15

votes

How do we reconcile Stephan Guyenet's latest comment with the "insulin story" in GCBC?

Answered on August 19, 2014
Created July 06, 2011 at 9:30 PM

In the comments with his latest post, Stephan Guyenet writes:

"All this postprandial insulin spikes = fat gain stuff is nonsense as far as I can tell."

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/

Good Calories Bad Calories taught me that insulin is a fat storage hormone. What am I missing here?

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19245)

on March 14, 2012
at 10:21 AM

http://xkcd.com/386/

E0250b1e6dc5ec1539ffb745042b4d80

(3651)

on March 14, 2012
at 12:32 AM

Sheesh. I think you are the last one that's upset. Time to move on...

0df0b1c6ae16bbb75b4a5efa3d876765

(2240)

on March 13, 2012
at 11:48 PM

And so you know it doesn't make a difference to me, I come across all kinds of a-holes every day on forums, but I won't just sit by without saying anything while you or anyone else spouts off on someone like that.

0df0b1c6ae16bbb75b4a5efa3d876765

(2240)

on March 13, 2012
at 11:44 PM

respond with "you have a lot to learn" and "don't know if you are some kind of mod here but you suck at it and need to stop".

0df0b1c6ae16bbb75b4a5efa3d876765

(2240)

on March 13, 2012
at 11:43 PM

Well, Melissa IS a mod on PH (see that little black Diamond next to her name?) and regardless of how one chooses to interpret text chat in an internet forum (here we are, yet again) it's still a good idea to at least be respectful and minimally polite when interacting with mods in general. Whether you are the first one to resurrect the topic or not is irrelevant. You just HAD to say the same thing you keep saying about SG on all the other posts about him and FR, that he's never been fat and insults you with his research. She made a comment, you didn't like it, but there was no need to...

E0250b1e6dc5ec1539ffb745042b4d80

(3651)

on March 13, 2012
at 11:33 PM

The stuff about me being accused of bumping this thread to make a negative comment was too, and I don't take crap from people. I'm not the king of ad homs either. It seems I'm the only one that bothered to look up the definition! Let's just play nice and not make shots like that and we will all be happy in the cave!

0df0b1c6ae16bbb75b4a5efa3d876765

(2240)

on March 13, 2012
at 11:05 PM

How completely rude and disrespectful. You are out of line DFH. Remember this? "I'm asking you kindly to help us all keep things respectful around here." You just don't get it.

E0250b1e6dc5ec1539ffb745042b4d80

(3651)

on March 13, 2012
at 02:41 PM

Don't get in over your head Miss Thought Police. You have a lot to learn yourself, and stop making assumptions about why I comment. I didn't like FR when I read about FR. I didn't go looking for the physical attributes of the author. It just happened to catch my eye when someone else bumped this question. You messed up and thought it was me bumping it too. I don't know if you are some kind of mod here but you suck at it and need to stop. :)

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on March 13, 2012
at 02:02 PM

WTF you are the king of ad homs DFH, considering you are arguing that Stephan's views are invalid because of some personal characteristic he doesn't possess (having been fat).

E0250b1e6dc5ec1539ffb745042b4d80

(3651)

on March 13, 2012
at 10:32 AM

No worries, all agreed. Ad Homs can be confusing. It means arguing the person. It is not the same as referring TO someone or calling someone names. They can also be true, but it's the wrong approach. "I can't read Taubes because he still has a bit of a belly, so..." That's ad hom, arguing a physical attribute rather than his writing. "SG has no idea what obesity is like." True. Not ad hom by itself, but borderline if the context is something else. When I started reading PH I noticed that ad hom management has been lax, and even star members do it quite a bit, usually aimed at Moore.

0df0b1c6ae16bbb75b4a5efa3d876765

(2240)

on March 13, 2012
at 10:10 AM

Anyhow, again I'll maintain that I think you can be a valuable contributor to PH at times, so I'm asking you kindly to help us all keep things respectful around here. I can't speak for anyone else, but I'll continue the effort to do the same myself. Sometimes we all get rubbed the wrong way by some folks, but we're all human nonetheless. Hack on my friend.

0df0b1c6ae16bbb75b4a5efa3d876765

(2240)

on March 13, 2012
at 10:04 AM

LOL I do know what ad hom is, that's the thing. I did in fact minor in philosophy in college. These comments under answers are okay for talking back and forth with one another (just browse any topic and you'll see that's what everyone does), so I just thought it was a bit hypocritical on your part to act like we're not supposed to be addressing each other in here. I could say "ad hom" about you calling me preachy, for instance. Kinda pointless to do that though.

E0250b1e6dc5ec1539ffb745042b4d80

(3651)

on March 13, 2012
at 09:02 AM

Hey, no need to get all preachy just because you didn't know what an ad hom is! Forgive me for reacting. I was framed! I didn't bump the question to "say the same things over again." I opened the page and there it was, begging for a comment. I know, it was a setup...

0df0b1c6ae16bbb75b4a5efa3d876765

(2240)

on March 13, 2012
at 07:55 AM

"Are you the thought police now?" What a grossly hypocritical thing to ask, considering the endless armchair "Logic 101" lessons you keep tossing around. This is PaleoHacks, not PhilosophyHacks! Oh wait, you're from Memphis? Hmmm...my uncle was from Memphis and he was a real know-it-all bastard. Well, I guess that might explain it then :) But seriously, lighten up a bit in here. Some of your comments are actually helpful and/or entertaining. No need to start an argument with every topic. Be careful with the defamatory language and illegal medical advice, though. Hate to see you get banned.

80890193d74240cab6dda920665bfb6c

(1528)

on March 13, 2012
at 02:04 AM

Textbook of Medical Biochemistry, Chatterjee, 2007, p.437 "3. Lipid Metabolism: Insulin, by promoting the HMP shunt pathway in the adipose tissue as well as liver, provides NADPH required for the reductive synthesis of fatty acids and thus promotes lipogenesis. . .In the adipose tissue, insulin increases the synthesis of fatty acids, resulting in an increase of in the fat content. Another effect of insulin on lipid metabolism is its inhibitory action on lipolysis. Lipolysis is depressed by insulin, by maintaining diminished levels of cyclic AMP..." Read it & weep, dudes. This is basic stuff.

E0250b1e6dc5ec1539ffb745042b4d80

(3651)

on March 13, 2012
at 12:19 AM

He hasn't been obese and been through it himself. That is a fact, not a judgmental thing. :)

5a506bcfafe352e8fe11ebac285aa3e4

on March 12, 2012
at 11:57 PM

Then maybe you should stop judging Stephan.

E0250b1e6dc5ec1539ffb745042b4d80

(3651)

on March 12, 2012
at 09:57 PM

Travis- My aunt who was part native American used to have a plate on her wall that said "Never judge another person until you have walked in their moccasins."

E0250b1e6dc5ec1539ffb745042b4d80

(3651)

on March 12, 2012
at 09:52 PM

Are you the thought police now? You don't speak for science.

537001f30670e73eb0ac45779af649a5

on March 12, 2012
at 09:50 PM

i upvoted cause luke green is tom greens brother

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on March 12, 2012
at 09:44 PM

Also, please stop resurrecting old topics so you can say the same thing over and over again.

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19245)

on March 12, 2012
at 09:42 PM

I am glad that every comment I make isn't scrutinized in such detail :)

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on March 12, 2012
at 09:39 PM

I'm sorry, but this is not how science works. Are only people who had brain cancer allowed to research brain cancer? Science is about carefully parsing through data, not about anecdotes like yours.

Medium avatar

(39821)

on March 12, 2012
at 09:36 PM

It seems unreasonable to fully discount all knowledge contained by the never-obese. A personal experience of a disease is not required for an understanding of that disease. Should we avoid cardiologists who have never had heart disease?

1a98a40ba8ffdc5aa28d1324d01c6c9f

(20378)

on November 21, 2011
at 05:34 AM

Nice post Cliff!

