Tag Archives: processed food

If meat causes cancer…

Disclaimer: I’m meat-cancer agnostic.  *IF* meat causes cancer (and I don’t think it does), it happens extremely slowly and only at very high levels of intake: to get statistically significant risk ratios, researchers usually look to top vs. bottom quartiles, which is quite a large difference in intake.

Meat-cancer studies Tl;dr: some studies show positive associations, some neutral, and none are negative (ie, it’s unlikely meat prevents cancer).

That said, if meat does cause cancer, here is how it might happen:

1. The “Maybes:” AGEs, leucine/mTOR, methionine, etc., but only in combination with numbers 2 & 3.  Not by themselves.

2. Circadian arrhythmia and cancer: potential mechanisms

3. Most animal foods have a lot of linoleate 18:2n6 or at least a lot more n6 than n3 (grass-fed is usually a little better in this context).  More on this below.

 

Continue reading

Share

The Hunger-Free Diet(s)

It started out as “lose weight without hunger on LCHF” and went all the way to “effortless fasting on keto.”  Works for some and it might be true, but the same can be said for low fat diets!  The key, I think, in both contexts, is simple: fewer processed & refined foods… something the Paleo movement got right, imo (although I still think many low-calorie sweeteners are way less unhealthy than HFCS & sugar).

The logic:

1) add “good calories” like almonds to your diet and appetite spontaneously compensates by eating less other stuff: energy neutral

2) you don’t compensate for added “bad calories” like sugar-sweetened beverages: positive energy balance

3) remove bad calories from your diet and you don’t compensate by eating more other stuff: negative energy balance

 

Book: Good Calories, Bad Calories

 

Continue reading

Share

Discordant insulin sensitivity on a high protein diet

So, we have another “high protein” weight loss study (Smith et al., 2016).  Or really, a “low (0.8 g/kg) vs. moderate (1.2 g/kg) protein weight loss study.”  In brief, it took ’em about 6 months to lose 10% of their starting body weight, then were given 4 weeks of weight stability before “after” measurements were taken.

Important: this was not a contest to see who would lose more weight; they kept going and adjusting food intake until both groups lost 10%.  Not really ad lib, but otherwise a good study design imo.  The intervention was relatively weak (eg, protein 0.8 vs. 1.2 g/kg), but on the plus side, that’s realistic and very “do-able.”  If you’re interested in super-high protein diets (3-4 g/kg), check out research by Jose Antonio.

 




 

Big yet not unexpected finding: the low protein group lost about twice as much muscle than the normal protein group.

 

fat-free-mass

 

The isocaloric normal protein group lost more fat and less muscle than the low protein group.

But then everyone freaked out because the low protein group experienced a significant improvement in muscle/liver insulin sensitivity whereas the normal protein group didn’t:

 

glucose-rate-of-disappearance

 

-The headlines were hilarious, like, “high protein makes weight loss not work anymore.”

-Then some critics jumped the shark and blamed it on “liquid calories,” because whey protein shakes are totes non-Paleo, and #JERF.

-TBH, I found more interesting the changes in adipose insulin sensitivity

The normal protein group had the most insulin sensitive adipose of all groups… yet they lost more fat mass despite eating just as much or even slightly more than the other groups.

 

adipose-insulin-sensitivity

 

Does this mean they’re doomed to regain the weight?  I don’t think so, as high dietary protein is one of the strongest predictors of weight loss success long-term.

HERESY!  the low protein group had: 1) lower basal insulin than the normal protein group; 2) lower adipose insulin sensitivity; 3) ate less (NS); yet lost less fat mass.

 




 

In other words, the normal protein group had higher basal insulin, more insulin sensitive adipose tissue, and slightly higher food intake (NS).  According to the insulin model, they should’ve lost less fat mass than the low protein group, but they didn’t.

Is this another chink in the armor of the insulin model?

The truth seems to be: people lose weight on both LC and LF diets by giving up junk food.  On LC, this is accomplished by giving up carbs; on LF, this is accomplished by switching to better carbs.  Some people adhere better to one diet or the other.  Maybe insulin sensitivity has something to do with it.

Insulin from high protein: not bad?
Insulin from good carbs: not bad?
Junk food: no bueno.
So maybe just maybe it’s not just ze insulin…

 




 

Back to the protein…

This was not sorcery; it’s been seen before in a variety of different paradigms: dietary protein has a profound impact on nutrient partitioning.

