View Full Version : De Vany and insulin 'sunburn'?

Gaspard Winckler
01-15-2009, 10:10 PM
Thanks for all the free advice I have obtained from this forum!

Art De Vany says:

"Insulin spikes, particularly large ones, kill more receptors or damage or downturn or down-regulate receptor sensitivity more than does a lower but chronic amount. It's like life is built up with lots of shocks, and the big shocks will be the huge print on your genetic composition and your gene expression and on your hormone profiles and the sensitivities to those hormones.

So, for example, a transitory shock of insulin after a Thanksgiving meal, followed by a good dessert and maybe preceded by wine and followed by a liquor, that mark's left on your metabolism for a very long time."

Is this supported in any way scientifically? If true, it would seem to speak against a 5 day, 2 day split of paleo IF and more relaxed weekend eating. Intuitively the idea of receptor 'killing' doesn't ring true for me at all, though. Recovery from too much 'social eating/ drinking' seems fairly fast on a 5/2 cycle.

Mike ODonnell
01-16-2009, 08:07 AM
He's downplaying the role that the body has in regenerating and healing itself with IF. Not sure there is any real research to back it up nor deny his claims though (or at least I have not come across any). You could go back to the old Mattson 1meal vs 3 meal study with IF and how 1 meal a day people had higher fasting am insulin...but there are flaws to that as they had complete "carb bomb" meals once a day and then only took fasting insulin in the AM....where later in the day it probably would have been lower. Not a perfect study but does shed some light on at least trying to eat moderate and more often than 1x a day.

I don't eat like it's Thanksgiving on a daily basis or weekly basis...so not sure that's a great comparison. One should be able to tell what is or is not working....as if you increase insulin resistance then you will see more "fat" gain vs loss...if you are leaning out then I guess it's not as damaging as he states. Only other way would be to monitor fasting insulin.

Since exercise also increases insulin sensitivity, the results may differ when talking about sedentary individuals vs active ones. Too many variables to consider.

Comes down to the same saying....IFOC (IF on Crap) isn't a good idea.

Gaspard Winckler
01-16-2009, 10:49 AM
Thanks Mike, it seemed a bit too much of an 'alcohol kills brain cells' type statement, and the counter evidence is all the people doing a variety of IF/ Paleo/ Zone with cheat days and no ill effects.

Jeremy Shepard
01-16-2009, 12:12 PM
His new hard-on against good eating is theoretical epigenetic transmission of the damage to your offspring, which he pulled right out of his ass. I'm fairly convinced a large portion of his posts come from there, though.

Seriously, if my kids can't handle my cheesecake addiction, screw 'em. They'll just have to lift a little harder.

Patrick Yeung
01-16-2009, 06:34 PM
I remember an article on the NY Times with a title saying something like... "One hamburger can ruin a month's worth of dieting"

But, their whole thing was that, once you ate it, or other junk food, the resulting insulin spike would cause you to be hungry/crave again. And, then the cycle starts. A slippery slope if you ask me.

It sounds similar to what Art is saying, just not so much savvy jargon. I think both dont take into mind that some of us are disciplined and can work through pain and a little hunger...

Besides, if either were true, then how could anyone diet? I mean, didnt we all used to eat all that junk? I know I used to eat it every meal, am I lost forever?

Mike ODonnell
01-17-2009, 05:57 AM
If one bad night of eating and drinking with a big insulin spike ruins your cells for a lifetime.....I should be about 500lbs right now after all the damage from college.

Joyce Behrendt
01-17-2009, 11:32 AM
Speaking as a type 2 diabetic, I have read lots of books and articles that support what DeVany says. He has also said that many body builders are giving themselves diabetes.

Hyperinsulinemia is hypothesized to be the root cause for the epidemic of metabolic syndrome which is one or more of: obesity, diabetes, hypertension, low HDL/high triglycerides. Protein Power Lifeplan is one book that goes into some detail that is fairly understandable.

If you consider that high blood sugar precedes the insulin spike then yes, there is permanent damage. Do some searches on glycosylation. The spikes are what cause the most damage to the eyes and toes. You are cooking yourself. The damage is insidious -- it builds up in small increments over time. Of course, the less often you have your Thanksgiving meal, then the less damage. Up until my 40's, I ate foods like candy, ice cream, bread, pasta, potatoes every day.

It's hard for me at the moment to separate what damage comes from the high insulin levels vs the high blood sugar. But as I say, they are both bad and appear together. I tried to search around pubmed and elsewhere to find an article for you, but I keep getting sidetracked reading all the articles. But you can search on things like "postprandial" and "insulinemia".

I first 'met' Robb Wolf on Dr. Mikes blog about IF. I have been intrigued that IF can help regenerate red blood cells. So that is why I do it.