3864f9a2af09b1b447c7963058650a34

(3703)

on September 12, 2011
at 03:50 AM

The outliers are the most intersting... unfortunately as a whole we're are so damaged now that instead of minor contributions, the outliers are the WHOLE BELL SHAPED CURVE *haa!*

8949bf87b0e0aefcad10f29975e4fa2b

(8989)

on July 20, 2011
at 09:45 PM

+1 but my anecdote refutes it completely

8949bf87b0e0aefcad10f29975e4fa2b

(8989)

on July 20, 2011
at 09:42 PM

Based on the way I read it, Stephan is very condescending to inthewoo's anecdote, since her data conflicts with his wonderful theory.

8949bf87b0e0aefcad10f29975e4fa2b

(8989)

on July 20, 2011
at 09:40 PM

Great answer! Thanks.

7d0c3ea9bf8be00b93e6433d8f125ac3

(7540)

on July 08, 2011
at 06:50 PM

can't downvote, laughing too hard. can't upvote, the comment makes no sense. what to do?

47a42b6be94caf700fce9509e38bb6a4

(9647)

on July 08, 2011
at 05:53 PM

Cruel and unusual punishment ....

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on July 08, 2011
at 05:07 PM

hehe I changed it, he doesn't like the nyan cat...

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on July 08, 2011
at 05:06 PM

lol guess he never noticed that...

47a42b6be94caf700fce9509e38bb6a4

(9647)

on July 08, 2011
at 04:40 PM

Let's get more activity from Chris on PH. He already has a user page: http://paleohacks.com/users/3554 According to his profile he's "the best"; I suspect someone else had something to do with this ....

Cab7e4ef73c5d7d7a77e1c3d7f5773a1

(7304)

on July 08, 2011
at 04:40 PM

Ding ding ding we have a winner.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on July 08, 2011
at 04:18 PM

If this was veganhacks this comment would be the highest rated.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on July 08, 2011
at 04:16 PM

What about those who don't get fat and actually lose fat mass eating a highly rewarding combination of starch and fat? Mmm 1500 calorie breakfast of potatoes, olive oil and lamb here I come. Ooh and salt so I don't eat too little. Yummy.

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on July 08, 2011
at 03:03 PM

@Chris via Melissa - thanks for the response. I agree with what you've written. This just wasn't clear in the original post. Thanks for taking the time to clarify

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on July 08, 2011
at 02:34 PM

I like the gossip part of her blog :P

E34fbfa1bca9ae970c9c7313bf9de9f8

(1436)

on July 08, 2011
at 02:28 PM

Bring on the Woo

A727956fa3f943057c4edb08ad9e864e

(4183)

on July 08, 2011
at 01:16 PM

http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/2011/05/fasting-insulin-and-weight-loss-on.html THANKS for any feedback, these are the last three reasons I think insulin is important. Plus I'm doing my thesis at the moment and I keep reading the sentence 'insulin's trophic effect on fat cells' Appreciate your consideration. Thanks!

A727956fa3f943057c4edb08ad9e864e

(4183)

on July 08, 2011
at 01:12 PM

I have a few questions for Chris on insulin: 1. If insulin is not one of the primary drivers of fat storage, how come injecting insulin into type 1 diabetics allow them to gain weight and restriction of insulin causes them to lose weight? 2. Why does a reduction in fasting insulin correlate with reduction in fat mass? Do we have any examples of fat people with low fasting insulin? 3. Can he address the study recently posted by Peter regarding obese people with higher metabolisms losing less weight on a fast than their thinner counterparts:cont'd

62f89aa727cf3ce77c36651347cabc14

(884)

on July 08, 2011
at 01:15 AM

@Eric - The signal from insulin to take up these free fats may be getting through, but the cell is unable to accomodate more. The signal to be greedy has no such physical constraint. Insulin may also prioritize carbohydrate uptake (lowering blood sugar), leading to higher free fatty acid levels in the obese. Chris is unconvincing on this point.

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on July 08, 2011
at 12:45 AM

@Jack - Stephan is unbelievably tolerant and patient. Irrespective of the potentially validity of the comments being made by Woo2, I would have been dropping c-bombs by now and given her a swift kick in the arse

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on July 08, 2011
at 12:45 AM

@Jack - Stephan is unbelievably tolerant and patient. Irrespective of the potentially validity of the comments being made by Woo2, I would have been dropping c-bombs by now given her a swift kick in the arse.

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on July 08, 2011
at 12:03 AM

@Eric - I'm a big fan of Chris so I am reluctant to make the following comment....regarding the last paragraph of Melissa's post - the process of fat storage vis-a-vis insulin action vs. eventual pathological (peripheral) insulin resistance are two different issues. He is far more versed in the biochem than me, so I post this with the utmost of respect, but this is my visceral reaction. I am not supporting the Taubesian overly simplified view either

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on July 07, 2011
at 11:51 PM

@Eric - I'm a big fan of Chris so I am reluctant to make the following comment....regarding the last paragraph of Melissa's post - the process of fat storage vis-a-vis insulin action vs. eventual pathological (peripheral) insulin resistance are two different issues. He is far more versed in the biochem than me, so I post this with the utmost of respect, but my visceral reaction is disagreement. I am not supporting the Taubesian overly simplified view either.

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on July 07, 2011
at 11:50 PM

@Eric - I'm a big fan of Chris so I am reluctant to make the following comment....the process of fat storage vis-a-vis insulin action vs. eventual pathological (peripheral) insulin resistance are two different issues. He is far more versed in the biochem than me, so I post this with the utmost of respect, but my visceral reaction is disagreement. I am not supporting the Taubesian overly simplified view either.

77ecc37f89dbe8f783179323916bd8e6

(5002)

on July 07, 2011
at 09:24 PM

Okay, after some thought, I have a Q: Taubes' hypothesis is about high insulin levels making it less likely for adipose tissue to release fatty acids as energy, requiring more consumption for energy & nutrients, and hence more weight gains as adipose tissue space expands (a slower process). CM is explaining a limit to this expansion. GT is hypothesizing transfers in the other direction, though. If adipose tissue can't take in more fatty acids, it says nothing about how 'greedy' they are with their current holdings. So aren't they talking about different things?

50637dfd7dc7a7e811d82283f4f5fd10

(5838)

on July 07, 2011
at 08:04 PM

I'm also interested @henrydrn. I think being able to test / figure out will be a useful tool for both individuals and for healthcare providers.

1ac8e976f84cb2566ecfbbcce1817351

(211)

on July 07, 2011
at 07:40 PM

I'm interested in understanding what a metabolically sound person is? Take me for example: I was metabolically deranged/obese for about 9 years and have been somewhat healthy for a few years after that and much fitter (Paleo for over a year). I feel I tend to gain weight much easier than others. I've heard of some say (Kurt Harris, Matt Lalonde, Chris Kresser) that some may stay glucose intolerant for a long time (maybe for the rest of their lives) even after going Paleo/insulin sensitive

77ecc37f89dbe8f783179323916bd8e6

(5002)

on July 07, 2011
at 06:58 PM

Chris who? (jk)

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on July 07, 2011
at 04:21 PM

I think Taubes just conflated symptom with cause. I agree with him that the cause isn't fat per se, but the cause isn't carbs per se either.

Aead76beb5fc7b762a6b4ddc234f6051

(15239)

on July 07, 2011
at 04:19 PM

i didnt downvote because the poster was just reiterating what someone else apparently said. if the poster his/herself said it, they would get my downvote. i dont downvote just for disagreeing with someone. its not a very good direct answer to the question though, which is hopefully why this person has so many downvotes...sigh. im off to get a life now....

531db50c958cf4d5605ee0c5ae8a57be

(8878)

on July 07, 2011
at 04:14 PM

I refrained from downvoting because I assumed the answer was sarcasm. I've tried to read Carbsane's block and I find it completely unreadable.

531db50c958cf4d5605ee0c5ae8a57be

(8878)

on July 07, 2011
at 04:12 PM

Ok so inability to clear leads to downstream liver effects. This all makes more sense after a couple reads. Now I'm trying to reconcile all this with Taubes. And I'm having my fair share of problems.