Yes, even when it’s liquid calorie insulinogenic whey protein isolate bro-shakes.

Yes, even when it’s not crazy-high levels of protein…  seriously, 1.2 g/kg is not “high”

 

+ + +  +   +     +     +        +             +                     +

Past blog posts on [the non-sorcery of] dietary protein:

Holiday feasts, the freshman 15, and damage control

Dietary protein, ketosis, and appetite control.

Nutrient Partitioning: …a *very* high protein diet.

Protein “requirements,” carbs, and nutrient partitioning

Cyclical ketosis, glycogen depletion, and nutrient partitioning

Meal frequency, intermittent fasting, and dietary protein

Muscle growth sans carbs

+ + +  +   +     +     +        +             +                     +

For full access to all articles and much more (or if you just like what I do and want to support it), become a Patron! It’s three bucks a month and there are many other options. Sign up soon because there are only a limited number of spots left at the $3 level. It’s ad-free and you can cancel if it sucks ????

Also, I’m open to suggestions, so please don’t hesitate to leave a comment or contact me directly at drlagakos@gmail.com.

Affiliate discounts: if you’re still looking for a pair of hot blue blockers, Carbonshade  is offering 15% off with the coupon code LAGAKOS and Spectra479 is offering 15% off HERETrueDark is running a pretty big sale HEREIf you have no idea what I’m talking about, read this then this.

20% off some delish stocks and broths from Kettle and Fire HERE

If you want the benefits of  ‘shrooms but don’t like eating them, Real Mushrooms makes great extracts. 10% off with coupon code LAGAKOS.

calories proper

 

Become a Patron!

 

 

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Share

Hey CICO, I’m playing by your rules.

Brief background: the notorious Ebbeling study of 2012 showed an apparent metabolic advantage of a ketogenic diet.  After losing some weight, participants were assigned to low fat (LF), low GI, or ketogenic diets.  As expected, energy expenditure (EE) declined in all groups after weight loss.

 

Continue reading

Share

the insulin-obesity hypothesis is under attack

…but it isn’t dead, imo, because that would be really hard to do.  Like, seriously.

 

 

side note: please consider the modern views of Taubes, Lustig, Gardner, Attia, and others on Carbs™.  They’re less “Carbs-cause-obesity, keto-for-all, etc.,” and more thinking it might not be Carbs™ per se, but rather processed and refined foods.  And #context…  And I tend to agree at the moment (nuances and caveats are subject to change, as more evidence accumulates).

 

disclaimer: I haven’t seen the full text of Hall’s recent study, but that’s not really relevant to what I want to discuss.  In other words, I don’t think the full text will provide any additional details on this particular point.

 




 

Tl;dr: this study was not designed to prove or disprove metabolic advantage or the insulin-obesity hypothesis.

It’s in the study design:  four weeks of low fat followed by four weeks of low carb.  We KNOW that weight loss slows over time (especially if calories are controlled, as they were in this study).  It has to do with the order of treatments.

Weight loss-slowing over time in the Minnesota Experiment:

 

 

Minn-Starvation-weight

 

Continue reading

Share

Insulin resistance is a spectrum

The history of low fat diets is riddled with crappy low fat food-like products.

Food quality matters.

Free full article on Patreon! <- link

Take a group of obese people and assess insulin sensitivity however you like: some researchers demand nothing less than a hyperinsulinemic-euglycemic clamp (Gold Standard), others are OK with insulin levels during an oral glucose tolerance test.

Next, divide the people up based on this — there are a few ways you can do it.  You can: take the top half vs. the bottom half (a method which includes everyone); take the top third vs. bottom third (excluding the middle third); take the top quarter vs. bottom quarter (excluding the middle 50%), etc.

THIS MATTERS because in referencing this topic, many people claim most obese are insulin resistant.  They may be more insulin resistant than lean people, but even within obese people, there’s a spectrum, and the spectrum matters in this #context.

 

Continue reading

Share

New low carb protein bars

Warning: this post isn’t #Paleo Certified.   It’s more about convenience, choosing the lesser evil.

