Yea, insulin is a hormone to which cells respond by metabolising glucose in the blood stream. The more insulin, the more metabolising of glucose (including fat cells).
This is part of why high glucose levels from a high-glycemic meal are problematic - as soon as our mouth or gut recognize the incoming carbohydrates, the message to release more insulin is sent, which then means increase glucose consumption, including fat cells.
In the early 90’s a biochemist (Barry Sears) wrote a book called “The Zone”, where he breaks down in layman terms how metabolism works, why more frequent, smaller meals, with minimal carbs is best for most (which diabetes docs advised in the 40’s), and noted that glycemic instability is a major cause of heart disease (which docs are just now starting to recognize). Don’t get any other Zone crap - that first book is the only one that’s all about the biochemistry, the rest are more “use my methods, buy my tools”.
I found his book because of diabetes and hypoglycemia in my family. Practically overnight symptoms for everyone improved. That was pretty convincing. Today we can predict when someone’s gonna feel bad, and how long, just by what they eat - we rarely get surprise low glucose anymore.
Simplistically no, but then again, yes… because again fat cells metabolize too (as in they grow). (But we’d want to clarify the circumstance, as metabolism isn’t just one simple thing. I’d say this question is sort of a next level discussion of metabolism).
Increased glucose metabolism is (generally) only good if it’s caused by exertion - aka exercise (or heavy thinking, the brain is a massive glucose consumer). Then it’s more being metabolized by muscles than fat cells (if the muscles aren’tare out-pacing supply, and have sufficient oxygen).
I’d say this is part of why multiple, smaller meals is better - lower total glycemic load per meal, so a smaller insulin response, less opportunity for fat cells to engage, and also reduced eicosanoid production (these are hormones that trigger things like inflammation, iirc).
All this is why folks like the old diabetes docs and Sears focus on the simple approach: more calories from fat and protein than carbs (especially fat, since it reduces glycemic load and is more easily metabolized into more varied nutrients), and avoid simple carbs (bread, dammit, my nemesis) as much as possible. That’s easy to understand, and fairly easy to visualize proportions once you’ve done it a while.
Very interesting, you’re really good at explaining things you know a lot about to people that don’t. Very valuable skill to have. Thanks for explaining!
Utilize as in turn sugar into energy rather than fat?
Not sarcasm, I don’t know shit about this, but if that’s how it works I can see why OC would suggest what he did.
Yea, insulin is a hormone to which cells respond by metabolising glucose in the blood stream. The more insulin, the more metabolising of glucose (including fat cells).
This is part of why high glucose levels from a high-glycemic meal are problematic - as soon as our mouth or gut recognize the incoming carbohydrates, the message to release more insulin is sent, which then means increase glucose consumption, including fat cells.
The crazy thing is it doesn’t even take a carb that we can metabilize - those zero calorie sweeteners apparently cause an insulin spike too, because sweetness sensitive receptors react to them, and don’t realize they can’t be metabolized, so still cause an insulin release.
In the early 90’s a biochemist (Barry Sears) wrote a book called “The Zone”, where he breaks down in layman terms how metabolism works, why more frequent, smaller meals, with minimal carbs is best for most (which diabetes docs advised in the 40’s), and noted that glycemic instability is a major cause of heart disease (which docs are just now starting to recognize). Don’t get any other Zone crap - that first book is the only one that’s all about the biochemistry, the rest are more “use my methods, buy my tools”.
I found his book because of diabetes and hypoglycemia in my family. Practically overnight symptoms for everyone improved. That was pretty convincing. Today we can predict when someone’s gonna feel bad, and how long, just by what they eat - we rarely get surprise low glucose anymore.
That being said, would metabolizing more sugar and fat be a cause for less fat stored? Unless metabolize doesn’t necessarily mean “used or spent”
Simplistically no, but then again, yes… because again fat cells metabolize too (as in they grow). (But we’d want to clarify the circumstance, as metabolism isn’t just one simple thing. I’d say this question is sort of a next level discussion of metabolism).
Increased glucose metabolism is (generally) only good if it’s caused by exertion - aka exercise (or heavy thinking, the brain is a massive glucose consumer). Then it’s more being metabolized by muscles than fat cells (if the muscles
aren’tare out-pacing supply, and have sufficient oxygen).I’d say this is part of why multiple, smaller meals is better - lower total glycemic load per meal, so a smaller insulin response, less opportunity for fat cells to engage, and also reduced eicosanoid production (these are hormones that trigger things like inflammation, iirc).
All this is why folks like the old diabetes docs and Sears focus on the simple approach: more calories from fat and protein than carbs (especially fat, since it reduces glycemic load and is more easily metabolized into more varied nutrients), and avoid simple carbs (bread, dammit, my nemesis) as much as possible. That’s easy to understand, and fairly easy to visualize proportions once you’ve done it a while.
Very interesting, you’re really good at explaining things you know a lot about to people that don’t. Very valuable skill to have. Thanks for explaining!