Whatever Happened to Low-Carb Diets?

[Judynyc]

Whatever Happened to Low-Carb Diets?

New Study Supports Safety of Low-Carbohydrates Diets, but May Not Be Enough to Revive Trend.

By DAN CHILDS
ABC News Medical Unit


Nov. 8, 2006 — Americans have been debating the risks and benefits of different diets, specifically low-fat versus low-carbohydrate diets, even decades before the Atkins Diet and the South Beach Diet swept the nation.

Now, a new study has answers to an old question: Is a low-carbohydrate diet bad for the heart?

No, suggests new research published in today's issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, and it's not any worse than a diet high in carbs.

The study, which involved more than 82,000 women from across the country over 20 years, confirms what previous research has suggested: Low-carbohydrate diets do not increase heart-disease risk.

Even though low-carb dieters might tend to eat more fats and other heart-unhealthy foods, over time their risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) did not exceed that of their counterparts who instead consumed a low-fat, low-cholesterol diet.

The study's researchers say the results suggest that low-carb diets are at least on equal footing with other forms of dieting when it comes to heart health.

"This study suggests that neither a low-fat dietary pattern nor a typical low-carbohydrate dietary pattern is ideal with regards to risk of CHD. Both have similar risks," said study researcher Tom Halton, a former doctoral student in the Department of Nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston.

"However, if a diet moderately lower in carbohydrates is followed, with a focus on vegetable sources of fat and protein, there may be a benefit for heart disease," Halton said.

Backing the findings are data from three trials published in 2003, which showed that low-carb diets do not increase cardiovascular risk factors.

In those studies, the Atkins Diet, a bellwether regimen on the low-carb scene, was compared to a different diet emphasizing a low intake of fat and cholesterol.

The results? Those on the Atkins Diet actually had greater improvements in insulin sensitivity, HDL (good) cholesterol and triglyceride levels than did the low-fat, low-cal dieters.

The findings, however, come with a caveat common to many of the other studies on high-protein, low-carb diets. In short, don't go crazy on the red meat.


2nd and 3rd pages can be read at this link:
http://abcnews.go.com:80/Health/Cholesterol/story?id=2639320&page=1&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

[Nancy LC]

Silly gits.

[Rachel1]

The logic of this is mind-boggling.

Premise 1 (accepted as true for last 30 or so years): A low-fat diet is "heart-healthy."

Premise 2 (follows from 20-year study and more recent (2003) studies): A low-carb diet is at least as heart-healthy as a low-fat diet.

Logical conclusion: A low-carb diet is heart-healthy.

But what's the researchers' conclusion? "Don't go crazy on the red meat." How on earth does this follow?

Rachel

[ojoj]

Silly gits.

LOL :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[mike_d]

They always intone the "high-protein diet." Many people on LC now eat more vegetables in a day than they ever did on high-starch and sugars. I just pickled a whole head of cauliflower, I have never eaten pickled vegetables except maybe by accident from a salad bar.

[serrelind]

But what's the researchers' conclusion? "Don't go crazy on the red meat." How on earth does this follow?


That drives me nuts too. I mean I can understand that warning if it was attached to a high carb diet, but where is the basis that going "crazy" on red meat while on a low-carb diet is bad for you?

[LarryAJ]

That drives me nuts too. I mean I can understand that warning if it was attached to a high carb diet, but where is the basis that going "crazy" on red meat while on a low-carb diet is bad for you? Could it be that replacing carbs with ONLY protein causes the body to "convert" the excess protein into glucose more readily than in to fat? I do not have my reference books available right now so I could check.

We know that you MUST eat enough protein to replace that which is lost, hair, nails, skin, as well as that used up in producing all the enzymes, hormones and other chemicals needed by the body. Carbohydrates can ONLY be used for energy since they have nothing but carbon, hydrogen and oxygen. Excess dietary carbohydrates are stored as fat which has only the same three atoms as carbohydrates. Proteins have nitrogen added to the carbon, hydrogen and oxygen of carbohydrates and fats. So protein can be converted to fat or glucose by the body to supply energy when there is not enough fat (or carbohydrates, which a low-carber knows to restrict) in the diet. Thus, if you only replace carbohydrates with protein, you can have a situation that is not significantly different than before on a high carbohydrate diet. The answer is to replace the carbohydrates with fat in the diet. BUT, FAT is a "BAD" thing - NOT!!! - in the eyes of most people. And fat is most associated with red meat (beef) so the caveat is put in to get the article past the peer review.

[Nancy LC]

Could it be that replacing carbs with ONLY protein causes the body to "convert" the excess protein into glucose more readily than in to fat? I do not have my reference books available right now so I could check.
I'd be interested in hearing more about this.

I've "heard" that converting protein to glucose is pretty inefficient, like you lose about 20% of the "calories" you've eaten due to that inefficiency. But then I've heard a couple of people saying you could raise your blood sugar by eating too much protein. But I'd like to read something more definitive than chit-chat on a message forum. Share your source if you can!