Af1d286f0fd5c3949f59b4edf4d892f5

(18472)

on July 07, 2011
at 03:54 PM

Doc - do you mean itsthewooo2? If yes, I am sick of her. She is out of control over there and needs to chillax, as Kamal would say.

Af1d286f0fd5c3949f59b4edf4d892f5

(18472)

on July 07, 2011
at 03:50 PM

leveraging clout. good stuff Meliss.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on July 07, 2011
at 03:38 PM

and they can cause metabolic abnormalities, but the insulin didn't cause the metabolic abnormalities, it just exacerbates them from what I understand.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on July 07, 2011
at 03:37 PM

def not a coincidence, they have to do with the bottleneck at the liver.

531db50c958cf4d5605ee0c5ae8a57be

(8878)

on July 07, 2011
at 03:35 PM

[shudders in horror at this prospect]

531db50c958cf4d5605ee0c5ae8a57be

(8878)

on July 07, 2011
at 03:34 PM

So the higher insulin levels in obese, insulin-resistant individuals--both fasting and post-prandial--are just a coincidence? I'm trying to understand why/how the adipose tissue gets to this point where, it seems, it's "saturated" with fatty acids, such that the uptake of free fatty acids in the blood is inhibited. Also--so both Chris and Stephan are saying that Taubes' view of things is wrong, backwards, and/or oversimplified?

89e238284ccb95b439edcff9e123671e

(10299)

on July 07, 2011
at 03:32 PM

Can Patrick invent 'sidevoting' or something, because I don't want to upvote nor downvote this comment.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on July 07, 2011
at 03:21 PM

this is the greatest comment ever on paleohacks.

Aead76beb5fc7b762a6b4ddc234f6051

(15239)

on July 07, 2011
at 02:46 PM

this "personal responsibility" thing has gone too far. im going to choose to store some fat with a sassy smile and a wink.

Aead76beb5fc7b762a6b4ddc234f6051

(15239)

on July 07, 2011
at 02:44 PM

being "dumb, evil and selfish" is not something someone "proves" but rather something someone barfs out on the interwebs in order to get a reaction. i dont know who this "carbsane" person is, but name calling immediately discredits someone in my view.

A968087cc1dd66d480749c02e4619ef4

(20436)

on July 07, 2011
at 02:37 PM

Carbsane's whiny nitpicking of GCBC prove's nothing about Taube's character.

Aead76beb5fc7b762a6b4ddc234f6051

(15239)

on July 07, 2011
at 02:16 PM

this question and answer is why i love paleohacks the most. i learn more here than anywhere on the interwebs. thank you wjones and eric s.

A968087cc1dd66d480749c02e4619ef4

(20436)

on July 07, 2011
at 01:49 PM

How many psychologists does it take to change a lightbulb? Only one. But it takes a long time. And the lightbulb has to want to change.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on July 07, 2011
at 12:29 PM

holy smokes. way to not answer the question and be not-nice at the same time

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on July 07, 2011
at 12:29 PM

well posted. i totally agree. Too many of us, authors included, have a real problem in trying to understand the difference between acute elevations in a hormone and chronic elevations in that hormone.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on July 07, 2011
at 05:47 AM

you are describing my approach. A clinician knows how to treat this.....a researcher gets to write about theories. Obesity is a brain disease. Great contribution. Plus one

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on July 07, 2011
at 05:11 AM

inthewoo over on that thread in the comment section has to be an Amgen patient in the synthetic leptin trial. And her comments show a big time command of leptin function. She is so spot on its not funny. I think this is where clinical medicine roundly trumps benchtop theories.

3c6b4eed18dc57f746755b698426e7c8

(5152)

on July 07, 2011
at 04:20 AM

Those are great quotes and I've actually experimented and seen that they're true. Safe starches may initially spike your insulin but also seem to enhance insulin sensitivity aftre the spike. On a yam-heavy diet, I'm seeing that my fasting falls to the low 90s while my 2h postprandial is in the low 90s also. I never thought this was possible, since an equivalent amount of carbs from gluten grains or sugar will not bring your PP or FBG down. There's something else going on and Stephan seems to be on the ball uncovering the new paradigm.

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on July 07, 2011
at 04:16 AM

@Jack - it's my fault for writing a page rather than a brief paragraph. Brevity might be the soul of wit, but I never cared for Bill Shakespeare anyway

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on July 07, 2011
at 04:14 AM

oh, don't apologize - i don't mind being downvoted at all))) but what else had Carbsane proven if not that Taubes was scientifically illiterate, dishonest and mercantile (="Taub$")))?

Af1d286f0fd5c3949f59b4edf4d892f5

(18472)

on July 07, 2011
at 04:13 AM

wow i guess i should learn to refresh the page before posting a comment after reading a whole page of answers. I basically said the same thing Eric said.

Af1d286f0fd5c3949f59b4edf4d892f5

(18472)

on July 07, 2011
at 04:11 AM

way to dig up some very apropos gems here Aravind. That one by Stephan from 2008 has claws.

Af1d286f0fd5c3949f59b4edf4d892f5

(18472)

on July 07, 2011
at 04:05 AM

Bravo Eric. That's a quite a contribution to this thread. Stellar answer indeed.

98bf2ca7f8778c79cd3f6c962011cfdc

(24286)

on July 07, 2011
at 04:03 AM

Sorry gotta down vote you for that comment. Carbsane has proven Taubes dumb, evil and selfish? Really??

77ecc37f89dbe8f783179323916bd8e6

(5002)

on July 07, 2011
at 04:01 AM

Awesome comment - good work in digging up the relevant quotes, I think the issues are much clearer now.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on July 07, 2011
at 03:44 AM

plus one Wjones

3c6b4eed18dc57f746755b698426e7c8

(5152)

on July 07, 2011
at 02:48 AM

That's a useful premise and it has been tested since time immemorial: safe starches spike insulin temporarily while gluten-grains and sugar spike insulin for the duration. I've tested this myself and I have t2 diabetes. Yams seem to promote insulin sensitivity by initially spiking BG but dropping it precipitously after an hour; the opposite happens with gluten and sugar. If so, now we know why you do not become diabetics on a high (safe) starch diet but you do on a gluten/sugar and gluten/sugar/safe starch diet. Safe starch diets only protect themselves.

07154e6d8e42065f230d06249700fe5b

(2057)

on July 07, 2011
at 02:08 AM

... I lolled...

531db50c958cf4d5605ee0c5ae8a57be

(8878)

on July 07, 2011
at 01:47 AM

Stephan's latest hypothetical framework is as fascinating to me theoretically as it is useless in its application.

531db50c958cf4d5605ee0c5ae8a57be

(8878)

on July 07, 2011
at 01:44 AM

Stellar answer.

531db50c958cf4d5605ee0c5ae8a57be

(8878)

on July 07, 2011
at 01:44 AM

Good point Todd.

531db50c958cf4d5605ee0c5ae8a57be

(8878)

on July 07, 2011
at 01:42 AM

I assumed "postprandial" was the operative word here. Still, Stephan's take on things with regard to his new reward hypothesis seems to exclude insulin completely--chronically high or otherwise. And if you look at the language in his comments he doesn't seem to want to bring insulin--or any other factors--into the equation. Which is odd because he's often the king of qualifiers.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on July 07, 2011
at 12:50 AM

He's right. Our insulin SHOULD spike after ingesting a bolus of carbohydrate. Nothing wrong with that. Our bodies make insulin specifically for this reason. Metabolically damaged people's chronically altered insulin-control is a separate and special issue, not the standard.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on July 07, 2011
at 12:47 AM

Spot on. This is just like the common misconception that acute cortisol rises (from, say, intense lifting etc) are innately bad for you and something to be avoided. Wholly wrong. Only chronically raised cortisol, like chronically raised insulin, is a problem. These are hormones that our bodies make and regulate for a reason.

77ecc37f89dbe8f783179323916bd8e6

(5002)

on July 07, 2011
at 12:15 AM

Good clarification - thanks

A727956fa3f943057c4edb08ad9e864e

(4183)

on July 07, 2011
at 12:08 AM

We didn't increase fat in percentage terms, but we did increase it in absolute terms.

