coffee and diabetes

[Guest guest]

I've read people assert that coffee stimulates the production of insulin in

the past, but I've never been able to find any evidence; but, quite the

opposite, have found that caffeine opposes the action of insulin.

I don't think caffeine actually stops the production of insulin, but opposes

its action once in the blood. It seems to me that this could be a possible

recipe for insulin resistance if coffee was consumed with large amounts of

sugar, but that if consumed with moderate amounts or no sugar, it would make

coffee

a good tool for maximizing the effects of overeating, or for stimulating fat

loss (insulin inhibits lypolysis by mechanisms having nothing to do with its

fat-producing action, which is dependent on carbs).

The other thing is, coffee (not caffeine per se) contains an acid that

actually lowers the glycemic index of glucose, by causing it to be absorbed in a

different place in the intestine, further " down " from where it is usually

absorbed. So when consumed with a small or moderate amount of sugar, it should

slow

the absorption, and the anti-insulin effect shouldn't be very harmful.

I think some people confuse the fact that caffeine raises blood sugar with

the idea that it stimulates insulin, when it actually raises blood sugar by

opposing the action of insulin (which lowers blood sugar).

Now here is the big, crazy thing: I read a study on Medline months ago,

which I believe was a controlled experiment and not an epidemiological study,

conducted over many years, that found that the addition of NINE cups of coffee a

day to ones diet virtually obliterated the risk of T2 diabetes! It sounded

crazy to me, but I didn't see anything more on the subject, and since so little

is known about T2 diabetes it's hard to unravel how the various, somewhat

confusing and conflicting, biochemical effects of caffiene and other

constiutents

in caffeinated drinks, would affect the risk of T2 diabetes.

Last night, I saw on the news a segment on a new study that found that six

cups of coffee or more a day cut the risk of T2 diabetes by something like 50%

for men and 37% for women (numbers close but may be off).

Since the phenomenon has been replicated, while I want to see a lot more

research on it, especially into the mechanisms, it seems there may well be

something to it.

Coffee contains antibacterial acids, and, in vitro, kills the strains of

bacteria most associated with tooth decay. So I'm thinking that perhaps the

acids

in coffee are involved by slowing the absorption of glucose from the gut, and

perhaps they also have a positive effect on bacterial problems in the gut

that may contribute to diabetes in some unknown way.

What I don't get is how caffeine's anti-insulin action could be associated

with a decrease in insulin sensitivity if it isn't actually stopping the

production of insulin.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/6/04 8:46:48 AM Eastern Standard Time,

ChrisMasterjohn@... writes:

> It seems to me that this could be a possible

> recipe for insulin resistance if coffee was consumed with large amounts of

> sugar, but that if consumed with moderate amounts or no sugar, it would make

> coffee

> a good tool for maximizing the effects of overeating,

Ack! I meant maximizing the effects of *undereating*.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/6/04 12:49:55 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> This is not automatically a good thing. By delaying glucose digestion,

> it's increasing the likelihood the undesirable organisms will get an

> opportunity to consume the glucose.

Couldn't you say the same of fat?

> >I think some people confuse the fact that caffeine raises blood sugar with

> >the idea that it stimulates insulin, when it actually raises blood sugar by

> >opposing the action of insulin (which lowers blood sugar).

>

> True, but the raise is followed by a drop, and this sort of pressure on

> insulin metabolism can contribute to insulin resistance, fat gain and all

> their associated health problems.

But usually BG raises are followed by drops because of insulin, right? So,

depending on the individual's reaction of course, the caffeine should *prevent*

the drop by opposing insulin. Obviously it affects everyone differently-- I

wish I knew why!

> How was the risk measured? Blood lipids or something like that? Remember

> that " risk " almost never means what any reasonable person would assume.

I agree, and hopefully will get around to tracking down the study at some

point. Usually when I read full-texts I'm always amazed at what they consider

" risks " of a given thing, but had forgotten that that might also be the case

with these studies.

However, I do believe the initial study I saw on medline actually measured

incidence of diabetes. I don't remember for sure though, and didn't save it--

but maybe this month I'll get around to researching this better; I'm sure the

abstract hasn't gone anywhere.

> Look, I *LOVE* coffee. I wish I could drink it all the time. Great coffee

>

> is one of the finest things on earth, and at least as of a few years ago,

> McNulty's coffee shop the west village of Manhattan is paradise on earth

> for anyone with a sense of smell. But I strongly suspect that all these

> studies you're talking about are just the latest salvo in the commercial

> interests war.

I doubt it, but don't have anywhere near enough info to estimate. The reason

I doubt it is because there are competing theoretical schools of thought on

caffeine and there's lots of reasons to think it's good for you (and bad for

you).

For what it's worth, my metabolism of caffeine, as well as my blood sugar,

improved dramatically after a few months of lifting weights. Lifting weights is

the number one thing, from my experience, that I'd suggest to anyone with

blood sugar problems, and I think it's more important than diet.

wrote:

>The terrible radio station I listen to in the morning for weather (1010

WINS) ran a > " medical report " that concluded that the reason drinking 6 cups of

coffee a day was >helpful in the prevention of diabetes was due to weight loss

from the increased >activity from caffine jitters!

What's so terrible? If caffeine mobilizes lipids into the bloodstream that

can be burned as fuel for energy, doesn't that make sense?

Chris

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>but that if consumed with moderate amounts or no sugar, it would make coffee

>a good tool for maximizing the effects of overeating, or for stimulating fat

>loss (insulin inhibits lypolysis by mechanisms having nothing to do with its

>fat-producing action, which is dependent on carbs).

IMO this is another one of those nice-in-theory-but-bogus-in-reality ideas,

at least for a substantial subset of the overweight population. I've known

many people whose hypoglycemia is aggravated by coffee, even on low-carb

sugar-free diets, and unfortunately, I'm one of them. One fellow I know

will practically black out if he drinks so much as a single cup. Even if I

reduce my already-low carb intake upon starting coffee, it makes me gain

fat. There's just no escape. It also heightens my blood sugar swings and

causes and exacerbates crashes.

