The insulin index

[Kristin251]

Why not get some scales that read in grams?

It does read in grams but in the US ounces is used more commonly.

Our menus say 10 oz steak, not 283g

 

[Bluetit1802]

Out of curiosity, how many grams of protein do you eat a day? Your tin of salmon is 21 right? So about 3 ounces if you put it on a scale? 7 g per ounce?

I still don't understand you! My salmon has 21g protein in a 105g tin, which is 0.74 oz of protein in a 3.7oz tin.

I don't count my macros these days as I eat much the same thing. When I was counting I was around the 75g to 100g mark. (just the protein, not the weight of the food). I have never worried about my protein intake. I am a great believer in its benefits, especially as I am getting on a bit and need to protect my muscles and keep my cells in good repair. I don't have kidney problems, and none in my urine, so I have no need to worry unduly. As a T2 I see no significant increase in BS levels, if any. I just eat what I want at the time. But that is me!

 

[Kristin251]

I still don't understand you! My salmon has 21g protein in a 105g tin, which is 0.74 oz of protein in a 3.7oz tin.

I don't count my macros these days as I eat much the same thing. When I was counting I was around the 75g to 100g mark. (just the protein, not the weight of the food). I have never worried about my protein intake. I am a great believer in its benefits, especially as I am getting on a bit and need to protect my muscles and keep my cells in good repair. I don't have kidney problems, and none in my urine, so I have no need to worry unduly. As a T2 I see no significant increase in BS levels, if any. I just eat what I want at the time. But that is me!

Then you're eating 21 g of protein. If you drained the can and put it on a food scale it would be 3 oz.
it's just easier for me to use 7g pure protein per ounce of weight.

If you were to order a 10 oz steak, how would your menu say it 283g or 10 oz. ? Probably a U.K. US thing.

 

[Bluetit1802]

I am not sure about restaurants, but shops have to measure in grams. I believe this is European Law, which we have to follow. It caused a lot of confusion when we were obliged to go metric with our measurements. We could no longer order 5lbs of potatoes. It was converted to kilograms. Most shops have retained the dual scales, but aren't supposed to put the pounds and ounces weights on the goods. We have just had to get used to it. I'm just about there now but still struggle at times.

 

[Fleegle]

If you can find a better term for it - great. I personally think the definition is simple. If it is purchased raw it is a real food. If someone else applied a process to it first it is not.
It is fully accepted that even real food is currently tainted by farming methods, but one has to start somewhere.

Your comment about insulin reduces blood glucose and therefore must be a good thing, is at the heart of the misunderstandings about insulin .

The attached print outs stratifies 122 foods by the food insulin index lowest first.
It is utterly plain from this that the higher the FII the worse the food - I doubt you would have any debate about that.

I.e. if eating foods that produced insulin was a good thing then the correct diet for a person with diabetes would be potatoes, mars bars, rice crispie, bananas and jelly beans and the NHS advice that one should eat plenty of carbohydrates with every meal and no fats would result in massive weight loss and reversal of diabetes - it doesn't. If one has ought into the general theory of LCHF even to some degree that that is precisely the reverse of that carbohydrate heavy meal.

Instead insulin makes people fatter, because insulin is a fat making hormone and the more of it you have circulating in your body, the fatter you are likely to get and the harder to lose weight. Its my personal opinion that one gets fat because one's insulin levels become too high through eating processed foods, rather than that becoming fat gives you high insulin.

The further confusion arises because at the more detailed level in ketogenic diet debates "real food" are stratified by their insulin index in that instance it is called % insulogenic - so for example in this table below - skimmed milk is shown as 58% insulinogenic and it doesn't immediately look relateble to the other table.
https://public.tableau.com/profile/christoffer.green#!/vizhome/InsulinogenicFoodData/Dashboard1
reconciling the two tables.

I have uploaded the table of foods from the mainly processed food study and stratified that by the FII index% starting a the lowest insulinoegenic - butter followed by olive oil . If you look up skimmed fat free milk you will see its score is 60% - i.e. pretty much the same as the other table.

