Its The Wooo,

I see you blocked, copied and paste information from all over the web and mixed in some of your own statements to make it appear to be your own. This is commonly called plagiarism. Much of what you said above does not agree with what you said earlier.

I can tell from your misunderstandings that you must be apart of the medical establishment. These are the same people who think eating 60% cabohydrates is healthy.

If I want to read a book I will select it myself. You don't need to copy and post if for me.

Your mixture of copied truth and personal ranting was simply boring. I read just enough to see the tactic you were using and stopped. My guess is nobody of the 45,000 people on this board will ever read your post... LOL


Kent

Folks...let's keep the discussion to the facts at hand, not what you think of the poster.

There are a few things to address, though:



Not according to this link: http://cal.man.ac.uk/student_projec.../metabolism.htm

Insulin directly influences the rate at which glucose is used. Remember, though, that this is for a healthy, non-insulin resistant individual.


Sometimes you can also become type 1 after a long enough time of being type 2.

Type 1 diabetes and type 2 have similar symptoms (uncontrolled blood sugars), but very different causes:
http://www.diabeteslead.org/300/330.html

For this reason, type 2's do not become type 1's although they can become insulin-dependent type 2's for a variety of reasons, but type 2's can eventually become insulin dependent due to beta cell burnout, not beta cell destruction (as in type 1). The end result is the same (no insulin produced by that cell any longer), but again the root cause is different. In beta cell burnout, the cells simply wear out due to high demand over a prolonged period of time, in beta cell destruction, the cells are directly attacked and destroyed.



I think you're arguing two sides of the same coin here. Without the insulin, you would not experience that "sugar rush" because the sugar would have no way to get into the cells. Without the high amount of sugar/carbs, the high amounts of insulin would not be present that eventually will lead to IR in some (not all) people.
I think a better question would be why it is that some people seem to be able to consume a high carb diet and not develop insulin resistance or diabetes. Along those lines, I think that genetics and activity levels play a big role.

I am assuming we are talking about a person with a normal metabolism.

But, isn't true that in normal people, the rate at which insulin tells your body cells to use energy is only as much as is needed per amount of sugar you have in the blood? Insulin is in effect speaking to your body on behalf of the food you ate. That means the more food energy from sugar you are eating, the more energy you will receive.

In a normal person, the insulin in their body itself offers no metabolic advantages to increase metabolic rate, whereas a LC diet does.

You are right, it wasn't accurate for me to say it is possible to become t1 after being an uncontrolled t2. The problems producing insulin associated with t1 come about by a very different mechanism than that of t2.

What I meant to (poorly) say was that eventually when you are t2 after a long enough time you can also have the problems making insulin of a t1.

I don't think I am arguing two different sides. I started my post saying I totally agree with Kent, that a high sugar diet causes an increase in metabolic activity rate (in that per unit of time, you will transform energy quicker if you recently ate 100 calories of sugar than if you recently ate 100 calories of fat or protein). But this is because of the way sugar is metabolized vs protein and fat, not because of insulin itself. Carbohydrate sugar eaten alone is broken down very rapidly, and floods your blood with energy. Protein is broken down into sugar slowly and steadily, as is fat synthesized into ketones, etc. It's the flood of energy causing the problem.
After a long enough time of bludgeoning your body with too much energy too quickly from a high sugar diet, the cells try to save themselves from early death by calcifying themselves to the effects of insulin. By ignoring insulin, they are also going to use less energy, and therefore age slower. Your body sends the sugar which can no longer be effectively used by the more insulin-resistant very metabolically active cells, to the more insulin-sensitive energy storing fat cells.

What I disagreed with is his over emphasis on blaming insulin. Insulin is reactionary. The cause of the problem is the diet itself, eating way too high a percentage calories from carbs or having a genetic tendency to IR. The high levels of insulin, the body's self induced insulin resistance: these are just symptoms, reactions to the real problem, the diet itself.

Basically I look at it like this, again assuming for healthy individuals: While it is technically true that insulin contributes to an increase in metabolic rate in normal healthy people, it can and will only do this when appropriate energy intake from sugar is administered. The insulin reaction of a normal person is directly parallel to the action of eating sugar. A healthy body will not produce insulin beyond what is needed, it only produces as much as is needed to "get the job done" and effectively allow the uptake of consumed food energy.

In other words, the insulin itself is only doing what is required of it; to get the energy "boost" you need to take that much energy in from sugar. Its the sugar calories giving the energy, by them entering the blood so rapidly. Insulin is merely doing what is required of it, and in of itself offering no metabolic benefits.

