insulin index

[Guest guest]

Rajinder:

In general you want insulin levels high only after exercise. The rest of

the day you would want them low. The effects of exercise on insulin

sensitivity have both acute and chronic components. Acute exercise per se

increases glucose uptake via increasing glucose delivery into cells. This

is primarily due to increased blood flow to active tissues. So you need less

insulin to get the same amount of work done while exercising. Insulin

sensitivity modulates exercise-induced increases in glucose uptake by

enhancing cellular glucose extraction. (At the same blood flow rate cells

take up more glucose.) After exercise there is a period of time usually

defined anywhere from 2-6 hours (but most often closer to 2 hours) where

post-exercise muscle cells may be more responsive to the actions of insulin.

The rest of the day trying to purposefully increase insulin would seem

ridiculous unless one could prove there is a preferential distribution of

substrates such as amino acids and glucose to skeletal muscle over other

tissues, specifically adipose tissue. Based upon my interpretations this

has never been demonstrated in the literature. The values that 's diet

may have for people trying it may be that it gets them to eat six or more

smaller meals. There is tremendous variability in insulin release so it may

be premature to base diet strategies on this when we really need to know how

the individual responds.

Placing so much emphasis on one hormone really skews the interpretation of

the overall picture. There are lots of hormones in the body and they

interact. If we look at some interesting observations from obesity and

aging, it is clear that elevating insulin is not the ideal strategy. High

insulin for example may be great for increasing the rate of glycogen

resynthesis and protein synthesis in skeletal muscle, but it can inhibit

contraction in smooth muscle and cause problems in the vascular system.

Tom

Incledon, MS, RD, LD/N, NSCA-CPT, CSCS

Human Performance Specialists, Inc

619 NW 90th Terrace

Plantation, FL 33324

954-577-0689

hpsinc@...

[Guest guest]

Tom:

I appreciate the response although it tended to cover insulin's role in the

body of which I already am well informed, rather than the two main premises

of Berardi, namely:

1. Discounting the glycemic index in favour of the insulin index. He states

that the old option of lowering GI through adding fats to a meal is

counterproductive since it will actually increase insulin release and hence

fat storage despite the lower GI from ading fat. Is this notion backed by

science since it seems counter-intuitive?

2. Managing insulin levels by never combining fats and carbs, and by making

meal choices with respect to the II rather than GI. His strategy basically

runs counter to established regimes which rely on GI. Do you know if his

approach has been tested over time with a large sample of athletes? Also, it

seems to be aimed mainly at bodybuilders since most athletes would struggle

having 3 carb-free meals a day.

Rajinder Johal

London,UK

_________________________________________________________________________

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

From: " Incledon " <hpsinc@...

> Rajinder:

>

> In general you want insulin levels high only after exercise. The rest of

> the day you would want them low.

<snip>

Tom (or anyone else):

Reading more about the II, I find that some foods high in protein and fat

can also produce high levels of insulin secretion. What implications might

this have for dietary choices?

Krista

Toronto, ON

-------------------------

http://www.stumptuous.com/weights.html

mistresskrista@...

[Guest guest]

Hi Krista:

The practical implications really would only impact individuals that are

insulin insensitive (insulin resistant) or consistently averaging a positive

energy balance. For these people, if they choose food combinations that

result in greater than normal insulin production, they would be skewing lots

of energy toward adipose tissue and stimulating endothelial tissue in such a

way that there would be long terms health implications (i.e. reduced blood

flow, higher blood pressure, other cardiovascular complications). On a side

not often times people in this category have multiple problems, and while we

are addressing the insulin issue other areas should be at least considered.

For people that are physically active and/or in a stable or negative energy

balance the implications would not appear to be as important. Most of what

we know in this area is based off of short-term studies, the long-term

adaptations are not entirely clear.

Tom

Incledon, MS, RD, LD/N, NSCA-CPT, CSCS

Human Performance Specialists, Inc

619 NW 90th Terrace

Plantation, FL 33324

954-577-0689

954-533-0614 fax

hpsinc@...

