Source: Page 66 of White Noise Keywords: "alone," "diet," "gets," "whatever"

From: runns...@aol.com (RunnSwim) Subject: Re: Zone Diet products Date: 2 Oct 1997 Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition

In article <60us2p$pp...@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca>, ummar...@cc.umanitoba.ca writes: >> runns...@aol.com (RunnSwim) writes: >> As I've quoted before, the reason that protein stimulates >> glucagon is merely by a response to a temporarily lowered blood >> sugar. You take protein without carbohydrate and you then >> increase insulin, which lowers blood sugar, which is a stimulus >> for glucagon response. >So carbohydrates stimulate glucagon release just as much as >protein? After all, carbs will stimulate insulin, resulting in a fall in >blood sugar. I didn't know this. Glucagon is secreted as a response to blood sugar levels. A helpful way to think of it is "insulin versus the mob" (this is a teaching point made by Dr. Arthur Vander, one of my former professors). On one hand you have insulin. Drives glucose into cells, promotes fat storage, etc. On the other hand you have glucagon, growth hormone, hydrocortisone, and catecholamines (e.g. epinephrine). These basically have effects which counteract those of insulin. So it is a yin-yang sort of thing, like so many bodily functions. Eat a carbohydrate meal and blood sugar goes up. Insulin is secreted and blood sugar normalizes. So you get no glucagon, as long as blood sugar doesn't drop too low. Eat "too much" carbohydrate and a whole lot of insulin gets released and blood sugar starts to drop too low. So "the mob" jumps in. Glucagon is secreted, along with epinephrine. Now, eat protein alone. Amino acid absorption also stimulates insulin release. So blood sugar levels fall below baseline, stimulating "the mob". Now, eat protein along with carbohydrate. In most studies, insulin release is synergistically potentiated, in other words you get more insulin than you would get with the sum of carbohydrate alone and protein alone. But whether you end up with any of "the mob" depends upon whether blood sugar drops too low. The fact that you have taken (particularly slowly absorbed, low glycemic) carbohdrate along with protein results in a situation where blood sugar does not drop below baseline and "the mob" (including that good glucagon stuff) doesn't get secreted at all, which it would have had you eaten the protein alone, as our paleolithic ancestors usually did. >> As I said, Sears "likes" glucagon. But >> you go giving protein along with carbohydrate and you get no fall >> in blood sugar and no glucagon response. >Why won't blood sugar fall? See above. Sometimes it will fall, but usually it doesn't, because the effect of continual absorption of glucose from the carbohydrate keeps blood sugar from falling, as it would have fallen with protein alone. >> So, please explain to me about how the Zone Diet promotes a >> "balance" between insulin and glucagon. >Why? You said you've looked at the books. If I paraphrase, >there will be more opportunity for confusion, and you'll be more >likely to end up responding to my misunderstandings than the >source material. If you're right that protein doesn't promote >glucagon secretion any more than carbohydrates, then that is >that, and the Zone has no value in hormonal control, other >than being moderate in carbohydrates and calories, being a >grazing, not a gorging diet, and maximizing low-glycemic carbs. >Which would mean that it could only be defended on the basis >of it's other features, which you get to ignore because Sears >wasn't the first to think of them. That's a good summary of where we are on this. And I really wasn't trying to trap you into saying something which I could attack. I was just asking the Zone believers to ask critical questions themselves about the statement that the Zone promotes "balance in the insulin/glucagon axis." >> So that's my agenda. Not to lose my choice of low fat foods and >> friendly waiters. >Yeah, you're in real danger there. So I perceive. But maybe I can do something about it. - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - >> With regard to (1) and (2), at the end of the day, you will find >> that I have been as precise and as well documented as possible. >You've been impressively well-documented, but I believe that you >sometimes try to argue persuasively, rather than arguing toward the >truth, whatever it might be. Not that this is in any way reprehensible, >but it isn't always consistent with being as precise as possible. >> Have patience and thanks for continuing. >Hey, my pleasure. You're the one doing all the work. >> >In our discussion of Reaven's methodology, "we" did not come to >> the conclusion that his research was fatally flawed. YOU were >> sounding off again and again on that note, and I pointed out that >> the main problem was limited generalizability. Not ZERO >> generalizability, but limited.< >> Honest difference of opinion. >Well apparently, but can you justify your opinion? How exactly could >it possibly have zero generalizability. It is only generalizable to the situation where people are being force fed a set number of calories per day in set macronutrient proportions. I have personally never been in this situation in my entire half century of existence (well, actually I was, before I was old enough to feed myself, but, even then, I'll bet that I had a lot of control over my caloric intake by virtue of being able to cry loudly at age 9 months). >> Reaven's studies involved force >> feeding people. No studies of ad lib feedings have detected >> untoward results with low fat diets. >It wasn't ad lib feeding, but you know, there are people on a >high-carb diet who aren't losing weight. That means they must >be eating about as many calories as they output, no? Well, that's >what is happening in the study I cite below. The amount of >food they eat is hardly extreme. Even if they would have been >likely to cut down if it was ad lib, the study could still be generalized >to that portion of the high-carb population that tends to eat a little >too much. I can think of lots of ways in which these results might >generalize effectively. I will need to read the study, but here is the problem. As I've indicated elsewhere, it seems obvious that some people will benefit more from a fat restricted diet than will others. To the extent that information is available, it would appear that the people who benefit most are those who comply the best, but that is not crucially important. What is important is that if a given diet doesn't work for a given person for whatever reason, then changing the diet makes all the sense in the world. But I still haven't seen a study which identified a subset of people who did worse on an ad lib low fat/high complex carb with exercise plan. You just can't generalize an isocaloric weight maintenance study to an ad lib world. But let me order up your reference below from my library (generally I get them in 3-4 days) and I'll see what it says. >> >You've also made a criticism about the metabolic havoc that is >> wreaked on the high carb group in these studies. Have you read >> samples of what the high carb group ate in the study that was >> published in the April 97 Am J Clin Nutr? I need you to explain >> to me how that diet destroys the validity of the study. I know >> you've done this already, but I'm not very bright.< >> Can you tell me to which article you are referring? Glad to look >> it up and give it an objective review. >I just did. If you look at the issue I mentioned, it is the one that >has Reaven as one of the authors, and is about low fat, high >carb diets. Will that help you find it? If you you still can't find it, >the ref is Am J Clin Nutr 1997;65:1027-33. Thanks. I'll order it up. >> > No need to quote, I've read what he said. I'm not sure what >> your point here is. Is it, "See, even the guy whose research >> Sears references thinks the Zone is dumb. Therefore, it must be >> dumb."? This is obviously not a very strong argument.< >> By itself, not a strong statement, but also not an irrelevant >> statement, to be considered in a context of the whole.. >Get serious, Larry. It was a dumb argument. Of course it is >relevant, because it was on the same subject. That doesn't mean >it should be considered a good anti-Zone argument. O.K., I agree it was a dumb argument. - Larry Weisenthal

Back to "The Usenet Project" Main Page - Back to Starve.Org Main Page - Contact - Starve Archive