The marketing of food products is a tough and cut throat business. There must constantly be new and supposedly  improved products or the marketing machine grinds to a halt.  It is no coincidence that nearly every product you can buy has been fortified with the latest miracle nutrient or substance.  As I walked down the aisle of my local grocery store today I had never seen so many products with omega 3s and acia berry.  The funny thing was I was not in the fish aisle or the produce section, but in the dairy.  As far as I know none of these foods naturally contain either one of those other two substances. Anybody ever think that maybe there is a reason for that?  Just by putting something that is suppose to be healthy in a product, this seems to give license to claim that that food now has the same beneficial properties.  I am not convince it works that way, but I am already getting off topic about what I want to talk about and that is natural and organic sweeteners.

The two words “natural” and “organic” are probably some of the biggest marketing buzzwords over the last few years.  If those two words appear anywhere on a label, the consumer has been taught to automatically assume “Healthy”.  So with these two words plastered across cereal boxes and granola bar packages the consumer leads the charge to the cash register confident in the knowledge that the extra money they are doling out is well worth it for their increased health. Most of these products contain 3 or 4 different “natural sweetners” but no actual sugar appears on the label.  If fact the claim “no sugar added” is often emblazoned  across the box.  True, no actual sugar was added. None was needed.  The natural cane extracts and fruit nectars are more than sweet enough, and no less damaging to your waistline than pure white sugar.

One of the latest natural sweeteners to make its appearance  on supposed health food is pure Agave nectar or Agave syrup.  This sweet elixir comes from the blue agave plant, the same plant used to make tequila.  Extracts from the blue agave plant have shown to have anti-inflammatory properties and contain many anti oxidants.  There is no evidence that these health benefits are carried on to the commercially made syrups. Of course that does not stop the syrup from being marketed like it is a proven scientific fact. Since we are speaking of facts, lets look at what we actually know about Agave syrup.

Agave syrup is an amber colored liquid that is thinner than honey and much sweeter than sugar. Many companies promote it as health food because it is gluten free and also is suitable for vegan diets.  The biggest hype about agave is that it scores very low on the glycemic index. This allows it to be marketed as a diabetic friendly sweetener.  This is no small advantage as diabetes is one of the fastest growing diseases in the western world.  Everything here seems to look pretty good.  Like most things, if it looks too good to be true it probably is.

The reason for agave syrups low glycemic index is because it is almost completely fructose (up to 90%). Fructose does not have much effect on blood sugar but  has been shown to have some very metabolically damaging effects on the body when used in high concentrations as a sweetener.  Fructose causes insulin resistance and raises blood triglycerides.  In studies fructose was also linked to increases in belly fat.  All of these factors can lead to the onset of diabetes and heart disease.

If you have read my previous blogs you might be a little confused.  I even wrote a blog titled In defense of fructose. Have I flip flopped on this sweet substance?  No not at all.  As stated in the previous post, fructose in its natural state (fruit) is just fine. The reason for this is the concentration of fructose in fruit is actually quite low. An apple for example is about 7% fructose.  The rest of the apple is made up vitamins, fiber, antioxidants, and probably hundreds of other healthful compounds that we don’t even know about yet.  All of this is put together in perfect combination to make a nutritious healthy food.  When fructose is commercially extracted from fruit (or agave) all of these compounds are stripped away and all that remains in a very high concentration of fructose.  This high concentration is what causes the metabolic problem.  Agave syrup can be up to 90% fructose. Even high fructose corn syrup cannot match that coming in at 55% fructose.

