Good insulin, bad insulin: Its role in obesity?

Gary Taubes makes insulin out to be a bad guy. In his latest article in Newsweek Magazine commenting on HBO's Weight of the Nation documentary, he once again challenges energy balance (energy intake versus energy expended) as a paradigm for understanding obesity. The author of Good Calories, Bad Calories offers an alternative theory: refined sugars and grains trigger insulin, which leads to fat accumulation. He also doesn't think much of physical activity as playing a "meaningful role in keeping off the pounds."

Is Taubes right? Not according to Jim Hill, Ph.D., a professor of pediatrics and medicine at the University of Colorado School of Medicine, Denver. Hill is the cofounder of the National Weight Control Registry, a registry of individuals who've succeeded in maintaining weight loss over time. He is also the co-founder of America on the Move, a national weight-gain prevention initiative.

At a session at Experimental Biology, Hill said that the the "energy-in energy-out" framework continues to dominate as correct in current scientific literature on obesity. When asked whether or not the rise of obesity epidemic is related to diet or physical activity, Hill simply responds, "Yes." That is because studies have shown that either restriction of calories or greater physical activity can lead to weight loss.

Then, what's wrong with Taubes's insulin hypothesis? First, it's important to point out that insulin is also a good guy. As kinesiologist John Ivy, Ph.D., of the University of Texas at Austin, pointed out to me a few years ago, insulin is too often misunderstood. The unfortunate consequence can be a detriment of muscle and strength. Ivy's own research is on muscle insulin resistance and how it is reduced with exercise.

Insulin's role is more clearly explained in Ivy's book The Future of Sports Nutrition: Nutrient Timing. He writes that, yes, insulin is a promoter of fat synthesis. But it is also a crucial hormone for promoting protein synthesis, reducing protein degradation (including suppressing cortisol, which can be catabolic in nature), and promoting glucose uptake and glycogen storage in muscle. Insulin, notably, also suppresses appetite.

According to Ivy, the most important factor involved in whether or not insulin promotes fat storage, carbohydrate storage, or protein synthesis is the "individual's body state." For example, under conditions where insulin sensitivity heightened in fat cells (a sedentary lifestyle), there will be more promotion of fat storage. On the other hand, after physical activity, when muscle cells are more insulin sensitive, insulin will promote glycogen and protein synthesis.

Perhaps where Taubes goes wrong is in failing to realize the role of muscle in body metabolism. It wouldn't be the first time. As I've discussed before in a post about the work of another kinesiologist, Stuart Phillips, Ph.D., of McMaster University, skeletal muscle is often forgotten in discussions of obesity. However, as Phillips affirms, skeletal muscle is a highly metabolically active tissue, consuming a great deal of energy as a primary site for glycogen storage and the largest site for fat burning. Skeletal muscle mass also helps determine metabolic rate.

Taubes, in this latest article, also fails to mention that carbohydrate is not the only macronutrient that stimulates insulin. Protein stimulates insulin too; in fact, it's the branched-chain amino acids (leucine, isoleucine, valine) that trigger the insulin release -- these same amino acids are also the key players in triggering protein synthesis, which is explained in part by their effects on insulin.

Ivy explains that insulin has earned the title "anabolic regulator of muscle," meaning it's the most important hormone to increase muscle and strength. Yet, by Taubes's judgment, insulin release should be avoided as much as possible. Taken to its logical conclusion, Taubes's mindset means that one should eat less carbohydrate and protein per day, and eat plenty more fat -- along with the dismissal of exercise as being important, that's the perfect recipe for gradual muscle degradation and (what?) insulin resistance, hyperglycemia, and hyperinsulinemia!

Is there something really wrong with "eat less, move more"? After all, this "tired advice" as Taubes calls it has largely failed in producing results in the United States. There still exists an obesity epidemic and it's getting worse. Is there another alternative theory to energy balance? Hill says energy balance still stands, although he acknowledges "eat less, move more" is too simplistic as advice. He offers his own new paradigm, which largely represents what other nutrition scientists have concluded including the American Society for Nutrition (see my report here). It's that "diet and physical activity interact." And how they interact may explain how the body regulates -- with a sort of "settling point," according to Hill -- balance of energy, energy stores, glucose, and temperature.

Looking at the problem from historical standpoint, Hill reminds, we no longer have to hunt or travel long distances to gather food anymore. We no longer have to farm to produce our food. Now, it's all about heading to the supermarket, filling our carts, and sitting in some form or another for the rest of the day. Our environment has changed. What's the solution to an obesity epidemic? Hill suggests in taking "small steps" for changing our environment back; this means continuing with "eat less, move more," and finding any opportunity to bring reduced-calorie eating, walking, and other physical activities back into lifestyles.

Another recommendation comes from Ivy and Phillips, which is to make greater use of the "anabolic regulator of muscle" and focus on muscle maintenance and growth through regular physical activity. They also encourage balanced eating with healthy portions of quality protein, carbohydrates, and fats. Yes, carbohydrate is important for endurance and maximal recovery of glycogen stores.

Resistance training is primary for muscle building; aerobic exercise also helps in depletion of glycogen stores. Both forms of physical activity make muscles more insulin sensitive, cause greater uptake of glucose into muscles, and they also help keep extra calories from heading toward fat stores. Far from Taubes's advice that physical activity is meaningless, these kinesiologists suggest some form of exercise should happen every single day.

To greater understand the role of "nutrient timing" and how carbohydrate and protein relate to exercise, read Ivy's book and see this 2008 position statement from the International Society of Sports Nutrition where Ivy serves as part of the editorial board.

Update: Those of you who've read Good Calories, Bad Calories or Why We Get Fat may also be interested in Yoni Freedhoff's review of the latter over on his "Weighty Matters" blog. I have only read the first book.

Hunger is your best friend: It makes natural foods taste delicious and promotes optimal nutrient partitioning

One of the biggest problems with modern diets rich in industrial foods is that they promote unnatural hunger patterns. For example, hunger can be caused by hypoglycemic dips, coupled with force-storage of fat in adipocytes, after meals rich in refined carbohydrates. This is a double-edged post-meal pattern that is induced by, among other things, abnormally elevated insulin levels. The resulting hunger is a rather unnatural type of hunger.

By the way, I often read here and there, mostly in blogs, that “insulin suppresses hunger”. I frankly don’t know where this idea comes from. What actually happens is that insulin is co-secreted with a number of other hormones. One of those, like insulin also secreted by the beta-cells in the pancreas, is amylin – a powerful appetite suppressor. Amylin deficiency leads to hunger even after a large carbohydrate-rich meal, when insulin levels are elevated.

Abnormally high insulin levels – like those after a “healthy” breakfast of carbohydrate-rich cereals, pancakes etc. – lead to abnormal blood glucose dips soon after the meal. What I am talking about here is a fall in glucose levels that is considerable, and that also happens very fast – illustrated by the ratio between the lengths of the vertical and horizontal black lines on the figure below, from a previous post ().

Those hypoglycemic dips induce hunger, because the hormonal changes necessary to apply a break to the fall in glucose levels (which left unchecked would lead to death) leave us with a hormonal mix that ends up stimulating hunger, in an unnatural way. At the bottom of those dips, insulin levels are much lower than before. I am not talking about diabetics here. I am talking about normoglycemic folks, like the ones whose glucose levels are show on the figure above.

On a diet primarily of natural foods, or foods that are not heavily modified from their natural state, hunger patterns tend to be better synchronized with nutrient deficiencies. This is one of the main advantages of a natural foods diet. By nutrients, I do not mean only micronutrients such as vitamins and minerals, but also macronutrients such as amino and fatty acids.

On a natural diet, nutrient deficiencies should happen regularly. Our bodies are designed for sporadic nutrient intake, remaining most of the time in the fasted state. Human beings are unique in that they have very large brains in proportion to their overall body size, brains that run primarily on glucose – the average person’s brain consumes about 5 g/h of glucose. This latter characteristic makes it very difficult to extrapolate diet-based results based on other species to humans.

As hunger becomes better synchronized with nutrient deficiencies, it should promote optimal nutrient partitioning. This means that, among other things: (a) you should periodically feel hungry for different types of food, depending on your nutrient needs at that point in time; (b) if you do weight training, and fell hungry, some muscle gain should follow; and (c) if you let hunger drive food consumption, on a diet of predominantly natural foods, body fat levels should remain relatively low.

In this sense, hunger becomes your friend – and the best spice!

