Best Diet to increase Insulin Sensitivity
- 01-14-2006, 12:00 AM
Best Diet to increase Insulin Sensitivity
Hey Guys... just wondering what your throughts are here... what's the best diet for an insulin resistant "prediabetic" guy... from all of the research I've done and recommendations I've received it would be a ketogetic style diet...however I know that quite a few of you are strong proponents of the 40/40/20 ... so which one would be best to regain ones insulin sensitivity... if its the 40/40/20 are there any special circumstances or supplements you'd take to make it more efficient?
- 01-14-2006, 12:35 AM
40/40/20 with all low gi carbs, no sugars, potatoes etc. R-ALA is a great supplement to increase insulin sens. Keto diets can work but I hate how I feel without the carbs. If you go keto consider a cyclic style with refeeds. IMORecent log:http://anabolicminds.com/forum/supplement-reviews-logs/213350-lean-efx-refined.html
- 01-14-2006, 12:38 AM
You may find this helpfull:
The Hidden Disease You May Already Have
By Jack Challem
Copyright © 1997 by Jack Challem, The Nutrition Reporter™.
All rights reserved.
You may already be suffering from one of the most common - and often overlooked - diseases to strike Americans.
It's not a deadly new virus. Not cancer. Nor heart disease.
It's a disease, surprisingly enough, caused by your body's inability to make the most of the food you eat. And as many as one in three people suffer from it.
Doctors call this peculiar condition insulin resistance or, with a bit more mystique, Syndrome X.
If the name doesn't ring a bell, the symptoms might: Feeling tired after you eat, and at other times when you shouldn't. Gaining a pound here and a pound there - and having difficulty losing them. Seeing your blood pressure creep up year and after year. And finding that your cholesterol does the same.
Insulin resistance is the chief characteristic of adult-onset diabetes, which affects an estimated 15 million Americans. It also sets the stage for obesity and coronary heart disease - even if you're not diabetic.
What can you do about it? The simple prescription is to eat right, take your vitamins and minerals, and exercise, because each reduces insulin resistance.
But as you might imagine, there's more to the story.
Sugar and Insulin: A Double Whammy
Doctors have known about insulin resistance for decades, but only in the 10 years have they gained a clearer idea of exactly how it derails your health.
Insulin resistance is caused in large part by the over-consumption of refined carbohydrates, such as breads, pastas, and sugary foods. Eating too much saturated fat (found in beef) and omega-6 fatty acids (found in vegetable oils) also seems to increase the risk of insulin resistance.
Normally, after you eat a meal, your body breaks down carbohydrates into glucose, or blood sugar. The presence of glucose prompts the release of insulin, a hormone produced in your pancreas. Insulin helps transport glucose from the blood to cells, where's it's burned for energy or stored.
When a person eats a lot of refined carbohydrates year after year, a dangerous cascade occurs. Insulin levels remain chronically high, and cells become less responsive - and resistant - to insulin. As a consequence, relatively little glucose gets burned and levels remain high. With chronically elevated glucose levels, insulin resistance evolves into diabetes.
At an American Diabetes Association (ADA) scientific symposium on antioxidants and diabetes, held last November in Orlando, Fla., numerous researchers implicated elevated glucose as a major source of dangerous free radicals. Glucose, a highly energetic compound (and the primary source of energy in the body), spontaneously oxidizes itself and spins off large numbers of free radicals, according to Lester Packer, Ph.D., a cell and molecular biologist at the University of California.
Free radicals, molecules with an unpaired electron, react with normal molecules in the body and oxidize them, much the way heat or oxygen turns butter rancid. When glucose is steadily higher than normal - well above 120 mg/dL - it auto-oxidizes even more readily and spins off still more free radicals. Some of these free radicals, according to Alan Chait, M.D., a professor at the University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, oxidize cholesterol and set the stage for coronary heart disease.
High levels of glucose cause other problems as well. At the ADA meeting, Richard Bucala, M.D., Ph.D., of the Picower Institute for Medical Research, Manhasset, N.Y., explained that glucose can bind to proteins and "crosslink" them. The process, called glycosylation, is akin to tying your body's proteins, which include your genes, into knots. Like free radicals, protein glycosylation has also been linked to aging and disease.
High levels of insulin create still more free radicals, leading to what researchers describe as "oxidative stress." Ele Ferrannini, M.D., of Italy's National Research Council, Pisa, has reported that high insulin levels increases the demand for vitamin E, which quenches free radicals. That's not all. Dean Ornish, M.D., of Sausalito, Calif., recently wrote in the Journal of the American Medical Association that insulin helps convert calories into triglycerides and cholesterol, increasing the risk of coronary heart disease.
