Jump to content

Photo

DO NOT drink COKE or ANY FIZZY drinks!!!!!!


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
92 replies to this topic

#41 Frances The Mute

Frances The Mute

    Misanthropic Nihilist

  • Veteran Members
  • Posts & Likes
    Posts: 1,045
    Gallery Images: 3
    Likes: 0
About Me
  • Joined: 25-May 04

Posted 06 September 2004 - 11:17 AM

QUOTE (Ryan Valmont @ Sep 5 2004, 01:29 PM)
QUOTE (HendrixIsGod @ Sep 5 2004, 01:16 PM)
i am almost positive that excessive amounts of sugar break me out, POSITIVE

now this is what i'm talking about,you don't need science to tell us otherwise when we have people like me and you SAYING that sugar is a problem for them.

Now maybe sugar itself isn't directly to blame?,but the side effect associated with large ammount of the stuff?.

im thinking this too dude. THe last 3-4 days ive cut out my sugar intake almost completely, i at least try to keep to to under 30 grams a day. Before i would drink 4 cans of pop in one day and large amounts of candy and i would break out sooo bad. But there were some days when I would just eat a little sugar and not break out at all (which is what made me think that sugar wasnt causing my breakouts) I went camping last week completely clear, ate an entire bag of campfired marshmellows and the next day my face looks like SHIT. Since i stopped eating large amounts of sugar I havent broken out once. Sugar is the only thing that has constantly been in my diet every day that i have had acne (i love candy and never thought twice about eating it) and I have narrowed that down to the cause of my acne. For the next couple months I will continue my cleansing routine but stop eating sugar and see how much my skin clears up


sleeping late, masturbation ,sex etc doesnt cause acne

but consuming too much sugar does, your body isnt supposed to consume large amounts of sugar contained in pop/candy so when you do the impurities come out through your face. I was my face and feel every inch of it every night before i go to bed, there have been days when i ate alot of sugar, went to sleep with a perfectly clean face, and woke up with a HUGE zit where there was NOTHING before, not even a sign of there being a pimple. Some pimples take days to develop, these may be indirectly related to sugar consumption or not, but i notice that most my pimples form overnight

#42 Ryan Valmont

Ryan Valmont

    The Rated R Superstar

  • Veteran Members
  • Posts & Likes
    Posts: 439
    Gallery Images: 4
    Likes: 0
About Me
  • Joined: 07-July 04

Posted 06 September 2004 - 11:52 AM

Hendrixisgod...i noticed a massive diffrence to everything to do with my body once i cut sugar right down.

but a word of warning...don't cut out TOO MUCH as that can be problem!

#43 evigrex

evigrex

    Member

  • Veteran Members
  • Posts & Likes
    Posts: 504
    Likes: 0
About Me
  • Joined: 20-June 04

Posted 06 September 2004 - 04:35 PM

QUOTE (blahblahblah @ Sep 6 2004, 09:42 AM)
QUOTE (erickaman @ Sep 5 2004, 02:22 AM)
no more bs
do ur research
coke and high sugar food couse a insulin spike
and what u know ,
what goes up must come down
so u may feel energized once u had a coke , a couple hours u will feel tired and u will need another coke, this is all bad for ur health dont drink soda it is poison,
do urself a favore and keeping doing what ur doing
develop cancer , get sick quicker , or change ur diet and be healthy its up to u its ur life

all carbohydates cause the same insulin response

1 cup of oatmeal = 50-54g carbs

50-55g carbs in the form of high gi (dextrose, maltodextrin, etc) will cause the same exact insulin response as oatmeal

the difference? just how fast the insulin response is.


Anything causes an insulin response...fat, protein, whatever. The difference with carbohydrates that are considered "low gi" is that for the most part, they dont overburden the pancreas and do not increase blood glucose excessively high....this leads to a lesser chance of fat storage and better long term health.

#44 evigrex

evigrex

    Member

  • Veteran Members
  • Posts & Likes
    Posts: 504
    Likes: 0
About Me
  • Joined: 20-June 04

Posted 06 September 2004 - 04:37 PM

QUOTE (HendrixIsGod @ Sep 6 2004, 10:04 AM)
QUOTE (Ryan Valmont @ Sep 5 2004, 01:29 PM)
QUOTE (HendrixIsGod @ Sep 5 2004, 01:16 PM)
i am almost positive that excessive amounts of sugar break me out, POSITIVE

now this is what i'm talking about,you don't need science to tell us otherwise when we have people like me and you SAYING that sugar is a problem for them.

Now maybe sugar itself isn't directly to blame?,but the side effect associated with large ammount of the stuff?.

im thinking this too dude. THe last 3-4 days ive cut out my sugar intake almost completely, i at least try to keep to to under 30 grams a day. Before i would drink 4 cans of pop in one day and large amounts of candy and i would break out sooo bad. But there were some days when I would just eat a little sugar and not break out at all (which is what made me think that sugar wasnt causing my breakouts) I went camping last week completely clear, ate an entire bag of campfired marshmellows and the next day my face looks like SHIT. Since i stopped eating large amounts of sugar I havent broken out once. Sugar is the only thing that has constantly been in my diet every day that i have had acne (i love candy and never thought twice about eating it) and I have narrowed that down to the cause of my acne. For the next couple months I will continue my cleansing routine but stop eating sugar and see how much my skin clears up


sleeping late, masturbation ,sex etc doesnt cause acne

but consuming too much sugar does, your body isnt supposed to consume large amounts of sugar contained in pop/candy so when you do the impurities come out through your face. I was my face and feel every inch of it every night before i go to bed, there have been days when i ate alot of sugar, went to sleep with a perfectly clean face, and woke up with a HUGE zit where there was NOTHING before, not even a sign of there being a pimple. Some pimples take days to develop, these may be indirectly related to sugar consumption or not, but i notice that most my pimples form overnight

I know of a ton of people that actually tried this diet thing to rid their acne (including me) and it didn't make a bit of difference.

