Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why does Danny Roddy recommend sugar to reduce stress/estrogen?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
    I have no idea how you reached this conclusion.
    by reading danny's posts

    i reached the same conclusion
    beautiful
    yeah you are

    Baby if you time travel back far enough you can avoid that work because the dust won't be there. You're too pretty to be working that hard.
    lol

    Comment


    • Originally posted by bloodorchid View Post
      by reading danny's posts

      i reached the same conclusion
      Then you came into this thread with a preconceived notion and you reached a negative conclusion in your mind because of it. That's what happened in the beginning pages. You have a bunch of people on this site who think the word "sugar" is the dirtiest word in the English language, and upon reading the title they go on a warpath instead of understanding the concept behind the message.

      No one is saying to eat gobs of white sugar. Danny only said that would be appropriate in rare instances where someone's metabolic rate was so low it would be considered like a "supplement". You're not taking sugar to get energy, but rather to rescue your declining metabolic rate/thyroid. For most of us, he simply advocates eating less unsaturated fat (that includes monounsaturated fat) and eating less vegetables and more fruit in an attempt to raise the metabolic rate. Regardless of whether or not that fits into the (arbitrary) macronutrient profile you care to follow, it all fits well into the Primal Blueprint. Fruits contain significantly less anti-nutrients than vegetables anyway, and the nutrients, though less, are more readily available and not bound up in undigestible fiber and anti-nutrients. It's also easier on your digestive system thanks to eliminating all that insoluble fiber found in vegetables, so there are real benefits to the approach and it could be worth a shot.

      I've been eating 3 heads of lettuce, 6 extra large cucumbers, 2 pounds of carrots, 3 pounds of peppers and God knows what else solely in the form of lunch salads for the past year, on top of whatever other vegetables I eat throughout the day. Maybe it would do be good to eat less vegetables and more fruits. This week I bought two watermelons, but still a huge quantity of vegetables. I may try lessening the greens for fruits and see how I feel.
      Last edited by ChocoTaco369; 07-08-2012, 09:41 PM.
      Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

      Comment


      • stop assuming you know what we think or how we feel when we type or what our levels of reading comprehension may be, choco, there are better hobbies and you look like a jerk in this thread

        also, didn't your last food revelation leave you bloated and confused as to why?
        beautiful
        yeah you are

        Baby if you time travel back far enough you can avoid that work because the dust won't be there. You're too pretty to be working that hard.
        lol

        Comment


        • Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
          No one is saying to eat gobs of white sugar. Danny only said that would be appropriate in rare instances where someone's metabolic rate was so low it would be considered like a "supplement".
          I don't think that is correct. His website suggests adding sugar and salt to skim milk. It did not seem to indicate that was for rare individuals. He does call it a supplement though.
          Using low lectin/nightshade free primal to control autoimmune arthritis. (And lost 50 lbs along the way )

          http://www.krispin.com/lectin.html

          Comment


          • Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
            Then you came into this thread with a preconceived notion and you reached a negative conclusion in your mind because of it. That's what happened in the beginning pages. You have a bunch of people on this site who think the word "sugar" is the dirtiest word in the English language, and upon reading the title they go on a warpath instead of understanding the concept behind the message.
            Stop being a douche. Here's the MDA post on sugar. This is the MDA forums. If you disagree with that post, perhaps *you* are the person with preconceived notions. At the very least, the principles in that post seem to me to be a reasonable basis for a common understanding in the forums here and if we are deviating from it, I think that it's reasonable that everybody understands the baseline we are deviating from.

            In this thread I tried to clarify by saying "However, if that sugar is being ingested exclusively in the form of fruits, that seems to me to be much more reasonable."
            And instead of confirmation/agreement I got this response from dannyroddy "A cup of sugar, gummy bears, and Mexican cola are hard to put in context until one adopts the idea that the metabolic rate is the underlining factor in health. "

            Now you are wading in to say that you agree with danny, and that nobody is saying chow down on gobs of sugar. WTF?

            Choco, *everybody* in this thread has their own 'preconceived notions'. Everybody. You're just the special flower that knows he's right and everybody else is wrong/neurotic/stupid.

            I'm not saying that everything in 'the definitive guide to sugar' is right. But I think that zeroing in on what is wrong/missing/incomplete in that post is more helpful than being dismissive of people.
            Last edited by magicmerl; 07-09-2012, 12:46 AM.
            Disclaimer: I eat 'meat and vegetables' ala Primal, although I don't agree with the carb curve. I like Perfect Health Diet and WAPF Lactofermentation a lot.