Looking at the tables together you can see that some " real foods " i.e. those without labels still score very high in the FII , e.g. bananas at 60% and honey dew melon at 93%.

I hope that helps in understanding it

I cannot agree with the way you have mixed the points made that producing more insulin might be a good thing and therefore if that were true then a T2 should eat Mars bars. That really is to extreme for what was a good challenge and on my mind to. The very first principle of T2 help (as far as everything I have read on this site) is to reduce BG rises through meals high with sugar.

Your entire hypothesis is that T2's produce too much insulin. This is of course true but equally many T2s have "burnt out" about 80% of their beta cells potentially more. It is likely therefore that over time many T2's will not be producing enough insulin. Thus it is not beyond the wit of man to say that if some foods help the natural process of producing more insulin that might not be a bad things for some T2s.

I don't really think I have got a good answer yet (here or in my own research) in to why the ND has worked by producing more insulin. I know you said you couldn't tell what the background insulin was - but as you said it might be high I could counter it may have been low. Unfortunately I don't think we know. On one if his video's he does state at one point that the total insulin produced compared to the control was pathetic. That doesn't sound like they were producing to much.

What we do know from that scientific study was that no matter how small the percentage was (I see many taking the data they want to get the figure as low as possible for some reason) a number of people on that - the blood sugar diet - and other VLCD have succeeded in pushing their numbers right back. I can find absolutely no data to support that people already producing insulin were rejected. So pushing their numbers back looks to me from all the data that they were producing more not less insulin.

I wish we could measure insulin more readily - but I assume, that as everyone reacts differently to food in terms of spikes it is possible (and likely?) that the same might be true for Insulin? So I think at the very least all of this science is still to new, not easily explained and therefore maintaining complete open mindedness seems the best possible solution.

 

[Kristin251]

I cannot agree with the way you have mixed the points made that producing more insulin might be a good thing and therefore if that were true then a T2 should eat Mars bars. That really is to extreme for what was a good challenge and on my mind to. The very first principle of T2 help (as far as everything I have read on this site) is to reduce BG rises through meals high with sugar.

Your entire hypothesis is that T2's produce too much insulin. This is of course true but equally many T2s have "burnt out" about 80% of their beta cells potentially more. It is likely therefore that over time many T2's will not be producing enough insulin. Thus it is not beyond the wit of man to say that if some foods help the natural process of producing more insulin that might not be a bad things for some T2s.

I don't really think I have got a good answer yet (here or in my own research) in to why the ND has worked by producing more insulin. I know you said you couldn't tell what the background insulin was - but as you said it might be high I could counter it may have been low. Unfortunately I don't think we know. On one if his video's he does state at one point that the total insulin produced compared to the control was pathetic. That doesn't sound like they were producing to much.

What we do know from that scientific study was that no matter how small the percentage was (I see many taking the data they want to get the figure as low as possible for some reason) a number of people on that - the blood sugar diet - and other VLCD have succeeded in pushing their numbers right back. I can find absolutely no data to support that people already producing insulin were rejected. So pushing their numbers back looks to me from all the data that they were producing more not less insulin.

I wish we could measure insulin more readily - but I assume, that as everyone reacts differently to food in terms of spikes it is possible (and likely?) that the same might be true for Insulin? So I think at the very least all of this science is still to new, not easily explained and therefore maintaining complete open mindedness seems the best possible solution.

I get a tad confused as we NEED insulin to live. But here's my way of thinking. Very Low carb diets still produce SOME insulin but as the heavy hitters are generally removed the spike of course will be much smaller but still elicit insulin. Then there's the protein element. Eating just enough and not more as protein spikes insulin as well. I use .8g per kg lean body mass . We CAN have high insulin and low or normal bg. Then if course pure fat that does very little to bs BUT it also impedes insulin!! If I eat a high animal fat meal I can keep injecting so my bs stays steady but I will remain IR for quite some time and I will have needed to inject more. I tend to eat leaner proteins, all visible fat removed and no chicken skins bacon etc. I also do much better with plant fats like avocado, mayo, olive oil. I have to moderate nuts.
When I was type2 I didn't see all this so clearly. Once I started injecting it became crystal clear.
For ME PERSONALLY, I know I need much more insulin for animal fats. I also know if I eat more than 21g (3 oz) of protein at one meal I will need to split my bolus as my peak of insulin is well before my peak of protein. Especially with fatty proteins. I will also have a higher fasting and need more insulin into the next day.
So for me to keep my insulin usage low I stick to a vlc, MODERATE protein and higher plant fat diet. This allows me very low doses. 1/2 units. I should add I eat very small meals often as that's what my stomach demands.