The take home message here is don’t fall for marketing that claims just because something is natural it is healthy.  To be fair a small amount of agave syrup once in a while probably will not do you any harm.  Just don’t convince  yourself that it is healthier than plain old sugar.  if you really want a quilt free sugar fix, grab some fresh fruit.  That is something you can feel good about, no marketing required.

kevin@kevinweiss.com

Happy middle of the second week of January everybody.  Hope everybody had a great holiday. This may start out sounding like a belated happy new year  wish but it is not.  Don’t get me wrong I have nothing against new years.  What I do have a problem with is the new years resolution.  This thing that so many people feel obligated to make after tipping a few tall boys on Dec 31, but have no troubling discarding before February 1st.  No guilt, no shame.  I give up, pass the pie please.  I am not sure how I got headed down this path but it leads me to what I really want to talk about. Weight loss marketing in January.

Being in the business of fat loss, this could be a very lucrative time for me.  I know with a little marketing, I could sell dozens of 8 and 12 week “quick and easy” fat loss programs.  I could even put a 100% money back guarantee on it to sweeten the deal.  How could people resist!  ” I can be in shape by spring and if not I get my money back?  How can I lose?  Where do I sign?”

The thing is some people would lose weight.  Some would not.  The only thing I can can guarantee is I would not be giving any money back.  Not because I am a shady SOB but because any short term weight loss program with a 100% money back guarantee has one requirement.  The program must be followed exactly as laid out for as long as specified.  Miss one meal, one workout, eat 2 green beans more than specified, “Sorry  you did not follow the program, thats why you did not lose weight, not my fault”.

The same goes for weight loss supplements.  Many have money back guarantees  but in the fine print you will see that a specific diet and training program must be followed. If not, too bad, your fault not mine. Next please.

This may seem like a very glum message for the beginning of a new year but it is not meant to be.  Here is the brighter side.  You don’t need New Years resolutions to set you on track.  You don’t need quick and easy diet and training programs or magic weight loss supplements.  Everything you need to lose fat, gain muscle, or improve your performance is already in you.  That “secret” ingredient is desire for change.  I am not just talking about wanting to make a change. I am talking about a deep burning desire to change your current physical situation. If you simply would like to make a change, the first slip up or tough situation will surely derail your efforts and put your right back on the path you have already been on for so long.  If you truly desire change, little slip ups and roadblocks still happen, but they become obstacles to overcome, not excuses to fail.

I would like to end with this one simple thought.  Anybody that has ever attempted  a goal or tried to conquered a demon has slipped and fallen.  Success belongs to the ones who keep getting up.

P.S.

Happy New Year Everyone

Kevin

kevin@kevinweiss.com

Everybody is trying to be more efficient these days. We want fuel efficient cars, energy efficient houses, time efficient schedules, and space efficient buildings. The whole point of being efficient is to use less of something, or make the most of what you have to work with. This is a great idea when we are talking about fossil fuels, but not such a great idea when we are talking about out bodies greatest source of energy reserve. Our bodyfat.

If your goal is to lose fat in the most time efficient way possible  you need to do something that expends maximum calories in minimum time. Makes sense right?  Well then why are most people that are trying to lose fat doing things that they are very efficient at. Remember if you are efficient at an exercise you will burn less calories per unit of time. It does not take long to get efficient at walking or running. If it  did  golfer would be some of the leanest athletes around. This is usually not the case.

The golfer that are lean do not get that way from all the walking and swinging they do. They usually  1) are young  2) workout with weights. The PGA actually has a workout trailer at all of their events and most of the players that are in shape have trainers they work with on a regular basis.

I am sure we have all seen the people that occupy the treadmills and spin bikes at the gyms day in and day out. Many of them religiously put in their 1-2 hours everyday but look no different than they did a year ago. They have become very efficient at that movement. Their body no longer needs to adapt so it doesn’t.

If I wanted to expend a huge chunk of calories over a given period of time a great exercise for me would be swimming. Now before you jump all over me and say that swimming is a endurance activity that is all about efficiency, trust me I know that.  I also know I am about as efficient in the water as a one legged man in an ass kicking contest. I don’t so much swim as try not to drown really. Someone that is a excellent swimmer could do dozens of laps in the time it takes me to do 2 lengths. They would be fresh as a daisy, I would be on the verge of cardiac arrest.  If I took swim lessons and practiced every day soon I would be able to do lap after lap as well.  This would be ideal if I wanted to be a swimmer. Since I am interested in body composition, becoming efficient at swimming would mean I am doing too much of it and need to do something else. That or tie a rock around my neck and proceed to fight for my life once again.