Insulin Resistance and Heart Diseases
Until 1988, researchers studying insulin resistance focused on its role in diabetes. Then, Gerald M. Reaven, M.D., of the Stanford University Medical Center, built a strong case for insulin resistance as a cause of obesity, hypertension, and coronary heart disease.
"The fact that an insulin-resistance subject may not become diabetic does not mean that they suffer no untoward consequences," Reaven wrote in the journal Diabetes. "Indeed, an argument can be made that the more insulin sensitive [in contrast to insulin resistant] an individual, the better off he or she is, and that the attempt to compensate for insulin resistance sets in motion of series of events that play an important role in the development of both hypertension and coronary heart disease."
Reaven coined the term "Syndrome X," to describe how insulin resistance sets the stage for more serious disease. The syndrome is characterized by six traits: insulin resistance, glucose intolerance, abnormally high insulin levels, high triglycerides, low high-density lipoprotein (the "good" cholesterol), and hypertension. "The common feature of the proposed syndrome is insulin resistance," he explained, "and all other changes are likely to be secondary to this basic abnormality."
Alpha-Lipoic Acid Helps
Some of the best ideas for preventing and reversing insulin resistance come from emerging treatments for adult-onset diabetes, the condition in which insulin resistance is most severe. One approach aims at reducing glucose levels (and consequently insulin levels) and the other uses vitamins to counteract free radicals generated by glucose.
A number of micronutrients help insulin efficiently move glucose into cells for burning. If you think of your body's cells as engines, refined carbohydrates provide plenty of high-grade fuel. But you also need spark plugs to efficiently ignite the fuel. One of the most promising of these biological spark plugs is alpha-lipoic acid.
A natural cell constituent, alpha-lipoic plays a fundamental role in converting glucose to energy. Researchers have known from animal experiments that it can lower and stabilize glucose levels and, in Germany, alpha-lipoic acid is sold as a "drug" for the treatment of diabetic polyneuropathy, a type of severe nerve pain.
At the ADA meeting, Stephan Jacob, M.D., of the University of Tübingen, Germany, described his recent study of 74 diabetes given at least 600 mg of alpha-lipoic acid supplements daily. The alpha-lipoic acid stimulated insulin activity, which safely lowered and stabilized glucose levels. It also made the patients more insulin sensitive and increased their glucose tolerance, both positive changes.
Other nutrients also help improve insulin sensitivity and, conversely, reduce insulin resistance. The mineral vanadium, found in vanadyl sulfate supplements, also improves insulin's ability to transport glucose into cells. With insulin working efficiently, the body needs and produces less of it. According to Barbara F. Harland, Ph.D., of Howard University, Washington, D.C., vanadium has been researched for 40 years and is close to being recognized as an essential nutrient.
Chromium, which is recognized as an essential mineral, also helps lower glucose levels. It is a component of the "glucose tolerance factor," a molecule essential for normal insulin function and glucose metabolism. Last year, Richard A. Anderson, Ph.D., a researcher at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, described a joint U.S./Chinese study in which diabetics received either daily supplements of chromium picolinate or dummy pills. He said that 200 mcg of chromium picolinate daily safely lowered and stabilized blood sugar levels in diabetics in just four months. People taking 1,000 mcg of chromium daily ended up with glucose and insulin levels comparable to those of normal people.
The omega-3 fatty acids, or fish oils, also improve insulin sensitivity and reduce insulin resistance, according to a recent animal study by Margaret T. Behme, M.D., of University Hospital, London, Ontario. The omega-3 fatty acids restore a balance disrupted by excessive consumption of omega-6 fatty acids and saturated fats.
Vitamin E Prevents Damage
Researchers at the ADA meeting came close to unanimously endorsing vitamin E to relieve some of the "oxidative stress" caused by excessive glucose and free radicals in diabetics. It's likely that non-diabetics with insulin resistance also suffer from oxidative stress, though to a lesser degree.
Why the emphasis on vitamin E? Many studies have reported that 400 IU or more daily can dramatically reduce the risk of coronary heart disease, the cause of death among 80 percent of diabetics - and the leading cause of death overall in the United States. In fact, it appears that the same process that causes coronary heart disease in most people is accelerated in diabetics.
What happens is this: free radicals generated by glucose oxidize the low-density lipoprotein (LDL) form of cholesterol in the blood. White blood cells scavenge the oxidized LDL, then infiltrate heart tissue and get stuck. This causes the cholesterol deposits characteristic of heart disease.
