PDA

View Full Version : Keepin insulin high



Short N Buff
02-03-2001, 09:14 PM
Is it a good idea to keep insulin levels high by taking tons of dextrose every few hours? Because of wrestling, i'm having a hard time recovering between meets (b/c we only have a days rest after meets). I'm always sore and I don't feel 100% recovered, so I was wondering if staying anabolic with the help of dextrose is healthy. Thanks
http://www.geocities.com/blackbeltnow/SNB.gif

Avatar
02-03-2001, 10:49 PM
If ya wanna get fat

Ronan
02-04-2001, 04:08 AM
It is a good idea infact crucial to take in fast acting sugars after your session. Make sure you comsume a large amount of simple sugar straight after your training or wrestling. This will help you recover faster.

But it is a bad idea to take in simple sugar all day. This would be a good way to make you diabetic. You will actually prolong recovery by doing this as if your insulin levels are too high all the sugar will be stored as bodyfat and not allowed to replenish your muscles. You want to have stable insulin levels by eating complex carbs instead.

Anthony
02-04-2001, 07:36 AM
"But it is a bad idea to take in simple sugar all day. This would be a good way to make you diabetic."

- This is an absolutely FALSE statement.

"your insulin levels are too high all the sugar will be stored as bodyfat and not allowed to replenish your muscles."

- Study after study after study has proven that "sugar doesn't affect blood glucose much differently from any other carbohydrate. In 1994, the American Diabetes Association officially changed its nutritional recommendations to say that sugar could be incorporated into a healthy meal plan for people with diabetes." This was taken directly from Margaret Grey, DrPH.

"You want to have stable insulin levels by eating complex carbs instead."

- This is also FALSE. Many complex carbs have a higher GI value than simple carbs.

Now, with this being said, simple sugars are still empty calories and there are still many reasons to avoid them. However, eating any type of complex carb isn't going to ensure that your blood sugar levels remain stable. Be sure to consult the Glycemic Index.

As for recovering faster - your sleep and diet are the most important factors. I would take a look at the quality of food you are eating, the amount of water you are drinking, and the amount of sleep you get each and every night.

[Edited by Anthony on 02-04-2001 at 01:58 PM]

Ronan
02-04-2001, 08:05 AM
Antoney you are obviously right about everything you say (or in your head you are) so why should I even reply to your post?

Ronan
02-04-2001, 08:08 AM
If you want my response ask for it, otherwise I am finished posting hear

body
02-04-2001, 12:56 PM
the american diabetic assocation said sugar does effect blood sugar levels different to other carbs is true in certain case that why they came up with glyceamic index to get round this, but eating to much dextrose will increase your risk of daibetes as i do not remember the diabetic assocation ever recommending eating dextrose by it self every couple of hours. fruits and milk contian simple sugar but are quite low glyceamic values will be better for diabetics as not cause as much damage as white rice even though thats a complex carb but it has a high GI.
are all foods with simple sugar empty calories? if so i do not remember milk being empty calories.
i think you are refereing to non-milk extrinisc(NME's) sugars.
to answer the main question yes dextrose will help you stay in anabolic state as long as your other requisit for anobolism are met such as sleep, protein etc, but its not the way that any one is going to advise you to adhere to stay in a anabolic state. i would not recommend it.

Behemouth
02-04-2001, 03:15 PM
ronan and anthony, everyone's opinion is greatly valued on this site. a difference of opinion is not a reason to fight. the worst that could come out of this is a good debate. so just take it easy :)

degsta
02-04-2001, 05:52 PM
There's not one good thing about keeping insulin levels high all day. After a workout, sure. But after time, you'll be working your pancreas too hard, shutting it down, causing diabetes. This is after many years of abuse though.

If you want to stay in an anabolic state throughout the day and recover better, eat protien in balanced meals throughout the day with lots of water. Get plenty of sleep too. Not enough will drop hormone levels.

chris mason
02-04-2001, 06:45 PM
I find it very difficult to believe that simple sugars don't affect insulin levels more than complex carbs. I think Margaret Grey might have had her study funded by the Hershey's corporation. Everything I have ever read said that simple sugars increase blood sugar more rapidly than complex carbs. I also have real world experience with a good friend who is a severe diabteic. When he gets sloppy and allows his blood sugar to dip dangerously low he will eat candy or drink a soda to quickly raise his blood sugar. Now, one of insulin's effects is to make the body prefer glucose for energy during prolonged exercise when the body should be burning fat. That would be a negative for bodybuilders. I would not recommend high amounts of simple sugars, although moderation is ok. High amounts of complex carbs combined with moderate protein and fat intake has been shown to actually lower insulin levels. So that is what I recommend you eat.

