This is wrong. While there are fundamental metabolic pathways that are the same in all people, I agree in that with Kent, there is a myriad of anecdotal evidence in this forum about individual differences to the same supplements and diets, and there are hundreds of scientific articles showing genetic differences in how effective certain enzymes are, resulting in different metabolic rates of various kinds - e.g. in how well we digest carbs versus proteins versus fats, and how that might affect our cholesterol etc. levels. We don't know how these genetic differences play out, but there are differences, no doubt! Other issues that play a proven role are food allergies, fitness levels etc. I haven't read the book about metabolic typing, so I can't judge whether that is useful - but the idea to consider individual differences in diet and exercise programs is not a bad one that can be discarded as a whole.

You know what Kent, did you ever hear the phrase you will attract more flies with honey than with vinegar? Your style of abusing your "opponent" into submission, rather than attempt to intelligently and considerately provide evidence for your claims just won't work sweety. Most people will ignore you as a rude, offensive, and probably a borderline crazy person.

You say no one will read my thread, but you know what Kent? Whenever I see a post from you, I subconsciously prepare myself for an oozing sack of poorly-substantiated medical quackery you picked up from various diet gurus, laced with your own personal touch of vitriol for the opinions of other forum posters.

This, of course, causes me to not give much weight to whatever you post, or outright ignore it all together.

Hi Its The Gooo,

You would have been better off ignoring my first post rather than stating a bunch of high-carb nonsense.

The insulin rush from eating a high-carb diet does NOT suppress the metabolism as you stated. Suck it up and correct yourself.

BTW, what is your adgenda here. You certainly are not a supporter of low-carb, Dr. Robert C. Atkins or Drs. Michael and Mary Dan Eades?

You can read the correct facts about eating carbohydrates and resulting insulin response in my web page below. Mr. Joseph Mercola has the No. ! website promoting health through proper diet. His January 3, 2004 eNewsletter featured my article. It was sent to over 120,000 subscribers, 25,000 of which are medical professionals. Only one nutty vegetarian attempted a challenged. Others knew better because it is scientific fact.

Absolute Scientific Proof Carbohydrates Are Pathogenic.

You could also correct a bunch of your other false conceptions by studing another of my web pages in detail. Please note the links backing up the statements with science.

Top Ten Nutritional Myths, Distortions and Lies That Will Destroy Your Heath.

Young modern women like yourself are so used to dominating the young modern WHUSSSIE males that you try that power play with everyone. Didn't work this tiime.

Lisa N, nice post. Thanks for the help.

Kent

I am assuming we are talking about a person with a normal metabolism.

But, isn't true that in normal people, the rate at which insulin tells your body cells to use energy is only as much as is needed per amount of sugar you have in the blood? Insulin is in effect speaking to your body on behalf of the food you ate. That means the more food energy from sugar you are eating, the more energy you will receive.

In a normal person, the insulin in their body itself offers no metabolic advantages to increase metabolic rate, whereas a LC diet does.

You are right, it wasn't accurate for me to say it is possible to become t1 after being an uncontrolled t2. The problems producing insulin associated with t1 come about by a very different mechanism than that of t2.

What I meant to (poorly) say was that eventually when you are t2 after a long enough time you can also have the problems making insulin of a t1.

I don't think I am arguing two different sides. I started my post saying I totally agree with Kent, that a high sugar diet causes an increase in metabolic activity rate (in that per unit of time, you will transform energy quicker if you recently ate 100 calories of sugar than if you recently ate 100 calories of fat or protein). But this is because of the way sugar is metabolized vs protein and fat, not because of insulin itself. Carbohydrate sugar eaten alone is broken down very rapidly, and floods your blood with energy. Protein is broken down into sugar slowly and steadily, as is fat synthesized into ketones, etc. It's the flood of energy causing the problem.
After a long enough time of bludgeoning your body with too much energy too quickly from a high sugar diet, the cells try to save themselves from early death by calcifying themselves to the effects of insulin. By ignoring insulin, they are also going to use less energy, and therefore age slower. Your body sends the sugar which can no longer be effectively used by the more insulin-resistant very metabolically active cells, to the more insulin-sensitive energy storing fat cells.

