Friday, December 28, 2012

Insulin: Are you hungry? Part 2

Well, over the years I have made the occasional serious blooper on Hyperlipid.

Perhaps the worst of these, to my intense shame, is the acceptance of insulin as a satiety hormone. This is complete bollocks and, thankfully, some deleted-expletive person in obesity research has finally opened my eyes to this. The gift was from Dr Guyenet of course. This is how he convinced me that insulin is not a satiety hormone:


Let's feed some rats standard crapinabag and inject one group with nothing much, one with glargine insulin and another with detemir insulin. But here's the trick. Because we know that hypoglycaemia triggers overeating and the overeating causes weight gain, let's limit the insulin dose to one which does not cause hypoglycaemia... No overeating, active satiety hormone, weight loss...

Because we have been (mis)informed that insulin is a satiety hormone we would expect the insulin-injected rats should eat less, weigh less blah blah blah. What really happens? This does:



I've seen this paper cited as showing insulin can reduce weight gain. By Dr Guyenet no less. Who didn't mention the graphs. Which are core to the paper.

Technically this shows that insulin does bugger all to food intake and fat storage. This is hardly surprising as giving a sub hypoglycaemic dose of insulin will simply attempt to lower blood glucose which will be avoided by reduction of endogenously produced insulin. Total insulin will stay the same. There will be subtleties of peripheral administration vs portal secretion but I guess these are a bit too subtle for this study. There are also fascinating differences in duration of binding of detemir insulin to the insulin receptor vs other insulins. Not surprising as it has a socking great fatty acid tagged on one end but that's another set of stories.

Ah, but what about the effect of detemir insulin on limiting fat gain of rats fed toffeefudgecheescake, aka D12492?

We are talking Fig 3 parts b and e here:



Okay, we're now utterly convinced that insulin limits weight gain. Well, detemir insulin does. Of course glargine insulin doesn't, as Dr Guyenet forgot to mention when citing this paper. It produces a non significant increase in weight over vehicle treated controls.

Just for a giggle, consider changing the grams to kgs on graph e and imagine these rats as humans. Given a group size of 6-8 leading to statistically ns changes in fat mass, would you consider 5kg fat mass gain (a ns change) on glargine, without eating any extra, non significant? Biologically? In dress size? Tee hee.

Now let's look at section e in a little more detail.

The study is very, very carefully set up. The insulin and the D12492 were both started on the same day. It is utterly convincing (to me) that detemir insulin limits weight gain IN THE FIRST 7-10 DAYS of D12492 feeding. From day 10 onwards the fat mass does not change in the control, the detemir or the glargine groups. Not even a trend. A bit like the crapinabag groups demonstrated throughout. In fact, identical to the crapinabag groups. Where's your satiety Guyenet?

Now here's a thought experiment. Let's pretend that all rats were fed D12492 from day 0 to day 10 without injected insulin, so became equally obese with a fat mass of 65 grams, same as the controls on day 10. From day 10 onwards all groups then received their respective insulin or vehicle for four weeks.

Would the fat mass have changed from the 65g starting weight? Of course not, look at the last weeks on graph e. These people are not stupid, though they do like to give that impression.

From this study the follow on question has to be: What is the difference between detemir insulin and either endogenous insulin or glargine insulin during the first 7 days of feeding D12492 to rats?

We all recall from the paper from the Schwartz lab featuring the world's greatest mis-citation expert, that the first few days of sucrose/fat feeding produces an acute inflammatory lesion in the hypothalamus of rats which get fat on D12492. If I had to guess I would suggest detemir insulin limits this injury. How and why cannot be guessed at from this paper but needless to say groups working with gold thioglucose injury have considered what factors influenced hypothalamic injuries. That leads to far out speculation, so I'll limit this post to what Guyenet's citations really do show.

They show that physiological insulin does NOT suppress appetite. Are you surprised? Me neither.

Of course an increased dose of insulin might suppress appetite. But this would need a glucose infusion to maintain life, which would promote DNL in adipocytes and inhibit lipolysis. No hunger while you gain fat. You have to wonder what the point of the above study was, excepting it supports a grant maintaining position and is a self justification for a bizarre mindset.

I also notice Guyenet re-cited this crap. Doesn't he read Hyperlipid????? Giggle... That was a rhetorical question!

Less rhetorical is to ask whether he has actually read the Vanderweele paper at all, particularly Fig 4 of the paper and whether he has reverse engineered said Fig 4 to see the problems with the conclusions of the paper!

Finally he has cited a drug study using an insulin mimetic, not insulin. Well, bully for insulin mimetics. With an insulin mimetic you can mimic lethal doses of insulin without all that inconvenient death. The body does not produce lethal doses of insulin under physiological conditions. If you want to know about physiological doses of insulin within the CNS I can just quote this paper. I feel the authors are being just a teensy weensy bit over the top in their deprecatory attitude to the "centralinsulinisasatietyhormone" brigade. But I can understand why! Here's my fav quote:

"To reduce the likelihood of pharmacological effects of the insulin doses administered, we choose a dose of insulin that is more than 15,000–fold lower than those commonly used for ICV [third ventricle, CSF] insulin infusions"

That's about as rude as you get in Cell Metabolism! You can't use the word "pillock". Drug doses (pharmacologic) of insulin produce drug effects. If you give only physiological dose rates you get physiological effects! Now isn't that amazing?

Oh btw, at physiological levels brain insulin increases peripheral lipogenesis and decreases lipolysis. Did you think insulin would do the opposite through the brain compared to what it does in the periphery?

Duh.

A more believable scenario is that ATP generation within the brain using glucose metabolism, facilitated by insulin in those areas responsible for energy sensing, does occur. But this combination of glucose and insulin will also store fat, as it should, when it occurs post prandially. Which is exactly what excess energy sensing should signal. Insulin without the glucose is pharmacology, unless you suffer from reactive hypoglycaemia.

Peter

BTW I notice over on Woo's blog that there has been some discussion as to whether Dr Guyenet is just dumb or being very deliberately misleading, ie conspiring to mislead. I don't do orchestrated conspiracy theories. I don't really do the financial drive thing either, not for some body who is still as wet behind the ears as Dr Guyenet certainly is. No, for a junior post-doc it has to be:


He has the whole of the knowledge base of the Schwartz lab at his beck and call and the above three citations are the best dross that the Good Doctor can come up with... But still he believes! Stupid.

353 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 353 of 353
Anonymous said...

Gunther, I have a genuine, non-sarcastic question for you. Why do you post here? It's clear that you disagree with pretty much everything its owner and regulars have to say. I just don't get what's in it for you.

D1S said...

Here is an idea Peter. Tje good doctor hits 2 close. From now on refer to Stephan Guyenet as "Monica Seles" problem solved! wink-wink

gunther gatherer said...

Glad you asked, Sidereal. I don't disagree with everything here, that's why I stay. I agree that Real Food should be the center of the diet. That insulin signalling is important to health, and that studies need to be picked apart very carefully to find out what's really being presented. I also agree we can look to evolutionary data for evidence of what we're made to eat.

In fact I owe Peter a lot for teaching me how to pore over a study. I don't get why we all have to take sides. We should read as much as we can from all sources, I think. That's essentially what I was saying until the attacks started.

The conflict started when I supported Stephan. How could I let a contributing researcher and all around helpful guy get bullied by you punks. :-)

Guys, it's been fun. My Torrent of Big Bang Theory just finished downloading so I'm gonna call it a night (it's 11pm here in Europe).

ItsTheWooo said...

Sidereal, your response at 12:22 is really the truth.

We joke and mock but at the end of the day, for many of us this is a serious issue and we owe more or less our well being to eating eggs and bacon...

The ideas arrogantly promoted as truth by SG actively impede progress, and that is offensive and concerning for us.

The idea that obesity could EVER be prospectively considered a mental health disorder in the DSM5 is deeply, deeply distressing and evidence of just how backward is our understanding of obesity. Guyenets work is not helping, in fact, it is actively PROMOTING such thinking, by making obesity analogous to addiction which it absolutely IS NOT.


Fact: I was obese because of a likely genetically influenced problem regulating insulin signalling/secretion. It is evident in family members from my maternal grandmother, it causes many other symptoms other than obesity. It is NOT AT ALL a mental health problem. There are many, if not most other obese people who have similar stories, absolutely ZERO evidence of any kind of addiction or hedonistic problem.

Furthermore, hedonistic response to food and "junk food junkism" may be evident in perfectly thin people. Why do we stigmatize the obese for the metabolic/endocrine dynamics producing poor energy use, hunger, and subsequent fat storage?

For example, evolutionarypsychiatry blog recently has a discussion on soda addiction. In the comments we can see people of ALL BODY WEIGHTS here confessing to a coke addiction, including the author. Ironically I never had a coke addiction, although I was addicted to fruit juice/fruity drinks and fruit in general, and it contributed to my obesity. Either way we see "addiction" to a type of engineered food not necessarily producing or correlating with obesity.

Obesity is not an addiction and this idea is truly hurting obese people, people with metabolic and endocrine disorders which I do assure you are REAL.