>by causing it to be absorbed in a

>different place in the intestine, further " down " from where it is usually

>absorbed. So when consumed with a small or moderate amount of sugar, it

>should slow

>the absorption,

This is not automatically a good thing. By delaying glucose digestion,

it's increasing the likelihood the undesirable organisms will get an

opportunity to consume the glucose. The mere fact that it's relocating

glucose digestion means it's is going to somehow change the bowel

environment (flora, metabolites, etc.) and in some people, that could have

substantially bad effects. In fact, a minority of people with bowel

disease report serious problems with coffee. I always figured it was

probably due to the stimulant effect speeding the passage of food such that

it moved from place to place before being entirely digested, but it could

be due to this effect on glucose digestion.

>I think some people confuse the fact that caffeine raises blood sugar with

>the idea that it stimulates insulin, when it actually raises blood sugar by

>opposing the action of insulin (which lowers blood sugar).

True, but the raise is followed by a drop, and this sort of pressure on

insulin metabolism can contribute to insulin resistance, fat gain and all

their associated health problems.

>that found that the addition of NINE cups of coffee a

>day to ones diet virtually obliterated the risk of T2 diabetes!

How was the risk measured? Blood lipids or something like that? Remember

that " risk " almost never means what any reasonable person would assume.

Look, I *LOVE* coffee. I wish I could drink it all the time. Great coffee

is one of the finest things on earth, and at least as of a few years ago,

McNulty's coffee shop the west village of Manhattan is paradise on earth

for anyone with a sense of smell. But I strongly suspect that all these

studies you're talking about are just the latest salvo in the commercial

interests war.

-

[Guest guest]

>What I don't get is how caffeine's anti-insulin action could be associated

>with a decrease in insulin sensitivity if it isn't actually stopping the

>production of insulin.

>

>Chris

Could be the reaction isn't as simple as " anti-insulin " or not. You brought

up one thing .. changing the absorption of glucose.

As we've discussed here so many times, the insulin/blood sugar bit

is influenced by so many factors:

1. How much insulin is produced.

2. When the insulin is produced

3. How responsive the cells are to insulin

4. How much cortisol is produced

(cortisol gets produced to bring down insulin levels, among other things)

5. How much adrenalin is produced

6. How high the blood sugar is

7. How easily fat can exit from fat cells

8. How much glycogen is available

Plus no doubt how well the kidneys and liver and adrenals are functioning ...

Here is my take on coffee though: coffee releases fat from your

fat cells into the bloodstream as lipids. This is why bodybuilders say

they take high-caffeine pills! Now, people with insulin resistance

tend to have high cortisol, which blocks fat from leaving the fat

cells. So, when drink coffee, now you have more lipids available

to burn, you get energy, without needing to snack. Caffeine

also enhances athletic perfomance: See end of message. Caffeine

causes the body to burn fat instead of glycogen.

The blood chemistry probably works slightly different than

that, but clinically I can tell you for sure: when I was getting

" hypoglycemic " episodes (during which it turns out my blood

sugar was fine, it was probably high cortisol) -- a few cups

of coffee without sugar would solve the problem pretty well.

Likely besides releasing fat it also blocks the cortisol -- cortisol

is the " stress " hormone and people tend to want to drink

coffee when they are stressed, so maybe in stimulates

something else that blocks cortisol. Ori alludes to that in

the WD too ... if you are having problems fasting due to high

cortisol, drink coffee.

Anyway, all the diets that seem to work are the ones that

get the blood sugar under control one way or the other,

so the fact body builders believe caffeine gets rid of fat

(and the coffee researchers say it releases fat from

fat cells) has always made me think it is more on the " anti "

diabetes side of things.

(Lactic acid is another substance that is confusing this

way -- it does stimulate insulin production, but it seems

to help diabetics. Shoot, protein is another confusing

one!).

-- Heidi

==========

http://www.physsportsmed.com/issues/1998/09sep/hawley.htm

THE PHYSICIAN AND SPORTSMEDICINE - VOL 26 - NO. 9 - SEPTEMBER 98

Evidence of a glycogen-sparing effect--most apparent during the early stages of

exercise--has been found in every study that has determined muscular glycogen

levels after caffeine ingestion (7,8). There is little doubt among scientists

that caffeine positively affects fat metabolism, and that ingestion in legal

quantities can improve performance in continuous, moderate-intensity exercise

(submaximal exercise lasting more than 15 minutes) (3). When compared with

placebo, caffeine (150 to 250 mg) has also been shown to improve 5-minute

running and cycling performance in moderately or well-trained athletes who

perform at or near their VO2 max (3). In contrast, caffeine has no ergogenic

effect on maximal anaerobic (sprint) events lasting less than 30 seconds or

maximal graded exercise to exhaustion (9).

....

The article talks about lipids as an energy source etc. too.

[Guest guest]

The terrible radio station I listen to in the morning for weather (1010 WINS)

ran a " medical report " that concluded that the reason drinking 6 cups of coffee

a day was helpful in the prevention of diabetes was due to weight loss from the

increased activity from caffine jitters!

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/10/04 2:11:26 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> >>By delaying glucose digestion,

> >>it's increasing the likelihood the undesirable organisms will get an

> >>opportunity to consume the glucose.

> >

> >Couldn't you say the same of fat?

>

> No. Are you seriously suggesting that fat can fuel hostile organism

> overgrowth in the same way and to the same degree that sugars and starches

> can? And what exactly delays and relocates fat digestion anyway? If you

> impede bile and lipase secretion, you're just impeding fat digestion period.

I'm comparing the fat to the coffee, not to the glucose. Isn't it widely

appreciated by pro-fatters including yourself that fat slows the absorption of

glucose from the intestine, or the digestion of starches, and doesn't that

simultaneously increase the amount of carbs that can be fermented?

I've always considered this one of the benefits of fat, but I've never been

able to figure out how it fits in with the SCD perspective.