What I disagreed with is his over emphasis on blaming insulin. Insulin is reactionary. The cause of the problem is the diet itself, eating way too high a percentage calories from carbs or having a genetic tendency to IR. The high levels of insulin, the body's self induced insulin resistance: these are just symptoms, reactions to the real problem, the diet itself.

Basically I look at it like this, again assuming for healthy individuals: While it is technically true that insulin contributes to an increase in metabolic rate in normal healthy people, it can and will only do this when appropriate energy intake from sugar is administered. The insulin reaction of a normal person is directly parallel to the action of eating sugar. A healthy body will not produce insulin beyond what is needed, it only produces as much as is needed to "get the job done" and effectively allow the uptake of consumed food energy.

In other words, the insulin itself is only doing what is required of it; to get the energy "boost" you need to take that much energy in from sugar. Its the sugar calories giving the energy, by them entering the blood so rapidly. Insulin is merely doing what is required of it, and in of itself offering no metabolic benefits.

There are exceptions of course. People who are prone to hypoglycemia may for whatever medical reason produce too much insulin relative to what is needed, and in this case insulin truly is causing them to use energy faster than they are taking it in. But, this is a condition and not how the body should normally operate. A normal body will only produce as much insulin that is required of it to deal with the sugar it has been given.

I agree completely.

Everyone is different, some of our metabolisms are capable of handling and faring well on high-sugar. Some of us do poorly on high fat and feel sluggish and lethargic and do better with a little more carbs (yes these people do exist, you just don't hear about them often on a pro-lc website). The fact that this individual variance exists for what we do best on metabolically is strong evidence that something like metabolic typing might have some merit.

I think it is foolish to outright dismiss the possibility that some people do better on more carb-heavy diets.

Back to the Metabolic Typing Diet

I saw a man in the restaurant this morning that was a "carb type" according to the Metabolic Typing Diet theory. He just loved his carbs. The orange juice glass must have been 8 inches tall. Belgium waffles with cherries and the standard sugar laden fake whipping cream. Fruit on the side with lots of fructose carbs. A giant sugar muffin. Yep, definitely a "carb type."

He must have weighed 400 pounds, a lumbering stack of fat with legs.

Oh, yes. The Metabolic Typing Diet is truly nonsense.

Kent

Alright, Kent. Let's start over.

I don't support a high carb diet (at least not for most people). Finding LC saved me.

However, I also am open minded enough to realize there are many people in the world who do quite well and live long healthy lives eating more carbs than what you or I would do well on.
I am also open minded enough to realize there are many people who feel like absolute crap on very low grams of carbs (yes, even after induction).

Even some LC dieters do better when eating more carbs and fruits than others, I am one of them. I feel much better eating a bit more carbs (currently at 40 net per day) and it doesn't affect my weight any.

Ok let me clarify myself.

In a normal individual it won't. But then again, in a normal individual insulin won't "hype" metabolism either. In a normal individual the insulin reaction is directly equal to the sugar intake action. Any energy you experience from eating a high carb diet is not directly caused by the insulin, though insulin does play an essential role (so essential that energy cannot be had w/o it). In healthy people, insulin is like a negotiator between energy you give it and the body. It allows energy you eat to be used. It doesn't increase the rate of usage.

The problem is that sugar is broken down sooo rapidly that it forces your body to transform energy quickly. This sugar induced increased metabolic rate results in metabolic disorders like IR.


I follow my own version of the Atkins plan, and support almost everything Dr. Atkins said. (I changed the plan around a bit to emphasize portion control a little more, because with all the LC alternatives today it is all too easy to stay LC while eating enough calories to maintain).

I've not familiarized myself with protein power, however.

LOL! Kent, I don't think you know this, but from the first post you made to me, you have been nothing but disrespectful and rude. If you think the way I responded was uncalled for, I apologize. But, I think if someone talked to you that way, you would be just as upset.

The Metabolic Typing Book makes the point that your type is not necessarily what you LOVE to eat. If you eat what you LOVE, THAT can be symptoms of addiction or allergy. If you GAIN WEIGHT or are OBESE on the type of diet you're eating, then that's a sign the you are EATING WRONG FOR YOUR METABOLIC TYPE. Rather your metabolic type is the diet (combination of foods) that you are HEALTHIEST, ENERGIZED, and ABLE TO MAINTAIN OPTIMUM WEIGHT ON. Each metabolic type is comprised of portein, carbs, and fat. It's just that the ratios and sources of p:c:f are different for each type.

