lets talk about insulin

jacksonpt

Have you seen this info from Kreiger?
http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=319

ok, things I'm taking away from this article (feel free to comment/discuss as necessary)

1) insulin spikes are good for performance as it allows (increases?) blood glucose transfer into cells for use as energy.
2) insulin affects/leads to/causes (not sure how direct the correlation is) protein synthesis (technically this is the creation of new protein, but what exactly is that... muscle tissue growth? repair existing muscle? etc), which is obviously a good thing
3) insulin inhibits the breakdown of fat (bad) and increases the creation of fat (bad)
4) insulin and blood sugar do not have a 1:1 relationship (for lack of a better description)... meaning you can see significant insulin increases without the same significant blood sugar increase. However, blood sugar increases always result in a similar insulin increase.

1) Insulin spike for performance is iffy. How you feel after a big carb meal(large insulin spike)? Most people feel groggy and tired. Insulin triggers the parasympathetic nervous system which make people feel groggy and tired. Some runners try to carb load sometimes meaning eating a big carb based meal a day before the race for more energy. This usually back fires because it will add water weight slowing down the runner and their performance suffers. It is important to be fueled but not tired.

2) Hyperplasia is the process of building "new" muscle fibers, this hasn't been concluded by science yet, it's still debatable. The growth of muscle due to the increase of fluid is very possible. Some protein is required, but also water and mostly carbs. Not sur if you're aware but sometimes when bodybuidlers do low carbs their muscle shrink. When they eat carbs again they swell up, doesn't have much to do with protei.

3) Um it doesn't matter. It's not like you will have elevated insulin levels all day storing fat all day. The body is constantly storing and releasing fat the key to lose fat is to release more fat than you store.

4. I don't know if that's true, i can't think of an example in which that case that would be true.

1) True, been there. But what about about smaller doses... 2 rice crispy treats vs 2 slices of whole wheat bread?

2) That's about volume of muscle, not actual muscle fibers growing/increasing, no? Kind of like a dry sponge vs a wet - same sponge, just different volume based on how much water its holding.

3) Right, that's what I took away from the article.

4) According to the article, carbs cause a significant increase in both blood sugar and insulin (very closely linked), while protein creates a significant increase in insulin but a relatively insignificant increase in blood sugar (not closely tied). Again, not sure what exactly to make of this in real world terms.

1) Depends on your goal. You have to have a calorie surplus or deficit to gain or lose weight. That's what it boils down to at the end of the day, are you in a deficit or a surplus? If you're strike talking about performance. I would take something that is 40% carbs 40% protein and 30% fat about an hour before my workout.

I have been known to make a solution of sugar and salt when i really have to haul *kitten* in the gym. This is more of a constant intake of fast acting carbs during your workouts in small concentrations.
4) Protein converts to glucose at a .48/100 ratio. Basically for every gram of protein you eat 48% gets converted to glucose.

1) I'm thinking about this part in terms of endurance performance, regardless of weight goals. If I have to go out and race for 6 hours, what do I need to do nutritionally to get the most out of my body. And by the way, the sugar/salt drink is actually a great idea for this.

4) ah, that makes sense then. Again, not sure what that means in the real world for weight loss, gain, performance, etc... but at least now I understand what's happening.

UsedToBeHusky

I guess my question would be this (again OP please feel free to smack me into place if this isn't the direction you'd like your thread to go) does an otherwise healthy athlete who requires more carbohydrates in their diet (i.e. marathon runners) have a greater chance of developing diabetes later in life than an athlete who isn't required to have such a high volume of carbs?

I'm going to field this one because I didn't see where anyone answered you. I'm not as knowledgable as some so I welcome anyone with better information on the subject to challenge me, but...