            Griff's cholesterol primer
            5,000 Cal Fat <> 5,000 Cal Carbs
            Winterbike: What I eat every day is what other people eat to treat themselves.
            TQP: I find for me that nutrition is much more important than what I do in the gym.
            bloodorchid is always right

            Comment


            • I'd just like to chime in here and say +1 for Danny Roddy and Ray Peat. I am a long-time sufferer of anxiety, panic attacks, and depression. I also appreciate the Paleo/Primal movement and have used it mostly in it's low-carb form for weight loss. No doubt I can lose weight super speedy doing this. The problem is after some time of feeling fantastic, my anxiety/depression comes back with a vengeance. I was also dx'd w/ hypothyroidism after low carbing a long time. It took me forever to realize the connection, and when I finally read a number of other people's similar experiences I decided to do a little research. Enter: Ray Peat. Peat's work can be very dense for someone w/o a science background, so Danny's interpretation (along with others who study Peat's stuff) is very helpful.

              Bottom line: The vast majority of my diet can still fit within the "paleo" framework. I eat whole foods consisting primarily of grass-fed animal proteins, raw/pastured dairy, plenty of fruit, gelatin from bone-broths, honey, coconut oil, sea salt, etc. The biggest difference Peat has made in dietary choices is that I no longer eschew fruit as though it's poisonous. I eat it in abundance, and without guilt. I still eat vegetables because I enjoy them, but my preference now is fruit-carbs. I also allow myself a tablespoon of organic sugar each morning in my coffee as I enjoy it and I'm thrilled not to have to feel guilty about it.

              Without question this effects me hormonally. I just told a close friend how incredibly calm I feel. After suffering for such a long time, this is an incredibly welcome change. I don't personally subscribe to eating candy, an abundance of refined sugar, etc, and instead rely on whole foods while remaining within a "Peat framework", and so far it's going well. If I'd like a glass of fresh squeezed OJ, I drink it. If I want a ripe peach, I eat it. I truly think the difference is doing so in the context of a very low PUFA, grain-free diet is what keeps this from feeling....addictive. In my SAD days I could inhale a pastry (or two!) and feel like a raging monster ready to eat anything sweet in sight. I thought my addiction was sugar and so I removed every last morsel of sugar. Later I removed grains and PUFA. Now it seems I can consume the sugar in the absence of grains/PUFA and experience none of those insatiable cravings for it. It's a beautiful thing!

              Comment


              • Jocelyn. How low is low carb to you? Less than 50g consistently? For how long?
                SW: 243
                CW: 177
                Goal: Health

                Comment


                • Originally posted by KerryK View Post
                  Jocelyn. How low is low carb to you? Less than 50g consistently? For how long?
                  I was between 20-30g's consistently for about a year, and raised my carbs to between 50-100 after weight loss. This lasted another 8 months or so. I spent another approx. 8 months trying to add in potatoes/rice but my blood sugar was not happy and I still felt rotten. (I'm not diabetic, but do use a glucose meter in an effort to see how my body's reacting). It wasn't until I backed of on the starches and added fruit/honey/etc that I started feeling better.

                  Comment


                  • I think the confusion for me has to do with both the amount/source of sugar and how it relates to dietary fat intake.

                    I've always been a big fan of fruit, I never stopped or reduced my fruit consumption, so for me, the thought of eating some fruit during the day isn't revolutionary. In fact, since I've been eating fruit all along, I don't see how I could be lacking in fructose since I've had some meals that consist solely of a huge bowl of fruit - that actually used to be my typical breakfast for months. Clearly, I DON'T have a fear of fruit sugar.

                    What I do have a hard time understanding is how cane sugar is the key to improved health. I don't think I'm alone with this cognitive dissonance, and like MANY of the people on this forum, I'm trying to understand Ray's guidelines better in the context of what I already know. I've read almost all of the articles on Ray's website, and while i can understand what he's saying, I don't have the medical background to determine whether he's brilliant or full of sh*t; all I can do is try to analyse it using what I know of nutrition, and what i know from my n=1 experiences.