Practice makes perfect and that is what you are doing when you are doing a repetitive activity for a long time. You are practicing.  If you hit 1000 golf balls, you are practicing to become a better golfer, If you run 10 hours a week you are practicing to become a better runner. If that is your goal great.  If your goal is to look your best, try practicing something you are not good at, and change it often.  Have a great day.

kevin@kevinweiss.com

Yes it is true. Food producers do not care if you ever get a six pack. They don’t care if you lose fat at all. They don’t even care if you are healthy. In fact when it comes down to it, the producers only care about one thing when it comes to consumers. That they consume, and that they consume often.

If we cannot count on the people and companies who produce the foods we eat to watch out for our waistlines and health, who can we count on?  Where does the responsibility lie for making sure what we are consuming on a daily basis is serving our ultimate well being?  Is it the government agencies who have established the RDA’s?  No I don’t think so.  The fact is they have as much interest in your health as the food producers. Their interests lie more in making sure you consume lots of the products that are subsidized by government like corn, wheat, and soy. How you consume these products and in what form is secondary to the fact that you consume them, a lot of them.

If we can’t count on big business or government to make unbiased healthy food choices for us, who do we turn to? Who should make the final decisions on what goes into our mouths and how it is going to affect our “bottom line”? Guess what? It is that person staring back at you in the mirror.

Maybe nobody wants to hear it but if you are overweight or unhealthy it is  mostly if not completely your fault. Nothing affects your bodyfat levels and your health more than what you eat. Exercise is a close second but without proper eating on a consistent basis you will ultimately gain weight and lose your health.

Making healthy food choices can seem like a pretty daunting task in todays world. Everywhere we turn there are foods of convenience that, lets face it, everybody knows are not good food choices. You don’t need a degree in nutritional science to figure out french fries and ding dongs for dinner is not a good call.  But what about all the products that are have the words “natural” and “healthy” and “organic”  screaming across the packaging. Surely these must be good choices.  These term are really meaningless and are far more about getting you to buy the product than contributing to your health. The very fact that these products are in a package nearly guarantees they are not all they are cracked up to be. “Organic” or “whole grain” ding dongs are still crap and they will still make you fat. End of story.

Here is a simple way to evaluate foods. Test the food against these 3 rules and if it passes, its in your basket, if it fails its out.

1) Is it a food or a food product.

Most of the contents of any grocery store is not food but rather food products. Taking a whole food and processing it into another product typically removes any goodness the original food contained. As an example lets use oats. Oats on its own is a highly nutritious food with lots of fiber, vitamins, minerals, and a good source of slowing digesting carbohydrate.  All things conducive to a lean and healthy body.  Take those whole large flakes of oats and grind it into a flour, remove the fiber so you have a nice fine consistency,  bleach it so it is all the same color, add sugar, salt and a host of other preservatives, form it into a shape appealing to the eye and put it in a box. Now you have a whole grain oat cereal. Because studies have shown that oats can reduce cholesterol and reducing cholesterol may prevent heart disease lets put a government approved heart healthy badge on it just for good measure. It should be easy to see although these foods both contain oats, that is where the similarities end. This actually leads right into the next rule.

2)Does it have more than 5 ingredients.

The more processed a food is the worse it is going to be for your health and your waistline.  The more processed the food the more ingredients will be added to ensure that product can stay on the shelf longer without spoiling. The longer it can stay on the shelf, the more profit is made because of factors like central manufacturing,shipping, and storage facilities. A loaf of wonderbread can be shipped across the country, sit on the shelf in a warehouse or in the store for days or weeks, and still be sold as soft and white as the day it was made. It also has over 20 ingredients, most of which no one but a chemical scientist would even know what they were, that ensure it will remain soft and white for a long time. Try leaving a loaf of homemade whole grain bread on your counter for a week and see what happens. Hope you are not allergic to penicillin.