Protein powders before fasted weight training? Here is a more natural and cheaper alternative

The idea that protein powders should be consumed prior to weight training has been around for a while, and is very popular among bodybuilders. Something like 10 grams or so of branched-chain amino acids (BCAAs) is frequently recommended. More recently, with the increase in popularity of intermittent fasting, it has been strongly recommended prior to “fasted weight training”. The quotation marks here are because, obviously, if you are consuming anything that contains calories prior to weight training, the weight training is NOT being done in a fasted state.

(Source: Ecopaper.com)

Most of the evidence available suggests that intermittent fasting is generally healthy. In fact, being able to fast for 16 hours or more, particularly without craving sweet foods, is actually a sign of a healthy glucose metabolism; which may complicate a cause-and-effect analysis between intermittent fasting and general health. The opposite, craving sweet foods every few hours, is generally a bad sign.

One key aspect of intermittent fasting that needs to be highlighted is that it is also arguably a form of liberation ().

Now, doing weight training in the fasted state may or may not lead to muscle loss. It probably doesn’t, even after a 24-hour fast, for those who fast and replenish their glycogen stores on a regular basis ().

However, weight training in a fasted state frequently induces an exaggerated epinephrine-norepinephrine (i.e., adrenaline-noradrenaline) response, likely due to depletion of liver glycogen beyond a certain threshold (the threshold varies for different people). The same is true for prolonged or particularly intense weight training sessions, even if they are not done in the fasted state. The body wants to crank up consumption of fat and ketones, so that liver glycogen is spared to ensure that it can provide the brain with its glucose needs.

Exaggerated epinephrine-norepinephrine responses tend to cause a few sensations that are not very pleasant. One of the first noticeable ones is orthostatic hypotension; i.e., feeling dizzy when going from a sitting to a standing position. Other related feelings are light-headedness, and a “pins and needles” sensation in the limbs (typically the arms and hands). Many believe that they are having a heart attack whey they have this “pins and needles” sensation, which can progress to a stage that makes it impossible to continue exercising.

Breaking the fast prior to weight training with dietary fat or carbohydrates is problematic, because those nutrients tend to blunt the dramatic rise in growth hormone that is typically experienced in response to weight training (). This is not good because the growth hormone response is probably one of the main reasons why weight training can be so healthy ().

Dietary protein, however, does not seem to significantly blunt the growth hormone response to weight training; even though it doesn't seem to increase it either (). Dietary protein seems to also suppress the exaggerated epinephrine-norepinephrine response to fasted weight training. And, on top of all that, it appears to suppress muscle loss, which may well be due to a moderate increase in circulating insulin ().

So everything points at the possibility that the ingestion of some protein, without carbohydrates or fat, is a good idea prior to fasted weight training. Not too much protein though, because insulin beyond a certain threshold is also likely to suppress the growth hormone response.

Does the protein have to be in the form of a protein powder? No.

Supplements are made from food, and this is true of protein powders as well. If you hard-boil a couple of large eggs, and eat only the whites prior to weight training, you will be getting about 8-10 grams of one of the highest quality protein "supplements" you can possibly get. Included are BCAAs. You will get a few extra nutrients with that too, but virtually no fat or carbohydrates.

Refined carbohydrate-rich foods, palatability, glycemic load, and the Paleo movement

A great deal of discussion has been going on recently revolving around the so-called “carbohydrate hypothesis of obesity”. I will use the acronym CHO to refer to this hypothesis. This acronym is often used to refer to carbohydrates in nutrition research; I hope this will not cause confusion.

The CHO could be summarized as this: a person consumes foods with “easily digestible” carbohydrates, those carbohydrates raise insulin levels abnormally, the abnormally high insulin levels drive too much fat into body fat cells and keep it there, this causes hunger as not enough fat is released from fat cells for use as energy, this hunger drives the consumption of more foods with “easily digestible” carbohydrates, and so on.

It is posited as a feedback-loop process that causes serious problems over a period of years. The term “easily digestible” is within quotes for emphasis. If it is taken to mean “refined”, which is still a bit vague, there is a good amount of epidemiological evidence in support of the CHO. If it is taken to mean simply “easily digestible”, as in potatoes and rice (which is technically a refined food, but a rather benign one), there is a lot of evidence against it. Even from an unbiased (hopefully) look at county-level data in the China Study.

Another hypothesis that has been around for a long time and that has been revived recently, which we could call the “palatability hypothesis”, is a competing hypothesis. It is an interesting and intriguing hypothesis, at least at first glance. There seems to be some truth to this hypothesis. The idea here is that we have not evolved mechanisms to deal with highly palatable foods, and thus end up overeating them.  Therefore we should go in the opposite direction, and place emphasis on foods that are not very palatable to reach our optimal weight. You might think that to test this hypothesis it would be enough to find out if this diet works: “Eat something … if it tastes good, spit it out!”

But it is not so simple. To test this palatability hypothesis one could try to measure the palatability of foods, and see if it is correlated with consumption. The problem is that the formulations I have seen of the palatability hypothesis treat the palatability construct as static, when in fact it is dynamic – very dynamic. The perception of the reward associated with a specific food changes depending on a number of factors.

For example, we cannot assign a palatability score to a food without considering the particular state in which the individual who eats the food is. That state is defined by a number of factors, including physiological and psychological ones, which vary a lot across individuals and even across different points in time for the same individual. For someone who is hungry after a 20 h fast, for instance, the perceived reward associated with a food will go up significantly compared to the same person in the fed state.

Regarding the CHO, it seems very clear that refined carbohydrate-rich foods in general, particularly the highly modified ones, disrupt normal biological mechanisms that regulate hunger. Perceived food reward, or palatability, is a function of hunger. Abnormal glucose and insulin responses appear to be at the core of this phenomenon. There are undoubtedly many other factors at play as well. But, as you can see, there is a major overlap between the CHO and the palatability hypothesis. Refined carbohydrate-rich foods generally have higher palatability than natural foods in general. Humans are good engineers.

One meme that seems to be forming recently on the Internetz is that the CHO is incompatible with data from healthy isolated groups that consume a lot of carbohydrates, which are sometimes presented as alternative models of life in the Paleolithic. But in fact among influential proponents of the CHO are the intellectual founders of the Paleolithic dieting movement. Including folks who studied native diets high in carbohydrates, and found their users to be very healthy (e.g., the Kitavans). One thing that these intellectual founders did though was to clearly frame the CHO in terms of refined carbohydrate-rich foods.

Natural carbohydrate-rich foods are clearly distinguished from refined ones based on one key attribute; not the only one, but a very important one nonetheless. That attribute is their glycemic load (GL). I am using the term “natural” here as roughly synonymous with “unrefined” or “whole”. Although they are often confused, the GL is not the same as the glycemic index (GI). The GI is a measure of the effect of carbohydrate intake on blood sugar levels. Glucose is the reference; it has a GI of 100.

The GL provides a better way of predicting total blood sugar response, in terms of “area under the curve”, based on both the type and quantity of carbohydrate in a specific food. Area under the curve is ultimately what really matters; a pointed but brief spike may not have much of a metabolic effect. Insulin response is highly correlated with blood sugar response in terms of area under the curve. The GL is calculated through the following formula:

GL = (GI x the amount of available carbohydrate in grams) / 100

The GL of a food is also dynamic, but its range of variation is small enough in normoglycemic individuals so that it can be treated as a relatively static number. (Still, the reference are normoglycemic individuals.) One of the main differences between refined and natural carbohydrate-rich foods is the much higher GL of industrial carbohydrate-rich foods, and this is not affected by slight variations in GL and GI depending on an individual’s state. The table below illustrates this difference.

Looking back at the environment of our evolutionary adaptation (EEA), which was not static either, this situation becomes analogous to that of vitamin D deficiency today. A few minutes of sun exposure stimulate the production of 10,000 IU of vitamin D, whereas food fortification in the standard American diet normally provides less than 500 IU. The difference is large. So is the difference in GL of natural and refined carbohydrate-rich foods.

And what are the immediate consequences of that difference in GL values? They are abnormally elevated blood sugar and insulin levels after meals containing refined carbohydrate-rich foods. (Incidentally, the GL  happens to be relatively low for the rice preparations consumed by Asian populations who seem to do well on rice-based diets.)  Abnormal levels of other hormones, in a chronic fashion, come later, after many years consuming those foods. These hormones include adiponectin, leptin, and tumor necrosis factor. The authors of the article from which the table above was taken note that:

Within the past 20 y, substantial evidence has accumulated showing that long term consumption of high glycemic load carbohydrates can adversely affect metabolism and health. Specifically, chronic hyperglycemia and hyperinsulinemia induced by high glycemic load carbohydrates may elicit a number of hormonal and physiologic changes that promote insulin resistance. Chronic hyperinsulinemia represents the primary metabolic defect in the metabolic syndrome.

