las

Welcome all seeking refuge from low carb dogma!

“To kill an error is as good a service as, and sometimes even better than, the establishing of a new truth or fact”
~ Charles Darwin (it's evolutionary baybeee!)

Thursday, February 7, 2013

Another Non-Profit for the Incestral Health Community!

It seems like non-profits are quickly becoming *the* way to go in the IHC.  The most ballyhooed among them is NuSI which should provide an income stream for founders Gary Taubes and Peter Attia, and some degree of gravitas to boost the waning enthusiasm over the whole carbs = insulin = obesity meme, for years to come.   There are others, like Adele Hite's low carb front supposedly out to change the national nutritional recommendations.  I have to snicker, sorry, because so long as Gatewing (Adam Kosloff --depicted here with his KKKonfederacy of Dunces benefactor) is their outreach guy, I simply cannot take such an organization seriously.  

But today I learn that Jonathan Bailor is launching his own non-profit, called Slim Is Simple (SIS) today.  There's not much there yet, as of this posting, with the exception of a logo -- portraying women through the ages, apparently -- that is nominally to highly offensive, depending on how long one scrutinizes it, and considering that Bailor is a young man who has, if anything, struggled to gain weight and eating enough.  



I've seen similar emails, announcements, but Fat Head quotes his where it's most readily linked.
Wanted to drop you a quick note as we were fortunate enough to receive VC funding to start up a non-profit ancestral nutrition educational organization we’re calling Slim is Simple. SIS is working to provide compelling multimedia resources—free of charge—that the entire good nutritional science community can leverage to help share the simple lifestyle adjustments that have helped us all help so many people live so much better. We’re working to get this “curriculum” into schools, churches, and etc.
I've seen "ancestral" used more than once elsewhere.  But on the About page we have:
slim is simple is a non-profit group working to provide compelling multimedia resources—free of charge—that everyone can leverage to share simple lifestyle adjustments that have helped so many live so much better. any help you can provide to spread the word to your social network, community leaders, politicians, and beyond, is deeply appreciated.
Note the differences there.  So Bailor sent out the word to have the IHC spread the word for some educational materials.  Bailor is the author of the 2011 book Smarter Science of Slim and I've discussed his works several times here: Expert in Smarter Science?, The Smarter Science of Slim ~ General Thoughts, And the Cherry-Picking Baton has been passed, Is it Possible? "Smarter Science" worse than "Good" Science Journalism?

Perhaps Bailor struck out in the low carb community (he'll be on the LC Cruise this year ... one can only hope for back-to-back with Jimmy's NuttyK talk!).  Perhaps this is because while not fat phobic, and ostensibly anti-LF diets, he's not on board with the butter brigade.  Man eats egg white omelets and low or fat free Greek yogurt and cottage cheese.  But he's big on Feinman's mangling of the laws of thermo, and he even took the almost snuffed out G3P/need-carbs-to-store-fat torch from Gary Taubes and ran with it!

But why this post?  As yet one more example of the incestral back patting for some fictitious "common cause".  Fat Head favorably reviewed his book?  He's using his blog to promote SIS?  Why?  And I mean beyond the part about Fat Head being an ancestral nutrition dude.  For the cause I suppose, in his case I'm guessing science.  I guess bad interpretations of peer review literature are a glue that bonds nuttybros.  So I'll cut to the chase:  Bailor's diet includes whey protein, low/no fat Greek yogurt and cottage cheese, and egg whites ... (oh, and lean meats).  And, while somewhat up the list, legumes are included as well.

I just searched my ebook of SSOS for ancestral:  nada, traditional:  many, but in the context of "traditional low fat diets", and paleo.  Well that last one gets several hits such as:
  • “We found marked improvement…after advice to follow a Paleolithic [SANE] diet compared with a healthy Western diet…The study adds to the notion that healthy diets based on whole-grain cereals and low-fat dairy products are only the second best choice in the prevention and treatment of type 2 diabetes.” S. LINDEBERG, UNIVERSITY OF LUND 
I have not formally blogged on this study, but this is the infamous Mediterranean v. Paleo study cited by Nora and discussed briefly in this post: It's not LC, and it's not Bailor's diet.  Oh, but wait!  Bailor does consume a lot of low fat dairy aka the "second best choice".
  • “Even short-term consumption of a paleolithic type [SANE] diet improves blood pressure and glucose tolerance, decreases insulin secretion, increases insulin sensitivity and improves lipid profiles [clears clogs].” L.A. FRASSETTO, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SANFRANCISCO
This one I have formally discussed in:  Is This Your Paleo Diet?   Again, not LC, not Bailor's diet, and to the gist of my post, as a low fat, relatively high (natural) sugar diet, hardly most people's notion of paleo.
And so now we are to have bad science repackaged as ancestral nutrition and a non-profit launched to spread his word.  For some reason he didn't mention paleo in the call to arms email to that general community, rather ancestral will be co-opted as a euphemism??  But what of the general "About" -- will these educational materials be marketed "free" to various venues with different angles?  Probably.  It would appear Jonathan's ride on the Livin La Vida LC Line was short and rather less than fruitful.  Will his ride on the ancestral as proxy for paleo money train be longer and more profitable?  

Remind me ... what side of the infinitahedron are we all supposedly on?

90 comments:

Charles Grashow said...

http://slimissimple.org/about/
What Do I Eat?

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2013/01/announcing-ideal-weight-program.html
What is the Ideal Weight Program?

The Ideal Weight Program is a unique system for fat loss and maintenance that draws from the latest science on diet, physical activity, sleep, and behavior modification, and pairs it with engaging tools that help you define your goals and meet them. It keeps you consistently focused on the everyday factors that really matter for fat loss, and gives you the skills you need to make sustainable diet and lifestyle changes. Based on your own goals and priorities, you can choose one of two diet strategies for the initial fat loss phase:
The Fat Loss and Sustainable Health (FLASH) diet, an intensive high-protein diet for rapid fat loss.

The Simple Food Diet, a more flexible diet based on whole, natural foods specifically selected for fat loss. One important goal of this diet is to teach healthy cooking skills, using recipes and tips provided.

http://freetheanimal.com/2013/02/health-weight-resources.html

http://thesmarterscienceofslim.com/how-humanity-can-get-its-saneity-back/

http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/pdf/1743-7075-7-85.pdf
A paleolithic diet is more satiating per calorie
than a mediterranean-like diet in individuals
with ischemic heart disease

Simon Carter said...

Did you see the video? Very slick. Hormonally clogged...who knew that Drano was the answer. Check out the For More Information list at the end. An unholy alliance is forming here, Evelyn, you will have to redouble your efforts!
Got to stop wasting my time with all this nonsense, off to take a walk with my dog in the woods.