[StLouisTom]

I'd be interested in hearing more about this.

I've "heard" that converting protein to glucose is pretty inefficient, like you lose about 20% of the "calories" you've eaten due to that inefficiency. But then I've heard a couple of people saying you could raise your blood sugar by eating too much protein. But I'd like to read something more definitive than chit-chat on a message forum. Share your source if you can!

Nancy,

This interests me, as well. I don't understand all the science, but I read something in Dr. Bernstein's Diabetes Solution that just assumes the protein is converted into glucose. He gives a very instructive example of how the same meal would affect the blood sugar of three different people: 1. A person without diabetes, 2. a person with Type I diabetes, and 3. a person with Type II. Part of the meal is carbohydrate, which immediately raises the blood sugar, and part is protein, which raises the blood sugar a couple of hours later. Again, he says this very matter-of-factly...the protein just gets converted into glucose. He doesn't go into the biochemistry, so I'm not sure of the mechanism. I'd love to hear more about it myself. For example, is there an upper limit on protein intake we should have, and if so, what is it? How is this determined?

[Nancy LC]

Tom, someone pointed me to this link (http://www.lowcarbmuscle.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1602), I'm reading now.
many people are still surprised that protein foods can elicit a pronounced insulin response, but it is no great mystery. Numerous amino acids are well known for their insulinotropic actions. This is perfectly natural - after all, insulin doesn't just push glucose into cells, it also promotes amino uptake.

[ysabella]

Reading the headline of this topic, in the context of this forum, comes off like "Whatever happened to that crazy rock-and-roll music those crazy kids used to listen to?" :D

[Nancy LC]

Oh my word! I just read this study: http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/reprint/66/5/1264

It compares glucose and insulin release of a bunch of different foods for 120 min after eating (in healthy people):

Food Glucose Insulin
White bread (baseline) 100 100
All-Bran Cereal 40 32
Porridge 60 40
Eggs 42 31
Beef 21 51
Fish 28 59
Peanuts 12 20

This is comparing 1000kj calories for each food.
Does this surprise anyone else?

[StLouisTom]

Oh my word! I just read this study: http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/reprint/66/5/1264

It compares glucose and insulin release of a bunch of different foods for 120 min after eating (in healthy people):

Food Glucose Insulin
White bread (baseline) 100 100
All-Bran Cereal 40 32
Porridge 60 40
Eggs 42 31
Beef 21 51
Fish 28 59
Peanuts 12 20

This is comparing 1000kj calories for each food.
Does this surprise anyone else?

I used to be a vegetarian, actually eating a near vegan diet. Obviously those folks were very anti-low carb. This was one of their arguments against low carb...that protein foods cause an equal or greater insulin response than carb foods, so how can the low carbers argue that it helps reduce insulin?

I think the key is that the measurement is two hours after the meal. If you measured right after the meal, the carbs would cause an immediate spike, and the protein would not. A gradual increase is easily handled. It's the big swings in glucose and insulin that really cause the problems. At least that's my understanding.

[Samuel]

Oh my word! I just read this study: http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/reprint/66/5/1264

It compares glucose and insulin release of a bunch of different foods for 120 min after eating (in healthy people):

Food Glucose Insulin
White bread (baseline) 100 100
All-Bran Cereal 40 32
Porridge 60 40
Eggs 42 31
Beef 21 51
Fish 28 59
Peanuts 12 20

This is comparing 1000kj calories for each food.
Does this surprise anyone else?

If this means that beef causes the release of more insulin than peanuts while both give the same calorie amount, it will be something to think of since beef is obviously more satisfying than peanuts.

Any way, I disagree with anybody who doubts the fact that low carb diets work, but I don't disagree with the ones who doubt the theory which explains how they do.

[nawchem]

I was once a passionate blood sugar tester. I would do the 1hr and 2 hr tests. My fasting bs was 80-85 my bs never went over 100 eating any type of meat or eggs. I'm not the type to gorge on meat, I eat 2 eggs, or 4oz of meat at a meal so maybe that makes a difference. 2eggs approx 140cal. I don't know how many kj that is. One day I had french toast with syrup and coffee and it went up in the 150s. When I get low bs peanuts are the best around for getting me back to normal. Maybe thats the insulin effect?

I think the point of the study is that only about a 1/3 of the population has bs problems. So the 'normal' body doesn't react radically differently to those foods. But any diabetic/prediabetic person would probably have completely different results when you add in the carbs.

I think tom is right, a 30 min measurement would be informative.

Yeah I think its weird that beef and fish insulin are highish Nancy. Gluconeogenesis is causing the increase?

