If Protein Causes A Greater Insulin Spike Than Starch/Sugar

Ron J

Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2016
Messages
746
Then does it really matter that starch causes a greater insulin spike than sugar, as long as it's accompanied with protein?
Lets assume that you eat all your daily protein in 3-4 meals with starch, and throughout the day you consume sugars to lower stress hormones, or to keep the liver full. Wouldn't that be the same as eating the 3-4 meals with sugar and also consuming sugar throughout the day?
 

Xisca

Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2015
Messages
2,273
Location
Canary Spain
i just remember Peat saying to not eat proteins without some carb.
Anyway he also says we need proteins, so we have to put them somewhere in the diet!

My main concern would be to understand WHY protein trigger insuline.... it sounds unlogical, but sure there is a meaning in this as in all!
 

Elysium

Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2017
Messages
141
Starch raises blood sugar faster than sugar as fructose in sucrose has a buffering effect.
Blood sugar sugar spikes arent good accoring to Peat - they lead to obesity.

Your question is nonsensical - protein does nothing to lower the insulin, on the contrary it will add to it. You may be thinking of fat, which may buffer glucose absorption.

Insulin does the same with protein as it does with sugar (as well as fat) - delivers them where they are supposed to be. Nothing illogical. Insulin is not a sugar hormone. It is a metabolic hormone.
 

Xisca

Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2015
Messages
2,273
Location
Canary Spain
Insulin act to deliver them...
But this lowers blodd sugar, and lowering blood sugar from eating protein, means too low sugar!
So there is some logic in eating carb with protein, and not protein alone.
The lack of logic is why insuline from proteins also make sugar to go low... Or else it means we have always been supposed to eat both at the same time! For not resulting in hypoglycemia from meat eating. (well, I do remember that there is glycogen in fresh meat)

So I just think we need carb with proteins, but not protein with carbs!
Always some saturated fat, preferably, with starches yes. Fruit fiber is enough for fruits to be eaten on their own and assimilated slow.
 

Elysium

Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2017
Messages
141
Protein triggers insulin yet delivers no glucose, leading to low blood sugar, since insulin removes whatever glucose there is in serum - as it is supposed to.
 
OP
R

Ron J

Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2016
Messages
746
Starch raises blood sugar faster than sugar as fructose in sucrose has a buffering effect.
Blood sugar sugar spikes arent good accoring to Peat - they lead to obesity.

Your question is nonsensical - protein does nothing to lower the insulin, on the contrary it will add to it. You may be thinking of fat, which may buffer glucose absorption.

Insulin does the same with protein as it does with sugar (as well as fat) - delivers them where they are supposed to be. Nothing illogical. Insulin is not a sugar hormone. It is a metabolic hormone.
If protein causes a greater insulin spike, does that(bold) matter if you eat a protein rich meal with starch instead of sugar? Is there a limit of insulin secretion, or would adding starch to protein cause an even greater insulin spike than protein alone?
 
OP
R

Ron J

Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2016
Messages
746
Although it has nothing to do with insulin, this is something to consider:
"Int: We notice the same part in France. You go to France and they all eat cheese and they’re all very slender. , so what you’re saying is 400 calories from orange juice is not comparative to 400 calories from baked potatoes and rice?

RP: Definitely not. It stimulates the metabolism and supresses the stress hormones.

Int: Where as 400 calories from baked potatoes and rice would increase your stress hormones and suppress your metabolism?

RP: Yeah and then there is the matter of the starch particles. If you don’t have some saturated fat with them the starch particles can set up a whole pattern of stress and entry by entering your blood stream, which people taking supplements should be careful to avoid anything with particles such as titanium dioxide or silica.
Those are very allergenic particles that are in all supplements practically.
Those things getting into the blood stream and trigger the stress hormones. Obesity is the least of the things they contribute to… "
Weight Loss, KMUD Herb Doctors, 2013
Sugar it is.
 

Elysium

Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2017
Messages
141
I honestly don't get how he made the switch from starch to titanium dioxide. Is he in the subsequent sentences back to starch, or is he continuing to talk about TiO2? Guess we'll never know.
 
Last edited:

Xisca

Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2015
Messages
2,273
Location
Canary Spain
Protein triggers insulin yet delivers no glucose, leading to low blood sugar, since insulin removes whatever glucose there is in serum - as it is supposed to.
How did population eating meat like near the pole or bison hunters or in Mongolia etc, or former prehistoric population in winter... This seems counter intuitive to agree with this statement.

Of course, this is so, but I still do not understand WHY at evolutionary level!
Eating meat, and then glucose lowering, and what did they do?
It seems stupid that evolution made this possible, to lower something that you have not eaten!
Something missing to be understood in this matter...
That it delivers protein, amino acids, where they are due, fine, but that protein eating reduces sugar has nothing to do with delivering what needs to be delivered.
What is the adaptation meat eaters had?
 