Quest Nutrition led the charge in low carb, high protein, fibre-rich bars.  “Fibre-rich” is really the key in allowing a bona fide “low carb” bar with shelf-stability and decent texture.  Sugar alcohols have also been used in some, but due to the high incidence of maltitol-induced GI discomfort, ymmv.  But in general, you need one or the other to provide bulk and keep it together (except Epic Bars, which use black magic).

For the most part, the new bars have basically copied Quest’s formula with some new flavors.

 

Disclaimer #1: I’m a whole foods guy.  Not really #Paleo, but when it comes to people’s actual lifestyles, I recognize convenience is a huge factor… and selecting the lesser evil is frequently the best option — eg, you can store a couple LC protein bars in your office, car, etc.; not so much with hard-boiled eggs or other protein-rich foods… and these options are WAY better than many other snacks or “fast-foods” out there.

Disclaimer #2: yeah, I keep a few of these bars in my office, just in case…

Quest recently switched from isomaltosaccharides to soluble corn fibre (SCF), which will likely impact GI effects.  YMMV!  Isomaltosaccharides are cool, but I’m not prepared to say they’re superior to SCF for everyone, in every #context (personally, for the ‘biome, I prefer brassicas, alliums, the gristly bits, galactooligosaccharides, et al.).
[it’d awesome if Bi2Muno would collaborate with one of these companies]

 

In these n00bs to the protein bar market, some of the biggest differentiating factors are cost, net carbs, ratio of fibre to sugar alcohols, flavor profiles, etc.

 

With no further ado, here are the newcomers:

[or just skip to the chart at the bottom]

 

Continue reading

Share

The “Insulin Index”

Similar to the glycemic index, which is an estimate of the rise in blood glucose after eating a particular food, the insulin index is an estimate of the rise in insulin after eating a particular food.  In general, these indices are obvious: processed carbs have high glycemic and insulin indices, whereas whole foods are lower.  Some exceptions are things like dairy and lean meat, which induce more insulin than you’d expect given to their low carbohydrate content…

STORY TIME

When some protein-rich foods were discovered to induce insulin secretion, people thought this information might help type 1 diabetics more accurately calculate their insulin dose.  Interesting rationale, worth testing.

Tl;dr: it didn’t work very well.

More of the protein-derived amino acids may have been incorporated into lean tissue, but the extra insulin load ended up causing hypoglycemia more often than not.  Hypoglycemia is acutely more harmful than hyperglycemia, and is still quite harmful in the long-term.  Some studies on incorporating the insulin index for type 1 diabetics are mixed, ie, increased or no change in risk of hypoglycemia, but no studies show it reduces the risk.

 

Continue reading

Share

Paleo Plants and Carnivory

From what I gather, it’s been difficult to pinpoint the role of plants in the diet of our ancestors for a variety of reasons.  For example, evidence of plants on cooking tools and dental remains is suggestive but doesn’t disprove the possibility that said evidence came from preparing the plants for some other purpose (eg, tools, weapons, or medicine), or that the stomach contents of an herbivore was ingested (which gets partial credit).

That said, after reviewing a few studies on the topic (see below), it’s safe to say that plants were eaten, probably frequently, and the types & quantities varied seasonally & geographically.  Collectively, the data suggest we aren’t carnivores.

…you had to have something to hold you over until the next fish fell prey to your deadly hunting spear…

Continue reading

Share

Fermented meat & probiotics

From Slate: “Sausage made with bacteria from baby poop isn’t as gross as it sounds.” 

and my favorite: “Pooperoni? Baby-poop bacteria help make healthy sausages.

Much ado about: Nutritionally enhanced fermented sausages as a vehicle for potential probiotic lactobacilli delivery (Rubio et al., 2014)

The media seems to have missed the ball, but not by far.  They focused on healthy microbes being incorporated into fermented meats, whereas the scientists seemed to want to make a “healthier” low-salt, low-fat sausage.

The low-salt part seems to partially make sense from a fermentation-perspective: using probiotics instead of salt to reduce the potential for pathogenic microbial contamination.  However, I doubt reducing the sodium by 25% will have any appreciable impact on health outcomes.  The effect of adding beneficial microbes, on the other hand, might.

They also mentioned making it lower in fat, but that doesn’t make as much sense; I don’t think there’s a big contamination risk of having a higher fat content.  #lipophobia

Continue reading

Share