When it comes to overcoming “taste bud bias”, the challenge of breaking someone of a refined carbohydrate addiction is second to none.

Without getting into a lengthy biochemical explanation as to why, humans are much more likely to develop addictions to refined carbohydrate-based foods (or carbohydrate-fat blends), than they are protein-based foods or primarily fat-based foods.

Ever had an insatiable craving for olive oil, a pat of butter or piece of tilapia?

Didn’t think so.

Come to think of it, I’ve never come across anyone who was unable to tear themselves away from a bowl of quinoa or a bag of carrots.

But breads, sweets, pasta, french fries… all these foods are prime offenders when it comes to the “oh my god, I can’t believe I just ate the whole thing but even this realization isn’t going to stop me from doing it again sometime in the near future” category.

Any bets on which one is going to win out?

Making matters worse, when you factor in how a little life stress can make carbohydrate cravings intensify for many individuals (particularly females), then the importance of finding a solution becomes clear.

Ahh… the joys of hormone dysregulation!

But this piece isn’t about hormones; rather it’s about giving you a solution for carbohydrate cravings.

One of the benefits of having worked with a number of female physique athletes is that I’ve had to devise a whole slew of creative meals that pack a whole lot of nutrition into relatively few calories, while also tasting amazing.

As I mentioned in an earlier article, So you Want to be a Figure Competitor, figure athletes historically have followed all kinds of ill-advised diet and exercise rituals in their quest to get ultra lean.

Unfortunately, the standard practice of prescribing way too much cardio and far too few calories tends to do massive  damage to their metabolic and hormonal systems.

Since I refuse to eschew a client’s health in the pursuit of some aesthetic goal, I’ve spent a lot of time researching and tinkering with food combinations and meals that not only taste good, but also create the short- and long-term hormonal environment that allows for healthy, sustainable fat-loss.

Lately, one of my go-to ingredients for recreating “comfort” carbohydrate foods is: coconut flour.

But before I detail some of the novel aspects of coconut flour, I probably need to clear up some misconceptions about coconuts in general.

Clarifying Coconuts

Sometime in the middle of the last century, coconuts and coconut oil really started to fall out of favor due to their high saturated fat content. As everyone knows <cough, cough> high intakes of saturated fats cause heart disease.

This statement might make sense if we conveniently ignore the fact that coconuts have long been a dietary staple of tropical nations due to their high-energy content and amazing versatility, yet the incidence of heart disease among tropical nations is often lower than that of North Americans.

Even though 92% of the fat in coconuts is saturated, the majority is made up of the medium-chain triglycerides caprylic, capric and lauric acids. These medium chain triglycerides (MCTs) are absorbed differently than long-chain fatty acids and there is evidence in human weight loss trials that diets higher in medium chain triglycerides can contribute to greater fat loss.^1,2,3

Not only might MCTs contribute to greater fat loss, but research continues to emerge questioning the supposed link between saturated fat intake and the progression of heart disease^4,5. Thankfully, we are starting to wise-up to the fact that natural saturated fats are not going to immediately cause you to drop dead but are, by and large, health promoting.

But coconuts are about so much more than just their oil, which incidentally is both wondrously healthy and remarkably heat stable; making it by far the #1 choice for cooking.

Coconuts also contain a significant amount of fiber. And as we know, fiber is both necessary for keeping you regular and full when going through a period of caloric restriction.

Coconut Flour and You

Unlike most commercial flours that are high in carbohydrates, the majority (58%) of the carbohydrate content of coconut flour comes in fiber.  By contrast, wheat bran, a more traditional high-fiber source, is only 27 percent fiber. So, how does coconut flour stack up overall? Let’s take a look:

Now you’ll probably be thinking “damn, apart from the fiber content, coconut flour seems pretty much like whole wheat flour”. You’d think that… except when you cook with coconut flour, it swells up more than a bodybuilder the day after hitting up a Chinese buffet.

In other words, coconut flour provides a huge volumizing effect with a minimal caloric and carbohydrate cost.

In fact, 1 cup of coconut flour seems to make as many muffins as does 3 cups of wheat flour, so we can operate under the working assumption that it also provides 2/3 fewer calories.

Same great taste, now less filling!

Now, before you start swapping coconut flour into every carbohydrate-based recipe you can think of, I gotta warn you: coconut flour is gluten free.