>

> >So,

> >depending on the individual's reaction of course, the caffeine should

> >*prevent*

> >the drop by opposing insulin.

>

> Uh, no, for two reasons. First, your blood levels of caffeine are not

> going to stay constant, so you'll have caffeine interfering with insulin

> followed by a caffeine plunge and an associated insulin rebound. Second,

> your body become physiologically adapted to conditions over time (sometimes

> in bad ways) so if you keep feeding it caffeine, it's going to take more

> and more caffeine over time to achieve the same result.

I don't recall what the half life of caffeine is, but a cup of coffee stays

in the average persons system for some 8 hours I believe, and if I drink coffee

in the morning, I notice cumulative effects if I drink more coffee even, say,

five hours later. So, yes, of course the caffeiene drops in the system, but

it drops pretty slowly I think.

>

> >The reason

> >I doubt it is because there are competing theoretical schools of thought on

> >caffeine and there's lots of reasons to think it's good for you (and bad

> for

> >you).

>

> The reason there's a pro-coffee school of thought is the reason there's

> money available to fund such a school: namely that the coffee industry is

> quite pleasantly profitable.

Yes, I think I recall them paying off Dr. Mike Marasco too.

> >Lifting weights is

> >the number one thing, from my experience, that I'd suggest to anyone with

> >blood sugar problems, and I think it's more important than diet.

>

> I do intend to take this up (so-called " aerobic " exercise has always been a

> miserable disaster for me regardless of diet) but there's no way it's more

> important than diet. First, if there's not adequate protein in the diet or

> digestion and assimilation of what protein there is in the diet, lifting is

> just going to damage the body and wear down the muscles. Second, if

> there's not adequate health in the first place, the overall stress will be

> too great and will simply further destabilize the body. There's no way

> around that.

>

> Lifting might be a close second in importance, though.

Well, it depends how you measure it. I agree that lifting is worthless with

a horrible diet, but what I meant is that lifting gave me, say, 8-10 times

more dramatic results than a good diet did, so I put more importance on lifting.

I take it for granted that one would do both, though.

>

> >What's so terrible? If caffeine mobilizes lipids into the bloodstream that

> >can be burned as fuel for energy, doesn't that make sense?

>

> You're taking a very narrow-focus view of things, which is exactly how the

> lipid hypothesis came about. If diabetics have elevated blood lipids,

> doesn't it make sense that they should avoid fat like the plague? If

> artery blockages are largely made up of fat and cholesterol, shouldn't

> everyone avoid those two substances like the plague? Etc. Caffeine has

> many effects on a complex system, and those effects can and do change over

> time. The fact that one link in the chain sounds good should not be seized

> upon without considering the entire chain.

I really don't know what you're talking about. When one consumes caffeine,

it raises adrenaline, which breaks down fat, and gives a person energy, causing

them to become more active. How is it any leap of logic, then, to say that

the increased energy from caffeiene causes one to exercise and burn off the

fat? How does that statement possibly compare in any way to the non-sequitors

you cite above? It's basic logic based on basic physiology. It's more

equivalent to the statement that if you run across the street you'll get to the

other

side.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Chris-

> > By delaying glucose digestion,

> > it's increasing the likelihood the undesirable organisms will get an

> > opportunity to consume the glucose.

>

>Couldn't you say the same of fat?

No. Are you seriously suggesting that fat can fuel hostile organism

overgrowth in the same way and to the same degree that sugars and starches

can? And what exactly delays and relocates fat digestion anyway? If you

impede bile and lipase secretion, you're just impeding fat digestion period.

>So,

>depending on the individual's reaction of course, the caffeine should

>*prevent*

>the drop by opposing insulin.

Uh, no, for two reasons. First, your blood levels of caffeine are not

going to stay constant, so you'll have caffeine interfering with insulin

followed by a caffeine plunge and an associated insulin rebound. Second,

your body become physiologically adapted to conditions over time (sometimes

in bad ways) so if you keep feeding it caffeine, it's going to take more

and more caffeine over time to achieve the same result.

>The reason

>I doubt it is because there are competing theoretical schools of thought on

>caffeine and there's lots of reasons to think it's good for you (and bad for

>you).

The reason there's a pro-coffee school of thought is the reason there's

money available to fund such a school: namely that the coffee industry is

quite pleasantly profitable.

>Lifting weights is

>the number one thing, from my experience, that I'd suggest to anyone with

>blood sugar problems, and I think it's more important than diet.

I do intend to take this up (so-called " aerobic " exercise has always been a

miserable disaster for me regardless of diet) but there's no way it's more

important than diet. First, if there's not adequate protein in the diet or

digestion and assimilation of what protein there is in the diet, lifting is

just going to damage the body and wear down the muscles. Second, if

there's not adequate health in the first place, the overall stress will be

too great and will simply further destabilize the body. There's no way

around that.

Lifting might be a close second in importance, though.

>What's so terrible? If caffeine mobilizes lipids into the bloodstream that

>can be burned as fuel for energy, doesn't that make sense?

You're taking a very narrow-focus view of things, which is exactly how the

lipid hypothesis came about. If diabetics have elevated blood lipids,

doesn't it make sense that they should avoid fat like the plague? If

artery blockages are largely made up of fat and cholesterol, shouldn't

everyone avoid those two substances like the plague? Etc. Caffeine has

many effects on a complex system, and those effects can and do change over

time. The fact that one link in the chain sounds good should not be seized

upon without considering the entire chain.

-

[Guest guest]

>Lifting weights is

>the number one thing, from my experience, that I'd suggest to anyone with

>blood sugar problems, and I think it's more important than diet.

I think diet has to be first. I can offer three anecdotal bits of evidence for

this.

I have a friend who is disabled and almost cannot exercise at all (she has

severe rheumatoid arthritis). She can often not even walk. She can barely lift

her arm, and certainly cannot lift weights. Whether she CAN or CANNOT do

resistance is secondary to the fact that she DOES NOT do it. And yet she went on

Atkins two years ago and has lost almost 200 pounds and completely cured her

diabetes, without any resistance work whatsoever. None.