Ideally it would be nice to pick foods that only have one ingredient.  A whole apple contains apple, a steak contains steak for example. This is not always possible though.  If you make a effort to fill your cart with as little “ingredients” as possible and stick to food, you will be way ahead of the game. No need to count calories or gram of protein or carbs. Try counting ingredients. Its easier and it works.

3)Could I pick it, dig it from the ground, or chase it down.

This is the simplest rule of all but it is also very effective.  You can put any food to this test and if it passes you are pretty much guaranteed a wise choice.  You can pick apples, dig potatoes or carrots from the ground, or chase down a chicken.  There is no Apple Cinnamon Cheerio tree, no french fries in the garden, and no chicken nuggets, or tofurkey running around in the barnyard.  All of these products started out as whole foods but after processing they are now products.  See rule 1.

Using these guidelines to chose your food takes out most of the guess work and make counting calories a thing of the past. No eliminating foods based on macro-nutrient profile but instead eliminating “non nutrient food”.  Give it a try. Your health and your waistline will thank you.

Have a custom diet designed for you

kevin@kevinweiss.com

Now that we have looked at all the various indexes that are suppose to help us chose the proper foods for fat loss, it is time to get down to the real issue. How can you make intelligent decisions  when it comes to planning meals? Does every food you choose have to have a Glycemic index of less than 50, a Glycemic load of less than 10 and, and a satiety index of more than 100?  Good luck with that!  As I said before, the various indexs are not in agreement on what foods are best and what are worst. Personally I have no desire to  look up every food I choose before I eat it to see where it ranks either. There is an easier way.  All we have to do is apply some common sense and everything else seems to fall into place.

Essentially what was trying to be achieved by all of these indexes was 3 things:

1. control insulin secretion and stabilize blood sugar levels.
2. control calories
3. control hunger

These are 3 important things in my opinion if dropping bodyfat is your goal.  All 3 of these factors go hand in hand as well. Keeping your blood sugar stable throughout the day will control your hunger so you eat less calories overall. If you eat fewer calories than your body burns you will be in a deficit and will lose fat. Sounds pretty simple, and it actually is.  You just have to chose foods (or eliminate foods) based on one single question.

• How processed is this food?

Processing food essentially prechews, predigests, and preserves it.  Processing also removes water from a food and replaces it with fat, usually a saturated or trans fat so it will keep on the shelf longer.  Processing usually strips most if not all of the fiber out of the food, and adds salt and other “spices” (MSG is classified as a spice).  All of these things make the food taste better.  Unfortunately all of the processes cause a food have a greater impact on insulin secretion, allow us to eat more before we realize we are full, and cause use to be hungry again soon after eating.

