4

votes

Are there any other benefits to keeping insulin low?

Answered on August 19, 2014
Created August 01, 2012 at 6:44 PM

In my opinion I think it is very well established that insulin doesn't necessarily cause fat gain, at least in my case it doesn't. However, I was wondering if there are any other benefits to keeping insulin low throughout the day, and consuming the majority of my carbs post workout. Better skin, mood, teeth?

John Berardi also states many times that elevated insulin in the presence of fat elevates "blood fat" levels. Paul Jaminet, in his book, states that saturated fat is benign in the presence of low insulin, and that elevated insulin levels are bad for infections and longevity. However, in this study http://phys.org/news203180020.html, researchers found that insulin reduced several inflammatory pathways induced by bacterial infections.

If insulin is beneficial for bacterial infections and doesn't necessarily cause weight gain, what other reasons are there for keeping it low?

C45d7e96acd83d3a6f58193dbc140e86

on August 03, 2012
at 01:29 PM

I am not advocating VLC, but for the majority of inactive people, the amount of carbs, 6-11 servings of grains per day is way too much.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on August 03, 2012
at 12:39 PM

This guy is flogging a diet but he raises some pretty strong points against LC. http://www.fitcommerce.com/Blueprint/Page.aspx?cid=1719&pageId=1033&portalId=2&review=-1&rrefid=1719 I don't have a problem with it short term for obesity control, but even Atkins calls off strict LC after the induction phase. Downside effects like gout, and even kidney stones, take years to manifest. But gut damage from constipation starts on day one.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on August 03, 2012
at 12:32 PM

True enough raisefitness, but is there any evidence that glycation end products lower longevity? Jack Lalanne and the centenarian smokers would argue against it. Whereas I experienced one of the nasty byproducts of high fat & protein diet - kidney stones - before I was 30. LC dieters need to take a broader view on what that diet does than just reduce glycation.

C45d7e96acd83d3a6f58193dbc140e86

on August 03, 2012
at 01:37 AM

Jack Lalanne's N=1 experiment doesn't prove much as there are actually centurians that smoke cigarettes, but no one is arguing that smoking will make you live longer.

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on August 02, 2012
at 04:35 PM

I was trying to say if someone has type 1 diabetes, since this involves significant beta cell damage, they may benefit from essentially giving their pancreas a break by reducing their consumption of insulin secretion promoting foods. I don't think insulin resistant people should necessarily do the same.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on August 02, 2012
at 04:32 PM

To Jack's diet I add a lot more meat to make his partially paleo approach perfect.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on August 02, 2012
at 04:29 PM

Maybe this will provide some balance, since glycation is a buzz word in the LC community. http://m.diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/56/7/1913.long It looks like the surrogate test for glycation is A1C, and therefore you could measure reduced glycation by lowering A1C. I still don't see how this is related to waste products, but whatever Jack Lalanne did to live to a healthy 96 years is my model. Lots of exercise and a high carb diet.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on August 02, 2012
at 04:22 PM

Only that what you said about lowering carbs and protein was in direct contradiction to my recent blood tests showing low TG's and insulin resistance. These results indicate that RAISING carbs and protein would be a good idea. At any rate it suggests that if other factors are in play - such as daily exercise - that tweaking macros may not significantly change insulin sensitivity.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on August 02, 2012
at 04:08 PM

What waste products? We usually waste materials we can't digest, not the ones we can. The direct products from fat and carb digestion are the triglycerides sorbed in the lower gut and the glucose sorbed earlier on. Once in the body metabolism results in waste water and carbon dioxide from both. In digestion, I would expect the slower digesting fats and indigestible fiber to generate fecal matter, with carbohydrates contributing the most. But what difference does that make, if the indigestible fat residues are more harmful (seared or charred fat carcinogens for instance) than the plant fiber?

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on August 02, 2012
at 04:05 PM

My explanation is that I don't think insulin resistance and high trigs are caused by carbs or protein. Did I write something that made you think I did?

