Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Discover what's new & improved in the MyFitnessPal app!
We’re dedicated to helping you achieve your health and nutrition goals. And our newest features and updates? They do just that. Learn how we're making tracking your progress easier, faster, and more motivating than ever.

Protein and Insulin Sensitivity

Options
13»

Replies

  • GottaBurnEmAll
    GottaBurnEmAll Posts: 7,722 Member
    Options
    I thought this article may be of interest. It is mainly dealing with protein intake/sarcopenia but does talk about IR a little towards the end.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2760315/

    Cheers, h.
    Sorry- not a scientific bone in my body.

    I've seen one of the related studies to this (a mouse study) and isn't really what you might think. This is a rather controversial theory by a minority of researchers who believe that in order to trigger muscle synthesis that you require a minimum of around 20g of protein at one sitting (with maximum effect at 30g) with 5g of it being Leucien and that carbohydrates don't work to spur synthesis in adults as it does in children. However, this isn't what the balance of evidence shows, which is that timing is not very important but rather the total intake of protein per day and that carbohydrates do help to spur muscle synthesis in adults as would be expected when you look at the biochemistry of cell signaling.

    I'm not convinced about the protein timing aspect but having a higher protein diet seems to be reasonable.

    Well that's good, because I like carbs with my protein :p
  • Gianfranco_R
    Gianfranco_R Posts: 1,297 Member
    edited December 2016
    Options
    One other really odd thing that is suggested here that's kind of annoying me: insulin is a storage hormone. Having a temporary resistance to it helps (not hinders) weight loss, assuming calories are kept constant. This is part of the reason that clenbuterol and the ephedrine/caffeine stacks work as well as they do. They temporarily reduce insulin sensitivity, making storage more difficult. Insulin resistance in the obese is a symptom, not a cause.

    It is an interesting point that most people miss: when you have increased insulin sensitivity it's systemic meaning that both muscle and fat cells are more sensitive so adipose cells becomes more efficient at storing fat. This reduce ability to store fat might be one of the few mechanisms to fight excessive weight gain that we actually have developed. Of course, it never defeats CICO but it might change the energy balance slightly.

    I guess IR may be seen that way, but as a "defense mechanism" is not that smart, since the final outcome is diabetes.
  • middlehaitch
    middlehaitch Posts: 8,487 Member
    edited December 2016
    Options
    @Wheelhouse15 thanks for your feedback. As I said I am not too well educated/read on the sience of nutrition. (Read not at all)
    Interpretation from the good people on this forum is, at times, priceless, and always educational.
    Thanks for the comments on the daily intake of protein being the important factor ( even for us older people) not the amount ingested at one time- I was curious about that.

    @GottaBurnEmAll, what is steak without a baked potato!

    Cheers, h.
  • Gallowmere1984
    Gallowmere1984 Posts: 6,626 Member
    Options
    One other really odd thing that is suggested here that's kind of annoying me: insulin is a storage hormone. Having a temporary resistance to it helps (not hinders) weight loss, assuming calories are kept constant. This is part of the reason that clenbuterol and the ephedrine/caffeine stacks work as well as they do. They temporarily reduce insulin sensitivity, making storage more difficult. Insulin resistance in the obese is a symptom, not a cause.

    It is an interesting point that most people miss: when you have increased insulin sensitivity it's systemic meaning that both muscle and fat cells are more sensitive so adipose cells becomes more efficient at storing fat. This reduce ability to store fat might be one of the few mechanisms to fight excessive weight gain that we actually have developed. Of course, it never defeats CICO but it might change the energy balance slightly.

    I guess IR may be seen that way, but as a "defense mechanism" is not that smart, since the final outcome is diabetes.

    That's because it's most likely meant to put a short term stop on storage, but people just keep overfeeding.
  • Wheelhouse15
    Wheelhouse15 Posts: 5,575 Member
    Options
    One other really odd thing that is suggested here that's kind of annoying me: insulin is a storage hormone. Having a temporary resistance to it helps (not hinders) weight loss, assuming calories are kept constant. This is part of the reason that clenbuterol and the ephedrine/caffeine stacks work as well as they do. They temporarily reduce insulin sensitivity, making storage more difficult. Insulin resistance in the obese is a symptom, not a cause.