-----Original Message-----

From: Krista--Dixon [mailto:kristasd@...]

-----

From: " Incledon " <hpsinc@...

> Rajinder:

>

> In general you want insulin levels high only after exercise. The rest of

> the day you would want them low. <snip>

Tom (or anyone else):

Reading more about the II, I find that some foods high in protein and fat

can also produce high levels of insulin secretion. What implications might

this have for dietary choices?

Krista

Toronto, ON

-------------------------

http://www.stumptuous.com/weights.html

mistresskrista@...

[Guest guest]

Rajinder:

Thanks for detailing your questions.

Macronutrients do interact and stimulate insulin release. The extent to

which fat balance (ie positive means you are gaining fat, negative means you

are losing fat) is affected depends on a number of factors, the primary one

being the total calorie load. It would seem that a meal with a high insulin

index and fatty acids may stimulate fat accumulation faster, but I do not

know if this would apply to all fatty acids equally. So the notion is back

by science to some degree, but there are many fat that will determine the

fat balance.

His sample dietary strategy has never been tested in a research study as far

as I know.

The interesting thing about the insulin index is that if it does stand more

careful scrutiny, we may be able to go back and re-examine older studies and

start to understand why so many diet studies offer conflicting results.

Tom

Incledon, MS, RD, LD/N, NSCA-CPT, CSCS

Human Performance Specialists, Inc

619 NW 90th Terrace

Plantation, FL 33324

954-577-0689

954-533-0614 fax

hpsinc@...

[Guest guest]

Rosemary:

I know that when it comes to Biotest cynicism is usually well placed.

However, if you read the article in t-mag and its related articles you will

see the strategy the author advocates is far more than having a big

postworkout shake to ramp up insulin levels.

Tom:

Thanks for you response. Selling a new supplement notwithstanding, Berardi

has certainly come up with an innovative approach to nutrition although a

bit impractical for most people, especially those on a high calorie diet

which would necessitate upto seven meals a day. Still, I will be sure to

stay abreast of any new research in this area.

Rajinder Johal

London,UK

_________________________________________________________________________

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

[Guest guest]

" rajinder johal " wrote:

> 1. Discounting the glycemic index in favour of the insulin index.

He states

> that the old option of lowering GI through adding fats to a meal is

> counterproductive since it will actually increase insulin release

and hence

> fat storage despite the lower GI from ading fat. Is this notion

backed by

> science since it seems counter-intuitive?

Yes, there seems to be some research suggesting that increasing the

ratio of saturated to unsaturated NEFA (non-esterified fatty acids)

in the diet may potentiate glucose-stimulated insulin secretion.

In fact, some authors have suggested that " long-term exposure of the

beta cell to excessive quantities of NEFA (particularly the saturated

ones) or VLDL or both might be a factor in the beta-cell dysfunction

of Type II diabetes " . Note again, however, that most of these effects

on insulin are seen with saturated and (if I recall)trans fats.

Interestingly, some research (if I recall) suggests that increasing

the omega 3/omega 6 ratio also seems to normalize insulin action.

> 2. Managing insulin levels by never combining fats and carbs, and

by making

> meal choices with respect to the II rather than GI. His strategy

basically

> runs counter to established regimes which rely on GI. Do you know

if his

> approach has been tested over time with a large sample of athletes?

Also, it

> seems to be aimed mainly at bodybuilders since most athletes would

struggle

> having 3 carb-free meals a day.

Why not simply follow a diet rich in low-glycemic carbs and " good "

fats (increase P/S ratio with particular emphasis on omega 3's)? I

mean most of the effects on glucose-stimulated insulin secretion have

shown to be due to the so-called " bad " fats.

Gus Karageorgos

Toronto, Canada

[Guest guest]

Gus:

That was very helpful information. My normal diet is much as you advocate,

i.e low GI carbs 45%, protein 35% and quality fats the rest. The fact that

the author mentioned enhanced insulin release/fat sorage by combining fats

and carbs gave me pause to think but he made no distinction as you do

between saturated and unsaturated fats.