It is my understanding that you have to be genetically predisposed to diabetes to some extent. Some have developed diabetes without genetic predisposition, my brother-in-law is one, but it is far less common. My brother-in-law was diagnosed at 18 months old. No one in his family had it. I have no idea what his diet was like at 18 months old, but I assume it was typical for most babies. This leads me to believe that his condition was more likely to be a malformation of his pancreas since no one in his family had it and none of his siblings developed it.

Based just on my own knowledge, I'm going to have to answer no. An athlete who eats a high volume of carbs would not develop diabetes later in life simply because he consumed a high volume of carbs. Other biological factors would have to be pre-existing for this to happen.

Again, not a doctor, and only somewhat knowledgable on the subject.

mmapags

I guess my question would be this (again OP please feel free to smack me into place if this isn't the direction you'd like your thread to go) does an otherwise healthy athlete who requires more carbohydrates in their diet (i.e. marathon runners) have a greater chance of developing diabetes later in life than an athlete who isn't required to have such a high volume of carbs?

I'm going to field this one because I didn't see where anyone answered you. I'm not as knowledgable as some so I welcome anyone with better information on the subject to challenge me, but...


It is my understanding that you have to be genetically predisposed to diabetes to some extent. Some have developed diabetes without genetic predisposition, my brother-in-law is one, but it is far less common. My brother-in-law was diagnosed at 18 months old. No one in his family had it. I have no idea what his diet was like at 18 months old, but I assume it was typical for most babies. This leads me to believe that his condition was more likely to be a malformation of his pancreas since no one in his family had it and none of his siblings developed it.

Based just on my own knowledge, I'm going to have to answer no. An athlete who eats a high volume of carbs would not develop diabetes later in life simply because he consumed a high volume of carbs. Other biological factors would have to be pre-existing for this to happen.

Again, not a doctor, and only somewhat knowledgable on the subject.

This would be my assumption also, However, I do know of an endurance athelete who is a member here that developed insulin resistance. She does triathalons. Cutting back on carbs helped her and she was able to adapt her performance and was still able to compete at a high level. I don't know her medical history so I don't know what other factors may have been. She was not to the point of being diabetic or pre-diabetic but had elevated blood glucose levels.

UsedToBeHusky

I guess my question would be this (again OP please feel free to smack me into place if this isn't the direction you'd like your thread to go) does an otherwise healthy athlete who requires more carbohydrates in their diet (i.e. marathon runners) have a greater chance of developing diabetes later in life than an athlete who isn't required to have such a high volume of carbs?

I'm going to field this one because I didn't see where anyone answered you. I'm not as knowledgable as some so I welcome anyone with better information on the subject to challenge me, but...


It is my understanding that you have to be genetically predisposed to diabetes to some extent. Some have developed diabetes without genetic predisposition, my brother-in-law is one, but it is far less common. My brother-in-law was diagnosed at 18 months old. No one in his family had it. I have no idea what his diet was like at 18 months old, but I assume it was typical for most babies. This leads me to believe that his condition was more likely to be a malformation of his pancreas since no one in his family had it and none of his siblings developed it.

Based just on my own knowledge, I'm going to have to answer no. An athlete who eats a high volume of carbs would not develop diabetes later in life simply because he consumed a high volume of carbs. Other biological factors would have to be pre-existing for this to happen.

Again, not a doctor, and only somewhat knowledgable on the subject.

This would be my assumption also, However, I do know of an endurance athelete who is a member here that developed insulin resistance. She does triathalons. Cutting back on carbs helped her and she was able to adapt her performance and was still able to compete at a high level. I don't know her medical history so I don't know what other factors may have been. She was not to the point of being diabetic or pre-diabetic but had elevated blood glucose levels.

That's interesting. The whole "pre-diabetes" aspect still intrigues me. I was determined to be pre-diabetic once. I made absolutely no changes to my diet or lifestyle, and the condition cleared up on its own. Maybe insulin-resistance is another biological mechanism to external factors similar to the release of leptin, grehlin, and cortisol. Who knows?