Short N Buff
02-04-2001, 08:27 PM
Thanks guys. I know that insulin is bad during competetions but all I want to know is is insulin safe and effective for anabolism. So my plan is : After workouts and practices, i'll spike insulin. But for competetions, i'll keep insulin low.

Anthony
02-05-2001, 02:49 AM
"I find it very difficult to believe that simple sugars don't affect insulin levels more than complex carbs."

- Check out the GI if you don't believe it.

"I think Margaret Grey might have had her study funded by the Hershey's corporation."

- For more than 20 years she has worked as a pediatric nurse practitioner, seeing children and adolescents with the disease. She combines that experience with research exploring ways that children and their families can better cope with diabetes.

Grey, DrPH, C-PNP, C-DE, FAAN, holds a bachelor's degree in nursing from the University of Pittsburgh, which gave her a distinguished alumna award. She graduated with a master's in nursing from Yale, and a doctorate in public health from Columbia University. Currently she is the associate dean for research affairs and Independence Foundation Professor of Nursing at the Yale University School of Nursing, which also honored her with a distinguished alumna award. She is a pediatric nurse practitioner with Yale's "ABCs of Diabetes" project, and is former director of the primary-care program at the University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing.

Grey is the principal investigator for a study called "Nursing Intervention for Youth with Chronic Illness," funded by the National Institute of Nursing Research. Topics of Grey's past research include how children respond to the stress of a chronic illness such as diabetes, coping skills training for minority youths with diabetes, how nurses can help young people to maintain tight blood-glucose control, and quality of life among children with insulin-dependent diabetes.

The former associate editor of the Journal of Pediatric Health Care, Grey contributed to the Encyclopedia of Nursing Research (Springer Publications, 1998). She was president of the National Association of Pediatric Nurse Associates and Practitioners and chair of the American Diabetes Association scientific sessions meeting committee. She currently chairs the American Academy of Nursing's expert panel on primary-care research networks.

"Everything I have ever read said that simple sugars increase blood sugar more rapidly than complex carbs."

- Show me a recent article that says this.

"I also have real world experience with a good friend who is a severe diabteic. When he gets sloppy and allows his blood sugar to dip dangerously low he will eat candy or drink a soda to quickly raise his blood sugar."

- Convenience. I don't know too many diabetics who are willing to carry around a baked potatoe with them.

gino
02-05-2001, 08:09 AM
Simple sugars increase blood glucose FASTER than complex carbs, not MORE. The rapid increase in glucose results in the pancreas releasing too much insulin, overcompensating for the increase.

Anthony
02-05-2001, 08:51 AM
"The Glycemic Index (G.I.) is a numerical system of measuring how fast a carbohydrate triggers a rise in circulating blood sugar..."

- Rick Mendosa

chris mason
02-05-2001, 08:54 AM
I agree with Gino! What do you think of that Gino! That is what I had said in my post if you had read it Anthony. I really don't care what accolades the woman has received, doesn't mean she is correct. The finest scientists in the world (including people with credentials like hers) used to say that weightlifting was bad for you. Guess what, they were wrong. I could be wrong, but that really goes against what makes sense to me and what I have read for some time. She could be right, but I really doubt it.

Anthony
02-05-2001, 09:05 AM
"I find it very difficult to believe that simple sugars don't affect insulin levels more than complex carbs."

- Chris Mason

"Simple sugars increase blood glucose FASTER than complex carbs, not MORE."

- Gino

"I agree with Gino! What do you think of that Gino! That is what I had said in my post if you had read it Anthony."

- Chris Mason

*****

Actually, I did read it, Chris ... I even took the liberty to extract a few quotes in case you forgot what you actually said. However, I think the two statements are incorrect. Gino's statement can be correct, but it would depend on which carbs he was comparing, and how each of those carbs were prepared.

[Edited by Anthony on 02-05-2001 at 11:06 AM]

Anthony
02-05-2001, 09:14 AM
And I agree that being a scientist doesn't mean she is correct, science is an ever evolving subject. But I still haven't seen you post anything that supports your theory.

body
02-05-2001, 11:38 AM
read up on NME(non-milk extrinsic sugars) these are the simple sugar that have the high GI. This is becuase these sugar are not enclosed by cell walls and are the higher glyceamic sugars of sucrose and glucose.
milk sugar are extrinisc but have a low Gi as the simple sugar is lactose. fruits sugar may be simple but they are enclosed within the cell walls so the cell walls have to be digested etc before the sugars become available so they enter the blood more slowly.
But sugar in coke is a NME as they have no cell walls enclosing them and are simple sugars so enter the body rapidly and cause the insulin spike.
NME's = candy, toffe, sweets, soft drinks, chocalate

NON-NME's - milk, fruit,
there are many other to add to the list above.

chris mason
02-05-2001, 02:11 PM
I am confident in my position, but I really don't have the time to research the subject and provide you with references. Looks like Body already did that for me, so thanks body. Anthony, you can't tell me that the vast majority of info. you have read on the subject doesn't agree with me. Lastly, science, for the most part, is an ever non-evolving field. Most "science" is just the regurgitation and rewording of previous ideas combined with crafty "research" to back up these ideas. Scientists, after all, are only human and go where the money is (money to back their research and allow them to live their incubated lives away from the "real" world). People who put up big money expect a return which will support their particular agenda. Yes, on occasion, breakthroughs do happen and new ideas are generated, but that is all together too infrequent.

[Edited by chris mason on 02-05-2001 at 04:13 PM]

Anthony
02-05-2001, 02:45 PM
I agree, the vast majority of info on the subject agrees with your statement. What is popular isn't always correct, and what is correct isn't always popular.

It's funny, though, that when science suits your need to back up a claim, you'll use it. But the second someone else uses it, you denounce it as rubish and act as if all scientists have a hidden agenda (see 'paranoia' for further explanation on this subject).

<sarcasm>
It's good to see that someone who frequents science texts as much as you has such a strong belief in the benefits of science.
</sarcasm>

I don't disagree with anything body posted, it seems to follow line with the GI ... I never said sugar was "low" on the GI scale, just lower than many complex carbs.

chris mason
02-05-2001, 06:55 PM
Yes, if science backs up something that I feel is true I will use it. What was your point? I only use science with regards to basic anatomical, physiological, nutritional facts and studies that make sense based on these facts. I don't use science that is based on studies about what these facts imply (unless they are well founded in my opinion) unless I have experienced them myself.


- Study after study after study has proven that "sugar doesn't affect blood glucose much differently from any other carbohydrate. In 1994, the American Diabetes Association officially changed its nutritional recommendations to say that sugar could be incorporated into a healthy meal plan for people with diabetes." This was taken directly from Margaret Grey, DrPH.

I don't disagree with anything body posted, it seems to follow line with the GI ... I never said sugar was "low" on the GI scale, just lower than many complex carbs.


Are the above two statements not contradictory. One says sugar is essentially the same as other carbs, the other says sugar is lower than MANY complex carbs. One statement ranks all sugars essentially the same, the second categorizes them. They were both from your posts. Which is it?



Look, I am very comfortable with my position on this subject, if you believe differently then so be it. Like I said, she could be right, I just don't think so. Seems like you are looking for a fight on this post. Maybe you should be content with the fact that you have presented your opinion and the doctor's and leave it at that.

[Edited by chris mason on 02-05-2001 at 09:04 PM]

Anthony
02-06-2001, 04:48 AM
"Yes, if science backs up something that I feel is true I will use it. What was your point?"

- My point is quite simple - I think you are closed minded. Although you contain a lot of good information, anything that goes against the general consensus is immediately dismissed because it doesn't conform to your preconceived notion of what is correct.

"sugar doesn't affect blood glucose much differently from any other carbohydrate"

- It still affects it differently ... but not by much.

"Seems like you are looking for a fight on this post."

- Not at all ... it just pains me to see false information being given out. I also learn a great deal from debates, since I can openly admit I don't know everything and I do make mistakes. So, if you want to quote any recent studies to back up your theory, feel free. I am more than interested to read them.

gino
02-06-2001, 06:23 AM
Oh no...what is this world coming to? Chris agrees with ME?!?!?! I must be wrong then...;)

chris mason
02-06-2001, 11:45 AM
Anthony, read this article; http://www.rice.edu/~jenky/sports/Insulin.athlete.html

I doesn't say much about sugar, but a little, and I bet if your read the articles in the reference section you may find they back my idea. Again, I don't find the subject compelling enough to spend my limited time on. My overall feeling is that nearly any food is acceptable in moderation. You definitely misjudge me, I throw out what I consider to be bulshet and keep what I consider to be accurate. My thoughts about these things are not new, they have been developed over years of trail and error, reading, and thought. You, I think, are the pot calling the kettle black. You read a study by Dr. Grey and take the word as law and will accept no other possibility. So if I am guilty, then so are you!