I have an online aquaintance who weighed over 500 pounds. She had weight loss

surgery, lost 250 pounds or so, and then stalled out. She was also experiencing

terrible problems with cravings and found herself eating a lot of things like

ice cream and milkshakes, to the point of binging. She is an extremely sedentary

person, and didn't do anything more than some walking in front of the TV (using

a tape I particularly loathe called " Walk Away the Pounds " or something like

that). She did no weights or any kind of resistance. She went on Atkins at that

point, and stopped eating all sugar, grains, etc. She wasn't able to do the high

levels of fat that I do, because of some of the effects of her weight loss

surgery, but nonetheless, she has now lost another 95 pounds, her cravings

stopped, and she has completely stopped binging. She has tons more energy and

says she wishes she'd tried Atkins instead of the surgery, but at the time she

had it, the favorable research on Atkins hadn't hit the media yet, and her

doctors and others were very negative about it. Her diabetes did go away with

her initial weight loss, but her cravings, binging, and hypoglycemia symptoms

didn't go away until she went on Atkins - but through all this, the only things

that happened were dietary change, dietary restriction, and of course, weight

loss. I encourage her almost daily to lift weights, I think lifting weights

would be just what she needs, but it wasn't essential to get control of her

blood sugar issues.

The last anecdote is about ME. As some of you know, I injured my back very

severely last April. I began Atkins in May, and the very day I began it, my

blood sugar problems literally stopped - no hypoglyecmia symptoms, fat started

melting off, huge energy, no mood or energy swings, no sleepiness after a meal,

no cravings, no overeating. While during that time I have had periods where I

have been able to go back to the gym and lift again, there have also been

periods where I was not able to, including right now - my back went out again on

Dec 26 and I haven't lifted since Dec 23. And yet, my blood sugar control hasn't

changed at all during those periods.

I absolutely agree that resistance work and having more muscle is beneficial to

blood sugar control/insulin resistance. I lose weight much faster when I'm

working out than when I'm not, and I love it and recommend it. BUT I don't think

it's necessary - diet alone will do it for those who cannot or will not lift.

Christie

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>I'm comparing the fat to the coffee, not to the glucose.

Ah, I see. My misunderstanding.

>Isn't it widely

>appreciated by pro-fatters including yourself that fat slows the

>absorption of

>glucose from the intestine,

Not really including me, no. Which is to say, yes, fat slows the

absorption of glucose, but I don't necessarily think that's of nearly as

much benefit as some people think, at least from the perspective of fat

loss and BMI adjustment. In facf, foods that are primarily combinations of

fat with sugar and/or starch can be the most fattening of all, because the

body will burn carbs before fat, and therefore when it gets the two

together it just stores the fat as fat. Insulin has many different

functions, and they are mediated at least partially by the contents of a

meal. It can build muscle, for example, but give it a bunch of carbs,

particularly refined carbs, and it'll tend to result in fat storage.

>and doesn't that

>simultaneously increase the amount of carbs that can be fermented?

It probably depends at least partly on the kind of fat. Plenty of fatty

acids have antimicrobial properties, and in fact people on the SCD who

stick to vegetable oils aren't nearly as successful as those who

significantly up their saturated fat intake.

>I've always considered this one of the benefits of fat, but I've never been

>able to figure out how it fits in with the SCD perspective.

Like NT, the SCD diet isn't meant as a cure-all. The book doesn't really

address macronutrient ratios, and you can construct diets with a very wide

range of macronutrient ratios while technically following the diet. Like

NT, Elaine does insist that people not be afraid of saturated fat, but she

wanted to keep the focus strictly on healing bowel disease so she didn't

get into the whole low-carb/high-carb debate.

>I don't recall what the half life of caffeine is, but a cup of coffee stays

>in the average persons system for some 8 hours I believe ... So, yes, of

>course the caffeiene drops in the system, but

>it drops pretty slowly I think.

First, the mere fact that you use the term " half-life " acknowledges the

drop over time in blood levels of caffeine. Second, the fact that people

can become habituated to caffeine at all (sometimes very rapidly) proves

that the body becomes adapted to caffeine and needs more of it over time to

achieve constant effects.

>Yes, I think I recall them paying off Dr. Mike Marasco too.

if you're not going to debate in good faith, I'm not going to bother

discussing these issues with you. Big Pharma doesn't have to pay off every

doctor, nurse, pharmacist, journalist, etc., in order to pull the wool over

most people's eyes. They just have to get control over some of the levers

of power, corrupt some people, and most people will do the rest of the work

for them. A great many people are innocently misled. The same goes for

everything else -- including coffee. I like and respect Mike a great deal,

but he has no more of a papal-style infallibility than you or I do. If

there's one absolute guarantee in the world, it's that everybody is

mistaken about something, that nobody has or ever will have the entire truth.

Clearly coffee benefits some people, but I suspect that benefit is

short-term, or at most medium-term. It depletes some neurotransmitters,

and unlike improvements to actual health, to one's actual constitution,

which allow increased performance through increased capabilities, it

increases performance in the short term by stressing the system and running

it outside of spec, so to speak. It seems very likely that that's not a

good idea, at least over the long haul.

>I really don't know what you're talking about. When one consumes caffeine,

>it raises adrenaline, which breaks down fat, and gives a person energy,

>causing

>them to become more active. How is it any leap of logic, then, to say that

>the increased energy from caffeiene causes one to exercise and burn off the

>fat?

It's a leap of logic for a wide variety of reasons. First, increases in

energy don't necessarily lead to increases in exercise. I'd think all the

millions of coffee-addicted desk jockeys in this country would be proof

enough of that. Second, an increase in exercise doesn't necessarily result

in an increased burning off of fat. Plenty of people exercise like fiends

(AND cut calories to insane levels) and still fail to burn off some or all

of their excess fat. You're extrapolating from a low-level phenomenon to a

high-level assumption without considering all the variables in between, and

it's exactly like the mistaken assumptions about diabetes and

atherosclerosis I cited.