Who are the authors of this article? They are Loren Cordain, S. Boyd Eaton, Anthony Sebastian, Neil Mann, Staffan Lindeberg, Bruce A. Watkins, James H O’Keefe, and Janette Brand-Miller. The paper is titled “Origins and evolution of the Western diet: Health implications for the 21st century”. A full-text PDF is available here. For most of these authors, this article is their most widely cited publication so far, and it is piling up citations as I write. This means that not only members of the general public have been reading it, but that professional researchers have been reading it as well, and citing it in their own research publications.

In summary, the CHO and the palatability hypothesis overlap, and the overlap is not trivial. But the palatability hypothesis is more difficult to test. As Karl Popper noted, a good hypothesis is a testable hypothesis. Eating natural foods will make an enormous difference for the better in your health if you are coming from the standard American diet, and you can justify this statement based on the CHO, the palatability hypothesis, or even a few others – e.g., a nutrient density hypothesis, which would be closer to Weston Price's views. Even if you eat only plant-based natural foods, which I cannot fully recommend based on data I’ve reviewed on this blog, you will be better off.

Potassium deficiency in low carbohydrate dieting: High protein and fat alternatives that do not involve supplementation

It is often pointed out, at least anecdotally, that potassium deficiency is common among low carbohydrate dieters. Potassium deficiency can lead to a number of unpleasant symptoms and health problems. This micronutrient is present in small quantities in meat and seafood; main sources are plant foods.

A while ago this has gotten me thinking and asking myself: what about isolated hunter-gatherers that seem to have thrived consuming mostly carnivorous diets with little potassium, such as various Native American tribes?

Another thought came to mind, which is that animal protein seems to be associated with increased bone mineralization, even when calcium intake is low. That seems to be due to animal protein being associated with increased absorption of calcium and other minerals that make up bone tissue.

Maybe animal protein intake is also associated with increased potassium absorption. If this is true, what could be the possible mechanism?

As it turns out, there is one possible and somewhat surprising connection, insulin seems to promote cell uptake of potassium. This is an argument made many years ago by Clausen and Kohn, and further discussed more recently by Benziane and Chibalin. See also this recent commentary by Clausen.

Protein is the only macronutrient that normally causes transient insulin elevation without any glucose response. And the insulin response to protein is nowhere near that associated with refined carbohydrate-rich foods. It is much lower, analogous to the response to natural carbohydrate-rich foods.

A very low carbohydrate diet with more animal protein, and less fat, would induce insulin responses after meals, possibly helping with the absorption of potassium, even if potassium intake were rather limited. Primarily carnivorous diets, like those of some traditional Native American groups, would fit the bill.

Also, a low carbohydrate diet with emphasis on fat, but that was not so low in carbohydrates from certain sources, would probably achieve the same effect. This latter sounds like Kwaśniewski’s Optimal Diet, where people are encouraged to eat a lot more fat than protein, but also a small amount of carbohydrates (e.g., 50-100 g/d) from things like potatoes.

Kwaśniewski’s suggestions may sound counterintuitive sometimes. But, as it turns out, potatoes are good sources of potassium. One potato may not be a lot, but that potato will also increase insulin levels, bringing potassium intake up at the cell level.

There is no doubt that abnormally elevated insulin is associated with body fat accumulation

For as long as diets existed there have been influential proponents, or believers, who at some point had what they thought were epiphanies. From that point forward, they disavowed the diets that they formally endorsed. Low carbohydrate dieting seems to be in this situation now. Among other things, it has been recently “discovered” that the idea that insulin drives fat into body fat cells is “wrong”.

Based on some of the comments I have been receiving lately, apparently a few readers think that I am one of those “enlightened”. If you are interested in what I have been eating, for quite some time now, just click on the link at the top of this blog that refers to my transformation. It is essentially high in all macronutrients on days that I exercise, and low in carbohydrates and calories on days that I don’t. It is a cyclic approach that works for me; calorie surpluses on some days and calorie deficits on other days.

But let me set the record straight regarding what I think: there is no doubt that insulin is associated with body fat accumulation. I was told that an influential health blogger (whom I respect a lot) denied this recently, going to the extreme of saying that no professional metabolism or endocrinology researcher believes in it, but I couldn’t find any evidence of that statement. It is not hard at all to find professional metabolism and endocrinology researchers who have asserted that insulin is associated with body fat accumulation, based on very reliable evidence. Actually, this is Biochemistry 101.

What I think is truly unclear is whether insulin spikes associated with carbohydrate-rich foods in general are the cause of obesity. This idea is, indeed, probably wrong given the evidence we have from various human populations whose members consume plenty of non-industrialized carbohydrate-rich foods. On a related note, I particularly disagree with the notion that the pancreas gets tired over time due to having to secrete insulin in bursts, which seems to also be one of the foundations on which many low carbohydrate diet varieties rest.

As with almost everything related to health, the role of insulin in body fat gain is complex, and part of that complexity is due to the nonlinear relationship between body fat gain and postprandial insulin release. Industrial carbohydrate-rich foods have a much higher glycemic load than natural carbohydrate-rich foods, even though their glycemic index may be the same in some cases. In other words, the quantity of easily digestible carbohydrates per gram is much higher in industrial carbohydrate-rich foods.

In normoglycemic folks, this leads to an abnormally elevated insulin response, among other hormonal responses. For example, circulating growth hormone, which promotes body fat loss, is inversely correlated with circulating insulin. Insulin drives fat, typically from dietary sources of fat, into adipocytes. That fat may also come from excess carbohydrates, packaged into VLDL particles.

Under normal circumstances, that would be fine, since our body is designed to store fat and release it as needed. But the abnormal insulin response elicited by industrial carbohydrate-rich foods, together with other hormonal responses, leads to a little more body fat accumulation, and for longer, than it should. And I’m talking here about people without any metabolic damage. Saturated and monounsaturated fats are healthy when eaten, but when they are stored as excess body fat, they become pro-inflammatory.

Body fat is like an organ, secreting many hormones into the bloodstream, several of which are pro-inflammatory. One of those pro-inflammatory hormones, which I believe is closely linked with many diseases of civilization, is tumor necrosis factor. (The acronym is now TNF. Apparently the “-alpha” after its name and acronym has been dropped recently.) Dietary fat, particularly saturated fat, seems to be anti-inflammatory. In other words, body fat accumulation is the problem. You only need 30 g/d of excess body fat accumulation to gain around 24 lbs of fat per year. Over three years, that will add up to over 70 lbs of body fat.

In my view, ultimately it is excess inflammation (which is, in essence, a vascular response) that is at the source of most of the diseases of civilization.

That is where the nonlinearity comes in. Insulin is healthy up to a point. Beyond that, it starts causing health problems, over time. And one of the main mechanisms by which it does so is via excessive body fat accumulation, with different damage threshold levels for different people. Insulin may decrease appetite as it goes up, but it increases it if goes down too much. If it goes up abnormally, typically it will go down too much. As it reaches a trough it induces hypoglycemia, even if mildly.

Take a look at the graph below, from this post showing the glucose variations in normoglycemic individuals. There is a lot of variation among different individuals, but it is clear that the magnitude of the hypoglycemic dips is inversely correlated with the magnitude of the glucose spikes. That inverse correlation is due primarily to the effect of insulin. Under normal circumstances, a decrease in circulating insulin would promote an increase in free fatty acids in circulation, which would normally have a suppressing effect on hunger in the hours after a meal. But industrial carbohydrate-rich foods lead to increases and decreases in glucose and insulin that are too steep, causing the opposite effect.

You may ask: why do you keep talking about industrial carbohydrate-rich foods? Why not talk about industrial protein- or fat-rich foods as well? The reason is that the food industry has not been very successful at producing industrial protein- or fat-rich foods that are palatable without adding a lot of carbohydrate to them.

More often than not they need enough carbohydrate added in the form of sugar to become truly addictive.

What is a good low carbohydrate diet? It is a low calorie one

My interview with Jimmy Moore should be up on the day that this post becomes available. (I usually write my posts on weekends and schedule them for release at the beginning of the following weeks.) So the time is opportune for me to try to aswer this question: What is a good low carbohydrate diet?

For me, and many people I know, the answer is: a low calorie one. What this means, in simple terms, is that a good low carbohydrate diet is one with plenty of seafood and organ meats in it, and also plenty of veggies. These are low carbohydrate foods that are also naturally low in calories. Conversely, a low carbohydrate diet of mostly beef and eggs would be a high calorie one.

