Tag Archives: sugar

Molested fats, Op. 139

or
Trans fats, part IV

Proceed with caution, this is an exploratory post.  Replacing CakesCookiesPiesPastriesBreadCerealsBiscuitsPizzaMuffins with [insert any whole food item here] is just a good idea.  And more reasons to eat dark chocolate.

In Inflammatory, trans, or linoleate? the idea was explored that it might not be the theorized textbook pro-inflammatory end products of omega-6 fats that give them a bad rap, but rather the foods that contain them – ie, “cakes, cookies, pies, and pastries” (Kris-Etherton et al., 2012 NHANES), or “bread, cereals, cakes, biscuits, pies, pizza, and muffins” (Meyer et al., 2003 from down under).

dark chocolate

Further, what starts out as an omega-6 fat can easily become peroxidized or isomerized into an oxidized or trans fat, respectively, via industrial molestation or just plain old cooking (eg, Romero et al., 1998, Marmesat et al., 2012, & Minami et al., 2012) – even just a few minutes in the microwave (Herzallah et al., 2005)!  I don’t know exactly what all of these end products are for sure, but they might look something like this:ox linoleate

Thus, the culprit may not be native Dc9,c1218:2n6 linoleate.

Continue reading

Share

Liver is evil but need not be punished. SFAs.

What to serve with a liquid lunch, and a recipe for chocolate.

It’s like a feed forward downward spiral.  If you don’t eat saturated fat & MCTs prior to imbibing, then liver intentionally makes more PUFAs for the alcohol-induced burning ROS to molest.  Liver is evil but need not be punished.  SFAs.

Brief background: (Kirpich et al., 2011 & 2013)

Researchers studying alcohol in rodents know where they’re going and like to get there fast.  70 drinks per day fast.  Granted, rats metabolize faster than humans so it’s likely a little less… but a little less than 70 is still a lot of sauce.

Continue reading

Share

Non-sequiter nutrition V. The neglected fats

update: I learned a new trick.  If you haven’t been receiving the regular updates to which you subscribed, it’s probably due to spam filters.  Cure: find the update in your spam folder and reply to it.  You don’t have to write anything, but the mere act of replying somehow tells your spam filter that the email wasn’t spam.  It works for gmail, fwiw.

I [still] predict public approval of dietary fat will come along at a snail’s pace, and it won’t be a pan-approval of dietary fat at all.  Instead, it will be selective approval of individual fatty acids.  First, it was the medium chain fatty acids found in MCTs and coconut oil.  Then, it was the fish oil fatty acids eicosapentaenoic and docosahexaenoic acids (EPA and DHA, respectively).  Then, palmitoleic acid.  Corn and soybean oil, on the other hand, are being appropriately recognized as bad.  The utter hatred and fear of saturated fats is starting to wane, and we might even see a transition back to lard before I die (circa 2113).  But today’s post is on another topic: trans fats, oxidized fish oils, and dairy fat.

What happens when dietary fat is abused?

Continue reading

Share

salt makes you thirsty, soda makes you hungry.

As previously discussed, DRINK was a randomized intervention study that gave children either regular or diet soda for a year and surprise surprise, the regular soda drinkers gained about more body fat than the diet soda drinkers (de Ruyter et al., 2012).  And in the follow-up, with an opposite study design, overweight & obese children who continued to drink regular soda gained twice as much weight as those who cut their intake (Ebbeling et al., 2012).  There was no apparent black box in the latter study as the kids who stopped drinking soda also decreased their intake of other foods…

-does not compute-fructose

wait a minute … By switching from regular soda to diet, you just end up compensating by eating more of something else, right?  My initial response to that has always been that it doesn’t matter – ANYTHING else is better than a straight shot of 100% HFCS (+ some other chemicals).  But those kids didn’t do that.  they ate less of other foods.

 

Does HFCS soda make you eat more?

A recent study has put a little more fuel on this fire.  Similar to the abovementioned two, it’s not a sophisticated study designed to accurately assess the impact of regular soda on appetite, satiety, hunger, etc., but it supports the theory that diet soda negative calories are NOT compensated for by eating more of something else.


Food and beverages associated with higher intake of sugar-sweetened beverages (Mathias et al., 2013)

It was another big cross-sectional NHANES study that simply asked how much regular soda, diet soda, and other foods kids were eating.Mathias data 1

They showed that as soda intake increased, so did total calories, which could simply mean the soda was adding calories to their diets.  This would indirectly support the opposite of the above mentioned theory, namely, that soda calories aren’t compensated for.  But it gets better (or worse, depending how you look at it):Mathias data 2

soda didn’t simply add to the total calorie intake.  More often than not, calorie intake increased above and beyond that contributed by the soda.  And it wasn’t just that bigger kids were drinking more soda and eating more food – these data were controlled for body weight.  The authors estimated that for every 100 kcal of soda drank, an additional 36 – 86 kcal of food was eaten.

salt makes you thirsty, and now soda makes you hungry?

calories proper

Share

Obesity is not permanent

Take a group of obese people (> 250 lbs) and put them on a massive calorie restricted diet.  They lose weight and metabolic rate plummets.  Weight loss fail?  In most cases, yes.  But a recent study showed that the decrepit post-weight loss metabolic rate gradually improves in parallel with an increase in dietary fat ingestion to such a degree that even after two long years: totally food intake was almost back to normal, energy expenditure improved, and all this happened despite continual weight loss.  In other words, obesity is not permanent. 

creme brulee

Decreased energy density and changes in food selection following Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (Laurenius et al., 2013)

Statistically speaking, no diet on Earth comes close to RYGB in terms of weight loss success.  Long term.  Seemingly permanent.  It’s the closest thing to a cure we’ve got.

Laurenius

Body weight is down by 30%, and energy expenditure is rising faster than a speeding bullet.  because food intake is increasing while body weight is dropping – they’re probably more active too ** weight loss than more exercise -

But there’s a more mystical aspect to RYGB that warrants attention.  (it could be the increasing fat intake, but for now let’s just say it’s RYGB per se).  According to this pearl, weight loss of only 10% via diet alone causes energy expenditure crash by 394-500 kcal/d, and physiological replacement of leptin via subcutaneous injection can increase this by 234-454 kcal/d (Rosenbaum, Murphy, Heymsfield, Matthews, and Leibel, 2002).

Continue reading

Share

How to define a “healthy” diet. Period.

Whether you’re strictly adhering to a diet or just doing your own thing, if year after year your GP is prescribing more and more medications to stave off morbidity and keep you intact, then the diet you’re following is most likely Fail.  The same is true if your body weight is creeping upward or your quality of life is creeping downward.lunchables

The glaring Fail of all 3 diets in the recent Mediterranean Diet Study for the medications criteria threw up a huge red flag.  As a brief refresher, at baseline and 5 years later, prescription medication usage was as follows:

Continue reading

Share

Mediterranean Diet Fail – Nutrition Disinformation, Part I.

Do not get your hopes up, do not pass GO!  do not collect $200.  The Mediterranean Diet.  Fail.

Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease with a Mediterranean Diet (Estruch et al., 2013)

This is one of the biggest diet studies we’ve seen in a while, and no doubt it was a very good one.  It very effectively put the Mediterranean Diet to the test.

I felt compelled to write about this study out of fear for the nutrition disinformation that it would likely inspire.  The Mediterranean Diet is associated with all good things, happiness, red wine and olive oil; whereas the Atkins Diet is associated with artery clogging bacon-wrapped hot dogs and a fat guy who died of a heart attack.  Nutrition disinformation.

If you ran a diet study with 3 intervention groups for 5 years, and by the end of the study everybody (in all 3 groups) was on more prescription medications, would you conclude any of the diets were “healthy?”  If so, then we should work on your definition of “healthy.”

Study details: big study, lasted roughly 5 years, and the diet intervention was pristine.  Mediterranean diet plus extra virgin olive oil (EVOO) vs. Mediterranean diet plus nuts vs. low fat control.  They even used biomarkers to confirm olive oil and nut intake (hydroxytyrosol and linoleate, respectively).  Compliance was good.

Continue reading

Share

Paleotard, meet potatotard, Op. 132

(credit to Dylan and Woo, respectively, for introducing me to those terms)

Empty calories – the potato

While it has a decent amino acid profile, with only 3 grams of protein it’d take a diabetic amount of potatoes to fulfill your daily protein.  By “diabetic,” I mean about a thousand grams of starch.  potatoes are just as glycemic as white bread.

potato

Continue reading

Share

diabulemia

This isn’t a “magic bullet,” it’s a buckshot aimed at a barn door.

