Quote:
Originally Posted by aj_cohn
I think that feeding experiments show that protein, even in healthy people, provokes as sharp an insulin response as carbs (see the heading "MYTH: Carbohydrate Is Singularly Responsible for Driving Insulin"). Apparently, amino acids drive this insulin response directly, without first being converted to glucose. And apparently, glucagon that the body secretes during protein consumption doesn't cause fat to be released from cells to cancel insulin's effect on fat-burning. Since protein stimulates insulin secretion, it would cause a rapid drop in blood glucose if no carbohydrate is consumed with the protein. Glucagon prevents this rapid drop in blood sugar by stimulating the liver to produce glucose.
So, when Moore restricted his protein intake, he was reducing his glucagon production, and thereby reducing his glucose production, allowing lipolysis to occur.
|
OK, I read the article on the undeserved reputation of insulin and I have a few issues with it.
He talks mostly about healthy individuals, if you're obese, particularly as obese as Jimmy Moore and myself, you're not healthy like a 'healthy lean person'.
Insulin and glucagon not balancing themselves out causes reactive hypoglycaemia - which I certainly had during my large sudden weight gain, and to a lesser extent still, in that when I eat carbs or protein my blood glucose falls, it doesn't rise, it just doesn't fall as much as it used to, and metformin has helped with that. Unhealthy individuals do not react the same as healthy ones.
His own chart shows higher insulin release in obese people, and he himself suggests a low protein, low carbohydrate diet - of course you can't take protein too low as a certain amount is necessary - but yes to minimise the insulin response (and glucagon response) as low protein as is healthy and low carb with high fat is best - or as I have done, have fewer meals.
I don't think that carbs on their own causes weight gain, and metabolic syndrome - I believe that fructose causes the initial damage in susceptible individuals and then after that it depends on how much damage has been done as to how much carbs and protein someone can ingest and how often, and still lose weight. Regarding CICO, I do believe that for each individual there is an amount above which weight loss will not occur, but its not as simple as CICO and differs from person to person - just as some people can eat vast amounts of calories and not gain weight (and certainly even when they do gain, they don't gain according to any formula.) If I ate 6, 300 calorie meals a day of processed foods including sugar and white carbs, I would gain weight. 6 meals of 300 calories low carb food, and I wouldn't lose weight, and might still gain - but 1800 calories once a day and I'm losing weight - my own experience tells me that its not just about calories.
Yes a diet needs to be something that can be maintained long term and even lifelong. Diet composistion and frequency of meals do matter to those of us with big metabolic and hormonal challenges. I also believe there is an addictive component to certain foods, but I don't believe that eating bland foods is the answer or that 'food palatability' causes obesity - to me that's just a way of saying people eat too much of the foods they like - eating bland foods isn't going cure an addiction to sugar, in my experience eating bland foods just makes you want the forbidden foods even more. When people have an addiction to a food (a real addiction, not just 'I really like cheese'), the food generally includes fructose - they eat lots of fructose containing food, and depending on genetic susceptibility, eventually damage occurs and weight starts to rise.
Show me a fat population that doesn't consume large amounts of processed fructose, or show me a lean population that does.
Lee