And dude...you touch every inch of your face? Sounds like obsessive compulsive disorder right there....live a little.

#45 blahblahblah

blahblahblah

    Member

  • Veteran Members
  • Posts & Likes
    Posts: 224
    Likes: 0
About Me
  • Joined: 23-January 03

Posted 06 September 2004 - 05:42 PM

QUOTE (evigrex @ Sep 6 2004, 04:22 PM)
QUOTE (blahblahblah @ Sep 6 2004, 09:42 AM)
QUOTE (erickaman @ Sep 5 2004, 02:22 AM)
no more bs
do ur research
coke and high sugar food couse a insulin spike
and what u know ,
what goes up must come down
so u may feel energized once u had a coke , a couple hours u will feel tired and u will need another coke, this is all bad for ur health dont drink soda it is poison,
do urself a favore and keeping doing what ur doing
develop cancer , get sick quicker , or change ur diet and be healthy its up to u its ur life

all carbohydates cause the same insulin response

1 cup of oatmeal = 50-54g carbs

50-55g carbs in the form of high gi (dextrose, maltodextrin, etc) will cause the same exact insulin response as oatmeal

the difference? just how fast the insulin response is.


Anything causes an insulin response...fat, protein, whatever. The difference with carbohydrates that are considered "low gi" is that for the most part, they dont overburden the pancreas and do not increase blood glucose excessively high....this leads to a lesser chance of fat storage and better long term health.

sorry but fat storage has nothing to do with insulin or the amount of insulin present. fat storage is dependant on a positive energy balance not on gi. controlling GI for dieting purposes serves to simply keep blood sugar stable (-> less hunger) and thats about it.

assuming identical caloric intake, GI makes absolutely zero difference in fat storage. literature/medical journals have never displayed otherwise, and on the contrary much literature has shown no difference when identical caloric intakes are followed (in low gi vs high gi groups)

besides, fat can be stored in the presence of 0/very low insulin via ASP (acylation stimulating protein) .. stores fat in fat cells that doesn't require insulin for
activation.

what stimulates ASP? the presence of fat, hydrolysis, absorption and resynthesis of TG in the in the bloodstream. laymans - dietary triglycerides can store themselves fine with 0 insulin present.

better long term health? sure.. debatable though. less fat storage? absolutely not.

#46 evigrex

evigrex

    Member

  • Veteran Members
  • Posts & Likes
    Posts: 504
    Likes: 0
About Me
  • Joined: 20-June 04

Posted 06 September 2004 - 05:46 PM

QUOTE (blahblahblah @ Sep 6 2004, 04:29 PM)
QUOTE (evigrex @ Sep 6 2004, 04:22 PM)
QUOTE (blahblahblah @ Sep 6 2004, 09:42 AM)
QUOTE (erickaman @ Sep 5 2004, 02:22 AM)
no more bs
do ur research
coke and high sugar food couse a insulin spike
and what u know ,
what goes up must come down
so u may feel energized once u had a coke , a couple hours u will feel tired and u will need another coke, this is all bad for ur health dont drink soda it is poison,
do urself a favore and keeping doing what ur doing
develop cancer , get sick quicker , or change ur diet and be healthy its up to u its ur life

all carbohydates cause the same insulin response

1 cup of oatmeal = 50-54g carbs

50-55g carbs in the form of high gi (dextrose, maltodextrin, etc) will cause the same exact insulin response as oatmeal

the difference? just how fast the insulin response is.


Anything causes an insulin response...fat, protein, whatever. The difference with carbohydrates that are considered "low gi" is that for the most part, they dont overburden the pancreas and do not increase blood glucose excessively high....this leads to a lesser chance of fat storage and better long term health.

sorry but fat storage has nothing to do with insulin or the amount of insulin present. fat storage is dependant on a positive energy balance not on gi. controlling GI for dieting purposes serves to simply keep blood sugar stable (-> less hunger) and thats about it.

assuming identical caloric intake, GI makes absolutely zero difference in fat storage.

besides, fat can be stored in the presence of 0 insulin via ATP.

better long term health? sure.. debatable though. less fat storage? absolutely not.

You are ABSOLUTELY WRONG on just about EVERYTHING you just posted. Insulin has EVERYTHING to do with fat storage, since insulin is the HORMONE THAT PARTITIONS NUTRIENTS AND STORES THEM AS FAT WHEN NECESSARY.
You're telling me that insulin doesn't cause fat storage, and you don't even know the PURPOSE of insulin?

If you wish to debate this further, I can send you a dozen books on human physiology that describe in as verbose a manner as possible, how insulin is responsible for fat storage - and I can bombard you with dozens of studies.