Unknown said...

How come the cartoon lady with the big butt is black?

George Henderson said...

Yes I thought the calliphygous look was "in" right now, so that last figure is a faux pas on the part of the designer. No doubt he didn't want to mar his graphic with an aesthetically unpleasing design.
But I like the presentation for what it is, especially the sliding scale section of foods from SANE to INSANE.

Still can't get my head around what "aggressive" is supposed to mean in terms of food. I don't eat anything that's aggressive, it angry's up the blood.

"considering that Bailor is a young man who has, if anything, struggled to gain weight and eating enough" - well you could say much the same about Dr Oz, if you fixed the syntax.
The way I see it, if someone finds a way to sell "Paleo" to the mainstream, we can debate the details there, which ought to be more productive in terms of community health. The links at the end of the video give plenty of diversity of opinion, some are higher-carb, some lower-carb, others lower-protein than the Sanitary diet itself.
That's not quite Incestral, if Bailor is deliberately courting opinions that will challenge his own.

Diana said...

My interpretation of the logo is that wearing extremely high heeled shoes leads to obesity in women.

Charles Grashow said...

http://chriskresser.com/what-research-says-about-losing-weight-and-keeping-it-off

In this episode I speak with Dan Pardi and Stephan Guyenet about the Ideal Weight Program, a new educational program on weight loss they put together that works in concert with the tools of Dan’s Plan. I’m very excited about it because it’s firmly grounded in the latest evidence on weight regulation, and it acknowledges the importance of behavior modification, tracking progress, and lifestyle factors like getting enough sleep.

In this episode, we cover:

6:30 Why Dan and Stephan created the Ideal Weight Program
14:30 The problem with most weight loss approaches and why they don’t work
19:00 Is it possible to reset the body fat setpoint?
27:55 How the Ideal Weight Program will help you with fat loss
40:38 Who the Ideal Weight Program is for (and not for)
47:59 The most common fat loss misconceptions
1:05:09 How does sleep affect weight regulation?
1:13:34 How to test drive the Ideal Weight Program to lose weight and keep it off

"One of the easiest aspects of this program to describe and understand is its focus on the concept of satiety or fullness. In addition to these long-term feedback loops that we’ve discussed at length that regulate body fatness, there are feedback loops that regulate meal-to-meal calorie intake. Basically when you eat food, your digestive system detects what you’re eating, and it sends signals back to your brain to make you feel full. It turns out that there’s been a lot of research on this, and the amount of fullness that you experience is only loosely correlated with the number of calories that you’re eating. So, there are ways to manipulate your food so that on a meal-to-meal basis you feel fuller with fewer calories. One of the main factors here is protein. There are tons of studies showing that high-protein diets are useful for weight loss, and I think that’s really emerging as one of the key factors in an effective weight loss program. Protein, when eaten, it releases a hormone called glucagon, and glucagon has a satiety-promoting effect. There may be also other reasons why protein is satiating, but that appears to be one of them. Protein is the most satiating per calorie, so for every calorie of protein you eat, you’re going to feel more full than if you eat fat and carbohydrate. Carbohydrate is the second most satiating per calorie, and fat is the least."

Diana said...

I wasted two minutes and 17 seconds on that video. On my deathbed, I'll want that 02.17 back.

river rance said...

He's using his blog to promote SIS? Why? And I mean beyond the part about Fat Head being an ancestral nutrition dude. For the cause I suppose, in his case I'm guessing science.
You're guessing wrong, Evelyn. He's a golf frisbee player and FH wants to hang with the athletic studs.

George Henderson said...

The last figure seems to be carrying a cake, just in case.

Steve Parker, M.D. said...

When I saw the announcement from Mr. Bailor, the oddest thing to me was his mention of "VC funding." I assume that's venture capital. It seems odd to me that investors would sink their money into a "non-profit." Venture capitalists are all about profit.

I wonder who's funding him and why.

-Steve

Princess Dieter aka Mir said...

I don't imagine he was gonna fly high with the low carb crowd because he advocates 1/3rd of calories come from healthy (SANE) carbs: veggies (ideally non-starchy) and fruit. He also advocates supplementing with whey (as you mention) to up protein (for satiation) and to add flaxmeal. I know. I tried the diet when the book came out. I gained weight adding the extra protein with flax between meals. I simply cannot handle as many calories as Jonathan can. :)

I actually think his eating plan is healthful. It's not a crazed high fat/avoid all carbs thing. It's not selling a proprietary set of supplements and foods (or didn't when last I checked). If folks ate lean seafood and meats and eggs and egg whites and whey and lots of non-starchy veggies and some fruits and, as tolerated, legumes, etc--that's a pretty decent diet. And for dieters, protein IS satiating, so he's not wrong.

I just think the "calories dont' count" is dumbass. Sorry, but for many of us, it surely, surely do. We can unclog all we want, and we still can't eat more than our bodies want to burn. And for those of us who got morbidly obese and are endomorphs--double whammy--and maybe even hypothyroid (triple whammy) and maybe getting old and older, hah, we may not have regular, happy-snappy satiety signals. We may easily eat more than we should, even of lean meats, low-fat dairy, egg white omelets with veggies, fruit, and whey with flaxmeal.

While I think folks transitioning from crap American fast food plus crap sugar-laden treat diets would immediately gain some benefits from following his "clean foods" plan, in the modern world of sedentary ways and overabundance of food temptation and eating cues, counting calories (even if it's just ballparking) may be necessary for those of us prone to overeat/not hit satiety fast.

Folks who never had weight issues would probably have nice satiety signaling and good tummy fill-up (with all that lean protein and all those non-starchy veggies). I lost most of my weight eating very, very much like he recommends, but counting calories. Lean proteins, some fat for cooking, low fat dairy, lots of veggies, some fruit. But trust me, I could eat 1000 calories of fruit if I let loose. I could eat triple servings of chicken breast and pork tenderloin. (I'm allergic to seafood, so I can't indulge in those yummies.) I have eggs and egg whites nearly every day (today was a spinach, scallion, parmesan, egg white omelette with papayas and oolong tea).

Bailor, I'm sure, means well, but he doesn't know what it's like to be obese and have a body that stores supereffciently and an appetite that requires much fluid and protein to try to quell.

I could eat a lumberjack right out of the room...which is why I have to count calories, and when I'm lazy and don't and slack..guess what? I regain. I can't go just by appetite and satiety cues. Doesn't work.

No matter how cleanly I eat. And I ate pretty damn clean for nearly 2 years.

