Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 116 (8752 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-28-2017 8:04 PM
117 online now:
14174dm, frako, kjsimons, LamarkNewAge, Tangle, Tanypteryx (6 members, 111 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: DeliverUsFromEvolution
Post Volume:
Total: 809,171 Year: 13,777/21,208 Month: 3,259/3,605 Week: 45/556 Day: 45/54 Hour: 0/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
2425
26
2728
...
31Next
Author Topic:   Good Calories, Bad Calories, by Gary Taubes
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 55 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 376 of 451 (629520)
08-18-2011 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 364 by Percy
08-17-2011 5:17 PM


Carb intake
But more importantly, why did obesity and diabetes rates soar during a period of decreasing fat intake and increasing carbohydrate intake?

Carb intake has not soared. In 1909, our carb intake was 56% of total caloric intake. In 2005, our carb intake was 54%.

The ERS food consumption (per capita) data series, one of the few series tracking long-term consumption, suggests that Americans are eating more food every year. The total amount of food available for each person to eat increased 16 percent from 1,675 pounds in 1970 to 1,950 pounds in 2003.

Between 1970 and 2003, total per capita consumption of added fats and oils rose by 63 percent, grain consumption by 43 percent, vegetable consumption by 24 percent, and sugar and sweetener consumption by 19 percent.

http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/foodconsumption/

Fat intake has increased (slightly) as a percentage of caloric intake. Not carbs.

Caloric intake overall has increased, however. A lot.

Americans at the beginning of the 21st century are consuming more food and several hundred more calories per person per day than did their counterparts in the late 1950s (when per capita calorie consumption was at the lowest level in
the last century), or even in the 1970s. The aggregate food supply in 2000 provided 3,800 calories per person per day,
500 calories above the 1970 level and 800 calories above the record low in 1957and 1958 (fig. 2-1).

http://www.usda.gov/factbook/chapter2.pdf


This message is a reply to:
 Message 364 by Percy, posted 08-17-2011 5:17 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 55 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 377 of 451 (629522)
08-18-2011 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 373 by Percy
08-18-2011 9:25 AM


Re: Taubes: All carbs are bad
In Taubes' view the greater the insulin response the more dangerous the food with respect to obesity and diabetes.

Let's start here.

First. The obese have a reduced level of insulin signaling, not more. In obesity, fat tissue is insulin resistant. The same is true of diabetics.

Refined carbohydrates cause the greatest insulin response and are therefore the most dangerous.

This isn't true.

The more refined the carbohyrates consumed, the higher the resulting blood glucose level. Insulin is mostly a response to blood glucose levels, and the higher the blood glucose levels, the greater the insulin response.

In the short term. Not over a 24 hour period.

That's Taubes hypothesis in a nutshell, that the increase in intake of refined carbohydrates are responsible for the high rates of obesity and diabetes.

I disagree. As I stated upthread, I am strongly of the opinion that Taubes has not limited his hypothesis to refined carbs. But I'm afraid you and I won't come to an understanding on this point.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 373 by Percy, posted 08-18-2011 9:25 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 379 by crashfrog, posted 08-18-2011 11:11 AM molbiogirl has responded
 Message 382 by Percy, posted 08-18-2011 1:24 PM molbiogirl has responded

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 871 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 378 of 451 (629532)
08-18-2011 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 374 by molbiogirl
08-18-2011 9:40 AM


Re: Discussing science, not opinion
quote:
Look. I keep asking you for cites. You give me the cites that Taubes uses to support the quotes you post and I'll give you page numbers for the mangled research. Fair enough?
I haven't made a claim that requires a cite. You've made a claim that he mangled research.

Like I said, you just keep giving me the punchline.

quote:
If you're interested in discussing the science, so am I. I would like to begin a discussion of the role insulin plays in Taubes' hypothesis. (His hypothesis is nothing without insulin.) I would also like to finish the mangled research thing. Tho, I have to say, you've got the book, PD. You can't flip to the index and look up "Pima"? Or "leptin"? You can't use books.google to find quotes?
I'm not going to discuss insulin in case you haven't got that hint. I don't have an issue with it.

As for the mangled research, you haven't provided evidence. I did look up Pima and made my comments concerning that. I see no issue. You haven't explained why it is an issue yet. You haven't explained why any of the three are an issue yet.

