Study" which many people use to justify a vegetarian diet, but in fact did the opposite by proving that the effect size of eating red meat, while statistically significant, was literally 2 orders of magnitude below what would be considered clinically relevant at an epidemiological scale.

Re: An Insulin Index of Foods (1994)

#95

Post by avinium » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 11:10 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 experimenting with IF/keto at the moment, mainly to see if it helps put on lean muscle. For context, I've also been eating relatively clean (low carb, high protein/fibre) for years now.

I take all the internet commentary about low insulin levels (etc) with a grain of salt. I just don't know enough about endocrinology or the current state of research.

That being said, higher carbohydrate intake causes a noticeable spike in how hungry I feel. If I have a moderately carb-heavy dinner (50-100g), I'm ravenous when I wake up, and mentally I'm a lot fuzzier.

Then, like clockwork, they both disappear around 3pm, which I assume coincides with the switch over from metabolizing glycogen to fatty acids.

If I keep carbs under 20g, I'm fine from the moment I wake up. I have mild sensations of hunger later in the day, but nothing like the pangs I get on the higher carb diet.

This seems to be well documented, and most people on the keto diet report similar experiences.

Do you think this hormonal response has no impact on weight loss (or, for that matter, muscle gain)?

Re: An Insulin Index of Foods (1994)

#96

Post by will_brown » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 11:42 PM UTC

wdewind wrote: post #94

will_brown wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What’s “hard evidence”? There are no shortage of published studies about the health benefits in humans. You might start with “Curcumin: A review of its effects on Human Health”. “Research suggests that curcumin can help in the management of oxidative and inflammatory conditions, metabolic syndrome, arthritis, Anxiety, and hyperlipidemia.” The same study finds it may also help with exercise induced inflammation and mu…

I think what he's asking for is long term epidemiological studies, which are hard to come by. I'd have to see the studies you are referring to, but most likely they refer to measurements occurring over a relatively short time period, on a relatively small sample size (or in a lab on animals, or just cells, etc. etc.). This stuff is totally valid, but a lot of it is really hard to detect at a large scale level. You ca…

Well I didn’t make a single claim as to the medical/health benefits of turmeric/curcumin anyway, not sure why he asked period.

My point is about absorption, and curcumin is the perfect example of my point, by itself it isn’t bioavailable but studies provide “hard evidence” that black pepper makes curcumin 2000x more bioavailable.

Re: An Insulin Index of Foods (1994)

#97

Post by soulbadguy » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 12:03 AM UTC

wdewind wrote: post #88

soulbadguy wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But guess what? Net the body is really pretty good at smoothing this stuff out, it's sort of the entire point of fat storage. Any resource to validate this claim. This is just a reformulation of the CICO argument. Saying the body "is good at smoothing this out" is tautological at saying that the distribution of the calories across the time domain (the IF crow) or accros the macro domain ( paleo peps) doesn't matter…

> Any resource to validate this claim. Most IF studies do not show any metabolic difference, and the ones that do do not control for calories. I'm sorry to shift the burden of proof, but I feel like CICO is the default position and additional nuance requires proof, not the opposite. Also I am lazy. > Again any claim to this ? Most reference i see have this causation relationship reversed.... Yeah totally, so the clai…

> but I feel like CICO is the default position and additional nuance requires proof

Is there really a need to default position ? CICO and the fact that distribution (both in time and macro) of the calorie in matter can both be true. The assumption i do not agree with in CICO is CI is an independent and infinitely controllable variable. Now it's possible that the causal link between a certain macro distribution (let say high carb diet) and weight gain is mediated by CI, but from there it doesnt follow that CI control is an effective way of weight control.

> but we have not translated this to epidemiological studies.

Depends on what you call epidemiological study, but using the diabetic population, the causal link between insulin and weigth gain is pretty strong. The book "obesity code" make of good case for that.

Re: An Insulin Index of Foods (1994)

#98

Post by wdewind » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 2:10 AM UTC

avinium wrote: post #95

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 experimenting with IF/keto at the moment, mainly to see if it helps put on lean muscle. For context, I've also been eating relatively clean (low carb, high protein/fibre) for years now. I take all the internet commentary about low insulin levels (etc) with a grain of salt. I just don't know enough about endocrinology or the current state of research. That being said, higher carbohydrate intake causes a noticeable…

> Do you think this hormonal response has no impact on weight loss (or, for that matter, muscle gain)?

That's way too broad a statement for me to blanket agree or disagree with. Short answer: no I definitely don't think that. Long answer: basically everything else I said in this thread.

Re: An Insulin Index of Foods (1994)

#99

Post by wdewind » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 2:17 AM UTC

soulbadguy wrote: post #97

wdewind wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Any resource to validate this claim. Most IF studies do not show any metabolic difference, and the ones that do do not control for calories. I'm sorry to shift the burden of proof, but I feel like CICO is the default position and additional nuance requires proof, not the opposite. Also I am lazy. > Again any claim to this ? Most reference i see have this causation relationship reversed.... Yeah totally, so the clai…

> but I feel like CICO is the default position and additional nuance requires proof Is there really a need to default position ? CICO and the fact that distribution (both in time and macro) of the calorie in matter can both be true. The assumption i do not agree with in CICO is CI is an independent and infinitely controllable variable. Now it's possible that the causal link between a certain macro distribution (let s…

> CICO and the fact that distribution (both in time and macro) of the calorie in matter can both be true.

Maybe they do matter somewhat, but here's the deal: if everyone who was obese in this country all of a sudden started eating a diet that was macronutriently ideal and consumed at the perfect times, but maintained the same number of calories, there would be no difference in the prevalence of obesity. I think the science really confidently supports that position, and I'd be happy to look at anything you think denies it.

> Depends on what you call epidemiological study, but using the diabetic population, the causal link between insulin and weigth gain is pretty strong. The book "obesity code" make of good case for that.

I am very familiar with Dr Fung's work and don't think that any of it makes the case you are trying to make. All of his work provides proof for what I've been saying over and over in this thread: IF and Keto can be great ways to create compliance to a diet, but there is no evidence, including the work of Dr Fung, that shows these diets behaving differently from simple calorie control outside of the compliance aspect.

Re: An Insulin Index of Foods (1994)

#100

Post by otabdeveloper2 » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 4:54 AM UTC

wdewind wrote: post #47

enraged_camel wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>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 wi…

> 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.

Yeah, welcome to medicine. If you've ever encountered these things in a non-theoretic perspective (i.e., having some condition), you quickly see that doctors don't know shit.

Perhaps not surprising, given that human experimentation is taboo.

Anyways, how does what you're saying mesh with the fact that extra glucose is stored in your body's reserves while ketones are secreted with urine and breath?