Or you can educate yourself before making false statements. If you would like to try me, let me know.

#47 blahblahblah

blahblahblah

    Member

  • Veteran Members
  • Posts & Likes
    Posts: 224
    Likes: 0
About Me
  • Joined: 23-January 03

Posted 06 September 2004 - 05:51 PM

fat can be stored without insulin present making GI pretty much worthless. see edited post.

caloric balance is what determines fat storage or not. it is physiologically impossible to store fat without a surplus of calories. dont reference me the horseshit cop study, either, because it was flawed if you actually read the full text

put 2 people on a maintenence or below diet. group 1 eats skittles for their carbs and group 2 eats oatmeal. assuming identical calories there will be no difference in fat storage. much literature/medical journals (not sure if you can get medical journals) show this.

but ok.

#48 evigrex

evigrex

    Member

  • Veteran Members
  • Posts & Likes
    Posts: 504
    Likes: 0
About Me
  • Joined: 20-June 04

Posted 06 September 2004 - 05:55 PM

Look wiseguy, you're wrong. PERIOD.

You simply need to understand what insulin DOES and why a CALORIE IS NOT A CALORIE. There are too many variables to say that nobody can gain weight unless they're in caloric surplus (tell that to all the type 2 diabetics out there) - such as insulin resistance, thyroid insufficiency, JUST TO NAME A FEW.

You just need to educate yourself, right now you are making yourself out to be a jackass. I will correct your nonsense when I have time after tomorrow....

#49 blahblahblah

blahblahblah

    Member

  • Veteran Members
  • Posts & Likes
    Posts: 224
    Likes: 0
About Me
  • Joined: 23-January 03

Posted 06 September 2004 - 05:59 PM

lol we have a voodoo nutriition idiot here biggrin.gif you guys are fun to play with because no matter how you slice it you end up being wrong sad.gif

Insulin's primary role is to

inhibit lipolysis (various mechanisms). Note that the mere presence of fat in the bloodtream also inhibits lipolysis with NO increase in insulin.

and

activate LPL (which mobilizes fatty acids from chylomicrons for storage).
Insulin also increases glucose uptake into the fat cell but I bleieve ASP does as well (ASP activation also increases insulin release from thepancreas).

But ASP is the key player in the actual fat storage. It does appear to be regulated by insulin somewhat but the mere presence of chlyomicrons in the bloodstream activates it as well.

ASP also increases re-esterification of fatty acids, via decreasing teh activity of HSL, and it also stimulates the release of fatty acids from the chylomicron via lpl. It can also sensitise the beta cells for the next batch of incoming glucose which is pretty cool.

Case in point, rats bred without adipose LPL get fat just fine. rats bred without adipose ASP do not.

the problem with your argument is that old books/literature still use:

insulin -> fat storage model

except that this is incomplete and borderline incorrect at this point in time.

unfortunately you are obviously not in the field professionaly or you'd know this.
i like arguing with guys like you cuz you follow such outdated models. it's like teaching a kid how to walk smile.gif

jackass? ok. too bad you had to bring out the insults. this is what i do for a living kiddo tongue.gif

i can probably get you some actual medical journals if you'd like to educate yourself. if not, ok. but that's just human being stubbornness

let me just ask you, though, do you even KNOW what ASP is? haha..

now run along, google or pubmed some outdated literature and i'll shut it down bb_smile.gif

#50 blahblahblah

blahblahblah

    Member

  • Veteran Members
  • Posts & Likes
    Posts: 224
    Likes: 0
About Me
  • Joined: 23-January 03

Posted 06 September 2004 - 06:05 PM

btw, just to give you something clear cut to debate:

the basic reasoning, that you gave was, insulin = storage hormone + dietary fat = bodyfat

problems

1. It takes only tiny amounts of insulin to affect fat cell metabolism.
2. Protein more than sufficiently raises insulin this much so protein + fat works just as well to both inhibit fat cell mobilization and stimulate storage of nutrients.
3. Insulin is important to increase LPL activity. Lpl was thought to be rate limiting for fat storage but this is not the case. All LPL does is release fatty acids from chylomicrons.
4. Acylation stimulation protein (ASP) is the real player in triglyceride synthesis in the fat cell. It is stimulated by the mere presence of chylomicrons in the bloodstream and is insulin independent.

whether you end up gaining or losing fat will depend on 24 hour fat balance (oxidation - intake) which will essentially be 24 hour calorie balance.

#51 Guest_Tracy_*

Guest_Tracy_*
  • Guests
  • Posts & Likes

Posted 06 September 2004 - 06:05 PM

LOL!! He ^ said "kiddo"!! bb_lol.gif

#52 blahblahblah

blahblahblah

    Member

  • Veteran Members
  • Posts & Likes
    Posts: 224
    Likes: 0
About Me
  • Joined: 23-January 03

Posted 06 September 2004 - 06:07 PM

btw, just so you know

insulin -> fat storage model is nealry 10 years outdated.

#53 blahblahblah

blahblahblah

    Member

  • Veteran Members
  • Posts & Likes
    Posts: 224
    Likes: 0
About Me
  • Joined: 23-January 03

Posted 06 September 2004 - 06:10 PM

and oh god, i just read youre a fan of john berardi.. hahahahha

me and john have quite a few arguments. feel free to send him this info and have him refute it. he's yet beena ble to. good guy, but king of voodoo nutrition. absolute king.

