Scientific study on the effects of insulin on weightloss

jelleigh
jelleigh Posts: 743 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
I've been curious about this topic a lot, since many WOE reference the effect of insulin on weight gain/loss. A few years ago I started attending a metabolic clinic where the doctors cited many new studies in nutrition science to support the fact that high levels of insulin (resulting from insulin resistance that has been developed over time due to lifestyle or genetic factors) is a leading contributor to weight gain. I argued with them about CICO and their response was that essentially it was 'old school thinking'. Their approach was to eat foods that have a low glycemic index and impact. I followed the program and lost weight at a reasonable rate (although I still reasoned that this would be due to a deficit or how satiating these foods are) and actually the weight stayed off with greater ease. I still wasn't convinced and went back to other WOE, but I've been curious about this topic ever since, especially when I see so many here struggling (myself included).

I just saw this article today that is referencing some of the newer scientific studies on the topic and found it interesting. https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/927735?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark

The actual white paper with the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition seems to be quite detailed and the parts that I've read thus far have been interesting as well: https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ajcn/nqab270/6369073

I'm not saying that I think CICO isn't a thing. I'm just wondering if people with underlying health issues (ie: insulin resistance) might have other aspects that are affecting their progress and thought i'd share this as food for thought....



Replies

  • JenKindo
    JenKindo Posts: 418 Member
    edited September 2021
    I lost about 35 pounds tracking CICO. Recently started doing IF and low processed carbs. I am still tracking here, and I'm finding it harder to eat all my calories for the day. My stomach tells me I'm full sooner than it does on carbs. Part of the reasoning for IF is it effects insulin levels and keeps them at a low level for a longer amount of time and may reverse insulin sensitivity.

    I'm losing faster than I did on straight CICO, but it's hard to say if that is because of a hormone/insulin change or strictly that I can only manage 1400 calories max right now.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,865 Member
    If you are insulin resistant (ie diabetic among other health issues), yes...you would want to eat a diet that takes into account GI and GL because someone with insulin resistance have cells in their muscles, fat, and liver that don't respond very well to insulin and thus can't use the glucose in your blood for energy as would happen in an otherwise healthy person. This doesn't invalidate CICO, but it does change the math because your body isn't working right.

    An otherwise healthy and active person doesn't really need to worry about this.
  • jelleigh
    jelleigh Posts: 743 Member
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    If you are insulin resistant (ie diabetic among other health issues), yes...you would want to eat a diet that takes into account GI and GL because someone with insulin resistance have cells in their muscles, fat, and liver that don't respond very well to insulin and thus can't use the glucose in your blood for energy as would happen in an otherwise healthy person. This doesn't invalidate CICO, but it does change the math because your body isn't working right.

    An otherwise healthy and active person doesn't really need to worry about this.

    That makes sense to me too. I have seen many posts that don't seem to account for underlying health issues or seem to imply that everyone's experience should be the same which doesn't make sense to me.
    I do wonder how many people realize they even have some insulin resistance - its not always accompanied by a diagnosis (especially if its not advanced). Weight gain around the middle is especially indicative of it for example.
    There are a lot of WOE that people can follow that should create a deficit, but if I knew in advance that my physiology would respond better to one particular WOE instead of another, I'd want to know that and save myself some time.
    As it is, I had noticed through trial and error over the years that protein and low carb seem to work best for me, but when the dr told me all this it gave it an actual scientific basis which I found useful because it informs how I will continue to approach my weight loss.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 34,177 Member
    jelleigh wrote: »
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    If you are insulin resistant (ie diabetic among other health issues), yes...you would want to eat a diet that takes into account GI and GL because someone with insulin resistance have cells in their muscles, fat, and liver that don't respond very well to insulin and thus can't use the glucose in your blood for energy as would happen in an otherwise healthy person. This doesn't invalidate CICO, but it does change the math because your body isn't working right.

    An otherwise healthy and active person doesn't really need to worry about this.

    That makes sense to me too. I have seen many posts that don't seem to account for underlying health issues or seem to imply that everyone's experience should be the same which doesn't make sense to me.
    I do wonder how many people realize they even have some insulin resistance - its not always accompanied by a diagnosis (especially if its not advanced). Weight gain around the middle is especially indicative of it for example.
    There are a lot of WOE that people can follow that should create a deficit, but if I knew in advance that my physiology would respond better to one particular WOE instead of another, I'd want to know that and save myself some time.
    As it is, I had noticed through trial and error over the years that protein and low carb seem to work best for me, but when the dr told me all this it gave it an actual scientific basis which I found useful because it informs how I will continue to approach my weight loss.