Lets use the simple potato as an example of how processing affects a food and how that affects you.  A baked russet potato has next to no processing. It has been washed (it better be anyway) poked a few times and baked.  A 7.5oz potato has 168 calories, 0.2 g of fat and 4 g of fiber. If we go to the extreme end of processing,  potato chips,  a 7.5 oz serving has 1123 calories, 67.5 g of fat and 7.5 g of fiber.  Nearly all of the additional calories in the chips are from fat. That is because the water in the potato that has zero calories has been replaced with fat that contains 9 calories per gram.  This is a very extreme example, but lets compare baked french fries that you buy and prepare at home.  They are just cut up potato that is frozen right?  What’s the difference between that and a whole potato?  Well all you have to do is flip them both over and read the ingredients.  I had a hard time finding the ingredients label on the potato but I am going to go out on a limb and say it contains “potato”.   The bagged frozen potato contained  not less than 10 ingredients, Potatoes, Sunflower Oil, Batter (Wheat Flour, Modified Starch (Maize, Tapioca), Rice Flour, Salt, Corn Starch, Natural Colours (Turmeric Extract, Paprika Extract))  A 7.5 oz serving of these potatoes was 365 calories. More than double what an actual potato is.  This of course does not include any oil you use in the cooking process and anything you add afterwards.  Also of note, if you cooked and broke one of these fries open, it was obvious that the rough, starchy, consistency of a potato was not there. It was more like it had been mashed to almost a liquid and then pressed into its current shape. Your body has to do very little to break these “potatoes” down, they almost melt in your mouth. Like they had already been pre chewed. This makes it very easy for you to eat a tremendous amount of calories in no time. A high intake of easily digested food spikes your blood glucose and causes a insulin spike to deal with the sugar in the blood steam. Once the insulin has dealt with the glucose you become hungry again.  The less food you eat and the longer it takes to digest the more stable your blood sugar remains and the lower the insulin response.

There are many other factors I consider when I design a fat loss diet for a client, like individual lifestyle factors, macronutrient breakdown, and portion size, but people can make tremendous progress just by eliminating processed foods as much from their diets as possible.  We need to worry about the elephant in the living room crapping on the floor instead of the dust on the blinds. Try this the next time you go grocery shopping. Try to buy as many things as possible with no label.  The things you do buy with labels, try the limit the ingredient list to 3 or less.  You might be surprised how different you cart looks going through the checkout. In a short time you might be surprised how you look to.

kevin@kevinweiss.com

It may seem like I am stating the bloody obvious with the title of this post, but there is yet another index I should cover before I get to what I feel is the most important factor in fat loss.  This index offers a few benefits over the Glycemic Index (GI) and the Glycemic Load (GL) covered in the previous posts, and gets us closer to what is really important.

The Satiety Index

“The Satiety Index of Common Foods”, was published in the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, September 1995. In this study, the researchers fed human test subjects fixed-Calorie portions of thirty-eight different foods, and then recorded the subjects’ perceived hunger following each feeding.
The results of this study clearly indicated that certain foods are much better than others for satisfying hunger. The researchers used white bread as their reference point, and arbitrarily assigned it a “Satiety Index” of 100. Foods that did a better job of satisfying hunger were given proportionately higher values, and foods that were less satisfying were assigned lower values. Among the most satisfying foods they tested were plain boiled potatoes, raw fruits, fish, and lean meats. Subjects that consumed the prescribed portion of these foods were less likely to feel hungry immediately afterward. Foods that did the poorest job of satisfying hunger included croissants, donuts, candy bars, and peanuts.

It is interesting to note that the food that scored by far the best for satisfying hunger was boiled white potato (a high GI food). It scored a whopping 323!  Now Don’t use this as an excuse to gobble down french fries.  They only scored 116. Also some of the foods that scored the worst for satisfying hunger, like peanuts (84 SI), are low GI (14 GI).

It is very easy to see that comparing foods across these various indexes gives very different results.  Many foods that would be shunned because of their high GI look not so bad under the GL scale and even better under the SI. The opposite is also true.

Choosing foods that satisfy you faster is certainly a step in the right direction when it comes to dropping bodyfat, but it is not the only factor. Relying on indexes to tell you what foods to eat can be tedious and quite honestly a pain in the ass.   In the next post I will finally bring this all together and show how you can choose foods that will get you going towards your fat loss goals, no index required.

In the previous post we discuss the Glycemic Index and its short comings. Of course when a flaw is found with a system an alternative is proposed that fixes these problems.  Walla!! the Glycemic Load Index or GL.  Lets see if this hold the answers to what foods we should be choosing for those ripped abs and tight butts.  First things first though. What exactly is the GL?