Kent, have you read the book? I'm just wondering because you seem to have such a different take on what it's saying than I.

Zuleikaa,

Certainly I have read the book. The bottom line from this book and the other metabolic type theories can be easily summarized, "If you love to eat carbohydrates you are a carb type, if you love to eat protein you are a protein type." A person who loves eating meat and fat while disliking pasta, cookies and cakes will never test as a "protein type."

The fact remains. Carbohydrates are pathogenic for everyone. The time it takes for one to develope diseases is directly proportional to the amount of carbohyrates eaten multiplied by the length of time. Starches take longer to do their damage than simple carbohydrates but the end result is the same eventually.

Didn't we go through this already at the beginning of this thread?

According to the Metabolic Typing Diet many obese people are the "carb type" and should continue the same way. That is laughable. The book is a joke.

There is no such thing a people with different metabolic types that should eat a high-carb diet. Some people don't get fat on high-carbs because they have an intestinal disease caused by the carbs. Some people eat the high-carb diet and think they are doing great only to find they are hypoglycemic.

Kent

Marathon Runner who was the Metabolic Carb Type


Another Marathon Runner Proves Carbohydrates Kill

PowerBar founder Maxwell collapses and dies at age 51, March 20, 2004, San Anselmo, California. Brian Maxwell, the 51-year-old founder of the PowerBar, has died of a heart attack. A former world-class marathon runner, Maxwell reportedly collapses in a post office and emergency personnel were unable to resuscitate him. The PowerBar company has become a multimillion-dollar empire since Maxwell and his wife, a nutritionist, founded it in 1986. They began selling the popular energy bars out of their kitchen and over the next 10 years the company grew to $150 million in sales. In March 2000, the couple sold the company to Nestle SA for a reported $375 million. Maxwell thought of the idea to make PowerBars while running a 26.2-mile marathon. He had to stop the race after 21 miles, the point where experts say the body stops burning carbohydrates and starts to burn muscle tissue. In 1977, Track and Field News ranked Maxwell the No. 3 runner in the world, and in 1980 he was part of the Olympic team that boycotted the games in Moscow. He represented Canada in many international competitions as a long-distance runner.

Maxwell has proven once again that exercise does not prevent heart disease. He has also confirmed that the high-carbohydrate diet causes heart disease. His wife was a professional nutritionist and co-developer of the PowerBar. Yet, they created a "health product" that is pure garbage nutritionally. They both were strong promoters of conventional high-carbohydrate nutrition. She is rich, but he is dead.

Here is the list of ingredients for PowerBars that are laden with deadly carbohydrates and simple sugars:

High fructose corn syrup

Grape and pear juice concentrate

Maltodextrin

Brown rice

Unsweetened chocolate

Glycerin

Bunch of other unhealthy junk

That's only partly accurate. "Normal" individuals (whatever that may be) will at times produce more insulin than what was needed to cover the meal eaten. Your body has no way to know exactly how many carbs or grams of sugar you've just consumed until it's digested and hits your bloodstream, but insulin is released long before that (phase 1 response). The phase 2 insulin response is in direct proportion to how high and how quickly your blood glucose concentrations are rising, but even that can be overdone. That's when glucagon comes in to counteract that by stimulating release of glycogen from the liver in response to dropping blood sugars. It's a delicate balance that many are not aware of. It's also this constant up-and-down of blood sugars that drives many to consume more and more carbs; blood sugar goes up, insulin does it's job (some times a bit too well), blood sugar drops along with glucagon and glycogen kicking in and the body producing hunger signals to eat again to assist the glygocen in bringing the blood sugars back up again.




Again, partly correct but incomplete. Insulin is what is known as a "master hormome". It directly influences a great many body processes other than simply blood glucose control. One of the things it influences is whether the body will store fat or not. When insulin levels are high, the body will store fat. When glucagon levels are dominant (as they are in low carb), the body will not store fat and will instead burn it for energy. The body's response to cells becoming resistant to insulin isn't just to send the insulin to less resistant cells, but to also produce more insulin to force the resistant cells to accept the glucose present in the bloodstream as well. It's equivalent to having to use a bigger and bigger hammer to do the job that a smaller hammer once did. This is why in individuals with insulin resistance, the circulating levels of insulin are very high (as is the rate at which they are storing fat) and also why those are with IR struggle to lose weight on a high carb diet even at very low calorie levels.



