34 replies to this topic

[Dotty1]

I read on Wikipedia ("insulin insensivity" and "diabetes") that low-fat diets, low-GI diets diets and low-carb diets appear to be the most promising in improving insulin sensivity.

However, I am trying to find studies which state which diet had the --best-- results.

So far, I have found one study that says that a low-fat diet (which kept portions, carbs, calories, etc the same in all participants) increased insulin sensivity by 33%.

I thought I'd share this information with everyone.
I cant find any studies which state how much low-carb diets improve insulin sensivity (in terms of percentage... so that we can compare the various diets).


I am not sure how much our bodies must be sensitized to insulin in order to stop our acne. I am not sure if a 33% improvement in sensivity would stop acne in its tracks, or if it would reduce acne by exactly 33%. LOL

I'm on low-fat diet, so I'll be posting my results in a few weeks.







=====================
If you want to read the actual Low-Fat study:

Abstract:

Aims 

To compare the effects on insulin sensitivity, body composition and glycaemic control of the recommended standard weight-maintaining diabetes diet and an isocaloric low-fat diabetes diet during two, 3-month periods in patients with Type 1 diabetes. Methods 

Thirteen Type 1 patients were included, of whom 10 completed the cross-over study. Ten non-diabetic, matched control subjects were also examined. Body composition was estimated by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) whole-body scanning, diet intake was monitored by 7-day dietary record and insulin sensitivity was measured by the insulin clamp technique at baseline and after each of the diet intervention periods. Results 

On an isocaloric low-fat diet, Type 1 diabetic patients significantly reduced the proportion of fat in the total daily energy intake by 12.1% (or −3.6% of total energy) as compared with a conventional diabetes diet (P = 0.039). The daily protein and carbohydrate intake increased (+4.4% of total energy intake, P = 0.0049 and +2.5%, P = 0.34, respectively), while alcohol intake decreased (−3.2% of total energy intake, P = 0.02). There was a significant improvement in insulin sensitivity on the isocaloric, low-fat diet compared with the standard diabetes diet [7.06 ± 2.16 mg/kg/min (mean ± sd) vs. 5.52 ± 2.35 mg/kg/min (P = 0.03)]. However, insulin sensitivity remained 33% lower than in the control subjects (P = 0.021). No significant changes occurred in body weight or body composition. Glycated haemoglobin rose during both diet intervention periods (P = 0.18), with no difference between the two diets. Conclusions 

Change to an isocaloric, low-fat diet in Type 1 diabetic patients during a 3-month period resulted in significant improvement in insulin sensitivity without improvement in glycaemic control. However, insulin sensitivity remained 33% lower than in control subjects.
Source: http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bsc/...000004/art00007


=====================================

[Danny©]

It's not the amount of fat that matters but the kinds of fat.
Saturated fats decrease insulin sensitivity.

[Dotty1]

Can you provide a source for that? A study that found it was saturated fats and not a high fat intake in general?

[Danny©]

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m120...143/ai_13401949

Notice that while monounsaturated fats are neutral, polyunsaturated fats improve insulin sensitivity which means consuming them can't impair insulin sensitivity even if their consumption brings fat intake up.

[treefeet]

Researchers studied diet in a controlled clinical environment among 10 obese people with type 2 diabetes. While staying in an inpatient hospital unit, participants were instructed to continue their usual diet, consisting of meals from the hospital kitchen augmented by food from the outside, for the first 7 days of the trial. Participants were encouraged to eat as much as they wanted of name-brand foods ”McDonald's sandwiches, Dunkin' Donuts bakery products, Oreo cookies” for which dietary information was readily available.

After 7 days, all participants switched to a low-carb diet that reduced carbohydrates to about 21 g/day but permitted as much protein and fat as they desired. People were allowed to choose from a menu of foods prepared in the hospital kitchen. They remained on the low-carb diet for the next 2 weeks. All participants were encouraged to maintain their usual level of physical activity.

While on the low-carb diet, the average energy intake decreased from 3,111kcal/day to 2,164 kcal/day, which contributed to an average weight loss of 3.6lb during the 14-day low-carb diet phase. The average 24-hour blood glucose levels became normalized, the average A1C level dropped from 7.3% to 6.8%, and insulin sensitivity improved by about 75%, according to researchers.

http://docnews.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/content/full/2/6/15

Wow, 75%! 33% percent seems pretty wimpy in comparison...