-

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/10/04 4:47:12 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> Not really including me, no. Which is to say, yes, fat slows the

> absorption of glucose, but I don't necessarily think that's of nearly as

> much benefit as some people think, at least from the perspective of fat

> loss and BMI adjustment. In facf, foods that are primarily combinations of

> fat with sugar and/or starch can be the most fattening of all, because the

> body will burn carbs before fat, and therefore when it gets the two

> together it just stores the fat as fat.

Ok, fair enough. Do you think it's dangerous also to the gut, then, since it

slows the absorption of the glucose?

Insulin has many different

> functions, and they are mediated at least partially by the contents of a

> meal. It can build muscle, for example, but give it a bunch of carbs,

> particularly refined carbs, and it'll tend to result in fat storage.

Not if one is working out with a good regimen. Controlled studies show that

" calorie supplements " of 2000 calories increase both lean muscle mass and

decrease body fat percentage, even when they are pure carbohydrate, over a

person

using the exact same regimen and eating the same amount of real food.

>

> >and doesn't that

> >simultaneously increase the amount of carbs that can be fermented?

>

> It probably depends at least partly on the kind of fat. Plenty of fatty

> acids have antimicrobial properties, and in fact people on the SCD who

> stick to vegetable oils aren't nearly as successful as those who

> significantly up their saturated fat intake.

Interesting. So perhaps frying potatoes in coconut oil safens the potatoes?

Do you have any info or understanding of how the fatty acids enact their

antimicrobial properties? Does the body have to *use* them in some way, or do

they just, on contact, kill microbes?

> >I don't recall what the half life of caffeine is, but a cup of coffee

> stays

> >in the average persons system for some 8 hours I believe ... So, yes, of

> >course the caffeiene drops in the system, but

> >it drops pretty slowly I think.

>

> First, the mere fact that you use the term " half-life " acknowledges the

> drop over time in blood levels of caffeine.

Yes, but , it is very slow. *I* do *not* get hypoglycemia from caffeine,

and *do* get very moderate hyperglycemia that lasts for quite a while (until

I exercise, usually) from caffeine, so I don't think this drop is significant

for many people. But, like I said, it probably depends on the individual.

Second, the fact that people

> can become habituated to caffeine at all (sometimes very rapidly) proves

> that the body becomes adapted to caffeine and needs more of it over time to

> achieve constant effects.

I don't disagree with this. That could probably be avoided by cycling on and

off caffiene. I think doing almost *anything* for a long time without

changing it can lead to negative effects.

>

> >Yes, I think I recall them paying off Dr. Mike Marasco too.

>

> if you're not going to debate in good faith, I'm not going to bother

> discussing these issues with you.

What do you mean by good faith? I'm trying to make the point that there are

people who obviously have no material interest in believing caffeine has

positive effects who nevertheless believe it.

Big Pharma doesn't have to pay off every

> doctor, nurse, pharmacist, journalist, etc., in order to pull the wool over

>

> most people's eyes. They just have to get control over some of the levers

> of power, corrupt some people, and most people will do the rest of the work

> for them. A great many people are innocently misled.

But people can still make intelligent decisions based on research. Some

people, for example, do not buy the lipid hypothesis, but do buy the possibility

that caffeine can have positive effects. Many of the metabolic typers, btw,

who are certainly not corporate stooges, recommend caffeiene for certain

metabolic types based on their own research.

The same goes for

> everything else -- including coffee. I like and respect Mike a great deal,

>

> but he has no more of a papal-style infallibility than you or I do. If

> there's one absolute guarantee in the world, it's that everybody is

> mistaken about something, that nobody has or ever will have the entire

> truth.

Sure, I agree with this. But it isn't fair or really sensible to write off

every bit of research you disagree with as corporate propanganda, especially

dismissing a whole school of thought at once.

> Clearly coffee benefits some people, but I suspect that benefit is

> short-term, or at most medium-term. It depletes some neurotransmitters,

> and unlike improvements to actual health, to one's actual constitution,

> which allow increased performance through increased capabilities, it

> increases performance in the short term by stressing the system and running

> it outside of spec, so to speak. It seems very likely that that's not a

> good idea, at least over the long haul.

I agree. But, a lesson I've learned in weight lifting I think applies to

food and many other things in life. In weight lifting, any regimen only works

for about 1-2 months and then stops working. You have to change it, or take a

break. I think the same thing goes for many things in diet. Many types of

cycling, I think, are good in diet.

>

> >I really don't know what you're talking about. When one consumes caffeine,

> >it raises adrenaline, which breaks down fat, and gives a person energy,

> >causing

> >them to become more active. How is it any leap of logic, then, to say that

> >the increased energy from caffeiene causes one to exercise and burn off the

> >fat?

>

> It's a leap of logic for a wide variety of reasons. First, increases in

> energy don't necessarily lead to increases in exercise. I'd think all the

> millions of coffee-addicted desk jockeys in this country would be proof

> enough of that.

So what? Wasn't this referring to a study that found caffeiene helped weight

loss? Obviously caffeiene doesn't necessarily lead to weight loss, as

evidenced by fat coffee drinkers.

Second, an increase in exercise doesn't necessarily result

> in an increased burning off of fat. Plenty of people exercise like fiends

> (AND cut calories to insane levels) and still fail to burn off some or all

> of their excess fat.

Maybe they should drink coffee before hand.

You're extrapolating from a low-level phenomenon to a

> high-level assumption without considering all the variables in between, and

>

> it's exactly like the mistaken assumptions about diabetes and

> atherosclerosis I cited.

All I'm saying is that *if* caffeiene is associated with weight loss in some

individuals, it is reasonable to describe the mechanism as " the jitters making

them exercise " or whatever, because the jitters are produced by lypolysis

breaking fat down into energy, and if someone exercises in response, they will

use up that energy rather than restoring it as fat.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>Ok, fair enough. Do you think it's dangerous also to the gut, then, since it

>slows the absorption of the glucose?