Charles Grashow said...

Stephen Guyenet said "Protein is the most satiating per calorie, so for every calorie of protein you eat, you’re going to feel more full than if you eat fat and carbohydrate. Carbohydrate is the second most satiating per calorie, and fat is the least."

From this I take that his diet should be low-fat and higher in protein and carbs.

SO - playing around with this

www.cronometer.com

one can come up with various diets that are high in carbs/protein and low in fat BUT that would not be VLC would it - in fact I came up with a diet that had 2175 calories - had no meat - had 100%+ RDA of all vitamins/minerals except B12 (only had 86%), Vitamin D (0% - but that can be easily taken care of with sunlight/supplementation), selenium (51% - add 1 brazil nut and I'm at 225%), zinc 77% - with the additions the calorie count went to 2450 but the components can be adjusted

This was 71.5% carb (the vast majority of the carb comes from fruit), 21.2% protein (from fat free yogurt and egg white protein powder) and 7.3% fat

SO - how many people here would agree/disagree that this is healthy/unhealthy - after all it supplies me with all of the essential vitamins/minerals, sufficient protein BUT it has a LOT of carb and very low fat.

HOWEVER - according to Guyenet if fat is the satiating per calorie then this should be very satisfying

Charles Grashow said...

if fat is the least satiating per calorie

Princess Dieter aka Mir said...

Oh, thanks. I spazzed and was trying to figure out what VC was. And, then, duh, of course. (Hubby works at a start-up, and we have a family friend who is on the board of a VC endeavor, so it's not like I don't know about it. I just didn't connect the acronym.)

I'd love to know about the funding. I could understand if it was a non-profit, civic service sort of thing to promote dietary health. One of the anti-obesity endeavors. But if it's a VC thing, then down the line, this will have to generate income. Part 1 of the plan may be give this out for free. Part 2, 3, etc, may be the part that grows out of it and is intended to bring in the $$.

Gabriella Kadar said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Gabriella Kadar said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Princess Dieter aka Mir said...

If a person feels fine on 70& carbs and is getting all their nutrition, i don't see what the problem is.

I tried a 65% carbs, 15% fat diet (this was when I was still obese and had Metabolic Syndrome), and I was hungry all the dang time.

I moderated carbs and increased protein: I felt full faster and longer.

I tracked my intake carefully for months and found lost best at a level between Bailor and the Zone (ie, about 40% or less carbs, but no more or hunger increased, and about 30% fat, 30% protein, give or take depending on if I went lower with carbs.)

For whatever reason, that was my sweet spot--where I could feel satisfied with LESS food. Once the carb went up, I got hungrier

I upped my carbs last year for the sake of my thyroid which was getting worse and worse, and guess what? I'm hungry all the fricken time and I'm regaining weight. I'm hyperthyroid as per my visit with the doc a week ago, mildly hyperthyroid,b ut I'm GAINING WEIGHT cause I'm hungry.

Lesson: I love my starches, and my thyroid loves my starches, but my appetite gets nuts, so my waistline hates my starches.

I need to cut back to 40% again, which is hard, cause now I'm back to going, "Oh, but those organic grits are so good and that rice is no nice and that sweet potato is so charming." :)

Like anything, it's the person. Someone who thrives on 70% carbs and enjoys their food and maintain a good weight on that, why not?

Diana said...

@Steve - that is a good question.

Mastercard and Visa are non-profit membership bank organizations. Non-profits aren't always charitable orgs. A non-profit is just a legal entity (501c3 to the government) in which the money going out must to equal the money going in. So if Bailor raises $2M from backers, he can conceivably use all of it for his salary.

Just giving an example.

Diana said...

"I just think the "calories dont' count" is dumbass". It's that, and a lie.

"Stephen Guyenet said "Protein is the most satiating per calorie,...."

Huh? Satiation is a completely subjective experience. No one can tell another person what is satiating.

Charles Grashow said...

If "Satiation is a completely subjective experience." then his whole theory is complete BS!

Gabriella Kadar said...

Man, if I only eat eggs for breakfast with nothing else (soft boiled), even three eggs feels like I've eaten nothing at all. Add 1 slice of sourdough rye and it's a meal.

Same with shrimp or oysters. I tried that a couple of times. Ate a few dozen not so small steamed shrimp or raw oysters. Felt like I'd eaten nothing. Ate a small amount of rice or bread and bingo: I was full.

I don't know about other people, but a 'meal' of nothing but protein and fat isn't a satiating meal at all. I'm not a cat.

Gabriella Kadar said...

Princess, that is interesting. Maybe on a low carb diet your body thinks it's starving. I just don't quite understand why you would go hyperthyroid after carb re-introduction. Do you have any explanation for this from the endocrinologist?

George Henderson said...

Who carries a butter dish? "Ladies a plate please". "Oh, I'll bring a butter dish!".
No the butter is IN the cake silly! You can eat a lot more butter, and sugar, if you bake it into a cake first.
Jusat ask Paula Deen: http://www.pauladeen.com/recipes/view2/gooey_butter_cake

Stephan Guyenet said...

Hi Charles,

Research has consistently shown that for the "average person", protein is the most satiating macronutrient, per unit calorie, hands down. The sensation of satiation may be a subjective measure, but the amount of food a person eats isn't. Research has also consistently shown that people eat less when protein is higher as a percentage of calories, whether the protein replaces carbohydrate or fat (http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/82/1/41.short). In general, high-carb, high-protein diets are at least as effective as low-carb, high-protein diets in clinical weight loss trials. There is probably individual variability in the response, but that is what has been found on average.

The Ideal Weight Program allows the selection between two diets based on individual goals and motivation level. The FLASH diet is high protein, low carbohydrate, low fat, mostly vegetables and meat (as well as other aspects that are unique to our diet). This kind of diet has a long track record in the medical literature for fast and safe fat loss. No other type of diet has equaled this strategy in the medical literature when it comes to quantity of fat loss and preservation of lean mass. It also suppresses appetite, which helps adherence greatly since it's naturally low in calories. We recommend this as a temporary fat loss diet.

The Simple Food Diet is a less restrictive but still highly effective fat loss approach. It pulls together a variety of fat loss techniques, but from a macronutrient standpoint it's higher in protein, with the protein replacing primarily carbohydrate. It is not intended to be a low-fat diet, although ADDED fats are limited because they contribute very little satiety per calorie. When researchers add fat to foods in a manner that's difficult to detect, people generally don't reduce their food intake to compensate for the higher calorie density of the food-- they just eat more calories.

Princess Dieter aka Mir said...