98bf2ca7f8778c79cd3f6c962011cfdc

(24286)

on July 06, 2011
at 11:39 PM

My money's on ItstheWoo. It always is.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on July 06, 2011
at 10:29 PM

This is correct. Stephen provided no context and that is why someone is asking. Plus one Todd

4781cf8ae1bfcb558dfb056af17bea94

(4359)

on July 06, 2011
at 10:10 PM

Stephen is right

Aa3a90ba6f6a6d488f28cfcdc4e05627

on July 06, 2011
at 10:00 PM

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/05/liposuction-and-fat-regain.html?showComment=1309801313687#c3727531732230577018 - direct link to comment

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on July 06, 2011
at 09:57 PM

where does Stephan say that?

0dbd7154d909b97fe774d1655754f195

(16131)

on July 06, 2011
at 09:49 PM

I agree with you 2. Seems like the more I read about hormones, the more it looks like acute spikes are healthy - chronic high (and maybe even chronic low) levels are abnormal.

0dbd7154d909b97fe774d1655754f195

(16131)

on July 06, 2011
at 09:48 PM

I agree. ...........

  • 531db50c958cf4d5605ee0c5ae8a57be

    asked by

    (8878)
  • Views
    10.2K
  • Last Activity
    1458D AGO
Frontpage book

Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!

10 Answers

37
77ecc37f89dbe8f783179323916bd8e6

(5002)

on July 06, 2011
at 11:06 PM

This is a great question.

Taubes framed his conclusion as an overall reaction to his immersion in the research. He also frequently notes his tendency to prefer the insights of clinicians, who actually have to treat obese patients, to those of researchers, who often lack direct personal experience with obesity or treating obese patients. So, in a sense, Taubes is speaking with regard to individuals who already have broken metabolic and hormonal function. And these individuals tend to tolerate carbohydrate poorly.

Guyenet - unlike Taubes - admits that he has always been slim and never really had to struggle with encroaching weight gains. So it is a little easier for someone like Guyenet to view the matter from a pure food reward perspective, which implies that removing one source of reward - be it fat or carbohydrate - will have similar effects.

We Paleohackers know - quite intimately - that a low carb diet rich in fat and protein can be very satisfying and enjoyable, once our fat burning pathways have been established. The literature suggests that low fat or calorie restricted diets, on the other hand, are very unsatisfying and unpleasant, and thus represent a less desirable strategy for treating obesity, even if in some strict sense Guyenet's food reward theory is correct.

One problem with both theories is that they are too simplistic and reductive to work as complete or overarching theories of what causes obesity or of what caused the obesity epidemic. That said, we have at least one reason to privilege Taubes here, because the obesity epidemic did not co-occur with a sustained increase in fat consumption, whereas it did co-occur with a sustained increase in carbohydrate consumption. Then again, in Guyenet's defense, there is co-occurrence with low quality forms of both macronutrients: processed carbs like HFCS and white flower, and industrial seed oils.

Taubes' notion that insulin is a fat storage hormone is pretty well established, but he frequently noted that researchers had that part figured out in the 1950s (if I recall correctly), and I don't know where the current literature stands on this. Taubes definitely placed an undue emphasis on insulin, however, as leptin is probably just as important. Since the same dietary protocol controls both, though, this shouldn't matter too much.

I think the basic idea is that - as mentioned by Cliff - chronically elevated insulin is the issue. And processed carbs certainly contribute to this state. When insulin levels are chronically high, we become less able to handle it, which is what insulin insensitivity is. I'd be surprised if Guyenet disagrees with this.

My conclusion from all of this is that for those who are like Guyenet and have healthy metabolisms, fat and carbohydrates can be thought of as equivalent sources of food reward. But for those of us like Taubes (and me) who have struggled with weight gain, and thus probably have broken metabolisms to some extent, we have to pay closer attention to our carbohydrate intake. We cannot deal with the insulin spike properly, which - skipping over a lot of biochemistry - is in part what leads to chronically elevated insulin levels in the first place, as well as the fat storage patterns that Taubes makes central to his explanation.

531db50c958cf4d5605ee0c5ae8a57be

(8878)

on July 07, 2011
at 01:44 AM

Stellar answer.

77ecc37f89dbe8f783179323916bd8e6

(5002)

on July 07, 2011
at 12:15 AM

Good clarification - thanks

A727956fa3f943057c4edb08ad9e864e

(4183)

on July 07, 2011
at 12:08 AM

We didn't increase fat in percentage terms, but we did increase it in absolute terms.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on July 07, 2011
at 05:47 AM

you are describing my approach. A clinician knows how to treat this.....a researcher gets to write about theories. Obesity is a brain disease. Great contribution. Plus one

Aead76beb5fc7b762a6b4ddc234f6051

(15239)

on July 07, 2011
at 02:16 PM

this question and answer is why i love paleohacks the most. i learn more here than anywhere on the interwebs. thank you wjones and eric s.

Af1d286f0fd5c3949f59b4edf4d892f5

(18472)

on July 07, 2011
at 04:05 AM

Bravo Eric. That's a quite a contribution to this thread. Stellar answer indeed.

8949bf87b0e0aefcad10f29975e4fa2b

(8989)

on July 20, 2011
at 09:40 PM

Great answer! Thanks.

27
E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on July 06, 2011
at 09:44 PM

There is a difference between postprandial insulin spikes and chronically elevated insulin. The latter is what causes problems in people.

3c6b4eed18dc57f746755b698426e7c8

(5152)

on July 07, 2011
at 02:48 AM

That's a useful premise and it has been tested since time immemorial: safe starches spike insulin temporarily while gluten-grains and sugar spike insulin for the duration. I've tested this myself and I have t2 diabetes. Yams seem to promote insulin sensitivity by initially spiking BG but dropping it precipitously after an hour; the opposite happens with gluten and sugar. If so, now we know why you do not become diabetics on a high (safe) starch diet but you do on a gluten/sugar and gluten/sugar/safe starch diet. Safe starch diets only protect themselves.

0dbd7154d909b97fe774d1655754f195

(16131)

on July 06, 2011
at 09:49 PM

I agree with you 2. Seems like the more I read about hormones, the more it looks like acute spikes are healthy - chronic high (and maybe even chronic low) levels are abnormal.

531db50c958cf4d5605ee0c5ae8a57be

(8878)

on July 07, 2011
at 01:42 AM

I assumed "postprandial" was the operative word here. Still, Stephan's take on things with regard to his new reward hypothesis seems to exclude insulin completely--chronically high or otherwise. And if you look at the language in his comments he doesn't seem to want to bring insulin--or any other factors--into the equation. Which is odd because he's often the king of qualifiers.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on July 07, 2011
at 12:47 AM

Spot on. This is just like the common misconception that acute cortisol rises (from, say, intense lifting etc) are innately bad for you and something to be avoided. Wholly wrong. Only chronically raised cortisol, like chronically raised insulin, is a problem. These are hormones that our bodies make and regulate for a reason.

1a98a40ba8ffdc5aa28d1324d01c6c9f

(20378)

on November 21, 2011
at 05:34 AM

Nice post Cliff!

23
D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on July 07, 2011
at 03:53 AM

I think there are several good responses already, but I will throw in my 2 cents, maybe even a dime...

I do not view his recent comment regarding post prandial insulin as inconsistent with his past writings. If you look at his series on Chris Voigt and his all potato diet last year - http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2010/12/potato-diet-interpretation.html - he actually started to give us hints regarding the Food Reward theory he has now developed fully.

Additionally, check out this article from 2008 (3 years ago!) - http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/08/cardiovascular-risk-factors-on-kitava_17.html. Here is the money quote -

In my opinion, the most important finding in this paper is that a high-carbohydrate diet does not necessarily lead to elevated fasting insulin. This is why I think the statement "carbohydrate drives insulin drives fat" is an oversimplification. What drives fat accumulation is chronically high insulin (hyperinsulinemia), which the Kitavans do not have. With a properly-functioning pancreas and insulin-sensitive tissues (which many people in industrial societies do not have), a healthy person can eat a high-carbohydrate meal and keep blood glucose under control. Insulin definitely spikes, but it's temporary. The rest of the day, insulin is at basal levels. The Kitavans show that insulin spikes per se do not cause hyperinsulinemia.