C45d7e96acd83d3a6f58193dbc140e86

on August 02, 2012
at 12:26 PM

Because fat does not lead to glycation. And saturated fat, in particular, is very difficult to oxidize. It burns cleaner in the body with less waste products.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on August 02, 2012
at 12:17 PM

What makes fat a cleaner burning fuel than carbs? It has higher energy density and a different metabolic pathway, but in terms of % energy released in metabolism and % indigestibles could you share a study that compares them?

Medium avatar

(10611)

on August 02, 2012
at 12:10 PM

My insulin resistance and TG's are both extremely low despite eating a high carb and protein diet. Any explanation?

Medium avatar

(10611)

on August 02, 2012
at 12:07 PM

I've had my insulin resistance measured for the last two years, but I've never had a test for insulin itself. Have you?

1407bd6152d9fdbc239250385159fea1

on August 01, 2012
at 11:32 PM

It's an expression often used to describe the "stoke your metabolism" diet coined by bodybuilders of old. I'm not speaking to actual bird physiology; cool your jets.

742ff8ba4ff55e84593ede14ac1c3cab

(3536)

on August 01, 2012
at 10:00 PM

Nice. This is just what I was looking for.

Dfeb3c1ef269c5dc03154d1689c14373

(716)

on August 01, 2012
at 08:38 PM

I find comments like "10 meals a day in bird-like fashion and have the system working constantly" very interesting. Specifically because it shows you how little people know about certain aspects of the suggestions they make. Birds, for example, have extraordinarily high metabolisms and that is the reasoning behind their constant stream of eating. Their whole existence is based on eating, pretty much.

742ff8ba4ff55e84593ede14ac1c3cab

(3536)

on August 01, 2012
at 06:59 PM

Yeah I am referring more to 2-4 pulsated doses.

  • 742ff8ba4ff55e84593ede14ac1c3cab

    asked by

    (3536)
  • Views
    3.1K
  • Last Activity
    1428D AGO
Frontpage book

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

3 Answers

best answer

5
A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on August 01, 2012
at 07:35 PM

My answer is not really an answer to your question, so sorry about that. It's more of a counter argument against demonizing insulin, especially since:

Insulin reduces high blood sugar levels.

Insulin increases the production of glyoxalase-1, which detoxifies methylglyoxal.

Insulin is an anabolic hormone and inhibits muscle protein breakdown.

Insulin decreases appetite.

Attempting lowering blood insulin levels by increasing insulin sensitivity is probably a good idea. Attempting to lower blood insulin levels via restriction of carbs and maybe protein if you have diabetes, particularly type 1 is also probably a good idea. And I think lowering blood insulin by cutting back on crappy food like refined grains and sugar is also good idea, though not because it lowers insulin, but because those foods are crappy.

But trying to lower blood insulin levels beyond that? Don't expect good things to happen. Insulin, irrespective of healthy food choices, is not bad. It has important functions in the body and I don't think your average person should try to lower it unless they're doing so inadvertently by eating healthier.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on August 02, 2012
at 12:10 PM

My insulin resistance and TG's are both extremely low despite eating a high carb and protein diet. Any explanation?

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on August 02, 2012
at 04:05 PM

My explanation is that I don't think insulin resistance and high trigs are caused by carbs or protein. Did I write something that made you think I did?

742ff8ba4ff55e84593ede14ac1c3cab

(3536)

on August 01, 2012
at 10:00 PM

Nice. This is just what I was looking for.

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on August 02, 2012
at 04:35 PM

I was trying to say if someone has type 1 diabetes, since this involves significant beta cell damage, they may benefit from essentially giving their pancreas a break by reducing their consumption of insulin secretion promoting foods. I don't think insulin resistant people should necessarily do the same.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on August 02, 2012
at 04:22 PM

Only that what you said about lowering carbs and protein was in direct contradiction to my recent blood tests showing low TG's and insulin resistance. These results indicate that RAISING carbs and protein would be a good idea. At any rate it suggests that if other factors are in play - such as daily exercise - that tweaking macros may not significantly change insulin sensitivity.