Unknown said...

Stephan and Gunther sure are a lot alike. Obviously they both have anger issues, but have you noticed the other similarity?

Gunther:

One Day: Meat is bad! Fat is bad! Cholesterol is bad! Veganism is great! Hey check out these awesome Primitive Nutrition videos!! Don Matesz is the bestest!

Next Day: I'm not saying I'm a vegan!

One Day: Cholesterol causes heart disease. The evidence is completely and totally overwhelming. Can't you see that? Why can't you be objective?

Next Day: I'm not saying you're wrong when you say that cholesterol doesn't cause heart disease!

Stephan:

One Day - If anything, insulin constrains food intake and body fatness. This effect [of insulin] appears to be a heightening of satiety rather than an induction of illness. Experiments in which investigators feed volunteers protein foods that stimulate insulin to different degrees show that the amount of satiety is positively correlated with the degree of insulin release.

Next Day: I never said insulin was a satiety hormone!

Galina L. said...

Now I feel like a pig!I attacked Gunther when he merely was trying to protect the obesity researcher from fat-eating rascals. How could I miss that Gunther put all his links to vegans videos as a tool to support Stephan and in an attempt to stop all that bulling with talks about dangers of saturated fat. It is definitely something wrong today with my ability to read between lines.

xxxxxxxxxxxx said...

Nice tag-team psyops work. Do any contracting?

gunther gatherer said...

Yep Joe, true to cult protocol here, you managed to misread and get everything completely wrong. Color me unsurprised. And unoffended.

Galina, your insults would have more impact if your English made more sense. Stick to describing your husband's weight over the last 40 years or something like that.

Gadfly said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Gadfly said...

"My feeling about fasting is that if you have to do it to maintain weight or health, your diet doesn't really work"

Yeah, it's nice to have feelings, but facts are better - or so you keep telling us.

1. The historical evidence is that "lunch" as a full meal is a relatively recent invention, at least in North America. "Lunch" until as recently as the 19th C literally meant something like "as much food as you can hold in your hand". Lunch was a snack. A small dose of food that •might• be eaten between two larger meals consumed in the morning and in the EARLY evening. The change seems to have been due to the shift to urban living and industrial days when people couldn't go home for their second meal until later in the evening than they would have eaten had they been living an agrarian lifestyle.

2. The anecdotal. I happened to be a curious child and once asked by great grandma about what they used to eat on the family homestead. I asked my grandma and my mother the same question. They all recall eating a big meal in the morning (sometimes after early morning work was complete) and another large one in the early evening. Now and again a third meal might have been taken in the middle of the day, but often this was a small snack, even taken in the fields if there was a lot of work to be done.

The obvious net result is that for long periods of 8 hours or more, food wasn't consumed. If the final meal was consumed around 3-4 o'clock - which wouldn't be uncommon, especially in the winter when the days are short -- there is a period of approx. 12 hours before a morning meal might be consumed, even though, as I said, work was often done before breakfast. Add in what we would call "caloric restriction" and what they called "eating less than we do now" and you have all the hallmarks of IF.

Sorry Gunther, I hope I haven't hurt your feelings.

Anonymous said...

Careful now, Gadfly. Your factual knowledge, impeccable logic and high IQ may be perceived as a physical threat around here by those with fragile egos and apparently non-existent coping skills.

Anon said...

Help! He blinded me with science!

Help! Help!

xxxxxxxxxxxx said...

Gadfly,,,,you're scaring the children!

Anonymous said...

Woo, I hate to pile more pressure on poor Dr. Guyenet here, but I thought I'd back up what you're saying about obesity not being food addiction by some appeals to authority in proper/true academic fashion. Dr. Guyenet tells his loyal WHS readers (gonad-polishers) that the food reward hypothesis is emerging as the scientific consensus on the matter of obesity and that anyone who challanges it is a Gary Taubes fellating, insulin-deficient idiot.

Really?

First, the vast majority of overweight individuals have not shown a convincing behavioural or neurobiological profile that resembles addiction. Indeed, the enormous inconsistency emerging from a review of the neuroimaging literature tells us that in this highly heterogenous disorder, the application of a single model is likely to be more of a hindrance than a help to future research. Second, even when we refine the phenotype to characterize individuals who show obesity caused by BED [op-ed: binge-eating disorder], the evidence for an overlap with addiction is inconsistent and weak. Third, given the absence of good evidence, the ubiquitous influence of the addiction model of overeating and consequent obesity is remarkable. Now is a good time to question it and to acknowledge that adherence to it in the face of data that do not fit will lead to research that is too narrowly focused and, ultimately, misleading. Given the attention that is rightly paid to potential insights offered by neuroscience, there is an associated danger that clinical and policy recommendations will be misguided.

Whence cometh this damning condemnation of Dr. Guyenet's ideas? Is it from some secret area of Hyperlipid that only true believers have access to for just £12.99 per month? Or perhaps I am quoting from my dog-eared copy of Good Calories, Bad Calories, Chapter 4, Verse 3?

NEWP! It's from a review paper in this year's Nature Reviews Neuroscience (impact factor 30).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22414944

I would encourage all WHS followers to read this paper carefully. If full text isn't available freely, I am happy to send you the paper if you email me.

So. As we knuckle-headed true believers sit here worshipping Hyperlipid's cult, Real Scientists are out there disagreeing with Dr. Guyenet's vehement assertions and publishing their thoughts on the matter in the kinds of journals Dr. Guyenet will never in a million years see his name inside of. (Also note that these guys are from Cambridge which Jane can tell you is a fine institution and a far better one than Guyenet's Dimestore U so what they're saying MUST be true.)

Anonymous said...

I've naturally slid into IF on LCHF. It's very liberating. If I ate more than one meal a day now, I'd be eating when I'm not hungry. Why would I want to do that?

ItsTheWooo said...

@Gunther

Here's a tip, when you are going to be sarcastic/mocking on the internet, its typically wise to have a sense of humor. Everything you write comes across as seething and furious, which of course makes you look like you've got issues. No one should ever become furious over an internet discussion, right? And if they ARE furious, they ought to leave and calm down.

I would also point out what a hypocrite you are, and how utterly disrespectful you have been to Peter's blog. If this were Guyenets echo chamber, it would be curtsies and bows, wouldn't it?

gunther gatherer said...

Gadfly,

I clearly said it was my personal feeling about fasting. I never claimed it was fact. If you have factual information that supports the benefits of fasting for weight loss and general health, then I have no problem with that.

I also think diets have to work long-term, so for me, hunger doesn't work well.

Why would my feelings be hurt? Why are you all so defensive?

gunther gatherer said...

Woo, can we even count the times you've unloaded your long, illegible and repeated rants on other people's blogs, including Stephan's? We've all been scrolling over your pages of nonsensical, all-caps hysteria for years. You have some nerve telling others about how to respect someone else's blog.

You are absolutely obsessed with Stephan and how wrong you claim him to be. If anyone is furious, it is you. But of course, if anyone agrees with your insulin hypothesis, you lick their ass all up and down.

Now shouldn't you be throwing up somewhere?

Anon said...

You're not smart, Gunther. You're just witless and repulsive.

Please go back where you belong: WHS.

Peter said...

Wow. Hi All.

It's school holidays and I'm primary child care so there's not a lot of free time to read the comments. I have the choice of going and chopping some wood or checking the blog. Today the blog won, it's mild here.

Fascinating.

My main comment is that most of my publications were in non pubmed listed anaesthesia journals. A lot of Dobromylskyj stuff is my wife (she's averaging a paper a year, internship residency or PhD) or textbook chapters to which I was only the first alphabetical contributor. I did quite a lot of stuff in the 1990s.

If Dr G didn't dig his holes so well I would rather be back on the Protons thread. Always.

Peter

gunther gatherer said...

Anon, gee thanks for popping in just to lengthen this thread even more, well after this conversation was over.

And who are you? Peter's guard dog? Once again, defensive to the hilt.

FrankG said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
FrankG said...

Not Vegan but will Vulcan do..?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFods1KSWsQ

---

Wasn't there some advice along the lines of "if you find yourself at the bottom of an hole, stop digging"..? I guess Stephan didn't get that memo

I for one, am looking forward to getting back to some decent scientific discussion.

ItsTheWooo said...

Gunther, as anon has succintly stated, you are not smart, and you are quite repulsive.

Can you PLEASE go back to WHS and talk about licking ass there? You ugly, repulsive troll?

There is a difference between my comments and yours... I'm at least typically witty, whereas you are dull, crude and inappropriately enraged.

Has even ONE person given you positive feedback for your comments or blogging? I can't imagine it, everything you type is a question, often an obvious question... but still you persist. Even when you were a low carber you were hard to tolerate, now that your fond of vegan propaganda you're just a total irritation to the senses.

gunther gatherer said...

"I'm at least typically witty"

We can now add delusional to your bipolarism, obsessive-compulsive and eating disorders. Yep, you're doing just greeeaat...

Anon said...

And yet more trolling from stupid Gunther.