It isn't my job to hunt and guess what comments cause you problems.

quote:
And did you miss this Frayn quote in that post?
No I didn't and I agree with the statement, but it isn't a long term solution. Just because we can doesn't mean it is sustainable.

They would need to restrict calories and increase activity. Unfortunately, once they stop doing one or the other the odds are that they will regain fat. I think Taubes noted that in one of the books. They usually gained more fat back than they had before.

Then we have to look at long term. Can this behavior be sustained over a lifetime? It's not something I could sustain over a lifetime.

Adjusting a ratio of protein/fats to carbs I can sustain, whether I exercise or not.

You don't like anecdotes, but the difference is that I don't gain 5 pounds because I ate a piece of cake at the birthday party. That was the annoying part about restricting calories.

You may be totally right about the science of the insulin issue, but that doesn't change anything for me. I don't care about insulin.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 374 by molbiogirl, posted 08-18-2011 9:40 AM molbiogirl has not yet responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 379 of 451 (629533)
08-18-2011 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 377 by molbiogirl
08-18-2011 10:07 AM


Re: Taubes: All carbs are bad
First. The obese have a reduced level of insulin signaling, not more. In obesity, fat tissue is insulin resistant. The same is true of diabetics.

But isn't it thought that acquired insulin insensitivity is a result of chronic elevated insulin levels? And therefore wouldn't foods that elevate insulin levels result in insulin insensitivity over time?

I'm not trying to defend Taubes, who I would say you have demolished handily. I guess I'm just trying to square this circle. I think there's an understanding that elevating insulin levels over time can result in acquired insensitivity. Taken simplistically that could support a really general, handwaving assertion that " the greater the insulin response the more dangerous the food with respect to obesity and diabetes", eliding the "middle part" which is that the danger of insulin isn't that it makes you fat, but that you can desensitize your adipose cells to it which could contribute to increased fat retention.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 377 by molbiogirl, posted 08-18-2011 10:07 AM molbiogirl has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 386 by molbiogirl, posted 08-19-2011 9:25 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 380 of 451 (629534)
08-18-2011 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 370 by molbiogirl
08-18-2011 7:37 AM


Re: Thanks Crash & nwr!
But that's where personal anecdotes get you. Nowhere near an explanation.

Quite. Of course, anybody's personal weight loss/fitness strategy is basically going to be anecdotal. And I wonder the degree to which individual human variation makes talking about metabolism in the aggregate hopeless. I mean, obviously we're all generating ATP by oxidative phosphorylation. But we're beginning to discover ways to categorize people into broad categories that differ in the population and possibly even the function of their digestion.

I'm itching to discuss the role of insulin, but neither Percy nor PD are interested. It's the lynch pin of Taubes' hypothesis.

I would love nothing more than for you to hold forth on the topic. I'm still basically an amateur at it; I've had some grad-level metabolic courses so I can follow along, for the most part.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 370 by molbiogirl, posted 08-18-2011 7:37 AM molbiogirl has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 387 by molbiogirl, posted 08-19-2011 9:36 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 15632
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 381 of 451 (629537)
08-18-2011 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 375 by molbiogirl
08-18-2011 9:42 AM


molbiogirl writes:

I don't feel his overall hypothesis rests on insulin. Wasn't my take away from the book.

From a science point of view, his hypothesis rests on insulin. If you would like to discuss that, I'm game.

Both PD and I are drawing a distinction between what PD is calling his *overall hypothesis* and his underlying hypothesis.

Taubes *overall hypothesis* is that increased intake in refined carbohydrates is responsible for the diseases of western civilization, namely obesity and diabetes. PD and I are both interested in this.

But this is distinct from Taubes underlying hypothesis, the one he explores throughout his book by examining the research. This is the hypothesis that it is the insulin response to refined carbohydrates that is responsible.

But speaking just for myself now, I have no horse in this race. I'm looking for dietary answers, not trying to prove insulin is the bogey man. Whether it's insulin or fat or something else, I don't care. It's what happens to me in terms of weight and health when I eat certain foods that I care about. I want someone to know what's going on inside the human body so that they can make dietary recommendations that work for the long term.