    It is an interesting point that most people miss: when you have increased insulin sensitivity it's systemic meaning that both muscle and fat cells are more sensitive so adipose cells becomes more efficient at storing fat. This reduce ability to store fat might be one of the few mechanisms to fight excessive weight gain that we actually have developed. Of course, it never defeats CICO but it might change the energy balance slightly.

    I guess IR may be seen that way, but as a "defense mechanism" is not that smart, since the final outcome is diabetes.

    Not all adaptations we have are beneficial in the modern era. I suspect that this wasn't an issue among our ancestors who lived in a much less food rich environment and starvation was the real issue. Packing on a bit of extra fat was the exception during our evolution.

  • Gallowmere1984
    Gallowmere1984 Posts: 6,626 Member
    Options
    One other really odd thing that is suggested here that's kind of annoying me: insulin is a storage hormone. Having a temporary resistance to it helps (not hinders) weight loss, assuming calories are kept constant. This is part of the reason that clenbuterol and the ephedrine/caffeine stacks work as well as they do. They temporarily reduce insulin sensitivity, making storage more difficult. Insulin resistance in the obese is a symptom, not a cause.

    It is an interesting point that most people miss: when you have increased insulin sensitivity it's systemic meaning that both muscle and fat cells are more sensitive so adipose cells becomes more efficient at storing fat. This reduce ability to store fat might be one of the few mechanisms to fight excessive weight gain that we actually have developed. Of course, it never defeats CICO but it might change the energy balance slightly.

    I guess IR may be seen that way, but as a "defense mechanism" is not that smart, since the final outcome is diabetes.

    Not all adaptations we have are beneficial in the modern era. I suspect that this wasn't an issue among our ancestors who lived in a much less food rich environment and starvation was the real issue. Packing on a bit of extra fat was the exception during our evolution.

    Exactly. So far as your endocrine system and brain are concerned, your name is Ugg, and you live in a cave, and might have to wrestle a bear for the next salmon you eat. The "land of plenty" isn't part of our biological programming just yet.
  • Wheelhouse15
    Wheelhouse15 Posts: 5,575 Member
    Options
    One other really odd thing that is suggested here that's kind of annoying me: insulin is a storage hormone. Having a temporary resistance to it helps (not hinders) weight loss, assuming calories are kept constant. This is part of the reason that clenbuterol and the ephedrine/caffeine stacks work as well as they do. They temporarily reduce insulin sensitivity, making storage more difficult. Insulin resistance in the obese is a symptom, not a cause.

    It is an interesting point that most people miss: when you have increased insulin sensitivity it's systemic meaning that both muscle and fat cells are more sensitive so adipose cells becomes more efficient at storing fat. This reduce ability to store fat might be one of the few mechanisms to fight excessive weight gain that we actually have developed. Of course, it never defeats CICO but it might change the energy balance slightly.

    I guess IR may be seen that way, but as a "defense mechanism" is not that smart, since the final outcome is diabetes.

    Not all adaptations we have are beneficial in the modern era. I suspect that this wasn't an issue among our ancestors who lived in a much less food rich environment and starvation was the real issue. Packing on a bit of extra fat was the exception during our evolution.

    Exactly. So far as your endocrine system and brain are concerned, your name is Ugg, and you live in a cave, and might have to wrestle a bear for the next salmon you eat. The "land of plenty" isn't part of our biological programming just yet.

    Good thing we live in modern times because the bear wrestling part sounds ok but I hate salmon. ;)
  • T1DCarnivoreRunner
    T1DCarnivoreRunner Posts: 11,502 Member
    edited December 2016
    Options
    I read through the actual study, and found this:
    Therefore, we conducted an RCT to evaluate the effect of dietary protein intake on body composition and insulin sensitivity by providing a protein supplement to subjects during weight loss to minimize the potential confounding influences of differences in overall diet composition on our outcome measures.

    I'm not finding details on what type of protein supplement was given, but the results make me think it was whey. If it was, then I just have to say, "No kitten!" If it wasn't whey, then perhaps some of the interest in the results can be explained... but it is really hyped even in the original authors' own words. It almost makes me think that the authors realized there was nothing new but really wanted to publish something, so they just made it sound like there is some wild new correlation. At best, this shows there is value in additional research. It proves nothing at this point.