This makes coconut flour awesome from a physique perspective but garbage from a “keeping your meals from falling apart” perspective. Therefore, if you are going to make coconut flour part of your diet, you are going to need a couple of suggestions of how best to start.

Pumpkin Spice Coconut Flour Muffins

4 eggs
1 scoop protein powder
½ cup coconut flour
1 cup almond milk
2-3 tbsp low-calorie sweetener (Splenda or Stevia both work)
½ cup pumpkin
½ teaspoon cinnamon
¼ teaspoon sea salt
¼ teaspoon vanilla
½ teaspoon baking powder

1. Blend together eggs, almond milk, sweetener, salt, and vanilla.
2. Combine coconut flour, baking powder and protein powder, mix thoroughly until there are no lumps.
The flour absorbs fluids like crazy, let it sit for 2 minutes and watch it grow!
3. Add pumpkin and cinnamon. Continue mixing.
4. Pour batter into muffin cups. Bake at 350 degrees F (205 C) for 25-30 minutes or until golden brown.

Makes 6 jumbo muffins.
Nutrition info (per muffin): 110 kcal, 5 g of fat, 7 g of carbs (3 g of fiber) and 10 g of protein

Figure Crepes

1 cup egg whites
1/3 cup almond milk (or any type of milk)
1 scoop protein powder
1 heaping TBSP coconut flour
1 TBSP chia seeds

1. Mix the protein powder and almond milk until protein powder is mostly dissolved.
2. Add in the egg whites, chia seeds and coconut flour.
3. Continue mixing until the coconut flour is fully dissolved.
4. Pour 1/3 of the mixture into a frying pan and cook as you would a pancake

Makes 3 large crepes. Serve topped with berries or your favourite low-sugar syrup.

Nutrition info per crepes: 100 kcal, 1 g fat, 4 g carbs (2 g fiber), 17 g protein

There you go, a couple of ways to turn traditional comfort foods far more physique friendly.

Who didn’t love crepes and pancakes as a child? Now you can love them again as an adult.

In fact, the overall high-quality nature of the ingredients makes these recipes deserving of a spot in your regular rotation, no matter your health or physique goals.

Till next time, train hard and eat clean!

1. Han JR et al. (2007). Effects of dietary medium-chain triglyceride on weight loss and insulin sensitivity in a group of moderately overweight free-living type 2 diabetic Chinese subjects. Metabolism, 56, 985.991.
2. Kasai M et al. (2003). Effect of dietary medium- and long-chain triacylglycerol (MLCT) on accumulation of body fat in healthy humans. Asia Pacific Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 12, 151-60.
3. St-Onge MP and Bosarge A. (2008). Weight-loss diet that includes consumption of medium-chain triacylglycerol leads to a greater rate of weight and fat mass loss than does olive oil. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 87, 621-626.
4. Mente A, de Koning L, Shannon HR, and Anand SS. (209). A systematic review of the evidence supporting a causal link between dietary factors and coronary heart disease. Archives of Internal Medicine, 169, 659-669.
5. Siri-Tarino PW, Sun Q, Hu FB, and Krauss RM. (2010). Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies evaluating the association of saturated fat with cardiovascular disease. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 91, 535-46.

“To booze or not to booze, that is the question”.

I get asked quite often, “What is the best alcoholic beverage to have?” This is quickly followed up by “I’m not an alcoholic or anything but on those odd occasions I do drink…”

I’d guesstimate that 98% of the individuals asking this question have one of two motivations. They either want to know “how can I get buzzed while causing the least amount of damage to my waistline” or they are someone who has read that “having a couple of drinks can be beneficial to my health” and they want to know if that’s true.

In light of these motivations, my quick answer is always:

1. Distilled spirits (i.e. vodka, rum, gin, etc) mixed with ice or water.
2. Wine, with red being preferable to white.

For individuals seeking to minimize weight gain, they should definitely go with option #1. For individuals hoping to parlay a dose of flavanoids into a mild cardiac or anti-cancer benefit, then going with option #2 is the smarter choice.

Simple enough, no?

If that’s all you needed to hear, then stop reading right now and go enjoy a drink. If, however, you’d like a more in-depth lesson (albeit simplified) on alcohol metabolism then I suggest you read on.

Calorie Count of Popular Drinks

If you’ve ever come across the drinking and driving literature, you’re aware that the alcohol content of 12 oz. beer = 5 oz. wine = 1.5 oz spirits. However, the total calorie load can be quite different.