If the question is " is plain starch more or less harmful to the gut than

starch with absorption-slowing fat " , then the answer is that I don't

know. Some fats at least, being antimicrobial, probably help the gut when

faced with imperfectly digestible carbs, because they'll cut down on

opportunistic organisms despite giving said organisms more time to

work. But overall, I don't know. Caffeine, however, doesn't have the

protective effect of fat, whether it be from antimicrobial fatty acids or

mere envelopment or coating of carb molecules prior to final digestion.

>Controlled studies show that

> " calorie supplements " of 2000 calories increase both lean muscle mass and

>decrease body fat percentage, even when they are pure carbohydrate, over a

>person

>using the exact same regimen and eating the same amount of real food.

Uhh, what is a " calorie supplement " , and why would the exact same regimen

and the exact same amount of food have different effects? What exactly are

we talking about?

At any rate, if I understand you at least partially correctly, those

controlled studies almost certainly didn't take place over very long

periods of time. Healthy people don't develop full-blown insulin

resistance overnight. It wouldn't surprise me if, just as coffee (and many

other drugs) can initially help a lot of people but ultimately becomes more

of a problem than a solution for most or all of them, carb loading and

other forms of carb supplementation (including the type you practice and

recommend) can help some people initially and then become problematic once

the cumulative effect of the physiological stress adds up sufficiently.

>Interesting. So perhaps frying potatoes in coconut oil safens the potatoes?

I'm just speculating, but I suspect so.

>Do you have any info or understanding of how the fatty acids enact their

>antimicrobial properties? Does the body have to *use* them in some way,

>or do

>they just, on contact, kill microbes?

I think monolaurin is produced in the digestion of lauric acid, one

molecule of monolaurin being produced per molecule of lauric acid since

monolaurin is a monoglyceride complete with a glycerol back. It disrupts

some microbes' lipid coats and cell membranes, and I think it stimulates

certain immune functions too, but I forget the details.

>so I don't think this drop is significant

>for many people. But, like I said, it probably depends on the individual.

It depends on the individual and it gets worse over time for

everyone. AFAIK there's literally no one on earth who regularly drinks

coffee who gets just as much of a boost out of it as he did when he first

started drinking.

>That could probably be avoided by cycling on and

>off caffiene. I think doing almost *anything* for a long time without

>changing it can lead to negative effects.

Maybe cycling would help, maybe not, I don't know, but caffeine is not in

the same class as nutritious food. Price's healthy natives ate the same

diet year in and year out without ever suffering negative

effects. Caffeine, by contrast, has physiological effects without

accompanying nutrition. It stresses the body and depletes it of various

essential compounds, like certain neurotransmitters. It also causes

chronic adrenal stimulation which can lead to adrenal fatigue.

>But people can still make intelligent decisions based on research.

Of course, but only when they carefully examine the actual research or

successfully rely on trustworthy intermediates -- but there are very few

fully trustworthy intermediates. Remember admitting that you didn't know

what exactly risk factors were being considered in a study? It's no insult

to you to say that it's all but impossible to stay on top of everything and

do a perfect job of cutting through the lies and mistakes.

>But it isn't fair or really sensible to write off

>every bit of research you disagree with as corporate propanganda, especially

>dismissing a whole school of thought at once.

You mistook me, then. You said something to the effect of " the fact that

there's all this research supporting this indicates that there's got to be

something there; how else could that research be being generated? " . I

replied that the vested interest of the coffee industry is all that's

necessary to support the research, whether or not caffeine can in fact be

so beneficial.

I also have a number of very specific reasons for being skeptical about the

supposed benefits of caffeine, some of which I've enumerated.

>In weight lifting, any regimen only works

>for about 1-2 months and then stops working. You have to change it, or

>take a

>break. I think the same thing goes for many things in diet. Many types of

>cycling, I think, are good in diet.

I'm not entirely comfortable classifying caffeine as part of diet. You

wouldn't call an aspirin a day part of your diet, would you? It's a

physiologically active compound being considered as a refined drug-like

substance, not as a food with nutritional components.

> > >I really don't know what you're talking about. When one consumes

> caffeine,

> > >it raises adrenaline, which breaks down fat, and gives a person energy,

> > >causing

> > >them to become more active. How is it any leap of logic, then, to say

> that

> > >the increased energy from caffeiene causes one to exercise and burn

> off the

> > >fat?

> >

> > It's a leap of logic for a wide variety of reasons. First, increases in

> > energy don't necessarily lead to increases in exercise. I'd think all the

> > millions of coffee-addicted desk jockeys in this country would be proof

> > enough of that.

>

>So what? Wasn't this referring to a study that found caffeiene helped weight

>loss? Obviously caffeiene doesn't necessarily lead to weight loss, as

>evidenced by fat coffee drinkers.

Uhh, you've lost me.

>Maybe they should drink coffee before hand.

People with insulin resistance almost certainly should NOT drink

coffee. You, having previously been chronically underweight, are at the

opposite end of the metabolic spectrum; you really shouldn't assume that

fat people should do like you do.

>All I'm saying is that *if* caffeiene is associated with weight loss in some

>individuals, it is reasonable to describe the mechanism as " the jitters

>making

>them exercise " or whatever, because the jitters are produced by lypolysis

>breaking fat down into energy, and if someone exercises in response, they

>will

>use up that energy rather than restoring it as fat.

" " The jitters making them exercise " or whatever " covers a lot of

ground. " Caffeine making them exercise " , however, is an unsubstantiated

and likely unsupportable assumption, but it's a theory that doesn't need to

remain assumption: it could be easily checked. The fact that some jerk is

spitballing on the radio (or worse, that this is what passes for science

nowadays) is pathetic and otherwise uninteresting.

-

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/11/04 2:59:03 AM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> Caffeine, however, doesn't have the

> protective effect of fat, whether it be from antimicrobial fatty acids or

> mere envelopment or coating of carb molecules prior to final digestion.

Actually, coffee and tea both have antimicrobial agents. Coffee has acids

which, in vitro, will kill a wide array of microorganisms, including

streptococcus mutans, suppossedly a disproportionate tooth decay villain.