                    My n=1 experriences consist of a history of sugar binging which is now in control, but can very easily resurface if I'm not careful. This predisposes me to being cautious when deciding to start consuming refined sugar again, because I know that it is very easy for me to trigger that desire to be constantly eating sugar all the time.

                    Which brings me to the next aspect of what I'm having some trouble understanding. Primal is all about eating your one, two, or three meals a day with no snacking. In fact, lots of people practice intermittent fasting on a regular basis, and the general concensus is that this is one key to good health; spiking your insulin once or twice a day, then giving your system a break from food. I, myself, ate one or two meals per day for months before I realized that due to my IBS, my system couldn't handle huge meals, and I had to go back to eating my three normal sized meals per day. However, it seems that Ray is promoting consuming sugar EVERY FEW HOURS, ALL DAY LONG. I capitalized that to emphasize that it goes completely against what pretty much everyone on this forum promotes as being a key to overall good health. Plus, many people came to this way of eating to escape from the necessity of having to eat every few hours to maintain blood sugar. Isn't that one of the big draws to primal?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by bloodorchid View Post
                      stop assuming you know what we think or how we feel when we type or what our levels of reading comprehension may be, choco, there are better hobbies and you look like a jerk in this thread
                      I'm not assuming.

                      Originally posted by bloodorchid View Post
                      also, didn't your last food revelation leave you bloated and confused as to why?
                      No.
                      Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by jammies View Post
                        I don't think that is correct. His website suggests adding sugar and salt to skim milk. It did not seem to indicate that was for rare individuals. He does call it a supplement though.
                        That is for those that are lactose intolerant AFAIK.
                        Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by magicmerl View Post
                          Stop being a douche. Here's the MDA post on sugar. This is the MDA forums. If you disagree with that post, perhaps *you* are the person with preconceived notions. At the very least, the principles in that post seem to me to be a reasonable basis for a common understanding in the forums here and if we are deviating from it, I think that it's reasonable that everybody understands the baseline we are deviating from.

                          In this thread I tried to clarify by saying "However, if that sugar is being ingested exclusively in the form of fruits, that seems to me to be much more reasonable."
                          And instead of confirmation/agreement I got this response from dannyroddy "A cup of sugar, gummy bears, and Mexican cola are hard to put in context until one adopts the idea that the metabolic rate is the underlining factor in health. "

                          Now you are wading in to say that you agree with danny, and that nobody is saying chow down on gobs of sugar. WTF?

                          Choco, *everybody* in this thread has their own 'preconceived notions'. Everybody. You're just the special flower that knows he's right and everybody else is wrong/neurotic/stupid.

                          I'm not saying that everything in 'the definitive guide to sugar' is right. But I think that zeroing in on what is wrong/missing/incomplete in that post is more helpful than being dismissive of people.
                          You are taking on the role of Cleopatra. I am unclear as to how being open to the possibility that you are wrong classifies as a preconceived notion. Wouldn't that be the opposite?
                          Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                          Comment


                          • For what it's worth, regarding weight loss...

                            I think it's possible to lose weight probably literally a million different ways.

                            Recently, I gained a bunch of weight by trying to increase my metabolism by overeating. (That worked, and also kinda sucked cause I gained a bunch of weight.)

                            But to *lose* the weight I experimented with a not-exactly-Peat, not-exactly-Primal, not-exactly-Leangains, hybrid thingy.

                            However, I *did* eat a good chunk of sugar, probably 100grams or more a day. And lower fat (about 20% daily calories in fat) and around 80-100 grams of protein a day.

                            I waited about 5 hours between meals, and didn't sip on sugar though.

                            Anyhow, here's my results (the first and second shot are literally like 3 seconds away from eachother, and are my "nod" to the fake supplement and diet testimonials.)

                            So far it seems to be working, hopefully things only get better

                            I also seem to be getting progressively crazier in each shot

                            www.SeanBissell.com

                            Comment


                            • ^^^Nice work.

                              What does every before-and-after photo spread have in common? The "before" always has the biggest sad face and the "after" always has the biggest shit-eating grin. I love it!
                              Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                              Comment


                              • I love that the first and second pic were just seconds apart! Classic. Thats why if I take pics I don't even attempt an unflexed pose. Take every pic in full flex I say if you really wanna have an objective picture. Far to easy to be unflexed...to a little flexed...to a little more flexed, but if you just hulk out on each one you know its good

                                The only thing you missed was the spray on tan and baby oil between shot 1 and 2.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X