• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

Bikman fans

I like Ben Bikman and he's obviously a million-fold more knowledgeable and informed than I could ever hope to be, but I always struggle to fully get behind his views on protein. He seems dogmatically insistent that protein will not raise glucose in anyone, even those who are insulin resistant. Now, while I'm sure he is correct in his reasoning, we know that many diabetics are affected by protein. Even those low-carbing. Or in the case of T1, especially those low-carbing. So what's the crack?

I want to learn more about this but there's definitely something missing from the puzzle. It's all very well dismissing it, but try telling that to those who do have a glucose response. I don't want to get bogged down with it here, and I'm definitely not looking for a protein debate right now, but there's something about Bikman's position that doesn't sit too well with me. Either he's missing something, or I used to imagine having to moderate my intake in order to maintain low fasting glucose. I know I definitely wasn't imagining it, and I would think neither are all the other diabetics who experience the same thing.

Food for thought. Not looking to derail. That is all
 
You might find the recent discussion on this very subject on the LowCarbUSA Podcast: Settling a Difference of Opinion - Dr Cywes and Dr Goldkamp: Ep 36


As with most things, it comes back to metabolic milieu (Dr Cywes' favourites phrase) - there are big differences between gluconeogenesis in pathophysiological states, eg. Type 2's (especially newly diagnosed) vs. in "normal" metabolism. I think Bikman gets frustrated by the other direction - people taking the fact that Type 1's need to bolus for protein as "proving" that protein is gluconeogenic. It all comes down to context, but when you're discussing generalities as opposed to the person in front of you, things almost inevitably become simplified in translation imo.
 
Found another podcast of Ben Bikman's from November 2019 that I somehow missed.
Dr Benjamin Bikman | Foods That Help Lower Insulin & Reverse Diabetes | Cortisol Effects on The Body:

 
Yeah that's a good one @Indy51. Ideal layman's explanation for sending to any remaining friends & family who still can't understand how humans can go without food for more than half a day without dying

 
Jim Lahey said:
I like Ben Bikman ...He seems dogmatically insistent that protein will not raise glucose in anyone, even those who are insulin resistant. Now, while I'm sure he is correct in his reasoning, ..

Food for thought. Not looking to derail. That is all
Click to expand...

The peer reviewed literature on this topic is fairly clear, as is plenty of other data. Ignoring both of these and resorting to “reasoning” is what a lawyer paid to defend the indefensible would do.
 
A new Ben Bikman interview: Insulin Resistance & Obesity Make You Sick, Vulnerable to Infections

 
From the recent Low Carb Down Under Sydney Virtual Conference.

Dr. Benjamin Bikman - 'Insulin at the Center: A New/Old Paradigm for Metabolic Syndrome'

 
Indy51 said:
From the recent Low Carb Down Under Sydney Virtual Conference.

Dr. Benjamin Bikman - 'Insulin at the Center: A New/Old Paradigm for Metabolic Syndrome'
Click to expand...

Absolutely perfectly describes it for T2's and the problems with modern conventional medicines approach to T2.
 
I watched these with interest, but at the end of it, I was left with an uneasy feeling. Something about them does not hold together, but I am not sure what it was that disturbed me.

I think that seeing two different interviews, where he said exactly the same thing word for word makes me think this was well scripted and rehearsed. It sounded like a spiel rather than a natural interview.

I am merely giving my gut feelings here, and cannot substantiate either way. What he says is what I want to hear, and maybe this is why I am uneasy. He is very glib at saying that 'we all know such and such because there are many studies showing it... Now my experience is that there may be one or possibly two studies that say it, but equally other studies that do not agree with it. I feel that some of what is stated as fact may depend on which paper you read.

I would say that the jury is still out and that some of what he says is conjecture and hypothesis. But the presentation is very convincing.
 

It could well be that when you are being interviewed by all these podcast enthusiasts (And there are a lot of them out there) that when they get asked the same questions over and over, they tend to respond identically to them. I've seen it with a few of them. Where they repeat the same thing. No reason not to I guess. Or perhaps I'm just imagining that.
 
No, you are right to query it. I have gone back and relistened to them again, and it was two different interviewers with different emphasis and angles, but yes, it was the exact phrasing for a section.

My revisit has tempered my response a bit since a few things fell into place, but I still have a schizm over some of the assertions being made. I fail to agree on the metabolic rate increase leading to heat generation in the mitochondria (i.e. muscle tissue) as wastage. Certainly in the adipocytes, this happens (brown fat) but not in the normal tissues. If that was the case people with IR would run colder than those who have reduced or not accumulated it leading to a simple diagnostic test for IR? 300 calories is quite a lot of spare energy to expend while sitting on one's derriere. Insulin diabetics would tend to run both hot and cold depending on their dosage and T2D would suffer more from the cold weather. There are many observational details like these that belies the claim that low insulin leads to higher cell metabolism, so I disagree with Ben there.

There were other points he makes that I do not agree on, and which empirically do not seem to be backed up by research that I have seen or observations I have made. I am not trying to prove him wrong. I just cannot endorse all that he says yet. But much of it is seemingly based on research I have seen and he makes a good case for it. I note that he sidesteps the carnivore diet issue and did not commit to endorsing it. He also dodged the protein => gluconeogenesis pathway dilemma
 
This recent paper discusses the thermogenic effect of insulin in the metabolism of glucose in mitochondria. In places, it supports the POV I hold, but in others, it leaves the door wide open to interpretation. It does say that the increased metabolic rate does allow the glucose to be used by the cell for ??? i.e. it says the glucose energy is there, but not how it is used. It does not say that it goes into wasted heat like a radiator. One thing it does say is that when the cell is storing glucose locally, it uses a special form of ATP which is energy expensive, but when the glucose is in the cell for use it expends less energy so runs cooler. This is why they postulate that IR drops metabolic rate since high insulin stops storage.

This is what Krebs said too but in Krebs he also stopped at the same point and inferred that the energy is usable (to move muscles etc) but the assumption is that the cell stops receiving more glucose if not used i.e. is not wasted generating heat.

https://dm5migu4zj3pb.cloudfront.ne...-covered-253bed37ca4c1ab43d105aefdf7b5536.pdf
This is one of those studies that needs a dictionary to disentangle it and more time to digest. The important thing is that they used insulin clamps and infused glucose to control those parameters so should be able to answer the dilemma.

Actually I am not sure this study is helpful.. I notice they measure the thermal output by monitoring the breath temperature. This is actually a measure of body core temperature which is a measure of how the adipose brown fat is working, not the general muscle mitochondria. We know brown fat is there to keep us warm in winter - that's its job!
 

As an insulin user I can run hot or cold depending on my bgl... when in a good range I run cool, but run hot when levels are higher then I'm used to. I can feel myself getting warmer. I can get quite hot and flustered if they are spiking rapidly. To the point where I feel cooked, but once back into a decent range I feel cool again. Also, protein and the effect of gluconeogenesis are an issue for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn More.…