[Nancy LC]

These tests were done every 15 minutes for 2 hours (ow, that's a lot of poking). I didn't see anything in the study that showed how quickly insulin was released or glucose rose. I suppose it was the peak of each food. They did say that foods that combined fats/carb were made worse and that adding protein to carbs did the same too.
I used to be a vegetarian, actually eating a near vegan diet. Obviously those folks were very anti-low carb. This was one of their arguments against low carb...that protein foods cause an equal or greater insulin response than carb foods, so how can the low carbers argue that it helps reduce insulin?
That isn't quite honest though. If you look at it per gram of carbohydrate, sure the meat/dairy stuff is off the charts. But if you look by overall score it is among the lowest.

But I think this kind of destroys the belief that you can eat all you want of low carb foods and not gain weight because you don't release insulin or glucose when you eat low carb foods.

They did mention that people had different responses, so perhaps those people who lose best on low carb have the least response to high protein foods?


Yeah I think its weird that beef and fish insulin are highish Nancy. Gluconeogenesis is causing the increase?
I don't think it is gluconeogenesis. Someone wrote, Anthony Colpo I think, that insulin also gets amino acids into the cells... I think. I'd better double check that.

Ok, but why are peanuts so low? That one really stumps me, the fiber? Ah... maybe that is it! Peanuts are plants, plants have cell walls that are hard to break down. So probably all that protein isn't released right away.

[nawchem]

The actions of insulin on the global human metabolism level include:

Control of cellular intake of certain substances, most prominently glucose in muscle and adipose tissue (about ⅔ of body cells).
Increase of DNA replication and protein synthesis via control of amino acid uptake.
Modification of the activity of numerous enzymes (allosteric effect).
The actions of insulin on cells include:

Increased glycogen synthesis – insulin forces storage of glucose in liver (and muscle) cells in the form of glycogen; lowered levels of insulin cause liver cells to convert glycogen to glucose and excrete it into the blood. This is the clinical action of insulin which is directly useful in reducing high blood glucose levels as in diabetes.
Increased fatty acid synthesis – insulin forces fat cells to take in blood lipids which are converted to triglycerides; lack of insulin causes the reverse.
Increased esterification of fatty acids – forces adipose tissue to make fats (ie, triglycerides) from fatty acid esters; lack of insulin causes the reverse.
Decreased proteinolysis – forces reduction of protein degradation; lack of insulin increases protein degradation.
Decreased lipolysis – forces reduction in conversion of fat cell lipid stores into blood fatty acids; lack of insulin causes the reverse.
Decreased gluconeogenesis – decreases production of glucose from various substrates in liver; lack of insulin causes glucose production from assorted substrates in the liver and elsewhere.
Increased amino acid uptake – forces cells to absorb circulating amino acids; lack of insulin inhibits absorption.
Increased potassium uptake – forces cells to absorb serum potassium; lack of insulin inhibits absorption.
Arterial muscle tone – forces arterial wall muscle to relax, increasing blood flow, especially in micro arteries; lack of insulin reduces flow by allowing these muscles to contract.

[ceberezin]

I find the Wikipedia entry odd. It does not distinguish between lack of insulin and low insulin. No one lacks insulin unless they are type 1 diabetic or insulin dependent type 2. Yes, insulin does some beneficial things, but are we to assume, for instance, that amino acid uptake is enhanced by greater amounts of insulin? Or is it that the low levels of insulin experienced by low carbers is sufficient? We know that insulin promotes the growth of smooth muscle cells in arterial walls, thereby constricting blood flow. The Wikipedia entry would have us believe that insulin decreases blood pressure when we know the opposite to be true. Again, there is no information about what amounts of insulin are necessary for muscle relaxation.

[dina1957]

Nancy,

This interests me, as well. I don't understand all the science, but I read something in Dr. Bernstein's Diabetes Solution that just assumes the protein is converted into glucose. He gives a very instructive example of how the same meal would affect the blood sugar of three different people: 1. A person without diabetes, 2. a person with Type I diabetes, and 3. a person with Type II. Part of the meal is carbohydrate, which immediately raises the blood sugar, and part is protein, which raises the blood sugar a couple of hours later. Again, he says this very matter-of-factly...the protein just gets converted into glucose. He doesn't go into the biochemistry, so I'm not sure of the mechanism. I'd love to hear more about it myself. For example, is there an upper limit on protein intake we should have, and if so, what is it? How is this determined?
I can attest that protein especially beef keeps BGs high for hours after a meal, and nexct morning will give me high FBG, while some high fiber carbs may spike shortly (not too high) and then get back to normal in no time.
Animal protein (especially red and dark meats) is where glycogen is store, and glycogen is a form of glucose. What makes meat, poltry andf fish brown when seared or broiled - it is protein sugar reaction, aka Mallard reaction. protein is converted into glucose on a low carb diet via gluconeogenesis to support brain cells (some amount of glucose is still required), erythrocites, and kidney cells than can't use ketones as fuel.
Animal protein (especially egg whites and beef) is very highly prized by bodybuilders exactly for it is insulin raising (anabolic) properties.
I am watching my protein intake closely ( no more than 3-4 oz per meal) and see better blood sugar numbers already. Dr.Bernstein recommends starting with 6 oz, and then cutting to 3-4 oz per meal for weight loss property, since roughly 53% protein is coverted into glucose.
I think old rule of palm size as upper limit is good enough, too much meat at a meal makes me hungrier later than a cup of lentil soup.
But it can be just me, and other folks have no problem with huge steaks.
JMO

[ReginaW]

Ok, but why are peanuts so low? That one really stumps me, the fiber? Ah... maybe that is it!