Mike ODonnell
01-17-2009, 11:47 AM
Speaking as a type 2 diabetic, I have read lots of books and articles that support what DeVany says. He has also said that many body builders are giving themselves diabetes.

BB tend to load up on sugar drinks and other higher carb strategies on a regular basis....so I think there is a big difference when looking at "chronic" large abusive insulin spikes vs infrequent ones that "supposedly" scar us for life (which is the way DeVany describes it). When in doubt one can get their fasting insulin tested and see what is going on with them.

I first 'met' Robb Wolf on Dr. Mikes blog about IF. I have been intrigued that IF can help regenerate red blood cells. So that is why I do it.

Unless you are talking about Dr Mike Eades above...this Mike not a Dr...I just stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night. ;)

Patrick Yeung
01-17-2009, 05:26 PM
If you consider that high blood sugar precedes the insulin spike then yes, there is permanent damage. Do some searches on glycosylation. The spikes are what cause the most damage to the eyes and toes. You are cooking yourself. The damage is insidious -- it builds up in small increments over time. Of course, the less often you have your Thanksgiving meal, then the less damage. Up until my 40's, I ate foods like candy, ice cream, bread, pasta, potatoes every day.

This is very true for those who have untreated type 2 diabities. Those who are untreated, and contiune to release insulin will damage and eventually kill all those beautiful very sensitive nerve endings in your feet, didnt know about the eyes.

However, this isnt the case for a single incident, especially in someone who isnt diabetic.

Besides, if you read too much into things, everything kills us. Microwaves, smog, red meat, etc etc.


But like Mike said, BB are probably some of the worst people to compare. I would not consider their life style very healthy at all even though they are working out and low bf or whatever.

Mike ODonnell
01-18-2009, 08:26 AM
Interesting find here.....not to say that eating sugar is not damaging....

Genes remember sugar hit: Australian research
Fri Jan 16, 1:20 pm ET

SYDNEY (AFP) Human genes remember a sugar hit for two weeks, with prolonged poor eating habits capable of permanently altering DNA, Australian research has found.

A team studying the impact of diet on human heart tissue and mice found that cells showed the effects of a one-off sugar hit for a fortnight, by switching off genetic controls designed to protect the body against diabetes and heart disease.

"We now know that chocolate bar you had this morning can have very acute effects, and those effects can continue for up to two weeks," said lead researcher Sam El-Osta, from the Baker IDI Heart and Diabetes Institute.

"These changes continue beyond the meal itself and have the ability to alter natural metabolic responses to diet," he told Australian Associated Press Friday.

Regular poor eating would amplify the effect, said El-Osta, with genetic damage lasting months or years, and potentially passing through bloodlines.

The study's findings were reported in the Journal of Experimental Medicine.


Which still goes back to chronic high blood sugar can cause long term damage...but the body can still recover (if the person does not continue down the road of persistent hyperglycemia)

Patrick Yeung
01-18-2009, 10:40 AM
Okay, so ive been thinking about this. Who cares?

Okay, so the genetic damage may be permanent, but your body is still growing and building well into its 20s if youre healthy.

If you have kids, I bet most had em before they were 35, and the genetic damage could not have been that extensive and really affect their childern's genes could it?

And, so long as you stop and dont contiune down that path, you should be okay.

Patrick Yeung
02-02-2009, 12:45 PM
every once and a while i invite a bunch of people over and we just bake a ton of crap. it's really fun and great, but i always wonder whether it would be more advantageous to use splenda as opposed to sugar just to avoid insulin issues. i have a strongly ingrained fear towards artificial sweeteners, but i always wonder whether the insulin spike could potentially be just as bad as the effects of some artifical sweetener. i have noticed that if i eat something with splenda, i generally feel satisfied very quickly, whereas if i eat something with for reals sugar, i just crave more and more.

I thought artificial sweetners would also cause insulin spikes. Theyve done studies that show subjects injesting them then having the same craving effects as sugar.

Besides, they dont bake well. Molecually, it wont work the same as sugar would in say... a batch of brownies. Thought, ive herad it will in some applications or with modifications.

Grissim Connery
02-02-2009, 05:57 PM
i've gotten away with splenda in baking situations. it behaves pretty similarly, but i tend to make things that are easier to present. cookies, macaroons, etc. as opposed to cake and such. i hate when a cake doesn't turn out right, so i don't like to gamble with splenda

Garrett Smith
02-02-2009, 06:21 PM
The Pottenger "Cat Study", while it has its flaws, shows that genetic damage and nutritional deficiencies accumulate over generations.

I don't think splurging here and there is much of an issue. However, diabetic parents are setting their children up (both by nature and nurture) to be future diabetics.