So getting to the bottom line, maybe carbohydrates didn't cause the skyrocketing rates of obesity and diabetes. But then, what did? "We don't know yet," is a perfectly respectable answer. "We don't know yet but it's not carbs," is not something that I think has been established yet, and this is where you and I disagree.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 375 by molbiogirl, posted 08-18-2011 9:42 AM molbiogirl has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 385 by molbiogirl, posted 08-19-2011 9:02 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 15632
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 382 of 451 (629550)
08-18-2011 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 377 by molbiogirl
08-18-2011 10:07 AM


Re: Taubes: All carbs are bad
molbiogirl writes:

Refined carbohydrates cause the greatest insulin response and are therefore the most dangerous.

This isn't true.

What isn't true? That this is Taubes' view? That refined carbohydrates cause a greater insulin response than complex carbohydrates? That rapid insulin swings have a negative impact on long term health?

That's Taubes hypothesis in a nutshell, that the increase in intake of refined carbohydrates are responsible for the high rates of obesity and diabetes.

I disagree. As I stated upthread, I am strongly of the opinion that Taubes has not limited his hypothesis to refined carbs. But I'm afraid you and I won't come to an understanding on this point.

I already explained how that would be contradictory to consider all carbs equally dangerous. Taubes is very clear:

Taubes on page xxiii writes:

...obesity is caused by the quality of the calories, rather than the quantity, and specifically by the effect of refined and easily digestible carbohydrates on the hormonal regulation of fat storage and metabolism.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 377 by molbiogirl, posted 08-18-2011 10:07 AM molbiogirl has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 384 by molbiogirl, posted 08-19-2011 8:59 AM Percy has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18478
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 383 of 451 (629560)
08-18-2011 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 329 by cavediver
08-17-2011 6:42 AM


Re: Triggers for Fat Storage or Use
Hi cavediver, seems we are in similar situations.

I started a bastardised version of the Dukan Diet back at the end of May. The end result is that I have lost over 20 pounds, and I'm still losing weight despite the fact that I no longer recognise that I'm on the diet.

I went on a simple to remember diet of no sugar (sucrose), no starch (bread, pasta), no refined wheat products (also includes starches & sugars, but also limits gluten, which may or may not be related), no pre-prepared foods (especially HFCS products, but also eliminates preservatives and other chemicals). Other than that I eat pretty much what I like, which includes olive oil, lean meats, fish, vegetables and fruit. The sugar I get is natural sugars in the fruits and vegies, rather than loaded sugars added to other foods.

I went from 215 lbs & 38+" waist to 165 lbs & 32-" waist (over 6" from waist area, as well as loss in the butt area) and had to get new pants & swimsuits. Like awarewolf I have almost visible abs muscles, and overall am quite pleased. I've settled to 170-175 lbs and 32 to 34" waist for the last 4 months.

In maintenance I find that it is not so much a "diet" as my basic eating pattern of choice. I can occasionally (when with friends, dining out, etc) go "off-diet" and I'll see a little waist thickening, but this goes away with continued "eating pattern of choice" in about a week.

This works for me. It seems I actually enjoy food more now.

Thinner stomach and butts should make cavediving easier eh?

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 329 by cavediver, posted 08-17-2011 6:42 AM cavediver has not yet responded

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 55 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 384 of 451 (629675)
08-19-2011 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 382 by Percy
08-18-2011 1:24 PM


Re: Taubes: All carbs are bad
That refined carbohydrates cause a greater insulin response than complex carbohydrates?

I suggest you take a look at this paper. It’s free. Please note that fish and Honeysmacks have similar insulin levels. The same is true of potato chips and apples. Beef and grain bread are virtually identical.

Holt SHA, et al. An insulin index of foods: the insulin demand generated by 1000-kJ portions of common foods. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Nov, 1997; 66: 5: 1264-1276

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

In fact, 240-calorie servings of cheese, beef and fish elicit greater insulin release than isocaloric servings of pasta and porridge.

Taubes is very clear...

One of this 86 times he qualifies his remarks.
How do you suppose he accounts for the insulin response to protein and unrefined carbs then?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 382 by Percy, posted 08-18-2011 1:24 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 388 by Percy, posted 08-19-2011 10:06 AM molbiogirl has responded

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 55 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 385 of 451 (629676)
08-19-2011 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 381 by Percy
08-18-2011 11:39 AM


Taubes *overall hypothesis* is that increased intake in refined carbohydrates is responsible for the diseases of western civilization, namely obesity and diabetes. PD and I are both interested in this.