    Reading self-reports here is IMO pretty complicated to parse out and draw conclusions, IMO.

    I ate moderate to higher carb all through weight loss, and what I'd call high carb now in maintenance . . . but I think most of those carbs may be from different foods than (I think) many are talking about here when they talk about struggling with carb cravings or carbs spiking appetite . . . and I'm not including cases where people call things "carbs" - things that get most of their calories from fats - like pizza or fries and some baked goods. The rice, bread, wheat pasta, potatoes kind of pattern seems to be fairly common, for example.

    I don't find those foods to provoke cravings/appetite, for me, but they're also not major sources of carbs in my eating. Most of my routine carbs are fruits, veggies (in high quantities), non-fat dairy, daily oatmeal (old-fashioned, not packets). For me, most of those are filling foods. (I'm not saying they'd be filling for all, though - I have no idea. But I think, say, Winter squash is not what first comes to mind for most people when they say carbs can spike appetite, y'know?)

    I did have a good bit of central fat before weight loss, but no signs of IR, though that was never specifically tested. (Blood sugar was routinely in the normal range, even when I was obese - that's the only even remotely relevant result I can think of.) Another individual factor: Even while obese, I was very active, burning a few hundred calories most days in exercise, often the kind of higher-HR exercise that relies on glycogen. I wonder if that might have helped avoid IR? My fat-Ann diet did include more of the potato-wheat-grain-sweets kinds of carbs, but those were things I found easy to cut out, just filler foods I was accustomed to eating, but not important for satiation, happiness, nutrition. I still eat those, but less frequently, generally smaller portions.

    I need to read the paper more carefully, but I have to admit that my caution flags went up a bit, seeing the author list. There are some folks in there whose pocketbooks rely on the insulin hypotheses, which is a biasing factor whether or not it can be listed as an official conflict of interest.

    My bias, which I admit: Having been adult before the "obesity crisis" got rolling, I feel like the dramatic changes in lifestyles and food culture (like serving size, role of snacking, standard portion sizes, etc.) are more than enough to account for increasing average obesity, without needing to dig much deeper into the evils of carbohydrates. That would be completely invisible to me, if I hadn't been around to observe (and live) it.
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 28,052 Member
    jelleigh wrote: »
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    If you are insulin resistant (ie diabetic among other health issues), yes...you would want to eat a diet that takes into account GI and GL because someone with insulin resistance have cells in their muscles, fat, and liver that don't respond very well to insulin and thus can't use the glucose in your blood for energy as would happen in an otherwise healthy person. This doesn't invalidate CICO, but it does change the math because your body isn't working right.

    An otherwise healthy and active person doesn't really need to worry about this.

    That makes sense to me too. I have seen many posts that don't seem to account for underlying health issues or seem to imply that everyone's experience should be the same which doesn't make sense to me.
    I do wonder how many people realize they even have some insulin resistance - its not always accompanied by a diagnosis (especially if its not advanced). Weight gain around the middle is especially indicative of it for example.
    There are a lot of WOE that people can follow that should create a deficit, but if I knew in advance that my physiology would respond better to one particular WOE instead of another, I'd want to know that and save myself some time.
    As it is, I had noticed through trial and error over the years that protein and low carb seem to work best for me, but when the dr told me all this it gave it an actual scientific basis which I found useful because it informs how I will continue to approach my weight loss.

    I have seen many threads started here that don't disclose CRUCIAL information in the first post and perhaps not even the first page. So we respond as if the person didn't have any underlying health issues, because, after all, if they were important wouldn't they mention them? Apparently not...

    Given no underlying health issues, in a monitored setting, such as the Minnesota Starvation Experiment, I don't see why everyone's experience would not be pretty much the same.

    https://academic.oup.com/jn/article/135/6/1347/4663828
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 10,209 Member
    Of course a high glycemic diet drives positive energy balance when total calories are not accounted for and because it confounds the message that we need to eat less and move more, and for some reason that there must be something wrong with thermodynamics and we're missing something in the energy balance equation. Maybe look at the rest of the world that consumes a high carb diet that don't have an obesity epidemic. I have a feeling the answers will reveal themselves. Jeeesus. lol

Categories