God, if you reference something from JB, I honestly think I'll have a heart attack from laughter

#54 Guest_Tracy_*

Guest_Tracy_*
  • Guests
  • Posts & Likes

Posted 06 September 2004 - 06:11 PM

If you don't mind me asking, blahblah....what exactly do you do for a living?

(PS: I thought I was the only one who said "kiddo" on this board!) bb_lol.gif

#55 blahblahblah

blahblahblah

    Member

  • Veteran Members
  • Posts & Likes
    Posts: 224
    Likes: 0
About Me
  • Joined: 23-January 03

Posted 06 September 2004 - 06:24 PM

i have a BS from UCLA in kinesiology as well as a lot of backround info human physiology, biochemistry, enorcrinology, nutrition, etc. as well as CSCS cert.

now? well i have no social life so i basically sit around and research. my income comes from working with people for positive physique changes, as well as writing articles from time to time. working on a book smile.gif

one of my biggest hobbies is putting to rest nutritional myths and bs. unfortunately due to the industry everybody has to appear cutting edge - thus berardi's food combining voodoo nutrition, etc. i don't blame them. i'm sure my poorness is attributed to my bland, straight forward, no bs advice/training style

the only reason i got agitated is ol evigrex had to 1) insult 2) BOLD EVERY WORD HE SAID AND PUT IT IN CAPS IN ATTEMPT TO MAKE HIS OPINION, ALBEIT WRONG, SEEM MORE CONVINCING

it's not a wise thing to insult ones intelligence without having proper knowledge of who you're insulting.

too bad, though, you being 26 and all and speaking so hastly without taking the time to think outside of the box. sorry i challenged mighty evigrex on an internet forum!

#56 blahblahblah

blahblahblah

    Member

  • Veteran Members
  • Posts & Likes
    Posts: 224
    Likes: 0
About Me
  • Joined: 23-January 03

Posted 06 September 2004 - 06:34 PM

btw, evigrex, if you can get them, see the following smile.gif

Cianflone, K et. al. Actylation stimulating protein (ASP), an adipocyte
autocrine: new direction. Cell and Developmental Biology (1999) 10: 31-41.

Londos, C. et. al. On the control of lipolysis in adipocytes. Ann NY
Academy of Sciences (1999) 892: 155-168.

Maslowska, M. et. al. Acylation Stimulating protein (ASP): Role in
adipose tissue. Chapter 8 in "Progress in Obesity Research: 8" Ed. Guy
Grand and Ailuaud (1999) 65-70.

#57 Guest_Tracy_*

Guest_Tracy_*
  • Guests
  • Posts & Likes

Posted 06 September 2004 - 06:35 PM

QUOTE (blahblahblah @ Sep 6 2004, 05:11 PM)
my income comes from working with people for positive physique changes, as well as writing articles from time to time. working on a book smile.gif

So you're like a personal trainer/writer?

#58 blahblahblah

blahblahblah

    Member

  • Veteran Members
  • Posts & Likes
    Posts: 224
    Likes: 0
About Me
  • Joined: 23-January 03

Posted 06 September 2004 - 06:37 PM

i dont like being called a personal trainer (as the certs required are an absolute joke) but yes i work with people (ranging from d1-elite athletes, housewives, bodybuilders, powerlifters, aspiring SEALS, etc)

i want to just write books and live off of that. training/designing nutritional programs is a pain.

#59 Guest_Tracy_*

Guest_Tracy_*
  • Guests
  • Posts & Likes

Posted 06 September 2004 - 06:40 PM

But that's gotta feel good, no? Helping people get into shape and feel good about themselves?

#60 evigrex

evigrex

    Member

  • Veteran Members
  • Posts & Likes
    Posts: 504
    Likes: 0
About Me
  • Joined: 20-June 04

Posted 06 September 2004 - 06:46 PM

Okay. Your definition of insulin is wrong:

Here's the dictionary version.


5 entries found for insulin.
in·su·lin ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ns-ln)
n.
A polypeptide hormone secreted by the islets of Langerhans and functioning in the regulation of the metabolism of carbohydrates and fats, especially the conversion of glucose to glycogen, which lowers the blood glucose level.
Any of various pharmaceutical preparations containing this hormone that are derived from the pancreas of certain animals or produced through genetic engineering and are used in the medical treatment and management of diabetes mellitus (type I).

Here's a more in depth explanation:

Insulin is a hormone produced by the beta cells of the pancreas in response to raised blood glucose (sugar) levels. Its whole purpose (as the above definition demonstrates) is to regulate the metabolism of glucose and other nutrients.

When your body goes without food for a time you develop a sensation of hunger, which generally leads you to consume a carbohydrate (or any macro nutrient) meal. These carbohydrates become converted to sugars in the blood, which causes the release of insulin. The insulin allows sugars to leave the blood and enter the cells of the body; this leads to a change in brain chemistry and this change generates a feeling of satisfaction. Over the course of hours, the insulin-to-blood sugar ratio will once more change and brain chemistry will again cause a sensation of hunger.

This is necessary because cell membranes are made up of a fat matrix. Along this fat matrix are small door-like portals called ‘protein carrier molecules.’ Through these "doors" insulin carries the nutrients into cells in a process called ‘facilitated diffusion.’ With this basic knowledge we can now look at how diet affects blood glucose levels and learn how to use insulin to our advantage.