Vitamin E can neutralizes many of these free radicals and retards the development of coronary heart disease, according to research by Ishwarlal Jialal, M.D., of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center. Jialal described a 14-week study in which he gave 21 healthy patients 1,200 IU of natural vitamin E daily. The vitamin significantly reduced LDL oxidation and prevented white blood cells from sticking to the heart. Jialal has seen similar reductions in oxidized LDL among diabetics. "In my own practice, I suggest to my coronary artery disease patients that they take 400 IU of vitamin E daily," he said.
Angelo Azzi, Ph.D., a professor at the Institute of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology in Bern, Switzerland, echoed Jialal and expressed a strong preference for natural vitamin E. "Natural vitamin E is two times more effective than the synthetic compound," he said, adding that the body has prefers the structure of the natural molecule. "The important thing is to take it," he said.
As antioxidants go, alpha-lipoic acid is also extremely important, according to the University of California's Packer. In 1988, researchers discovered that it was one of the most potent and versatile antioxidants. It also helps recycle vitamin E and other antioxidants, such as vitamin C and CoQ10.
In sum, you have a one-in-three statistical risk of developing insulin resistance, but your real risk increases sharply if you consume a lot of refined carbohydrates, omega-6 fatty acids (found in fried foods and vegetable oils), and saturated fats. But you're not going to wake up one morning to discover that you're suddenly insulin resistance.
Insulin resistance takes years to become servere. If you pay attention to some of the early signs - higher blood pressure and elevated triglyceride and cholesterol - when you're in your 30s or 40s, you can reverse insulin resistance and stand a good chance of preventing diabetes and coronary heart disease when you're older.Recent log:http://anabolicminds.com/forum/supplement-reviews-logs/213350-lean-efx-refined.html
01-14-2006, 02:00 AM
Hey man... I appreciate the article and your insight.... It's all pretty much stuff I've heard... I routinely supplement with Vit E, Vit C, B Vits, Chromium, and K-r-ALA ... My Dr. basically has diagnoised me with Syndrome X... I have high blood pressure, high cholesterol, high fasting blood sugar, and the spare tire to prove it..but I'm only 22yrs old... I ate like a monster growing up and that's just what I became ... I've started monitoring my Blood Glucose each morning...and if I have carbs the day before its always around 120s however if I've gone a few days without carbs I can usually get it to the high 80s(87-89) ... but that takes 3-4 days of NO carbs and working out each day for about 45 minutes... I'm really just wondering if I could run a 40/40/20 because I do like my carbs... but if there was a way to structure it so that I could improve my glucose readings... if not I'll probably just go with a CKD that emphasises mono and polyunsaturated fats and lean protein... with a carb up one day a week with only around 250grams carbs... any thoughts?
01-14-2006, 02:24 AM
No, CKD not the way to go. play with the percentages. Get rid of the spare tire. Add cardio to the daily routine if not already doing so. You could also increase your exercise time if schedule permits.
40/40/20 should work fine. Consistent carbohydrate(CHO) intake throughout the day, between 45-60grams low GI foods per meal. Still emphasize MUFA & PUFA as main fat source.
Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for life. Lao Tse 6th century BC
01-14-2006, 02:59 PM
jonny21... I really like the idea of doing a 40/40/20 but if you wouldn't mind...why isn't CKD the way to go?I'm looking more for reasons of why one is superior to the other in terms of increasing insulin sensitivity
01-14-2006, 03:46 PM
CKD is not a balanced diet and can lead to varoius deficiencies, produces excess free radicals, not to mention it will not increase insulin sensitivity.
I think you can get good healthy results with low to mod CHO(30-50%). Try some ALA or chromium picolinate if you are seeking to improve insulin sensitivity. Exercise will also help to increase sensitivity, 45 minutes/day is good place to start, but i would look to increase time. Resistance training & cardio.
Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for life. Lao Tse 6th century BC
01-14-2006, 04:05 PM
01-14-2006, 05:19 PM
So... other than skim milk, yogurt, oats, beans,brown rice, and berries what are good sources of low GI carbs?... and would a 40pro/30carb/30fat also be a good choice?
01-14-2006, 05:31 PM
All fresh and dried deciduous fruit i.e. apricots, fresh cherries, peaches, nectarines, plums, pears and apples, as well as all berries e.g. strawberries, mulberries, etc. (Stone/temperate climate fruits have lower GI’s)
01-14-2006, 05:32 PM
Most vegetables. And of course: sweet potatoes! Yummy
01-14-2006, 06:54 PM
Here is where you get the benefit. Most very low CHO diets will rec'd limited amounts of nuts due to their CHO content. Not limiting your CHO excessively opens the door for a ****load of excellent, healthy, and beneficial foods. Just google "glycemic index" and the info will be at your fingertips.Originally Posted by mrmoose63
As far as the exact breakdown, pick a starting point and evaluate based on results.
Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for life. Lao Tse 6th century BC
01-15-2006, 01:46 PM
It really depends what your priorities are and how bad your condition is. Do you want to look after your condition first or maintain your level of physical development?Originally Posted by mrmoose63
Cyclical Ketogenic Diets have phases of no carbs and then periods of carb loading. Those periods of loading are probably not a good idea if you are battling insulin resistance/early type 2 diabetes.
A straight low calorie ketogenic diet is probably the best for insulin sensitivity but there are the long term health questions and it is a very poor diet for athletic performance since the body needs carbs to fuel muscle growth.
The two most important dietary changes are reducing overall calorie intake and reducing the average GI load of your meals. The former is self explanatory, the latter can be accomplished by eating less carbs and/or carbs that are lower on the GI scale. Sorry to say that a mega calorie 40/40/20 bulking diet probably isn't going to help your condition, regardless of what kind of carbs you eat.
Regular (intense) exercise and reduction bodyweight, of course, also are critical.
Hope this helps
01-15-2006, 01:59 PM
Originally Posted by Nitrox
A 40/40/20 is not a bulking diet, it is just a macro nutrient ratio. I use it for cutting personally, my bulking ratio is usually 45/35/20. What type of carbs he eats can help/hurt his condition as it is all about insulin responce.
01-15-2006, 02:17 PM
Sorry I missed this post for some reason.Originally Posted by mrmoose63
Anyhow I wouldnt recommend the CKD style diet for anyone with a significant level of insulin resistance.
Before I went on the needle I used a timed keto diet (TKD) with 1.5g Pro per pound of lean bodyweight, 1g Cho per pound of bodyweight, and total calories adjusted with healthy fats. 1/3-1/2 of total daily carbs would be lower GI starch taken immediately before a workout for fuel; the rest were from fruits, vegs, nuts, and dairy spread evenly over 4 or 5 other meals.
Non-workout days had a reduction in total carbs and a reduction in the amount coming from starchy sources (breads, potato, rice, etc).
Remember that an overall calorie deficit is needed as well- now you have an incentive to hit that 10% bf mark.
01-15-2006, 02:37 PM
I never said that the macro ratio determines if a diet is a bulker or a cutter. So far there has been no mention of total calorie intake as a factor in insulin resistance. There has been suggestion of a 40/40/20 ratio being suitable. My point is that regardless of the ratio if there is a significant excess of calories (as bulking diets are categorized) his insulin resistance problems are not likely to improve.Originally Posted by bpmartyr
Sure, of course, we have already established that but like I said, proper carb selection is not the only factor involved. Lower GI carbs promote lower but broader blood glucose levels but that glucose must still be metabolize somehow.Originally Posted by bpmartyr
01-15-2006, 03:18 PM
So you guys know what my workout schedule looks like... Each Week I do 4 full body, bodyweight exercise workouts (Pushups(4 Different Varieties), Squats(3 Different Varieties), Abs(2 Varieties), Chair Dips, Assisted Chest Dips, Assisted Chin Ups, Assisted Pull Ups.... Each Workout is compiled of different versions of each exercise and lasts 40-55 Minutes...it keeps things interesting... and being a relative newb to working out full body workouts seem to be effective... 2 Days a week I do 45minutes- 1 hour of Steady State Cardio on either the Elliptical or Treadmill(depending on what's open at the time) ... it may not be an optimal schedule but it works for me, its challenging and it does help get my blood glucose down
As far as cals go... I've been shooting for 2250-2500 a day, which I struggle to hit, I notice when my Blood Glucose is high I have NO appetite... I'm 5'9" and 300lbs; my bodyfat has been tested twice at two different gyms one put me at 21% and the other at 24%... I'd be more apt to go with the 24% IMO... the majority of my fat is around my gut(syndrome X) and some is on my chest... I used to workout a ton in high school and packed on a ton of muscle, and my body has been able to maintain most of that ...i'm assuming because of the overtly high insulin levels...
Really my goal is to reverse the insulin resistance first and foremost... and if that means following a ketogenic diet and then switching to a 40/30/30 at a later date then I'm fine with that...
Nitrox... I have to a agree with you on the CKD carb up portion being a bit excessive.. however if i kept the carb up to 1 day with about 250g carbs ... all low GI, spread evenly throughout the day.. that wouldn't be to horrible or would it?... I happen to like your idea on the TKD and will research it more, as that may be the "best of both worlds"
I appreciate everyones comments and suggestions, I'm really just trying to figure out the best thing for my body right now
01-15-2006, 04:08 PM
i second ckd. in re to cals, IMO lbm is the figure to use. at your estimate of 24% @ 300 you'd have 228lbm. does this seem right? if so use that x 13-15 for cals of 3000-3400. never start too low. how had you been eating? also if working out that much you need the energy. IMO w/ckd i do minimum weight/cardio and let the diet do the trick. i'd say 2 lifting days, heavy low volume and 2 cardio days 1 hr each at low intensity would work. keep in mind your dieting and building muscle is almost impossible, so the idea is to maintain mass, don't over do exercise and let the cal deficeit do the work. also IMO 6-8 weeks on ckd should be followed with 2 weeks at maintenance or more prior to resuming ckd. hope this helps. any more q,s, ask away.