ACSL3

I guess my question would be this (again OP please feel free to smack me into place if this isn't the direction you'd like your thread to go) does an otherwise healthy athlete who requires more carbohydrates in their diet (i.e. marathon runners) have a greater chance of developing diabetes later in life than an athlete who isn't required to have such a high volume of carbs?

I'm going to field this one because I didn't see where anyone answered you. I'm not as knowledgable as some so I welcome anyone with better information on the subject to challenge me, but...


It is my understanding that you have to be genetically predisposed to diabetes to some extent. Some have developed diabetes without genetic predisposition, my brother-in-law is one, but it is far less common. My brother-in-law was diagnosed at 18 months old. No one in his family had it. I have no idea what his diet was like at 18 months old, but I assume it was typical for most babies. This leads me to believe that his condition was more likely to be a malformation of his pancreas since no one in his family had it and none of his siblings developed it.

Based just on my own knowledge, I'm going to have to answer no. An athlete who eats a high volume of carbs would not develop diabetes later in life simply because he consumed a high volume of carbs. Other biological factors would have to be pre-existing for this to happen.

Again, not a doctor, and only somewhat knowledgable on the subject.

Do you happen to know what type of diabetic your brother-in-law is? Being diagnosed at such a young age leads me to think he has type 1 diabetes, which is different from type 2

Type 1 (which used to be called juvenile diabetes) is actually an autoimmune disorder. For some reason (still being speculated, possibly a virus), the body attacks the cells that make insulin causing a lack of the hormone. Generally speaking, type 1 diabetics are not insulin resistant - in fact they may be highly sensitive due to an upregulation of receptors when insulin levels are low/absent for long periods. They tend to be started on insulin right from the get go and don't take other medications

Type 2 (used to be adult onset diabetes) is a resistance to insulin for whatever reason (genetics, weight, etc). They're generally started on other drugs first before insulin; their pancreas still creates insulin but it's either (a) not enough or (b) their body doesn't respond well. So they try drugs to up insulin production or to lower resistance/increase sensitivity. At some point physicians and patients will consider adding insulin if the other drugs aren't working well enough. That's why when people talk about reducing their dependence on drugs, they'll say they were taken off insulin first and the other drugs, like metformin, last.


Hopefully that helps explain the difference a bit.

ModoVincere

I guess my question would be this (again OP please feel free to smack me into place if this isn't the direction you'd like your thread to go) does an otherwise healthy athlete who requires more carbohydrates in their diet (i.e. marathon runners) have a greater chance of developing diabetes later in life than an athlete who isn't required to have such a high volume of carbs?

I'm going to field this one because I didn't see where anyone answered you. I'm not as knowledgable as some so I welcome anyone with better information on the subject to challenge me, but...


It is my understanding that you have to be genetically predisposed to diabetes to some extent. Some have developed diabetes without genetic predisposition, my brother-in-law is one, but it is far less common. My brother-in-law was diagnosed at 18 months old. No one in his family had it. I have no idea what his diet was like at 18 months old, but I assume it was typical for most babies. This leads me to believe that his condition was more likely to be a malformation of his pancreas since no one in his family had it and none of his siblings developed it.

Based just on my own knowledge, I'm going to have to answer no. An athlete who eats a high volume of carbs would not develop diabetes later in life simply because he consumed a high volume of carbs. Other biological factors would have to be pre-existing for this to happen.

Again, not a doctor, and only somewhat knowledgable on the subject.

Do you happen to know what type of diabetic your brother-in-law is? Being diagnosed at such a young age leads me to think he has type 1 diabetes, which is different from type 2

Type 1 (which used to be called juvenile diabetes) is actually an autoimmune disorder. For some reason (still being speculated, possibly a virus), the body attacks the cells that make insulin causing a lack of the hormone. Generally speaking, type 1 diabetics are not insulin resistant - in fact they may be highly sensitive due to an upregulation of receptors when insulin levels are low/absent for long periods. They tend to be started on insulin right from the get go and don't take other medications

Type 2 (used to be adult onset diabetes) is a resistance to insulin for whatever reason (genetics, weight, etc). They're generally started on other drugs first before insulin; their pancreas still creates insulin but it's either (a) not enough or (b) their body doesn't respond well. So they try drugs to up insulin production or to lower resistance/increase sensitivity. At some point physicians and patients will consider adding insulin if the other drugs aren't working well enough. That's why when people talk about reducing their dependence on drugs, they'll say they were taken off insulin first and the other drugs, like metformin, last.