But this is distinct from Taubes underlying hypothesis, the one he explores throughout his book by examining the research. This is the hypothesis that it is the insulin response to refined carbohydrates that is responsible.

That's rather like saying: The antivaxers overall hypothesis is that vaccines cause autism. I'm not interested in the underlying hypothesis. The biochemical mechanisms are irrelevant.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 381 by Percy, posted 08-18-2011 11:39 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 55 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 386 of 451 (629678)
08-19-2011 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 379 by crashfrog
08-18-2011 11:11 AM


Insulin!
I spent yesterday afternoon putting together an insulin post, so I hope you don't mind if I dump it here.

Guyenet writes:

Insulin coordinates the metabolic shift between burning primarily fat, to burning primarily carbohydrate. Any time insulin suppresses fat oxidation, it increases carbohydrate oxidation by an equivalent amount. It suppresses the release of fat from fat cells and increases the transport of fat into fat cells.

Temporarily. For one (maybe two) hours. There is no “stockpiling” of fat under the influence of insulin.

When people are fed high- and low-carb diets of equal caloric content, the differences in lipogenesis are so small as to be meaningless in terms of fat gain (Dyck 2001, Acheson, 2001).

Rather than converting the extra carbohydrate to fat and stockpiling it in adipose cells, the body responds to increases in carbohydrate intake by increasing the amount of carbohydrate used as fuel (Hellerstein, 1999).

Dyck DJ, et al. Insulin increases FA uptake and esterification but reduces lipid utilization in isolated contracting muscle. American Journal of Physiology – Endocrinology and Metabolism, Sep, 2001; 281 (3): E600-607.

Acheson KJ, et al. Nutritional influences on lipogenesis and thermogenesis after a carbohydrate meal. American Journal of Physiology – Endocrinology and Metabolism, Jan 1, 1984; 246: E62-E70.

Hellerstein MK. De novo lipogenesis in humans: metabolic and regulatory aspects. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 1999; 53 (Suppl 1): S53-S65.

A taste (hah!) of the work cited above.

Hill writes:

Eight adults (three men, five women) ate a high-carbohydrate (60% of calories from carbohydrate) and a high-fat (60% of calories from fat) diet …Diet composition did not affect total daily energy expenditure but did affect daily nutrient oxidation by rapidly shifting substrate oxidation to more closely reflect the composition of the diet.

Hill, JO et al. Nutrient balance in humans: effects of diet composition, Am J Clin Nutr. 1991 Jul;54(1):10-7.

Furthermore, insulin-blocking drugs do nothing to promote fat loss. Investigators placed overweight and obese subjects on a calorie-restricted diet and randomly assigned them to take the insulin-lowering drug diazoxide or a placebo for eight weeks.

There were no differences in weight loss, fat loss, resting energy expenditure or appetite between the two groups (Due, 2007).

Due A, et al. No effect of inhibition of insulin secretion by diazoxide on weight loss in hyperinsulinaemic obese subjects during an 8-week weight-loss diet. Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism, Jul 2007; 9 (4): 566-574.

If insulin was the overriding determinant of fat gain and loss, we would logically expect to see differences in fat loss outcomes among dieters with normal and disordered insulin metabolism. But we don’t (McLaughlin, 1999, de Luis, 2006).

McLaughlin T, et al. Differences in insulin resistance do not predict weight loss in response to hypocaloric diets in healthy obese women. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, 1999; 84 (2): 578-581.

de Luis DA, et al. Differences in glycaemic status do not predict weight loss in response to hypocaloric diets in obese patients. Clinical Nutrition, Feb 2006; 25 (1): 117-122.

The obese do have a resistance to insulin, but this doesn't lead to fat stockpiling either.

Because the fat tissue of obese people doesn't suppress fatty acid release in response to experimentally elevated insulin or mixed meals as effectively as the fat tissue of a lean individual (Jensen 1989, Roust, 1993). In fact, obese people release an equal or larger amount of fatty acids from their fat tissue than lean people under basal conditions as well (Jensen 1989, Björntorp, 1969).