The glycemic load (GL) is a relatively new way to assess the impact of carbohydrate consumption that takes the glycemic index into account, but gives a fuller picture than does glycemic index alone. A GI value tells you only how rapidly a particular carbohydrate turns into sugar. It doesn’t tell you how much of that carbohydrate is in a serving of a particular food. You need to know both things to understand a food’s effect on blood sugar. That is where glycemic load comes in. The carbohydrate in watermelon, for example, has a high GI. But there isn’t a lot of it, so watermelon’s glycemic load is relatively low. A GL of 20 or more is high, a GL of 11 to 19 inclusive is medium, and a GL of 10 or less is low. Many foods that were previously shunned because of their high GI, were found to have a relatively low GL. Some examples of these foods are carrots, parsnips,  broad beans and pumpkin. Even rice, that would certainly be considered high GI, has a very low GL when a reasonable serving size of 75g is considered.

I think the GL is a far better gauge of a food than the GI. That being said, basing your food choices on the GL does not seem to solve all of your fat loss problems.  A year long study done at Tufts University that compared high GL to low GL diets, showed no significant bodyweight or bodyfat difference at the end of the study between the two groups. I would venture to say that if eating low GL food provided no difference over high GL food, arguing the effectiveness of the GL over the GI is probably a moot point.  Perhaps there is more to fat loss than just how a food affects or blood sugar and insulin levels? Maybe the ultimate answer is staring us right in the face but we can’t see it because of all the indexes, charts and graphs?  Next time I will look past all of these distractions and show what truly matters when losing bodyfat is your goal.

kevin@kevinweiss.com

Many people are familiar with the glycemic index (GI) but for those that are not lets start with a brief description. The glycemic index (GI) is a ranking of carbohydrates on a scale from 0 to 100 according to the extent to which they raise blood sugar levels after eating. Foods with a high GI are those which are rapidly digested and absorbed and result in marked fluctuations in blood sugar levels. Low-GI foods, by virtue of their slow digestion and absorption, produce gradual rises in blood sugar and insulin levels. It stands to reason that when fat loss is your ultimate goal a low GI diet is the path to the promised land and all high GI foods should be banished. Well maybe it is not that black and white.

One problem is how the GI of specific foods are determined. In a clinically controlled setting,  portions of food that contain 50g of carbohydrate are fed to people who have fasted overnight. The rise in blood sugar is measured every 15 minutes for 3 hours and then plotted on a graph. The area under the curve is measured and indexed against glucose at 100. That number is the food’s glycemic index. The higher the rise in blood sugar, the higher the glycemic index of that food. Although this makes nerds in lab coats happy, because of the controls that can be imposed, this is not a reflection of real life.  The digestion/absorption of previous meals, as well as the context of the carbohydrate food can drastically alter GI. Rarely are foods eaten in isolation and in the amounts that are seen in these tests. For example carrots, contain about 7% carbohydrate. This means you would have to eat more than 5 lbs of carrots first thing in the morning, by themselves, to get a GI rating. That’s not realistic. Also the GI of a food is different if it is cooked or raw, mashed or chopped, and more or less ripe.  Adding protein, fat or fiber to a carbohydrate further alters it GI.

If a lean, ripped physique is you goal, choosing food based on GI alone holds many pitfalls. Many high calorie foods have relatively low GI ratings. Ice cream, milk chocolate, and peanut M&M candies all have a lower GI rating than a yam.  I have designed many successful fat loss diets that included yams. I have yet to reccomend ice cream for someone seeking a ripped six pack.

Although I would like to take credit for exposing these flaws in the GI that is very far from the truth. These short coming have been known for a long time. Of course when a flaw is found with a particular system an alternative is proposed to pick up where the other fell short.  Enter the Glycemic Load Index or GL.  Next time we will see if this holds the answers to the never ending battle of the bulge. Have a great day.

Get a custom fat loss diet designed for you.

