Some researchers question if insulin plays as big a role in fat storage as many members of the low-carb community think.....

"Is it time to stop blaming insulin for "fat storage"?

Thoughts?

Good luck with that one.

I wrote a long post, but I gave up. Too many ad hominems. So I'll start again but try to stick to the topic as best I can.

It can't be puzzling if it's an easy conclusion to make.

There's various reasons for this belief. The main reason is the effect of carbs on insulin sensitivity. As glycogen is depleted, cells becomes insulin sensitive. As cells are insulin sensitive, blood insulin level drops. As insulin level drops, its effect on fat tissue is thus less. Eating carbs would replete glycogen, causing cells to shut down insulin receptors, in turn causing blood insulin level to rise again, on top of the insulin spike we get just from eating carbs, with the ultimate greater effect on fat tissue. Makes sense to me.

Exercise makes us hungry, so we eat more. No exercise, less food intake, more weight lost. Also, since the goal is to lose weight, this means we're fat, and exercise is just harder to do when you're fat. Better to wait until we get leaner through low-carb, then do exercise at this point since it's now much easier. I see no problem with any of this.

No, they are just overlooked by you, so you can make a point that we're not that smart. What extra energy are you talking about? As far as I know, low-carb blunts hunger, so we eat less. If anything, we undereat. So your argument of "when they are overconsumed" is a red herring just to make a point. But to please the audience, we have a few experiments of overeating on low-carb, the latest I found is this: http://www.dietdoctor.com/what-happ...on-an-lchf-diet

As he noted, his waist shrunk. So whatever excess he ate, most certainly did not go to belly fat. That should answer your red herring, Mr Science Writer.

I'll pretend I didn't read that bit.

That's just not true. The nature of insulin does not change just because we're eating or we're fasting. To borrow a phrase from our CICO proponents, insulin is insulin is insulin. When insulin is high, the effect on fat tissue is the same regardless.

That's so true. The functions of insulin go well beyond promoting fatty acid synthesis. Let's see, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insuli...ogical_effects:

Bolded the pertinent parts. Let's analyze this stuff. Basically, fuel and protein. What happens to all fuels? They all get stored. Glycogenesis, lipogenesis. Their release is inhibited. Glycogenolysis, lipolysis. Sure, protein synthesis and proteolysis are affected, which suggests we'll end up with bigger muscles. But here's the problem. All cellular functions require fuel, and all the fuels are being stored and their release is being inhibited. Nothing left for normal functions, like protein synthesis. What we really end up with is emaciation of lean tissue, and hypertrophy of fat tissue, all due to fuel partitioning from the global actions of insulin. And I'm not even a science writer.

There's one bit in there that struck me. It's "decreased autophagy". I've read that word before. Chaperone-mediated autophagy. That's the recycling of glycated protein inside cells, due to the action of ketones. And this means there's a bit missing in the Wikipedia list of things insulin does: Inhibition of ketogenesis at the liver and other cells capable of it. Ya, insulin inhibits the recycling of glycated protein inside cells (through its inhibition of ketogenesis at the liver), protein which could otherwise be used elsewhere, but ultimately end up gunking up the works inside cells.

Ya, if you eat high-carb. But if you eat low-carb, low-carb is the first line of offense. As we restrict dietary carbohydrates, glycogen is depleted all the time, relatively speaking. This means all cells are insulin sensitive all the time. Exercise is just overkill at this point.

Ya, that's true. But the primary prerequisite of diabetes type 2 is hyperglycemia. And the primary effect of dietary carbohydrates is hyperglycemia. Did somebody say "puzzling" earlier?

How much more protein, exactly? The A-TO-Z study shows protein intake was the same in all diets tested. The bolded part, the same is true of dietary fat. It increases satiety due to its action on speed of digestion, stimulates energy expenditure due to its action on ketogenesis, and spares fat-free muscle due to its action on chaperone-mediated autophagy. Low-carb is inherently high-fat.

Low-carb is typically ad libitum. In spite of unrestricted caloric intake, low-carb produces better weight loss. How can we explain this by testing energy-restricted diets? In another study we discussed here (I forget which one exactly), Eout was higher with low-carb than with high-carb, with protein intake presumably remaining constant. Even with the A-TO-Z study, which didn't measure Eout, we must conclude that Eout was higher on Atkins, because it produced the greatest weight loss.