Additionally, let's look at the Oracle of high fat in his potato post, Peter from Hyperlipid - http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/search/label/Potatoes%20and%20weight%20loss%20%281%29.

The key paragraphs -

The ultimate determinant of weight loss is fasting insulin. This determines how much lipolysis occurs during the period before the next meal. No one expects to lose weight during the 4 hours immediately after any meal. The following 8 hours, especially overnight, is when weight loss occurs. Post absorptively, without dietary glucose input, there is no stimulus for anything other than basal insulin secretion. Fasting insulin will be low because muscles are insulin sensitive so relatively little insulin is needed for glucose uptake. As fasting insulin levels drop lipolysis will restart. Free fatty acids will feed back to the liver to cause some degree of hepatic insulin resistance, decrease first pass metabolism and stop too profound an hypoinsulinaemia occurring. But fat loss will happen. So you have to ask whether an almost all potato diet genuinely leads low fasting insulin and subsequent weight loss. For my perspective the answer is yes. The precedent for this has to the Kitavans with fasting insulin levels of 4.0microIU/ml.


Finally, my go-to guy, Dr Kurt Harris in his most amazing Paleo 2.0 post that many here have read (repeatedly I'm sure) - http://www.archevore.com/panu-weblog/2011/3/30/paleo-20-a-diet-manifesto.html

In my own intellectual evolution, I have expanded and modified the carbohydrate hypothesis of the nutritional transition, as proposed by Gary Taubes, to one that does not indict a whole class of macronutrients.


Good Calories Bad Calories was a seminal book. It showed 50+ years of bad science and the arguable deception that led to the development and promotion of the Lipid and Diet-Heart Hypotheses. The vilification of saturated fat to me was demolished by the book. This does not make everything in the book correct, nor does an incorrect hypothesis that perhaps now is being challenged, bring into question the entire book.

77ecc37f89dbe8f783179323916bd8e6

(5002)

on July 07, 2011
at 04:01 AM

Awesome comment - good work in digging up the relevant quotes, I think the issues are much clearer now.

Af1d286f0fd5c3949f59b4edf4d892f5

(18472)

on July 07, 2011
at 04:11 AM

way to dig up some very apropos gems here Aravind. That one by Stephan from 2008 has claws.

Cab7e4ef73c5d7d7a77e1c3d7f5773a1

(7304)

on July 08, 2011
at 04:40 PM

Ding ding ding we have a winner.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on July 07, 2011
at 12:29 PM

well posted. i totally agree. Too many of us, authors included, have a real problem in trying to understand the difference between acute elevations in a hormone and chronic elevations in that hormone.

Af1d286f0fd5c3949f59b4edf4d892f5

(18472)

on July 07, 2011
at 04:13 AM

wow i guess i should learn to refresh the page before posting a comment after reading a whole page of answers. I basically said the same thing Eric said.

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on July 07, 2011
at 04:16 AM

@Jack - it's my fault for writing a page rather than a brief paragraph. Brevity might be the soul of wit, but I never cared for Bill Shakespeare anyway

3c6b4eed18dc57f746755b698426e7c8

(5152)

on July 07, 2011
at 04:20 AM

Those are great quotes and I've actually experimented and seen that they're true. Safe starches may initially spike your insulin but also seem to enhance insulin sensitivity aftre the spike. On a yam-heavy diet, I'm seeing that my fasting falls to the low 90s while my 2h postprandial is in the low 90s also. I never thought this was possible, since an equivalent amount of carbs from gluten grains or sugar will not bring your PP or FBG down. There's something else going on and Stephan seems to be on the ball uncovering the new paradigm.

19
50637dfd7dc7a7e811d82283f4f5fd10

(5838)

on July 06, 2011
at 09:38 PM

I could be way off, but I'm gonna go with one of my favorite words - "context"

In a metabolically sound person, perhaps the insulin spike isn't such a bad thing. In my basic knowlege, I think it blunts cortisol and stimulates growth. Where the catch is, so to speak, is that very few people seem to be metabollically sound, thus, it get's more of a bad rap than it should, do to context?

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on July 07, 2011
at 05:11 AM

inthewoo over on that thread in the comment section has to be an Amgen patient in the synthetic leptin trial. And her comments show a big time command of leptin function. She is so spot on its not funny. I think this is where clinical medicine roundly trumps benchtop theories.

531db50c958cf4d5605ee0c5ae8a57be

(8878)

on July 07, 2011
at 01:44 AM

Good point Todd.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on July 06, 2011
at 10:29 PM

This is correct. Stephen provided no context and that is why someone is asking. Plus one Todd

0dbd7154d909b97fe774d1655754f195

(16131)

on July 06, 2011
at 09:48 PM

I agree. ...........

1ac8e976f84cb2566ecfbbcce1817351

(211)

on July 07, 2011
at 07:40 PM

I'm interested in understanding what a metabolically sound person is? Take me for example: I was metabolically deranged/obese for about 9 years and have been somewhat healthy for a few years after that and much fitter (Paleo for over a year). I feel I tend to gain weight much easier than others. I've heard of some say (Kurt Harris, Matt Lalonde, Chris Kresser) that some may stay glucose intolerant for a long time (maybe for the rest of their lives) even after going Paleo/insulin sensitive

Af1d286f0fd5c3949f59b4edf4d892f5

(18472)

on July 07, 2011
at 03:54 PM

Doc - do you mean itsthewooo2? If yes, I am sick of her. She is out of control over there and needs to chillax, as Kamal would say.

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on July 08, 2011
at 12:45 AM

@Jack - Stephan is unbelievably tolerant and patient. Irrespective of the potentially validity of the comments being made by Woo2, I would have been dropping c-bombs by now given her a swift kick in the arse.

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on July 08, 2011
at 12:45 AM

@Jack - Stephan is unbelievably tolerant and patient. Irrespective of the potentially validity of the comments being made by Woo2, I would have been dropping c-bombs by now and given her a swift kick in the arse

50637dfd7dc7a7e811d82283f4f5fd10

(5838)

on July 07, 2011
at 08:04 PM

I'm also interested @henrydrn. I think being able to test / figure out will be a useful tool for both individuals and for healthcare providers.

8949bf87b0e0aefcad10f29975e4fa2b

(8989)

on July 20, 2011
at 09:42 PM

Based on the way I read it, Stephan is very condescending to inthewoo's anecdote, since her data conflicts with his wonderful theory.

3864f9a2af09b1b447c7963058650a34

(3703)

on September 12, 2011
at 03:50 AM

The outliers are the most intersting... unfortunately as a whole we're are so damaged now that instead of minor contributions, the outliers are the WHOLE BELL SHAPED CURVE *haa!*

12
9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on July 07, 2011
at 03:19 PM

Here is what Chris Masterjohn told me:

Here's the problem with the "insulin theory" of obesity promoted by the low-carb people, however. There's a very simple but definitive disproof of the idea that even elevated fasting insulin promotes obesity by inhibiting the release of fat from adipose tissue. Obese people have higher free fatty acids than other people. This shows that insulin is not doing its job in adipose tissue because it is not sufficiently suppressing lipolysis. Of course, one could argue that the increased free fatty acids are not because of insulin resistance in adipose tissue but because there is just much more adipose tissue that can release free fatty acids -- even though we know that adipose tissue becomes insulin resistant in obesity -- but this is irrelevant for the following reason: the influx of free fatty acids into the liver exceeds what can be burned at any given moment, so the liver turns them back into triglycerides. This causes fatty liver and elevated blood triglycerides. The greater the relative deficiency of choline, the more this will lead to fatty liver instead of increased blood triglycerides.

In short, the bottleneck is not at the level of adipose lypolysis, but at the level of fatty acid oxidation in the liver.