Rajinder Johal

London,UK

_________________________________________________________________________

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

[Guest guest]

Rosemary:

I think the main thing to take from Berardi's various articles on

Massive Eating, Post-Workout eating etc, is to divorce the supplement

hard sell from the nutritional recommendation, which boils down to 3

or 4 carb/protein meals and 2 or 3 fat/protein meals. I'm curious as

to which of Biotest's supplements that you think are worthwhile wince

most like Tribex, and Methoxy-7 have very sketchy research behind

them.

Gus:

As I mentioned above I believe the main point Berardi makes is to

basically never combine fats and carbs. Taking on board your point

about saturated fats being worse than EFA's, could combining fats and

carbs at the same meal still not be detrimental, since even if the

insulin response isn't as high as with saturated fats, one can assume

that under conditions of a positive energy balance the fat in the

meal will still be readily converted to bodyfat (albeit to a lesser

degree than with saturated fats). Berardi's theory seems to be to

combine a high carb and low carb diet on a daily basis rather than

choosing one or the other over an extended period of time, with the

intention of maximising the benefits and limiting the deficiencies

compared to using either diet exclusively. Based on your

understanding does his theory hold water? BTW you mentioned that

PUFA's will elicit a smaller insulin response when added to a

carb/protein meal than saturated fats, but would that insulin

response still be in excess of an exclusively carb/protein meal (or

at least where fats are kept below 5g)?

Rajinder Johal

London,UK

[Guest guest]

rajinder_johal@h... wrote:

> As I mentioned above I believe the main point Berardi makes is to

> basically never combine fats and carbs. Taking on board your point

> about saturated fats being worse than EFA's, could combining fats

>and carbs at the same meal still not be detrimental, since even if

>the insulin response isn't as high as with saturated fats, one can

>assume that under conditions of a positive energy balance the fat in

>the meal will still be readily converted to bodyfat (albeit to a

>lesser degree than with saturated fats).

Rajinder:

I apologize but I'm not following the argument here. If overall

energy balance is positive, then there will be weight gain,

regardless of how one divides meals or what particular macronutrient

profile is employed. There are some who argue that, at least in the

short-term, a hypercaloric (energy-excess), carbohydrate-rich diet

may result in less fat gain primarily because de novo fat synthesis

from carbs is limited in humans (carbs seem to go toward glycogen

storage) but again, any other excess calories (from fats, protein

and/or carbs once glycogen stores are full)will still lead to weight

gain.

If Berardi's argument is wrt the quality of weight gain (ratio of

lean body mass to fat mass gain)then, I'm not sure. Most of the

material I have looked suggests that as long as protein intake is at

a certain optimal level, all other things being equal (i.e.

resistance exercise, etc.), then dietary manipulations will not

greatly affect the quality of weight gain. Maybe others have across

material disputing this? I mean is there any research suggesting that

limiting insulin levels will increase the % muscle vs fat gain during

excess caloric intake? As an aside some of Forbe's research suggests

that the most important factor determining what % of weight gained is

lean body mass vs fat gain, is body type. Individuals with relatively

low body fat, tend to put on proportionally more muscle vs fat as

weight gain than individuals who have higher body fat.

I think the benefit of the using the insulin index, glycemic index,

etc. is during hypocaloric (energy-resticted) diets (when trying to

lose fat and minimize lean body mass). In particular, there is some

research suggesting that all other things being equal, a hypocaloric

low-GI (and low insulin index)diet vs hypocaloric high-GI (and high

insulin index)diet may preserve lean body mass. For instance, Agus,

2000 writes:

" Although both diets were protein sufficient...analysis of nitrogen

balance suggested that fat tissue was oxidized to a lesser degree,

and muscle to a greater degree, with the high-GI than the low-GI

diet...Consumption of a high-GI meal results in relatively high

insulin concentrations and low glucagon concentrations. This hormonal

response tends to promote uptake of glucose and triacylglycerol in

the liver and adipose tissue, limit glycogenolysis and lipolysis... "

So arguably you may get the benefits of the ketogenic diet

(preservation of lean body mass) without drastically restricting

particular macronutrients (carbs in the ketogenic diet example).

