What exactly is insulin resistance? One of insulin’s jobs is to help move glucose from the blood into the cells for energy. When blood glucose remains elevated despite normal or high levels of insulin, this is called insulin resistance. The cells are resisting insulin’s pleas to take up glucose. But why is this happening? What causes insulin resistance?
The current paradigm of understanding insulin resistance is the ‘lock and key’ model. The hormone insulin acts upon a cell surface receptor to do its job. The insulin receptor is like a lock keeping the gates to the cell closed. Insulin is like the proper key. When inserted, the gate opens to let glucose from the blood inside the cell for energy. Once you remove the key (insulin), the gate closes back up and blood glucose can no longer enter the cell.
During the phenomenon of insulin resistance, we imagine that the lock and key no longer fit together very well. The key (insulin) only partially opens the lock (receptor) and not very easily. Glucose cannot pass through the gate normally, and as a result, less gets into the cell. The blood glucose piles up outside the gate, becoming detectable as the clinical diagnosis of type 2 diabetes is made.
Science can’t prove it and the industry denies it, but Gary Taubes is convinced that the sweet stuff kills.
“I hope that when you have read this book I shall have convinced you that sugar is really dangerous,” wrote John Yudkin in his foghorn-sounding treatise on nutrition from 1972, Pure, White and Deadly. Sugar’s rapid rise to prominence in the Western diet, starting in the mid-19th century, had coincided with a sudden outbreak of heart disease, diabetes, and obesity. Yudkin, one of the United Kingdom’s most prominent nutritionists at the time, believed that one had caused the other.
Then, as now, there was no decisive test of his idea—no perfect way to make the case that sugar kills. It’s practically impossible to run randomized, controlled experiments on human diets over many years, so the brief against sugar, like the case against any other single foodstuff, must be drawn from less reliable forms of testimony: long-term correlations, animal experiments, evolutionary claims, and expert judgments.
This past fall, Gary Taubes took his wife and two sons on a trip to a wildlife preserve in Sonoma County, California, the kind of place where guests learn firsthand about the species of the Serengeti. They slept in tents and spent the day among giraffes, zebras, antelope, and the like. One morning, Taubes and his boys awoke early. “It was 50 degrees out — freezing by our standards,” he recalls. “I took the kids to breakfast, and” — his face takes on a pained expression — “how can I not give them hot chocolate?”
For most parents, indulging the kids with some cocoa would pose no dilemma. But Taubes, one of America’s leading and most strident nutrition writers, is no ordinary father. His new book, The Case Against Sugar, seems destined to strike fear into the hearts of children everywhere. Taubes’ argument is simple: Sugar is likely poison, and it’s what is making our country fat. And not just fat but sick. So don’t eat it. Ever.
The evidence linking body weight and cancer has been building for decades, with new evidence still emerging.
Only a few months ago the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) released a report saying there is now strong evidence linking body weight to even more cancer types than was previously thought. Bringing the total tally to 13 types of cancer.
Hyperinsulinemia plays the dominant role in provoking obesity and fatty liver disease, but what causes it? Insulin is intimately related to our diet, so that was naturally the first place to look. Highly refined and processed carbohydrates, such as sugars, flour, bread, pasta, muffins, donuts, rice and potatoes are well known to raise blood glucose and insulin production. This became known as the carbohydrate-insulin hypothesis, and forms the rational basis for many of the low carbohydrate diets such as the Atkins diet.
These are not new ideas, but very old ones. The first low carbohydrate diet dates all the way back to the mid 19th century. William Banting (1796–1878) published in 1863 the pamphlet Letter on Corpulence, Addressed to the Public, which is often considered the world’s first diet book. Weighing 202 pounds (91.6 kilograms), Banting had been trying unsuccessfully to lose weight by eating less and exercising more. But, just as today’s dieters, he was unsuccessful.
Yesterday, the BMJ officially announced that it won’t retract a “controversial” 2015 article by investigative journalist Nina Teicholz, author of NYT best-seller The Big Fat Surprise.
Following a lengthy investigation lasting over a year, the BMJ said that two independent reviewers “found no grounds for retraction,” and that Teicholz’s criticisms of the methods used by the 2015 US Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) “are within the realm of scientific debate.”
As reported on this blog and The Sidebar (my US blogging buddy Peter M. Heimlich’s crack investigative journalism blog), Washington-DC based advocacy group the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) – in bed with prominent members of the DGAC – aggressively campaigned to get the article retracted.