The Genetics of Diabetes (http://www.diabetes.org/genetics.jsp), from the American Diabetes Association
Type 2 diabetes: your child's risk

Type 2 diabetes runs in families. In part, this tendency is due to children learning bad habits eating a poor diet, not exercising--from their parents. But there is also a genetic basis.

In general, if you have type 2 diabetes, the risk of your child getting diabetes is 1 in 7 if you were diagnosed before age 50 and 1 in 13 if you were diagnosed after age 50.

Some scientists believe that a child's risk is greater when the parent with type 2 diabetes is the mother. If both you and your partner have type 2 diabetes, your child's risk is about 1 in 2.

People with certain rare types of type 2 diabetes have different risks. If you have the rare form called maturity-onset diabetes of the young (MODY), your child has almost a 1-in-2 chance of getting it, too.
Note that the first bolded paragraph might be inferred to imply that the sooner the diabetes shows up, the greater the genetic damage, hence the higher risk in the children.

Note that the second bolded paragraph might be inferred to imply that the genetic damage can come from both the father or mother--but the "soup" that the fetus develops in is more important.

Grissim Connery
02-02-2009, 06:30 PM
as i stated before, i'm iffy about artificial sweeteners in general, but i was curious as to whether sucralose had an effect on insulin. this is some stuff i found real quick. thought i'd post it.

Lack of effect of sucralose on glucose homeostasis in subjects with type 2 diabetes.
Grotz VL, Henry RR, McGill JB, Prince MJ, Shamoon H, Trout JR, Pi-Sunyer FX.

Medical and Nutritional Affairs, McNeil Nutritionals, New Bruswick, NJ 08903-2400, USA. lgrotz@mspus.jnj.com

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of 3-months' daily administration of high doses of sucralose, a non-nutritive sweetener, on glycemic control in subjects with type 2 diabetes. DESIGN: A multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized study, consisting of a 6-week screening phase, a 13-week test phase, and a 4-week follow-up phase. SUBJECTS/SETTING: Subjects with type 2 diabetes (age range 31 to 70 years) entered the test phase of this study; 128 subjects completed the study. The subjects were recruited from 5 medical centers across the United States and were, on average, obese. INTERVENTION: Subjects were randomly assigned to receive either placebo (cellulose) capsules (n=69) or 667 mg encapsulated sucralose (n=67) daily for the 13-week test phase. All subjects blindly received placebo capsules during the last 4 weeks of the screening phase and for the entire 4-week follow-up phase. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), fasting plasma glucose, and fasting serum C-peptide were measured approximately every 2 weeks to evaluate blood glucose homeostasis. Data were analyzed by analysis of variance using repeated measures. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the sucralose and placebo groups in HbA1c, fasting plasma glucose, or fasting serum C-peptide changes from baseline. There were no clinically meaningful differences between the groups in any safety measure. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that, similar to cellulose, sucralose consumption for 3 months at doses of 7.5 mg/kg/day, which is approximately three times the estimated maximum intake, had no effect on glucose homeostasis in individuals with type 2 diabetes. Additionally, this study showed that sucralose was as well-tolerated by the study subjects as was the placebo.

Glycemic effect of a single high oral dose of the novel sweetener sucralose in patients with diabetes.
Mezitis NH, Maggio CA, Koch P, Quddoos A, Allison DB, Pi-Sunyer FX.

Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes and Nutrition, St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital Center, New York, NY 10025, USA. nhm2@columbia.edu

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of a single high oral dose of the novel noncaloric sweetener sucralose on short-term glucose homeostasis in patients with IDDM or NIDDM. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A total of 13 IDDM and 13 NIDDM patients with glycosylated hemoglobin levels < 10% completed this double-blind cross-over study. After an overnight fast, patients were administered opaque capsules containing either 1,000 mg sucralose or cellulose placebo, followed by a standardized 360-kcal liquid breakfast. Plasma glucose and serum C-peptide levels were measured over the next 4 h. RESULTS: Regardless of the type of diabetes, areas under the curves for changes of plasma glucose and serum C-peptide levels after sucralose administration were not significantly different from those after placebo. During test meals with sucralose, one episode of symptomatic hypoglycemia occurred in each of three IDDM patients, but these episodes were not considered the result of sucralose administration. CONCLUSIONS: The present results support the conclusion that sucralose consumption does not adversely affect short-term blood glucose control in patients with diabetes.

Fujita Y, Wideman RD, Speck M, Asadi A, King DS, Webber TD, Haneda M, Kieffer TJ.

Asahikawa Medical College.

Glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) are released during meals from endocrine cells located in the gut mucosa and stimulate insulin secretion from pancreatic beta-cells in a glucose-dependent manner. Although the gut epithelium senses luminal sugars, the mechanism of sugar sensing and its downstream events coupled to the release of the incretin hormones are not clearly elucidated. Recently it was reported that sucralose, a sweetener that activates sweet receptors of taste buds, triggers incretin release from a murine enteroendocrine cell line in vitro. We confirmed that immunoreactivity of alpha-gustducin, a key G-coupled protein involved in taste sensing, is co-localized with GIP in rat duodenum. We investigated whether secretion of incretins in response to carbohydrates is mediated via taste receptors by feeding rats the sweet tasting compounds saccharin, acesulfame potassium, D-tryptophan, sucralose, or stevia. Oral gavage of these sweeteners did not reduce the blood glucose excursion to a subsequent intraperitoneal glucose tolerance test. Neither oral sucralose nor oral stevia reduced blood glucose levels in Zucker diabetic fatty rats. Finally, whereas oral glucose increased plasma GIP levels ~4-fold and GLP-1 levels ~2.5-fold post administration, none of the sweeteners tested significantly increased levels of these incretins. Collectively, our findings do not support the concept that release of incretins from enteroendocrine cells is triggered by carbohydrates via a pathway identical to the sensation of 'sweet taste' in the tongue. Key words: GLP-1, GLP-2, K-cell, L-cell.

Patrick Yeung
02-03-2009, 03:28 PM
as i stated before, i'm iffy about artificial sweeteners in general, but i was curious as to whether sucralose had an effect on insulin. this is some stuff i found real quick. thought i'd post it.

Well then.... Fine!

No seriously, the article I read was more about how the subjects who had eaten the sweetners would get the same hunger pangs that would be similar to those after a sugar spike.

Arent there different types of sweetners too? I know they are all made differently. Some are sugar derrivatives, and others are completely chemical. Ill have to dig deeper when I get a chance.

And Garret, since Type 2 diabities is reversable/controllable in many cases, its still hard for me to see it as genetically linked. I feel as though a lot of it is more the nurture side than the nature side. Cases of this type of diabities has gone way up in these modern times than has been historically recorded. Too bad they dont have a way to weight the two and show how much of each effects their children.

Thanks though, thats an awesome find.

Scott Kustes
02-04-2009, 03:49 PM
Patrick, don't forget about epigenetics...methylations on the genes can determine which are on or off, i.e., which are expressed. DNA itself is only part of the onion.

Garrett Smith
02-04-2009, 05:12 PM
I'm very much of the same opinion as you on Type II diabetes and nutrition (nurture).

Genetic "damage" (nature) would simply make it occur with more ease (as in, those susceptible folks would have to keep an even tighter diet than others without it).

Nutrition turns genes on and off, absolutely.

Joyce Behrendt
02-04-2009, 10:01 PM
The Pima Indians have a high rate of diabetes.


In my family, my Mom's side is obese and has other symptoms of metabolic syndrome, but no diabetes. My Dad was fairly active and fit, but got type 2 diabetes at 60. Several members of his family, as well as myself and two brothers all have type 2 diabetes. So genetics plays a part in addition to diet. But all those mashed potatoes we ate growing up didn't help either.

Patrick Yeung
02-05-2009, 04:10 PM
Yeah but the study was done in 1960s....

Not really sure what you were tryin to get at with it, but theres a lot they arent saying. (i just glanced the article)

I remember watching a video specifically on them because of their diabities and health problems that were begining to develop. Also, many of them were begining to gain a lot of weight. They sourced it to white bread that was being given to them.

Once their lands had been taken, all their natural resources and means of food were gone, and we herded them into camps, they had to eat what we gave them. White flour.

It also had pictures of them like, before and after. THe video went on to show many other native groups falling to the same fate. Look at whats been goin on in the Mediteranian lately. After all the fast food and ice cream parlors started poppin up everywhere, their health has gone to hell, with diabities on the rise.

The video was on Crossfit Endurance, but I cant get to it from work.
(Good thing PM isnt blocked!)

Patrick Yeung
03-09-2009, 12:00 PM
I know this is kind of old, but thought maybe this would interest people.

Lower I.Q. Scores Among Children of Older Fathers

Talked about how children with older fathers scored lower on all cognitive tests, and showed much higher risk of schizophrenia and autism than those of younger fathers.

Also showed children of older mothers had better scores.

Whats crazy though, was that it was a linear progression in the case of dads. I wonder why that is, and if it has anything to do with this (genetic degredation), or more the nurture side.

Craig Van De Walker
10-13-2009, 12:41 PM
I vote both nature and nurture. Nurture from the older mother vs a potentially less well equipped younger mother.

Nature in that the women who have children with older men may not on the average be as intelligent as the women who have children with same age men. I say this because a 60 year old women is not normally able to have children so a 60 year old man must be having children with a significantly younger woman.

Without adjusting for the mother and father's IQ I don't think this is a very valid observation.

I know this is anecdotal but the only women I know who had children late in life were well educated and appeared intelligent.