Nope. But I got an ultrasound today and see the endo tomorrow. I just wanna be in normal (for me) range (which is very narrow, as I tend to feel best between .8 and 1.0). I had read about reintroducing carbs for improving thyroid function. I added a zinc and copper containing supplement to my diet more than a year ago for this purpose, too, but it was the reintroducing carbs that seemed to coincide. If i could control appetite and keep eating the starches, i would. I prefer using less thyroid med. :) And a breakfast of eggs veggies and fruits satisfied me. I don't really need the bread. I just miss toast.

Chris said...

I just think the "calories dont' count" is dumbass. Sorry, but for many of us, it surely, surely do

No for ALL of us calories count

Diana said...

OK Stephan, you win, the research says that protein is the most satiating per calorie. My comment was insufficiently rigorous, so let me expand upon the point here.

Without the strategic addition of some carbohydrate in the meal (per Gabriella's experience, and my own), the vast majority of people will start to go crazy and crave carbohydrates. That happened to me repeatedly on extreme LC; don't ask why I kept repeating the same stupid experiment and expecting a different result.

I apparently am not alone: witness the widespread phenomenon of LCers inhabiting forums with their eternal cry, "What am I doing wrong?" (I would tell them to eat an apple after their meal, or have a slice of bread, and forego the cream cheese and macadamic nut "fat bomb.")

I even saw this on Feinman's blog. Don't ask for a URL, I'm not going back there, but I remember the title "What is Hunger?" He recounted the story of someone who had eaten an ess-load of meat, but who wasn't satisfied, for some mysterious reason. I would have told him to eat an apple...see above.

I do realize that your program takes this into account, and that you are not advocating no carb, just low carb.

And of course, satiation is also related to why people eat, which is a whole 'nother subject.

Diana said...

Stephan,

As an addendum to the point I made above, no successful long term weight loss is carried out without the individual making his or her choices about satiety, and - here's the kicker - consciously choosing to override these signals. Perhaps that seems like a quibble to you, but as a person who has lost and successfully kept off 55 pounds, it is not.

I don't dispute what the research says, and it helps me to take a look at research - sometimes. Sometimes the research conflicts with other research, and sometimes research directly conflicts with my own experience, which caused me no end of problems during my weight loss journey.

If you'll indulge me one more example, I can't tell you how many times I read that weight loss is best carried out in a slow and steady fashion. Research says that...but now I read that research doesn't necessarily say that (NEJM's most recent article; google it). Slow and steady never worked for me. I lost those 55 pounds in short bursts of VLC(alorie), followed by maintenance.

During these short bursts of VLC(alorie) I was frequently miserable, but I did them because that's the way I roll, and I loved the results.

OK, slightly off topic but had to say it: during weight loss, satiety isn't everything. Sometimes you have to go hungry. It's more important in maintenance.

Charles Grashow said...

Stephan

I appreciate you taking the time to respond - looking at the study you mentioned - the diet used was not at all good
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/82/1/41/T2.expansion.html

and the carbs AND calories stayed the same
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/82/1/41/T3.expansion.html


stew said...

It's curious you think macro content is important for satiety. Considering the potato (the Lebron James of satiating foods), water conent % seems like the most most important factor.

If you are building your diet around appetite control, I think you should try to avoid rapid blood glucose drops.

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

The credits are very strange indeed since many of those sources are highly divergent from Bailor's. Perhaps it's his way of trying to gather support or even just give the illusion of same. I don't care much for alliances except when they are at odds or knee-jerk. If those folks start affiliate linking to SOS, then it may be something to discuss here. Otherwise, I address some/most on their own merits if I see the need for it.

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

For those interested, Charles' last link is to the Lindeberg study. Bailor's representation of it as SANE is misleading at best. The "paleo" is essentially dairy free (while Med diet was pretty high in dairy which is not typical for that diet) and included starches and more sucrose than the Med diet in the form of a lot of fruit no doubt including more than berries and citrus.

gunther gatherer said...

Slim is Simple, espoused by chubberoos like Tom Naughton.

You can't make this stuff up.

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

Aggression is right out of the Taubes playbook. From SSoS, the chapter on Aggression begins with:

“The crucial factor is not how much is eaten…or how much is expended, but how…those
calories are utilized and made available when needed." GARY TAUBES, IN GOOD CALORIES, BAD CALORIES

... However, when calories approach the traffic cop Aggressively, it gets angry, throws its clipboard down, and sends those calories to fat cells. When we eat a plate of pasta and a breadstick, a massive wave of starch starts screaming all at once and the traffic cop says, “Oh, really. That’s how you want to do it? To the fat cells…all of you.” Like the rest of us, our body does not do its best work when dealing with a bunch of Aggressive requests all at once. ...

This is a load of BS as the muscles and liver are the majority "sinks" for carbs, not the fat cells, and ignores the FACT that the macro most likely to be stored as body fat is dietary fat.


Later he defines this as follows: "Aggression: A measure of how likely calories are to be stored as body fat. Example – Starches and sweets are basically pure glucose and therefore provide an abundance of Aggressive calories."

His acronym is silly IMO because you want Satiety, nonAggressive, Nutritient Dense, inEfficient.

LOL at Bailor courting opinions to challenge his own. What he is doing is very incestral.

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

I agree with Unknown, my first impression of the last lady is that she is stereotypical black. But I would add that shapely calves being = obesity and toothpick limbs otherwise is pretty bad. Just women ... why? It's all rather disturbing the longer one looks at it. Just saying.

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

Charles, a request please. If there's something you wish for me to address, could you shoot me an email or post stuff like this on the discussion board?

I'm in agreement with Bailor, Guyenet, etc. and have been quite vocal on this blog for a very long time as to the satiety of protein.

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

;-) It's for the cause, and yes, FH's grasp of science is such that he sees Bailor's effort as a scientifically sound one.

Ahh well. He's got Big Fat Fiasco DVD's to sell and if Bailor can shoot him some reciprocal traffic, it's all good for the wallet.

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

Perhaps in this case, as with the hedge fund person behind NuSI, it's basically rich person of like mind with money to burn.

I was already disturbed that SSoS is approved for nutrition curricula. It is extremely bad. Worse, even than GCBC in many ways. Most of the studies he cites are misrepresented or misinterpreted.

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

Hi Mir, As I believe I said in my General Thoughts post on his SSoS book, the diet itself is pretty decent and healthy. However the science is shaky except for protein's satiety and to some extent he at least gets the fiber story mostly right. At one point it almost sounds like he says if you stuff yourself so full with high water/fiber/bulk foods you just won't have room for the fattening stuff. I can tell him that ain't how it works for most people, at least after a few days or weeks. There definitely is something to the physically full feeling but that's far from the total picture.

