Saturated fat and insulin sensitivity (KANWU Study)

[Roadstr]

I picked up a diet book because Amazon reviews were highly favorable. It has a section about Atkins and talked about saturated fats causing insulin resistance, leptin resistance and inflammation (the author footnoted studies) when at levels used in a low carb diet like Atkins. I couldn't believe it, my experience has always been the opposite; less inflammation as I saw my skin as healthier.

Anyway, after 8 days of keeping carbs below 40 grms and loosing just 5 lbs (208 to 203) and the last few days staying at 203 I decided to try the diet.

The diet is 9 servings of veggies and fruits per day, 30% protein, 40% carbs, 30% fat and no calorie restriction, but following the menu plan gives 1700-1900 calories. It very low in saturated fats, maybe 6-10 grams/day. I was on it for 12 days and weight really didn't change. Problem was I started having skin breaking out... talk about inflammation! Saturated fats my be 25% more inflammatory than MUFA's, but something about this diet really caused eruptions in my skin. The only thing I could attribute it too was a reference in PPLP on pg. 243 where it's mentioned that unsaturated fats can cause lipid peroxides. Anyway, I started keeping my carbs below 30 grms on 1/27 and lost 1 to 1.5 lbs per day and at 196 now. Now I'm thinking did that low saturated diet create more insulin sensitivity so that the low carb diet caused such a dramatic loss?

Pretty impressive fat loss and my skin is much better.

The only problem I have now is thinking that these studies showing saturated fats causing insulin resistance have any relevance to my understanding of PP. Maybe it was the other diet that claimed to cause an increase in insulin and leptin sensitivity that resulted in a lower level of insulin being enough to open up the fat cells when low carbing the second time. I don't know, but any ideas and references to saturated fats not causing any problems would be appreciated. What I thought I knew about saturated fats... umm, not so sure now.

Here is a pretty good article on fat and insulin resistance associated with saturated fats...
http://www.aaccnet.org/cerealfoodsworld/samplepdfs/CFW-51-0016.pdf

The KANWU (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11317662) study is titled "Substituting dietary saturated for monounsaturated fat impairs insulin sensitivity in healthy men and women".

[laughingW]

any ideas and references to saturated fats not causing any problems would be appreciated.
My idea is, saturated fats don't cause problems if you eat them without sugars.

You can always search Dr. Eades' blog for "saturated fat".

I read the study. That study was was based on 45% carb on 2200 cals so at 225 carb grams per day, it's nothing like PP, so you can't apply conclusions from that study to a PP plan.

If you're talking about the Zone, it's pretty common knowledge that the Zone is too high in carbs for people with insulin issues and is made for people with lots of sugar-burning exercise.

If you like the nitty-gritty science, see Peter at Hyperlipid and his posts on "Physiological Insulin Resistance."

A sampling:

"What is happening? Well, the first thing is that LC eating rapidly induces insulin resistance. This is a completely and utterly normal physiological response to carbohydrate restriction. Carbohydrate restriction drops insulin levels. Low insulin levels activate hormone sensitive lipase. Fatty tissue breaks down and releases non esterified fatty acids. These are mostly taken up by muscle cells as fuel and automatically induce insulin resistance in those muscles. There are a couple of nice summaries by Brand Miller (from back in the days when she used her brain for thinking) here (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=7895958&ordinalpos=2&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVDocSum) and here (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=9288547&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVDocSum) and Wolever (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=10889799&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVDocSum) has some grasp of the problem too.

This is patently logical as muscle runs well on lipids and so glucose can be left for tissues such as brain, which really need it. Neuronal tissue varies in its use of insulin to uptake glucose but doesn't accumulate lipid in the way muscle does, so physiological insulin resistance is not an issue for brain cells.

However, while muscles are in "refusal mode" for glucose the least input, from food or gluconeogenesis, will rapidly spike blood glucose out of all proportion. This is fine if you stick to LC in your eating. It also means that if you take an oral glucose tolerance test you will fail and be labelled diabetic. In fact, even a single high fat meal can do this, extending insulin resistance in to the next day. Here's a reference (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=14616250&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVDocSum) for this."

[maxlharris]

Roadstr:
8 days, 5 lbs. nice. Not sure why you would quit the diet after 8 days with .63 lb a day weight loss.

then 12 days on the zone/med diet. No change. I can see why you would want to change, but, more on this later.

then 7 days of LC with good results.