>Berardi's theory seems to be to

> combine a high carb and low carb diet on a daily basis rather than

> choosing one or the other over an extended period of time, with the

> intention of maximising the benefits and limiting the deficiencies

> compared to using either diet exclusively. Based on your

> understanding does his theory hold water?

I don't think enough is known at present, especially wrt to insulin

index but I " m skeptical for the following reasons. If you choose

the " right " carb-rich foods (unrefined, low-GI carbs such as

vegetables, fruit or even some refined carbs such as pasta) and

the " right " fats (omit saturated and trans fats), I think it's quite

possible to elicit fairly small insulin levels. Alternatively

choosing the " wrong " carbs even on their own can elicit quite large

insulin levels. For instance a carb-rich food such as Coco Pops has a

very high insulin index (124) despite being very low in fat. On the

other hand a carb-rich toasted muesli which is far richer in fat

(carbs + fat) has an extremely low insulin index (35).

BTW you mentioned that

> PUFA's will elicit a smaller insulin response when added to a

> carb/protein meal than saturated fats, but would that insulin

> response still be in excess of an exclusively carb/protein meal (or

> at least where fats are kept below 5g)?

Irrespective of how you divide your calories, an increase in calories

often leads to a greater insulin response, so I'm guessing that there

will some greater insulin response with the addition of fat,

especially if the fat is saturated (but again this is only a guess).

I believe some research suggests that spreading your calories over

more meals also results in a more positive insulin response.

Gus Karageorgos

Toronto, Canada

[Guest guest]

Gus:

I think my first point was actually restated more clearly later on. Of

course I accept that calories in vs calories out will determine weight

gain/loss but it says nothing about the quality of weight gained/lost.

Berardi actually states that he has had people who have managed to gain

muscle and lose fat simultaneously under his plan following a positive

calorie balance scheme. His articles are presented as a way of gaining

muscle weight whilst limiting or eliminating fat gain during a bulking

phase. Since the addition of fat to a meal will lower GI do you see the

addition of unsaturated fats as lowering Insulin Index (II), say for a meal of

brown rice

and turkey?

There seems to be a paucity of information regarding the II of

mixed meals in the data so far. I ask because I believe the main reason why

the II of muesli is lower than Coco Pops is the fibre and lower GI of the

carbs in muesli rather than the presence of a few extra grams of fat.

rajinder johal

london, UK

[Guest guest]

rajinder johal wrote:

> I think my first point was actually restated more clearly later on.

>Of course I accept that calories in vs calories out will determine

>weight gain/loss but it says nothing about the quality of weight gained/lost.

Sorry, Rajinder, I should have read Berardi's piece more closely

before responding.

> Berardi actually states that he has had people who have managed to

>gain muscle and lose fat simultaneously under his plan following a

>positive calorie balance scheme. His articles are presented as a way

>of gaining muscle weight whilst limiting or eliminating fat gain

>during a bulking phase. Since the addition of fat to a meal will

>lower GI do you see the addition of unsaturated fats as lowering

>Insulin Index (II), say for a meal of brown rice and turkey?

Not sure. There seem to be way too many factors affecting insulin

secretion to even guess. On the one hand there is some research

suggestion that polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) but not saturated

fats are fairly potent inhibitors of lipogenic enzymes and fatty acid

synthesis (see Gene Herzberg's work for example). Thus, one may

be inclined to guess that the addition of small amounts of PUFAs may

lower the II based on the relationship between insulin secretion and

lipogenesis but then again, a meal with greater calories (i.e. the

addition of unsaturated fat)also tends to elicit greater insulin

secretion, so I'm not sure.

> There seems to be a paucity of information regarding the II of

> mixed meals in the data so far. I ask because I believe the main

>reason why the II of muesli is lower than Coco Pops is the fibre and

>lower GI of the carbs in muesli rather than the presence of a few

>extra grams of fat.