I doubt it - it's the protein load differences:

Peanuts = 9.6g protein (5.4g CHO; 20.1g Fat)
Beef = 42g protein (0g CHO; 7.7g Fat)
Fish = 56.3g protein (0g CHO; 1g Fat)

The fish should have the greatest affect on insulin secretion, followed by the beef and then the peanuts....even with the carbohydrate, the peanuts protein + CHO is less than the protein potential for conversion to glucose of both the fish and beef, so they should stimulate less insulin.

[K Walt]

It's also critical to remember that protein triggers a release of insulin AND glucagon (the anti-insulin so to speak) at the same time. The insulin is needed to process the amino acids in the food, but that same insulin would also cause a DROP in blood sugar. It's believed that the body simultaneously releases glucagon to prevent the blood sugar from dropping, while those amino acids are being processed.

That may be why some T2 diabetics notice a rise in blood sugar after a high protein meal. Their bodies are somewhat resistant to the effects of insulin, but not to glucagon. The glucagon released when eating protein can cause a rise in blood sugar.

So, while protein DOES stimulate some insulin release, it ALSO stimulates a counteracting glucagon release. Carbs and sugars DON'T have that corresponding glucagon release.

Fat appears to stimulate very little in the way of insulin or glucagon.

[Nancy LC]

But the other puzzler is why is glucose so much higher after eating fish and beef than peanuts? Is it really the glycogen in the meat?

[Nancy LC]

If there is that much glycogen in meat, and our body treats it like a carbohydrate or sugar, why isn't the carb count on meat higher?
Glycogen:

Glycogen is the storage form of glucose in animals and humans which is analogous to the starch in plants. Glycogen is synthesized and stored mainly in the liver and the muscles. Structurally, glycogen is very similar to amylopectin with alpha acetal linkages, however, it has even more branching and more glucose units are present than in amylopectin. Various samples of glycogen have been measured at 1,700-600,000 units of glucose.

The structure of glycogen consists of long polymer chains of glucose units connected by an alpha acetal linkage. The graphic on the left shows a very small portion of a glycogen chain. All of the monomer units are alpha-D-glucose, and all the alpha acetal links connect C # 1 of one glucose to C # 4 of the next glucose.

The branches are formed by linking C # 1 to a C # 6 through an acetal linkages. In glycogen, the branches occur at intervals of 8-10 glucose units, while in amylopectin the branches are separated by 12-20 glucose units.
Amylopectin is the really super starchy stuff. It is what makes sticky rice much higher GI than long grain rice.

[Nancy LC]

Ok, here's something interesting: Protein Controversies in Diabetes (http://journal.diabetes.org/diabetesspectrum/00v13n3/pg132.htm). But the study they're quoting is from 1915 and contradicts that study I found, where glucose is higher after eating protein.

[Lisa N]

Animal protein (especially red and dark meats) is where glycogen is store, and glycogen is a form of glucose.

This is true but the majority of glycogen present in the muscle tissue is converted to lactic acid in the 12-18 hours after slaughter leaving very little still present in the muscle tissue itself. To attribute any increase in serum glucose to the glycogen present in the meat would not be accurate.
More likely it has to do with the response of the liver to the production of glucagon stimulating gluconeogenesis.
Interestingly, the link that Nancy provided quoted a few studies in which protein in amounts up to 50 grams did not cause a rise of more than a few points in any of the T2 subjects tested.

[dina1957]

To attribute any increase in serum glucose to the glycogen present in the meat would not be accurate.
So what causes insulin stimulation if there is not gycogen in meat, I have seen many studies pointing that meat and dairy stimulate insulin relese more than wheat does. There is also a point that dairy and meat used to gain muscles by athletes, so it has to be similar action.
More likely it has to do with the response of the liver to the production of glucagon stimulating gluconeogenesis.
When glucagon is high, insulin is low, which is not the case in this situation. Or I am missing something? My point is if animal protein does stimulate greater insulin response without spiking BGs very high, what long term impact it can have on T2 diabetic?

[venter]

I have seen many studies pointing that meat and dairy stimulate insulin relese more than wheat does.the size of the meal itself will cause insulin release, although i'm skeptical of any study claiming that meat causes a greater insulin release than wheat. could you cite those studies?

when the upper part of the small intestine is stretched (by anything, including non-digestables) it will release a hormone that in turn signals the pancreas to release insulin - but also glucagon - at the same time. if you're diabetic you won't produce much insulin, only glucagon, which will then initiate gluconeogenesis, and raise blood sugar.