Yes, I think sugar and empty calories, and the associated hyperinsulinemia are the bane of anyone with obesity or any sort of hyperplastic fat tissue disorder.  And yes, this is the worst type of evidence to support such a stance, but when you’ve got lemons, well…

Make no mistake, diabulemia may as well be spelled DIE-abulemia.  It’s not a laughing matter.  But yeah, well, lemonade, etc.  So here it goes

Diabulemia

Type I diabetics have low insulin and are lean; type II diabetics have high insulin and are not.  Insulin injections in either population promotes hyperplastic fat growth.  Sounds scary, right?  It is:

insulin

This poor soul unfortunately restricted his insulin injections to only two sites.  Make all the jokes you want, but the effect is obvious…  this is happening everywhere in hyperinsulinemic heavyweights (not just two specific sites).

CHO III Picture 279

 So what do Type I’s do when they want to lose some fat mass?  Stop jabbing themselves with insulin. Unfortunately, it’s really that simple.  Type II’s and anyone with excess or hyperplastic fat tissue can do the same with low carb or keto, although this would be a great benefit to their overall health.  But for Type I’s… not so much – they need insulin to prevent the horrific manifestations of ketoacidosis, which includes but is not limited to: death.

Type I’s are hyperglycemic because of low insulin; insulin therapy prevents diabetic ketoacidosis, a deadly condition.  But for those who simply choose to selectively reduce their insulin dosage, they: 1) don’t die; 2) lose fat; and 3) get hyperglycemic and incur all the damage that ensues (retinopathy, nephropathy, neuropathy).  Furthermore, they’re walking on thin ice – DKA is lurking.  It is just as stupid yet more dangerous than using tapeworms to lose weight.

tape-worms

Type II’s are hyperglycemic because of insulin resistance; a condition that is pathologically neutered via carbohydrate restriction.  Type I’s who reduce insulin injections to decrease fat mass are doing just as much damage as Type II’s who DON’T reduce carbohydrate intake.


Diabulemia is akin to an eating disorder.  Biologically, the lack of insulin allows fat to be released from adipose tissue with gravitas, and it prevents glucose from being stored in any meaningful capacity.  You’re literally pissing calories here, burning ‘em like crazy there; all of which is a helluva lot easier than “eating less moving more” … which is why diabulemics do it (because they have the option [unlike the rest of us]).  Diabulemia is good from a fat loss perspective, but will most definitely contribute to severe and possibly deadly complications down the line.   Carbohydrate restriction, however, is a win-win-win… (for everyone except The Man, so perhaps it’s a win-win-win… fail)

This isn’t a “magic bullet,” it’s a buckshot aimed at a barn door.


Humans aren’t big rats, but here it is again, anyway:

Leptin deficiency causes insulin resistance induced by uncontrolled diabetes (German et al., 2010)

I’m ignoring the brunt of this paper and only focusing on the positive control groups.  [Positive controls… meaning they were included because they would definitely exhibit the expected response.]

Force rats into a state of diabulemia, and their insulin levels plummet, blood glucose soars, and they become ravenously hungry (open squares in the graphs below).German I

But lo and behold, fat mass atrophy ->German II

Eat less move more?  Well, they certainly didn’t “eat less…” (see above) … and:German III

nor were they “moving more.”  Low insulin seems to have a way to bypass that whole “eat less move more” thing (eg, Metabolic rate per se).

 

Throwing the baby out with the bathwater works if the baby is fat and the bathwater is insulin.  (no, not a fat baby.)

calories proper

Share

Insulin vs. fat metabolism FTW

Insulin is there to grow fat tissue for the obesity epidemic, not replenish glycogen after yoga.

Teaser: insulin-induce hypoglycemia can get deadly quite fast, and there is no equivalent for the effects of insulin on fat.  However, the effects of insulin on fat are 100 times more powerful.

Background: Hormone sensitive lipase (HSL) responds to insulin by inhibiting lipolysis.  It halts fat burning.  It got its name because it’s THEE most hormone-sensitive lipase in the body.  The hormone about which we are speaking is of course insulin.  And the enzyme, or at least one of the enzymes as it were, is HSL.  To be clear, it takes very little insulin to inhibit HSL.  Just a dollop, in fact.