I'm not convinced that variances in the amount of carb that a person feels good at or can tolerate (20 grams per day vs. 40, for example), is a good argument in favor of metabolic typing. Even among those that are carb sensitive, the amount that an individual can tolerate varies quite a bit. Perhaps that is a direct function of how advanced an individual's IR has become, perhaps not.



Good analogy, but insulin can and does stimulate the rate at which energy is used within the cell by directly influencing other enzymatic reactions (specifically those that are involved with glycolysis) within the cell. It doesn't just influence the rate at which the glucose leaves the blood stream, but also the rate at which that glucose is burned once it gets inside the cell. The rate at which energy is used within the body is the very definition of metabolic rate.



To tell you the truth, I believe that there are very few individuals who are capable of handling and faring well on a high carb/high sugar diet without a corresponding high level of physical activity. Take away that high level of activity and most of those people will start experiencing all the problems of high carb consumption that many of us do. They are beginning to see that in areas of Asia now; with declining activity levels, weight and the incidence of diabetes and heart disease are climbing. Kent's post about Brian Maxwell also illustrates that. He was able to control his weight while consuming a high carb diet while he was running long distances regularly, but it didn't do much for the impact the insulin he was forcing his body to produce with all those carbs had on his cardiovascular system, even WITH a high level of activity. There was another famous marathon runner who touted a low fat, high carb diet that suffered the same fate...while he was out running as a matter of fact. I'm sure if you had talked to these men, they would have told you how great they felt. After all...you can't run a marathon if you feel like doo-doo, but feeling good physically doesn't necessarily mean that you are doing good physically or that you are eating the proper combination of nutrients for your body which is why I hesitate to give a lot of credence to the metabolic typing theory; a lot of it seems to be based on how you physically feel, not on what's actually going on inside your body.

I'd also like to remind everyone that while disagreement and debate is fine, exchanging personal insults, even in the heat of debate, can result in your posting privileges being suspended. Please stick to debating/discussing the facts and ideas presented and refrain from personal attacks.

This is all interesting, but I can't credit much of what Kent says when it's dripping with hostility and childish stuff like referring to ItsTheWooo as "Its The Gooo."

To me Woo's stuff seems more coherent and intelligent. I certainly had to laugh at the attempt to paint her as a cut & paste artists. We all reference websites, but from her writing it's clear she understands the subject as well as (probably better than) Kent.

Kyrasdad,

OK, so you like ItsThe Mooo's presentation of her thoughts better than mine. Where is truth in all those feeling? Do we now judge the better way of eating by what seems to be a "better understanding?"

Dr. Dean Ornish writes very well and his presentation may be better to some people than books by Dr. Robert C. Atkins. Dr. Andrew Weil has written many books that his readers absolutely adore and many believe them instead of those written by Drs. Michael and Mary Dan Eades. Is that the way to decide what is right? You go ahead and live your life that way. Not me.

Dr. Atkins and Drs. Eades present scientific truth while Drs. Ornish and Weil have a hidden adgenda. They are radical religious vegetarians, and many of their statements are simply untrue.

So what about Lisa N's excellent conradictions of Its The Moo's incorrect statements? Is Lisa N right or wrong?

I based my beliefs on logic and truth, not how it feels.

Kent

Everyone!

I strongly advise you to lay off insulting each other in this thread. This is your last warning.

Stick to debating the topic.

Karen

According to the Metabolic Typing Diet many obese people are the "carb type" and should continue the same way. Where exactly is this in the book?

I have been away...had no idea this discussion had gone on and on! How silly of me to think it would eliminate controversy!!!

I can tell you from first-hand experience that your type does NOT reflect what you LOVE or even LIKE. I am a fast oxidizer, I was tested. I have been LC ing for two years in May, and I am absolutely sick of it. Never liked meat for much more than a side dish. However, like it or not, it's what I do best on. That at least tells you that believing in MT isn't wishful thinking...