[There's actually a pretty neat interactive website, The Efficient Drinker, where you can look up the calorie count and alcohol content of various drinks. I particularly like the Virtual Mixologist function.]

By simply looking at this list we can see that spirits and light beer provide the fewest total calories per drink. Conversely, most mixed drinks, regular beer and fancy liqueurs provide about 50% more calories per serving.

This might lead you to conclude that as long as you match the total caloric impact (i.e. 3 shots of whiskey = 2 Budweiser) then it all amounts to the same in the end. Unfortunately, as I alluded to earlier, that’s not how your physiology works.

But before delving into the specific metabolic processes at work, we need to do a quick macronutrient review.

Macronutrients and Calorie Count

Many people seem to be aware that fat is the most energy dense of the macronutrients, providing a robust 9 kcal/g. Similarly, many people know that carbohydrates and protein both provide ~ 4 kcal/g. However, few people seem to realize that there is a 4th major energy source in the human diet and that would be alcohol, providing a smooth 7 kcal/g.

If we rank our macronutrients in terms of energy density, we get:

Fat: 9 kcal/g
Alcohol: 7 kcal/g
Carbohydrate: 4 kcal/g
Protein: 4 kcal/g

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to look at this list and see there’s a fairly large discrepancy between the elements at the top of the list (fat and alcohol) and those at the bottom (carbohydrates and protein).

It’s this energy disparity that has led many nutritionists to argue that we are better off eating a large portion of our diet in the form of carbohydrates rather than fat, since fat is so energy dense.

Sadly, this statement is seriously flawed as it presupposes that all macronutrients interact with your physiology in the same fashion. This obviously isn’t the case because if it were, your body would look the same whether you lived off of a 2000 kcal diet of Doritos and donuts or a 2000 kcal diet of tuna, broccoli and quinoa.

Trust me when I tell you, “A Calorie is NOT a Calorie“. If you need more convincing on this matter, I suggest you check out:

• Insulin, body fat and you
• Carbohydrate restriction: the numbers don’t lie

The Problem with the Calorie Count

Stopping our analysis with simple calories is problematic because it neglects what we know about metabolism. In fact, the whole issue of “what beverage should I choose” can best be addressed by the concept of: the hierarchy of metabolic fuels.

[Incidentally, I don't think this term actually exists but it really should.]

If you look at the figure below, you’ll see that humans metabolize protein, carbohydrate, fat, ketones and alcohol to a common compound called Acetyl CoA.

Given that all macronutrients can be broken down to Acetyl CoA, this might lead you to conclude that the human body doesn’t really care where it derives its fuel.

However, as I explained in an earlier article, Carbohydrates: A Question of Need and as shown again by the graph below, at rest and during low intensity physical activity, the human body is PHYSIOLOGICALLY DESIGNED to satisfy the vast majority of its energy requirements from stored body fat (plasma FFA).

Originally posted on The Science of Sport.

If you are shocked to learn this, please re-read the last paragraph several times and commit this concept to your memory.

In fact, this concept is so important it bears repeating: our bodies are designed to primarily run off of fat.

Despite what you have been told, carbohydrates ARE NOT the preferred fuel for a human body at rest. And you’d better hope to never end up in the scenario where the bulk of your energy is coming from protein or alcohol… that’s just a recipe for metabolic disaster.

Keeping our metabolism at a point where we can happily roll along burning stored body fat is great, because that is what keeps us slim. However, when we dump a load of energy into our system that we have no immediate need for, we disrupt this process. And nothing moves us out of a fat burning state faster than drinking alcohol.

Ethanol AKA Poison

Unlike fat, protein and carbohydrates, the human body cannot store alcohol. This is significant because one of the intermediate products of alcohol metabolism, acetaldehyde, is extremely toxic to our system.

Whether we have one drink or twenty, our body will cease metabolizing other fuels and direct its energies into converting this metabolic poison (acetaldehyde) into acetate (Acetyl CoA), which we can oxidize.

Fair enough. Metabolizing alcohol ahead of the other fuels makes sense because it keeps us from poisoning ourselves. But how does that make drinking a case of beer any different than drinking a 26 oz. bottle of vodka?

The Double Whammy

The big physique wrecking impact of beer and mixed drinks stems from ingesting alcohol + carbohydrates coupled with our extremely limited capacity for carbohydrate storage.