Giraffe

Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2015
Messages
3,730
If protein causes a greater insulin spike, does that(bold) matter if you eat a protein rich meal with starch instead of sugar? Is there a limit of insulin secretion, or would adding starch to protein cause an even greater insulin spike than protein alone?
If you eat protein without carbohydrates, some of the protein is turned into glucose. This is wasteful and better avoided. Whether or not added protein to the starch meal raises insulin more than eating the starch on its own depends on the kind of protein. Here adding gelatin to glucose did not result in higher insulin levels (see figure 1), and the lowering of the blood glucose level below the baseline was a bit attenuated. Whey added to a test meal in this study resulted in higher insulin levels (see figure 2).

I don't know how much insulin peaks are an issue . If they do cause problems, you can avoid them by eating smaller meals more frequently. I think an issue with starch (or glucose) is that that insulin stays elevated much longer. If you look at the figure is the post here, you see that after a 50g-carbohydrate load in the form of glucose or bread, insulin was still elevated after 2 hours (when they stopped measuring); whereas after loading with sucrose, insulin levels came down again pretty quickly.

So I just think we need carb with proteins, but not protein with carbs!
You want some protein with your carbohydrates, or you risk to raise serotonin in the brain.

Meals Rich In Carbohydrates, But Poor In Protein May Increase Serotonin In The Brain

How did population eating meat like near the pole or bison hunters or in Mongolia etc, or former prehistoric population in winter... This seems counter intuitive to agree with this statement.


Of course, this is so, but I still do not understand WHY at evolutionary level!

Eating meat, and then glucose lowering, and what did they do?

It seems stupid that evolution made this possible, to lower something that you have not eaten!

Something missing to be understood in this matter...

That it delivers protein, amino acids, where they are due, fine, but that protein eating reduces sugar has nothing to do with delivering what needs to be delivered.

What is the adaptation meat eaters had?

Glucose is probably needed for protein synthesis.

"What is the adaptation meat eaters had?"

Gluconeogenesis - Wikipedia
 
Last edited:

Xisca

Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2015
Messages
2,273
Location
Canary Spain
Now I understand much better, thanks Giraffe!
 
Joined
Feb 4, 2015
Messages
1,972
Insulin is supposed to "spike." That is the whole point of eating, low blood glucose. The problem is when you're insulin resistant and blood glucose does not get into cells fast enough.

Insulin does more than just deal with blood glucose. It also transports amino acids to the brain and the rest of the body.
 

beta pandemic

Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2016
Messages
153
Location
Melbourne
Insulin is supposed to "spike." That is the whole point of eating, low blood glucose. The problem is when you're insulin resistant and blood glucose does not get into cells fast enough.

Insulin does more than just deal with blood glucose. It also transports amino acids to the brain and the rest of the body.

thank you
 
J

James IV

Guest
This is a bit of a reductionists understanding. Simply using the term proteins, starches, and sugars, doesn't account for the actual foods you are eating. Although the foods you eat may contain the some, or all, of the constituents above, they will not always have the same effect on insulin and blood glucose.
I would suggest focusing on how different foods affect you, rather than focusing on macros or submacros.
 

Giraffe

Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2015
Messages
3,730
Insulin is supposed to "spike." That is the whole point of eating, low blood glucose.
So far no one in this thread has questioned that insulin is needed, but you don't want it to be elevated too long. The point is that it doesn't require a lot of insulin to get glucose and amino acids into the cells, but some foods or some meals trigger more insulin than others.

The problem is when you're insulin resistant and blood glucose does not get into cells fast enough.
It's not only a question of being insulin resistant or not. The amount of glucose that enters the blood stream in a given period matters, too.

The athletes in the study linked here were given either sucrose, fructose or different amounts of glucose after exhausting bicycle exercise. After ingesting 1.4 gram glucose per kg bodyweight the insulin levels were much higher, than after ingesting 0.7 g/kg despite comparable blood glucose levels. Sucrose raised insulin less than did glucose, but both were equally good at restoring muscle glycogen levels.
 

shepherdgirl

Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2015
Messages
707
RP: Yeah and then there is the matter of the starch particles. If you don’t have some saturated fat with them the starch particles can set up a whole pattern of stress and entry by entering your blood stream, which people taking supplements should be careful to avoid anything with particles such as titanium dioxide or silica.
Those are very allergenic particles that are in all supplements practically.
Those things getting into the bloodstream and trigger the stress hormones.
I honestly don't get how he made the switch from starch to titanium dioxide. Is he in the subsequent sentences back to starch, or is he continuing to talk about TiO2? Guess we'll never know.
@Xisca - I am not sure I am correct, but this is my interpretation of what Dr Peat is saying. I think Dr. Peat is talking about persorption. That is when very small, hard particles can get trapped in the capillaries. The reason he recommends some fat with starches is because fat slows down digestion of starch, and when that happens not as many starch particles are persorbed. So starch particles as well as a lot of the fillers they put in supplements, such as silica or titanium dioxide, can all be persorbed, and he is recommending avoiding these kinds of fillers in supplements and taking some fat with your starch.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom