New Member
Good insulin blocker?
Hi everyone, sorry if this is in the wrong section so please don't hate!
I am about to start a cutting stack and have been researching the idea of insulin blockers. Basically the idea is they inhibit insulin production so you don't store fat. Like a type 1 diabetic not taking insulin will become a rake in weeks.
I found something that I think would be good
Any thoughts on this?
Banned
What was it u found?. Have u check for any.inherent risks blocking insulin?. Doesn't insulin play a necessary role in breaking down sugars or something?
Banned
Right. Found this. ;-)
Answer: This is going to be a long answer because, frankly, there is a lot of misinformation and misunderstanding about insulin and, as usual, I got a lot to say.This is because, in a lot of ways, insulin is a schizophrenic hormone. Depending on what folks read (e.g. bodybuilding literature), they will be told that insulin is great, it's the most anabolic hormone in the body, it's key to getting big. And if you read other stuff (a lot of mainstream dieting literature), you'll hear that insulin is the devil, it makes you fat and ruins your health. Who's right? Well, everybody...sort of.As the question above states, it's best to think of insulin as a generalized storage hormone rather than being good or bad; and what it does, as always, depends on the context. I should mention that insulin not only affects peripheral tissues such as the liver, muscle and fat cell; it also has central effects in the brain. I discuss this in Bodyweight Regulation: Part 1 and that series of articles.When elevated (and I'd note here that while carbohydrate has the primary effect on raising insulin, protein also raises insulin; as well, the combination of protein and carbohydrate raises insulin more than either alone), insulin pushes nutrients into cells. So insulin stimulates glycogen storage in the liver, it also enhances glycogen storage in skeletal muscle. And while insulin isn't that critically involved in protein synthesis per se, it does decrease protein breakdown; as discussed in The Protein Book, this is important for maximal increases in muscle mass. So far so good.But insulin also is involved in fat storage which is where it gets its 'bad' characterization. Insulin activates an enzyme called lipoprotein lipase which is involved in breaking fatty acids off of chylomicrons for storage. However, this isn't the only important step in fat storage.Contrary to popular belief (espoused by people still reading literature from the 1970?s), insulin is neither the only nor single most important hormone involved in fat storage. Rather, a little compound called acylation stimulation protein (ASP) has been described as "the most potent stimulator of fat storage in the fat cell". And ASP levels can go up without an increase in insulin (although insulin plays a role).As another effect of insulin on body-fat levels, and this is discussed in some detail in The Stubborn Fat Solution, insulin drastically inhibits lipolysis (fat mobilization) from fat cells. Even fasting insulin levels inhibit lipolysis by up to 50%, even small increases essentially turn off lipolysis completely. Some could easily interpret this as meaning that 'eating carbs stops fat loss'. Or it might lead them to conclude that a carbohydrate based diet would make fat loss impossible.Tangentially I'd note, and one weird little study supports this, that spiking insulin (and letting it crash back down) might be superior for fat loss than the standard strategy of trying to keep insulin low but stable all day long. The reason is that even tiny amounts of insulin block lipolysis, if you keep insulin low but stable all day, you are effectively impairing lipolysis. But the study in question showed that blood fatty acid levels came back up much faster when insulin was spiked (which crashed blood glucose back down, lowering insulin). The drawback, mind you, is that rapidly falling blood glucose tends to make people hungry and calorie control would be nearly impossible with this strategy. And, as you'll see below, in a hypocaloric situation, it probably doesn't matter a bit.Anyhow, despite the sometimes seen mentality that you must 'cut carbs to get lean', four decades of practical experience (and endless clinical research) show that that is simply not the case: bodybuilders (well, some bodybuilders) have gotten plenty lean on carb-based diets (of course, others have failed miserably) so it's obviously not as simple as many would make it. That's because whether a high-carb, moderate-carb, or low-carb diet is most appropriate for someone depends on the circumstances; a topic I discuss in Comparing the Diets.Which brings me the long way around to the first question above. What is happening in terms of fat loss on a diet that is hypocaloric (below maintenance levels, that is the person is burning more calories than they are consuming) but contains sufficient protein and essential fatty acids but with say 100 grams of carbohydrate? Don't the carbs prevent fat loss by raising insulin? What's going on?To understand what's going on, I need to explain two terms which are the post-prandial and post-absorptive phases.Post-prandial phase: this is just a technical term for 'after you've eaten a meal'. In this situation, nutrients are being absorbed and digested from the gut and released into the bloodstream, a whole host of hormones are being released (depending on the macronutrient content of the meal) and the body will generally be in an anabolic state (meaning that more nutrients are being stored than are being released from storage).Post-absorptive stage: This is what happens between post-prandial phases. Eventually what you've eaten has all been digested, absorbed and either burned for energy or stored in various tissues. When this happens, hormone levels change an the body starts shifting to an overall catabolic state (I'm using this term generally here to indicate that the body is releasing more nutrients from storage than are being stored).So throughout the day, the body is shifting between the post-prandial phase and the post-absorptive phase as you eat, that food gets digested and absorbed, and the body starts to draw on stored nutrients (hopefully stored fat in fat cells).And when you lower caloric intake, over a 24 hour period, the body will end up spending relatively more time in the post-absorptive (remember: body burning stored nutrients) than post-prandial (remember: body storing ingested nutrients) phase. This is simply a consequence of having less nutrients coming in relative to what's being burned.On a diet, meals are smaller (or activity is higher, or both) so any given meal will only maintain an anabolic state for so long (and that time period will be shorter than if the person were eating