The one thing I'm not sure of is this. I eat some protein, avocado and a few chopped veggies all mixed up. Now here's the point. I seem to need insulin every 2.5 hours. Is it the tail end of the protein or that I'm out of insulin and need to take some to stop the slow glucose my body drips out all day? I'm thinking the later as if I just eat protein I spike hard and fast. Just as much as carbs. Wish I knew but I like to eat so 5 mini meals works for me. Bf, lunch split into 2, dinner and a cheese snack. Then a few nuts in between.

 

[CherryAA]

I cannot agree with the way you have mixed the points made that producing more insulin might be a good thing and therefore if that were true then a T2 should eat Mars bars. That really is to extreme for what was a good challenge and on my mind to. The very first principle of T2 help (as far as everything I have read on this site) is to reduce BG rises through meals high with sugar.

Your entire hypothesis is that T2's produce too much insulin. This is of course true but equally many T2s have "burnt out" about 80% of their beta cells potentially more. It is likely therefore that over time many T2's will not be producing enough insulin. Thus it is not beyond the wit of man to say that if some foods help the natural process of producing more insulin that might not be a bad things for some T2s.

I don't really think I have got a good answer yet (here or in my own research) in to why the ND has worked by producing more insulin. I know you said you couldn't tell what the background insulin was - but as you said it might be high I could counter it may have been low. Unfortunately I don't think we know. On one if his video's he does state at one point that the total insulin produced compared to the control was pathetic. That doesn't sound like they were producing to much.

What we do know from that scientific study was that no matter how small the percentage was (I see many taking the data they want to get the figure as low as possible for some reason) a number of people on that - the blood sugar diet - and other VLCD have succeeded in pushing their numbers right back. I can find absolutely no data to support that people already producing insulin were rejected. So pushing their numbers back looks to me from all the data that they were producing more not less insulin.

I wish we could measure insulin more readily - but I assume, that as everyone reacts differently to food in terms of spikes it is possible (and likely?) that the same might be true for Insulin? So I think at the very least all of this science is still to new, not easily explained and therefore maintaining complete open mindedness seems the best possible solution.

Fasting insulin, i.e. the background measure can be done easily, its a cheap test, just like all other lipid profiles . You are absolutely right that my hypothesis is that one becomes T2 diabetic though a state of hyperinsulinaemia, i.e. too much insulin . One produces more and more insulin to do the same job because you become more and more insulin resistant until eventually you can simply cannot do enough - and the massive load you have placed on the pancreas to try to keep making enough causes burn out in the end so that eventually one no longer produces any/or much at all. I don't think any of the above is in dispute by anyone.

The question then becomes is it possible to revitalise the pancreas by clearing it out of fat and thus make it more capable of producing more insulin on its own, and is it possible to also reduce insulin resistance at the same time, so that the insulin you do produce is then more effective. As far as I understand it the ND diet is designed to do those things, i.e clear out fat from the organs as fast as humanly possible and thus give your pancreas a chance to recover.

In the end they chose the Newcastle diet method , as a VLC method they could control and measure, but make it fairly clear than any diet that reduces weight quickly should work if it tackles pancreatic fat. He suggests 15% of starting weight.

I know that his 15% number is not enough for me personally- I have already lost 26% of my total body fat and that is clearly nothing like enough for me. I am now on 7% of the reduced starting number of 91kg at the start of my current diet. I have another 7kg to lose before I hit that 15% again. It will be interesting to see if my current diet can deliver that in the next six weeks and if it does if there are any signs at all of improvements in anything that I can personally measure.