There are exceptions of course. People who are prone to hypoglycemia may for whatever medical reason produce too much insulin relative to what is needed, and in this case insulin truly is causing them to use energy faster than they are taking it in. But, this is a condition and not how the body should normally operate. A normal body will only produce as much insulin that is required of it to deal with the sugar it has been given.

I agree completely.

Everyone is different, some of our metabolisms are capable of handling and faring well on high-sugar. Some of us do poorly on high fat and feel sluggish and lethargic and do better with a little more carbs (yes these people do exist, you just don't hear about them often on a pro-lc website). The fact that this individual variance exists for what we do best on metabolically is strong evidence that something like metabolic typing might have some merit.

I think it is foolish to outright dismiss the possibility that some people do better on more carb-heavy diets.

You know what Kent, did you ever hear the phrase you will attract more flies with honey than with vinegar? Your style of abusing your "opponent" into submission, rather than attempt to intelligently and considerately provide evidence for your claims just won't work sweety. Most people will ignore you as a rude, offensive, and probably a borderline crazy person.

You say no one will read my thread, but you know what Kent? Whenever I see a post from you, I subconsciously prepare myself for an oozing sack of poorly-substantiated medical quackery you picked up from various diet gurus, laced with your own personal touch of vitriol for the opinions of other forum posters.

This, of course, causes me to not give much weight to whatever you post, or outright ignore it all together.

Hi Its The Gooo,

You would have been better off ignoring my first post rather than stating a bunch of high-carb nonsense.

The insulin rush from eating a high-carb diet does NOT suppress the metabolism as you stated. Suck it up and correct yourself.

BTW, what is your adgenda here. You certainly are not a supporter of low-carb, Dr. Robert C. Atkins or Drs. Michael and Mary Dan Eades?

You can read the correct facts about eating carbohydrates and resulting insulin response in my web page below. Mr. Joseph Mercola has the No. ! website promoting health through proper diet. His January 3, 2004 eNewsletter featured my article. It was sent to over 120,000 subscribers, 25,000 of which are medical professionals. Only one nutty vegetarian attempted a challenged. Others knew better because it is scientific fact.

Absolute Scientific Proof Carbohydrates Are Pathogenic.

You could also correct a bunch of your other false conceptions by studing another of my web pages in detail. Please note the links backing up the statements with science.

Top Ten Nutritional Myths, Distortions and Lies That Will Destroy Your Heath.

Young modern women like yourself are so used to dominating the young modern WHUSSSIE males that you try that power play with everyone. Didn't work this tiime.

Lisa N, nice post. Thanks for the help.

Kent

Back to the Metabolic Typing Diet

I saw a man in the restaurant this morning that was a "carb type" according to the Metabolic Typing Diet theory. He just loved his carbs. The orange juice glass must have been 8 inches tall. Belgium waffles with cherries and the standard sugar laden fake whipping cream. Fruit on the side with lots of fructose carbs. A giant sugar muffin. Yep, definitely a "carb type."

He must have weighed 400 pounds, a lumbering stack of fat with legs.

Oh, yes. The Metabolic Typing Diet is truly nonsense.

Kent

Alright, Kent. Let's start over.

I don't support a high carb diet (at least not for most people). Finding LC saved me.

However, I also am open minded enough to realize there are many people in the world who do quite well and live long healthy lives eating more carbs than what you or I would do well on.
I am also open minded enough to realize there are many people who feel like absolute crap on very low grams of carbs (yes, even after induction).

Even some LC dieters do better when eating more carbs and fruits than others, I am one of them. I feel much better eating a bit more carbs (currently at 40 net per day) and it doesn't affect my weight any.

Ok let me clarify myself.

In a normal individual it won't. But then again, in a normal individual insulin won't "hype" metabolism either. In a normal individual the insulin reaction is directly equal to the sugar intake action. Any energy you experience from eating a high carb diet is not directly caused by the insulin, though insulin does play an essential role (so essential that energy cannot be had w/o it). In healthy people, insulin is like a negotiator between energy you give it and the body. It allows energy you eat to be used. It doesn't increase the rate of usage.

The problem is that sugar is broken down sooo rapidly that it forces your body to transform energy quickly. This sugar induced increased metabolic rate results in metabolic disorders like IR.


I follow my own version of the Atkins plan, and support almost everything Dr. Atkins said. (I changed the plan around a bit to emphasize portion control a little more, because with all the LC alternatives today it is all too easy to stay LC while eating enough calories to maintain).

I've not familiarized myself with protein power, however.

LOL! Kent, I don't think you know this, but from the first post you made to me, you have been nothing but disrespectful and rude. If you think the way I responded was uncalled for, I apologize. But, I think if someone talked to you that way, you would be just as upset.