[Danny©]

Average levels are ambiguous.
It might easily means that few had a huge redutions while others had low reduction or not reduction at all or even worsening of their levels.

Also it is worth repeating once again, in these studies is not diet per se but weight loss that causes increased insulin sensitivity. If you consume 900 calories of white sugar and lose weight by consequence your insulin sensitivity improves anyway.

[Dotty1]

Everywhere I search on the internet, studies state that a very low-carb diet is better than a low-fat diet at sensitizing the body to insulin. (20 carbs a day or less).

Danny, do you happen to know of a better diet than the low-carb or low-fat diet? I'm a vegetarian who hardly ever eats saturated fats (and I very rarely eat peanut butter =P).

[Danny©]

Everywhere I search on the internet, studies state that a very low-carb diet is better than a low-fat diet at sensitizing the body to insulin. (20 carbs a day or less).

Danny, do you happen to know of a better diet than the low-carb or low-fat diet? I'm a vegetarian who hardly ever eats saturated fats (and I very rarely eat peanut butter =P).

The problem with these studies is that the factor making the difference is not at all the precise amount of carbs or fats but the foods selected and the weight loss effect. Macronutrients are rather irrelevant and for whatever macronutrient split there's a diet that work and make people extremely healthy or healh their health problems. Low-carb diets prevents the use of refined or dense carbs while allowing the weight loss which is the real factor increasing insulin sensitivity.
If one takes a low-carb diet and make it higher carbs by increasing the amount of watery fruits, berries, lentils and veggies the diet would have the same exact effect of its low-carb counterpart.
In other words low-fat, high-carb and low-carb might mean everything and the opposite of everything. What really matter is food choice, calories, lack of refined foods and micronutrients.
Besides ketosis has positive effects on glucose tolerance and insulin sensitivity only as long as there's weight loss. Ketosis at maintenance impairs insulin sensitivity.

[Dotty1]

Although you say that these diets are completely flawed and that one cant use them to make any decisions, have you cleared your skin with any certain diet?

[treefeet]

Danny likes to shoot down any study he didn't post himself and say it is flawed for whatever reason. The fact is there are hundreds of articles and studies published on the web that PROVE that a low-carb diet beats a low-fat diet every single time for diabetes, insulin resistance, blood lipids, and weight loss, among other things.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m120...143/ai_13401949

Notice that while monounsaturated fats are neutral, polyunsaturated fats improve insulin sensitivity which means consuming them can't impair insulin sensitivity even if their consumption brings fat intake up.

From the article:

In general, they report in the Jan. 28 NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, the more saturated fatty acids present, the more resistant a patient proved to insulin.

'In general' is ambiguous as well. Also the article is talking about saturated fat present in cell membranes not saturated fat consumed in diet.

Indeed, the Sydney researchers point out, the fatty-acid profile of muscle-cell membranes may be due as much to some internal defect as to diet. They noted, for instance, that the reduced activity of one enzyme - a delta-5 desaturase -"was directly related to estimates of insulin resistance in this study." This suggests, they say, that some enzyme-related defect might impair insulin action by reducing levels of long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids in cell membranes.

Even the researchers admit this does not prove any correlation to diet.

[treefeet]

Insulin resistance is recognized as the major defect leading to the development of the metabolic syndrome including a proinflammatory state. Experimental and epidemiological evidence reveals that chronic inflammation is an independent predictor of cardiovascular disease (CVD) [1] and is directly involved in the promotion of insulin resistance and atherosclerosis [...]

Acute carbohydrate consumption has been shown to stimulate reactive oxidative species while initiating many pro-inflammatory processes [11]. Additionally, isocaloric high carbohydrate diets are associated with several markers of inflammation [12]. Carbohydrate restricted diets (CRD) are able to reduce biomarkers of inflammation in the absence of weight loss [13,14]. Dietary carbohydrate, rather than fat, plays a critical role in activating pro-inflammatory processes through their effect on the fatty acid composition of lipids and membranes [15]. Endogenous fatty acids function as ligands for receptors and transcription factors that modulate inflammatory signaling cascades. CRDs are ideal for reducing inflammation because they reduce plasma glucose excursions, the major stimulus for pancreatic secretion of insulin, and modulate the underlying factors associated with CVD and the metabolic syndrome.