This isn’t to downplay the significance of high blood glucose, which can be toxic over time; however, the short term effect of excess glucose have far more to do with promoting fat storage than it does with contributing to organ failure.

Most humans have a total glycogen storage capacity of between 300-700 g. You’d think this would leave ample space for a few extra grams of carbohydrates ingested in the form of a drink or two but you’d be wrong.

Our current recommendation for carbohydrate intake is 45-65% of total calories. This means that even on a 2000 kcal diet, you are being told to consume anywhere from 225 – 325 g carbohydrates/day.

If you are like me, you’ll see this recommendation as exceptionally high given how sedentary we are as a society and how our metabolism ideally runs off of fat at rest. However, what is far more disconcerting is that the average Canadian actually consumes more carbohydrates than that on a habitual basis, which suggests the average Canadian is pretty much glycogen saturated 24/7.

Remember, even a single beer provides 10-15 g of carbohydrate but let’s be honest, who stops at a single beer? A more representative night of drinking might be closer to 6 beers, which means you’ve got an additional 60-90 grams of glucose to deal with.

At rest, an individual with a normal blood sugar has only ~ 5 g (1 tsp) of glucose dissolved in their blood. Do the math and you’ll see that six beers provide 12-16 times the glucose your body needs to maintain homeostasis!

Since large elevations in blood glucose are toxic (admittedly to a lesser extent than alcohol), now we’ve got a serious dilemma. Not only must our bodies deal with all this alcohol energy, but we have to find some way of clearing the excess blood sugar as well.

The solution: either oxidize the glucose or store it (and if glycogen stores are full, our bodies will happily use the excess glucose to create new body fat).

Normally, following a meal containing a large amount of carbohydrates, fat burning would get suppressed for a period of several hours to allow you to metabolize the glucose instead. Alas, when you drink beer or a mixed drink, you’ve got to deal with the alcohol first. As a result, you wind up burning the alcohol and shuttling the glucose into storage.

Any idea which fat storage sites tend to take up carbohydrate-based energy most readily?

Yep, you guessed it: the belly.

Needless to say, combining two nutrient-devoid fuel sources is never a good idea.

So to summarize our hierarchy of metabolic fuels. Your body body will attempt to oxidize fuels in the following order:

1. Alcohol: extremely toxic in the blood, must be dealt with ASAP.
2. Carbohydrate: toxic in large quantities in the blood, needed in small amounts.
3. Fats: free fatty acids are the preferred fuel source at rest.
4. Protein: amino acids should rarely contribute more than 5-10% of total energy needs.

[Note: metabolism isn't so cut and dry in real life, but you get the idea]

How much damage can you do?

Clearly, large amounts of alcohol and/or carbohydrate are not conducive to helping us return to a fat burning state. But what about more modest amounts like 3-4 drinks in a night, do they create the same kind of metabolic disruption?

Short answer: yes.

By now you’ve got a basic understanding of metabolism in general. You’ve also seen why your body must metabolize alcohol before the other fuels. Now we’ve got to look into the time course of alcohol metabolism.

Obviously there isn’t a single answer as everyone’s metabolism differs. Alcohol metabolism in particular will vary by race, gender, body size, food status, age etc. So while I can’t give you an exact number, I’ve located some research to help clarify the issue.

Adapted from Wilkinson et al., Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Biopharmaceutics 5(3):207-224, 1977

Yikes, even as few as four drinks can provide fuel for up to 7 hours (our liver can only metabolize between 7-15 g/alcohol per hour).

Considering that 4 drinks is a pretty modest night for many individuals and very few people limit themselves to spirits or wine, then its conceivable that you can easily have 7+ hours of alcohol to metabolize IN ADDITION TO whatever glucose or fat you slam into the system.

Are you beginning to appreciate the magnitude of the issue?

Let’s revisit our 6 drinks in a night scenario. If you are a slow metabolizer of alcohol (7 g/hour) and begin drinking your 6 beers (78 g alcohol, 72 g carbohydrates) at 9 PM, you’ll still trying to get through the alcohol by 8 AM the next morning.

Toss in the extra glucose to contend with and you may be lucky to return to oxidizing stored body fat by some point around noon!