I think it is imperative for good health to generally stick with a regimen for a long enough to actually see results of some consistency (like 30 days or more). And for the sake of your metabolism, you kick it over to ketone burning with 8 days of LC, then dump a ton of carbs on it for a week and change, then back to fat burning. I'd say this might be a workable strategy if you were stalled, but since you're losing effectively on LC (mostly fluid, as you are doubtless aware), why not stick it out to the end of february before trying something else.

Then

[kevindill]

Have to agree with Max, (there I said it), but chronic diet changing is not a strategy for success. Pick a plan and work it.

FWIW, just being 40-30-30 is NOT "The Zone". TZD is eating a prescriptive amount of protein and carbs at each meal, with fat used to modulate weight gain/loss. People who are willing and able to exercise above the bare minimum will probably be more successful than those not.

[Roadstr]

My idea is, saturated fats don't cause problems if you eat them without sugars.

That has always been my understanding as well. But, I got wrapped up in what Dr. Leo Galland, author of The Fat Resistance Diet was saying... anyway, I was wondering how many carbs were in the study. Thanks for the insulin resistance for muscle... there's also the liver and fat cells... I wonder if they are effected in the same way?

Max... In the first (below 40 grams stage) I referred to I lost the 5 lbs in 4 days... that's just about all water (as we'all know) and then flat for 3 days. When I started reading Galland's book I wanted to try it because his recipes looked great and his "Stage 1" meal plans are low carb... hmm not 40 grams though, it's more like 120-140 grams because it has a lot of berries, apples and lots of veggies... but to most standards (except ours) that's low carb. :rolleyes: But, now you know I wasn't dumping "a ton of carbs"... but I would assume that from my post as well. I've started low carbing in 2000 and was posting on this board back then. I remember one guy on the old board that was proposing eating sardines for a month, I'll never forget that, and he was fully informed that PP wasn't about eating sardines. I was 240 lbs and 35% BF back then and I kept my carbs below 30 grams for about a year then and have been going on and off since. That's when I started lifting weights and working out.

Kevin... I lift weights 3-5 times a week work out on Bally's aerobic machines and take 5 mile power walks when it's above 35. I'm always changing my level of carbs and my workouts are changed about as often as my diet.:D

Anyway... dropping 7 lbs from 203 to 196 in 5 days is pretty awesome .. there wasn't a lot of water in that weight loss because carbs were already relatively low, waist measurement went down and interesting (to me) in how it occurred with diet. That was the gist of my post.:)

Thanks!

[maxlharris]

120-140 is really a lot of carbs. Granted, it's below the 200-300 that the average american eats daily, but that's an absolutely insane amount.

Going from ketogenic ranges (<60 for most, <40 for 90% and <20 for 95%) to 120-140 is bound to be a systemic shock unless you are young or very muscular.

On other stuff: The machines are evil. They do not work you in a useful, functional manner and will generate muscle imbalances. They do not develop the supporting muscles, the stabilizers and such, the way free weights and bodyweight exercises do. I'm not gonna go on my full rant about machines (or the recumbent bike, or the elliptical machine), but I will suggest that you might see some very nice gains and some very nice imporvements by stepping away from the machines (starting with the leg press, then the leg curl) and moving to free weights. The cable crossover station, the rowing station and the lat pull station are all exempted from my rant. These are good machines. The rest are machines out of the Matrix or the Terminator.

I'm happy for you. Will be interested to see how this works or what you do going forward. I forgot to add my mantras, it is your science experiment and mileage varies.

KevinDill: I think we probably agree on alot of stuff that doesn't involve economics or politics.

[kevindill]

Sorry Max but machines are not evil. Some are better quality than others, but its how they are used that makes them good or bad. While I agree that for those who are able to safely execute free or body weight movements, it is a preferable option. But as part of an over all routine, to bring up lagging parts or to work around orthopedic limitations they have their place.

[laughingW]

.I lift weights 3-5 times a week work out on Bally's aerobic machines and take 5 mile power walks when it's above 35. I'm always changing my level of carbs and my workouts are changed about as often as my diet.:D

Anyway... dropping 7 lbs from 203 to 196 in 5 days is pretty awesome .. there wasn't a lot of water in that weight loss because carbs were already relatively low, waist measurement went down and interesting (to me) in how it occurred with diet. That was the gist of my post.:)

Thanks!
Roadstr do you read Mark Sissons at "Mark's Daily Apple"? He eats 100 ish carbs of fruits and veggies - no grains - and has a lot of activity. Your activity and waist measurement improvement made me think of that. Maybe you are at the point where you can have carbs up to your protein requirement or whatever?