Seafood and organ meats provide essential fatty acids and are typically packed with nutrients. Because of that, they tend to be satiating. In fact, certain organ meats, such as beef liver, are so packed with nutrients that it is a good idea to limit their consumption. I suggest eating beef liver once or twice a week only. As for seafood, it seems like a good idea to me to get half of one’s protein from them.

Does this mean that the calories-in-calories-out idea is correct? No, and there is no need to resort to complicated and somewhat questionable feedback-loop arguments to prove that calories-in-calories-out is wrong. Just consider this hypothetical scenario; a thought experiment. Take two men, one 25 years of age and the other 65, both with the same weight. Put them on the same exact diet, on the same exact weight training regime, and keep everything else the same.

What will happen? Typically the 65-year-old will put on more body fat than the 25-year-old, and the latter will put on more lean body mass. This will happen in spite of the same exact calories-in-calories-out profile. Why? Because their hormonal mixes are different. The 65-year-old will typically have lower levels of circulating growth hormone and testosterone, both of which significantly affect body composition.

As you can see, it is not all about insulin, as has been argued many times before. In fact, average and/or fasting insulin may be the same for the 65- and 25-year-old men. And, still, the 65-year-old will have trouble keeping his body fat low and gaining muscle. There are other hormones involved, such as leptin and adiponectin, and probably several that we don’t know about yet.

A low carbohydrate diet appears to be ideal for many people, whether that is due to a particular health condition (e.g., diabetes) or simply due to a genetic makeup that favors this type of diet. By adopting a low carbohydrate diet with plenty of seafood, organ meats, and veggies, you will make it a low calorie diet. If that leads to a calorie deficit that is too large, you can always add a bit more of fat to it. For example, by cooking fish with butter and adding bacon to beef liver.

One scenario where I don’t see the above working well is if you are a competitive athlete who depletes a significant amount of muscle glycogen on a daily basis – e.g., 250 g or more. In this case, it will be very difficult to replenish glycogen only with protein, so the person will need more carbohydrates. He or she would need a protein intake in excess of 500 g per day for replenishing 250 g of glycogen only with protein.

Strength training plus fasting regularly, and becoming diabetic!? No, it is just compensatory adaptation at work

One common outcome of doing glycogen-depleting exercise (e.g., strength training, sprinting) in combination with intermittent fasting is an increase in growth hormone (GH) levels. See this post for a graph showing the acute effect on GH levels of glycogen-depleting exercise. This effect applies to both men and women, and is generally healthy, leading to improvements in mood and many health markers.

It is a bit like GH therapy, with GH being “administered” to you by your own body. Both glycogen-depleting exercise and intermittent fasting increase GH levels; apparently they have an additive effect when done together.

Still, a complaint that one sees a lot from people who have been doing glycogen-depleting exercise and intermittent fasting for a while is that their fasting blood glucose levels go up. This is particularly true for obese folks (after they lose body fat), as obesity tends to be associated with low GH levels, although it is not restricted to the obese. In fact, many people decide to stop what they were doing because they think that they are becoming insulin resistant and on their way to developing type 2 diabetes. And, surely enough, when they stop, their blood glucose levels go down.

Guess what? If your blood glucose levels are going up quite a bit in response to glycogen-depleting exercise and intermittent fasting, maybe you are one of the lucky folks who are very effective at increasing their GH levels. The blood glucose increase effect is temporary, although it can last months, and is indeed caused by insulin resistance. An HbA1c test should also show an increase in hemoglobin glycation.

Over time, however, you will very likely become more insulin sensitive. What is happening is compensatory adaptation, with different short-term and long-term responses. In the short term, your body is trying to become a more efficient fat-burning machine, and GH is involved in this adaptation. But in the short term, GH leads to insulin resistance, probably via actions on muscle and fat cells. This gradually improves in the long term, possibly through a concomitant increase in liver insulin sensitivity and glycogen storage capacity.

This is somewhat similar to the response to GH therapy.

The figure below is from Johannsson et al. (1997). It shows what happened in terms of glucose metabolism when a group of obese men were administered recombinant GH for 9 months. The participants were aged 48–66, and were given in daily doses the equivalent to what would be needed to bring their GH levels to approximately what they were at age 20. For glucose, 5 mmol is about 90 mg, 5.5 is about 99, and 6 is about 108. GDR is glucose disposal rate; a measure of how quickly glucose is cleared from the blood.

As you can see, insulin sensitivity initially goes down for the GH group, and fasting blood glucose goes up quite a lot. But after 9 months the GH group has better insulin sensitivity. Their GDR is the same as in the placebo group, but with lower circulating insulin. The folks in the GH group also have significantly less body fat, and have better health markers, than those who took the placebo.

There is such a thing as sudden-onset type 2-like diabetes, but it is very rare (see Michael’s blog). Usually type 2 diabetes “telegraphs” its arrival through gradually increasing fasting blood glucose and HbA1c. However, those normally come together with other things, notably a decrease in HDL cholesterol and an increase in fasting triglycerides. Folks who do glycogen-depleting exercise and intermittent fasting tend to see the opposite – an increase in HDL cholesterol and a decrease in triglycerides.

So, if you are doing things that have the potential to increase your GH levels, a standard lipid panel can help you try to figure out whether insulin resistance is benign or not, if it happens.

By the way, GH and cortisol levels are correlated, which is often why some associate responses to glycogen-depleting exercise and intermittent fasting with esoteric nonsense that has no basis in scientific research like “adrenal fatigue”. Cortisol levels are meant to go up and down, but they should not go up and stay up while you are sitting down.

Avoid chronic stress, and keep on doing glycogen-depleting exercise and intermittent fasting; there is overwhelming scientific evidence that these things are good for you.

Alcohol consumption, gender, and type 2 diabetes: Strange … but true

Let me start this post with a warning about spirits (hard liquor). Taken on an empty stomach, they cause an acute suppression of liver glycogenesis. In other words, your liver becomes acutely insulin resistant for a while. How long? It depends on how much you drink; possibly as long as a few hours. So it is not a very good idea to consume them immediately before eating carbohydrate-rich foods, natural or not, or as part of sweet drinks. You may end up with near diabetic blood sugar levels, even if your liver is insulin sensitive under normal circumstances.

The other day I was thinking about this, and the title of this article caught my attention: Alcohol Consumption and the Risk of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. This article is available here in full text. In it, Kao and colleagues show us a very interesting table (Table 4), relating alcohol consumption in men and women with incidence of type 2 diabetes. I charted the data from Model 3 in that table, and here is what I got:

I used the data from Model 3 because it adjusted for a lot of things: age, race, education, family history of diabetes, body mass index, waist/hip ratio, physical activity, total energy intake, smoking history, history of hypertension, fasting serum insulin, and fasting serum glucose. Whoa! As you can see, Model 3 even adjusted for preexisting insulin resistance and impaired glucose metabolism.

So, according to the charts, the more women drink, the lower is the risk of developing type 2 diabetes, even if they drink more than 21 drinks per week. For men, the sweet spot is 7-14 drinks per week; after 21 drinks per week the risk goes up significantly.

A drink is defined as: a 4-ounce glass of wine, a 12-ounce bottle or can of beer, or a 1.5-ounce shot of hard liquor. The amounts of ethanol vary, with more in hard liquor: 4 ounces of wine = 10.8 g of ethanol, 12 ounces of beer = 13.2 g of ethanol, and 1.5 ounces of spirits = 15.1 g of ethanol.

Initially I thought that these results were due to measurement error, particularly because the study relies on questionnaires. But I did some digging and checking, and now think they are not. In fact, there are plausible explanations for them. Here is what I think, and it has to do with a fundamental difference between men and women – sex hormones.

In men, alcohol consumption, particularly in large quantities, suppresses testosterone production. And testosterone levels are inversely associated with diabetes in men. Heavy alcohol consumption also increases estrogen production in men, which is not good news either.

In women, alcohol consumption, particularly in large quantities, increases estrogen production. And estrogen levels are (you guessed it) inversely associated with diabetes in women. Unnatural suppression of testosterone levels in women is not good either, as this hormone also plays important roles in women; e.g., it influences mood and bone density.

What if we were to disregard the possible negative health effects of suppressing testosterone production in women; should women start downing 21 drinks or more per week? The answer is “no”, because alcohol consumption, particularly in large quantities, increases the risk of breast cancer in women. So, for women, alcohol consumption in moderation may also provide overall health benefits, as it does for men; but for different reasons.

The China Study II: Carbohydrates, fat, calories, insulin, and obesity

The “great blogosphere debate” rages on regarding the effects of carbohydrates and insulin on health. A lot of action has been happening recently on Peter’s blog, with knowledgeable folks chiming in, such as Peter himself, Dr. Harris, Dr. B.G. (my sista from anotha mista), John, Nigel, CarbSane, Gunther G., Ed, and many others.