Of course, this presupposes that you didn’t stop in for pizza after the bar, didn’t decide that grabbing a McDonalds breakfast will sop up the remaining alcohol or decide that a “the hair of the dog that bit you” is the ideal hangover solution.

By way of comparison, if you have a relatively lower carbohydrate dinner around 7 PM, you’ll return to oxidizing fat by ~10 PM at the latest and will spend the entire night in a pro-fat burning state.

A Final Word

Obviously, the point of this post isn’t to convince you to never drink again. Frankly, you are all adults and can decide for yourselves whether alcohol is going to be part of your lifestyle. Rather I just wanted to highlight the choice you have to make between instant gratification and long-term health.

If you place more value on having a daily nightcap, then you’ll also have to accept the extra 5 lbs of fat that tends to accompany such a habit. A glass of wine might be good for the heart, but it’s not great for the waistline.

Conversely, if you place greater emphasis on seeing your abs year round, then you’ll definitely want to limit your forays into the world of alcohol to special occasions and opt for physique friendlier choices when you do.

Remember, when it comes to booze and having a beach body, you can’t have it both ways.

Just something to think about as you prepare to head out on summer vacation

Till next time, train hard and eat clean!

On the flip side, he has his fair share of critics. Poliquin chafes a lot of people because he’s someone who loves to espouse his way as the ONLY way to train and he’s not shy about slamming ridiculous fitness trends and so-called weight loss experts (if you don’t believe me, try Googling “Poliquin and BOSU” or “Poliquin and Dr. Phil”).

But love him or hate him, you’ve got to respect what the man has done. If you can accept his brash presentation, you’ll often find his information to be quite useful.

Recently, I came across an article on Poliquin’s Top 10 Carb Intake Rules For Optimal Body Composition. In typical Poliquin fashion, he’s got a lot of great ideas (e.g. your main sources of carbohydrates should be fibrous vegetables), others that are tough to test empirically (e.g. using taurine, magnesium and alpha-lipoic acid to enhance glucose storage in muscle vs. fat cells) and some that are a little beyond the acceptance of John Q. Public (e.g. avoid any and all grains).

Among the great points he makes is one pertaining to post-workout carbohydrate needs scaled for exercise volume. Basically, he correctly points out that the greater the total number of reps in a resistance training workout, the greater your glycogen breakdown will be. As a result, you would require more carbohydrates post-workout to replace these glycogen losses.

Makes sense on both the physiological and practical sides.

To walk you through some basic exercise physiology, there are three energy systems we can use to power muscle contractions. They are:

1. ATP-CP: the system using stored phosphocreatine to power rapid energy production and explosive movement
2. Anaerogic glycolysis: the system using stored carbohydrates (i.e. muscle glycogen), that covers the bulk of your energy needs after your initial burst, up until a few minutes of high intensity work. If you’ve ever experience the “lactic acid” burn (which is not actually lactic acid at all, but that’s a topic for another post), then this is the energy system you are tapping into.
3. Oxidative phosphorylation: a slower energy producing system that relies more on burning stored fat. This fuel system doesn’t give you energy quickly, but it can give you energy for a long time.

If we extend these energy system realities to weight training, we can see if you are performing a single heavy set (e.g. 3 reps or fewer), the total time that set will take might be only 10-15 seconds, therefore just how much glycogen will you be exhausting?

Conversely, if you and your best friend are doing 5 lbs biceps curls while standing next to one another on the BOSU, you are clearly not taxing your glycolytic system one bit. In fact, the only thing you are taxing is the patience of those serious individuals who actually come to the gym to train.

Just an FYI: if a set of biceps curls take 7 minutes to complete, you are doing the arm equivalent of 45 minutes on the recumbent bike.

Happily, most people find themselves somewhere between these two extremes. For you guys, Poliquin has come up with the following post-workout carbohydrate recommendations:

• 12-72 reps per workout : 0.6 g/kg/LBM
• 72-200 reps per workout : 0.8 g/kg/LBM
• 200-360 reps per workout : 1.0 g/kg/LBM
• 360-450 reps per workout : 1.2 g/kg/LBM

Of course, this “carbs to rep” rule isn’t perfect. A single rep of a deadlift is far more demanding than a single rep of a cable triceps pressdown; however, the rule still has its merits. An interesting project might be for someone to actually quantify exactly how much glycogen gets used per exercise, per unit of lean body mass… but that’s quite the ambitious project to say the least.