You might be right but then again, who knows as there is also quite

a bit of research suggesting that even small amounts of PUFAs are

potent inhibitors of lipogenesis. For one example see:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?

cmd=Retrieve & db=PubMed & list_uids=1804510 & dopt=Abstract

In this piece Herzberg writes:

" The inclusion of relatively small amounts of polyunsaturated fatty

acids reduces fatty acid synthesis and the lipogenic enzymes...

saturated fats are without effect on lipogenesis, while PUFAs are

potent inhibitors... "

You're right though, the II seems very variable and is also

greatly influenced by individual differences in insulin sensitivity.

On the topic of insulin sensitivity and fats it is interesting to

note that Clandinin et al. have done quite a bit of research

suggesting the value of increasing the so-called P/S ratio

(polyunsaturated to saturated fat ratio) on insulin sensitivity. This

is especially the case if omega 3 intake is sufficient. It's also

fairly well known that polyunsaturated and to a lesser extent

monounsaturated fatty acids have higher rates of oxidation than

saturated and trans fats. So it seems as if saturated and trans fats

are more likely to be stored as body fat and once stored less likely

to be lost. So again, I think a good argument can be given that the

type of fat ingested may impact greatly on the II.

As an aside, on the topic of P/S ratios, I was auditing a graduate

nutrition course looking at ways of decreasing heart disease risk

with changes in diet. Based on Hu's (1997)material in the NEJM,

the presenter of this material suggested that alpha linolenic was one of

the most important factors in decreasing heart disease (more so than

fiber or decreasing fat content, etc.):

Heart disease risk:

1. If you involve only 5% of total caloric intake, but

-replace saturated fats with carbs=20% reduction in heart disease risk.

-replace monunsaturated with carbs=20% increase.

-replace polyunsaturates with carb=50% increase.

-replace saturated with monounsaturated=30% reduction.

-replace saturated with polyunsaturated=50 reduction.

2. If you involve only 2% of total caloric intake, but

-replace trans fats with monounsaturates=50% reduction

-replace trans with polyunsaturates=55% reduction

Gus Karageorgos

Toronto, Canada

[Guest guest]

Gus:

I appreciate all the information you have presented. Do you actually work in

nutrition or exercise physiology since you seem to have access to a wealth

of knowledge?

The following link is to a great deal of information on the insulin index.

http://www.google.com/search?q=insulin%2Bindex & source-id=-b

Rajinder Johal

London,UK

_________________________________________________________________________

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

[Guest guest]

rajinder:

No, my background is in the neurosciences and physiology but I have

completed quite a few nutrition courses previously and I try to keep

up with the latest developments in both nutrition and exercise

physiology, as I'm very interested in these areas.

Gus Karageorgos

Toronto, Canada

[Guest guest]

Rosemary Wedderburn wrote:

> I happen to agree with their normal answer that for someone with

>some training time under their belts, the best one can hope for when

>trying to lose fat is to retain as much one's current level of

>muscle mass as possible. This seems to be the same opinion I've

>read in books and articles by Dan Duchaine, Will Brink and Lyle

>Mc, among others.

I agree with you which is why I find the results of W. Kraemer's

research a bit surprising. For instance if you look at his two

studies in the J of Strength and Cond Res (1997) (Experiment 3 and 4)

you will find that on the average these football players (when using

a periodized scheme) were able to decrease body fat from 18.1% to

13.8% (Expt 3) and from 17.9% to 13.8% (Expt. 4) while simultaneously

putting on 4.3 and 5.5 kg of body mass(Expt. 3 and 4 respectively)

over a period of 14 weeks. This equates to an average gain of around

20 lbs. of muscle over 14 weeks while simultaneously losing about 10

lbs. of fat. By the way these are the greatest gains in muscle mass

that I have come across in the literature in trained subjects,

regardless of training program used.

>On the other hand, my women's intuition tells me that

> Testosterone.net (Biotest) is using him to hype a new-post workout

>product that is a high-carb, moderate-protein, low-fat liquid meal.

>They are putting a great deal of effort into promoting the idea of a

>post workout insulin response to build muscle and counteract

>catabolic breakdown.