Jensen MD et al. Influence of body fat distribution on free fatty acid metabolism in obesity, J Clin Invest. 1989 April; 83(4): 1168–1173

Roust, LR et al. Postprandial free fatty acid kinetics are abnormal in upper body obesity, Diabetes. 1993 Nov;42(11):1567-73.

Björntorp P et al. Plasma free fatty acid turnover rate in obesity, Acta Med Scand. 1969 Apr;185(4):351-6.

So. Is a calorie a calorie or do calories from different sources have different effects? When investigators hospitalized their subjects and gave them controlled diets in which the carbohydrate content varied from zero to 85 percent, and the fat content varied inversely from 85 percent to zero (protein was held steady at 15 percent) the composition of the diet made no difference in maintaining the subjects’ weight (Leibel, 1992).

Leibel, R et al. Energy intake required to maintain body weight is not affected by wide variation in diet composition, Am J Clin Nutr February 1992 vol. 55 no. 2 350-355.

http://www.ajcn.org/content/55/2/350.full.pdf+html

Guyenet writes:

While we're on the subject, let's address the idea of "internal starvation". Taubes suggests that people overeat because they can't access their fat stores due to elevated insulin. However, obese people have equal or higher circulating free fatty acids and glucose (22, 23), so how is that possible? It's not. The internal starvation model was interesting at the time it was proposed, however the evidence has refuted it since then. If anything, obesity is a condition of "internal excess". This information is readily available in the scientific literature, and I'm sure the numerous obesity researchers he interviewed would have been happy to explain it to him, so it doesn't make sense that he instead relied on his own speculation here.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 379 by crashfrog, posted 08-18-2011 11:11 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 55 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 387 of 451 (629680)
08-19-2011 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 380 by crashfrog
08-18-2011 11:20 AM


Re: Thanks Crash & nwr!
But we're beginning to discover ways to categorize people into broad categories that differ in the population and possibly even the function of their digestion.

From the paper:

One possible explanation, which the team is testing, is that a person's gut-microbe make-up is determined by his or her blood type.

Oh noes! Eat Right For Your Blood Type is true! It's true!

Man oh man, that gives me chills. I spent a good couple of months arguing with an ex about that damn book.

Fad diets supported by junk science really get under my skin.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 380 by crashfrog, posted 08-18-2011 11:20 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 15632
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 388 of 451 (629684)
08-19-2011 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 384 by molbiogirl
08-19-2011 8:59 AM


Re: Taubes: All carbs are bad
That refined carbohydrates cause a greater insulin response than complex carbohydrates is supported by the paper you cited:

An insulin index of foods: the insulin demand generated by 1000-kJ portions of common foods

This is Figure 1 from page 1270 showing that foods with greater concentrations of simple carbohydrates, particularly sugar, cause greater insulin responses. The lack of correlation with glucose levels is extremely interesting:

And Figure 2 breaks down the insulin scores by individual foods:

Independent of our discussion there's some extremely useful information here. I've always wondered why chile is so incredibly fattening, and this figure says that only jellybeans are worse than beans when it comes to insulin response. I wonder if a reasonable chile can be made from lentils, which have a much lower insulin score.

Also very interesting is that french fries have a lower insulin score than potatoes - this is great, I love french fries!

This is a very useful paper, though it isn't without its problems. Their measures of carbohydrates are not sufficiently detailed, see Table 2 on page 1267. For sugar they do not differentiate between glucose and fructose, which makes fruit a problematic comparison. Their categorizations are not really by food type, e.g., jellybeans and peanuts are grouped together, and they don't break down the starch category into simple and complex, so white bread and brown pasta have nearly equal carb levels.

But that refined carbohydrates cause a greater insulin response than complex carbohydrates, and also of protein rich foods, seems a very good general rule that is fully supported by this paper.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Clarify last two paragraphs.

Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

Edited by Percy, : Grammar.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 384 by molbiogirl, posted 08-19-2011 8:59 AM molbiogirl has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 389 by molbiogirl, posted 08-22-2011 9:21 AM Percy has responded

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 55 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 389 of 451 (630073)
08-22-2011 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 388 by Percy
08-19-2011 10:06 AM


Refined v. unrefined insulin response
But that refined carbohydrates cause a greater insulin response than complex carbohydrates, and also of protein rich foods, seems a very good general rule that is fully supported by this paper.

There's a big difference between the mean insulin score for an entire food group and an individual food's score. I suggest you refer to Table 4 for each individual food's score.

