hello alll -
so I recently stumbled across this guy Ari Whitten who basically belongs to the whole CICO crowd and LOVES to use Stephen Guyenet's theories in his book.

According to this book insulin causing obesity is wrong and carbs do not cause insulin resistance.

He goes on to cite a lot of studies. He thinks that it is solely processed foods and yummy-tasting foods causing people to get fat.

What would you say to this guy?? Anybody read the book? I for one have IR and I haven't touched a processed carb in decades.....

Haven't read the book. He's partly right, of course, as processed foods or the Frankenfoods designed to keep consumers coming back contribute to the issue. The real question is what specific ingredients or combination are the root cause of people eating processed foods so frequently, they become obese. Letting carbs off the hook seems to be the focus of many who find the LCHF approach threatening enough to become strident and relentless in their opposition. Many are animal rights activists carrying out their views and others are dogmatic in protecting their own WOE.

The question to me isn't whether highly palatable processed foods are a factor in diabetes/obesity etc., but how they are.

One example of a possible explanation--palatable food encourages snacking, as opposed to eating discrete meals. Give a mouse or rat high-fat, high sugar food, and instead of eating mostly at night, which is normal for these species, they'll eat smaller amounts of food, around the clock. This out of synch eating has been shown to increase obesity, diabetes and cancer in these animals, making food available only at the time of day when these animals would eat less pleasing food protects against these outcomes--in fact prevents all of the damage of a high fat/high sugar diet. And how do people eat these days? In discrete meals, or constantly nibbling, often right up to bed-time?

So insulin is elevated constantly throughout the day, instead of two or three times a day. Having large portions of the day when insulin is not elevated might be more important than worrying about just how high insulin goes at any one meal. Maybe constantly elevated insulin--rather than occasionally high insulin--matters more to the development of insulin resistance.

Also--inject insulin into the brain, and appetite decreases. So insulin is a satiety hormone.... but this is a case where the level of insulin is raised in the brain, but not in the periphery. What happens when you raise insulin locally? Locally, cells are better fed. This is illustrated in those cases where diabetics inject insulin in the same spot for decades, and develop large fatty pads at the injection site.

In the case of the brain, it's just the brain getting the insulin--and just a small part of the hypothalamus, mostly, at that. The insulin does its work, the cells draw in more glucose and amino acids, the brain cells are under the false impression that the body is well-fed--when this is the case, suppression of appetite makes sense, so that's what happens. There isn't an increased need for glucose because of this application of insulin, because, after all, only a small fraction of the body is being given that insulin signal to take up glucose.

If you think about this--if I'm making any sense at all, then insulin doesn't have to be any kind of a satiety hormone at all, under normal function, this could just be a weird little phenomenon when insulin is administered in a very unnatural way. The same goes for centrally administered leptin--which by the way results in a sort of osteoporosis. Feed those cells in the hypothalamus a little bit better, and they pretend the body's well-nourished, whether that's the case or not.

The peripheral insulin that the diabetic is taking is a different story. Cells all over the body are taking up glucose--and there had better be enough to go around.

but why are we all here if a whole-foods diet with loads of carb will do, and insulin has little to do with it?

I agree with insulin being satiating - but for how long? In my experience carbs satisfy me very well - for a bit - then I am very hungry soon again. If that is not to do with insulin, then is it just merely blood sugar going down (not even too far, just down)?

I'm not saying that insulin is satiating. I'm arguing against that--the way in which insulin is used to induce satiety by direct injection in the brain is unnatural, and doesn't really reflect how it is normally secreted in the body.

Stephan Guyunet has argued against hypoglycemia as an explanation for weight gain--or more specifically, against a hypoglycemia-induced hunger for carbohydrate as a cause. I won't say it's an only cause, but I'd say it's a cause.

The usual argument for hypoglycemia causing weight gain is that somebody eats a high carbohydrate meal, blood glucose and insulin spike, glucose plummets--and there's a hypo, so a person gets some of the classic symptoms of hypoglycemia, like brain fog and shakiness. Stephan's argument against this is that when they measure the postprandial blood glucose of most people suffering from hypoglycemia--they don't find that the people are hypoglycemic. And most overweight people tend to have high blood glucose, not low. My main problem with that argument is that you don't need frank hypoglycemia, necessarily. It could go like this;

Glucose spikes. So, insulin spikes. Glucose plummets, heading towards hypoglycemic levels. The body senses this threat--and adrenaline, cortisol etc. are released to defend against the impending hypoglycemia. The hypoglycemia itself never happens. But the symptoms of hypoglycemia--the ones that are caused by the hormonal defense against hypoglycemia--are there. The defense against hypoglycemia is three-fold (at least). An increase in lipolysis, to give free fatty acids as an alternate fuel since glucose is on the way out. Increased production of glucose by the liver. And the munchies--to bring more glucose into the system. A successful defense against hypoglycemia will prevent actual hypoglycemia--but could be just as fattening.