It makes sense that you're a Guyenet/Carbsane suckup.

gunther gatherer said...

Anon, and you've said nothing this whole thread except for insults well after the conversation was over. Yet I'm the troll. How cute.

Scroll back and check. This degenerated into insults because people here got defensive that someone doesn't agree with them.

Galina L. said...

@Gadfy,
As Craig said, for people eating LCHF IF comes naturally, by it is hardly the case for low fat vegans. Gunther feels IF is wrong because he must eat imitating his favorite diet model a horse(I remember he brought the horse example up on a WHS as a prof for such scientific fact that eating mostly veggies was healthy for humans ).
I hope this time Gunther will keep his promise to scroll all my comments, so his feelings will not be hurt.

gunther gatherer said...

"Gunther feels IF is wrong"

I guess... you just, like, can't read then? I just said, right above, my feelings on IF. And that I was open to new proven info on it.

Were you not able get that far into my 5-line comment? Why are you yapping here if you don't even bother to read first? I guess I don't have to ask...

Anon said...

Of course you're the troll, Gunther. You're the vegan Guyenet supporter who came here to disrupt a blog you don't agree with.

Anon said...

You're not open to anything, Gunther. Stop your moronic posing.

BTW, Gunther, your master has fled.

gunther gatherer said...

Anon, I say you're the troll. You took part in zero discussion previously and now you're just here as a muckracker. How about you put some clothes on and turn off Mommy's computer before she gets home?

Jane said...

'..Seeing Jane enter the fray makes me happy she stopped posting here. This poor crackpot, and the restraint one must employ not to tell her like it is because it's just mean to be rude to psychotic old ladies. ..'

--Wooo's blog

Anon said...

Gunther, you really are a dimwit.

And what's your point, Jane? Woo's right about you. Your manganese obsession is pretty damn nutty.

gunther gatherer said...

Jane, I guess Woo shouldn't be lecturing others on being "dull, crude and inappropriately enraged".

Or maybe her meds make her forget her own words.

bopes said...

Weren't there 260 comments at one point? Now it's at 233. Well, 234 after this. I guess.

gunther gatherer said...

Yep, nailed you Anon. You're a 12 year old staying home sick from school. Are the parental controls at home keeping you from the girly sites?

Get some rest and maybe think up a more inventive name for when you return in another post to cause trouble.

ItsTheWooo said...

@Sidereal I do agree Gadfly is practically menacing, like a vicious pitbull, at this point.


That paragraph pretty much invalidates every article on the WHS, unfortunately (and, much of Stephans IRL career :( :( :( )

But gunther still worships him, so its not a loss amirite?

That's one of the more entertaining facts of the Guyenet...how arrogant he is. How he sneers and ridicules anyone who disagrees with him as being some kind of outdated crank, utterly unscientific, because surely teh matter is settled except for the few fringe hangers on?

In reality, outside of his echochamber obesity is (rightfully) far from settled, and the hedonism/addiction hypothesis may be GODSWORD amongst his best friends at paleo dinners (like melissa mcewen, kurt harris, so on) but not among researchers.

gunther gatherer said...

"but not among researchers."

That's funny. Because Stephan actually IS a researcher. You are a little nutjob with a hysterical blog that rants about people who don't agree with you.

Is there any wonder rational people side with people like Stephan?

xxxxxxxxxxxx said...

Someone spends four days on a blog he doesnt support spewing bile and put downs like a five year old and has the idiocy to call Wooo hysterical. You should be embarrassed by your incessant need to show everyone reading on here what an empty, vapid , boring life you lead that you've decided to spend four days and nights making an abject fool of yourself. ****** it looks like SG and GG need medical attension. *****come on,,,big man, hit me with last word, show everyone what a fucking retard you are.

gunther gatherer said...

XXX, it wasn't 4 days. It started yesterday. Facts anyone?

xxxxxxxxxxxx said...

I suppose the nonstop flow of piosonous bullshit sure makes it feel like days. So what do you hope to accomplish here GG? just put readers down until we all just give and stop reading? What illusion are you cooking up in that beefy brain of tours?

xxxxxxxxxxxx said...

I suppose the nonstop flow of piosonous bullshit sure makes it feel like days. So what do you hope to accomplish here GG? just put readers down until we all just give and stop reading? What illusion are you cooking up in that beefy brain of yours. Flogging blogs with hate and derision does nothing but hurt both your cause and your buddy SG.

gunther gatherer said...

XXX, like all defensive babies, you conveniently forget how this started: I disagreed and you all tried to punish me for it.

After that, every time I was asked a legit question I answered it without sarcasm. Nothing poisonous about it.

Be brave and look closely: the poison is coming from the brainwashed here.

xxxxxxxxxxxx said...

Ill ask again what are you trying to accomplish here?? You say SG and his readers are reasonable so why arent you behaving reasonablly instead of hanging out here trying to humiliate Peter and his readers? Explain to us how thats the behavior of a reasonable,,mature man?

ItsTheWooo said...

I just want to say gunther gatherer is a vile person. I can be a snarky sarcastic bitch but the level of repulsive abuse this guy is spewing is really over the line. For example, as far as he knows, I am severely mentally ill, and he is using that to insult me. He literally thinks I take medicine and have a psychotic disorder and he is insulting me for that.

It's obvious that gunther gatherer was that anon on FTA a few weeks ago because they post in exactly the same way, and say the same things. Admit it gunther: you were the vegan anon on FTA a few weeks ago who was calling me a bipolar anorexic/bulimic , right?

None of these things are true, I am not psychotic, I dont' take medicine, I dont have bulimia/anorexia but the point is he really THINKS I do, and he is actually being this cruel and slamming me with insults for mental health disabilities.

He feels justified in this, because I said guyenets ideas were stupid, and I said he is a geek a few times maybe.


Gunther gatherer is not only an uncreative, stupid individual but he is clearly incredibly cruel...apparently he thinks it's fine to anonymously (and openly) stalk/harrass someone on various blogs and abuse them for a mental health disability.

We can all see gunther gatherer is too dim witted to have his own blog, not that anyone would ever care to read what this uncreative moron has to say, but there is no possibility one can read about any of his private issues, exaggerate them inappropriately, and pretty much abuse someone for several days because of them.

I want to reiterate, this is really a reflection of the kind of horrible human being gunther gatherer is...that he would equate me mocking a person's idea, sarcastically, to his (weak, pathetic ) attempt to completely trying to destroy a person's spirit by ridiculing them for mental health disabilities. As far as he knows, everything he says is true.

Gunther, tell us about how an all plant diet makes you feel healthy. You were doing it as that anon on FTA (what was your throwaway monkier again? NiceOneRichard?)

From our vantage point, you are a disinhibited furious maniac who desperately needs a long acting shot of something. You strike me as the kind of person who can be laughing one minute and then the next minute, inappropriate violent rage. The A to Z of your posting tone and behavior is pure violence and aggression here, but you are all on your knees kissing the ring bows and curtises at WHS. That's the stuff of a true psychopath.

Jane said...

Anon
My manganese 'obsession' does not make me psychotic. If you don't want to read what I write about it, don't. It's the result of many years of hard work, which was necessary because manganese does a lot of different things and the literature on it is very confusing. Are you suggesting I should not have done this work?

xxxxxxxxxxxx said...

Well Wooo, at least you and Peter can take idiotic attacks on the chin like a grown man and woman should and not fly into fits of dreary self pity and outward displays of tantrem acting out. No delusions about critism being violence or disagreements being forbidden except of course to those who happen to agree with. You realize the internet is not the real world too,and putting yourself out here means taking knocks , lots of knocks sometimes,,,with no passive agressive bitch whining to try and get everyone to feel sorry for you ,,,tough cookies you and Peter!

gunther gatherer said...

Woo, now there there girl. Nope, you're not mentally deranged at all...

Did you see the rant your just wrote above, simply because I don't agree with your dumb insulin hypothesis? Do you even see yourself? How you take everything personally?

I've identified yet another disorder you have: borderline personality. Your "splitting" shows it clearly. You also lie incessantly, which is part of the disorder.

http://www.bipolarworld.net/Phelps/ph_2007/ph1582.htm

Stephan is quite right to worry about his physical safety then. He was talking about you, Woo.

Anyone who wants to check what you said about yourself can go over and have a look at your blog. I don't need to cut and paste your relentless obsession with Stephan here.

You conveniently forget EVERYTHING you write. That is not a good sign of your mental state.

Stephan's right to be scared of you.

Galina L. said...

@xxxxxxx,
I answer to xxxxxx because I keep having a hope that Gunther will finally start scrolling through my comments.

Just for heck of it I've checked Gunther's facts. Besides being sure that horses and humans have identical digestive systems, he also is unable to count, he started his presence here not yesterday, but January 1. After commenting here first time he was congratulated promptly with a New Year, and today is January the fourth.

xxxxxxxxxxxx said...