[ReginaW]

But the other puzzler is why is glucose so much higher after eating fish and beef than peanuts? Is it really the glycogen in the meat?

The glucose actually wasn't so much higher, it was higher in fish than peanuts, but higher in peanuts than beef....what is posted above is the glucose and insulin scores....if we look at the glucose and insulin area under the curve (AUC) at 120-minutes, the AUC for glucose, insulin are:

Beef = 18, 7910
Fish = 29, 9350
Peanuts = 20, 3047

[ReginaW]

If there is that much glycogen in meat, and our body treats it like a carbohydrate or sugar, why isn't the carb count on meat higher?


Glycogen represents less than 1% of calories in meat - and that's usually fresh killed, non-stressed animals (that is they weren't trucked for hours with no food or water before slaughter, thus depleting their glycogen stores before slaughter).

[Nancy LC]

So what causes insulin stimulation if there is not gycogen in meat, I have seen many studies pointing that meat and dairy stimulate insulin relese more than wheat does. There is also a point that dairy and meat used to gain muscles by athletes, so it has to be similar action.Insulin has other functions than just handling glucose, it also chauffeur's the protein around. But your issue isn't really the insulin it is the glucose.

Yeah, what studies show meat release more insulin than wheat?

Can someone expain to me what "area under curve" means in the context of the study I posted? If it is amount over time then why is it so much higher for the high protein stuff?

[Whoa182]

Here are some insulin scores on foods (%) - lower the better.

Legumes 20% <.... eats lots and lots of these :)
Low Gi Cereals 40%
Pasta 40%
cheese 44%
Beef 50%
Fish 60%
wholegrain bread 58% ~
Apples, Oranages 60%
White rice 80%
white bread 95%
white potoatoes 120%

Holt, S.H.A., et al. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 1997, 1997, 66:1264

[ReginaW]

Can someone expain to me what "area under curve" means in the context of the study I posted? If it is amount over time then why is it so much higher for the high protein stuff?


Something measured (could be insulin, could be glucose, could be CRP, could be a drug being tested) gets plotted on a graph between time points and subjects to see how the various levels between time start and end plots out and forms a curve.

When the measure is insulin and a curve is plotted, the "area under the curve" (AUC) offers an understanding of rates of clearance, of glucose, by the insulin....the AUC correlates better with clearance than absolute levels since levels of insulin do not tell us effectiveness of the insulin since some need more insulin to clear glucose or amino acids than others, the stright numbers can't tell us how effective the insulin is, the AUC gives us that insight for clearance. Basically the AUC helps us understand the insulin response to the glycemic response after eating better than absolute levels of glucose or insulin in the blood - since insulin resistance varies by individual; so absolute levels of insulin or glucose only tell us one part of the story - the AUC tells us more about what's going on.

Does that make sense?

[ReginaW]

Legumes 20% <.... eats lots and lots of these

The problem is, if you eat lots and lots of beans, without concurrent consumption of grains, you fail to meet essential amino acid requirements...

..the GI giveth with one hand, and taketh with another!

[Whoa182]

The problem is, if you eat lots and lots of beans, without concurrent consumption of grains, you fail to meet essential amino acid requirements...

..the GI giveth with one hand, and taketh with another!

I personally always have eggwhites with beans. But still, beans are well known for their health benefits in reducing mortality... more beans the better. Beans are a very healthy food, confuses me why one would take them out of their diet.

Beans, eggwhites, olive oil and balsamic vinegear... yum yum.

Legumes: the most important dietary predictor of survival in older people of different ethnicities.
.... Only for legumes intake was the result plausible, consistent and statistically significant across collective FHILL cohort's data. There is a 7% - 8% reduction in mortality hazard ratio for every 20g increase in daily legume intake with adjustment for location/ethnicity (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.85 - 0.99) and without adjustment for location/ethnicity (RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.87 - 0.99). Conclusions: This longitudinal study shows that a higher legume intake is the most protective dietary predictor of survival amongst the elderly, regardless of their ethnicity. The significance of legumes persisted even after controlling for age at enrolment (in 5-year interval), gender, and smoking. Legumes have been associated with long-lived food cultures such as the Japanese (soy, tofu, natto, miso), the Swedes (brown beans, peas), and the Mediterranean people (lentils, chickpeas, white beans)....

PMID: 15294666 [PubMed - in process]

[ReginaW]

I personally always have eggwhites with beans. But still, beans are well known for their health benefits in reducing mortality... more beans the better.

Whoa, you also take an inordinate amount of care in tracking and targeting specific nutrients each day...the average person doesn't do that, nor should they have to. IMO, there is a lot more to life than accounting for every last gram of food that passes ones lips....but to each his own ;)

Bottomline, you said eat lots and lots of beans....you failed to take that to the necessary level needed in the context of a nutritionally complete diet....as such, you failed to mention (or understand?) that eating beans, on their own, for GI and protein will fail to provide essential amino acids required.