Why does fatty acid oxidation shut down in the liver? Because the liver is suffering from energy overload. This is not necessarily excess calories, but could also be deficient nutrients or deficient oxygen or deficient exercise or deficient thyroid hormone or some other factor needed for energy metabolism. In any case, it's too many calories relative to the capacity to burn them.

Part of the increase in blood triglycerides, however, is due to the other part of insulin resistance in adipose tissue -- adipose tissue becomes ineffective at clearing the triglycerides from the blood.

Thus there is NOT ENOUGH insulin signaling to effectively promote adequate fat storage. That is one of the primary reasons for all of the metabolic abnormalities associated with obesity -- increased free fatty acids, fatty liver, and increased blood triglycerides, and, the big one, abnormal glucose metabolism.

This is a homeostatic response of adipose tissue because the energy it needs to store exceeds its capacity for storage. Deficient oxygen supply to adipose tissue probably plays a role in this. It's not just excess calories, but deficient capacity to handle the calories.

But the idea that the adipose tissue accumulates fat because there is so much insulin around is, in my opinion, just plain backwards. Adipose tissue stops responding to insulin because it can't handle any more fat storage.

@Eric S

I think I brought too many factors into such a brief explanation. Sticking to adipose lipolysis, if the adipose tissue were to release more free fatty acids, they would generate more triglycerides, because the liver's capacity to deal with all this energy is already overloaded. You can show this, for example, by giving obese people heparin.

Now, this is not to say that there is no role for insulin. For example, I have not made any case that insulin has nothing to do with the bottleneck at the liver. But it's quite clear from the selectivity of insulin resistance in the liver that the cause of it is not too much insulin. It is a highly controlled process by the liver to change its own sensitivity to some insulin pathways and not others. Specifically, it stops suppressing glucose output in response to insulin but continues to suppress triglyceride output. Thus, all energy is flowing out, an obvious adaptive response to energy overload. This response almost certainly occurs prior to elevated systemic levels of insulin. The pancreas begins secreting more insulin precisely because the liver won't stop releasing glucose (and won't take up as much). Extra insulin is required to maintain a normal level of blood sugar. Since the liver keeps secreting triglycerides in response to insulin, blood triglycerides increase.

There's some evidence -- it is not definitive, but it's intriguing -- that these triglycerides block leptin passage across the blood brain barrier and thus contribute to the "starvation despite abundance" phenotype. This would provide a rationale for temporary carbohydrate, especially fructose, restriction in order to normalize leptin sensitivity.

Thus, carbs and insulin are involved, but the high insulin is not causing a bottleneck at the point of adipose lipolysis, and it is the result, not the cause, of insulin resistance at the level of the liver.

@aravind

I agree with you that they are two different processes, but I was trying to assess what the relevance is for obesity. Yes, insulin promotes fat storage at adipose tissue. It also promotes satiety in the brain, muscular hypertrophy in skeletal muscle, synthesis of lipids for the rest of the body in the liver, glucose uptake in many tissues, and plays a role in the leptin-thyroid axis communicating abundance and the consequent growth and sexual reproduction that should result. Promoting fat storage at adipose tissue is a very good thing under normal physiological conditions because it allows us to regulate our energy intake and expenditure and it is required for leptin signaling. I was simply addressing whether people get fat because insulin is suppressing the release of fatty acids from adipose tissue, and I don't think this is the case because the evidence indicates that this is not where the fat-burning bottleneck is taking place in obesity.

@arlokk

I'm not sure I understand what you're not convinced by, but eventually I'll write a referenced blog post on this, as I'm not really prepared to convince anyone of anything right now anyway. But I don't think your theory makes much physiological sense -- although it's true that insulin decreases blood sugar by stimulating GLUT4 migration to the cell surface in muscle (which is involved in promoting glucose uptake), tracer studies indicate that a very centrally important way it decreases blood sugar is by suppressing the release of free fatty acids from adipose tissue. Elevated free fatty acids will decrease glucose uptake.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on July 07, 2011
at 04:21 PM

I think Taubes just conflated symptom with cause. I agree with him that the cause isn't fat per se, but the cause isn't carbs per se either.

531db50c958cf4d5605ee0c5ae8a57be

(8878)

on July 07, 2011
at 04:12 PM

Ok so inability to clear leads to downstream liver effects. This all makes more sense after a couple reads. Now I'm trying to reconcile all this with Taubes. And I'm having my fair share of problems.

531db50c958cf4d5605ee0c5ae8a57be

(8878)

on July 07, 2011
at 03:35 PM

[shudders in horror at this prospect]

A727956fa3f943057c4edb08ad9e864e

(4183)

on July 08, 2011
at 01:16 PM

http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/2011/05/fasting-insulin-and-weight-loss-on.html THANKS for any feedback, these are the last three reasons I think insulin is important. Plus I'm doing my thesis at the moment and I keep reading the sentence 'insulin's trophic effect on fat cells' Appreciate your consideration. Thanks!

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on July 07, 2011
at 03:38 PM

and they can cause metabolic abnormalities, but the insulin didn't cause the metabolic abnormalities, it just exacerbates them from what I understand.

77ecc37f89dbe8f783179323916bd8e6

(5002)

on July 07, 2011
at 09:24 PM

Okay, after some thought, I have a Q: Taubes' hypothesis is about high insulin levels making it less likely for adipose tissue to release fatty acids as energy, requiring more consumption for energy & nutrients, and hence more weight gains as adipose tissue space expands (a slower process). CM is explaining a limit to this expansion. GT is hypothesizing transfers in the other direction, though. If adipose tissue can't take in more fatty acids, it says nothing about how 'greedy' they are with their current holdings. So aren't they talking about different things?

62f89aa727cf3ce77c36651347cabc14

(884)

on July 08, 2011
at 01:15 AM

@Eric - The signal from insulin to take up these free fats may be getting through, but the cell is unable to accomodate more. The signal to be greedy has no such physical constraint. Insulin may also prioritize carbohydrate uptake (lowering blood sugar), leading to higher free fatty acid levels in the obese. Chris is unconvincing on this point.

Af1d286f0fd5c3949f59b4edf4d892f5

(18472)

on July 07, 2011
at 03:50 PM

leveraging clout. good stuff Meliss.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on July 07, 2011
at 03:37 PM

def not a coincidence, they have to do with the bottleneck at the liver.

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on July 08, 2011
at 03:03 PM

@Chris via Melissa - thanks for the response. I agree with what you've written. This just wasn't clear in the original post. Thanks for taking the time to clarify

A727956fa3f943057c4edb08ad9e864e

(4183)

on July 08, 2011
at 01:12 PM

I have a few questions for Chris on insulin: 1. If insulin is not one of the primary drivers of fat storage, how come injecting insulin into type 1 diabetics allow them to gain weight and restriction of insulin causes them to lose weight? 2. Why does a reduction in fasting insulin correlate with reduction in fat mass? Do we have any examples of fat people with low fasting insulin? 3. Can he address the study recently posted by Peter regarding obese people with higher metabolisms losing less weight on a fast than their thinner counterparts:cont'd

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on July 08, 2011
at 05:07 PM

hehe I changed it, he doesn't like the nyan cat...

77ecc37f89dbe8f783179323916bd8e6

(5002)

on July 07, 2011
at 06:58 PM

Chris who? (jk)

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on July 07, 2011
at 11:51 PM

@Eric - I'm a big fan of Chris so I am reluctant to make the following comment....regarding the last paragraph of Melissa's post - the process of fat storage vis-a-vis insulin action vs. eventual pathological (peripheral) insulin resistance are two different issues. He is far more versed in the biochem than me, so I post this with the utmost of respect, but my visceral reaction is disagreement. I am not supporting the Taubesian overly simplified view either.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on July 08, 2011
at 05:06 PM

lol guess he never noticed that...

47a42b6be94caf700fce9509e38bb6a4

(9647)

on July 08, 2011
at 05:53 PM

Cruel and unusual punishment ....