more) before the body shifts back to burning stored nutrients. So even in the face of dietary carbohydrate intake, the body still will tap into stored fat; hence fat loss.I'd note that theoretically this might mean that eating less frequently would improve fat loss, since the body would spend more time between meals in the post-absorptive stage. Of course, this is probably offset by each meal being larger and therefore taking longer to digest and I tend to doubt it matters in the long-run. Some interesting research into intermittent fasting suggests that there is more to it than that but that's another topic for another day.And this brings me to the second part of the above question, the glycemic index (GI) and insulin. Which requires another long explanation. The GI was developed back in the 80?s to help with diabetic meal planning. Basically it involves feeding folks a fixed amount of a reference carbohydrate (studies have typically used either 50 grams or 100 grams of digestible carbs and while glucose was the original test food, they now use white bread) with blood glucose being measured over a several hour period. The glucose response to the reference food is defined as having a GI of 100.Then, whatever food was being tested (again either 50 or 100 grams of digestible carbs were given) and blood glucose was measured, researchers compared the blood glucose response of the test food to the reference food. If the blood glucose response was say, 80% of the reference food, the test food was given a GI of 80. If the blood glucose response was 120% of the test food, that's a GI of 120. You get the idea. And lower GI values basically meant that the test food was generating a smaller blood glucose response than the reference food.GI is far from perfect, there is massive individual variability, many foods will show a different GI depending how you cook them and, as soon as you start mixing foods or adding things like protein, fiber and fat, GI changes (almost always going down). So GI in and of itself ends up not saying very much in the big scheme of things. An additional confound is training. As I discuss in the research review The Influence of the Subjects' Training State on the Glycemic Index, people who are better aerobically trained show a lower GI response than those who are less well trained.Now, it was always pretty much assumed that the GI was indicative of the insulin response and that lower GI foods caused a lower insulin response than higher GI foods; this is part of where dieters originally got fixated on the issue. However, it looks like it's not quite that simple. While there was some brief interest in an Insulin Index (II) which measured the insulin response to foods in the same way GI does, research seems to have stopped as soon as it started.As well as I discuss this in detail in the research review article Different Glycemic Indexes of Breakfast Cereals Are Not Due to Glucose Entry into Blood but to Glucose Removal by Tissue there is some evidence that low GI foods are low GI because they generate a fast initial insulin response.That is, it's important to realize that the blood glucose response of a food is determined by both its rate of digestion and entry into the bloodstream as well as the rate of glucose storage in tissues such as muscle. And it looks like low GI foods are not necessarily digesting more slowly but that a fast initial insulin response is clearing more blood glucose. To quote from the summary of that research article:"Bran cereal has a low GI because a more rapid insulin-mediated increase in tissue glucose uptake attenuates the increase in blood glucose concentration, despite a similar rate of glucose entry into the blood."In this regards, I'd note that adding protein to carbs has been known to lower the GI for a couple of decades. However, it's also been established that adding protein to carbs increases the insulin response. Which is consistent with the conclusions of the paper above, by increasing insulin, protein lowers blood glucose levels giving a lower effective GI. Just not for the reason that most people think. And I daresay that most of the 'insulin is evil' people are going to argue that eating more protein hurts fat loss, yes protein increases the insulin response to carbs. While increasing the insulin response. Go figure.Which is a long way of saying that I don't think the GI and insulin response matter much (although see my final comments below). If there is much effect of GI on fat loss, it's more likely to be mediated through food intake and fullness as lower GI foods generally make people feel fuller and often cause decreased food intake. As I discuss in detail in Is a Calorie a Calorie, this is the typical confound in these types of studies: certain food types often make people spontaneously eat less, causing fat and weight loss and people confuse the food itself with the reduction in food intake that it causes.It's also worth noting that a 2006 review paper titled Glycaemix Index Effects on Fuel Partitioning in Humans examined this issue and concluded that:"Apparently, the glycaemic index-induced serum insulin differences are not sufficient in magnitude and/or duration to modify fuel oxidation."Basically, at least outside of the absolute extremes (where it's possible that some of this stuff might matter), it just doesn't really seem to matter much outside of any influence on food intake (e.g. if a certain food keeps you fuller and you eat less, it's good for fat loss; if it doesn't, it's not). Basically:The GI doesn't truly indicate the insulin response in the first place, if it does it appears that low-GI foods may be generating a faster initial insulin response in the first place, and none of this seems to meaningfully impact on fuel utilization anyhow. Certainly any tiny differences in GI between brown and white rice are going to be utterly irrelevant for 99% of cases.Now, to wrap this up, I'd note that most studies done on this topic are drawing conclusions from average responses and emerging evidence suggests that it's a bit more complicated than this. In the article Insulin Sensitivity and Fat Loss, I detail some recent work suggesting that the insulin sensitivity of a given individual interacts with diet; the punchline of that article is that individuals who are insulin resistant (and/or show a pronounced early insulin response to food intake) seem to get superior results from a lower GI/lower-carbohydrate diet. In contrast, individuals with high insulin sensitivity show superior results on a carb-based diet. Which is something I've observed for the last 15 years since writing my first book The Ketogenic Diet.Ok, I know that was long but, as noted initially, there's a lot of confusion over insulin and I have a lot to say on the topic. Hopefully I answered your question.