You are a moron Gunther. But maybe youll go to sleep tonight with a happy heart knowing youve been able to harrass, insult and basically stalk Peters blog like a good little net body guard that you hallucinate yourself to be. SGs theories are wrong and we will never stop calling it out, his and many others work needs to be critiqed and called out. The blog stalking isnt going to work, sorry.

xxxxxxxxxxxx said...

Galinda , you're a sweetheart, and so sorry the insults and outbursts you've had to indure here. You are a lady and should be spoken to in an adult manner.

gunther gatherer said...

Galina, I never said horses and humans have identical digestive tracts. I was wondering aloud in that discussion if there was something in their digestive tract that made horses very muscular and if it could be applied to humans.

As for this post, just because my first comment was on the 1st doesn't mean I was constantly on it for 4 days. Were you?? That's sad then. This back and forth part of the discussion only started yesterday for me.

And anyway, what is your point, Galina? That you've got nothing better to do that lengthen this already long thread? Why don't you tend to your husband? He needs LC, doesn't he?

Anonymous said...

Gunther, I think your diagnostic and risk assessment skills are a tad lacking. I would not recommend pursuing psych as a career or even as a hobby.

gunther gatherer said...

"Galinda , you're a sweetheart"

She's married XXX, or didn't you know by now? Trying some LC dating are you?

Your insults are funny. Actually it gives me a happy heart to know that you're actually fuming with anger simple because I don't agree with you. Proves my point that your diet isn't working for you.

gunther gatherer said...

Sidereal, and nutritional science and human biology you should maybe steer clear from yourself.

Anonymous said...

Also, Gunther, you appear to be unduly concerned with the length of this thread. You have expressed anxieties about this lengthening thread at least 10 times by now I would guess. It's not your blog and I don't see Peter objecting to our discussions so what's the problem?

I'm usually the last person in the world to offer a Freudian interpretation but...

xxxxxxxxxxxx said...

I think we should let GGs last gems of wisdom and charm stand right there were they are as a testament to his character. I rest my case. Once again Peter sorry for feeding the trolls!


Run up and grab the last word beef cake!

gunther gatherer said...

Funny you should lengthen the thread with that Sidereal. I'm just saying this is only going on because people are coming on with one-liner insults addressed at me. Not that interesting to either Peter or readers, I should think.

Galina L. said...

My point, Gunther, is that you blame others for sins you are guilty of himself . You don't read well, or you will notice I am the only LCarber in my family, you bent facts the way it is comfortable for you, otherwise you will not say you started your endless bickering just yesterday, you blame others for unnecessary lengthening comments thread, while bullshitting like no one else. Do you own a mirror? Plus, you feel like you can give others orders what to do. Do you suffer from a Mania grandiose? BTW, I am still waiting when you stop reading my comments, are you abscessed with reading what meat eaters have to say while eating like your role model horse himself?

Anonymous said...

You'll note, Gunther, that I have not hurled any insults at you in any way until I mildly chided you for what you posted about Woo which was a vicious ad hominem (and incorrect).

gunther gatherer said...

Hey you know what? I agree this discussion is getting out of hand now.

And I don't want to be looking over my shoulder like Stephan some day.

If my presence here is so distracting for certain obsessive types that it keeps this blog from constructive discussion, then the best thing for me to do is go away.

XXX, Woo, Sidereal, Anon, feel free to get your last digs in now. Only you'll be reading it anyway. Toodles.

LeonRover said...

Oh, Dears.

"This is the way the world ends, this is the way the world ends . . "

No mutual bangs, only opposed whimperings.

Anonymous said...

Angry Gunther just can't stop responding. He seems to have "Have to get the last word or else!!!" disorder. So adorable!

Not that you'd expect anything else from a guy who refuses to take a position on anything and spends his nights watching crappy sitcoms. :-)

LeenaS said...

Dear all, this has become a most entertaining thread after all.

It seems that with a friend like our most honorable Gunther, Dr. Stephen really needs no enimies at all.

I would not be one of those even without GG. However, I've regained my personal healh only via the Kwasniewskian way of eating. Seventh year of this toxic but oh so rewarding way of eating started last fall.

Please, continue by all means o/

With regards,
LeenaS

Simon Carter said...

Peter, keep calm and carry on! :)
Dr. Guyenet, chill out dude! You have certainly convinced me that you are not stupid, and I think you will be fine as long as you avoid contact with vets, nurses and science journalists.
Gunther, I am thrilled that your conversion to veganism is working out so well for you. Check out David Duke's blog, there is a fantastic opportunity for you to spread the TRUTH there.
Jane, I think this entire conversation clearly proves your point about manganese deficiency.

Jimmy Gee said...

@Peter

Great work on your site. You have an amazing ability to dissect studies and expose dubious conclusions. I particularly like the way you can juxtapose experimental data against the real world. Your common sense is always refreshing to read.

Anonymous said...

Hi Woo, Thank you and a Happy New Year to you and everyone else too :))
I finally found time to pop over to your wonderfully informative and entertaining blog, nice one!

If you have encountered similar prejudices as I with the medical profession, I feel you are being very restrained indeed.
Dr.G must be a little unstable if he thinks you would like to stab him!
In fact if someone accused me of something similar, I may have them up in court.

You are after all, only trying to educate him, no fault on your part that you are a bit bouncy!
I do hope he has gone for a quiet lie down, it seemed he was becoming a little irrational, not too good for a scientist I would have thought!

Good thing I'm no longer obese and don't have to deal with these arrogant idiotic prats anymore.
It is highly likely I would wallop (over here that means a clip around the ear like they used to give naughty boys, not stabbing, just to be clear for the terminally paranoid) the next fool who accused me of being a lying, gluttonous sloth.

This blog confirms my direct experience over decades. I do not follow Guru's any more than the word means teacher and I am always happy to learn
It also explains, much better than I ever could, what I have been attempting to communicate to Dr.'s throughout my life.

Due to the dangerous paradigms maintained by people such as Dr.G, I have been insulted, abused and almost killed because of the closed minds created by their bigoted zealotry.

Saw this yesterday, a direct consequence of the wrong thinking exhibited by Dr.G and his colleagues.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/jan/03/obesity-benefits-cuts?CMP=twt_gu

I have some experience of weight gain and loss!
Gained and lost at least 5 times, on a conservative estimate, of my current body weight over decades of Insulin running riot.
Up very fast, down slow and hard work, stable for years with extreme effort, rinse and repeat.
Life was hell, constant pain and exhaustion. Even at BMI 25, stable for 10 years, there was extensive Arcanthosis Nigricans.
I often had the deep, cold black hole of Starvation in my belly.
Intellectually knowing I had eaten, I could see the empty plate and feel my physically full stomach from the outside, but everything in my body screamed STARVING.
Try and resist that DR.G! Pity your mice can't talk, you don't seem to listen to humans. It's not greed it is Starvation.

After many years of very hungry, hard work following the low fat - high carb, high exercise health advice.
Whilst being in constant pain and many more irritations. I'm so lazy and slothful you know.
Resisting as best I could the "Starvation" as it periodically became intense, apparently out of nowhere.
Result, total physical breakdown of unexplained origin!

Anonymous said...

Cont. if you all don't mind too much?

I arrived at this blog by good fortune, when desperately looking for a way to get calories into my body without vomiting.
All food made me ill, my diet had now consisted of a small bowl of oat porridge once a day and weak tea with a dab of honey for around 3 months. Losing weight, but not much considering the presumed calorie deficit and the continued vomiting!

I had nothing to left to lose and no expectations. I just wanted some food.
By this time any food was acceptable to me if my body could keep it inside!

Peter said saturated fat? Heresy, help!
But when I read the blog, he is describing how my body reacts.
Voraciously, I devour the knowledge, gluttonously I digest.

Cream, in creamy milky coffee, lots of cream in creamy milky coffee, cheese, butter on cheese, steak fried in butter, egg yolks none of these made me ill!
Woops, I'm losing weight! Didn't expect that, check calories in coffee, nearly 400 ok, eating more calories than ever before.
Losing weight, central body fat dissolving, no "Starvation", not even hunger!

One year into my hedonistic enjoyment of saturated fat, all central body fat gone.
Pain and other effects almost entirely gone.
There is no sign at all of the "Starvation" cycle starting and I find myself not eating, because I'm not hungry, wonderful.

Along with my vastly improved general health, the big surprise has been the regenerative effect on my skin, scars from childhood and other blemishes are slowly disappearing, and skin feels more healthy and youthful.

Friends are amazed and impressed by the improvement in my appearance and demeanour.
No carb? But, what do you eat? Butter, Cream, Cheese, Fat Meat was as far as I got!
Wow, you get to eat all the good stuff!!! I do. I enjoy eating more than ever before, I just eat, fat with a bit on the side!
I'm a total hedonist in the morning, my enjoyment is palpable.
We all know how they would react if I told them I was eating crisp bread and cottage cheese lol!

To summarise, my long experience suggests that:

Food reward and satiety on a high carb /low fat diet is low.
Stored central body fat is very difficult to normalise and has a tendency to increase over time.
Stomach is deeply depressed.
Mood and cognition are impaired.