Problem here, low carb isn't always higher protein. Sometimes it's the same protein, and carbs are replaced instead with fat.

Here's what we know; restrict carbohydrates, and a lot of people end up leaner. We can lay insulin aside for the moment. Maybe it's not what causes weight loss on low carb. But any theory of weight loss we have will be just that, theory; and secondary to the direct observation of reduced carbohydrates leading to weight loss.

Also "reason low-carb works" is loaded. What do we mean by "works?" Lowering triglycerides? That's from the reduced carbs. No question. Better blood sugar control? That's from the reduced carbs. No question. Protein has a role there, for some, slow source of glucose made from the protein. Increased HDL? Some of that's from the reduced carbs. Some of it's the benefit of increasing saturated fat in the diet.

Bodybuilding boards are full of people eating lots of protein. Sometimes that isn't enough. Some of them turn to low carb.

Lowered blood pressure?

I ate meat plus fruit for a while, inspired by Art Devaney's site. I probably ate it wrong. But high protein, high fruit. I didn't lose weight. My blood pressure was high. It sucked. It ain't just the high protein. Whatever it is, it ain't just that.

I don't think it's just the effects of carb on insulin at work. But it's not not the insulin, either.

It's hard to prove it's not the insulin.

Insulin injected into the brain can make rodents slim... so it's a slimming hormone. But insulin injected into the brain can also make 'em fat. Depends on how you go about it.

Various insulin mimetics can cause weight loss. But they aren't insulin. Fulfilling some functions of insulin, but not others, reducing the body's requirement for insulin--slimming.

Really too big a subject. The proper reply to this question would be a research paper in itself.



What if we reword part of this?

Never mind insulin, lets say "Carbohydrates are not fattening beyond their contribution of energy as kilocalories." That is... the effect of carbs on bodyweight is unidimensional, having only to do with the calories they contain. This is an unsupportable statement. Or we can put insulin back in. "The fattening effect of carbohydrates does not involve insulin." Equally silly. The question is the extent of insulin's involvement, not whether it's involved.

I should point out that leptin, ghrelin, growth hormone, adiponectin, glucagon--every hormone besides insulin, in short, involved in fat storage and appetite homeostasis--is also involved in the regulation of glucose. We have a choice of two major fuel depots to draw from--glycogen or fat. Of course regulation of glucose is involved in fat storage. It must be.

All respects, Martin--WereBear "wins" the thread.

My favorite part of your post. Really more diet writers should internalize this message "Just because I overlooked it doesn't mean everyone has"

The thing about when protein and fat are over-consumed, I think, really depends on the person.
Most LCer women will tell you that calories do still matter, but, as you mentioned, LC food is more satisfying so you don't get hungry, and ketosis tends to blunt hunger/appetite so you don't want to overeat.
However, yeah there are also people (men and women) who can eat large amounts of calories and still gain weight if they keep their carbs very low.

Appreciated, but I just didn't have the patience for what M Levac did so well.

Because I knew it would be a whole bunch of idiocy just to try and support the conclusion that "it's not the carbs!"

But it is. It is so undeniably the carbs that watching so-called scientists jump through their own behinds is just too sickening to read.

If it is only the calories, then why does a fat fast work so well? Sure, come up with another hormone we can give to diabetics so they don't die; and explain how they get those fat deposits around the injection site if they don't rotate. Explain why diet regimens which are 700 calories of mostly sugar don't work!

They don't want it to be the insulin because they don't want it to be the carbohydrates.

Yeah, Martin did good. But still, congratulations for having the wisdom to not want to get involved in what could easily turn into a total crapfest.