What have we established here? Insulin exists to dispose of blood glucose, and that glucose is in turn shuttled to fat cells, among other things. We will see below that hyperglycemia increases the risk of fat gain.


Let me present you with a few studies. These studies demonstrate that hyperglycemia (and subsequent hyperinsulinonemia) promotes fat storage, and also shows the effiacy of low carbohydrate diets in normal, insulin resistant and type 2 diabetic invididuals. Since those that are insulin resistant/diabetic do not respond to insulin properly - and you assert that insulin has nothing to do with fat gain - it would stand to reason that there would be no difference.



Summary:

Although weight loss can be achieved by any means of energy restriction, current dietary guidelines have not prevented weight regain or population-level increases in obesity and overweight. Many high-carbohydrate, low-fat diets may be counterproductive to weight control because they markedly increase postprandial hyperglycemia and hyperinsulinemia. Many high-carbohydrate foods common to Western diets produce a high glycemic response [high-glycemic-index (GI) foods], promoting postprandial carbohydrate oxidation at the expense of fat oxidation, thus altering fuel partitioning in a way that may be conducive to body fat gain. In contrast, diets based on low-fat foods that produce a low glycemic response (low-GI foods) may enhance weight control because they promote satiety, minimize postprandial insulin secretion, and maintain insulin sensitivity. This hypothesis is supported by several intervention studies in humans in which energy-restricted diets based on low-GI foods produced greater weight loss than did equivalent diets based on high-GI foods. Long-term studies in animal models have also shown that diets based on high-GI starches promote weight gain, visceral adiposity, and higher concentrations of lipogenic enzymes than do isoenergetic, macronutrientcontrolled, low-GI-starch diets. In a study of healthy pregnant women, a high-GI diet was associated with greater weight at term than was a nutrient-balanced, low-GI diet. In a study of diet and complications of type 1 diabetes, the GI of the overall diet was an independent predictor of waist circumference in men. These findings provide the scientific rationale to justify randomized, controlled, multicenter intervention studies comparing the effects of conventional and low-GI diets on weight control.
Brand-Miller, J.C., Holt, S.H., Pawlak, D.B., et al., "Glycemic Index and Obesity", American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 76(1), 2002, pages 281S-285S.

Oh what do we have here, a study that directly contradicts your assertion that insulin and glycemic response to a meal has nothing to do with fat gain...interesting.

Effects of insulin-induced hypoglycaemia on energy intake and food choice at a subsequent test meal.

Dewan S, Gillett A, Mugarza JA, Dovey TM, Halford JC, Wilding JP.

Diabetes and Endocrinology Research Group, University Hospital Aintree, Liverpool, UK.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Hypoglycaemia is assumed to increase food intake, but there is little data on the magnitude or qualitative nature of this effect. We have therefore investigated the effects of insulin-induced hypoglycaemia on food intake at a test meal. METHODS: Sixteen healthy men (age 29.8 +/- 11 years; mean +/- SD) were studied; either insulin (0.05 units/kg) or saline was given intravenously in a double-blind crossover design. Blood glucose was monitored at regular intervals. Participants were given an ad libitum breakfast 20 min after injections and food intake and appetite scores were recorded. RESULTS: Blood glucose was unchanged following saline (4.3 +/- 0.4 to 4.4 +/- 0.3 mmol/L). There was a transient decline in blood glucose after insulin with a nadir at 20 min (4.31 +/- 0.34 to 2.41 +/- 0.45 mmol/L, p < 0.0001), which returned to baseline at 40 min. Total energy intake was 17% higher (1701.1 +/- 895.3 kcal vs 1427.7 +/- 815 kcal, p = 0.026) following insulin administration compared to that following saline. Macronutrient analysis revealed a significant increase in high-fat foods (muffins) (69.2 +/- 54.1 vs 29 +/- 42.3 g, p = 0.009) after insulin. Appetite scores were similar after saline and insulin despite these changes in food intake. CONCLUSIONS: Transient insulin-induced hypoglycaemia increases energy intake. Participants consumed more fat after insulin compared to that after saline. High-fat foods can lead to passive overconsumption and have a low glycaemic index, which may prolong hypoglycaemia. Both factors could ultimately promote weight gain in individuals with recurrent hypoglycaemia. Copyright 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.PMID: 15343587 [PubMed - in process

short version - Insulin causes hypoglycaemia, and ultimately promotes weight gain

Effects of dietary glycaemic index on adiposity, glucose homoeostasis, and plasma lipids in animals.

Pawlak DB, Kushner JA, Ludwig DS.