If you would like to contact me shoot me an email at kevin@kevinweiss.com

Many people are familiar with the glycemic index (GI) but for those that are not lets start with a brief description. The glycemic index (GI) is a ranking of carbohydrates on a scale from 0 to 100 according to the extent to which they raise blood sugar levels after eating. Foods with a high GI are those which are rapidly digested and absorbed and result in marked fluctuations in blood sugar levels. Low-GI foods, by virtue of their slow digestion and absorption, produce gradual rises in blood sugar and insulin levels. It stands to reason that when fat loss is your ultimate goal a low GI diet is the path to the promised land and all high GI foods should be banished. Well maybe it is not that black and white.

One problem is how the GI of specific foods are determined. In a clinically controlled setting,  portions of food that contain 50g of carbohydrate are fed to people who have fasted overnight. The rise in blood sugar is measured every 15 minutes for 3 hours and then plotted on a graph. The area under the curve is measured and indexed against glucose at 100. That number is the food’s glycemic index. The higher the rise in blood sugar, the higher the glycemic index of that food. Although this makes nerds in lab coats happy, because of the controls that can be imposed, this is not a reflection of real life.  The digestion/absorption of previous meals, as well as the context of the carbohydrate food can drastically alter GI. Rarely are foods eaten in isolation and in the amounts that are seen in these tests. For example carrots, contain about 7% carbohydrate. This means you would have to eat more than 5 lbs of carrots first thing in the morning, by themselves, to get a GI rating. That’s not realistic. Also the GI of a food is different if it is cooked or raw, mashed or chopped, and more or less ripe.  Adding protein, fat or fiber to a carbohydrate further alters it GI.

If a lean, ripped physique is you goal, choosing food based on GI alone holds many pitfalls. Many high calorie foods have relatively low GI ratings. Ice cream, milk chocolate, and peanut M&M candies all have a lower GI rating than a yam.  I have designed many successful fat loss diets that included yams. I have yet to reccomend ice cream for someone seeking a ripped six pack.

Although I would like to take credit for exposing these flaws in the GI that is very far from the truth. These short coming have been known for a long time. Of course when a flaw is found with a particular system an alternative is proposed to pick up where the other fell short.  Enter the Glycemic Load Index or GL.  Next time we will see if this holds the answers to the never ending battle of the bulge. Have a great day.

kevin@kevinweiss.com

Nearly everybody  wants to know how to lose fat. In this post I want to talk about how insulin and insulin levels affect how your body does or does not burn fat.  Insulin has gotten most of its “bad rap” because it is indeed heavily involved in fat storage. Hey it is a storage hormone, that’s what it does.  For a very long time it was believed that it was the only, or at least the most important, hormone involved in fat storage. This turn out not to be true, even if some people still cling to the belief.  A compound called acylation stimulation protein or ASP has been know to be the most potent stimulator of fat storage in the fat cell for over 30 years. That point aside, insulin is still very involved in the process of fat storage and the inhibition of  fat mobilization from fat cells.  Even small increases in insulin levels essentially stops fat from being mobilized or released from the fat cells.  No fat being released from the cells, no fat available to be burned for energy.  The simple solution to this seems to be keep insulin levels low at all times. Then fat mobilization would not be inhibited and we could burn fat for energy all the time. Sounds grand doesn’t it?  And since eating carbohydrate is responsible for insulin levels rising  all we have to do is eat no carbs and the problem is solved. Ahh, if it were only that simple. As usual there is more to the story.  It is a misconception that eating carbohydrates is the only thing that raises insulin. Eating protein raises insulin too. In fact eating protein and carbs together raise insulin more than either one of the two when eaten alone.  Well now we are really screwed. How are we suppose to burn fat for energy if  the body keeps shutting down fat burning by releasing insulin every time we eat?   The answer lies in not trying to stop the release of insulin (you definitely do not want that) but rather controlling  how long insulin levels are  elevated. The sooner insulin levels drop, the sooner we can get back to tapping into the bodies energy stores. Next time i will talk about how make this happen. Have a good week.