I think my biggest problem with Dr Guyunet isn't with the idea that reward/palatability etc. is involved with fat regulation. That's fine, there's room for all sorts of things to contribute to the problem--and for different people to have different underlying problems. (Though I suspect much of the problem with palatability is which foods are made more palatable--even with something like MSG, I'd bet effects on weight gain would be different using it to make doughnuts and potato chips taste good, then to make porkchops taste good, for example). But when you get away from the most direct observations possible--Joe went low carb. Joe lost twenty pounds. Joe got good blood pressure. Joe's body spent the next decade no longer trying to become obese, any time he stopped paying attention. Then there's danger of doing real damage. You can theorize that a diet of fatty pork chops, fried onions, and sour cream worked for Joe because of its obvious low palatability rather than some effect of carbohydrate restriction itself, and switch him to a diet of bland carbs, or add boring carbs to his diet, but you'd be risking his health doing that. This is why we can't just shrug and say "maybe it's not the carbs." Maybe it isn't. But the most direct observation is, Joe reduced carbs, Joe lost weight, Joe is healthier.

Ps in case it isn't obvious, I am that Joe.



So, do we ignore Jimmy Moore's experiment with nutritional ketosis? Do we ignore Nora Gedgaudas, Ron Rosedale, Dr Bernstein, Drs. Phinney and Volek, Dr Kwasnieski, etc? Not to mention Dr Robert Atkins, for flipping sake--and accept that effects of protein in stimulating insulin haven't been considered as a possible factor working against fat loss, at least in some people? Because we do have anecdotal evidence, and some clinical evidence, that sometimes even protein reduction, once carbs have been reduced, is necessary and helpful for further fat loss. (Or at least helpful, leaving open the possibility that there are other things that might have worked).

Insulin's role in satiety is very often answered, and I think perfectly well. Taubes suggested early on that a mechanism was needed to counter insulin itself--we can't just get hungrier after a meal because of an increase in insulin, without limit. So we have a signal in the brain, that eventually works to shut down the effects of insulin to increase appetite throughout the body and in the brain itself. Obviously, this is necessary, or we'd all eat until we burst.

Unlike carefully administered central insulin, peripherally administered insulin seems to be fattening. It's staggering trying to understand why people who want to admit something as unnatural as injecting insulin directly into the brain think injections at other sites, or insulinomas, don't deserve to be included as evidence.

I think things get messy with insulin. While we're getting fat, insulin isn't necessarily elevated--we're insulin sensitive, because we're below our body fat potential, so it's easy for insulin to do it's job. Later, insulin is high, we're insulin resistant--and it's harder for us to get fat. Yes, the high insulin might be failing to make us fat (at least subcutaneous fat, visceral and liver fat is another story), but this isn't because insulin isn't fattening, it's because we're resistant to its effect. It's the insulin signalling that matters, not actual levels of insulin in the body.

I always point out that during my weight loss phase, I was doing around 4000 calories a day, it was mainly made up of fat and protein - but I wasnt hungry, lost alot of ailments (IBS, arthritis, eczema...) and lost the weight....... and no I didnt exercise!

These days I dont know how many calories I consume...? I'll see if I can find an app and work out what I've eaten today. But it doesnt matter to me. I've lost the weight, I've gained back my health and alertness and I'm not climbing the walls with cravings for junk food - I personally dont care what the so called "experts" try to work out. But they need to do something about the obesity epidemic that coincided with the "fat is bad" campaign!

Jo xx

They STILL have not taken responsibility for that!

That's probably why an old USDA study found carbohydrates to be 6 times more fattening than either fats or proteins. Even though nutrition 'experts' like to parrot "well fat has 9 calories per gram ..."

I don't have a link for the study, ill keep looking ...

Sure enough, carnivorous animals never grow fat (consider wolves, jackals, birds of prey, crows, etc.). Herbivorous animals do not grow fat easily, at least until age has reduced them to a state of inactivity; but they fatten very quickly as soon as they begin to be fed on potatoes, grain, or any kind of flour. ... The second of the chief causes of obesity is the floury and starchy substances which man makes the prime ingredients of his daily nourishment. As we have said already, all animals that live on farinaceous food grow fat willy-nilly; and man is no exception to the universal law. Brillat-Savarin, Jean Anthelme, The Physiology of Taste

In 1825.

I ran across this one from George Washington Carver where he talks about carbs as fat formers. In a bulletin about sweet potatoes, 1936.

"And I'm not even a science writer," says Martin.

Oh yes, you are.