Unfortunately, while beans are an excellent source of many nutrients, and have a nice level of protein - on their own, and especially in high quantity, they offer more calories than nutritional punch - without that parallel consumption of a food to compensate for the limiting protein, and those foods are grains, which are high for GI and basically wind up cancelling the lower GI of the beans at the end of the day by taking the GL higher than desired if one is basing dietary choices on GI-GL.

[dina1957]

That may be why some T2 diabetics notice a rise in blood sugar after a high protein meal. Their bodies are somewhat resistant to the effects of insulin, but not to glucagon.
Glucagon and insulin in healthy folks are in equilibrium. In diabetics when wither there is no insulin or organism is resistant to it, glucagon is taking over, coverting protein into glucose during meal time even when blood glucose is already high. Normally glucagon works to keep Bgs stable between meals and overnight, when insulin should be low, but in diabetes this meachism is broken.


So, while protein DOES stimulate some insulin release, it ALSO stimulates a counteracting glucagon release. Carbs and sugars DON'T have that corresponding glucagon release.
and contributes to higher readings for hours after a high protein meal, while meal containing high fiber carbs spikes Bgs shortly but they return to normal reading in 2 hours. Adding some fat to carby meal helps a lot, and better than eat protein with carbs in terms of Bgs control.

[quoteFat appears to stimulate very little in the way of insulin or glucagon.[/QUOTE]
Fat is inhert and directly does not stimulate niether one, but indirectly high level of triglycerides in blood may affect insulin sensitivity.

[Samuel]

Thank you all for the information. My point is that 1000 calories of beef can keep me full for 6 hours, but 1000 calories of peanuts would not keep me full for half of that time. So, if beef causes the release of more insulin than peanuts do, we should assume that the insulin rush theory which is used to explain how low carb diets work may not be accurate.

I actually see more problems with that theory. One of them is that sugar does not cause as much craving as bread does. This is despite that sugar has higher GI. People may be different, however all appetizers served by most restaurants are made of bread or starch of some kind and none of them is sweetened. Here is a list of major appetizers:

Fresh baked bread with some cheese.
Eggrolls.
Breadstcks.
Corn chips with salsa.
Garlic bread.

The only common item in them all is BREAD.

[ReginaW]

Conclusions: This longitudinal study shows that a higher legume intake is the most protective dietary predictor of survival amongst the elderly, regardless of their ethnicity. The significance of legumes persisted even after controlling for age at enrolment (in 5-year interval), gender, and smoking. Legumes have been associated with long-lived food cultures such as the Japanese (soy, tofu, natto, miso), the Swedes (brown beans, peas), and the Mediterranean people (lentils, chickpeas, white beans)....


Some incredible statistical gymnastics - why? By country the average intakes are all over the place....for one thing, they're mixing pulses with oilseeds, but let's not be too technical, OK?

The basics of what these populations are consuming each day:

Australia consumes approximately 10.25 calories per day (CALORIES, not grams) from beans...or less than 1-tablespoon a day. Whoa, where does that fit into "lots and lots of beans"?

Sweden, a whopping 15.9 calories each day....again, less than 1-tablespoon a day. Whoa, where does that fit into "lots and lots of beans"?

Greece, 44.8 calories a day.....about three tablespoons a day on average. Whoa, where does that fit into "lots and lots of beans"?

Japan, well, since soybeans are included, they manage 114 calories a day....still less than 1-cup total for pulses and soybeans combined. Hey, that could be lots of beans, but then again, soybeans aren't classed as pulses - didn't stop the researchers for considering them such for their statistical analysis....and even with that - none of the above populations are loading up with beans each day....it's a moderate inclusion in the total diet - as it can be.

Beans are a very healthy food, confuses me why one would take them out of their diet.


Show me again where I said eliminate beans?

[Nancy LC]

When the measure is insulin and a curve is plotted, the "area under the curve" (AUC) offers an understanding of rates of clearance, of glucose, by the insulin....the AUC correlates better with clearance than absolute levels since levels of insulin do not tell us effectiveness of the insulin since some need more insulin to clear glucose or amino acids than others, the stright numbers can't tell us how effective the insulin is, the AUC gives us that insight for clearance. Basically the AUC helps us understand the insulin response to the glycemic response after eating better than absolute levels of glucose or insulin in the blood - since insulin resistance varies by individual; so absolute levels of insulin or glucose only tell us one part of the story - the AUC tells us more about what's going on.

Does that make sense?
Probably to someone else it does, but I'm still struggling. In this particular study is has values for AUC Insulin, AUC glucose, AUC Glucose:Insulin. What do those numbers mean? Why do high GI foods have low values and low GI foods (beef, etc) have high values?