In terms of how much insulin, according to Dr Lustig, the entire human race is producing about double the insulin it used to 30 years ago to deal with the changes in diet we have experienced over that time. The two major changes that have occurred have been the introduction of far more polyunsaturated omega 6 oils into the human diet which have increased the percentage of om 6 fats in human fat from about 8% to about 25% and the increasing prevalence of "low fat" and refined foods where the main elements of those are a mix of highly refined carbs cooked in Om 6 oils. .

My point about the insulin index was merely that if starts off a continuum where for the most part, real foods are relatively low creating the least insulin production in one's own body to processed foods which are generally high requiring the most insulin to process. Thus if the goal was to force your body to create insulin then eating a high FII diet will do that notwithstanding the fact it will find it hard to do so because its capabilities have been compromised .

From a personal perspective my viewpoint would be simply that my goal is to put the least possible strain on my insulin producing requirements by eating foods low in the FII. whilst at the same time attempting to reduce my insulin resistance by lowering my levels of fasting insulin which will help me to lose weight and thus give the pancreas a chance to recover.
I don't think any of that is in opposition to what the ND diet attempts to do.

Dr Lustig would simply say - if you find it hard to lose weight its probably high, if you are losing weight when you don't want to, then it maybe too low. If anyone wants to find out if their own background level of insulin is high or low, its a simple test to find out.

As far as I know, the point about making more insulin does not mean that one necessarily needs to have more circulating insulin in the background. If the insulin you make is more, but returns to normal between meals , then that would not necessarily increase background insulin, thus its quite possible to have improved insulin production AND lower levels of fasting insulin at the same time and thus much reduced levels of insulin resistance. It is well known that fasting leads to lower levels of fasting insulin, it seems unlikely that a very calorie restricted diet would of itself cause it to rise. Ultimately it will be fascinating to see what the study says, I simply hope they also publish starting and ending levels of fasting insulin within the data.

 

[Fleegle]

Fasting insulin, i.e. the background measure can be done easily, its a cheap test, just like all other lipid profiles . You are absolutely right that my hypothesis is that one becomes T2 diabetic though a state of hyperinsulinaemia, i.e. too much insulin . One produces more and more insulin to do the same job because you become more and more insulin resistant until eventually you can simply cannot do enough - and the massive load you have placed on the pancreas to try to keep making enough causes burn out in the end so that eventually one no longer produces any/or much at all. I don't think any of the above is in dispute by anyone.

The question then becomes is it possible to revitalise the pancreas by clearing it out of fat and thus make it more capable of producing more insulin on its own, and is it possible to also reduce insulin resistance at the same time, so that the insulin you do produce is then more effective. As far as I understand it the ND diet is designed to do those things, i.e clear out fat from the organs as fast as humanly possible and thus give your pancreas a chance to recover.

In the end they chose the Newcastle diet method , as a VLC method they could control and measure, but make it fairly clear than any diet that reduces weight quickly should work if it tackles pancreatic fat. He suggests 15% of starting weight.

I know that his 15% number is not enough for me personally- I have already lost 26% of my total body fat and that is clearly nothing like enough for me. I am now on 7% of the reduced starting number of 91kg at the start of my current diet. I have another 7kg to lose before I hit that 15% again. It will be interesting to see if my current diet can deliver that in the next six weeks and if it does if there are any signs at all of improvements in anything that I can personally measure.

In terms of how much insulin, according to Dr Lustig, the entire human race is producing about double the insulin it used to 30 years ago to deal with the changes in diet we have experienced over that time. The two major changes that have occurred have been the introduction of far more polyunsaturated omega 6 oils into the human diet which have increased the percentage of om 6 fats in human fat from about 8% to about 25% and the increasing prevalence of "low fat" and refined foods where the main elements of those are a mix of highly refined carbs cooked in Om 6 oils. .

My point about the insulin index was merely that if starts off a continuum where for the most part, real foods are relatively low creating the least insulin production in one's own body to processed foods which are generally high requiring the most insulin to process. Thus if the goal was to force your body to create insulin then eating a high FII diet will do that notwithstanding the fact it will find it hard to do so because its capabilities have been compromised .