Hopefully that helps explain the difference a bit.

usually a simply blood test for the GAD65 antibody can tell you which type of DM you are dealing with. However, this test is not always done, as it's easy for dr's to assume a patient is a particular type based on general body type indicators....which are not always accurate.

UsedToBeHusky

I guess my question would be this (again OP please feel free to smack me into place if this isn't the direction you'd like your thread to go) does an otherwise healthy athlete who requires more carbohydrates in their diet (i.e. marathon runners) have a greater chance of developing diabetes later in life than an athlete who isn't required to have such a high volume of carbs?

I'm going to field this one because I didn't see where anyone answered you. I'm not as knowledgable as some so I welcome anyone with better information on the subject to challenge me, but...


It is my understanding that you have to be genetically predisposed to diabetes to some extent. Some have developed diabetes without genetic predisposition, my brother-in-law is one, but it is far less common. My brother-in-law was diagnosed at 18 months old. No one in his family had it. I have no idea what his diet was like at 18 months old, but I assume it was typical for most babies. This leads me to believe that his condition was more likely to be a malformation of his pancreas since no one in his family had it and none of his siblings developed it.

Based just on my own knowledge, I'm going to have to answer no. An athlete who eats a high volume of carbs would not develop diabetes later in life simply because he consumed a high volume of carbs. Other biological factors would have to be pre-existing for this to happen.

Again, not a doctor, and only somewhat knowledgable on the subject.

Do you happen to know what type of diabetic your brother-in-law is? Being diagnosed at such a young age leads me to think he has type 1 diabetes, which is different from type 2

Type 1 (which used to be called juvenile diabetes) is actually an autoimmune disorder. For some reason (still being speculated, possibly a virus), the body attacks the cells that make insulin causing a lack of the hormone. Generally speaking, type 1 diabetics are not insulin resistant - in fact they may be highly sensitive due to an upregulation of receptors when insulin levels are low/absent for long periods. They tend to be started on insulin right from the get go and don't take other medications

Type 2 (used to be adult onset diabetes) is a resistance to insulin for whatever reason (genetics, weight, etc). They're generally started on other drugs first before insulin; their pancreas still creates insulin but it's either (a) not enough or (b) their body doesn't respond well. So they try drugs to up insulin production or to lower resistance/increase sensitivity. At some point physicians and patients will consider adding insulin if the other drugs aren't working well enough. That's why when people talk about reducing their dependence on drugs, they'll say they were taken off insulin first and the other drugs, like metformin, last.


Hopefully that helps explain the difference a bit.

He does have type 1, but he said that he didn't have to take insulin until he became an adult. The likelihood of autoimmune disorder makes sense, seeing as how he also had juvenile rheumatoid arthrits, which is also an autoimmune disorder.

Okay... so then, you do have to be genetically predisposed for type 2. Type 1, on the other hand, appears to be an entirely different animal, but it still would not be triggered by consuming excessive carbs.

saxmaniac

He does have type 1, but he said that he didn't have to take insulin until he became an adult. The likelihood of autoimmune disorder makes sense, seeing as how he also had juvenile rheumatoid arthrits, which is also an autoimmune disorder.

Then he was either misdiagnosed (which happens a lot), or, had an extremely long remission which is VERY rare for a young child - I've never heard of that. Usually the older you are, the longer your remission period is.

Type 1's die without insulin.