Effect of very small concentrations of insulin on forearm metabolism.  Persistence of its action on potassium and free fatty acids without its effect on glucose.   (Zierler and Rabinowitz, 1964)

Expt 1.  Since we’re all about jabbing people with insulin lately, let’s get at it again.  Jab someone with about 100 uU (/min*kg), and muscle and fat vacuum glucose out of the blood.  Same goes for potassium; and adipose gets all stingy too… it stops releasing and starts storing fat.  This is “healthy,” and its part of why people say insulin, and by extension carbohydrate, causes lean people grow fat tissue.

What do you think would happen in an insulin resistant obese crowd.  Less glucose vacuuming, but scrooge adipose will still responds with gravitas, by saving more and spending less?  Likely.  HSL is like the little piggy’s straw house.  The strong young wolf can blow it down.  The COPD emphysema wolf can blow it down…  because it’s made of straw.


Thus, insulin causes lean people to grow fat tissue, and it causes obese people to grow more fat tissue.

In other words, with regard to common obesity, being resistant to insulin means postprandial hyperglycemia; you can’t handle sugars proper.  but it’ll still make you fat(ter).

Expt 2. The interesting part.  Try jabbing healthy people with 10x less insulin.  Looks like IR obesity!  Adipose gets stingy, potassium scrams, but no effect on glucose uptake.

In the figure below: A-DV is muscle; A-SV is adipose.  Glucose uptake into fat & muscle is unaffected by a low dose of insulin.glucose on 10uU

Second figure: with the same dose, adipose goes on a budget SAVE MORE SPEND LESSFAs on 10 uU

Conclusion.  In a healthy person, (eg, healthy person), even very low doses of insulin cause fat growth.  This isn’t an issue of high vs. low glycemic issue.  The insulin dose used in this study was less than that expected from a respectable low glycemic index meal.  This is probably why the glycemic index hasn’t cured the obesity epidemic.  On the other hand, dietary fat doesn’t stimulate insulin…  just sayin’

Furthermore, perhaps glucose uptake into adipose promotes fat storage under certain conditions, but it’s clearly neither necessary nor essential.  Insulin can Miracle Grow fat mass without affecting glucose uptake one iota.  I imagine the abundance of 3C precursors simply isn’t “the limiting factor.”  And it works just as good with Whole Foods Low GI pa$ta and Wonderbread.buttressed

Translation: insulin buttresses fat growth.  and it doesn’t matter how much.  FYI this probably seems nonsensical at first: carbs stimulate insulin in order to dispose of said carbs, like a logical feedback mechanism.  Perhaps.  But said insulin cares far more about fat than said carbs.  On a scale of 1 to 10 (ie, putting things into “perspective”): insulin is there to grow fat tissue for the obesity epidemic, not replenish glycogen after yoga.


Part II.

Dose-dependent effect of insulin on plasma free fatty acid turnover and oxidation in humans (Bonadonna et al., 1990)

There are a lot of data in this paper, but here are the relevant points:

Infuse insulin at various rates.  In the lowest infusion rate, the only aspect of glucose metabolism to respond is hepatic glucose production (second line; HGP declines from 2.0 to 1.34 at the lowest dose):glc turnover

WRT low dose insulin on glucose metabolism: liver responds, not skeletal muscle.  Skeletal muscle doesn’t even look at glucose until insulin infusion reaches 250 – 500 uU, which is probably why back in ’64 they saw absolutely no effect at 10 uU.  At 100 uU they saw an effect, but according to these data, it was likely due solely to liver, because skeletal muscle doesn’t seem to care until levels exceed 250 uU (it’s an infusion rate, not an absolute concentration.  But that’s neither here nor there).  To be clear, 10 uU insulin infusion doesn’t affect glucose metabolism (1964).  period.  100 uU modestly affects it (1964), and this is probably so modest because only liver is helping out (1990).  At 500 uU, full scale attack on blood glucose.

But fatty acids are obliterated with 5 – 50 x less:FA turnover

It worked with 10 uU in ’64, and it worked just as well with 100 uU in ’90.  (FYI the first paper was published in 1964; this one in 1990).

Furthermore, in the table above glucose metabolism was progressively affected with increasing insulin concentrations.  Not so much with FAs:FA suppression

FA flux is rapidly and completely shut down with a dollop of insulin.  Indeed, it is obliterated.  Giving more insulin doesn’t do anything, because, well, when you blow down a straw house, it tends to stay down.

calories proper

Share