Sorry, I'm sure you're weren't expecting to teach a rudimentary statisics class. *blush*

[ReginaW]

Sorry, I'm sure you're weren't expecting to teach a rudimentary statisics class. *blush*

At some point, everyone - even the best statisticians (and I'm not one of them) - had questions! Questions are good - I just hope I can actually answer them! ;)

Why do high GI foods have low values and low GI foods (beef, etc) have high values?


With AUC it helps to remember it's all about clearance of glucose and/or insulin, not the absolute highs-lows plasma levels of glucose or insulin....

So a food that causes a rise in blood sugar, which causes a rise in insulin will result in the glucose clearing and the insulin concurrently clearing together in a healthy person; a food that stimulates insulin but not glucose - protein - clears insulin slower because protein is metabolized slower than carbohydrate and thus takes longer to either be shuttled as amino acids or through the pyruvate pathway, so you'll see higher values for insulin in the AUC but not for glucose, significantly higher insulin:glucose ratios, and higher insulin scores, but lower glucose scores in those foods compared with foods that contain mostly carbohydrate, like white bread or cereals.

IMO looking at just insulin scores or glucose scores is limiting - if you're (as in general, not you directly) trying to keep blood sugars down, then you're leaning toward the protein because the glucose scores are lower...then again, if you're worried about insulin and look at the insulin scores, you're leaning toward the higher CHO foods with lower GI.

Studies like these bug me - for a number of reasons - but mostly because few eat one food at a time...in the real world we eat mixed meals, which have vastly different effects, than the data published here, on glucose and insulin in our metabolism. While this type of data is useful - it's not the type of data one can really use in day-to-day meal planning.

The other thing is that, even this study has data that shows this, even the same food on a different day or time can have a markedly different effect....check out the white bread values in the data - they're all over the place! It was the one food they tested repeatedly as the control for each type of food - and it was not a consistent result....insulin AUC was from 12,882 to 17,599; glucose AUC was from 121 to 171; In:G ratio was from 104 to 188....basically, what are the values of white bread really?

[Nancy LC]

The other thing is that, even this study has data that shows this, even the same food on a different day or time can have a markedly different effect....check out the white bread values in the data - they're all over the place! It was the one food they tested repeatedly as the control for each type of food - and it was not a consistent result....insulin AUC was from 12,882 to 17,599; glucose AUC was from 121 to 171; In:G ratio was from 104 to 188....basically, what are the values of white bread really?
They did mention that there was a much different response in different people.

Thanks for clearing that up for me. So I think what we don't know from the data they presented is, was it an immense blast of insulin that cleared quickly? Or was it a little squirt that took a full 2 hours to clear.

So if over-exposure to insulin over the course of a life time is one of those things that is linked to diseases, maybe eating a high protein diet isn't such a good thing.

I wonder what effect insulin resistance has on properly using protein?

[dina1957]

Thank you all for the information. My point is that 1000 calories of beef can keep me full for 6 hours, but 1000 calories of peanuts would not keep me full for half of that time.
I suspect that it because beef of all food takes the longest to be digested, takes more than 8 hours. peanuts can easily digested, and so are most carbs, so you are hungry in no time.
So, if beef causes the release of more insulin than peanuts do, we should assume that the insulin rush theory which is used to explain how low carb diets work may not be accurate.
Not exactly but there are some flaws. Regardless of what they say "a carb is a carb" and GI is useless, it does make difference in how fast and high they spike insulin and make you hungry afterwards.

I actually see more problems with that theory. One of them is that sugar does not cause as much craving as bread does. This is despite that sugar has higher GI.
Remeber old saying: do not eat sweets before dinner, you will ruin your appetite... ;) So I do think that pure sugar supresses appetite while starches (bread and such) promoting it, unless they are lots of fiber. I can have an apple and it will keep me full for 2-3 hours with only 80 calories. A Has it something to do with fructose? I never liked sweets, hard to explain, but sweets made me sick to my stomach, realy nauseated, not sure if this makes sense. But I have no problem eating bread, potatoes, hot cereal, pasta, and such. I can get bloated if I overeat starches, but never nauseated and sick. Coudl it be that starches promote hunger, this is why bread and chips served as appertizers inmost restaurantes?
But replace white bread with chewy pumpernickel or high fiber bran crackers, and I am ful in no time, so is with beans and high fiber veggies. Now myhead is spinning, what if.....:eek:

[Nancy LC]

I thought bread and potatoes actually have a higher GI value than sugar.

I can eat many high fiber starchy things all day long and never really feel satiated.

I do feel like there are some gaps in the knowledge of low carb diets and metabolism and satiety that really aren't well explained, or the explanations fall short of reality in the diet books. Or perhaps there are other issues with hormones other than insulin, like what about a faulty glucagon system?