Food reward and satiety on a high fat /low carb diet is excellent.
Stored central body fat normalises without effort .
Stomach is happy and content.
Mood and cognition improve.

Too much Insulin makes you hungry, cold, exhausted, fat and grumpy with Dr.s, or anyone else who calls you a lying, gluttonous sloth!

A long post, sorry, but it should soon disappear on this thread, thanks for the inspiration.

Thanks Peter and everyone here, for generously sharing the knowledge that has helped save my life and gives me joy in food each day.
My health and energy feel now as if they surpass my 10 years old self.
It can't get better than that, can it?

D1S said...

you need to have your diet locked down in order to fast with no hunger: 23 hrs of -no food- and 1 hr eating window 24 x 7. 8 years now. that's me. but im no vegan, in fact i hate veggies since i was a child... but i don't hate trolls they make me laugh!

Gadfly said...

Gunther:

"Why would my feelings be hurt? Why are you all so defensive?"

It was a pun on your statement that I quoted. Nothing more, nothing less.

Gadfly said...

Sidereal:

Re: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22414944


OH NO YOU D'INT!!!

D1S said...

edit. ups! been doing it since -2003- !!! but then i used to fast 2 times a week (all i could do eating pizza lol) not recommended!

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said...

LeonRover,
this has been the dead land for hollow men...but you know, "the eyes are not here".

Ilaine Upton said...

I would like to say that I have no idea what you guys are arguing about, but, even if I did, it would not change (much) what I am eating because it works for me. I have Type 2 diabetes, eating very low carb, high fat, intermittent fasting, normalized blood sugar for now.

I know I am too fat because I ate too much, a lot of very "healthy" organically grown, non-GMO whole grain carbs, all natural from Whole Foods, but lethal for me, and those days are done. Period.

I hypothesize that I have Type 2 diabetes because I am fat, and somewhere in there is insulin resistance. Probably born with it, and broke myself worse over time. French fries, cheeseburgers, Coca Cola, all that.

Now I eat high fat low carb and take metformin and Byetta and am now keeping my blood sugar and A1c in a normal range without insulin, with the above.

Why read Peter? Trying to figure out which fatty acids to eat. Why read Stephan? Beats the hell out of me . . . .

LeonRover said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ilaine Upton said...

Dr. Guyanet, if you have a better answer for me than low carb, high fat, metformin, Byetta, what is it?

LeonRover said...

Curious & curiouser,
Je suis .... jaune,

multifoliate rose,

A penny for the Old Guy.

Nick said...

@SG

"As Melissa McEwen said recently, "Sometimes it’s hard to tell if Peter is serious or just trolling". So yes, I was angry, and Peter got what he had coming for a long time."

Stephen, the people you are afraid of, if they exist, would likely utter just what you said above.

Nick said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
marie said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said...

Non, Jeune - en esprit :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMD2TwRvuoU
- for the sleepy Irlandais, lips being a penny.

Exceptionally Brash said...

Ilaine, this is basically an argument between two theories. One is that we are fat because we eat too much tasty food. The other is that we get fat because eating too many carbs leads to high insulin which leads to obesity and diabetes. Dr. G believes that certain foods prepared in certain ways and in certain combinations lights up our brain and causes us to want to eat more. If we do, we'll get fat. His recommendations to stop that include eating gently-cooked, bland food, unbuttered potatoes, no processed foods, and at the extreme end, no salt, seasonings or other things that make our food taste good, like grilling. Dr. D on the other hand, believes that we would do better to not eat carbs, which keep insulin levels low and seem to, for most anyway, keep us satiated despite how tasty the food is. Both would probably say no to a sugary donut. But, when faced with a buttered potato topped with sour cream, Dr. G would eat the potato, and Dr. D would eat the toppings, so they are just like Jack Sprat and his wife in this respect.

Exceptionally Brash said...

Woo is the most passionate blogger who disagrees with Dr. G. She was morbidly obese due to a leptin disorder. She was in a leptin clinical trial, and has lost tons of weight. She now keeps thin on a low carb diet.
Dr. G, OTOH, believes that people are fat because they eat the wrong kinds of food in the wrong ways. He believes that the dominant reason people don't lose weight on a tasteless relatively low-fat diet is because they are either still eating too much or that they are lying about how much they actually eat.
Many posters here who have been so vocal have a story similar to yours or Woo, and they appreciate the time that Dr. D has taken here to argue against Dr. G's theories.

ItsTheWooo said...

@ EB technically I was morbidly obese because of a insulin regulation disorder, although being very thin now I am leptin insufficient (and morbid obesity is not entirely correctable with diet alone, for the same reason burn trauma is not correctable by putting out the fire). I have discovered leptin therapy allows a morbidly obese person to maintain virtually any body fat level w/o any slowing of metabolism or arrest of endocrine system, but I do not think I have a leptin disorder other than that which is secondary to adipocyte hyperplasia / hypotrophy of adipocytes now, from years and years of hyperinsulinemia.


I was a shining star in the leptin trial, though. I"m patient K!

They were gonna throw mah ass OUT because my metabolism was so fast and I kept losing weight. Just goes to show how powerful a VLC is, as most everyone else eating "normally" barely responded ins pite of the fact they had no history of morbid obesity. OTOH, once I had adequate leptin my VLC diet was producing rapid weight loss (as it should for any non-dieted normal person). also 4 years of hypothalamic amenorrhea terminated in 3 months of leptin therapy.

Also, every endocrine axis showed a trend to normalization. My bone density normalized.


What I know about obesity and the endocrine system is sadly vastly more useful than Dr G, unfortunately.

(PS I've been able to elicit these changes of leptin therapy, by having skin/adipocyte removal surgieries + regaining body fat. Distributing body fat among dramatically fewer adipocytes seems to have corrected the bulk of the endocrine disorders induced by weight loss, i.e. my leptin levels now are probably a whole lot more normal. However, I don't enjoy the total well being and "feeling like a normal weight person" that I was able to enjoy the few years I took a leptin injection and if it were possible to take this therapy now I would not hesitate to do so. I've avoided going to more reserach trials because I know they will only end, and I am concerned about messing up my leptin dynamics permanently w/o any understanding or medical support).


From my perspective, the certainty and arrogance Dr G has demonstrated is outright inexcusable, completely antithetical to any case of real obesity if he bothered to actually study that instead of his cherry picked knockout models.

Dr Johnson is a refreshing change of pace/insight, I only wish he had time to blog more.

LeonRover said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ItsTheWooo said...

@Illane Upton

Why that's silly: ELMM obviously.

We all know you only experience superior glycemia because the boring repetative nature of a LC allows you to eat less, i.e. the reward value your brain perceives is lower so you are not motivated to eat out of boredom.

Your blood sugar is then lower.

Insulin resistance is caused by being fat, which is caused by hedonism and eating for reasons other than hunger.

When a much more prolific research points out that knocking out an insulin gene prevents the development of obesity and hyperinsulinemia, and this warrents further investigation, I just stop responding to him because I can't possibly answer that and maintain my crusade. But, dont' forget, I'm open minded. I came to the conclusion that hedonism causes obesity, and insulin signalling has no role other than facilitative, via independent honest open minded research. which is exaclty why I ignore Dr Johnson when he points out his experiement casts serious doubt on my conception of the passive role of insulin signalling in the development of obesity.

Dr Johnson makes no definitive statements. He does not say a low carb diet prevents obesity, he says he doesn't know. He does not say it is impossible to gain body fat on a ketogenic diet, he says he doesn't know. He only says what he knows: in his experiment, being heterozygous for insulin gene and lower insulinemia seemed to prevent "diet induced obesity". He does not know if that is just isolated to this animal model, or that particular diet. Dr Johnson also agrees that there is a role for the brain perhaps consistent partially with Stephens ideas.

Notice the obvious lack of bias of Dr Johnson, compared to the obvious agenda of Stephen... who will outright RIDICULE any one presenting any idea but his hedonism concept, who IGNORES anyone presenting evidence insulin may be implicated in the development of obesity, etc.

Anonymous said...

If I had a horse I would call him Mr Sprinkles.

Dapko said...

Epic thread. The palpable paranoia of Dr. G...sprinkled with a bit of T.S. Eliot. Hyperlipid has never seen such unbridled drama.

LeonRover said...

Mmmm, Dapko, yes - Eliot 3-ice, Dylan Thomas 1-nce, Günter Grass 1-nce and Lewis Carroll 1-nce.

Maybe this can be opening thread in a series under the Imprint HyperLivid . . .

Ilaine Upton said...

Kinda wish I hadn't read the potato comments. My thin husband was eating a baked potato last night, and I begged a quarter of a potato off of him, with butter, and this morning fasting blood sugar 137!

I am sitting at the computer, drinking a cup of coffee with unsweetened almond milk, at it's now 152.

Yesterday, 101.

Just can't handle carbs.

How did I get here? Well, I did eat way too much tasty food. I am from New Orleans, where eating is a religion. Red beans and rice. Poor boys. French fries with gravy. Lot of fat diabetics in New Orleans. But I was born insulin resistant, as well. Born that way, made myself worse, got older, and here I am. It is what it is. Just gotta cope with it.