01-15-2006, 05:46 PM
Tough for me to say. Given your current bodyweight I'll hazard a guess that you still have some good insulin function left. That 250g might be OK for you but ultimately you have to test drive it and take some readings.Originally Posted by mrmoose63
My reasons for not recommending CKD is my preference based on experience. I have tried both carbs and keto (<50 g CHO) for both bulking and cutting. For me, the keto's were by far the worst. I couldn't build/preserve any muscle without carbs and I felt really slow. Hence I just don't see the reasoning of CKD where you have 6 days of muscle loss (and feel lethargic) then you prop it up one day and repeat. This where the proponents of the 40/40/20 cutter come from.
If you can eat 250g of carbs on one day without high glucose levels then you should be able to eat 150-250g every day and preserve more muscle and have some energy.
So IMO either include some carbs every meal, every day within range of your glucose tolerance or else go full keto (not fun) to maximize your sensitivity.
01-15-2006, 07:35 PM
Just curious, could you provide valid info showing that a high fat diet improves insulin action or make cells more receptive to insulin.Originally Posted by Nitrox
If this lad's purpose is to keep his blood sugar lower that's one thing, but he was looking to improve insulin resistance. For that he will need to get rid of adipose tissue and and increase the cardio. The supplements mentioned above (chromium, ala...) can help, but the type of foods will not improve the insulin sensitivity on the cellular level. at least that is my understanding.
I would have to say the diet that allows for increase in LBM and lose bodyfat while supporting your body's needs whilst doing cardio.from all of the research I've done and recommendations I've received it would be a ketogetic style diet...however I know that quite a few of you are strong proponents of the 40/40/20 ... so which one would be best to regain ones insulin sensitivity...
01-15-2006, 07:46 PM
Hey Moose, low GI is definitely the way to go. Carb manipulation whether through cutting back, staggering,etc. is a definite way to help drop some pounds. But for some people it's not that simple. Some people also have to take into consideration the impact certain carbs have on their insulin levels.
When most people think of low GI the standard answer of veggies and fruits always comes up. But there are other foods that are low GI (corn tortillas, pumpernickel rye bread,etc.)
There's a pocket guide called THE NEW GLUCOSE REVOLUTION: THE TOP 100 LOW GI FOODS
It's a nice reference for the GI amount of the top 100 foods. Between that book and the internet you can pretty much educate yourself on the GI values of various foods.
What it comes down to is using something like the book I mentioned to help educate you on the GI values. Then when you go grocery shoping use the knowledge you have (or take the book with you, I do) to help make low GI selections.
Then once you have "better" low GI carbs in your house you can now manipulate your carb intake and watch the weight start to drop.
BTW - I picked up my book at Books A Million. I am sure you can find it in any bookstore n the nutrition section. It costs $6.95
01-15-2006, 10:26 PM
What leads to insulin resistance?Originally Posted by jonny21
The belief is that the body's cells response to insulin is degraded by chronicly high insulin levels. Insulin-producing beta cells then have to overproduce insulin to compensate leading to burn out or their destruction through an auto-immune response with diabetes as the result. I say 'belief' because I am told by my endocronologist that the exact mechanisms are not yet understood.
So what causes chronicly high insulin levels?
Repeated high calorie, high glycemic load meals do. Nothing jacks the GI load up like refined sugars and starches and nothing jacks calories like fat.
So if this is indeed the case, the way to regain the MOST sensitivity is to minimize those cells' exposure to insulin. You will not achieve that by continuing to expose those cells to insulin with a high carb diet. The diet that will produce the lowest insulin levels is one that is low calorie and low GI-load. High fat does not have to be high calorie. Of course every thing is relative. If Moose had previously been eating 6000 Cals with 1000g of carbs per day then halving that and dropping carbs to 250g may be more than sufficient...
Moose has already stated that he has had higher-than-normal fasting blood glucose levels. So it is a problem. Once you are a 'pre-diabetic' it beomes a different situation. Improving his degree of insulin resistance and lower his blood glucose levels cannot be entirely separated. He did not say if had a C-peptide test done to determine his actual insulin levels but that would provide some information if he already has impaired insulin output.