Anabolic Member
whoa! I got dizzy trying to read all that when I scrolled up and down! =)
Knowledgeable Member
What that article pretty much said to me was, well it pretty much depends on the person if they respond to a high or low carb diet... Lol
I mean it said a whole lot more then that and did answer some questions I had (primarily on the II), and had did have a good breakdown on insulin.
-Chomp Chomp Chomp-Clink Clink Clink-
Knowledgeable Member
As for this, if it blocked insulin, you would have to b extremely careful with what u eat because protein also converts to glucose as well as carbs of course. And if ur not careful u could skyrocket ur blood sugars to astronomical levels...Originally Posted by TombRaider
-Chomp Chomp Chomp-Clink Clink Clink-
AR-Hall of Famer
I'm not reading that article, but I can tell you that this idea is fully retarded. Lowering insulin production (if eating carbs) will cause you to become hyperglycemic. Hyperglycemia/ketoacidosis is not a weight loss plan, and it will destroy your body.
Insulin is also the most anabolic hormone ever, so you don't want to go without it.
Knowledgeable Member
Haha funny thing, is that article had nothing todo with blocking insulin....
-Chomp Chomp Chomp-Clink Clink Clink-
HRT Specialist ~ AR-Platinum Elite-Hall of Famer ~
What article? I just see a matrix.
~ PLEASE DO NOT ASK FOR SOURCE CHECKS ~
"It's human nature in a 'more is better' society full of a younger generation that expects instant gratification, then complain when they don't get it. The problem will get far worse before it gets better". ~ kelkel
New Member
Surprisingly, I actually read that whole article. However it doesn't really answer my question.
The drug I was thinking of is Alloxan. I know that it causes type 1 diabetes in lab rodents but there is limited research on humans. Some studies say it doesn't destroy the beta-cells, others say it might. There is no conclusive evidence for either side.
Either or, it would make my body use the stored fat by the glucagon converting it into glucose and dumping it my bloodstream. It would make me very hyperglycemic but that would hopefully return to normal on stopping the drug. Using this in alternate days would be my first plan, but I need to more research on the dosages given to rodents etc. This plan would also burn muscle, but that can easily be build back up(well, for me anyway).
By the way, I have studied chemistry and biology at college and know what I'm letting myself in for/ know how the insulin, glucagon negative feedback cycle works. So I am not going into this blind. As for permanently having type 1 diabetes, that is a risk I am willing to take.
Knowledgeable Member
So ur HOPING you will revert to normal glucose levels from possibly extrene hyperglycemic levels after cessation of the drug? U do realize that you possibly induce blurred vision, confusion and seizers and oh just a coma....
This is quite possibly the dumbest idea I have ever heard....EVER!
Why r u willing to risk so much? Quit bein a lazy fvck, diet and get off ur ass, do cardio and do it the right way without complete and utter disregard for ur life...
-Chomp Chomp Chomp-Clink Clink Clink-
New Member
I used to drink a ton of energy drinks, so much that it was 180g of sugar per day, my blood glucose is already ****ed. I have bouts of blurred vision to the point where I can't recognise people's faces. At least if I was type 1 the doctor would see that and actually do something so I could ****ing see again!
Anyway, I eat 1500cal per day, gym everyday for 1-2 hours Cardi HIIT 1h, lift weights as heavy as I can, but no weightloss on scale and I'm getting sick of it!
I have been going to the gym everyday for 5 weeks now and nothing. Absolutely nothing.