Bothers me greatly that he advocates strategies to eat less spontaneously (that may or may not work for everyone) but rails on and on about calories being bogus. Have no fear, that will all be rehashed in a 2014 book :( :(

Chris is right. Calories count for all of us! Some of us are just a little less broken in the signaling department than others, and some of us can eat a lot more than others. I'd kill for Go Kaleo's metabolic rate, but shorties like me who aren't highly active (and muscular) really can only dream.

Stephan Guyenet said...

Hi Charles,

The diet may not have been "good" by your standards, but it was sufficient to illustrate the point I'm making: a higher proportion of protein causes a large, spontaneous reduction in calorie intake, and fat loss, even if the proportion of carbohydrate in the diet remains the same:

"Mean (±SE) spontaneous energy intake decreased by 441 ± 63 kcal/d, body weight decreased by 4.9 ± 0.5 kg, and fat mass decreased by 3.7 ± 0.4 kg with the ad libitum, high-protein diet"

In other words, they spontaneously ate 441 kcal/d less when protein was increased from 15 to 30 percent, at the expense of fat, in a study where food composition was accurately controlled and food intake accurately measured. That's a 19% reduction in calorie intake, in people who were simply eating to fullness-- not even trying to restrict calories or lose fat. This has been replicated a number of times.

Hi Diana,

The medical literature indicates that rapid fat loss typically results in more fat loss, better maintenance, and more positive metabolic effects than slow fat loss. The reason some doctors recommend against it has nothing to do with efficacy-- it's because they're concerned that people are going to hurt themselves by eating an extreme diet (this has led some to also suggest that it's less effective, but that's not accurate, as pointed out in the recent review article). If properly administered, as a TEMPORARY strategy, high-protein rapid fat loss diets are safe and effective, particularly considering that fat loss itself will generally improve health for a person who's obese.

Harry's Acolyte said...

Thanks for your answers.

For temporary matters, do you think that the potato deal that people are doing is okay? Any further thoughts on it beyond what you've already written?

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

Thanks for dropping by and adding to the discussion Stephan! I am in agreement that protein is the satiety macro if one has to choose between the three. When it comes to weight loss diets, I've said many times that pegging protein at 15% makes many reducing diets -- especially for shorter women -- is part of the problem with traditional diets. To maintain, getting in sufficient protein each day is one "simple" strategy and leaves plenty of room (need!) for other things.

I'll address Diana's comment below as well as hers and others' here. The satiety response is obviously varied by individual, and I do believe some of the comparison studies are flawed in testing (e.g. by how much you eat at a followup meal or measures of hunger at 2 hrs etc.) . Which is why that Weigle study is still one of my favorites -- you don't get much better than providing excess foods with double the protein content to a bunch of people who are not even thinking they are in a weight loss study and seeing them spontaneously eat at almost a 1 lb/week caloric deficit.

Stil, just because a macro is more satiating doesn't mean that physiological satiety translates to physical/psychological satisfaction. And in the end we need to get energy from somewhere. Neither carbs nor fat are "empty calories" in the end! And having a "normal" meal on any diet is something that can't be dismissed too easily.

Paul N said...

Paul Jaminet also recommends that each meal be a "complete" meal - i.e. with some (safe starch) carbs.

My experience is similar to yours - a bacon and egg breakfast is great, but if I just add a golfball sized potato, or a buckwheat pancake, leftover rice/quinoa, etc, then it is indeed much more "filling" than the bacon and eggs alone.
Fibrous veggies help too, but a bit of carbs seems to do the trick best.

No wonder my Dad loved bubble'n'squeak with bacon and eggs!

Doing the reverse, a high carb/low protein breakfast like porridge or pancakes, is satiating, but leaves me ravenous two hours later. Even if I up the egg content of the pancakes to be equivalent to three, I still get hungry a few hours later, unless I reduce the carbs to a moderate amount. I'm guessing that is minimising the glucose spikes, which is the whole idea...

Woodey said...

@Stephan I like your point about fast fat loss. I am doing Weight Watchers and have had instances where I have lost more than the .5-2 lbs per week they say is the healthy standard for the diet. I get a little blurb on my screen that says I am losing weight too fast and that it can lead to problems with the heart as well muscle loss. I ignore their warning and keep going. I justify it by thinking to myself that it is a bigger health risk to have the excess body fat than to lose quicker than suggested.

In regards to your other post about protein satiation I agree with that as well. From my own personal experience I find myself the most fulfilled if I eat protein with my meal. In general, whenever I eat a meal that is vegetarian I find that I still want to eat or am tempted to want to eat within two hours post meal. Its not that I am depriving myself of calories (both meals being entree size), its just something in my head that is telling me I need more, which makes my stomach feel empty.

The flip side is that if I add a lot of fat to the meal in the form of cheese then I feel more satiated, but then again cheese is high in protein as well.

Charles Grashow said...

So - what would your opinion be of all of the blogging about nutritional ketosis for weight loss - following an extremely low carb, high fat diet, moderate protein diet.

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

Uggh,, I must have accidentally "edited" part of that first paragraph and it is disjointed. My point on the 15% protein is that it leads to insufficient protein on an absolute gram basis on lower calorie intakes.

Also, while I'm writing another comment I might as well add that protein is different from fat and carbs. On a day-to-day basis ... perhaps longer than that, the latter are really needed for energy only. Protein, OTOH, is always needed on some level for "housekeeping" so it's not so much the satiety per calorie, but meeting a physiological need.

Diana said...

@Stephan and @Woodley,

Rapid fat loss has always worked for me - lose it, then keep it off. Perhaps the medical literature is replete with supporting studies but what Woodley is relating is true for me - the constant popular admonitions that "you didn't get fat in two weeks, you won't lose it in two weeks." Well, of course not. No one is saying that - but losing in spurts here and there, and keeping it off, is better than an agonizing day after day pursuit of minuscule weight loss. That's my experience.

Regarding " higher proportion of protein causes a large, spontaneous reduction in calorie intake, and fat loss, even if the proportion of carbohydrate in the diet remains the same:" later you said, "at the expense of fat" - which I find interesting. My slow-reader take away is that increasing protein intake will result in lowered fat intake, which results in a reduction of caloric intake, and esp. that macronutrient which is most likely to be metabolized as fat: fat.

If true all of this confirms my suspicion that high-fat diets are not Paleo.

Diana said...

@Stephan: "he reason some doctors recommend against it has nothing to do with efficacy-- it's because they're concerned that people are going to hurt themselves by eating an extreme diet" - What a ridiculous thing. They are already eating an extreme diet. Extremely bad.