Unfortunately I see a lot of confusion on these issues: Diabetes is caused by obesity, Insulin resistance is caused by high fat diets, Sedentary lifestyle leads to... you get the (fuzzy) picture. Well which is it?
To get fat in the first place you have to consistently eat more calories than you expend, dumping glucose and FFA's into the bloodstream, triggering insulin spikes that tell the body's cells to go anabolic and to store the extra energy as glycogen, as fat tissue, or muscle.
So is it the overeating? The high insulin? The actual condition of being fat? All these factors are interelated yet they are often talked about individually.
Not exactly. ANY increase in bodymass, be it adipose or muscle tissue, will require additional insulin output for its construction and maintenance. Leading to increase cellular exposure to the hormone.Originally Posted by jonny21
Look at the pros why do you think they need exogenous insulin to achieve their physiques despite the fact that they maintain relatively low body fat levels.
Also, all the current PWO nutrition philosophy concentrates on 'spiking' insulin. What for? To build muscle.
Statistically speaking, the most insulin-sensitive individuals would have ripped, scrawny, lightweight physiques.
Last edited by Nitrox; 01-15-2006 at 11:17 PM.
01-16-2006, 01:28 AM
01-16-2006, 01:55 AM
Originally Posted by Beowulf
Yup.. I put cinnamon on TONS of stuff...just for that reason...well and the fact I love that stuff! mmmmmm
I'd just like to say thanks to everyone that has contributed to this thread... I really appreciate the different perspectives and I'm still not quite sure what method of attack I'm going to take
01-16-2006, 06:26 AM
Insulin is not the culprit causing insulin resistance. It is a postbinding issue having to due with glucose transport on a cellular level. Edit: Granted, excess insulin will aggravate the pre-existing condition.Not exactly. ANY increase in bodymass, be it adipose or muscle tissue, will require additional insulin output for its construction and maintenance. Leading to increase cellular exposure to the hormone.
They do not need the insulin. It is just a way for them to maximize CHO absorption.Look at the pros why do you think they need exogenous insulin to achieve their physiques despite the fact that they maintain relatively low body fat levels.
And this is flawed. PWO insulin spikes are good to help maximize glycogen stores which is more important for the endurance athlete. For those looking to build muscle, amino acid availability is the key. Most of the tissue synthesis occurs hours after the exercise.Also, all the current PWO nutrition philosophy concentrates on 'spiking' insulin. What for? To build muscle
BTW: Nitrox, I am not doubting or discounting your knowledge. It is just that a few of your points contradict what I know or think I know That is why I would like some resources that support your statements, I like to be able to draw the lines myself. Hopefully this can be fruitful for those participating.
Last edited by jonny21; 01-16-2006 at 07:19 AM.
01-16-2006, 10:16 AM
Sorry, I won't be able to point out any smoking gun studies to you. No offense taken either, I always try to remain objective.Originally Posted by jonny21
I have read the same sort of resources that are available to everyone and combined that with my experience managing type 2 diabetes (with and without insulin) and as a dedicated weight lifter.
I have experimented with a variety of caloric intakes, macronutrient ratios, exercise routines, and supplementation (vinegar, cinnamon, R-ALA, chromium, etc.) and I determined what worked for managing blood glucose and for building size and strength and what didnt. Generally I assume that most of what I learned will apply to others but of course your mileage may vary.
I want to reiterate that modern medicine does not fully understand the mechanisms involved. Consequently there are some questions that just don't have answers. I have had to fill in the blanks from my own experience. Like Moose, I'm 5'9" but have never been heavier than 165lbs. I have worked out since I was 14 yo and have been pretty good at avoiding junk food although I did eat a lot of (good) starchy carbs. I just don't fit the standard profile of a type 2 diabetic. So when you say that insulin levels are not a factor I get skeptical...
As I mentioned before it really isnt practical to separate an insulin resistance problem with managing blood glucose levels. A person usually finds out they are insulin resitant when a fasting glucose test reveals higher than normal values. At that point they are diabetic (although if it is mild they sometimes call it pre-diabetic). Since carbs raise blood glucose like no other macronutrient, carb control is a definite priority.
Much of what I have posted I learned from trial and error. Of course there is only so much that I can put into a post. IMO much of the confusion comes from the fact that people have an incomplete understanding of what insulin does and how it does it. A partial picture can lead to incorrect conclusions.
By all means, if you have some specifics questions, fire away. Saves me from writing out a book.
01-16-2006, 12:14 PM
01-16-2006, 12:44 PM
Nitrox,Originally Posted by Nitrox
A question if I may... For long term gains, fitness, insulin sensitivity and musclarity, should I not be taking in sugar (typically dextrose) with my during and post workout shakes?