Put simply, a high-carb diet leads to inflammation which then promotes insulin resistance.

http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/5/1/6

[rakbs]

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m120...143/ai_13401949

Notice that while monounsaturated fats are neutral, polyunsaturated fats improve insulin sensitivity which means consuming them can't impair insulin sensitivity even if their consumption brings fat intake up.

I'm pretty sure that high intake of omega-6 fatty acids is correlated with insulin resistance. =/

Ah, here is an article: http://eurheartjsupp.oxfordjournals.org/cg...t/3/suppl_D/D37

This article reviews the connection between dietary omega-6 fatty acids and atherosclerosis, carcinogenesis and insulin resistance. These polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) may be likened to ‘double-edged swords’: on one hand they are considered essential for membrane function and eicosanoid formation necessary for vascular, immune and inflammatory cell function, while on the other they lead to increased susceptibility to lipid oxidation, stimulating neoplastic cell growth in culture and impairing insulin activity.

Omega-3s are great for insulin resistance, however.

[abd]

A practically zero fat diet always rids me of acne.
Even salmon makes me break out.
I have said this before but (surprise, surprise) always get shot down by Danny.
The reason I rarely visit these boards is because following that diet has solved my problem.
You have to ask yourself are people who continuously touting this low carbohydrate crap really acne free, if they were, would they be here?

Mabey they are here to help others? I have personally ridden myself of acne by following a naturally low carbohydrate paleo diet.

[Danny©]

Danny likes to shoot down any study he didn't post himself and say it is flawed for whatever reason.

I wanted to state a general fact that applies to all studies, whether they prove low-carb is superior or high-carb is superior. The studies are not methodologically flawed, it's that they can't be used to reach the conclusions you are reaching. A margarine only diet would be low-carb but would be that healthy? A sugar only diet would be high-carb but would that be healthy? People are so focusing on this meaningless macronutrients splits that they're forgetting what these studies are really proving is that health depends on food choices. For every study that proves that low-carb diets are healthy there are as many studies provind that they're unhealthy. For every study that proves that high-carb diets are healthy there are as many studies provind that they're unhealthy. The point is that they're using different food choices, some even unhealthy and refined, but it's okay as long as they suits the low-carb and high-carb description. On real-life Atkins people are not healthier than Zone people and are not healthier than Furhman people (meaning that they all have comparable weight loss, insulin reduction, blood sugar balance, lipids profile, inflammation reduction results) What is flawed is thinking that health is about macronutrients and every single example we have in this world makes it clear that every kind of macronutrient splits provides superior health as long as food choices are adequate and weight loss is obtained. This is not a world that is giving us hints that decreasing carbs a lot per se (whether they come from healthy nutritious foods or unehalthy refined foods) is the best health approach that gives the best health results. For every example is that direction I can provide as many examples in the opposite direction and the reason is that we have misplaced our focus. When we focus on micronutrients, weight loss and food choices we can understand and reconcile the contradictions.

What I'm saying is that the factor influencing these studies is types of carb not amount of carbs. I could prove that high-carb are way better than low-carb by comparing a fruit, veggies, fish, lentils diet with a margarine and fried sausage diet. It would be wrong to claim that what would make the high-carb healthier is the amount of carbohydrates but this exactly what the majority of these studies are doing. The point is that no diet is better per se and when they find that a diet is better per se for all subjects it is because of intrinsic factors that have nothing with grams of cabrs or grams of fats.

Although you say that these diets are completely flawed and that one cant use them to make any decisions, have you cleared your skin with any certain diet?

Just look at my signature

[Constantine]

Average levels are ambiguous.
It might easily means that few had a huge redutions while others had low reduction or not reduction at all or even worsening of their levels.

Also it is worth repeating once again, in these studies is not diet per se but weight loss that causes increased insulin sensitivity. If you consume 900 calories of white sugar and lose weight by consequence your insulin sensitivity improves anyway.