The risk that most overweight people will become bulimic, or anorexic, is vanishingly slight. Compare that to the clear and present problems of staying overweight.

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

I think it's more than the risk of developing ED here, there are real medical issues and let's face it -- most of the cautionary "consult a physician before beginning any diet/fitness program" admonishments go unheeded. Extreme diets can have extreme, deadly consequences. There was a football player in college two years behind me. He was John Candy built guy (w/o the outlandish antic personality though I did not know him to say if he was funny or not) in a fraternity of jocks at a school where geeky guys outnumbered women 5:1. My friend dated his roomie (or big brother or somesuch) so I was aware he struggled with his weight and social issues. He lost a ton of weight one semester. I'm pretty sure it was fall of sophomore year. Went home for T-giving, did not return. Died of heart attack. This may well have been congenital, etc., but when you lose weight really fast the biggest risk is electrolyte imbalances and such.

That said, if you don't feel bad, you likely are not in any danger of doing any harm to yourself.

Stephan Guyenet said...

Hi Charles,

A very low-carb, high-fat, moderate-protein ketogenic diet clearly causes a reduction in calorie intake and body fat loss in the "average" overweight/obese person, but as far as I know it isn't superior to other less extreme approaches. It is quite possible that ketosis itself is part of the reason why people lose fat on ketogenic diets, but there are likely other factors involved such as cutting out the majority of the foods a person used to rely on.

People like to pin obesity and fat loss on a single factor, or on a couple of factors, but in reality it's complex and there are a number of different paths for getting from A to B (hence the frequent arguments between gurus who think they have the One True Factor because people who follow their advice lose weight-- even though some of these diets diametrically oppose one another). The Simple Food Diet is based around the idea that one can increase a diet's efficacy, and minimize hunger and feelings of deprivation, by leveraging multiple factors at once that have been shown to spontaneously reduce calorie intake and cause fat loss. The scientific rationale is complex, but we distilled the principles down into simple practical recommendations.

Hi Harry,

I can't recommend the potato diet because I don't have enough high-quality information to demonstrate that it's safe. However, I know of nothing to suggest it isn't safe. If I had to pick one food to eat for an extended period of time, it would probably be the potato. The diet is obviously an effective fat loss tool for some people, and that's likely related to the low reward/palatability and high satiation per calorie. However, you undertake it at your own risk.

Hi Woodey,

Fat is definitely satiating if you eat a lot of it-- this is why people find it counterintuitive when I say fat is not very satiating per calorie. But the real question is, how satiating is it per calorie? It's more than twice as calorie-dense as carbohydrate and protein, and since added fats in particular are not hydrated (further increasing calorie density), they tend to be less filling. However, if you control for calorie density and palatability, fat is just as filling as carbohydrate. So it's not an inherent property of fat itself, it's just how the fat is packaged. That's why I focus on reducing added fats, but not the fats that naturally occur in meats (except the fattier types), avocados, etc.

Hi Diana,

My only point was that protein replaced fat in that particular study, and therefore the effect can not be attributed to a reduction in carbohydrate intake. However, increasing protein has the same effect if it replaces carbohydrate.

Diana said...

@Evelyn and Stephan -

I'm writing this after the below comments. I'm going to retract my concession a bit.

I find the study that Stephan has provided very interesting, but I note that the protein is still ingested ALONG WITH some carbohydrates. It is not an all-protein diet.

Thus I think that in real world eating, to say that "Research has consistently shown that for the "average person", protein is the most satiating macronutrient, per unit calorie, hands down."

Because that's not how you eat protein.

VLCarb dieters do - and they are restricted to a small group of fanatics.

"The sensation of satiation may be a subjective measure, but the amount of food a person eats isn't."

Correct. And I see that the amount of food goes down when there is an optimal macronutrient combination.

Why focus on the protein satiety factor? Why not say that it has to be a balance?

Has anyone done studies on satiety in all protein diets?

Diana said...

@Stephan,

See my revised concession, above. I don't deny that increasing protein in a balanced diet increases satiety and results in lower caloric intake - at least in that study. I do object to saying that "protein is the most satiating macronutrient, per unit calorie, hands down."

This study doesn't show that. It shows what it shows - that if you increase the percentage of protein, satiety increases.

The only way to prove "hands down" that protein is, in and of itself, more satiating is to study people who mainly eat protein, and compare them to people who mainly eat carbs, or fats. Has such research been done?

I imagine, also, that if you tested subjects in Thailand, you might get a different result. Has such research been done?

Sanjeev said...

> Has anyone done studies on satiety in all protein diets?

If I remember correctly (don't have the links handy) this type of research was what led to the original liquid protein diets (near zero fat, near zero carbohydrate), the famous ones that used low quality protein sources and caused a couple of deaths due to potassium depletion)

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

Diana, nobody eats all protein, or all carb or all fat. If you were to do a Google Scholar search on protein and satiety you'd be busy for days and more. This is not to say that carbs and fats play no role, or even that they don't play a synergistic role.

Ketosis suppresses appetite as well, though there is evidence that the degree is more highly variable and tends to wear off in most people.

Charles Grashow said...

@Stephan

What is your opinion of the opposite version of the low carb? A high carb, low fat, low carb diet ala Douglas Graham 80-10-10 or 30 bananas a day type diet?

Gabriella Kadar said...

Based on the failed tight control Type 2 Diabetes study which was terminated early due to deaths, there is something to say for homeostasis. All change, even potentially good change is an additional stressor on the body. Which is why, as you mention, it is a good idea to get medical evaluation before embarking on a huge change.

Even an obese guy could waste away his cardiac muscle and destroy the kidneys through starvation (albeit from a much higher weight start point than an anorexic).

Probably this diet Stephan is writing about, because it ensures a higher protein intake, will also protect the kidneys which are very dependant on protein for good functioning.

Unknown said...

Jimmy is the Fat Burning Machine!

"who are experiencing some truly remarkable benefits to eating in the appropriate manner for their bodies to produce an adequate level of blood ketones (measured with the Precision Xtra blood ketone meter) to make that switch from being a sugar-burner to becoming a fat-burning machine"

Machine is sputtering! Needs a tune-up!

Diana said...

"nobody eats all protein...etc." Evelyn - Yeah, that's my point.
Yes, increasing protein intake in the study increased satiety - but the subjects were still eating SOME carbs/fats. It's simply not a case that these studies show that protein increases satiety "per unit calorie, hands down." That is IMO overinterpreting the data.

Charles Grashow said...

http://livinlavidalowcarb.com/blog/jimmy-moores-n1-experiments-nutritional-ketosis-day-241-270/17905

"When I’ve completed my one year of daily testing, I will be handing over all of the raw data tracking my food, exercise and blood testing results to a researcher who will attempt to get this published as a case study in a medical journal. COOL! And my publisher is already very interested in having me write a book about my nutritional ketosis experience after I’m finished writing and publishing the book I’m currently writing on reading your cholesterol test results.

Speaking of that cholesterol book, I’ve been typing away feverishly on that this week and I’ve got tens of thousands more words to write in order to get it completed. I’m so excited about the message we’ll be communicating in this book and can’t wait for you to see it when it releases later this year.

Charles Grashow said...

meant high carb, low fat, low protein

paleotwopointoh said...

Why Thailand? Insect consumption is pretty high in Asia.

Jane said...

I once emailed Lindeberg to find out whether the diet he was comparing his paleo diet to was a whole food diet like the paleo one was. It wasn't. The subjects were eating refined oils, low fat dairy, and an unknown amount of refined carbs. They were told to eat less refined carbs (actually 'more whole grains') but not eliminate them. So we don't know whether a whole food paleo diet wins over a whole food non-paleo diet. I told Stephan about this but he did not respond.

Stephan's partner Dan likes William Davis. I found this on Dan's blog.

'Bill Davis (author of Track Your Plaque and Wheat Belly) is one such forward-thinking cardiologist. Davis recommends a wheat-free, no refined vegetable oil (corn/sunflower/soy/canola), low-carbohydrate diet, as well as certain supplements (which he also sells) including vitamin D, fish oil, niacin, and coenzyme Q10. He also recommends foods such as olive oil, garlic, and tea (all associated with lower heart disease). Is he peddling products? Sure … but his approach is still leagues ahead of the conventional wisdom on heart disease.'

Does Stephan endorse Davis? If he does, I am horrified.

Jane said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jane said...

There's a hedge fund person behind NuSI??? OMG

Jane said...

The paper Stephan linked about protein and satiety suggests it works because it increases leptin sensitivity in the hypothalamus, and it might do this because protein is better than fat at releasing insulin. The insulin would improve leptin sensitivity. So they're suggesting it's actually MORE INSULIN that makes protein satiating.

'We found insulin AUC to be significantly higher at visit CRC2 than at visit CRC1, which possibly reflects the better ability of protein than of fat, which it was isocalorically substituted for, to stimulate insulin secretion (35). Because insulin appears to act synergistically with leptin in the hypothalamus (36), this increase in insulin AUC may have contributed to the increased satiety observed with the isocaloric high-protein diet. ...
In conclusion, a 15% increase in energy from dietary protein at constant carbohydrate intake produces a sustained decrease in ad libitum caloric intake that may be mediated by increased CNS leptin sensitivity and results in clinically significant weight loss.'

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

Interesting Jane. Also, the "real paleo" diet seek to eliminate all dairy, so this is a counfounding issue as to what the culprit might be.

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

Yep! It seems to be all the rage. Find an "angel" to fund your non-profit initiative! Check out the nusi.org website. Interesting collection of folks there.

Diana said...

Oh, you mean those rice-filled cockroaches? I know someone who ate one. He said they were delicious. Try one.

Rice and fish sauce is the staple food in Thailand. Keep trying paleo2.0 to prove that Asians eat lots of protein. It's fun to watch but wishing won't make it so.

Diana said...

Unsurprising. The whole Paleo movement strikes me as a playground for the wealthy and their suckup wannabees.

Diana said...

Jane - Thank you for pointing that out. Perhaps they discovered an ideal macronutrient combination for weight loss, in which there is the most insulin bang for the weight loss buck.

On a not-so-side note, there's a widespread belief in the LC world that only carbs bring on the evil insulin. I suppose the belief started innocently enough, based on outdated research, reflected in the original PROTEIN POWER (and other classics of the genre). But with research in the interim showing that all foods evoke insulin, it's become dogma.

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

It has been known in the research/medical field for a very long time that protein stimulates insulin ... the Eades and their ilk just ignored it apparently. I'm convinced Taubes did not know due to his lack of intellectual curiosity and has had to downplay this ever since -- "it's only just a small amount". Whey protein, especially, creates a problem for the anti-insulin warriors because it's part of so many LC diets and recipes and is very insulinogenic.

Incidentally, the title of the Lindeberg paper is something about satiety per calorie. It is higher in protein and low fat (<30%).

Diana said...

PP was published first in 1995 - was it known then that protein stimulates insulin? (Of course, nothing excuses Eades from ignoring such research NOW. Of Taubes - no comment.)

In any case, I can assure you that the vast majority of LCers who think of Eades and Taubes as the science authorities of LC don't know this.

Diana said...

If I am reading Table 4 correctly, beef is more insulinogenic per gram as brown rice. Way worse than apples, and even bananas, supposedly an insulin nightmare. Am I wrong, anyone? I am not good at reading these things.

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/66/5/1264.full.pdf

This study was pub'd in 1997. Eades has no excuse. Revised editions should have reflected this. As for Taubes, no comment!!

Sanjeev said...

Diana, they do address the issue, always have, with a standard, pat reply: the glucagon released in response to protein ingestion (which does not happen with low protein carbohydrate) counteracts the effects of protein induced insulin.

I've always pointed out that in humans glucagon mostly works in the liver and nowhere else (note to the regular trolls who always seemed to come out when I pointed this out: glucagon's activity is not zero everywhere other than the liver, it's low everywhere but the liver).

My own literature trawls on glucagon are more than 4 years old now so this could have changed.

Sanjeev said...

the liver piece is important because glucagon is[0] presented as counteracting some of insulin's effects on adipocytes.

[0] used to be, when I was actively debating the issue - I don't know if they still present it this way

Michael Grankey said...

I noticed in Jimmy's last paragraph he asked readers to send him an email if there are any health tests they would like him to get. Maybe a mental health exam would be in order.

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

Sanjeev, my recollection of current knowledge is that glucagon's effect on fat cells is negligible if significant at all. Glucagon's primary function is to increase BG opposite to insulin. In the case of protein this prevents hypoglycemia!

The Eades are still on the lipophilia train of insulin trapping FA in adipocytes.

I'm looking at my 1981 6th Ed of Guyton -- likely the Eades used the 5th Ed in med school. Not much has changed in the basics of this book (I have ebook version 12th or 13th) and there's an entire chapter (78) on insulin and glucagon where insulin secretion is discussed.