Peter works with sick animals, he sees what works in real life. You can feed exactly the same boring diet to all of your pets, and some will get fat and some won't.

Ilaine Upton said...

Still in ketosis, even with elevated blood sugar. Ketostik bright pink.

My metabolism baffles me.

There cannot possibly be just one answer for everybody.

Stephen said...

Well. This was entertaining.

Stephen said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
gallier2 said...

Oh, Stephan has a new entry up on his blog concerning this thread. Has anyone the inclination to decode it?
I'm a little worn out and have really difficulties to read his prose since the kerkuffle last year with Taubes, where he broke down like a little girl.

Unknown said...

I heard he hired armed guards to guard his house. You know, due to the threat of crazy Internet Paleo/LC enthusiasts who go to the houses of bloggers they don't like too harass and/or physically harm them.

Oh, what's that? There have been zero cases of such a thing occurring? Weird. Never mind. :-)

Unknown said...

gallier2, et tu? :)
This 'war of the roses' is just tiring. The two warring houses could be able to produce a tudor, which is healthy and strikingly beautiful in a Variety of soils, but not while they push so far apart.

LeonRover and Dapko, voilà! Epic continued... :)

Dapko said...

Oh my, I originally missed Gunther and his tin drum. Love the idea of HyperLivid. On the blog the women come and go talking of Michaelangelo. Do I dare to eat a potato?

Dapko said...

Whoops, Michelangelo!

LeonRover said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
LeonRover said...

By the Mass, Dapko, capped by an expert, Sir!

Paris is worth it.

Peachy & worthy of a place in the Epicerie.

Anonymous said...

I would brush him every day and tell him that I would never curry him with fresh roasted spices and mango chutney.no matter how fabulous his marbelling was from his veggie diet.

Grinch said...

"I don't get why we all have to take sides. We should read as much as we can from all sources, I think."

Because the low carb community has become cult-like. Question their beliefs for a second and you are tar and feathered.

"The conflict started when I supported Stephan. How could I let a contributing researcher and all around helpful guy get bullied by you punks. :-)"

This bullying of people who are skeptical of the CIH certainly doesn't stop here. That's why the LC community has really become a big joke to me.

Dapko said...

I do not like thee Dr. G

The answer why I cannot free

But this I know for all to see

I do not like thee Dr. G

LeonRover said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
LeonRover said...



"There once was a Cannibal
who now & then,
Much against th'advice of
his Physician,
Absorbed the deadliest Poison known to Man,
And died of Dietician."

Peter said...

Dear all,

I have to say I had no idea that Dr Guyenet is as unwell as his comment here implies:

"I am literally concerned that someone is going to try to stick a knife in my back at AHS while in a Hyperlipid- or "Woo"-fueled rage. It won't be Peter (might be Woo though), but as I said there are a lot of disturbed people out there." Dr S Guyenet.

Could I ask PLEASE, no physically attacks, on ANYONE. Certainly gives plenty of food for thought as to Dr Guyenet's state of mind.

Perhaps I should leave him alone about insulin and let folks enjoy their potatoes in peace.

However, we do have some sort of consensus:

If you consider myself to be non biased, you are insane (and haven't read much of the blog).

Obviously there are a number of technical inaccuracies in Hyperlipid. There are a few more that Dr G has not pointed out yet, but there is a lot of content to go through.

No guru is a good idea.

Look at the data.

Check the renal glycosuric threshold of rats before taking the piss.

Many thanks to those who have contributed and especially Stipetic about Look Ahead.

Peter

BTW I still think the technical discussions on LIRKO mice are potentially fascinating, especially adipose tissue function under these condition, and (separately) the role of insulin from plasma vs neurally secreted insulin would bear a lot of thinking about.

But ultimately we can ask: Is it time to rewrite the textbooks on obesity?

From my point of view: It's way overdue.

LA_Bob said...

"I have to say I had no idea that Dr Guyenet is as unwell as his comment here implies:"

The hint was his accusation that you had censored his reply to this post. Not that one could extrapolate from that to a knife in the back. But it was the first time I realized he could be "thin-skinned."

"Could I ask PLEASE, no physically attacks, on ANYONE."

Shouldn't even have to ask, but probably a good idea under the circumstances.

"Perhaps I should leave him alone about insulin and let folks enjoy their potatoes in peace."

It's the sarcasm that got him, I think. He cannot distinguish between ridicule and "angry flailing." I've seen you quite gracious in disagreement. For example, in the post referenced above, you wrote:

"Obviously, I disagree with Stephan's appraisal. That's fine, to disagree is perfectly OK. We'd get nowhere if we all sang from the same hymn sheet."

Other than leaving Stephan alone, don't change a thing. Guru or not, your readers, lay and otherwise, appreciate your approach -- along with the sarcasm -- to citation and analysis.

Anon said...

It was clear that he was thin-skinned. Spending two years pushing an oddball theory in response to a single chastising comment by Gary Taubes is so thin-skinned as to indicate possible mental illness.

FrankG said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
FrankG said...

It is your blog of course Peter and I appreciate your critique of these studies but I see no reason to lay off Guyenet. So far as I can tell, despite his apparent melt-down here, he has just resumed business as usual over at WHS... I guess he cares more about being a big wig on the internet than he does about his loved one's safety?

I no longer read his blog but I do on occasion check out the comments to see if there are still other free-thinking folks out there... and I am often rewarded to see that he does not always get it all his own way :-)

Just now I noticed this reply from SG himself, to a query as to why he bothers?

"Yes, sometimes I wonder why I spend time writing about it as well. I don't do it to convince the zealots, that's for sure. I do it to convince the people who are not already true believers, and particularly the researchers and clinicians who aren't very familiar with the field and may be vulnerable to misinformation."

I wonder if he even realises the alternate implication of what he wrote... He's got to get his hooks into those naive researchers and clinicians BEFORE they clue into the truth... while they are still vulnerable to his misinformation! LOL

Purposelessness said...

Hi Peter!

I enjoyed your proton series a lot (and I am enjoying PSS right now), and I find myself drawn back to mitochondrial superoxide production all the time - even if I continue my (only vaguely related) biochem learning or reading new papers.

I came across this just now:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1550413112004160

They damaged the mitochondria of the fat cells only, and interesting things happened. Fat cells stayed insulin sensitive. Complex 1, 3 and 4 activities were reduced and complex 2 + ATP synthase activities increased.
Oh and the mice were protected from research-diet-induced-obesity and fatty liver.

I'm sure that, in a few months when I finally wrapped my head around mitochondria, this will be quite interesting..

LeonRover said...

Thanks, PLN, I think you should delete 'less' and add 'ful' to your handle.

Any road, on a point of information - were the interesting things exhibited more strongly in BAT vs WAT for these meeces?
(I'm not prepared to pay for this walled-up paper.)

Purposelessness said...

Forgot the paywall, sorry. Here you go: http://ge.tt/2UZhrsU/v/0

LeonRover said...

Thanks, PLN.

Got the download.

Jane said...

Purposelessness
Interesting paper. As you said in a comment you addressed earlier to me - sorry I didn't reply - there's some exciting stuff coming out. I looked up irisin, by the way.

Have you read about the new satiety hormone uroguanylin? It mediates satiety (POMC neurons in the hypothalamus), 'food reward' (midbrain dopamine neurons), and possibly, browning of white fat, by activating the same pathway atrial natiuretic peptide does. Other interesting things too.

'Uroguanylin: a new gut-derived weapon against obesity?'
http://www.nature.com/nrendo/journal/v8/n1/pdf/nrendo.2011.206.pdf?WT.ec_id=NRENDO-201201

karl said...

RE: Adipose-Specific Deletion of TFAM Increases Mitochondrial Oxidation and Protects Mice against Obesity and Insulin Resistance

Any idea of what the actual diets are?

On the surface this is interesting - if we have insulin resistance and no weight gain - there must be increased metabolism - but why?

I am thinking that the mitochondria must be leaking ions across the membrane? This would increase metabolism and reduce the efficiency and generate heat.

Nick Lane talked about genetic differences of the amount of leakage depending on latitude - people near the equator leak more and have more ROS.




karl said...

RE: http://www.nature.com/nutd/journal/v1/n7/full/nutd20116a.html

Insulin detemir attenuates food intake, body weight gain and fat mass gain in diet-induced obese Sprague–Dawley rats

This is junk science once again - the control diet and the test diet are made by two different companies. The so-call high-fat diet contains a large does of sucrose - ( a dimer of glucose and fructose - there is no doubt that fructose has different effects than starch ).

I learned in grade school that a well designed experiment changes on variable at a time - this is not a well designed experiment. I would be reluctant to draw any conclusions from this at all as the authors don't appear to understand what constitutes real science (what other possible errors are there that we can't see?).


Purposelessness said...