Obviously, any amount of carbohydrate needs to be paired with protein for optimal recovery benefits. There is some recent work out of the Stu Phillips lab at MacMaster University which suggests that ~20 g of protein post-workout might be enough to maximally stimulate protein synthesis¹.

Admittedly, 20 g of protein may not be enough to maximally stimulate protein synthesis for a 250 lbs bodybuilder on a squat day; however, for the vast majority of the exercising public, aiming to consume ~20 g of protein in conjunction with the aforementioned carbohydrate recommendation makes for a good goal.

Just one final point, the carbohydrate recommendations given above are based on lean body mass (LBM) and not total body mass. Lean body mass is simply what is left once you subtract how much fat mass you are carrying around. To calculate it, simply get your percent body fat tested, then subtract your fat mass from your total mass and you are left with your lean mass (total mass – fat mass = lean body mass).

Pretty simple, no? Just another tool you can use to individualize and personalize your nutrition.

Till next time, train hard and eat clean!

1. Moore et al. (2009). Ingested protein dose response of muscle and albumin protein synthesis after resistance exercise in young men, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 89, 161-168.

Whenever you eat foods that provokes a substantial insulin release from your pancreas, your body is signaled to build either fat,  muscle or both. Obviously, the more structured resistance training you follow and the better you time your insulin spikes, the better able you are to use insulin’s mass building effects for muscle growth and not fat. Sadly, the common eating pattern in North America is to eat insulin producing foods without much foresight, which is part of the reason we battle the bulge.

Wild swings in insulin also tend to provoke increased hunger, which is not good if you are trying to control intake and by extension, body weight. I think it goes without saying that teaching people how to avoid crazy swings in insulin is a good thing.

In the 1980′s, David Jenkins from The University of Toronto, was the first to quantify how quickly food is digested and raises blood sugar. His system became known as the glycemic index (GI).

The creation of the glycemic index was a quantum leap forward in highlighting how seemingly similar foods can have wildly different biochemical properties in our bodies. In fact, the GI was such a popular and powerful idea that it spawned an entire series of diet books and programs, books that still can be found in bookstores today.

Unfortunately, subsequent research has shown us that are several major problems with basing food choices solely off the glycemic index. One of the major problems is that the glycemic index was derived studying foods in isolation. In reality, we typically eat mix-meals which throws off the GI readings.

Additionally, the method of food preparation and cooking can change the GI of a particular food. I spoke at a conference recently and one of my fellow presenters, Dr. Lonnie Lowery,  delivered an excellent talk on food preparation. He pointed out that if you freeze, then toast, white bread you can dramatically lower its GI. Keep in mind I still don’t think this makes white bread a particularly healthy choice, but it’s still neat to see how cooking can change the properties of our foods.

However, the biggest shortcoming of the GI is that it does not account for typical serving sizes. You see, in order to standardize the measure, the glycemic index is based on a representative serving size of 50 grams of the food in question. Sadly, this has caused some high glycemic index foods (i.e. carrots, watermelon) that aren’t typically eaten in 50 gram quantities, to still struggle to shed their “foods to avoid” label anti-GI zealots.

To address this shortcoming, later research suggested the concept of glycemic load (GL), which is just a function of the GI of a particular food x typical serving size.

As we can see in the table below, many of the moderate/high glycemic index vegetables and fruits actually have a low glycemic load, whereas most cereals and grains (with the exception of high fiber cereals like All Bran), have quite a bit higher glycemic load.

Perfect. For anyone wanting to avoid insulin surges and control body fat it’s case closed, right? Just eat low glycemic load foods…

Errr, not exactly.

It turns out that although glycemic load is highly correlated to insulin release, there are several low glycemic foods that can cause remarkably high insulin surges. These foods may or may not need to be avoided by insulin resistant individuals who are trying control body fat.

Insulin Index (downloadable sheet)

As you can see, most foods that are high GI foods also rank quite highly on the insulin index, but a couple of foods stand out for disproportionate insulin release: milk products, beef, fish.

But how is this possible? Well milk and most milk products contain a lot of sugar, so it makes sense why their insulin index would be higher and be contraindicated for insulin resistant individuals; but beef and fish? They contain zero carbohydrate, so what gives?

Even though carbohydrates are the major macronutrient from an insulin perspective, certain amino acids are capable of provoking an insulin surge as well. Take the branch chain amino acid leucine for example.

