So? Why are people so fixated on insulin?
>isn't digested nearly as quickly as carbohydrates, so it keeps you satiated
And yet potatoes are the highest satiety food. The whole "fat is filling so you eat fewer calories and lose weight" thing is just a hypothesis that was put forth to explain why people eat fewer calories on low carb diets. It is not fact.
Maintaining normalized insulin levels keeps your body burning fat, which is a slower burning, preferred source of energy, but most people eat so many carbs that their body never relearns how to do it.
This isn't rocket science, it's basic biology.
Insulin is released when your blood sugar is elevated, yes.
>When that happens, your body goes from it's fat burning mode (default state) to carb burning
That is a complete misrepresentation of reality made by people pushing a fad diet.
>When those stores are full, then it stores the rest as fat.
So? What do you think it does with fat?
>but most people eat so many carbs that their body never relearns how to do it.
Your body does not forget how to burn fat, it does it all the time.
>This isn't rocket science, it's basic biology.
Yes it is. And it does not support this weird fixation on insulin. https://evolvinghealth.wordpress.com/2013/05/22/is-it-time-t...
Insulin is the mechanics of how sugars and proteins are processed (whether as energy for muscles or stored as fat). Leptins are the process which update the brain. (i.e when you are hungry/full etc).
Both obviously have huge implications on weight management. So it isn't a "weird fixation on insulin", it is weird that Leptins are not mentioned more often. But maybe that is diets not wanting to over complicate things. Where as insulin is more widely understood because of implications in diabetes etc.
> >When that happens, your body goes from it's fat burning mode (default state) to carb burning > That is a complete misrepresentation of reality made by people pushing a fad diet.
No it isn't. It is a simplification, but not really a misrepresentation and definitely not a complete misrepresentation. Sugar enters blood, Leptins signal brain. Pancreas produces insulin, insulin blocks tri-glycerol from being released from existing fat stores, and begins either replenishing glycogen stores from the blood, or producing more tri-glycerol. (This is still a simplification)... But please point out the misrepresentation, because if were trying to be more concise I would say: "switches from fat-burning to carb-burning/fat-storing".
Why would it say something that absurd, and why do you think I believed it did? I said nothing even remotely like that, and that doesn't even make sense.
>Both obviously have huge implications on weight management
Except that the evidence suggests otherwise, that's the point.
>But please point out the misrepresentation, because if were trying to be more concise I would say: "switches from fat-burning to carb-burning/fat-storing".
You just did. There is no "fat burning mode" and "carb burning mode". Again, the link I already gave you very nicely and clearly discusses this.
You referred to insulin as a "weird fixation" as if it were meaningless in a weight management context. And your response above is just obnoxious, if you have a point make it, stop referring to it. Obvious troll is obvious.
> Except that the evidence suggests otherwise, that's the point.
No, it doesn't. Evidence suggests they both have huge implications. You remove leptins you get a high correlation with obesity (as mentioned in your own article). You remove insulin you get "difficulty storing fat", you pump insulin high, and you get high storage of fat. Try out a google scholar search on "insulin resistance", "diabetes and weight management", "insulin fat". Again make your point rather than referring to it, as it looks to me you are just running out of actual knowledge and resorting to rhetoric.
> You just did. There is no "fat burning mode" and "carb burning mode". Again, the link I already gave you very nicely and clearly discusses this.
You chose not to include my expanded description of what happens. Now I know you are trolling...
It is.
> And your response above is just obnoxious, if you have a point make it, stop referring to it.
I have no idea what that means.
>No, it doesn't.
Contradict the evidence in the link I gave you then. "Nuh uh" is not compelling.
So when I say you said it was pointless, you say "No I didn't", when I say "you kinda did", you say: "yeah I did".
trollololol
> Contradict the evidence in the link I gave you then. "Nuh uh" is not compelling.
How about you contradict the peer-reviewed evidence I gave you... and I'll treat your wordpress blog for what it is: A wordpress blog.
> That is a complete misrepresentation of reality made by people pushing a fad diet.
What's your understanding that happens then?
>When those stores are full, then it stores the rest as fat.
>So? What do you think it does with fat?
For most people, it stores it as fat and does nothing because most people eat enough carbs (quick burning source of energy) to never have to switch to fat burning.
Read the link.
>For most people, it stores it as fat and does nothing because most people eat enough carbs (quick burning source of energy) to never have to switch to fat burning.
So insulin is a problem because of what then? And how is that different from what would happen if you replaced those carbs with fats? (Please don't actually answer with the keto nonsense, read the link and see that the answer is "nothing would change").
Were you the author of that link? Because if not, then that is someone else's understanding, what is yours? You've yet to describe it.
> Please don't actually answer with the keto nonsense?
Are you actually denying ketosis[0] exists? Or are you claiming it isn't reached through carb-restriction[1]?
I haven't quite understood you point (mostly because you haven't really made one), but it seems science disagrees with you :\
[0] http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&q=ketosis <-- I'd say the academic community disagrees with you.
[1] http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=ketogenic <-- Again, the academic community disagrees with you.
No. What is the purpose of ignoring what I posted and asking completely random non-sequitur questions? Are you actually denying pancakes exist? Or claiming they aren't made with flour?
Come back when you've actually read a little bit about how the body works. I've given you plenty of scholar links to start at. Maybe just strike up a conversation with a diabetic, explain to them your theory on how insulin has no effect.
Because insulin regulates the metabolism of carbohydrates and fats by promoting the absorption of glucose from the blood to skeletal muscles and fat tissue and by causing fat to be stored rather than used for energy[1]. Accordingly the body's insulin response has a massive role in weight management, and certain foods invoke a greater insulin response than others.
You're one of those "calories in - calories out" guys, I take it?
Except this second part does not follow from the first part, and all available evidence suggests it is false.
https://evolvinghealth.wordpress.com/2013/05/22/is-it-time-t...
Summary: "I don't like the evidence so I'll ignore it" is not compelling. Being a low calorie, high volume food is not "artificial" satiety, it is satiety.
I find it hard to think that amount causes a person to avoid potato. Did the researcher actually notice potato-aversion, or are they (and this is not a bad thing) speculating?
I know that. And I am saying they are basing that on nothing. They just said "the data is less important than what we think the data should look like based on our feelings".
>Have you ever eaten a boiled potato with nothing else on it? It tastes terrible
Yes, they taste fine. Obviously they taste better with salt and pepper and butter, but they are not unpalatable without them. Have you ever eaten boiled pasta with nothing else on it? How is that more palatable?