Knock out the adrenal glands--no cortisol, no adrenaline--and mice are resistant to obesity.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3525360

Many of us tried this, or tried to try it, and it didn't work for us. I do think it's an option for some people. People who don't get shaky around 3 or 4 in the afternoon if they had a high-carb lunch and haven't eaten since.

very interesting - thanks Teaser. Well I don't get shaky but I have had a hypo 'attack' after swimming and beforehand eating a banana. Measured my blood sugar and yep, normal. Felt terrible though. That used to happen to me a lot. Interestingly though eating rice (lots of rice) along with meat and veg pretty much blunted my appetite for about 6 hours afterwards. Haven't done any of those experiments recently though due to fear of gaining even more weight.

Still reading his book. I wonder how many people who are overweight with high blood sugar are going to find success - will be interesting to read the reviews in a few months time maybe?

I have WAY too much adrenaline right now - new baby and dealing with a very difficult 2 year old sends it soaring. Perhaps that is why I got fat again.

I notice on the boards here that a lot of people beginning low-carb are eating a lot of processed foods in their plan. There are so many known and hidden effects of food additives and how they disrupt our systems, including the endocrine system.

I think it's important to take the first step of weeding carbs out of your diet, but replacing them with a lot of processed meats, cheeses, or sauces, with multiple additives or chemical ingredients, can hinder your progress.

For me, I learned quickly when I was running marathons, that bananas and other carb loaded energy foods don't work. It would put me into a hypoglycemic state a few hours after consumption. That's what originally got me started on low carb. Remember, it takes anyone some time to adapt, and for me, I learned not to be so type 'A' with this, as it worked against me. It took some time before I refined my WOE to consuming foods that made me feel better. You're taking the right approach by reading and researching. You'll get there at some point, but for now, enjoy the process and give your body/ metabolism time to adjust before making additional changes.

I am not new to this - I was LCHF for many years before finally ditching (long story!) - what I found is that for endurance stuff keto is GREAT. I found that for anerobic sprinting (and for hard tennis training ) not so much. Right now I am dealing with all kinds of issues. But I can't afford to get injured again - which is what happened trying to train on keto. So my working things out has been going on for years....still haven't found the answer. Meanwhile am getting fatter though, so obviously just eating whole foods and a bit of carb here and there is not working. Bah.

The book is not accurate. It does a lot of fear mongering. It says that LCHF dieters are "guinea" pigs and most low carb problems can be solved with just eating more carbs.

It cites some studies that show vegan diets helped people overcome diabetes but completely failed to mention:

- those patients had moderate levels of diabetes
- those patients were on diets that are not long term sustainable

It doesn't get into genetics either. Lots of diabetes etc. is genetic in nature.

Doesn't get into how LC can help people with alzheimers and other problems - just says "Sure, but there's not much research and you're going to be a 'guinea' pig".

I was hoping for a book that would respect my choice and help me understand more about how to be successful by avoiding BS an dogma but instead it read like an angry blog post.

Jenny Ruhl has a nice booklet on Amazon that helps people understand how to troubleshoot Low Carb and dispels some of the dogma.

hey -

thank you! I was hoping somebody else might read it and tell me what they thought. You know the whole time he goes on about how LC works because it is high protein - but the truth is that sometimes it is not very high protein - and also I have been on a high carb high protein lower fat diet and I was hungry a lot. Which kind of defeats the whole idea of eating less calories because you are eating whole foods. What if you end up eating more calories because you are more hungry? Beans are filling...but only for a little while unless the diet has fat in it.

I just get fat eating a 'normal' amount of whole foods. I don't know why that is - it has always been the case. I am not a kitavan or any of the other tribes he likes to mention. If I were I probably wouldn't have bothered with a low carb diet to start with. Sorry just thinking aloud here.

Your point about vegan diets being unsustainable also rang a bell with me. I have also done that one (McDougall). I ended up with a skinny fat body - weighed not too much but no muscle. For sure I was able to process carbs very well though. But as soon as I added back fat (I caved after 6 months and bought a whole roast chicken and ate the lot), I gained weight. I have pics of me from doing that diet - I look terrible, have acne, am miserable and despite having short burst of energy I was an anxious mess and overall fatigued.

No mention in his book about body composition of the dieters who were placed on LC vs other diets. Also he does state these studies are calorie matched.....I am wondering if the LF dieters were hungry at the end.

I will look at Jenny Ruhl's book - thanks.