[maxlharris]

Enjoy the machine workouts KevinDill.
http://artisanfitness.com/2008/07/stupid-exercise-of-the-week-the-leg-press/

For a balanced take on machines vs. free weights:
http://www.60in3.com/2008/04/14/free-weights-vs-machines-the-gyms-eternal-argument/
I would highlight or comment on a few things in there:
1- Form on machines is only as good as the person doing the exercise adjusts the machine, as good as the machine is adjustable, and is only better if the person with the free weight isn't paying attention.
2- This "good form" of the machines over isolates muscles and doesn't work secondary and stabilization muscles hardly at all. This makes point 2 in the blogger's post more important than point 1, which was overstated anyway.
3- Machines limit injury while in use. Machines promote muscular imbalance and the lack of secondary muscle recruitment leads to injuries when you are off the machine.
4- The precision of the machine workout is a dubious benefit, at best.
5- In his comparison of the leg press and the squat, see the first link. If you are doing leg presses, you are not spending your time well.

I have a bunch of stuff on the uselessness and biomechanical badness of the elliptical, but that should be enough for you to chew on for now.

[maxlharris]

You might also check this one out:
http://proteinpower.com/forum/showthread.php?p=84712#post84712

[kevindill]

Ok, not sure where you are going. Sometimes, "over isolation" is a good thing when training around injuries and when bodybuilding. As to the injury thing, I understand the argument - but my experience as a trainer in the military doesn't bear it out. None the less, a poorly preformed exercise is a poorly preformed exercise regardless of modality. As to the precision argument, unless you are going to compete, who cares how much you are lifting? The name of the game is lifting progressively.

[lczeledoc]

My idea is, saturated fats don't cause problems if you eat them without sugars.

If you're talking about the Zone, it's pretty common knowledge that the Zone is too high in carbs for people with insulin issues and is made for people with lots of sugar-burning exercise.

If you like the nitty-gritty science, see Peter at Hyperlipid and his posts on "Physiological Insulin Resistance."

A sampling:

"What is happening? Well, the first thing is that LC eating rapidly induces insulin resistance. This is a completely and utterly normal physiological response to carbohydrate restriction. Carbohydrate restriction drops insulin levels. Low insulin levels activate hormone sensitive lipase. Fatty tissue breaks down and releases non esterified fatty acids. These are mostly taken up by muscle cells as fuel and automatically induce insulin resistance in those muscles. There are a couple of nice summaries by Brand Miller (from back in the days when she used her brain for thinking) here (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=7895958&ordinalpos=2&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVDocSum) and here (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=9288547&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVDocSum) and Wolever (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=10889799&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVDocSum) has some grasp of the problem too.

This is patently logical as muscle runs well on lipids and so glucose can be left for tissues such as brain, which really need it. Neuronal tissue varies in its use of insulin to uptake glucose but doesn't accumulate lipid in the way muscle does, so physiological insulin resistance is not an issue for brain cells.

However, while muscles are in "refusal mode" for glucose the least input, from food or gluconeogenesis, will rapidly spike blood glucose out of all proportion. This is fine if you stick to LC in your eating. It also means that if you take an oral glucose tolerance test you will fail and be labelled diabetic. In fact, even a single high fat meal can do this, extending insulin resistance in to the next day. Here's a reference (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=14616250&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVDocSum) for this."

I think that the insulin resistance in muscles brought about by LC/high fat consumption does not apply if one engages in glycogen depleting activities. The muscles will take glucose/glycogen post activity.

The Zone is a good diet only for people with intact metabolism and who engage in vigorous exercise.

[maxlharris]

Ok, not sure where you are going. Sometimes, "over isolation" is a good thing when training around injuries and when bodybuilding. As to the injury thing, I understand the argument - but my experience as a trainer in the military doesn't bear it out. None the less, a poorly preformed exercise is a poorly preformed exercise regardless of modality. As to the precision argument, unless you are going to compete, who cares how much you are lifting? The name of the game is lifting progressively.

For a bodybuilder, over isolation is maybe a good thing. For anyone just into their typical health or fitness, functional training is much better than bodypart training.

The real name of the game is periodization and progression in your periods. Everything works some (freeweights work better than machines in most of the population), but nothing works forever, or even for long.

Since you are dismissing the precision argument (and argument in favor of machines) and only clinging to injury (rare anyway) and isolation as reasons for machines, enjoy your machines.