I like to see open debate among people who hold different views consistently, are willing to back them up with at least some evidence, and keep on challenging each other’s views. It is very unlikely that any one person holds the whole truth regarding health matters. Unfortunately this type of debate also confuses a lot of people, particularly those blog lurkers who want to get all of their health information from one single source.

Part of that “great blogosphere debate” debate hinges on the effect of low or high carbohydrate dieting on total calorie consumption. Well, let us see what the China Study II data can tell us about that, and about a few other things.

WarpPLS was used to do the analyses below. For other China Study analyses, many using WarpPLS as well as HealthCorrelator for Excel, click here. For the dataset used here, visit the HealthCorrelator for Excel site and check under the sample datasets area.

The two graphs below show the relationships between various foods, carbohydrates as a percentage of total calories, and total calorie consumption. A basic linear analysis was employed here. As carbohydrates as a percentage of total calories go up, the diet generally becomes a high carbohydrate diet. As it goes down, we see a move to the low carbohydrate end of the scale.

The left parts of the two graphs above are very similar. They tell us that wheat flour consumption is very strongly and negatively associated with rice consumption; i.e., wheat flour displaces rice. They tell us that fruit consumption is positively associated with rice consumption. They also tell us that high wheat flour consumption is strongly and positively associated with being on a high carbohydrate diet.

Neither rice nor fruit consumption has a statistically significant influence on whether the diet is high or low in carbohydrates, with rice having some effect and fruit practically none. But wheat flour consumption does. Increases in wheat flour consumption lead to a clear move toward the high carbohydrate diet end of the scale.

People may find the above results odd, but they should realize that white glutinous rice is only 20 percent carbohydrate, whereas wheat flour products are usually 50 percent carbohydrate or more. Someone consuming 400 g of white rice per day, and no other carbohydrates, will be consuming only 80 g of carbohydrates per day. Someone consuming 400 g of wheat flour products will be consuming 200 g of carbohydrates per day or more.

Fruits generally have much less carbohydrate than white rice, even very sweet fruits. For example, an apple is about 12 percent carbohydrate.

There is a measure that reflects the above differences somewhat. That measure is the glycemic load of a food; not to be confused with the glycemic index.

The right parts of the graphs above tell us something else. They tell us that the percentage of carbohydrates in one’s diet is strongly associated with total calorie consumption, and that this is not the case with percentage of fat in one’s diet.

Given the above, one may be interested in looking at the contribution of individual foods to total calorie consumption. The graph below focuses on that. The results take nonlinearity into consideration; they were generated using the Warp3 algorithm option of WarpPLS.

As you can see, wheat flour consumption is more strongly associated with total calories than rice; both associations being positive. Animal food consumption is negatively associated, somewhat weakly but statistically significantly, with total calories. Let me repeat for emphasis: negatively associated. This means that, as animal food consumption goes up, total calories consumed go down.

These results may seem paradoxical, but keep in mind that animal foods displace wheat flour in this dataset. Note that I am not saying that wheat flour consumption is a confounder; it is controlled for in the model above.

What does this all mean?

Increases in both wheat flour and rice consumption lead to increases in total caloric intake in this dataset. Wheat has a stronger effect. One plausible mechanism for this is abnormally high blood glucose elevations promoting abnormally high insulin responses. Refined carbohydrate-rich foods are particularly good at raising blood glucose fast and keeping it elevated, because they usually contain a lot of easily digestible carbohydrates. The amounts here are significantly higher than anything our body is “designed” to handle.

In normoglycemic folks, that could lead to a “lite” version of reactive hypoglycemia, leading to hunger again after a few hours following food consumption. Insulin drives calories, as fat, into adipocytes. It also keeps those calories there. If insulin is abnormally elevated for longer than it should be, one becomes hungry while storing fat; the fat that should have been released to meet the energy needs of the body. Over time, more calories are consumed; and they add up.

The above interpretation is consistent with the result that the percentage of fat in one’s diet has a statistically non-significant effect on total calorie consumption. That association, although non-significant, is negative. Again, this looks paradoxical, but in this sample animal fat displaces wheat flour.

Moreover, fat leads to no insulin response. If it comes from animals foods, fat is satiating not only because so much in our body is made of fat and/or requires fat to run properly; but also because animal fat contains micronutrients, and helps with the absorption of those micronutrients.

Fats from oils, even the healthy ones like coconut oil, just do not have the latter properties to the same extent as unprocessed fats from animal foods. Think slow-cooking meat with some water, making it release its fat, and then consuming all that fat as a sauce together with the meat.

In the absence of industrialized foods, typically we feel hungry for those foods that contain nutrients that our body needs at a particular point in time. This is a subconscious mechanism, which I believe relies in part on past experience; the reason why we have “acquired tastes”.

Incidentally, fructose leads to no insulin response either. Fructose is naturally found mostly in fruits, in relatively small amounts when compared with industrial foods rich in refined sugars.

And no, the pancreas does not get “tired” from secreting insulin.

The more refined a carbohydrate-rich food is, the more carbohydrates it tends to pack per unit of weight. Carbohydrates also contribute calories; about 4 calories per g. Thus more carbohydrates should translate into more calories.

If someone consumes 50 g of carbohydrates per day in excess of caloric needs, that will translate into about 22.2 g of body fat being stored. Over a month, that will be approximately 666.7 g. Over a year, that will be 8 kg, or 17.6 lbs. Over 5 years, that will be 40 kg, or 88 lbs. This is only from carbohydrates; it does not consider other macronutrients.

There is no need to resort to the “tired pancreas” theory of late-onset insulin resistance to explain obesity in this context. Insulin resistance is, more often than not, a direct result of obesity. Type 2 diabetes is by far the most common type of diabetes; and most type 2 diabetics become obese or overweight before they become diabetic. There is clearly a genetic effect here as well, which seems to moderate the relationship between body fat gain and liver as well as pancreas dysfunction.

It is not that hard to become obese consuming refined carbohydrate-rich foods. It seems to be much harder to become obese consuming animal foods, or fruits.

Lipotoxicity or tired pancreas? Abnormal fat metabolism as a possible precondition for type 2 diabetes

The term “diabetes” is used to describe a wide range of diseases of glucose metabolism; diseases with a wide range of causes. The diseases include type 1 and type 2 diabetes, type 2 ketosis-prone diabetes (which I know exists thanks to Michael Barker’s blog), gestational diabetes, various MODY types, and various pancreatic disorders. The possible causes include genetic defects (or adaptations to very different past environments), autoimmune responses, exposure to environmental toxins, as well as viral and bacterial infections; in addition to obesity, and various other apparently unrelated factors, such as excessive growth hormone production.

Type 2 diabetes and the “tired pancreas” theory

Type 2 diabetes is the one most commonly associated with the metabolic syndrome, which is characterized by middle-age central obesity, and the “diseases of civilization” brought up by Neolithic inventions. Evidence is mounting that a Neolithic diet and lifestyle play a key role in the development of the metabolic syndrome. In terms of diet, major suspects are engineered foods rich in refined carbohydrates and refined sugars. In this context, one widely touted idea is that the constant insulin spikes caused by consumption of those foods lead the pancreas (figure below from Wikipedia) to get “tired” over time, losing its ability to produce insulin. The onset of insulin resistance mediates this effect.

Empirical evidence against the “tired pancreas” theory

This “tired pancreas” theory, which refers primarily to the insulin-secreting beta-cells in the pancreas, conflicts with a lot of empirical evidence. It is inconsistent with the existence of isolated semi/full hunter-gatherer groups (e.g., the Kitavans) that consume large amounts of natural (i.e., unrefined) foods rich in easily digestible carbohydrates from tubers and fruits, which cause insulin spikes. These groups are nevertheless generally free from type 2 diabetes. The “tired pancreas” theory conflicts with the existence of isolated groups in China and Japan (e.g., the Okinawans) whose diets also include a large proportion of natural foods rich in easily digestible carbohydrates, which cause insulin spikes. Yet these groups are generally free from type 2 diabetes.

Humboldt (1995), in his personal narrative of his journey to the “equinoctial regions of the new continent”, states on page 121 about the natives as a group that: "… between twenty and fifty years old, age is not indicate by wrinkling skin, white hair or body decrepitude [among natives]. When you enter a hut is hard to differentiate a father from son …" A large proportion of these natives’ diets included plenty of natural foods rich in easily digestible carbohydrates from tubers and fruits, which cause insulin spikes. Still, there was no sign of any condition that would suggest a prevalence of type 2 diabetes among them.