Leucine is particularly good at signaling “growth” of new muscle. Following a large protein meal when circulating leucine would be high, insulin is released to help pull amino acids from the blood into the muscle, stimulating new muscle growth.

By contrast, an insulin surge provoked by excess sugars will pull carbohydrates into the muscle. But when muscle glycogen levels are full, the excess sugar must be converted into body fat.

A day’s workout for the average Joe

Considering most of us aren’t terribly active on a daily basis, we have near maximal glycogen levels 24/7, as a result any excess sugar consumption tends to be quite detrimental.

Furthermore, unlike carbohydrates, purely protein foods not only result in increased insulin, but also cause your body to secrete glucagon. Glucanon is a hormone that opposes some of the potentially harmful effects of insulin. As a result, although high protein foods can cause a significant insulin release, they rarely have the same blood sugar crashing, hunger-inducing properties that high carbohydrate foods do.

Which means: better hunger control in the long run!

Therefore, despite the promise of classifying foods based on a single index, once again we are faced with an index that can at best be labelled “incomplete”.

Does this mean that all food indexes are destined for failure? Not necessarily.

In fact, the same researchers who developed the insulin index (Sue Holt and colleagues out of The University of Sydney), also did some work on a satiety index. Satiety, for those of you unfamiliar with the term, is a term used indicate how well a food satisfies a person’s hunger.

In my opinion, discovering what foods work best to nullify hunger is way more important in terms of real-world results than figuring out which foods cause the biggest boost in either blood sugar or insulin. But that’s just me and my somewhat bizarre belief that we need to value real world outcomes over results produced in a test tube or research lab… I know, I’m weird like that.

I’m only going to throw up a small version but you’ll get the idea. All the scores are based on a 240 kcal serving referenced back to white bread:

As you can see, even high glycemic foods like oatmeal and unprocessed potato do a great job of killing people’s hunger. Whereas certain foods promoted by dietitans everywhere as good weight loss foods (i.e. yogourt) do a pretty terrible job promoting satiety.

This is why I recommend oatmeal (and things like quinoa), potatoes and sweet potatoes be the starchy carbohydrates of choice for anyone serious about their health and body composition.

Not only do they contain less junk than breads, pastries and cereals, but they do a far better job helping control your hunger. Note, this still doesn’t give you carte blanche to eat oatmeal all day long, but opting for a filling, nutritious carbohydrate when your meal plan calls for carbs is just the smart choice in my books.

If I’ve said it once, I’ve said it 1000 times: if you control someone’s hunger, you’ll control their body weight over the lifespan.

So the next time someone comes to you preaching about the latest, greatest way to “judge” a food’s worthiness, ask them a simple question: “but will it help control my hunger?” If the answer is no, then odds are it’s not going to help you build a better physique over the long haul.

Till next time, train hard and eat clean!

Fat Head

Regardless of whether you are a low-carber or not, taking a few minutes to watch this video will serve you well:

Click here to view the embedded video.

I love this video because it provides a nice, easy to understand summary of how insulin controls blood sugar and by extension, body fat. Admittedly, the hormonal interplay that governs body fat regulation is infinitely more complicated than what the video suggests, however, insulin is definitely one of the key players in the creation of excess body fat.

The video also helps us see why proper insulin management is central to any diet. Although some lucky individuals have such a great innate tolerance for carbohydrates that they can, and must, eat a large percentage of total calories as carbohydrates; the majority of us must regulate our insulin through the diet and exercise.

Another aspect of this video I love is the suggestion that people don’t necessarily get fat because they eat too much. Rather, people eat too much because they are fat. This an incredibly powerful idea and one that helps explain why so many of our current diet theories fail miserably.

Basically, we continue to treat obesity all wrong. We need to let go of the belief that fat is just a storehouse of calories and instead accept fat as a metabolically active endocrine tissue. Only once we accept the role fat plays in endocrine dysfunction, will be be able to remove elements from the environment that negatively impact our hormonal status.

I know delving into the nutritional science can be daunting for the uninitiated, however, Gary Taubes is quite an accomplished science writer who has penned a number of brilliant essays. Here are two pieces of work that are a great place to start:

1. What if It’s All Been a Big Fat Lie?
2. The Soft Science of Dietary Fat

I’ll be back next week with a look at some of the fat producing hormones in greater detail. Until then, train hard and eat clean!