putting it all together… protein and net carbs

So far we’ve learned that carbohydrate alone isn’t a fantastic predictor of insulin requirement.

image003

The observation that protein requires about half as much insulin as carbohydrate improves our estimation of insulin demand.

Then understanding that fibre neutralises the insulin effect of carbohydrates also helps us predict the amount the amount of insulin required by a particular food.

Microsoft Word Document 25032015 40944 AM.bmp

Using net carbohydrates with an allowance for about half the protein gives us a better way to estimate insulin requirement of food compared to using carbohydrates alone.

image004

In order to help us compare various food options we can calculate the proportion of insulinogenic calories of our foods using this formula:

image011

And if we want to keep track of the insulinogenic load of our diet too keep our blood sugars under control or to maintain or achieve nutritional ketosis we can use this formula:

image005

This deeper understanding of the impact of the influence of carbohydrates, protein and fibre may also be useful when it comes to choosing foods with a lower insulin load or even more accurately calculating insulin dosages for diabetics.

[next article…  how long does it take to digest protein?]

[this post is part of the insulin index series]

[Like what you’re reading?  Skip to the full story here.]

4 thoughts on “putting it all together… protein and net carbs”

  1. ok, so now that we have the understanding of insulinogenic properties of protein, what amount of g of insulinogenic ‘load’ as you are using in the second formula would you recommend to start with?

  2. I think the final figure should be a graph showing ‘carbs – fibre + 0.54x protein’ (figure 30 from your manifesto), as the third figure currently appears to duplicate the second figure?

    Spotted it when I wanted to refer someone to the article after having read the manifesto. There’s also another small difference that the manifesto uses 0.56x protein and the article uses 0.54. I don’t think anyone will be adjusting their diet based on a difference of 0.02, but thought it was worth pointing out!

Leave a Reply