At this point it is important to note that the insulin spikes caused by natural carbohydrate-rich foods are much less pronounced than the ones caused by refined carbohydrate-rich foods. The reason is that there is a huge gap between the glycemic loads of natural and refined carbohydrate-rich foods, even though the glycemic indices may be quite similar in some cases. Natural carbohydrate-rich foods are not made mostly of carbohydrates. Even an Irish (or white) potato is 75 percent water.

More insulin may lead to abnormal fat metabolism in sedentary people

The more pronounced spikes may lead to abnormal fat metabolism because more body fat is force-stored than it would have been with the less pronounced spikes, and stored body fat is not released just as promptly as it should be to fuel muscle contractions and other metabolic processes. Typically this effect is a minor one on a daily basis, but adds up over time, leading to fairly unnatural patterns of fat metabolism in the long run. This is particularly true for those who lead sedentary lifestyles. As for obesity, nobody gets obese in one day. So the key problem with the more pronounced spikes may not be that the pancreas is getting “tired”, but that body fat metabolism is not normal, which in turn leads to abnormally high or low levels of important body fat-derived hormones (e.g., high levels of leptin and low levels of adiponectin).

One common characteristic of the groups mentioned above is absence of obesity, even though food is abundant and often physical activity is moderate to low. Repeat for emphasis: “… even though food is abundant and often physical activity is moderate to low”. Note that having low levels of activity is not the same as spending the whole day sitting down in a comfortable chair working on a computer. Obviously caloric intake and level of activity among these groups were/are not at the levels that would lead to obesity. How could that be possible? See this post for a possible explanation.

Excessive body fat gain, lipotoxicity, and type 2 diabetes

There are a few theories that implicate the interaction of abnormal fat metabolism with other factors (e.g., genetic factors) in the development of type 2 diabetes. Empirical evidence suggests that this is a reasonable direction of causality. One of these theories is the theory of lipotoxicity.

Several articles have discussed the theory of lipotoxicity. The article by Unger & Zhou (2001) is a widely cited one. The theory seems to be widely based on the comparative study of various genotypes found in rats. Nevertheless, there is mounting evidence suggesting that the underlying mechanisms may be similar in humans. In a nutshell, this theory proposes the following steps in the development of type 2 diabetes:

    (1) Abnormal fat mass gain leads to an abnormal increase in fat-derived hormones, of which leptin is singled out by the theory. Some people seem to be more susceptible than others in this respect, with lower triggering thresholds of fat mass gain. (What leads to exaggerated fat mass gains? The theory does not go into much detail here, but empirical evidence from other studies suggests that major culprits are refined grains and seeds, as well as refined sugars; other major culprits seem to be trans fats, and vegetable oils rich in linoleic acid.)

    (2) Resistance to fat-derived hormones sets in. Again, leptin resistance is singled out as the key here. (This is a bit simplistic. Other fat-derived hormones, like adiponectin, seem to clearly interact with leptin.) Since leptin regulates fatty acid metabolism, the theory argues, leptin resistance is hypothesized to impair fatty acid metabolism.

    (3) Impaired fat metabolism causes fatty acids to “spill over” to tissues other than fat cells, and also causes an abnormal increase in a substance called ceramide in those tissues. These include tissues in the pancreas that house beta-cells, which secrete insulin. In short, body fat should be stored in fat cells (adipocytes), not outside them.

    (4) Initially fatty acid “spill over” to beta-cells enlarges them and makes them become overactive, leading to excessive insulin production in response to carbohydrate-rich foods, and also to insulin resistance. This is the pre-diabetic phase where hypoglycemic episodes happen a few hours following the consumption of carbohydrate-rich foods. Once this stage is reached, several natural carbohydrate-rich foods also become a problem (e.g., potatoes and bananas), in addition to refined carbohydrate-rich foods.

    (5) Abnormal levels of ceramide induce beta-cell apoptosis in the pancreas. This is essentially “death by suicide” of beta cells in the pancreas. What follows is full-blown type 2 diabetes. Insulin production is impaired, leading to very elevated blood glucose levels following the consumption of carbohydrate-rich foods, even if they are unprocessed.

It is widely known that type 2 diabetics have impaired glucose metabolism. What is not so widely known is that usually they also have impaired fatty acid metabolism. For example, consumption of the same fatty meal is likely to lead to significantly more elevated triglyceride levels in type 2 diabetics than non-diabetics, after several hours. This is consistent with the notion that leptin resistance precedes type 2 diabetes, and inconsistent with the “tired pancreas” theory.

Weak and strong points of the theory of lipotoxicity

A weakness of the theory of lipotoxicity is its strong lipophobic tone; at least in the articles that I have read. See, for example, this article by Roger H. Unger in the Journal of the American Medical Association. There is ample evidence that eating a lot of the ultra-demonized saturated fat, per se, is not what makes people obese or type 2 diabetic. Yet overconsumption of trans fats and vegetable oils rich in linoleic acid does seem to be linked with obesity and type 2 diabetes. (So does the consumption of refined grains and seeds, and refined sugars.) The theory of lipotoxicity does not seem to make these distinctions.

In defense of the theory of lipotoxicity, it does not argue that there cannot be thin diabetics. Many type 1 diabetics are thin. Type 2 diabetics can also be thin, even though that is much less common. In certain individuals, the threshold of body fat gain that will precipitate lipotoxicity may be quite low. In others, the same amount of body fat gain (or more) may in fact increase their insulin sensitivity under certain circumstances – e.g., when growth hormone levels are abnormally low.

Autoimmune disorders, perhaps induced by environmental toxins, or toxins found in certain refined foods, may cause the immune system to attack the beta-cells in the pancreas. This may lead to type 1 diabetes if all beta cells are destroyed, or something that can easily be diagnosed as type 2 (or type 1.5) diabetes if only a portion of the cells are destroyed, in a way that does not involve lipotoxicity.

Nor does the theory of lipotoxicity predict that all those who become obese will develop type 2 diabetes. It only suggests that the probability will go up, particularly if other factors are present (e.g., genetic propensity). There are many people who are obese during most of their adult lives and never develop type 2 diabetes. On the other hand, some groups, like Hispanics, tend to develop type 2 diabetes more easily (often even before they reach the obese level). One only has to visit the South Texas region near the Rio Grande border to see this first hand.

What the theory proposes is a new way of understanding the development of type 2 diabetes; a way that seems to make more sense than the “tired pancreas” theory. The theory of lipitoxicity may not be entirely correct. For example, there may be other mechanisms associated with abnormal fat metabolism and consumption of Neolithic foods that cause beta-cell “suicide”, and that have nothing to do with lipotoxicity as proposed by the theory. (At least one fat-derived hormone, tumor necrosis factor-alpha, is associated with abnormal cell apoptosis when abnormally elevated. Levels of this hormone go up immediately after a meal rich in refined carbohydrates.) But the link that it proposes between obesity and type 2 diabetes seems to be right on target.

Implications and thoughts

Some implications and thoughts based on the discussion above are the following. Some are extrapolations based on the discussion in this post combined with those in other posts. At the time of this writing, there were 90 posts on this blog, in addition to many comments. See under "Labels" at the bottom-right area of this blog for a summary of topics addressed. It is hard to ignore things that were brought to light in previous posts.

    - Let us start with a big one: Avoiding natural carbohydrate-rich foods in the absence of compromised glucose metabolism is unnecessary. Those foods do not “tire” the pancreas significantly more than protein-rich foods do. While carbohydrates are not essential macronutrients, protein is. In the absence of carbohydrates, protein will be used by the body to produce glucose to supply the needs of the brain and red blood cells. Protein elicits an insulin response that is comparable to that of natural carbohydrate-rich foods on a gram-adjusted basis (but significantly lower than that of refined carbohydrate-rich foods, like doughnuts and bagels). Usually protein does not lead to a measurable glucose response because glucagon is secreted together with insulin in response to ingestion of protein, preventing hypoglycemia.

    - Abnormal fat gain should be used as a general measure of one’s likelihood of being “headed south” in terms of health. The “fitness” level for men and women shown on the table in this post seem like good targets for body fat percentage. The problem here, of course, is that this is not as easy as it sounds. Attempts at getting lean can lead to poor nutrition and/or starvation. These may make matters worse in some cases, leading to hormonal imbalances and uncontrollable hunger, which will eventually lead to obesity. Poor nutrition may also depress the immune system, making one susceptible to a viral or bacterial  infection that may end up leading to beta-cell destruction and diabetes. A better approach is to place emphasis on eating a variety of natural foods, which are nutritious and satiating, and avoiding refined ones, which are often addictive “empty calories”. Generally fat loss should be slow to be healthy and sustainable.

