The Potato Diet....criticisms and metabolic theory page 8

[pklopp]

PK, about what would you say is the difference in insulin levels between your average insulin sensitive potato faster and a hyperinsulinemic type II diabetic (eating normally, I suppose)? Also, are you aware of any high carb calorie restriction studies that measure loss of lean mass?

I kind of have a hard time believing this little potato hack would have essentially the same effect on GH, lipolysis and muscle wasting that you would see in a diabetic.

By the way, can you provide a link to that study you quoted?

Here is a graph showing the insulin response to a glucose tolerance test among various subjects. The graph relates percent change in insulin levels relative to baseline. What this graph shows is that if one is hyperinsulinemic ( type II diabetic ), the insulin response is actually less pronounced, with a lower peak release of insulin that also occurs in a delayed fashion relative to the ingestion of carbohydrates. Of course, in terms of absolute levels of insulin, the type II diabetics exhibit considerably higher levels across the board relative to non-diabetics.




This graph also shows that within one hour of ingesting 100g of carbohydrate, a normal non-diabetic subject has insulin levels 600% higher than baseline, and three hours later, levels are still 300% above baseline!

Here is the link to that study.

But, the more general point that I was trying to make was that the hormonal response to eating in general, and in this specific case, the eating of potatoes is definitely not the same as the hormonal response to not eating.

If nothing else, eating elevates insulin whereas fasting suppresses insulin. So you either believe that insulin plays a fundamental role in lipid metabolism, or it does not. If you believe that insulin does not play a role in lipid metabolism, well, the weight of scientific evidence is against you. If insulin does play a fundamental role in lipid metabolism, then elevating insulin as opposed to suppressing it should produce diametrically opposite results in terms of what happens to adipose tissue. This is simple propositional calculus, it really is independent of the underlying biochemistry.

Lastly, most studies of severely calorie restricted diets observe that unless minimum protein levels are maintained, a large proportion of weight loss is actually due to loss of lean tissue mass. I'll try to dig up some references for you. Isocaloric diets that have a relatively high protein content are lean mass sparing when compared to the low protein versions.

-PK

[j3nn]

If the success of the potato feast can be attributed to two important factors: a) the satiety of the potato and b) the absence of fat (very low-fat diet), can it be concluded that any combination of very (naturally) low-fat/high-carb foods would produce similar results? Take the juice "fast" results of the documentary "Fat, Sick, and Nearly Dead" for example. If you ate nothing but potatoes and vegetable juice and rice and sweet potatoes for two weeks, would the results be similar? Keep in mind, the high satiety component of the potato seems to be crucial to compliance and overall energy levels, so it's obviously an important element. I'd wager that results would be similar, but comfort and energy might vary in either direction.

[AlanC]

I'd say that's quite likely Jenn, though one of the reasons this has become popular is Otzi already trying it

Wanna volunteer?



AC

[j3nn]

Wanna volunteer?



AC

And give my Paleo doc a stroke? haha I think it's an interesting experiment, which I am all for. I believe there are many formulas to optimum health (and weight loss) and it's great that people are willing to invest the time and (sometimes discomfort) in figuring them out, variable by variable.

To answer the question, sure, I'd like to try it sometime in the future. I haven't found anything that has improved or solved my problems just yet, so I'm always interested in learning more about myself.

[j3nn]

I'm wondering how low the protein variable has to be. I just did a hypothetical food tracking with naturally low-fat potatoes/rice/vegetables/condiments/juices and the protein still came out to 82g! And that's with 432g carb and only 5g fat, 2,034 calories. But an insane amount of food; 20 oz russet potato, 56g rice, 200+g sweet potato, etc. Plus, loads of fruit, veggies, and juice. Beyond what many would actually eat in a day.

[Forgotmylastusername]

The positives that have come out of this current potato obsession on this forum
- Death of the once popular "carbs spike insulin and make you fat" theory and the belief that you have to be low carb to lose weight.

- The realization that low fat diets aren't the devil and you don't have to suffer hunger on a low-fat diet if the diet is constructed well with satiating starches.

[AlanC]

Well I'm still a firm believer in the spiking of insulin leading to fat gain, though primarily if you're eating fat at the same time.

I'm one of those who found a drop in carbs led to a drop in fat but more to the point I've seen literally hundreds of 'Biggly' graphs that prove that point. It's the fact that just going low carb wasn't working for me anymore that led me here.

With the BP it seems it's not so much "carbs bad", more a matter of "carbs bad IF they're made from wheat or similar grains and/or heavily processed."

So natural potatoes? Probably OK, probably primal (we do seem to have the necessary DNA for digesting them) but would I mix a lot of spuds with fatty meats? Heck no.

Might work for some but I've seen the graphs... I KNOW it would make me fat.



AC

[gopintos]

The positives that have come out of this current potato obsession on this forum
- Death of the once popular "carbs spike insulin and make you fat" theory and the belief that you have to be low carb to lose weight.

- The realization that low fat diets aren't the devil and you don't have to suffer hunger on a low-fat diet if the diet is constructed well with satiating starches.

+1 or 2 even

... but would I mix a lot of spuds with fatty meats? Heck no.

Might work for some but I've seen the graphs... I KNOW it would make me fat.

AC

interesting. I did not even know that should be a concern to watch out for.

[Sabine]

Whoa, pklopp. That graph gives one furiously to think!

The obese non-diabetic (me) being the most extreme is very interesting. (And bears out what I've come to realize is why I've gained and had trouble losing in the past.) Incredible that is more extreme than all the other groups.

[otzi]

Free The Animal

This guy is jumping on the potato bandwagon, more in a PKLOPP style, though. Will be interesting to watch.

"The big hack here, of course, is the potato diet. It's been all over. I've even seen Peter blog about Chris Voight's experiment with potatoes and weight loss. There's apparently a big forum thread at MDA about it, and also comment threads on Ray Cronise's blog.

I don't want to steal any of Ray's thunder and I know he's looking into and experimenting with this in a very thorough way. So, here's just what I get as a gist of the whole deal, not having yet read anything but Peter's post.

Quality amino acid profile
Low in overall protein (5% or so total calories)
Low in fat
High in satiation, while low in "reward" as a function of the overall calories
In essence, it seems as though if you eat only potatoes you will have a very difficult time eating enough to maintain body weight—so long as they aren't dressed up with a lot of stuff like butter, sour cream, bacon...or deep fried. Apparently, people have been reporting weight loss of 1/2-1 pound per day on these diets without hunger. There might be a gut flora element to the deal as well.

OK, but how about if you could make them a bit more palatable with only a smal addition of other calories, but still achieve a similar result? This is what I aim to find out. Just a few hours ago I made a pot of potato soup, an off the cuff recipe creation."