Department of Medicine, Children's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. david.ludwig@childrens.harvard.edu

BACKGROUND: Clinical studies suggest a role for dietary glycaemic index (GI) in bodyweight regulation and diabetes risk. However, partly because manipulation of GI can produce changes in potentially confounding dietary factors such as fibre content, palatability, and energy density, its relevance to human health remains controversial. This study examined the independent effects of GI in animals. METHODS: Partially pancreatectomised male Sprague-Dawley rats were given diets with identical nutrients, except for the type of starch: high-GI (n=11) or low-GI (n=10). The animals were fed in a controlled way to maintain the same mean bodyweight in the two groups for 18 weeks. Further experiments examined the effects of GI in rats in a cross-over design and C57BL/6J mice in a parallel design. FINDINGS: Despite having similar mean bodyweight (547.9 [SE 13.4] vs 549.2 [15.2] g), rats given high-GI food had more body fat (97.8 [13.6] vs 57.3 [7.2] g; p=0.0152) and less lean body mass (450.1 [9.6] vs 491.9 [11.7] g; p=0.0120) than those given low-GI food. The high-GI group also had greater increases over time in the areas under the curve for blood glucose and plasma insulin after oral glucose, lower plasma adiponectin concentrations, higher plasma triglyceride concentrations, and severe disruption of islet-cell architecture. Mice on the high-GI diet had almost twice the body fat of those on the low-GI diet after 9 weeks. INTERPRETATION: These findings provide a mechanistic basis for interpretation of studies of GI in human beings. RELEVANCE TO PRACTICE: The term GI describes how a food, meal, or diet affects blood sugar during the postprandial period. GI as an independent factor can cause obesity and increase risks of diabetes and heart disease in animals. Use of low-GI diets in prevention and treatment of human disease merits thorough examination.

Wait....I thought the Glucose response to a meal didn't increase fat gain...right??


Effect of a high-protein, low-carbohydrate diet on blood glucose control in people with type 2 diabetes.

Gannon MC, Nuttall FQ.

Metabolic Research Laboratory (111G), VA Medical Center, One Veterans Drive, Minneapolis, MN 55417. ganno004@umn.edu

There has been interest in the effect of various types and amounts of dietary carbohydrates and proteins on blood glucose. On the basis of our previous data, we designed a high-protein/low-carbohydrate, weight-maintaining, nonketogenic diet. Its effect on glucose control in people with untreated type 2 diabetes was determined. We refer to this as a low-biologically-available-glucose (LoBAG) diet. Eight men were studied using a randomized 5-week crossover design with a 5-week washout period. The carbohydrate:protein:fat ratio of the control diet was 55:15:30. The test diet ratio was 20:30:50. Plasma and urinary beta-hydroxybutyrate were similar on both diets. The mean 24-h integrated serum glucose at the end of the control and LoBAG diets was 198 and 126 mg/dl, respectively. The percentage of glycohemoglobin was 9.8 +/- 0.5 and 7.6 +/- 0.3, respectively. It was still decreasing at the end of the LoBAG diet. Thus, the final calculated glycohemoglobin was estimated to be approximately 6.3-5.4%. Serum insulin was decreased, and plasma glucagon was increased. Serum cholesterol was unchanged. Thus, a LoBAG diet ingested for 5 weeks dramatically reduced the circulating glucose concentration in people with untreated type 2 diabetes. Potentially, this could be a patient-empowering way to ameliorate hyperglycemia without pharmacological intervention. The long-term effects of such a diet remain to be determined.
PMID: 15331548 [PubMed - in process]

Two points here. You say that insulin has nothing to do with fat gain. Since diabetics don't respond properly to the insulin they produce, how is that the case? And why are they faring better with a low carbohydrate diet? Lets go on...


Beneficial effect of low carbohydrate in low calorie diets on visceral fat reduction in type 2 diabetic patients with obesity.

Miyashita Y, Koide N, Ohtsuka M, Ozaki H, Itoh Y, Oyama T, Uetake T, Ariga K, Shirai K.

Center of Diabetes, Endocrine and Metabolism, Sakura Hospital, School of Medicine, Toho University, 564-1 Shimoshizu, Sakura-City, Chiba 285-0841, Japan.

The adequate composition of carbohydrate and fat in low calorie diets for type 2 diabetes mellitus patients with obesity is not fully established. The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of low carbohydrate diet on glucose and lipid metabolism, especially on visceral fat accumulation, and comparing that of a high carbohydrate diet. Obese subjects with type 2 diabetes mellitus were randomly assigned to take a low calorie and low carbohydrate diet ( [Formula: see text], 1000kcal per day, protein:carbohydrate: [Formula: see text] :40:35) or a low calorie and high carbohydrate diet ( [Formula: see text], 1000kcal per day, protein:carbohydrate: [Formula: see text] :65:10) for 4 weeks. Similar decreases in body weight and serum glucose levels were observed in both groups. Fasting serum insulin levels were reduced in the low carbohydrate diet group compared to the high carbohydrate diet group (-30% versus -10%, [Formula: see text] ). Total serum cholesterol and triglyceride levels decreased in both groups, but were not significantly different from each other. High-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (HDL-C) increased in the low carbohydrate diet group but not in the high carbohydrate diet group (+15% versus 0%, [Formula: see text] ). There was a larger decrease in visceral fat area measured by computed tomography in the low carbohydrate diet group compared to the high carbohydrate diet group (-40cm(2) versus -10cm(2), [Formula: see text] ). The ratio of visceral fat area to subcutaneous fat area did not change in the high carbohydrate diet group (from 0.70 to 0.68), but it decreased significantly in the low carbohydrate diet group (from 0.69 to 0.47, [Formula: see text] ). These results suggest that, when restrict diet was made isocaloric, a low calorie/low carbohydrate diet might be more effective treatment for a reduction of visceral fat, improved insulin sensitivity and increased in HDL-C levels than low calorie/high carbohydrate diet in obese subjects with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Again, you say that insulin and GI has nothing to do with fat gain. Eh??