@karl:

"Animals and Diets
aP2-Cre transgenic (Abel et al., 2001) and TFAM-floxed (TFAMf/f) mice (Larsson et al., 1998) have previously been described. All mice were housed in a mouse facility on a 12 h-light/dark cycle
in a 22ºC temperature-controlled room. Mice were maintained on a standard chow diet containing 22% of the calories from fat, 23% from protein and 55% from carbohydrates (Mouse Diet 9F 5020;
PharmaServ) or subjected to a high fat diet (HFD) containing 60% calories from fat, 20% from protein and 20% from carbohydrates (OpenSource Diet D12492, Research Diet) beginning at approximately 6 weeks of age as indicated. Animal care and study protocols were approved by the Animal Care Committee of Joslin Diabetes Center and were in accordance with the National Institutes of Health guidelines. "

karl said...

karl said:
"Nick Lane talked about genetic differences of the amount of leakage depending on latitude - people near the equator leak more and have more ROS."

I said that backwards - people near the equator leak less.

karl said...

@Purposelessness

These diet differences matter - if you dig up that actual diet, you will see that they consider sucrose = fat.

The fructose may well change the chain length produced via DNL - longer chains would likely effect mitochondria.

I'm looking, but not finding anything to help me figure out if anyone has looked at diet affecting chain length produced via DNL. Anyone have any possible links?

Purposelessness said...

I was not aware there were differences in DNL. I thought we mostly only generate 16:0, 16:1 and 18:1. I know if you go around knocking out all sorts of genes you can get mice to produce 14:1.

I took a quick look around and couldn't find much either. There is plenty stuff showing increased DNL with fructose feeding in rodents and humans, but nothing about chain length...

Well, there is EFA deficiency doing all sorts of interesting stuff to DNL, but thats hardly relevant to any of us..

Jane said...

Purposelessness
If you're not talking to me because you're embarrassed at what you said about me on Wooo's blog, don't worry. It isn't a problem.

karl said...

@Purposelessness

That DNL always stops at 16:0 is easy to assume, but I have doubts. If there are less raw materials I'm betting it stalls at lower lengths.

I'm also pretty sure that not every FA tied up in a trygly and dumped by the liver is 16:0.

What if fructose ( which we know kicks DNL into high gear ) pushes the average length to longer chains? Then if we count the protons we have a possible system to effect insulin sensitivity.

I wonder if someone here with access to better search tools than I have, might be able to find some papers that might illuminate this.

( BTW it is always fun to point out to lipo-phobes that our own bodies produce saturated fats from carbs )

Dan said...

People, the vitriol and commentary here is absolutely ridiculous. Can everyone take a step back and just focus on a civil debate over experiments, methodology, and interpretations of results without descending into insults.

Gadfly said...

Screw you, Dan.

Purposelessness said...

@Jane: I bet it isn't, that was the nicest thing of everything that was said over there ;)
No, it isn't that, just not much to say. Still reading about and digesting uroguanylin...

@karl: I don't know. Fatty acid synthesis takes place in the cytosol (in animal cells) and stops at palmitate, further elongation and desaturation takes place in the endoplasmatic reticulum. (and supposedly in mitochondria, but I don't know much about that(elongation, not desaturation))

You think it would be easy to find out what "homemade" triglycerides contain. I thought to remember that it contained mostly palmitate with some palmitoleic (sp?) and oleic acid thrown in for good measure... but I can't find anything to substantiate that. My biochemistry textbook doesn't say either.

Couldn't find much about fructose either. But I found out that fructoses "lipid-sparing" effect is probably greater than DNL with fructose carbons. Fructose is also metabolized to lact.ate quite a bit, no idea though if that is relevant.
OTOH, big boluses of fructose seem to induce postprandial lipemia to the same or bigger extant than pure fat feeding.. but what do I know.

(I'll post some references when I'm back at home)

Jane said...

Purposelessness
You mean you were trying to be nice after what Wooo said? Wow. What did you mean about reverse causation and iron? You know there is some very intriguing evidence suggesting obesity might be an iron-overload disease.

Anonymous said...

Hey, Peter, don't be so hard on Stephan. He's doing the best he can. Hehe.

It's possible that the idea that insulin is a satiety hormone comes in part from the evidence that diabetes type 1 includes polyphagia as one of the typical symptoms, which is alleviated once we inject insulin. Ergo, insulin causes satiety.

However, your point about physiological dose and drug dose is a propo. Since the same evidence for diabetes type 1 tells us physiological dose restores satiety, but drug dose causes excess fat accumulation therefore yet more polyphagia though with the causality arrow reversed since the polyphagia here is an obligatory consequence of the excess fat accumulation. First Law of Thermodynamics and all that. And then there's insulin-induced lipohypertrophy typical with diabetes type 1 (injecting insulin in the same spot for years), which can't be explained by satiety nor polyphagia.

Interestingly, this same evidence seems to refute the idea that hunger can be triggered by hypoglycemia alone, since another typical symptom of diabetes type 1 is hyperglycemia. Combine this with the effect of insulin on ketogenesis and lipolysis thereby reducing availability of these fuels, and it becomes very doubtful that hunger is triggered by hypoglycemia alone.

Finally, insulin is a growth hormone. It seems paradoxical that a growth hormone would cause satiety, when growth demands hyperphagia.

Right on, Peter.

SS Biker said...

@Martin Levac

"...and it becomes very doubtful that hunger is triggered by hypoglycemia alone."

Apologies for being anecdotal but I "accidentally" induced a hypoglycaemic state in myself through a protein defficient PSMF diet approach.

I had the whole gammutt of hypo-symptoms, but wasn't hungry. I was eating IF style (once/day) and (stupidly, I now know) allowed some alcohol post-prandially.

This was over a few weeks with symptoms all of the time - quite severe at times too - but no hunger. Anyway as soon as I got the protein no's dialled in all was good (I moved the meal to earlier in the day too so it was hours before any alcohol consumption).

One thing that puzzled me though, if I really was hypo for an extended time, why didn't muscle catabolism step in to fix it?

FrankG said...

"I had the whole gammutt of hypo-symptoms..."

What was your blood glucose (BG) throughout this time?

gallier2 said...

Woo once hypothesised about that and her idea was quite compelling. The trigger for hunger from hypo state is not from a constantly lowish hypoglycemia but is triggered by a rapid decline in blood glucose level. I found that idea really astute because it makes much more sense that way. A rapid decline of blood glucose must trigger some compensation mechanism as it is unclear at the moment it happens when the decline will stop. A constant low level on the other hand is not as critical a situation, as there are compensatory effect already active (FFA, ketones, lowered metabolism, whatever).
It's also more in line with every other sensorial system in living organisms, which are rather tuned to detect changes in the environment than measuring an absolute value (cones in the eye, olfaction, equilibrum centers).

FrankG said...

I can certainly attest from personal experience that a rapidly changing BG (in either direction) is an unpleasant feeling.

My own experience of acute hypoglycemia, while on fast-acting insulin: was not to the point of requiring emergency medical aid as some Type 1s I know have experienced but it was bad enough that I was losing motor control, I had increasing mental confusion, a cold sweat and an overriding primal hunger that I would say approached the need to breath after holding your breath for a long time. Not something I would ever want to repeat.

karl said...

@ FrankG

Interesting - I can imagine that it is the first derivative of BG rather than the level that triggers hunger. This might be why low-carb works.


Other biological systems work that way - our vision - we don't really see brightness - we see the difference in brightness between adjacent points ( this is why photographs look different than paintings - humans can't sense absolute brightness or color. )

Exceptionally Brash said...

@Karl, you beat me to it, but isn't it just when the first derivative is negative? Is anyone here really saying that when people have their BG shoot way up, that makes them want to eat?

karl said...

@Exceptionally Brash

Except I can think of an example where if fails to work - Low GI diets don't appear to work. But this might be due to a different effect.

If one eats complex-slow-digesting-carbs - Insulin is going to be up slightly all day - and during that time no net flux of FA can leave adipose tissue.

I'm thinking that the system where LC diets works is a bit more complex than normally understood - the rate-of-change of BG is lower - probably lowers hunger spikes and overeating, there is a reduction of DNL (which would reduce the average chain-length of trygly).

There is an adaption process to LC - one that takes 2-6 weeks. This may be changes in the liver, brain, adipose-tissue - I don't think we know.

It is clear that people can only lose weight when in ketosis ( most people enter ketosis every night as they sleep ). I can see that complex carbs could keep one out of ketosis all night long. I see a number of factors that suggest that the LC diet state more normal to humans than where people end up after eating the modern grass based diet full of carbs.

I am very suspicious that the reason LC dieters tend to have trouble with the last 10%-15% of weight-loss is probably due to excess PUFA in the diet producing inappropriate insulin sensitivity. Grass fed dairy, meats and eggs, lots of fish, could make a difference.

The conflict of interests is that feeding foods to livestock that increase weight gain - ( corn with lots of O-6) also may stimulate weight gain in humans - and probably by the same increase of insulin sensitivity. Thus what makes a farmers pocket book fat - also makes the public fat.


SS Biker said...

@FrankG

Re: BG - no idea, didn't have access to a meter.