[maxlharris]

Don't forget the last link:
if you don't want to click through:

Kolber, MJ, Beekhuizen, KS, Cheng, MS, and Hellman, MA. J Strength Cond Res 23(1): 148-157, 2009-

Shoulder disorders attributed to weight training are well documented in the literature; however, a paucity of evidence-based research exists to describe risk factors inherent to participation. Shoulder joint and muscle characteristics in the recreational weight training (RWT) population were investigated to determine specific risk-related adaptations that may occur from participation.

Ninety participants, men between the ages of 19 and 47 (mean age 28.9), including 60 individuals who participated in upper-extremity RWT and 30 controls with no record of RWT participation, were recruited. Active range of motion (AROM), posterior shoulder tightness (PST), body weight-adjusted strength values, and agonist/antagonist strength ratios were compared between the RWT participants and the control group.

Statistical analysis identified significant differences (p < 0.001) between the groups when analyzing shoulder mobility. The RWT participants had decreased mobility when compared with the control group for all AROM measurements except external rotation, which was greater.p ≤ 0.001), implying agonist/antagonist muscle imbalances. Strength ratios were significantly greater in the RWT group when compared with the control group

(The findings of this investigation suggest that RWT participants are predisposed to strength and mobility imbalances as a result of training. The imbalances identified have been associated with shoulder disorders in the general and athletic population; thus, these imbalances may place RWT participants at risk for injury. Common training patterns are biased toward large muscle groups such as the pectorals and deltoids but neglect muscles responsible for stabilization such as the external rotators and lower trapezius. Exercise selection that mitigates strength and mobility imbalances may serve to prevent injury in this population. Clinicians and strength and conditioning professionals should consider the biomechanical stresses and adaptations associated with RWT when prescribing upper-extremity exercises.
Emphasis mine. The key bit here is the bit about imbalances. The strength training they were doing (with isolation exercises and machines) reduced range of motion.

I have yet to see the machine that works the external rotator in concert with the large muscles or the lower trap in concert with the upper trap and large muscles (save the cable machines, which I have already exempted from my Rise of the Machines argument). And therein lies the cardinal sin of most machines (exempting crunches and leg presses which are, for various and sometimes differing reasons, junk exercises).

[Roadstr]

Roadstr do you read Mark Sissons at "Mark's Daily Apple"? He eats 100 ish carbs of fruits and veggies - no grains - and has a lot of activity. Your activity and waist measurement improvement made me think of that. Maybe you are at the point where you can have carbs up to your protein requirement or whatever?

Thanks for the Daily Apple info... I can really identify with what Mark is saying about diet and eating the level of carbs he catagorizes. It really took a long time for me to be able to raise and lower carbs with just veggies and fruits without the desire for breads and "goodies".
My feeling about exercising with machines vs free weights is both are better than none. Muscle response to resistance is to grow and if for whatever reason it's easier to cause that resistance by heavy pressure from weights that are stabilized that's great... If you can lift heavy while stabilizing the weights or have a spotter that's even better. Either way, your training and if not neither will benefit you... except for dusting them off.:rolleyes:

[kevindill]

Don't forget the last link:
if you don't want to click through:

Emphasis mine. The key bit here is the bit about imbalances. The strength training they were doing (with isolation exercises and machines) reduced range of motion.

I have yet to see the machine that works the external rotator in concert with the large muscles or the lower trap in concert with the upper trap and large muscles (save the cable machines, which I have already exempted from my Rise of the Machines argument). And therein lies the cardinal sin of most machines (exempting crunches and leg presses which are, for various and sometimes differing reasons, junk exercises).


I think you are setting up a false dichotomy.

To be honest I really hate the machine vs free weight argument. Its tiresome, and been going on for years, and we aren't likely to settle it once and for all time, here on protein power. All I'm going to say is that I've lifted for over 25 years. I've used both and been successful with both. I've been a trainer and a strength coach, bodybuilder and highland games competitor, and the one sure thing I can tell you is that the equipment you use is far less important than how its used. You say periodization is important, and to a point that's true.. But the point of periodization is to be peaking for a competition. If you aren't competing the value is less and simple variation over time will suffice. The bottom line is still hard work, progression, overload and recovery - period.

[laughingW]

.The bottom line is still hard work, progression, overload and recovery - period.
I would add that recovery has two parts - rest, plus compensation for the imbalances that arise out of the work itself.