531db50c958cf4d5605ee0c5ae8a57be

(8878)

on July 07, 2011
at 03:34 PM

So the higher insulin levels in obese, insulin-resistant individuals--both fasting and post-prandial--are just a coincidence? I'm trying to understand why/how the adipose tissue gets to this point where, it seems, it's "saturated" with fatty acids, such that the uptake of free fatty acids in the blood is inhibited. Also--so both Chris and Stephan are saying that Taubes' view of things is wrong, backwards, and/or oversimplified?

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on July 07, 2011
at 11:50 PM

@Eric - I'm a big fan of Chris so I am reluctant to make the following comment....the process of fat storage vis-a-vis insulin action vs. eventual pathological (peripheral) insulin resistance are two different issues. He is far more versed in the biochem than me, so I post this with the utmost of respect, but my visceral reaction is disagreement. I am not supporting the Taubesian overly simplified view either.

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on July 08, 2011
at 12:03 AM

@Eric - I'm a big fan of Chris so I am reluctant to make the following comment....regarding the last paragraph of Melissa's post - the process of fat storage vis-a-vis insulin action vs. eventual pathological (peripheral) insulin resistance are two different issues. He is far more versed in the biochem than me, so I post this with the utmost of respect, but this is my visceral reaction. I am not supporting the Taubesian overly simplified view either

47a42b6be94caf700fce9509e38bb6a4

(9647)

on July 08, 2011
at 04:40 PM

Let's get more activity from Chris on PH. He already has a user page: http://paleohacks.com/users/3554 According to his profile he's "the best"; I suspect someone else had something to do with this ....

80890193d74240cab6dda920665bfb6c

(1528)

on March 13, 2012
at 02:04 AM

Textbook of Medical Biochemistry, Chatterjee, 2007, p.437 "3. Lipid Metabolism: Insulin, by promoting the HMP shunt pathway in the adipose tissue as well as liver, provides NADPH required for the reductive synthesis of fatty acids and thus promotes lipogenesis. . .In the adipose tissue, insulin increases the synthesis of fatty acids, resulting in an increase of in the fat content. Another effect of insulin on lipid metabolism is its inhibitory action on lipolysis. Lipolysis is depressed by insulin, by maintaining diminished levels of cyclic AMP..." Read it & weep, dudes. This is basic stuff.

7
A727956fa3f943057c4edb08ad9e864e

on July 07, 2011
at 12:17 AM

I think Stephan is correct, most of us did not get fat by eating plain rice or potato, we got fat eating very palatable rewarding combinations of fat and carbohydrate. I also think that he is correct in saying that a low carb diet for a lean person is not as good as one that includes some starch.

As a person who lost their weight with a low carb diet this was a difficult realisation for me, and it took a while to change my mindset on carbs, it was accelerated when I noticed that my low level depression was ameliorated when I added some starch to my diet (hat tip to Robb Wolf for making me discover this by mentioning it on his podcast)

However, I know Stephan's plan to eat unrewarding food doesn't provide a better solution than a low carb or low fat. I tried it for a couple days, he says it takes some willpower, well it takes more than I have, it induces great feeling of deprivation in me.

I think any good plan will reduce food reward by distracting you from the fact that you are reducing food reward, in that instance, the 'story' of insulin being a bogeyman is probably helpful.

531db50c958cf4d5605ee0c5ae8a57be

(8878)

on July 07, 2011
at 01:47 AM

Stephan's latest hypothetical framework is as fascinating to me theoretically as it is useless in its application.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on July 07, 2011
at 03:44 AM

plus one Wjones

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on July 08, 2011
at 04:16 PM

What about those who don't get fat and actually lose fat mass eating a highly rewarding combination of starch and fat? Mmm 1500 calorie breakfast of potatoes, olive oil and lamb here I come. Ooh and salt so I don't eat too little. Yummy.

8949bf87b0e0aefcad10f29975e4fa2b

(8989)

on July 20, 2011
at 09:45 PM

+1 but my anecdote refutes it completely

5
Df6dabaf4b1ef3d5db980ad64c501a5b

on March 13, 2012
at 02:58 AM

I personally buy into the food reward theory, as I've lost weight both while eating lots of carbs with extra sugar (vegetarian on Shangri-la Diet) and while eating few carbs with no sugar (VLC Paleo) but never saw changes in abdominal fat come as fast as when I recently began experimenting with low-reward starches.

I absolutely accept that insulin is a major factor for folks who are diabetic, or borderline diabetic, but I just can't reconcile my experience with thinking that it's the major factor for most people.

I think a big reason that the carbohydrate/insulin hypothesis (and the fructose panic) have a certain narrative power is because carbohydrate consumption has been a reasonable proxy for tracking consumption of processed foods in recent decades, and therefore a good proxy for higher food reward diets.

I do think that Taubes did a great service in writing GCBC and communicating the idea that the popular thinking about consumption and weight is deeply flawed. The really great part of his work is that he got the big idea right: that it's no more rational to blame fat people for storing fat than it is to blame teenagers for growing too damn fast. Growth is controlled by hormones.

I think the majority of the paleo community can agree that managing weight loss comes down to finding ways to manipulate our hormonal systems. The low food reward hypothesis is easy to test, and the proof will be in the bland, tasteless pudding. We'll all be able to see the results of a few weeks and months of low-reward experiments in those willing to try them soon enough.

-4
E0250b1e6dc5ec1539ffb745042b4d80

(3651)

on March 12, 2012
at 08:55 PM

I missed this topic when it was new, but since it was bumped, I took a look. This caught my eye-

"...Guyenet - unlike Taubes - admits that he has always been slim and never really had to struggle with encroaching weight gains. So it is a little easier for someone like Guyenet to view the matter from a pure food reward perspective, which implies that removing one source of reward - be it fat or carbohydrate - will have similar effects..."

Now I know why long ago I stopped believing thin people that think they know what it's like and how it happened! It's like listening to a tall person explain how they got tall.

(I know, 25 people will down click this one because they feel offended, but it had to be said.)

E0250b1e6dc5ec1539ffb745042b4d80

(3651)

on March 13, 2012
at 02:41 PM

Don't get in over your head Miss Thought Police. You have a lot to learn yourself, and stop making assumptions about why I comment. I didn't like FR when I read about FR. I didn't go looking for the physical attributes of the author. It just happened to catch my eye when someone else bumped this question. You messed up and thought it was me bumping it too. I don't know if you are some kind of mod here but you suck at it and need to stop. :)

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on March 12, 2012
at 09:39 PM

I'm sorry, but this is not how science works. Are only people who had brain cancer allowed to research brain cancer? Science is about carefully parsing through data, not about anecdotes like yours.

5a506bcfafe352e8fe11ebac285aa3e4

on March 12, 2012
at 11:57 PM

Then maybe you should stop judging Stephan.

E0250b1e6dc5ec1539ffb745042b4d80

(3651)

on March 13, 2012
at 09:02 AM

Hey, no need to get all preachy just because you didn't know what an ad hom is! Forgive me for reacting. I was framed! I didn't bump the question to "say the same things over again." I opened the page and there it was, begging for a comment. I know, it was a setup...

E0250b1e6dc5ec1539ffb745042b4d80

(3651)

on March 13, 2012
at 12:19 AM

He hasn't been obese and been through it himself. That is a fact, not a judgmental thing. :)

Medium avatar

(39821)

on March 12, 2012
at 09:36 PM

It seems unreasonable to fully discount all knowledge contained by the never-obese. A personal experience of a disease is not required for an understanding of that disease. Should we avoid cardiologists who have never had heart disease?

0df0b1c6ae16bbb75b4a5efa3d876765

(2240)

on March 13, 2012
at 07:55 AM

"Are you the thought police now?" What a grossly hypocritical thing to ask, considering the endless armchair "Logic 101" lessons you keep tossing around. This is PaleoHacks, not PhilosophyHacks! Oh wait, you're from Memphis? Hmmm...my uncle was from Memphis and he was a real know-it-all bastard. Well, I guess that might explain it then :) But seriously, lighten up a bit in here. Some of your comments are actually helpful and/or entertaining. No need to start an argument with every topic. Be careful with the defamatory language and illegal medical advice, though. Hate to see you get banned.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on March 12, 2012
at 09:44 PM

Also, please stop resurrecting old topics so you can say the same thing over and over again.

0df0b1c6ae16bbb75b4a5efa3d876765

(2240)

on March 13, 2012
at 10:04 AM

LOL I do know what ad hom is, that's the thing. I did in fact minor in philosophy in college. These comments under answers are okay for talking back and forth with one another (just browse any topic and you'll see that's what everyone does), so I just thought it was a bit hypocritical on your part to act like we're not supposed to be addressing each other in here. I could say "ad hom" about you calling me preachy, for instance. Kinda pointless to do that though.

E0250b1e6dc5ec1539ffb745042b4d80

(3651)

on March 14, 2012
at 12:32 AM

Sheesh. I think you are the last one that's upset. Time to move on...

E0250b1e6dc5ec1539ffb745042b4d80

(3651)

on March 12, 2012
at 09:52 PM

Are you the thought police now? You don't speak for science.

0df0b1c6ae16bbb75b4a5efa3d876765

(2240)

on March 13, 2012
at 11:44 PM

respond with "you have a lot to learn" and "don't know if you are some kind of mod here but you suck at it and need to stop".

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on March 13, 2012
at 02:02 PM

WTF you are the king of ad homs DFH, considering you are arguing that Stephan's views are invalid because of some personal characteristic he doesn't possess (having been fat).

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19245)

on March 14, 2012
at 10:21 AM

http://xkcd.com/386/

0df0b1c6ae16bbb75b4a5efa3d876765

(2240)

on March 13, 2012
at 10:10 AM

Anyhow, again I'll maintain that I think you can be a valuable contributor to PH at times, so I'm asking you kindly to help us all keep things respectful around here. I can't speak for anyone else, but I'll continue the effort to do the same myself. Sometimes we all get rubbed the wrong way by some folks, but we're all human nonetheless. Hack on my friend.

E0250b1e6dc5ec1539ffb745042b4d80

(3651)

on March 12, 2012
at 09:57 PM

Travis- My aunt who was part native American used to have a plate on her wall that said "Never judge another person until you have walked in their moccasins."

0df0b1c6ae16bbb75b4a5efa3d876765

(2240)

on March 13, 2012
at 11:48 PM

And so you know it doesn't make a difference to me, I come across all kinds of a-holes every day on forums, but I won't just sit by without saying anything while you or anyone else spouts off on someone like that.

E0250b1e6dc5ec1539ffb745042b4d80

(3651)

on March 13, 2012
at 10:32 AM

No worries, all agreed. Ad Homs can be confusing. It means arguing the person. It is not the same as referring TO someone or calling someone names. They can also be true, but it's the wrong approach. "I can't read Taubes because he still has a bit of a belly, so..." That's ad hom, arguing a physical attribute rather than his writing. "SG has no idea what obesity is like." True. Not ad hom by itself, but borderline if the context is something else. When I started reading PH I noticed that ad hom management has been lax, and even star members do it quite a bit, usually aimed at Moore.

0df0b1c6ae16bbb75b4a5efa3d876765

(2240)

on March 13, 2012
at 11:05 PM

How completely rude and disrespectful. You are out of line DFH. Remember this? "I'm asking you kindly to help us all keep things respectful around here." You just don't get it.

0df0b1c6ae16bbb75b4a5efa3d876765

(2240)

on March 13, 2012
at 11:43 PM

Well, Melissa IS a mod on PH (see that little black Diamond next to her name?) and regardless of how one chooses to interpret text chat in an internet forum (here we are, yet again) it's still a good idea to at least be respectful and minimally polite when interacting with mods in general. Whether you are the first one to resurrect the topic or not is irrelevant. You just HAD to say the same thing you keep saying about SG on all the other posts about him and FR, that he's never been fat and insults you with his research. She made a comment, you didn't like it, but there was no need to...

E0250b1e6dc5ec1539ffb745042b4d80

(3651)

on March 13, 2012
at 11:33 PM

The stuff about me being accused of bumping this thread to make a negative comment was too, and I don't take crap from people. I'm not the king of ad homs either. It seems I'm the only one that bothered to look up the definition! Let's just play nice and not make shots like that and we will all be happy in the cave!

-10
54d1f19dd9f07338881dfa98e6530ad5

on July 06, 2011
at 10:28 PM

The fat storage hormone is you. If you chose to store fat with negativity - then it will be there. If you chose to eat something that is harmful to your body, then it will do harm. If you chose to eat something well then you are moving in the right direction. Fat storage does not change on the outside unless there is change from within.

07154e6d8e42065f230d06249700fe5b

(2057)

on July 07, 2011
at 02:08 AM

... I lolled...

89e238284ccb95b439edcff9e123671e

(10299)

on July 07, 2011
at 03:32 PM

Can Patrick invent 'sidevoting' or something, because I don't want to upvote nor downvote this comment.

Aead76beb5fc7b762a6b4ddc234f6051

(15239)

on July 07, 2011
at 02:46 PM

this "personal responsibility" thing has gone too far. im going to choose to store some fat with a sassy smile and a wink.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on July 07, 2011
at 03:21 PM

this is the greatest comment ever on paleohacks.

7d0c3ea9bf8be00b93e6433d8f125ac3

(7540)

on July 08, 2011
at 06:50 PM

can't downvote, laughing too hard. can't upvote, the comment makes no sense. what to do?

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on July 08, 2011
at 04:18 PM

If this was veganhacks this comment would be the highest rated.

A968087cc1dd66d480749c02e4619ef4

(20436)

on July 07, 2011
at 01:49 PM

How many psychologists does it take to change a lightbulb? Only one. But it takes a long time. And the lightbulb has to want to change.

E34fbfa1bca9ae970c9c7313bf9de9f8

(1436)

on July 08, 2011
at 02:28 PM

Bring on the Woo

537001f30670e73eb0ac45779af649a5

on March 12, 2012
at 09:50 PM

i upvoted cause luke green is tom greens brother

-14
77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on July 07, 2011
at 02:56 AM

no need to ask even: Carbsane at the "http://carbsanity.blogspot.com/" had proven that Taubes was dumb, evil and selfish long time ago

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on July 07, 2011
at 12:29 PM

holy smokes. way to not answer the question and be not-nice at the same time

A968087cc1dd66d480749c02e4619ef4

(20436)

on July 07, 2011
at 02:37 PM

Carbsane's whiny nitpicking of GCBC prove's nothing about Taube's character.

Aead76beb5fc7b762a6b4ddc234f6051

(15239)

on July 07, 2011
at 02:44 PM

being "dumb, evil and selfish" is not something someone "proves" but rather something someone barfs out on the interwebs in order to get a reaction. i dont know who this "carbsane" person is, but name calling immediately discredits someone in my view.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on July 07, 2011
at 04:14 AM

oh, don't apologize - i don't mind being downvoted at all))) but what else had Carbsane proven if not that Taubes was scientifically illiterate, dishonest and mercantile (="Taub$")))?

98bf2ca7f8778c79cd3f6c962011cfdc

(24286)

on July 07, 2011
at 04:03 AM

Sorry gotta down vote you for that comment. Carbsane has proven Taubes dumb, evil and selfish? Really??

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on July 08, 2011
at 02:34 PM

I like the gossip part of her blog :P

531db50c958cf4d5605ee0c5ae8a57be

(8878)

on July 07, 2011
at 04:14 PM

I refrained from downvoting because I assumed the answer was sarcasm. I've tried to read Carbsane's block and I find it completely unreadable.

Aead76beb5fc7b762a6b4ddc234f6051

(15239)

on July 07, 2011
at 04:19 PM

i didnt downvote because the poster was just reiterating what someone else apparently said. if the poster his/herself said it, they would get my downvote. i dont downvote just for disagreeing with someone. its not a very good direct answer to the question though, which is hopefully why this person has so many downvotes...sigh. im off to get a life now....

Answer Question


Get FREE instant access to our
Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!