PMID: 15331203 [PubMed - in process]


Effects of a low-fat diet compared with those of a high-monounsaturated fat diet on body weight, plasma lipids and lipoproteins, and glycemic control in type 2 diabetes.

Gerhard GT, Ahmann A, Meeuws K, McMurry MP, Duell PB, Connor WE.

Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes and Clinical Nutrition, Oregon Health & Science University, 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Road, Portland, OR 97239-3098, USA.

BACKGROUND: An important therapeutic goal for patients with type 2 diabetes is weight loss, which improves metabolic abnormalities. Ad libitum low-fat diets cause weight loss in nondiabetic populations. Compared with diets higher in monounsaturated fat, however, eucaloric low-fat diets may increase plasma triacylglycerol concentrations and worsen glycemic control in persons with type 2 diabetes. OBJECTIVE: We investigated whether, in type 2 diabetes patients, an ad libitum low-fat diet would cause greater weight loss than would a high-monounsaturated fat diet and would do this without increasing plasma triacylglycerol concentrations or worsening glycemic control. DESIGN: Eleven patients with type 2 diabetes were randomly assigned to receive an ad libitum low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet or a high-monounsaturated fat diet, each for 6 wk. The diets offered contained 125% of the estimated energy requirement to allow self-selection of food quantity. The response variables were body weight; fasting plasma lipid, lipoprotein, glucose, glycated hemoglobin A(1c), and fructosamine concentrations; insulin sensitivity; and glucose disposal. RESULTS: Body weight decreased significantly (1.53 kg; P < 0.001) only with the low-fat diet. Plasma total, LDL-, and HDL-cholesterol concentrations tended to decrease during both diets. There were no interaction effects between diet and the lipid profile response over time. Plasma triacylglycerol concentrations, glycemic control, and insulin sensitivity did not differ significantly between the 2 diets. CONCLUSION: Contrary to expectations, the ad libitum, low-fat, high-fiber diet promoted weight loss in patients with type 2 diabetes without causing unfavorable alterations in plasma lipids or glycemic control.
PMID: 15321807 [PubMed - in process]

Once again. Should I repeat myself?


High prevalence of insulin resistance in postpubertal Asian Indian children is associated with adverse truncal body fat patterning, abdominal adiposity and excess body fat.

Misra A, Vikram NK, Arya S, Pandey RM, Dhingra V, Chatterjee A, Dwivedi M, Sharma R, Luthra K, Guleria R, Talwar KK.

1Department of Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.

OBJECTIVE:: The objectives were to study the relationships of insulin resistance with generalized and abdominal obesity, and body fat patterning in urban postpubertal Asian Indian children. DESIGN:: Cross-sectional, population-based epidemiological study. SUBJECTS:: In all, 250 (155 males and 95 females) healthy urban postpubertal children. MEASUREMENTS:: Anthropometric profile, percentage of body fat (%BF), fasting serum insulin, and lipoprotein profile. RESULTS:: Fasting insulin correlated significantly with body mass index (BMI), %BF, waist circumference (WC), central and peripheral skinfold thicknesses and sum of four skinfold thicknesses ( summation operator 4SF) in both sexes, and with systolic blood pressure and waist-to hip circumference ratio (W-HR) in males only. Consistent increase in fasting insulin was noted with increasing values of central skinfold thickness at each tertile of peripheral skinfold thickness, WC, and %BF. Central skinfold thickness correlated with fasting insulin even after adjusting for WC, W-HR, and %BF. The odds ratios (OR) (95% CI) of hyperinsulinemia (fasting insulin concentrations in the highest quartile) were 4.7 (2.4-9.4) in overweight subjects, 8 (4.1-15.5) with high %BF, 6.4 (3.2-12.9) with high WC, 3.7 (1.9-7.3) with high W-HR, 6.8 (3.3-13.9) with high triceps skinfold thickness, 8 (4.1-15.7) with high subscapular skinfold thickness, and 10.1 (5-20.5) with high summation operator 4SF. In step-wise multiple logistic regression analysis, %BF [OR (95% CI): 3.2 (1.4-7.8)] and ?4SF [OR (95% CI): 4.5 (1.8-11.3)] were independent predictors of hyperinsulinemia, similar to insulin resistance assessed by HOMA (homeostatic model of assessment) in the study. CONCLUSION:: A high prevalence of insulin resistance in postpubertal urban Asian Indian children was associated with excess body fat, abdominal adiposity, and excess truncal subcutaneous fat. Primary prevention strategies for coronary heart disease and diabetes mellitus in Asian Indians should focus on the abnormal body composition profile in childhood.International Journal of Obesity advance online publication, 17 August 2004; doi:10.1038/sj.ijo.0802704
PMID: 15314636 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]

Oh yeah, I forgot..insulin has nothing to do with gaining fat...so why would insulin resistance be a factor in gaining weight?

The role of diet and whether a CALORIE IS A CALORIE

So, definitionally, a calorie is certainly a calorie, just like a degree Celsius is a degree Celsius. However, when someone asks the question "Is a calorie a calorie?", they require more information. What they mean to ask is, "When I consume a calorie of protein, does my physiology respond the same way as when I consume a calorie of fat or carbohydrate?" The answer in this situation is a resounding no!