Knowledgeable Member
If ur already having hyperglycemic bouts, that means your already insulin resistant(which can b caused by extreme sugar intake), quite possibly in ur muscle cells and not fat cells. Or ur not producing enough insulin.
If u have hyperglycemia, u have too much glucose in ur blood stream. That means its not being shuttled into glycogen stores or stored as fat by insulin...
...and u want to make this worse?
How r u sure these blurred vision fits r due to glucose/insulin?
What EXACTLY does ur diet look like?
-Chomp Chomp Chomp-Clink Clink Clink-
Knowledgeable Elite ~ Respected Female Leader ~
I am interested in your macro split and stats pls. Thx!
New Member
Well the doctor doesn't really believe me about the blurred vision and told me there is nothing wrong, I know I have eaten too much sugar the day before if the next day I have burred vision.
Breakfast: fruit salad with greek yoghurt (variety of fruits, at least 5 different ones per salad, always including a banana)
Snack: large navel orange
Lunch : it depands, may have another fruit salad or a sandwich with either turkey or chicken with salad vegetables occasionally cereal, which is almost always a chocolate cereal.
Snack: either a large navel orange, fruit ice lolly or one of those "grab packs" of cookie crisp, no milk
Tea:Fish or chicken with plenty vegetables and a fist size of mashed potatoes
At night I have serious problems where I feel the need to eat everything and anything which is usually a whole pack of pringles or whole pack of jaffa cakes.
This is about twice per week where I get massive cravings. I need to make an effort to eat a bit of fruit and down water.
I drink water and sometimes coffee throughout the day.
You know, just writing this down has pointed out to me the serious problem of binge eating at night!
New Member
I don't have a macro split per se. I am more of a calorie counter. My biggest thing at the moment is cutting out refined carbohydrates after easting so much of them for so long. The vast majority of my diet is from fruit and veg, I'd say a good 70% about 15-20% protein and 10% fat. The only fat I eat is from milk or yoghurt because I don't add things to my food. Also full fat is the best! None of this low fat BS which contains a hell of a lot of sugar and isn't filling.
As for stats:
Height-5'8"
Weight-138lb
Body fat %-19.4
Chest-34"
Waist-28.5
Hips-36"
Hips and butt-38.5"
To be fair, I have lost inches and weight of about 11lbs in the past 5 weeks or so, but I'm so impatient I want more now. Such is life...
Knowledgeable Member
U are eating a whole hell of fruit...which contains a simple sugar...fructose. And IF u are insulin resistant, or not producing enough insulin, this will most definitely cause u to be hyperglycemic. Potatoes are better but you really need to be consuming a complex carb such as oats, quinoa, brown rice etc. there's not much difference between 180g of fructose to 180g of the sugar in ur energy drinks. Ur set definitely needs a make over! Ur need to try and regain ur insulin sensitivity through diet and exercise. I BELIEVE girly gym rat is similar to ur situation. She may b better fit to help with a diet but I'll most certainly help IF you drop any and all notions of EVER touching that drug unless proscribed by a licensed medical professional.
And ur getting these massive cravings at night because ur keeping ur glucose level jacked up with all these fruits all day then dinner u let ur insulin levels crash to possibly HYPOglycemic levels and begin to binge eat. U need more sustenance in ur diet! And a solid macro split that works for you
-Chomp Chomp Chomp-Clink Clink Clink-
Knowledgeable Member
This has to be a LIFESTYLE change. Very few people change over night and my guess is you've changed a lot already, it's just time to step it up a notch (diet).
-Chomp Chomp Chomp-Clink Clink Clink-
Knowledgeable Elite ~ Respected Female Leader ~
Have to agree with TroN that your diet can stand to be improved. Replace fruit with veggies. Chocolate cereal is another carb and you can so better with sweet potato or brown rice. Snack bag of cookies is more bad carbs.
Why don't you jump over to the diet forum so you can get a better eating plan and put this insulin blocker on hold until we can get the all important diet straighten out. I will be looking for your thread in nutritional forum
New Member
OK I would like some help with this. And I promise to ditch thoughts of this drug.
Basically, I used to be an obese child, as in my weight in stones matched my age. So I have been doing a diet to lose that weight for about 2 years, so I guess I need a change now. My ultimate fear is putting all that fat back on again.
I will hop on over to the nutritional forum.
Knowledgeable Member
If ur dedicated and work ur ass off we won't let that happen here. We will put u on track to b in the best shape of ur life!
-Chomp Chomp Chomp-Clink Clink Clink-
Knowledgeable Elite ~ Respected Female Leader ~
You are motivated so you won't let that happen. I think you are going to do awesome!!!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
396 Pages of Anabolic Steroid resources, techniques and facts. Discover the best types of Steroids to use to reach specific goals and outcomes.
Reply With Quote