I have experienced acute reactive hypoglycaemia a couple of times and agree it's "not nice" - Thumping heart, cold sweat, a sense of the brain collapsing in on itself and a desperate need to sit or lie down before falling down (no hunger though for me at least) - passes in a few minutes but disturbing nonetheless.

My previous symptoms on the PSMF were a mix of physical and emmotional/psychological but the physical symptoms were not as acute as the reactive episodes.

I have just read Peter's post on Sidereal's blog where he speculates that the FA composition of peripheral fat better reflects that of the diet (i.e. more likely to be unsaturated) than visceral fat and is thus more like to cause hypoglycaemia due to increased insulin sensitivity.

I could be said to be in "end stage" fat loss i.e. it is the remaining subcutaneous stuff to lose and it is only since reaching that stage I have noticed any symptoms of hypoglycaemia, previously when fatter I have consumed a far more restrictive diet without issue (always with exercise).

Of course I now avoid PUFA as far as is practicable but there is the previous lifetime's diet to work off first.

SS Biker said...

@FrankG

Re: BG - no idea, didn't have access to a meter.

I have experienced acute reactive hypoglycaemia a couple of times and agree it's "not nice" - Thumping heart, cold sweat, a sense of the brain collapsing in on itself and a desperate need to sit or lie down before falling down (no hunger though for me at least) - passes in a few minutes but disturbing nonetheless.

My previous symptoms on the PSMF were a mix of physical and emmotional/psychological but the physical symptoms were not as acute as the reactive episodes.

I have just read Peter's post on Sidereal's blog where he speculates that the FA composition of peripheral fat better reflects that of the diet (i.e. more likely to be unsaturated) than visceral fat and is thus more like to cause hypoglycaemia due to increased insulin sensitivity.

I could be said to be in "end stage" fat loss i.e. it is the remaining subcutaneous stuff to lose and it is only since reaching that stage I have noticed any symptoms of hypoglycaemia, previously when fatter I have consumed a far more restrictive diet without issue (always with exercise).

Of course I now avoid PUFA as far as is practicable but there is the previous lifetime's diet to work off first.

Robert Andrew Brown said...

I read both Peter and Stephan's blogs.

They both contain fascinating and challenging material.

Body process and mechanisms are so interlinked and interdependent, occurring in so many different locations sometimes promoting, sometimes opposing, that I respectfully suggest the occasions when there is an absolute explanation of a complex phenomenon are rare.

How exactly do you you define a satiety hormone or factor ?

Insulin either direct or through glucose affects leptin levels. Glucose and so indirectly insulin affects ghrelin.

Leptin and ghrelin both appear to be accepted to impact be relate to appetite.

Please keep blogging and responding all; there is often fascinating comment and links, and considering all sides of the debate often helps struggles for understanding by providing new thought lines and perspectives.

I find the personalisation a bit depressing and it detracts from the flow of idea.

Ultimately thank you Peter and Stephan for your time and take on various issues; and thank you to everybody who takes the time to respond with links etc.

FrankG said...

"How exactly do you you define a satiety hormone..."

Well, you could offer statements about a hormone like "insulin constrains food intake and body fatness, and research indicates that this action occurs via the brain. Insulin infused into the brains of baboons causes a suppression of appetite and fat loss"

Which evidently leaves many of your readers with the impression that you are claiming that insulin is a satiety hormone... so much so that they go about repeating "Stephan says that insulin is satiety hormone" but for some unspoken reason you do not disavow them of this notion.

After which it seems rather disingenuous to claim "but I never said that insulin is satiety hormone!"

I'm glad you find the material on Stephan's blog "fascinating and challenging". For your own sake I hope that you subject it to critical and skeptical scrutiny; because in my experience, it does not stand up to the test. As further evidenced by this last post from Peter.

Travis Culp said...

"And while your at it, check in a dictionary the difference between insult and ad hominem. Neither Peter nor Woo used an ad hominem argument against you, they used insults, no doubt, but they addressed the substance of your posts and your theories. Appeal to authority as you constantly do (obesity researcher this, obesity researcher that, bla bla) can be seen as a form of ad hominem."

Gallier: You, along with most of the people here (I'm sure), are simply too fat too be taken seriously. OK, which one did I use?

Unknown said...

Travis Culp's post from an hour ago on WHS:

Stephan, I really appreciate your work and feel bad that you repeatedly find yourself in a clusterfuck melee with various charlatans. I think you ought to therefore disable comments and make the occasional comprehensive post of replies to valid emails that you receive, as Colpo does.

Anyway, hang in there.

Jane said...

Are we all agreed that leptin is a satiety hormone? If we are, we must agree that insulin might be in the same category. Leptin works by making POMC neurons in the hypothalamus produce melanocortin. Insulin does the same thing.

'The catabolic action of insulin in the brain is mediated by melanocortins'
ABSTRACT
Like leptin, the pancreatic hormone insulin is an important adiposity signal to the brain. We report that the hypothalamic melanocortin system is an important target of the actions of insulin to regulate food intake and body weight. Hypothalamic neurons expressing insulin receptors were found to coexpress the melanocortin precursor molecule pro-opiomelanocortin (POMC), and administration of insulin into the third cerebral ventricle of fasted rats increased expression of POMC mRNA. Finally, a subthreshold dose of the melanocortin antagonist SHU-9119 prevented the reduction in food intake caused by third-ventricular insulin administration. These data suggest that the hypothalamic melanocortin system mediates the anorexic effects of central insulin, as well as of leptin.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12388611

ItsTheWooo said...

@Travis
GOOD FOR YOU being naturally scrawny , it affords you the ability to run your mouth regarding others in diet discussions.

Your opinion is like someone who happens to be 5'5 giving advice regarding how to avoid growing tall / mocking normal height individuals for being too stupid to remain as short as you are.

nancan said...

The Second Rule of Fight Club: When you talk, keep it short and simple.

Jane said...

@FrankG
If Stephan first seemed to be saying insulin is a satiety hormone, then that it isn't, it could be partly because a REAL satiety hormone has been discovered. It's called uroguanylin. I've asked Stephan to blog about it but so far he hasn't. I think he's probably reading about it. It does a lot of different things, all very interesting, and nothing would be easier than to rush into a blog post and get things wrong.

FrankG said...

@Jane: Guyenet did not say he had changed his view on Insulin as satiety hormone

This is what he wrote in his first comment to this post...
"The funniest part about this post is that I never even claimed insulin is a satiety hormone"

The funny thing is that: for me I can see how it would act towards signalling satiety in the short term

twitchyfirefly said...

OK, it's taken me a week to wade through this melee.

Best takeaway: That a Wooo-Induced Rage defense may soon join the Twinkie Defense in the U.S. legal system.

Jane said...

@FrankG
May I remind you of what you said earlier.

[start of quote] 'Stephan Guyenet said: "...I never even claimed insulin is a satiety hormone"

A very quick search using "insulin +satiety" over at Whole Heap 'O Shit

Turns up "... If anything, insulin constrains food intake and body fatness, and research indicates that this action occurs via the brain. Insulin infused into the brains of baboons causes a suppression of appetite and fat loss, which is consistent with the fact that insulin and leptin have overlapping functions in the brain (10, 11). Knocking out insulin receptors in the brain leads to increased fat mass in rodents, suggesting that its normal function involves constraining fat mass (12). Insulin is also co-secreted with amylin, which suppresses food intake and body weight (13). This is why insulin is viewed by some obesity researchers as an anti-obesity hormone. ..."

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.ca/2011/08/carbohydrate-hypothesis-of-obesity.html

No doubt there are many other quotable quotes along the same theme but I prefer to spend as little time over there as possible these days :-) [end of quote]

Stephan did not say 'insulin is a satiety hormone', did he. He was careful to avoid that statement because the reality is more complex. If you spent a bit more time on his blog you might not make these mistakes. He is doing his best to convey extremely complicated biology to a lay audience. I do not envy him.

Anonymous said...

There is NO such thing as "The Scientific Method." It is ONLY an idiomatic expression and was NEVER meant to be taken literally. Doing so will BE EXTREMELY MSLEADING.

There is no singular step by step "method" that all scientists must follow. What we all earned in 6th grade is erroneous. Little, if any, science is done this way.

Scientists use literally THOUSANDS of VERY DIFFERENT METHODS in the various specialties of science.


The phrase , "The Scientific Method" , is an INSULT to ALL researchers past and present. This phrase needs to be removed from our vocabularies.


"The Scientific PROCESSES Of Discovery" is a more crrect phrase.


The entire Blogosphere needs an education.

Anonymous said...

There is NO such thing as "The Scientific Method." Scientists use THOUSANDS of VERY DIFFERENT METHODS.

Christoph Dollis said...

"It feels rude to comment on the nature of the content of an individuals blog."

You're joking, right?

"It's their space, sure it's in the public domain, but just because you read and/or comment on it doesn't give you the right."

You're joking, right?

Sorry, you made me laugh. And spit up in my mouth a little. I've never done both at the same time.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 353 of 353   Newer› Newest»