>

> >Controlled studies show that

> > " calorie supplements " of 2000 calories increase both lean muscle mass and

> >decrease body fat percentage, even when they are pure carbohydrate, over a

> >person

> >using the exact same regimen and eating the same amount of real food.

>

> Uhh, what is a " calorie supplement " , and why would the exact same regimen

> and the exact same amount of food have different effects? What exactly are

> we talking about?

Nope, the amount of *food* food was held constant-- i.e. real food. Three

groups ate the same amount of food with a constant protein intake. One group

had only the food. One group had some sort of " calorie supplement, " I guess

some shake that supplied macronutrients, amounting to two thousand calories of

protein and carbs, and another group had pure carbs. Both calorie-supplement

groups gained huge gains over the food-only group, but there wasn't a

significant difference between the protein and carb-only group. (All groups

contained

significant and equal amounts of protein in the real food portion).

> At any rate, if I understand you at least partially correctly, those

> controlled studies almost certainly didn't take place over very long

> periods of time. Healthy people don't develop full-blown insulin

> resistance overnight.

Whose talking about insulin resistance? You said that insulin can help build

muscle, but in the presence of carbs will store fat instead. If you meant

that one gets fat when insulin resistance onsets, I of course agree with you.

If you are suggesting that insulin has diminished muscle-building power in the

presence of carbohydrate, I disagree.

It wouldn't surprise me if, just as coffee (and many

> other drugs) can initially help a lot of people but ultimately becomes more

>

> of a problem than a solution for most or all of them, carb loading and

> other forms of carb supplementation (including the type you practice and

> recommend) can help some people initially and then become problematic once

> the cumulative effect of the physiological stress adds up sufficiently.

I agree, if one is using it in a way that causes said physiological stress.

Since raw honey shouldn't cause gut problems (and any carb's potential to do

so would depend on the health of the person anyway, in my view), and since I

believe the benefits of exercise and controlled fasting will protect against

insulin resistance, I don't see the potential problems.

> Maybe cycling would help, maybe not, I don't know, but caffeine is not in

> the same class as nutritious food. Price's healthy natives ate the same

> diet year in and year out without ever suffering negative

> effects. Caffeine, by contrast, has physiological effects without

> accompanying nutrition. It stresses the body and depletes it of various

> essential compounds, like certain neurotransmitters. It also causes

> chronic adrenal stimulation which can lead to adrenal fatigue.

I definitely think overuse of caffiene can be a problem. I suspect it can be

used in positive ways, but haven't figured out exactly how to be sure I'm

using it in a positive way. In large part I drink coffee because I like the

taste. One group Price studied *did* use coca leaves. I don't remember who,

but

I think it was the Aborigines, who I recall being some of the best paragons of

health he studied.

>

> >But people can still make intelligent decisions based on research.

>

> Of course, but only when they carefully examine the actual research or

> successfully rely on trustworthy intermediates -- but there are very few

> fully trustworthy intermediates. Remember admitting that you didn't know

> what exactly risk factors were being considered in a study? It's no insult

> to you to say that it's all but impossible to stay on top of everything and

> do a perfect job of cutting through the lies and mistakes.

Right... I definitely don't think *I* qualify in *this* scenario to make any

conclusions based on the studies I referred to because I haven't gotten a

chance to look at them.

>

> >But it isn't fair or really sensible to write off

> >every bit of research you disagree with as corporate propanganda,

> especially

> >dismissing a whole school of thought at once.

>

> You mistook me, then. You said something to the effect of " the fact that

> there's all this research supporting this indicates that there's got to be

> something there; how else could that research be being generated? " . I

> replied that the vested interest of the coffee industry is all that's

> necessary to support the research, whether or not caffeine can in fact be

> so beneficial.

I recall it differently, but now that you've clarified it's settled.

> I also have a number of very specific reasons for being skeptical about the

>

> supposed benefits of caffeine, some of which I've enumerated.

>

> >In weight lifting, any regimen only works

> >for about 1-2 months and then stops working. You have to change it, or

> >take a

> >break. I think the same thing goes for many things in diet. Many types of

> >cycling, I think, are good in diet.

>

> I'm not entirely comfortable classifying caffeine as part of diet. You

> wouldn't call an aspirin a day part of your diet, would you? It's a

> physiologically active compound being considered as a refined drug-like

> substance, not as a food with nutritional components.

Fair enough. But I think cycling with certain foods is a good idea too.

> >Maybe they should drink coffee before hand.

>

> People with insulin resistance almost certainly should NOT drink

> coffee. You, having previously been chronically underweight, are at the

> opposite end of the metabolic spectrum; you really shouldn't assume that

> fat people should do like you do.

I agree. I don't recall you mentioning insulin resistance. I said it

somewhat tongue in cheek.

>

> >All I'm saying is that *if* caffeiene is associated with weight loss in

> some

> >individuals, it is reasonable to describe the mechanism as " the jitters

> >making

> >them exercise " or whatever, because the jitters are produced by lypolysis

> >breaking fat down into energy, and if someone exercises in response, they

> >will

> >use up that energy rather than restoring it as fat.

>

> " " The jitters making them exercise " or whatever " covers a lot of

> ground. " Caffeine making them exercise " , however, is an unsubstantiated

> and likely unsupportable assumption, but it's a theory that doesn't need to

> remain assumption: it could be easily checked. The fact that some jerk is

> spitballing on the radio (or worse, that this is what passes for science

> nowadays) is pathetic and otherwise uninteresting.

I don't recall the exact quote, but all I'm saying is that caffeine causes

lypolysis, so if one is in any way more active one will burn that fat, and to

some degree, some of it might get burned to produce more heat in some people.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/12/04 2:30:54 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> I'm talking about insulin resistance, because large amounts of carbs,

> particularly refined and/or simple carbs, will promote insulin resistance

> over time, and as insulin resistance develops, more and more of it will be

> released in response to carbs, making the body more and more prone to

> storing carbs as fat instead of burning them.