[dina1957]

Or perhaps there are other issues with hormones other than insulin, like what about a faulty glucagon system?
There are other hormones that are largely reponsible for insulin action: cortisol, growth hormones, estrogen, progesterone. They either make our body insulin sensitive or insulin resistance. Like estrogen is insulin sensitizers, while progesterone and growth hormones counteract insulin action. It is all about insulin, and to certain degree about insulin receptors that can be genetically faluty or burned out, or "rusting" as we get older.
There is also cortisol, that is a very well know insulin action inhibiter. So IT IS ALL ABOUT INSULIN, but the pathways and causations are different.
Liver "listens" to insulin: low or bad quality or inability to detect insulin all interpeted as low blood sugar, so liver is trying to make some more (without sensing that blod sugar is already high) , and this is what fails BGs control in diabetics. In T2 liver is mostly reponsible for elevated Bgs, regardles we eat or don't, eating actually is better since it makes it take a break.
Faulty glucagon system is directly related to faulty insulin systems, since these two balance each other.
Let's say, a healthy person skips meals constantly, klike eating only dinner or only lunch. The liver does it job to keep BGs stable and at certain level, so it releases stored glycagen. Insulin is low and glucagon is high most of the time, and everyone is happy for a while. Add one too many cups of coffee and lack of night sleep to skipped meals, and you have a picture perfect pathway to diabetes. Liver sort of ignores insulin all together, since body's life and well being now solely depends on higher glucogen; high cortisol stimulated by caffeine and lack of sleep (adrenal overdrive) further inhibit insulin action, and make liver even more resistant to insulin . This is one of the ways when even a relatively normal diet can make one obese and a diabetic, especially if therer is a genetic predisposition.
There is another scenario, when a very poor diet is to blame: high in processed carbs and fats, with lots of empty calories, with limited physical activities does create hormonal chaos and makes insulin go sky high, adding weight and even making one's pnacrease fail. Then this is a true case of IR and once diet is cleaned up, body returns to normal and weight loss is accomplished. In some cases diabetes is "reversed" as long as diet and exercise regimen are followed.
My undertsnading (as you call it pet theory) is our body is too complex, so no matter how many diet books is out there, we al have different genetic make ups and pathways to certain illnesses, so the cure can also vary from one to another, and what works for me, may not work for you. WE can argue what causes metabolic distrubances: protein, fat, carbs, illnesses, no one knows for sure, could be genetic weakness aggravated by immunization, food processing, antibiotics usage, modern lifestyle, and simply getting older.
if there would be just one pathway and one solution, all overweight folks will have T2 diabetes and all slims would be absolutely healthy and desease free.
JMHO

[LC FP]

The liver does it job to keep BGs stable and at certain level, so it releases stored glycagen. Insulin is low and glucagon is high most of the time, and everyone is happy for a while
I can't remember where I read this, but in people who eat LC, most cells turn to fat-burning or ketone bodies-burning, so the liver mostly produces ketone bodies (for your brain) and the few cells that still require glucose get it from gluconeogenesis in your kidneys. Pretty cool!

[Samuel]

Coudl it be that starches promote hunger, this is why bread and chips served as appertizers inmost restaurantes?

Thanks for your comment. I have discussed this subject here once over a year ago. It returned back to my mind when I heared that beef causes more insulin release than peanuts. Here is a post which gives a reason for how starches can be worse than sugar in making you eat more.

http://forum.lowcarber.org/showpost.php?p=5484605&postcount=33

May be the elimination of starches not the reduction of carbs is what causes people to lose weight in a low carb diet. Or may be be it is the combination of the two.

[serrelind]

Thanks for your comment. I have discussed this subject here once over a year ago. It returned back to my mind when I heared that beef causes more insulin release than peanuts. Here is a post which gives a reason for how starches can be worse than sugar in making you eat more.

http://forum.lowcarber.org/showpost.php?p=5484605&postcount=33

May be the elimination of starches not the reduction of carbs is what causes people to lose weight in a low carb diet. Or may be be it is the combination of the two.

Very interesting! I had not thought of starches this way, but I find that starches have this exact effect on me! I can eat something sweet and get tired of it quickly, but give me something starchy and I can seriously overdo it and still want more. It's kind of odd because by itself, starches are bland (I'm thinking of rice, bread, pasta, etc) so why do they have such a hold on me? I can get a sick feeling if I eat too much fat, protein, or sweets, but I never get tired of eating starchy food.

[Samuel]

Very interesting! I had not thought of starches this way, but I find that starches have this exact effect on me! I can eat something sweet and get tired of it quickly, but give me something starchy and I can seriously overdo it and still want more. It's kind of odd because by itself, starches are bland (I'm thinking of rice, bread, pasta, etc) so why do they have such a hold on me? I can get a sick feeling if I eat too much fat, protein, or sweets, but I never get tired of eating starchy food.

If this idea makes sense, then we may be able to eat all the fruits which we used to eat without regaining our weights back. Atkins diet is the only diet which worked for me, so I don't like to try any new idea which goes beyond its rules.