    - Finally, if glucose metabolism is compromised, one should avoid any foods in quantities that cause an abnormally elevated glucose or insulin response. All one needs is an inexpensive glucose meter to find out what those foods are. The following are indications of abnormally elevated glucose and insulin responses, respectively: an abnormally high glucose level 1 hour after a meal (postprandial hyperglycemia); and an abnormally low glucose level 2 to 4 hours after a meal (reactive hypoglycemia). What is abnormally high or low? Take a look at the peaks and troughs shown on the graph in this post; they should give you an idea. Some insulin resistant people using glucose meters will probably realize that they can still eat several natural carbohydrate-rich foods, but in small quantities, because those foods usually have a low glycemic load (even if their glycemic index is high).

Lucy was a vegetarian and Sapiens an omnivore. We apparently have not evolved to be pure carnivores, even though we can be if the circumstances require. But we absolutely have not evolved to eat many of the refined and industrialized foods available today, not even the ones marketed as “healthy”. Those foods do not make our pancreas “tired”. Among other things, they “mess up” fat metabolism, which may lead to type 2 diabetes through a complex process involving hormones secreted by body fat.

References

Humboldt, A.V. (1995). Personal narrative of a journey to the equinoctial regions of the new continent. New York, NY: Penguin Books.

Unger, R.H., & Zhou, Y.-T. (2001). Lipotoxicity of beta-cells in obesity and in other causes of fatty acid spillover. Diabetes, 50(1), S118-S121.

Growth hormone, insulin resistance, body fat accumulation, and glycogen depletion: Making sense of a mysterious hormone replacement therapy outcome

Hormone replacement therapies are prescribed in some cases, for medical reasons. They usually carry some risks. The risks come in part from the body down-regulating its own production of hormones when hormones are taken orally or injected. This could be seen as a form of compensatory adaptation, as the body tries to protect itself from abnormally high hormone levels.

More often than not the down-regulation can be reversed by interrupting the therapy. In some cases, the down-regulation becomes permanent, leading to significant health deterioration over the long run. One can seriously regret having started the hormone replacement therapy in the first place. The same is true (if not more) for hormone supplementation for performance enhancement, where normal hormone secretion levels are increased to enhance (mostly) athletic performance.

Rosenfalck and colleagues (1999) conducted an interesting study linking growth hormone (GH) replacement therapy with insulin resistance. Their conclusions are not very controversial. What I find interesting is what their data analysis unveiled and was not included in their conclusions. Also, they explain their main findings by claiming that there was a deterioration of beta cell function. (Beta cells are located in the pancreas, and secrete insulin.) While they may be correct, their explanation is not very plausible, as you will see below.

Let us take a quick look at what past research says about GH therapy and insulin resistance. One frequent finding is a significant but temporary impairment of insulin sensitivity, which usually normalizes after a period of a few months (e.g., 6 months). Another not so frequent finding is a significant and permanent impairment of insulin sensitivity; this is not as frequent in healthy individuals.

The researchers did a good job at reviewing this literature, and concluded that in many cases GH therapy is not worth the risk. They also studied 24 GH-deficient adults (18 males and 6 females). All of them had known pituitary pathology, which caused the low GH levels. The participants were randomly assigned to two groups. One received 4 months treatment with biosynthetic GH daily (n=13); the other received a placebo (n=11).

The table below (click on it to enlarge) shows various measures before and after treatment. Note the significant reduction in abdominal fat mass in the GH group. Also note that, prior to the treatment, the GH group folks (who were GH-deficient) were overall much heavier and much fatter, particular at the abdominal area, than the folks in the placebo (or control) group.

From the measures above one could say that the treatment was a success. But the researchers point out that it was not, because insulin sensitivity was significantly impaired. They show some graphs (below), and that is where things get really interesting, but not in the way intended by the researchers.

On the figure above, the graphs on the left refer to the placebo group, and on the right to the GH group. The solid lines reflect pre-treatment numbers and dotted lines post-treatment numbers. Indeed, GH therapy is making the GH-deficient folks significantly more insulin resistant.

But look carefully. The GH folks are more insulin sensitive than the controls prior to the treatment, even though they are much fatter, particularly in terms of abdominal fat. The glucose response is significantly lower for the GH-deficient folks, and that is not due to them secreting more insulin. The insulin response is also significantly lower. This is confirmed by glucose and insulin “area under the curve” measures provided by the researchers.

In fact, after treatment both groups seem to have generally the same insulin and glucose responses. This means that the GH treatment made insulin-sensitive folks a bit more like their normal counterparts in the placebo group. But obviously the change for the worse occurred only in the GH group, which is what the researchers concluded.

Now to the really interesting question, at least in my mind: What could have improved insulin sensitivity in the GH-deficient group prior to the treatment?

The GH-deficient folks had more body fat, particularly around the abdominal area. High serum GH is usually associated with low body fat, particularly around the abdominal area, because high GH folks burn it easily. So, looking at it from a different perspective, the GH-deficient folks seem to have been more effective at making body fat, and less effective at burning it.

Often we talk about insulin sensitivity as though there was only one type. But there is more than one type of insulin sensitivity. Insulin signals to the liver to take up glucose from the blood and turn it into glycogen or fat. Insulin also signals to body fat tissue to take up glucose from the blood and make fat with it. (GLUT 4 is an insulin-sensitive glucose transporter present in both fat and muscle cells.)

Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that folks with fat cells that are particularly insulin-sensitive would tend to make body fat quite easily based on glucose. While this is a type of insulin sensitivity that most people probably do not like to have, it may play an important role in reducing blood glucose levels under certain conditions. This appears to be true in the short term. Down the road, having very insulin-sensitive fat cells seems to lead to obesity, the metabolic syndrome, and diabetes.

In fact, in individuals without pituitary pathology, increased insulin sensitivity in fat cells could be a compensatory adaptation in response to a possible decrease in liver and muscle glucose uptake. Lack of exercise will shift the burden of glucose clearance to tissues other than liver and muscle, because with glycogen stores full both liver and muscle will usually take up much less blood glucose than they would otherwise.

I am speculating here, but I think that in individuals without pituitary pathology, an involuntary decrease in endogenous GH secretion may actually be at the core of this compensatory adaptation mechanism. In these individuals, low GH levels may be an outcome, not a cause of problems. This would explain two apparently contradictory findings: (a) GH levels drop dramatically in the 40s, particularly for men; and (b) several people in their 50s and 60s, including men, have much higher levels of circulating GH than people in their 40s, and even than much younger folks.

Vigorous exercise increases blood glucose uptake, inside and outside the exercise window; this is an almost universal effect among humans. Exercise depletes muscle and liver glycogen. (Fasting and low-carbohydrate dieting alone deplete liver, but not muscle, glycogen.) As glycogen stores become depleted, the activity of glycogen synthase (an enzyme involved in the conversion of glucose to glycogen) increases acutely. This activity remains elevated for several days in muscle tissue; the liver replenishes its glycogen in a matter of hours. With glycogen synthase activity elevated, glucose is quickly used to replenish glycogen stores, and not to make fat.

Depleting glycogen stores on a regular basis (e.g., once every few days) may over time reverse the adaptations that made fat cells particularly insulin-sensitive in the first place. Those adaptations become a protection that is not only no longer needed but also detrimental to health, since they lead to obesity. This could be the reason why many people initially find it difficult to lower their body fat set point, but once they lose body fat and stay lean for a while, they seem to become able to maintain their leanness without much effort.

Well, perhaps glycogen-depleting exercise is more important than many people think. It can help make you thin, but through a circuitous path.

And, incidentally, glycogen-depleting exercise causes a temporary but dramatic spike in GH secretion. This natural increase in GH secretion does not seem to be associated with any significant impairment in overall insulin sensitivity, even though glycogen-depleting exercise increases blood glucose levels a lot during the exercise window. This is a temporary and physiological, not pathological, phenomenon.

Reference:

Rosenfalck A.M., Fisker, S., Hilsted, J., Dinesen, B., Vølund, A., Jørgensen, J.O., Christiansen, J.S., & Madsbad, S. (1999). The effect of the deterioration of insulin sensitivity on beta-cell function in growth-hormone-deficient adults following 4-month growth hormone replacement therapy. Growth Hormone & IGF Research, 9(2), 96–105.