366to266

In regards to dieting: Insulin does not make you fat,

Oh yes it does!

mmapags

In regards to dieting: Insulin does not make you fat,

Oh yes it does!

Oh please do explain by what wizardry this would happen in a calorie deficit? lol

ModoVincere

In regards to dieting: Insulin does not make you fat,

Oh yes it does!

Oh please do explain by what wizardry this would happen in a calorie deficit? lol

insulin, when one has a high level in theiir system, let's say exogenous insulin, causes the blood sugar to drop too low, forcing the person to eat more. In effect, too much insulin can lead to over consumption ("feeding the insulin"). However, unless someone has a hormonal imbalance or metabolic imbalance, endogenous insulin should not cause this.....it won't make you fat on its own.

jacksonpt

So first, it's not the insulin making you gain weight, it's the over eating.

Second, nothing is forcing you to overeat, correct? Perhaps the desire to eat in increased, but that's not the same as forcing, no?

mmapags

So first, it's not the insulin making you gain weight, it's the over eating.

Second, nothing is forcing you to overeat, correct? Perhaps the desire to eat in increased, but that's not the same as forcing, no?

That's how I see it. We really need to stop blaming things other than the ones we can control for getting fat.

awake4777

bump

What does "BUMP" mean?

awake4777

Good luck!

UsedToBeHusky

bump

What does "BUMP" mean?

Bump has two meanings. 1. The poster wants to "bump" the thread to the top of the 'most recent topics' list. 2. The poster wants to find the thread later in their 'my topics' list.

crazy4fids

bump for later....good info.

keeponkickin

PS: Still playing youth softball at 45??

Heck ya! Losing all that weight turned back the clock as well :laugh:

keeponkickin

So first, it's not the insulin making you gain weight, it's the over eating.

Second, nothing is forcing you to overeat, correct? Perhaps the desire to eat in increased, but that's not the same as forcing, no?

That's how I see it. We really need to stop blaming things other than the ones we can control for getting fat.

^^THIS^^ I'm a type 1 diabetic, on insulin since age 12. I got fat from pure over eating and lack of exercise. What do you know, put the fork down and start running my *kitten* and I lost the weight. Calories in vs. calories out and not insulin.

jacksonpt

So first, it's not the insulin making you gain weight, it's the over eating.

Second, nothing is forcing you to overeat, correct? Perhaps the desire to eat in increased, but that's not the same as forcing, no?

That's how I see it. We really need to stop blaming things other than the ones we can control for getting fat.

^^THIS^^ I'm a type 1 diabetic, on insulin since age 12. I got fat from pure over eating and lack of exercise. What do you know, put the fork down and start running my *kitten* and I lost the weight. Calories in vs. calories out and not insulin.

Nicely done... congrats on the effort, the results and the honesty!

mmapags

So first, it's not the insulin making you gain weight, it's the over eating.

Second, nothing is forcing you to overeat, correct? Perhaps the desire to eat in increased, but that's not the same as forcing, no?

That's how I see it. We really need to stop blaming things other than the ones we can control for getting fat.

^^THIS^^ I'm a type 1 diabetic, on insulin since age 12. I got fat from pure over eating and lack of exercise. What do you know, put the fork down and start running my *kitten* and I lost the weight. Calories in vs. calories out and not insulin.

Nicely done... congrats on the effort, the results and the honesty!

Couldn't say it any better!

bcattoes

I haven't read all the responses, but my understainding is that insulin is a hormone produced by the pancreas to stimulates cells to absorb blood glucose and thus, control the amount of glucose in your blood stream. Without it your body can't use glucose for fuel.

If your body can't produce enough insulin or your cells don't respond normally to insulin, glucose and insulin levels in your blood rise. Elevated glucose levels can raises your triglyceride and other blood fat levels, affect your kidneys, leading to higher blood pressure, and put you at risk of heart disease, stroke, diabetes and other conditions.

Obesity increases your risk of developing the condition described above.