A first grade class can, as a mean, score average on an exam. That doesn't mean there aren't students that score well above average and well below average.

As I mentioned in the previous post, unrefined and refined carbs have very similar insulin scores.

From the discussion:

Within each food group, there was a wide range of insulin responses, despite similarities in nutrient composition.

In contrast, pasta, oatmeal porridge, and All-Bran cereal produced relatively low insulin responses, despite their high carbohydrate contents.

However, some protein and fat-rich foods (eggs, beef, fish, lentils, cheese, cake, and doughnuts) induced as much insulin secretion as did some carbohydrate-rich foods (eg, beef was equal to brown rice and fish was equal to grain bread).

Although some of the protein-rich foods may normally be eaten in smaller quantities, fish, beef, cheese, and eggs still had larger insulin responses per gram than did many of the foods consisting predominantly of carbohydrate.

These findings, like others, challenge the scientific basis of carbohydrate exchange tables, which assume that portions of different foods containing 10-15g carbohydrate will have equal physiologic effects and will require equal amounts of exogenous insulin to be metabolized.

Our study was undertaken to test the hypothesis that the postprandial insulin response was not necessarily proportional to the blood glucose response and that nutrients other than carbohydrate influence the overall level of insulinemia.

Taubes can't confine his hypothesis to refined carbs because the insulin scores of unrefined carbs are just as bad as refined carbs.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 388 by Percy, posted 08-19-2011 10:06 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 390 by Percy, posted 08-22-2011 8:26 PM molbiogirl has responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 15632
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 390 of 451 (630168)
08-22-2011 8:26 PM
Reply to: Message 389 by molbiogirl
08-22-2011 9:21 AM


Re: Refined v. unrefined insulin response
Hi Molbiogirl,

You can't disprove the claim that refined carbohydrates cause a larger insulin response than complex carbohydrates using a paper whose data does not distinguish between complex and refined carbohydrates. They cite separate figures for sugar and starch, but they do not say what proportion of the starchy carbohydrates are simple versus complex.

You mentioned Table 4, so here are the foods with the 10 highest insulin scores:

FoodInsulin score
Jellybeans
Mars Bar
Potatoes
Baked Beans
Yogurt
White bread
Whole-meal bread
Cookies
Ice cream
Grapes
160
122
121
120
115
100
96
92
89
82

All these foods have high carbohydrate content, and though the paper doesn't include data for refined carbohydrates, most of them are known to rate high in refined carbohydrate content. Grapes rate exceedingly high in fructose, one of the highest levels of all fruits, though I don't believe fructose has a significant influence on insulin levels.

Now here are the foods with fhe 10 lowest insulin scores:

FoodInsulin score
Peanuts
Eggs
All Bran
White pasta
Brown pasta
Porridge
Cheese
Muesli
Beef
Popcorn
20
31
32
40
40
40
45
46
51
54

With the possible exception of white pasta none of these foods are thought to have any significant refined carbohydrate content. The data in Table 4 fully supports the position that as a general rule refined carbohydrates cause a greater insulin response than complex carbohydrates, and I'm sure that if you sorted all of Table 4 instead of just these 20 foods that you'd just find further evidence of this.

While the paper doesn't explicitly measure refined carbohydrate content, it does occasionally mention refined carbohydrates in a way that makes clear they are fully aware of their greater ability to heighten insulin levels. For example, this appears near the bottom of page 1273:

Holt, et al, writes:

Similarly, the highly refined bakery products and snack foods induced substantially more insulin secretion per kilojoule or per gram of food than did the other test foods.

And this from near the bottom of page 1274:

Holt, et al, writes:

Similar ISs [insulin scores] were observed for white and brown pasta, white and brown rice, and white and whole-meal bread. All of these foods are relatively refined compared with their traditional counterparts. Collectively, the findings imply that typical Western diets are likely to be significantly more insulinogenic than more traditional diets based on less refined foods.

So they recognized the effect of refined carbohydrates, they just didn't happen to measure the levels of refined carbohydrates, excepting sugar.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 389 by molbiogirl, posted 08-22-2011 9:21 AM molbiogirl has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 392 by molbiogirl, posted 08-29-2011 10:30 AM Percy has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
2425
26
2728
...
31Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017