I could write volumes about this in support of my contention that functionally, a calorie is not a calorie, but don't worry, today I'll spare you. Instead let me address just a few points and give a few examples of why a calorie isn't a calorie.

Let's start out with a simple comparison that sounds a bit extreme but will illustrate my point. If I agreed with the idea that a calorie is a calorie, then I'd have to believe that my body would behave the same way if I ate 3000 calories a day from celery (yes, that's a lot of celery) as it would if I ate 3000 calories a day from butter. Is a calorie just a calorie, or might some of the fibrous content in the celery fail to be absorbed, decreasing the amount of calories actually reaching the cells?

Since some of the fibrous calories will indeed fail to be absorbed, we can see that during the first step of physiological food processing (digestion), the inherent caloric value of food is already altered and fewer of the ingested calories reach the cells. So, 3000 calories of celery are certainly different from 3000 calories of butter. If you're eating only celery and 3000 calories constitutes deficit eating for you, then you'll get far less calories than you'd hoped.

In the end, my point here is that reading food labels doesn't give a good indication of the exact amount of calories that'll actually reach the cells for energy provision or storage. Functionally, a calorie is not a calorie.
The next main reason that people ask, "Is a calorie a calorie?" is because they want to try to manipulate their caloric intake so that it'll be below, match, or exceed calorie needs. This is so they can lose, maintain, or gain weight. But the problem with thinking that a calorie is a calorie is that the very act of eating different foodstuffs can change metabolic rate. A good example of this is the thermic effect of food.

The digestion and metabolism of food actually increases the metabolic rate after a meal. Since protein foods have double the thermic effect of food verses carbohydrates or fats, it should be obvious that the metabolic rate will be higher when more protein is consumed. Again, functionally, a calorie is not a calorie!

When on a hypocaloric diet, protein needs are increased. In studies comparing groups on hypocaloric diets that are low in protein and those that are high in protein (calories are the same in both groups), the diets high in protein lead to increased metabolic rates, increased weight loss, and better preservation of lean mass. Clearly, a calorie is not a calorie in this case either.

While the previous paragraphs discussed different macronutrients, even different varieties of the same macronutrients have different physiological effects. When low glycemic carb diets are compared to high glycemic carb diets, it's clear that the groups of individuals eating mostly high glycemic carbs have higher body fat percentages, higher fasting glucose and insulin levels, and have higher risks for cardiovascular disease. Functionally, a carbohydrate isn't even a carbohydrate, let alone a calorie a calorie!

Studies done in rats have shown that when they eat diets of identical calorie levels, their body compositions are dramatically altered by the composition of fat in the diet. When omega-3 fatty acids make up a large percentage of the diet, the rats are lean and muscular. When omega-6 fatty acids make up a large percentage of the diet, the rats are obese. A fat isn't even a fat, let alone a calorie a calorie!

Here's a cool study that illustrates my point quite well. This study was done to compare the effects of twelve weeks of a moderate hypocaloric (high protein) diet and resistance training in male police officers. In this study, there were three total groups - a control group that didn't exercise, and two groups that did. In the two exercise groups, two different protein supplements were used to increase protein intake. Several very telling things emerged from this study:

1) Before the study began, the subjects' diets were analyzed. It turned out that subjects had actually been consuming a hypocaloric diet that was approximately 10 to 20% below their calculated calorie needs (15% protein, 60% carbohydrate, 25% fat). Despite the calorie deficit, they were all between 22 and 35% body fat and had been gaining weight over the previous five years! So if a calorie were really just a calorie, they should've been leaner and losing fat, right? But no, they were gaining fat!

2) In the control group that didn't exercise, the macronutrient composition of the diet remained the same as before the study (15% protein, 60% carbohydrate, 25% fat) but subjects made smarter food choices. They simply consumed fewer simple carbohydrates and ate more complex carbohydrates.

In addition, these subjects ate less food before sleep and more during the active hours of their days. If a calorie were a calorie, we wouldn't expect to see any changes in their body compositions. However, these simple changes led to an average 5.5 pound weight loss and an average 2.5% decrease in body fat. If a calorie were just a calorie, then there shouldn't have been a change in weight or body fat percentage!

3) That's already plenty of evidence to make the next person that says "a calorie is a calorie" eat his words, but let's go ahead and kick him while he's down, shall we? Let's discuss the interesting changes between the two exercise/high protein groups.

These subjects consumed the exact same number of calories as they did before the study. In addition, the two groups consumed the same exact percentage of the different macronutrients as each other (26% protein, 52% carbohydrate, 20% fat) and did the same exercise routine. Interestingly, the subjects consuming one type of protein (a casein and milk protein product) lost almost 6.5 pounds more fat and gained nearly 4.5 pounds more muscle than those consuming another type of protein (whey).

Not only was body composition altered, but the subjects in the casein/milk protein group had a 31% improvement over the whey-only group in muscle strength. If a calorie is a calorie, the two groups should've had the same results. Clearly they didn't, so, yet again, a calorie is not a calorie!

I could go on all day but I'll stop here. From this discussion, I hope it's clear that the old notion that a calorie is a calorie is a dying idea. Anyone who continues to make this assertion is completely wrong due to either a lack of current information or due to a closed mind. Whatever the reason, neither type of person has any place giving out nutritional advice.