1
1407bd6152d9fdbc239250385159fea1

on August 01, 2012
at 06:47 PM

I think that there might be reason to not eat 10 meals a day in bird-like fashion and have the system working constantly, but I'm not so sure the pulsated doses after your 2-4 separated meals is going to cause any sort of problem.

742ff8ba4ff55e84593ede14ac1c3cab

(3536)

on August 01, 2012
at 06:59 PM

Yeah I am referring more to 2-4 pulsated doses.

Dfeb3c1ef269c5dc03154d1689c14373

(716)

on August 01, 2012
at 08:38 PM

I find comments like "10 meals a day in bird-like fashion and have the system working constantly" very interesting. Specifically because it shows you how little people know about certain aspects of the suggestions they make. Birds, for example, have extraordinarily high metabolisms and that is the reasoning behind their constant stream of eating. Their whole existence is based on eating, pretty much.

1407bd6152d9fdbc239250385159fea1

on August 01, 2012
at 11:32 PM

It's an expression often used to describe the "stoke your metabolism" diet coined by bodybuilders of old. I'm not speaking to actual bird physiology; cool your jets.

0
C45d7e96acd83d3a6f58193dbc140e86

on August 01, 2012
at 06:46 PM

Glucose causes insulin release, and cellular glycation is caused by burning and using glucose. Fat is generally a cleaner burning fuel.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on August 02, 2012
at 12:17 PM

What makes fat a cleaner burning fuel than carbs? It has higher energy density and a different metabolic pathway, but in terms of % energy released in metabolism and % indigestibles could you share a study that compares them?

C45d7e96acd83d3a6f58193dbc140e86

on August 02, 2012
at 12:26 PM

Because fat does not lead to glycation. And saturated fat, in particular, is very difficult to oxidize. It burns cleaner in the body with less waste products.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on August 02, 2012
at 04:32 PM

To Jack's diet I add a lot more meat to make his partially paleo approach perfect.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on August 02, 2012
at 04:08 PM

What waste products? We usually waste materials we can't digest, not the ones we can. The direct products from fat and carb digestion are the triglycerides sorbed in the lower gut and the glucose sorbed earlier on. Once in the body metabolism results in waste water and carbon dioxide from both. In digestion, I would expect the slower digesting fats and indigestible fiber to generate fecal matter, with carbohydrates contributing the most. But what difference does that make, if the indigestible fat residues are more harmful (seared or charred fat carcinogens for instance) than the plant fiber?

Medium avatar

(10611)

on August 03, 2012
at 12:32 PM

True enough raisefitness, but is there any evidence that glycation end products lower longevity? Jack Lalanne and the centenarian smokers would argue against it. Whereas I experienced one of the nasty byproducts of high fat & protein diet - kidney stones - before I was 30. LC dieters need to take a broader view on what that diet does than just reduce glycation.

C45d7e96acd83d3a6f58193dbc140e86

on August 03, 2012
at 01:29 PM

I am not advocating VLC, but for the majority of inactive people, the amount of carbs, 6-11 servings of grains per day is way too much.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on August 03, 2012
at 12:39 PM

This guy is flogging a diet but he raises some pretty strong points against LC. http://www.fitcommerce.com/Blueprint/Page.aspx?cid=1719&pageId=1033&portalId=2&review=-1&rrefid=1719 I don't have a problem with it short term for obesity control, but even Atkins calls off strict LC after the induction phase. Downside effects like gout, and even kidney stones, take years to manifest. But gut damage from constipation starts on day one.

C45d7e96acd83d3a6f58193dbc140e86

on August 03, 2012
at 01:37 AM

Jack Lalanne's N=1 experiment doesn't prove much as there are actually centurians that smoke cigarettes, but no one is arguing that smoking will make you live longer.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on August 02, 2012
at 04:29 PM

Maybe this will provide some balance, since glycation is a buzz word in the LC community. http://m.diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/56/7/1913.long It looks like the surrogate test for glycation is A1C, and therefore you could measure reduced glycation by lowering A1C. I still don't see how this is related to waste products, but whatever Jack Lalanne did to live to a healthy 96 years is my model. Lots of exercise and a high carb diet.

Answer Question


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