I used to, until I started to read up about insulin and thinking about my long term fitness and health. I now eat raw oatmeal with my post-workout after my workouts for a low GI source.
Since I also consume oatmeal with my pre-workout whey shake and the low GI carbs from the oatmeal are supposedly slowlly released into my body, I drink my during (BCAA) shake without any sugar added, thinking that carbs are still being released (from the oatmeal) into my body during the workout and assisting with the uptake of BCAA's.
Am I thinking, or doing anything wrong?
Other comments would be very much welcomed. This has been bugging me for the past few weeks.
01-16-2006, 02:55 PM
IMO opinion, dextrose is junk food. It is used in soda, candy bars, etc. Why use it in an otherwise 'healthy' diet.Originally Posted by Blesum
Firstly, as I have alluded to, IMO a lifestyle geared towards gaining (lean) bodymass is not the MOST effective at promoting insulin sensitivity. I say this because cal for cal and carb for carb I have to take more insulin when bulking than when cutting. So assuming the same phenomenon carries over to non-diabetics, increasing body mass (lean or not) is mutually exclusive to improving insulin sensitivity (be it temporary or long term). Note that Im not talking about a couch potato junk food freak to an active clean bulker.
Secondly, I cringe when people use the term 'sugar'. Sugar can be mean the disaccharide sucrose (moderate GI) or it could mean any mono- or dissacharide (simple carbs): fructose and lactose are low GI vs glucose (aka dextrose) and maltose are high GI. Numerically, many polysaccharides (complex carbs such as rice and potatoes) are substantial higher on the GI scale than fructose or lactose. Really the question should be low, moderate, or high GI...
Lastly, to deal with the actual question, IMO fuelling muscle growth is a matter providing a constant surplus of energy (since tissue repair supposedly takes place continuously) in a form that the body can use to build muscle (protein and carbs).
I say protein and carbs because I have tried bulking on a keto diet I had zero gains in strength and lbm - none, zilch; I switched to insulin and a 40/40/20 ballpark diet and I put on 20 lbs in 10 weeks with about 75% lbm.
So if you eat regularly spaced meals, with a slight increase in calories around periods of greater activity (ie Pre and Post workout meals) then you dont need the ultra fast absorption of dextrose PWO because you should have those nutrients coming in from your previous meal.
Dextrose and the like might be useful if you have screwed up and missed a meal and need to get your energy balance positive NOW, but with proper planning I think you can forgo having to consume the empty calories and eat something more nutritious...
01-16-2006, 04:01 PM
Was not saying insulin levels were not a factor. Insulin resistance can cause hyperinsulinemia. My point was that it is not a case of ineffectual insulin causing the resistance but it is on the cellular level with glucose transports.Originally Posted by Nitrox
Everything else we are in agreement. That is why the rec'd for 40/40/20 to help regulate blood sugar.
It all depends on what your goals are. Example: In the summer I do a ****load of cycling, 3 times per week 3 hours/day; 3 times week 1 hour/day. ~70% of my calories come from CHO. A good deal of them come from simple sugars. I can't keep the weight on eating 4500 kcals/day. Increased activity level must be part of the equation also. Exercise improves insulin receptivity as well as increases receptor sites.
I guess all I am saying is that a multi- pronged strategy must be used. CHO control alone will not improve insulin resistance.
01-17-2006, 04:22 PM
Definitely agreeing there. However CHO control is one of the (if not the most) important factors in blood glucose management. So yes it depends what your priorities are. It would be interesting to hear from Moose, if he got any dietary recommendations from his physician. When I was diagnosed it was recommended to me to keep daily carb intake to 100g max. Obviously there is no way I could make that fit a 40/40/20 template without absurdly low total calories. Of course at that point glucose levels were the priority, sensitivity improvements were secondary.Originally Posted by jonny21
01-17-2006, 04:46 PM
MD's will typically refer to a Dietitian, this I know firsthand. Most MD's have no understanding of nutrition and the good ones will readily admit this and defer to another professional. Don't forget, doctors are human and also subscribe to silly fad diets and other nonsense. Doctors rec'd the Atkin's, South Beach, Protein Sparing Modified Fast and other diets mostly from ignorance.Originally Posted by Nitrox
Your case in point, 100 grams is absurdly low even for a diabetic. CHO control is very important but that does not mean to remove them or drastically limit them from the diet. There are a variety of ways to do so while adding benefit to the client's overall health but just cutting them out is just getting lazy. Sure, you blood sugars might be lower but at what cost?
This is really a lifestyle issue.