Diets either have to be low fat or low carb, they can't be both. And I am fairly certain low-fat means carbs, which means gi, which means insulin bad stuff

[Danny©]

Diets either have to be low fat or low carb, they can't be both. And I am fairly certain low-fat means carbs, which means gi, which means insulin bad stuff

Proteins are good enough at spiking insulin is absence of carbs
Even on ketogenic diet insulin levels remains average like those on high carb diets
Insulin is a vital hormone without which you would die immediately regardless of what you eat
Functional insulin released when there is a need to transport nutrients is not bad stuff
Functonal reactive insulin secreation has nothing to do with insulin resistance or acne
High-carb diets that focus on whole foods are known to decrease insulin resistance as well
The GI is a meaningless predictor of insulin resistance of spiking. In fact studies have showed that many low GI foods are low GI because of a faster rater of sugar disappareance from the blood meaning an higher insulin spike.

[Danny©]

Put simply, a high-carb diet leads to inflammation which then promotes insulin resistance.

http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/5/1/6

Nutrition and metabolism is a very fishy journal.
It is well known for its biased position since the directors (Hussain and Feineman) are two promoters or the pseudoscientific theory of a metabolic advantage of low-carb eating, pseudoscientific theory which has been disproven by dozen and dozen of controlled studies.
Again this review doesn't prove at all that carbs per se increase inflamation (since they don't) but that meta-analysis of various studies showed an increased inflammatory potential for high-carb diets. Of course it might and probably does mean that refined carbs so common on such diets were responsible for higher levels of inflammation. Low-levels of inflamation on plant-based whole high-carb diets have been seen often and contradict this conclusion based on limited data. Since my diet is below 40% carb it is consider low-carb by whatever standard and I have often said how a diet based on whole foods leads naturally to a reduction of carbs compared to the 70% of a pasta, bread and sweets diet. So I'm hardly an high-carber criticizing lower-carb diets. But I hate hypes, even when they are about something I use or promote and around the low-carb eating has been created an hideous hyperbolic fanatism of the worst kind which should win the mumbo-jumbo histeriry of the last 10 years. The idea that removing carbohydrates per se regardless of weight loss, sources, energy needs, calorie balance and lack of refined foods is the magic bullet to losing weight, god-like glucose and lipid profiles, super health and little inflammation is way more than ridicolous, it's based on a cherry picking of the worst kind. It prevents a more balanced view where studies showing fat gain on ketogenic diets, increased inflammation of low-carb diets, achieved glucose-balance on high-carb diets, worsened lipid profile on ketogenic diets and hundreds of negative experience of ketogenic or low-carb dieters losing no weight and worsening their health are taken into account to form the most logical conclusion we can get: it's food choices that matter and matching intake with needs.

[Danny©]

Even the researchers admit this does not prove any correlation to diet.

This is just one article but it is a text-book notions known for years that saturated fats decrease insulin sensitivity by changing the viscosity of the cells membranas. It's an in vitro fact known to every physiologist. I'm not saying though that this means that low-carb diets automatically decrease insulin sensitivity. Other factors are at play (expecially weight loss and exercise) which makes the insulin sensitivity decreasing effect of saturated fats irrelevant to the end result.

[Danny©]

Danny, do you happen to know of a better diet than the low-carb or low-fat diet? I'm a vegetarian who hardly ever eats saturated fats (and I very rarely eat peanut butter =P).

In my opinion whatever diet that promotes weight loss, avoid refined foods, provide optimum amount of macronutrients works at reversing insulin resistance. It bears repeating that insulin resistance is mostly reversed by weight loss. As little as 4 pounds of excessive weight can impair insulin sensitivity. 10 pounds of extra weight the pancreas is forced to produce thrice as much insulin. When you have thirty extra pounds your pancreas is forced to produce ten times as much insulin. So you can see why even losing 1-2 pounds has amazing effects on insulin resistance. If you want an healthy diet I would make sure that when you put what you eat in a nutritional analysis software it shows you're getting the maximum optimum amount of vitamins, minerals and phytochemical. This is far far far far far far more important than grams of carbs or grams of fats. I would make sure you eat only when truly hungry and if you crave a certain artificially-flavoured food in particular it is NOT hunger. I would make sure to get in touch with my body so that you instinctively need how to maintain an anergy balance and how to balance supply and demand. And I would stay away from refined foods and snacking on such food thorough the day, alcohol and beverages. I would also make sure you're getting no less than 50 grams of protein a day. Designing your diet on the go based on micronutritional intake rather than macronutritional and following hunger and energy balance is the best thing you can do and way better than following whatever dietary dogma based on exact macronutrients splits or grams of fats or carbs.