Rosemary, I thought you might want to look at this very recent study

(see below) which seems to support your intuition. I'm sure one can

criticize whether in fact the particulars of this supplement used

fall within with Biotest's guidelines, but then again, there is not

a whole lot of research suggesting that transient changes in insulin,

GH or testosterone levels (either by dietary or exercise

manipulations) will greatly affect muscle growth either in humans or

other animals.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Br J Sports Med 2001 Apr;35(2):109-13

Is glucose/amino acid supplementation after exercise an aid to

strength training?

AG, van Den Oord M, Sharma A, DA

Department of Sport, Health and Exercise, Staffordshire University,

Stoke on Trent, UK.

BACKGROUND:-The precise timing of carbohydrate and amino acid

ingestion relative to a bout of resistance exercise may modulate the

training effect of the resistance exercise. OBJECTIVE:-To assess

whether regular glucose/amino acid supplementation immediately after

resistance exercise could enhance the gain in muscle strength brought

about by resistance training. METHODS:-Seven untrained participants

with a median age of 23 years and mean (SD) body mass 68.9 (13.5) kg

resistance trained on a leg extension machine for five days a week

for 10 weeks, using four sets of 10 repetitions. Alternate legs were

trained on successive days, one leg each day. Subjects ingested

either a supplement including 0.8 g glucose/kg and 0.2 g amino

acids/kg, or placebo, on alternate training days immediately after

training. Therefore the supplement was always ingested after training

the same leg (supplement leg). Isometric, isokinetic, and 1

repetition maximum (RM) strength were measured before, during, and

after training. Blood samples were analysed to determine the acute

responses of insulin and glucose to resistance exercise and

supplementation or placebo. RESULTS:-Serum insulin concentration

peaked 20 minutes after supplement ingestion at ninefold the placebo

level, and remained significantly elevated for at least 80 minutes

(p<0.01). Isometric, isokinetic, and 1 RM strength improved on both

supplement and placebo legs (p<0.05). There were no significant

differences in the gain in strength between the supplement leg and

the placebo leg (p>0.05). CONCLUSION:-Regular glucose/amino acid

supplementation immediately after resistance exercise is unlikely to

enhance the gain in muscle strength brought about by resistance

training.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Gus Karageorgos

Toronto, Canada

[Guest guest]

Gus K wrote: on the average these football players (when using

a periodized scheme) were able to decrease body fat from 18.1% to

13.8% (Expt 3) and from 17.9% to 13.8% (Expt. 4) while simultaneously

putting on 4.3 and 5.5 kg of body mass(Expt. 3 and 4 respectively)

over a period of 14 weeks. This equates to an average gain of around

20 lbs. of muscle over 14 weeks while simultaneously losing about 10

lbs. of fat.

*** For a young male athlete who does as much running about as football

players, I find 18% bodyfat percentages extremely high. Of course they could

swill down enough beer to counteract this. If the ages of the young men in

the above study were between 18 and 20, this might just be possible depending

on the program. I have no references, but I've seen with my own eyes a lot of

big fat slobby guys totally transformed in military boot camp (which lasted 8

weeks during the Viet Nam era). From " Chunk to Hunk in 8 short weeks " as we

used to say. I swear there were a couple I almost didn't recognize, the

change was so startling.

As far as the study about the leg extensions, I found it a bit odd that they

would give the same person some potion after working one leg one day, but the

other was a placebo leg. It's the same body, isn't it? Why not use two groups

rather than two legs from the same person?

I think the main thing is to get some decent nutrition into yourself after a

workout, and liquid is better absorbed and easier to get down. Another

interesting thing about Biotest's Surge is that they made the same statements

about Grow! when it was first introduced to the market. There's nothing

really wrong with either supplement, but both are simply engineered FOOD in

different macronutrient ratios. So their " latest and greatest " has played

Peoria many times before.

Rosemary Wedderburn-Vernon

Venice, Ca

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 4/4/02 9:56:00 PM, writes:

<< We have a tool called the insulin index. Its exactly like the

glycemic index except that it measure the insulin response to

consuming differant foods. >>

Do you have a reference for the insulin index -- i'd very much like to have a

copy

Liz