Our body’s priority is preventing hypoglycemia, not hyperglycemia

An adult human has about 5 l of blood in circulation. Considering a blood glucose concentration of 100 mg/dl, this translates into a total amount of glucose in the blood of about 5 g (5 l x 0.1 g / 0.1 l). That is approximately a teaspoon of glucose. If a person’s blood glucose goes down to about half of that, the person will enter a state of hypoglycemia. Severe and/or prolonged hypoglycemia can cause seizures, comma, and death.

In other words, the disappearance of about 2.5 g of glucose from the blood will lead to hypoglycemia. Since 2.5 g of glucose yields about 10 calories, it should be easy to see that it does not take much to make someone hypoglycemic in the absence of compensatory mechanisms. An adult will consume on average 6 to 9 times as many calories just sitting quietly, and a proportion of those calories will come from glucose.

While hypoglycemia has severe negative health effects in the short term, including the most severe of all - death, hyperglycemia has primarily long-term negative health effects. Given this, it is no surprise that our body’s priority is to prevent hypoglycemia, not hyperglycemia.

The figure below, from the outstanding book by Brooks and colleagues (2005), shows two graphs. The graph at the top shows the variation of arterial glucose in response to exercise. The graph at the bottom shows the variation of whole-body and muscle glucose uptake, plus hepatic glucose production, in response to exercise. The full reference to the Brooks and colleagues book is at the end of this post.

Note how blood glucose increases dramatically as the intensity of the exercise session increases, which means that muscle tissue consumption of glucose is also increasing. This is particularly noticeable as arm exercise is added to leg exercise, bringing the exercise intensity to 82 percent of maximal capacity. This blood glucose elevation is similar to the elevation one would normally see in response to all-out sprinting and weight training within the anaerobic range (with enough weight to allow only 6 to 12 repetitions, or a time under tension of about 30 to 70 seconds).

The dashed line at the bottom graph represents whole-body glucose uptake, including what would be necessary for the body to function in the absence of exercise. This is why whole-body glucose uptake is higher than muscle glucose uptake induced by exercise; the latter was measured through a glucose tracing method. The top of the error bars above the points on the dashed line represent hepatic glucose production, which is always ahead of whole-body glucose uptake. This is our body doing what it needs to do to prevent hypoglycemia.

One point that is important to make here is that at the beginning of an anaerobic exercise session muscle uses up primarily local glycogen stores (not liver glycogen stores), and can completely deplete them in a very localized fashion. Muscle glycogen stores add up to 500 g, but intense exercise depletes glycogen stores locally, only within the muscles being used. Still, muscle glycogen use generates lactate as a byproduct, which is then used by the liver to produce glucose (gluconeogenesis) to prevent hypoglycemia. The liver also makes some glycogen (glycogenesis) during this time. This means that it is not only pre-exercise liver glycogen that is being used to maintain blood glucose levels above whole-body glucose uptake. This makes sense, since the liver stores only about 100 g of glycogen.

The need to prevent hypoglycemia at all costs is the main reason why there are several hormones that increase blood glucose, while apparently there is only one that decreases blood glucose. Examples of hormones that increase blood glucose are cortisol, adrenaline, noradrenaline, growth hormone, and, notably, glucagon. The only hormone that decreases blood glucose levels in a significant way is insulin. These hormones do not increase or decrease blood glucose directly; they signal to various tissues to either secrete or absorb glucose.

Evolution typically prioritizes processes that have a higher impact on reproductive success, and one must be alive to successfully reproduce. Hypoglycemia causes death. Often those processes that have a significant effect on reproductive success rely on redundant mechanisms. So our evolved mechanisms to deal with hypoglycemia are redundant. Evolution is not an engineer; it is a tinkerer!

What about hyperglycemia – doesn’t it cause death? Well, not in the short term, so related selection pressures were fairly small compared to those associated with hypoglycemia. Besides, there were no foods rich in refined carbohydrates and sugars in the Paleolithic - e.g., white bread, bagels, doughnuts, pasta, cereals, fruit juices, regular sodas, table sugar. Those are the foods that contribute the most to hyperglycemia.

Reference:

Brooks, G.A., Fahey, T.D., & Baldwin, K.M. (2005). Exercise physiology: Human bioenergetics and its applications. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

Exercise and blood glucose levels: Insulin and glucose responses to exercise

The notion that exercise reduces blood glucose levels is widespread. That notion is largely incorrect. Exercise appears to have a positive effect on insulin sensitivity in the long term, but also increases blood glucose levels in the short term. That is, exercise, while it is happening, leads to an increase in circulating blood glucose. In normoglycemic individuals, that increase is fairly small compared to the increase caused by consumption of carbohydrate-rich foods, particularly foods rich in refined carbohydrates and sugars.

The figure below, from the excellent book by Wilmore and colleagues (2007), shows the variation of blood insulin and glucose in response to an endurance exercise session. The exercise session’s intensity was at 65 to 70 percent of the individuals’ maximal capacity (i.e., their VO2 max). The session lasted 180 minutes, or 3 hours. The full reference to the book by Wilmore and colleagues is at the end of this post.

As you can see, blood insulin levels decreased markedly in response to the exercise bout, in an exponential decay fashion. Blood glucose increased quickly, from about 5.1 mmol/l (91.8 mg/dl) to 5.4 mmol/l (97.2 mg/dl), before dropping again. Note that blood glucose levels remained somewhat elevated throughout the exercise session. But, still, the elevation was fairly small in the participants, which were all normoglycemic. A couple of bagels would easily induce a rise to 160 mg/dl in about 45 minutes in those individuals, and a much larger “area under the curve” glucose response than exercise.

So what is going on here? Shouldn’t glucose levels go down, since muscle is using glucose for energy?

No, because the human body is much more “concerned” with keeping blood glucose levels high enough to support those cells that absolutely need glucose, such as brain and red blood cells. During exercise, the brain will derive part of its energy from ketones, but will still need glucose to function properly. In fact, that need is critical for survival, and may be seen as a bit of an evolutionary flaw. Hypoglycemia, if maintained for too long, will lead to seizures, coma, and death.

Muscle tissue will increase its uptake of free fatty acids and ketones during exercise, to spare glucose for the brain. And muscle tissue will also consume glucose, in part for glycogenesis; that is, for making muscle glycogen, which is being depleted by exercise. In this sense, we can say that muscle tissue is becoming somewhat insulin resistant, because it is using more free fatty acids and ketones for energy, and thus less glucose. Another way of looking at this, however, which is favored by Wilmore and colleagues (2007), is that muscle tissue is becoming more insulin sensitive, because it is still taking up glucose, even though insulin levels are dropping.

Truth be told, the discussion in the paragraph above is mostly academic, because muscle tissue can take up glucose without insulin. Insulin is a hormone that allows the pancreas, its secreting organ, to communicate with two main organs – the liver and body fat. (Yes, body fat can be seen as an “organ”, since it has a number of endocrine functions.) Insulin signals to the liver that it is time to take up blood glucose and either make glycogen (to be stored in the liver) or fat with it (secreting that fat in VLDL particles). Insulin signals to body fat that it is time to take up blood glucose and fat (e.g., packaged in chylomicrons) and make more body fat with it. Low insulin levels, during exercise, will do the opposite, leading to low glucose uptake by the liver and an increase in body fat catabolism.

Resistance exercise (e.g., weight training) induces much higher glucose levels than endurance exercise; and this happens even when one has fasted for 20 hours before the exercise session. The reason is that resistance exercise leads to the conversion of muscle glycogen into energy, releasing lactate in the process. Lactate is in turn used by muscle tissues as a source of energy, helping spare glycogen. It is also used by the liver for production of glucose through gluconeogenesis, which significantly elevates blood glucose levels. That hepatic glucose is then used by muscle tissues to replenish their depleted glycogen stores. This is known as the Cori cycle.

Exercise seems to lead, in the long term, to insulin sensitivity; but through a fairly complex and longitudinal process that involves the interaction of many hormones. One of the mechanisms may be an overall reduction in insulin levels, leading to increased insulin sensitivity as a compensatory adaptation. In the short term, particularly while it is being conducted, exercise nearly always increases blood glucose levels. Even in the first few months after the beginning of an exercise program, blood glucose levels may increase. If a person who was on a low carbohydrate diet started a 3-month exercise program, it is quite possible that the person’s average blood glucose would go up a bit. If low carbohydrate dieting began together with the exercise program, then average blood glucose might drop significantly, because of the acute effect of this type of dieting on average blood glucose.

Still exercise is health-promoting. The combination of the long- and short-term effects of exercise appears to lead to an overall slowing down of the progression of insulin resistance with age. This is a good thing.

Reference:

Wilmore, J.H., Costill, D.L., & Kenney, W.L. (2007). Physiology of sport and exercise. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.