From a personal perspective my viewpoint would be simply that my goal is to put the least possible strain on my insulin producing requirements by eating foods low in the FII. whilst at the same time attempting to reduce my insulin resistance by lowering my levels of fasting insulin which will help me to lose weight and thus give the pancreas a chance to recover.
I don't think any of that is in opposition to what the ND diet attempts to do.

Dr Lustig would simply say - if you find it hard to lose weight its probably high, if you are losing weight when you don't want to, then it maybe too low. If anyone wants to find out if their own background level of insulin is high or low, its a simple test to find out.

As far as I know, the point about making more insulin does not mean that one necessarily needs to have more circulating insulin in the background. If the insulin you make is more, but returns to normal between meals , then that would not necessarily increase background insulin, thus its quite possible to have improved insulin production AND lower levels of fasting insulin at the same time and thus much reduced levels of insulin resistance. It is well known that fasting leads to lower levels of fasting insulin, it seems unlikely that a very calorie restricted diet would of itself cause it to rise. Ultimately it will be fascinating to see what the study says, I simply hope they also publish starting and ending levels of fasting insulin within the data.

I to hope that this time they publish a heck of a lot more data of the ND outcomes and data throughout the entire process. In this way I hope it gives us all whom do not have access to the scanner to have some hope of making sense of how it might apply to ourselves.

 

[Mr_Pot]

If you were to order a 10 oz steak, how would your menu say it 283g or 10 oz. ? Probably a U.K. US thing.

I would order a 250g steak or a 300g steak in the UK or Europe.

 

[Kristin251]

I would order a 250g steak or a 300g steak in the UK or Europe.

I would not order it but the menu here would say 10 oz and if I asked for that in grams I'd get some really odd faces lol

 

[Lamont D]

Hi all! This thread has as usual run its course and I have read and pondered all the reply’s. Really interesting stuff from all.
But now I’m going to put a shortened version of what I have got from the original question I asked.

I have a diet that is very low carb, by the calculations made from the insulin index, I low insulin to some degree, by my reckoning, too much protein for me depending on what I’m doing normally.
I am short on fat but because I’m dairy intolerant because of lactose, this is to be expected.
But, as usual some of the low carb, high insulin does not do anything to my levels. I have found looking through my food diaries that certain medium to high insulin foods I can tolerate.
I have also found that a small portion of fruit also doesn’t spike me.

I believe the way the glucose is chemically altered during glucogenisis after digestion is important to your gut brain trigger and first insulin response.
Then depending on how weak the first response is, the secondary response is in preportion to how much glucose there is.
Gut biotica is unique in how it triggers your hormones, depending on how much of any of the hormones are circulating will create the imbalance in your blood.
So if you have high insulin levels, high insulin resistance, high insulin resistance then the amount of carbs you eat will only exacerbate all your insulin, glucose, hormonal levels and imbalances.
Very low carb, low insulin triggered, reduction in insulin resistance and reduced insulin circulation by getting your balance right for you. Will work.

The insulin index should now be a part of LCHF lifestyle.

After nearly four years since diagnosis, I have found my balance of eating small meals when I want, fasting, when I want, and doing for me, is right as my body tells me!
I’m not going back!
I have to do this, it is my life, my health, my only chance of health, I have no choice.
I’m so determined to get this right and help others in the same boat as me!
My condition is my life, but I’m making sure it’s a healthy life, designed for me, and I will do this!

Thanks to everyone who has given me my life back !
It’s certainly a lot better above ground than below it!

Best wishes

 

[kokhongw]

Looks like I missed the party...

https://www.diabetesselfmanagement.com/blog/can-beta-cells-be-healed/

 

[kokhongw]

This chart is widely accepted to show the natural progression of T2D. And while beta-cells function declined, the relative insulin levels remains high for years after diagnosis. Where 10 yrs seems to be the cut off. Is it coincidental that Dr Roy Taylor had limited success reversing/restoring the beta-cells of those who are 10 years into their diagnosis?