In addition to excess gucose stimulating insulin secretion, many of the amino acids have a similar effect. The most potent of these are arginine and lysine. ... The stimulation of insulin secretion by amino acids seems to be a purposeful response because the insulin in turn promotes transport of the amino acids into the tissue cells and also promotes intracellular formaiton of protein. That is, the insulin is important for proper utilization of the excess amino acids."

I'm working on my followup on insulin supressing drugs today. First I must uncover the wood on our back deck and dig out my car!

paleotwopointoh said...

I haven't said Asians eat lots of protein anywhere. You are making up stuff, as is your modus.

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

Ha ha!

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/09/19/161444045/billionaires-fund-a-manhattan-project-for-nutrition-and-obesity

I find this hysterical: "When they get there, NuSI claims, they'll have the tools to lower the obesity prevalence rate in the U.S. from 35 percent to 15 percent, and the diabetes rate from 8 percent to 2 percent. Their goal is to do this by 2020. That would translate into billions in health care savings, too."

Sanjeev said...

(paraphrasing)
tools to
lower the obesity prevalence rate in the U.S. from 35 percent to 15 percent

tools to
lower the diabetes rate from 8 percent to 2 percent

tools to
do this by 2020

tools to
translate this into billions in health care savings

tools to
lower from 99% to 1% the prevalence of "pulling numbers out of my ass" syndrome

Jane said...

Evelyn
Yes hysterical ... did you notice the hedge fund person is from Enron? It was Enron that started the fuss about global warming, you know. They were making a lot of money selling sulphur dioxide permits and thought well why not carbon dioxide permits? Only problem was, CO2 wasn't a pollutant. So they arranged for it to be made it into one. I am not making this up. I've been following the science behind 'climate change' for years and I've yet to see any convincing evidence that CO2 causes it or even that it's happening.

So an Enron/hedge fund person is just what we need to do the 'science' which will tell us what's causing the diabesity epidemic.

Jane said...

'Enron: The Godfather of Kyoto'
http://www.theforgottenstreet.com/Enron-The-Godfather-of-Kyoto.html

OnePointFive said...

Not Surprising that it's in Evelyns 1981 textbook. In 1966 Floyd et al found that the " ingestion of protein meals results in significant increases in plasma insulin.... We speculate that the purpose of the insulogenic response to protein ingestion is to aid both in the utilization of absorbed amino acids and in their synthesis to protein"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC292827/pdf/jcinvest00267-0135.pdf
( it had been calculated back in 1915 that 56% of beef protein could theoretically convert to glucose. Later studies showed glucose levels didn't rise, so why?)

In those of us that have to supply insulin, protein can produce an increase in glucose levels. Some T1s have rediscovered TAG,(total available glucose)as a method to adjust insulin. This takes protein into account. Some base their calculations on a book from 1989 http://www.amazon.com/T-G-Diabetic-Food-System/dp/0688084583/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1327712993&sr=8-1
The Joslin Blog suggests that the 50% protein conversion to glucose used is probably an overestimate.
http://blog.joslin.org/2012/01/should-tag-be-a-part-of-your-diabetes-meal-plan/

Jane said...

'Sanjeev, my recollection of current knowledge is that glucagon's effect on fat cells is negligible if significant at all. Glucagon's primary function is to increase BG opposite to insulin. In the case of protein this prevents hypoglycemia!'

Yes, and that might be very interesting. The satiety machinery in the hypothalamus is apparently very sensitive to hypoglycemia. Which means protein/glucagon could promote satiety by preventing hypoglycemia.

But why would one need to prevent hypoglycemia in the first place? The pancreas should be perfectly capable of doing that. If it's sensitive enough to glucose, so it produces insulin at once when blood glucose rises, it won't have to produce a lot of insulin later and make blood glucose fall too far and too fast. As far as I am concerned this is what causes reactive hypoglycemia. Eating protein may help in the short term but what will really help is eating ZERO refined carbs.

Jane said...

Here's the paper showing that the satiety machinery in the hypothalamus is very sensitive to hypoglycemia. Mild hypoglycemia was found to cause apoptosis of the relevant hypothalamic neurons. I think this must be how reactive hypoglycemia makes you fat.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10905492

'Hypoglycemia reduces sympathoadrenal responses to subsequent hypoglycemic bouts by an unknown mechanism. To assess whether such hypoglycemia-associated autonomic failure is due to actual brain damage, male Sprague-Dawley rats underwent 1-h bouts of insulin-induced (5 U/kg i.v.) hypoglycemia (1.6-2.8 mmol/l) 1 or 3 times on alternate days. Rats remained alert and were rescued with intravenous glucose at 60-80 min. Plasma epinephrine and corticosterone responses were significantly reduced during the second and third bouts. ..... non-coma hypoglycemia produces apparent apoptotic cell death with reduced NPY and POMC expression selectively in the ARC [arcuate nucleus]. This may contribute to the reduced counterregulatory response following repeated bouts of hypoglycemia.'

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

One hormone -- insulin -- with many functions cannot distinguish the function. IOW, insulin stimulates glucose transport into cells when it's around whether or not glucose is in excess. Thus protein stimulates insulin to facilitate amino acid transport, but it also stimulates glucose disposal. If you eat carbs with protein you don't go hypo, but if you don't, that's the reason for glucagon. The pancreas doesn't act alone, it needs the liver's help.

Jane said...

Yes, exactly. I don't know for sure but I think 30 years ago my pancreas and liver weren't working properly. I might have had a slow pancreatic response to a rise in blood glucose and a slow liver response to a fall. I suspect both pancreas and liver were damaged and not repairing themselves properly.

Jane said...

I should have mentioned, my PhD and postdoc work were in developmental biology. I learned all about regeneration and repair, and this is why I got interested in the role of metals in disease: my research indicated they were very important in regeneration. It meant they were very important in disease.

BTW, the prof of Pharmacology said to me two weeks ago 'Jane, I think you are right'. Meaning, about metals. I've been telling him about them for years and the penny has apparently dropped. He's even going to get rid of the white bread in seminar lunches!

Anonymous said...

hello there and thank you for your information –
I have definitely picked up anything new from right
here. I did however expertise a few technical issues using this site, as I experienced to reload the website lots of times previous to I could
get it to load properly. I had been wondering if your web
hosting is OK? Not that I am complaining, but sluggish loading instances times will often affect your placement in google
and could damage your high-quality score if advertising and marketing
with Adwords. Anyway I'm adding this RSS to my email and can look out for a lot more of your respective fascinating content. Ensure that you update this again soon.

My weblog - http://www.ourgspot.com

Post a Comment

Moderation is currently on. Thanks in advance for your patience.