Gino, very nice! You and I agreed on the "myth" post as well. At least mostly.

[Edited by chris mason on 02-06-2001 at 01:52 PM]

Anthony
02-06-2001, 01:23 PM
Thanks for the article, Chris, it was a good read. It mentioned that diets should consist of mostly complex carbs - which I agree with. It also mentioned that simple carbs didn't have the same effect as complex. I also agree with this. I didn't really see much that concerned the debate at hand ...

As for taking Dr. Grey's word as law, that's jumping to conclusions. I used to think the same as you on this subject and when an alternative view was presented to me, I researched it. After a couple of months of reading several papers on the subject, talking to a few diabetics who are familiar with the new research, I decided the information was more accurate than the conventional idea.

So, no, I'm not the pot calling the kettle black. I don't believe I have misjudged you. You obviously have a lot of knowledge to share with us, and I am very appreciative of this. But I also believe you have a difficult time hearing the other side of the argument. I was hoping to be bombarded with the 'technical workings' I have seen in many of your posts, but for some reason that didn't happen. Perhaps because of lack of time or interest on the subject, or more likely in my opinion, lack of knowledge on the subject.

Do some research on the subject if you have time. And be objective about it ... biased research will always be a success.

chris mason
02-06-2001, 04:40 PM
Ahhhh, now you are on to something. Please read my posts carefully, I admitted the possibilty of being wrong. If I am not sure about something I will say so. You are correct, I don't have excessive interest in nutrition beyond some basic ideas because I think nutrition is overly hyped. I think that some people think that nutrition is a lot more than it really is, which is fuel for the body. For example, the Atkins diet. It may work, but while the theory may be sound and you may lose weight, you are not doing your health any favors. As that article stated, high carbs, fiber, and moderate protein and fat intake is the way to go. Bodybuilders and nutritionists are constantly seeking a nutritional "silver bullet" to create superhuman health. Excessive protein intake does not build big muscles, but all bodybuilders think so. Drastic reduction in carb intake is silly, but a lot of bodybuilders these days think it is the way to go. I think you get my point. I think one should eat a healthy, balanced diet, and let training do the rest. As long as a trainee in a developed country eats sifficient calories I think that diet plays almost no role in training. Diet will have a dramatic effect on bodyfat, but not muscle building assuming one eats enough. I drives me nuts seeing all of these people who believe that diet is the key to building muscle. It is the key, but only if you do not eat. If you are really into nutrition I hope my thoughts don't hurt you, I can understand having an interest in it, I just don't think it is the magic that a lot of people think it is (beyond the basics of a healthy diet etc.).

[Edited by chris mason on 02-06-2001 at 06:41 PM]

Anthony
02-06-2001, 05:17 PM
To be honest, I think the entire lifestyle is made out to be more complicated than it really is. I eat simple, train simple, sleep simple - and I make good progress. You are correct, diet won't build muscle, but without it neither will training. They go hand in hand. The whole debate really plays no significance to anyone other than a diabetic, which I am not, but I did enjoy it. :)

YatesNightBlade
02-07-2001, 02:00 AM
It's not like you enjoying a argument :rolleyes:

:)

gino
02-07-2001, 06:48 AM
Biased research is usually more successful? Sorry, if it was me, 10 people would have jumped on the opportunity. I couldn't resist.

Anthony
02-07-2001, 07:17 AM
Yes ... biased research is always successful ... think of it this way:

I say, go find an article that says "this" ... you will most definitely find it. Now if I said, go find and article that says "that" ... you would probably find that too. There are so many different opinions on any given subject, that if you only look for one of those opinions, you will eventually find it (while ignoring all the rest).

Does that make more sense?

gino
02-07-2001, 07:46 AM
No.

j/k. Ok, since you put it that way, it does make more sense. More successful in finding information you want - yes. Successful in finding accurate and truthful information(compiled by an unbiased person) - no.

Joe Black
02-07-2001, 07:57 AM
Yes...

ha ha ha ha

Now we are all confused...

[Edited by Hulk on 02-07-2001 at 09:57 AM]