That's only partly accurate. "Normal" individuals (whatever that may be) will at times produce more insulin than what was needed to cover the meal eaten. Your body has no way to know exactly how many carbs or grams of sugar you've just consumed until it's digested and hits your bloodstream, but insulin is released long before that (phase 1 response). The phase 2 insulin response is in direct proportion to how high and how quickly your blood glucose concentrations are rising, but even that can be overdone. That's when glucagon comes in to counteract that by stimulating release of glycogen from the liver in response to dropping blood sugars. It's a delicate balance that many are not aware of. It's also this constant up-and-down of blood sugars that drives many to consume more and more carbs; blood sugar goes up, insulin does it's job (some times a bit too well), blood sugar drops along with glucagon and glycogen kicking in and the body producing hunger signals to eat again to assist the glygocen in bringing the blood sugars back up again.




Again, partly correct but incomplete. Insulin is what is known as a "master hormome". It directly influences a great many body processes other than simply blood glucose control. One of the things it influences is whether the body will store fat or not. When insulin levels are high, the body will store fat. When glucagon levels are dominant (as they are in low carb), the body will not store fat and will instead burn it for energy. The body's response to cells becoming resistant to insulin isn't just to send the insulin to less resistant cells, but to also produce more insulin to force the resistant cells to accept the glucose present in the bloodstream as well. It's equivalent to having to use a bigger and bigger hammer to do the job that a smaller hammer once did. This is why in individuals with insulin resistance, the circulating levels of insulin are very high (as is the rate at which they are storing fat) and also why those are with IR struggle to lose weight on a high carb diet even at very low calorie levels.



I'm not convinced that variances in the amount of carb that a person feels good at or can tolerate (20 grams per day vs. 40, for example), is a good argument in favor of metabolic typing. Even among those that are carb sensitive, the amount that an individual can tolerate varies quite a bit. Perhaps that is a direct function of how advanced an individual's IR has become, perhaps not.



Good analogy, but insulin can and does stimulate the rate at which energy is used within the cell by directly influencing other enzymatic reactions (specifically those that are involved with glycolysis) within the cell. It doesn't just influence the rate at which the glucose leaves the blood stream, but also the rate at which that glucose is burned once it gets inside the cell. The rate at which energy is used within the body is the very definition of metabolic rate.



To tell you the truth, I believe that there are very few individuals who are capable of handling and faring well on a high carb/high sugar diet without a corresponding high level of physical activity. Take away that high level of activity and most of those people will start experiencing all the problems of high carb consumption that many of us do. They are beginning to see that in areas of Asia now; with declining activity levels, weight and the incidence of diabetes and heart disease are climbing. Kent's post about Brian Maxwell also illustrates that. He was able to control his weight while consuming a high carb diet while he was running long distances regularly, but it didn't do much for the impact the insulin he was forcing his body to produce with all those carbs had on his cardiovascular system, even WITH a high level of activity. There was another famous marathon runner who touted a low fat, high carb diet that suffered the same fate...while he was out running as a matter of fact. I'm sure if you had talked to these men, they would have told you how great they felt. After all...you can't run a marathon if you feel like doo-doo, but feeling good physically doesn't necessarily mean that you are doing good physically or that you are eating the proper combination of nutrients for your body which is why I hesitate to give a lot of credence to the metabolic typing theory; a lot of it seems to be based on how you physically feel, not on what's actually going on inside your body.

I'd also like to remind everyone that while disagreement and debate is fine, exchanging personal insults, even in the heat of debate, can result in your posting privileges being suspended. Please stick to debating/discussing the facts and ideas presented and refrain from personal attacks.