01-17-2006, 04:53 PM
Really the only advice my doctor gave was to avoid sugar and to eat whole wheat instead of white bread(which I was doing anyways)... and she didn't direct me to a dietitican either... starting to sound like my doc really sucks hereOriginally Posted by Nitrox
01-17-2006, 04:59 PM
I wouldn't say suck, just inadequately prepared to make more detailed rec'ds. To be honest, if she didn't ask you to start some kind of cardiovascular based wt loss program she is a bit out of the loop. Cutting white sugar and breads, juices, and other high GI CHO's is just the tip of the iceburg.
edit; if you have been diagnosed with diabetes you can use your insurance to go to the dietitian/nutritionist with a referral from your PCP. I believe you get 6 hours total.
01-17-2006, 07:09 PM
Certainly, and what has to be determined in Moose's case is how effective those options will be. In my case I walked into the specialist's office with a 360mg/dl glucose level, already worked out and ate whole foods.Originally Posted by jonny21
I think what we are at odds over is what is high blood glucose. I'm talking about exceeding the guidelines (here in Canada) of hemoglobin A1C results of 7.0 mmol/L or less (sorry for using different units). I'm not talking about one or two decimal points above a textbook 5.3 mmol/L. For someone like myself who exhausted all the other options, and still had a hard time maintaining that range, simply saying 'Im going to eat more carbs for lifestyle reasons' and then risking my health with maple syrup for blood sounds pretty irresponsible.
I will admit that at that point things did get pretty frustrating and hence my decision to go on insulin for those lifestyle reasons.
01-17-2006, 07:31 PM
Who is saying that? I think you are taking things out of context.Originally Posted by Nitrox
Sometimes your body just don't function like it should. part of our condition as human beings, dying from the day we are born. **** breaks down.
I thought we were talking about blood glucose management. 3 points of any successful nutritional health management plan:
Behavior modification- portion control, consistency, habits;
Exercise/activity- increased activity (I am used to telling most older women "walking up & down the stairs to do laundry doesn't count), cardio, resistance, or alternative (yoga/pilates)
Nutrition- Healthy food choices, balanced diet, adequate not excessive kcals (really depends on goals)
01-17-2006, 09:01 PM
Maybe it's just the semantics:Originally Posted by jonny21
But Im wondering why would you call it absurd?Originally Posted by jonny21
01-17-2006, 09:29 PM
Semantics, I think not. I have not seen it mentioned anywhere in thread nor has anyone to my knowledge alluded to the ingestion of high GI sugars to control blood glucose levelssimply saying 'Im going to eat more carbs for lifestyle reasons' and then risking my health with maple syrup for blood sounds pretty irresponsible
Because 100grams is below the body's daily requirements for glucose. Granted, ketosis is not all that harmful and ketone bodies may help with insulin resistance but it is simply not necessary and puts un-needed stress on the body.But Im wondering why would you call it absurd?
Check this out:
01-17-2006, 10:13 PM
First off, kudos to you for sticking with this. I'm not trying to be a jerk, just trying to get the big picture cleared up.
The problem with that page is that is does not correlate base glucose requirements with dietary carbohydrate intake. The body can also obtain glucose from other macronutrients such as deaminization of protein. Even fat intake raises blood glucose levels (relatively little compared to carbs, but not insignificant). If the body required 10g of useable dietary carb intake per hour, there would be a an epidemic of atkins dieters with hypoglycemia symptoms.Originally Posted by jonny21
Here's some info on high blood glucose complications: http://www.virginiamason.org/dbBenaroya/sec68154.htm
Given that info, here's a hypothetical situation that I hope illustrates my point:
You have a client that came to you after being diagnosed as an early stage type 2 diabetic. You put this guy on a customized 40/40/20 low GI cutting diet (including acetic acid, chromium, cinnamon, ALA, etc) , a 6-day/wk training routine (3 days weights, 3 days cardio - 1 hr sessions).
He maintains his diet and routine and you get this guy down to sub-10% bodyfat, and a stable weight with a fixed calorie 40/40/20 diet. Everything is great for a year then he comes back from his doc who has told him that his A1C is too high and it needs to come down. Where do you go from here?
01-17-2006, 10:16 PM
Me either, think messages got mixed somewhere. Let's put this one on the shelf for now...Originally Posted by jonny21
Similar Forum Threads
- By kingdong in forum SupplementsReplies: 52Last Post: 12-10-2010, 11:52 AM
- By Whacked in forum SupplementsReplies: 7Last Post: 01-18-2010, 04:45 PM
- By yeahright in forum SupplementsReplies: 18Last Post: 06-16-2006, 07:42 PM
- By 200wannabe in forum Weight LossReplies: 1Last Post: 10-08-2004, 09:02 AM
- By conversekidz in forum Weight LossReplies: 14Last Post: 02-12-2004, 05:11 PM