I would think that it would be a more important mechanism that more insulin

would inhibit lipolysis and release of fat from fat cells, as the fat cells are

not necessarily as resistant to the same insulin that other cells are, but

I'm not positive. Either way I agree that insulin resistnace would lead to fat

gain.

>

> >If you are suggesting that insulin has diminished muscle-building power in

> >the

> >presence of carbohydrate, I disagree.

>

> I suspect the diminishment is quite small in robustly healthy subjects, but

> the more people's systems are stressed (with, for example, excess refined

> and/or simple carbs) the more the diminishment will grow.

>

> >I agree, if one is using it in a way that causes said physiological stress.

>

> Since caffeine depletes certain neurotransmitters and overstimulates the

> adrenals, how exactly can one use it in a way that doesn't cause

> physiological stress, except perhaps in such small quantities that it has

> minimal, even unnoticeable, effects?

I suspect the depletion could be avoided by avoiding chronic use. But I

think I was talking about the use of simple sugars here.

>

> >Since raw honey shouldn't cause gut problems (and any carb's potential to

> do

> >so would depend on the health of the person anyway, in my view),

>

> Any carb?

>

> Well, technically you're correct, but since some carbs can in fact cause

> ill health over time, it's a somewhat misleading statement. And yes, honey

> can certainly cause gut problems, at least for people with already-injured

> guts. In fact, I'm sure that if a healthy person ate enough honey he'd

> develop gut problems over time just because the body can handle only so

> much sugar. There'd be more and more left over for undesirable organisms.

Perhaps, but if that person uses the honey immediately after a workout on an

empty stomach, I'd think she'd be protected. The body will use it very

quickly and it requires no digestion. It shouldn't be in the gut very long at

all,

and would get used immediately to replace glycogen stores. Immediately after

a workout is the only time I've advocated the use of simple sugars.

>

> >and since I

> >believe the benefits of exercise and controlled fasting will protect

> against

> >insulin resistance, I don't see the potential problems.

>

> You're assuming that exercise and FF will indefinitely protect against the

> effects of caffeine, but that's just an assumption. Perhaps it's valid, at

> least under some conditions and for some people, perhaps not.

I was referring to the use of simple sugars here, not caffeine.

> >In large part I drink coffee because I like the

> >taste.

>

> So why not drink water-process decaf?

I do sometimes. I like caffeine, if it's in the right amount, and before

exercise it can be an insurance against energy slumping, which happens

occasionally, but not usually, without the caffeine.

>

> >But I think cycling with certain foods is a good idea too.

>

> Perhaps. Perhaps we evolved on seasonal variation and therefore need some

> kind of cycling. But perhaps cycling is only important to people with

> compromised digestion and the resulting propensity to develop food

> allergies. It's hard to say. I don't think Price's data allows a clear

> conclusion on this point.

I don't think so either. But there's lots of other data, which I *haven't*

reviewed, that some folks interpret as indicating cycling of all the

macronutrients allows more efficient use of all of them, and that cycling carbs

protects

against insulin resistance, but offers some protection against possible

harmful effects of chronic underconsumption of carbs (in vulnerable people) and

offers the benefits carb consumption offers in some other areas such as IGF-1

levels.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>Actually, coffee and tea both have antimicrobial agents.

OK, fair point, but since coffee does seem to irritate some people's guts,

it doesn't seem as reliable as good fats. Perhaps because it's a

nutrient-free liquid it passes through quickly, leaving the rest of the

food behind? I don't know.

>Both calorie-supplement

>groups gained huge gains over the food-only group, but there wasn't a

>significant difference between the protein and carb-only group.

This isn't especially surprising, since the calorie supplement would free

up the body to use more of the real food for tissue-building

processes. However, it sounds clear that the study didn't consider the

long-term impact of the calorie supplements and used healthy people as its

test subjects, because otherwise there would've been noticing hypoglycemia

problems.

>Whose talking about insulin resistance? You said that insulin can help build

>muscle, but in the presence of carbs will store fat instead.

I'm talking about insulin resistance, because large amounts of carbs,

particularly refined and/or simple carbs, will promote insulin resistance

over time, and as insulin resistance develops, more and more of it will be

released in response to carbs, making the body more and more prone to

storing carbs as fat instead of burning them.

>If you are suggesting that insulin has diminished muscle-building power in

>the

>presence of carbohydrate, I disagree.

I suspect the diminishment is quite small in robustly healthy subjects, but

the more people's systems are stressed (with, for example, excess refined

and/or simple carbs) the more the diminishment will grow.

>I agree, if one is using it in a way that causes said physiological stress.

Since caffeine depletes certain neurotransmitters and overstimulates the

adrenals, how exactly can one use it in a way that doesn't cause

physiological stress, except perhaps in such small quantities that it has

minimal, even unnoticeable, effects?

>Since raw honey shouldn't cause gut problems (and any carb's potential to do

>so would depend on the health of the person anyway, in my view),

Any carb?

Well, technically you're correct, but since some carbs can in fact cause

ill health over time, it's a somewhat misleading statement. And yes, honey

can certainly cause gut problems, at least for people with already-injured

guts. In fact, I'm sure that if a healthy person ate enough honey he'd

develop gut problems over time just because the body can handle only so

much sugar. There'd be more and more left over for undesirable organisms.

>and since I

>believe the benefits of exercise and controlled fasting will protect against

>insulin resistance, I don't see the potential problems.

You're assuming that exercise and FF will indefinitely protect against the

effects of caffeine, but that's just an assumption. Perhaps it's valid, at

least under some conditions and for some people, perhaps not.

>In large part I drink coffee because I like the

>taste.

So why not drink water-process decaf?

>But I think cycling with certain foods is a good idea too.

Perhaps. Perhaps we evolved on seasonal variation and therefore need some

kind of cycling. But perhaps cycling is only important to people with

compromised digestion and the resulting propensity to develop food

allergies. It's hard to say. I don't think Price's data allows a clear

conclusion on this point.

-