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 YogaBare View Post
    Are you for real? Our body is something like 60% water!! Our brains are 70%. I think that qualifies as teeny amount of storage.
    Yeah....I think we have some water stored. And some air for that matter, but if you would like to continue with this ridiculous analogy please expand on your thoughts Sean. Should be fun

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Neckhammer View Post
      Yeah....I think we have some water stored. And some air for that matter, but if you would like to continue with this ridiculous analogy please expand on your thoughts Sean. Should be fun
      In terms of "operating time" there's not much water or air stored to be used in metabolic processes.

      How much time will you live if you don't take in any oxygen?

      How much time will you live if you don't take in any water?

      That's what I'm getting at.
      www.SeanBissell.com

      Comment


      • Originally posted by SeanBissell View Post
        I just gotta say...

        You need water and air too, but you don't store much of those substances...

        Not sure if storage equates to importance from a metabolic standpoint.
        -Sean
        It's not a question of 'importance', it's a question of role/function.

        To make the logic more explicit......

        If burning fat is 'stressful' but burning sugar isn't, then that would imply that the body will preferentially burn sugar whenever it's available. Since our glycogen storage is limited, burning it for basal metabolic processes would result in it running out in less than a single day. From an evolutionary standpoint, this makes no sense because the *critical* role that glycogen plays is anaerobic metabolism - i.e. fueling high-intensity activity of a 'flight or fight' nature'. Fat CAN'T fulfill this role. One day without food would leave you glycogen depleted, which is exactly when you're going to need to tap into it to go hunt etc.

        So, burning glycogen for basal metabolism would leave the typical individual drained of glycogen unless they could do the modern 'several meals' deal EVERY SINGLE DAY. You have little to no resilience in the face of food scarcity. Leaving yourself drained of glycogen and thus unable to hunt/flee etc is simply not a behavior that would survive evolution for very long.

        Thus, the evolutionary viewpoint seems pretty unmistakable - fat is used for fueling basic metabolism since it's abundant and can carry an individual for a very long time in the face of food scarcity, and can do it while sparing glycogen for when it's truly needed.

        Having said that, it's pretty clear that Peat and his followers have no interest in this type of evolutionary thought process - they're basing their behavior on observation. That's fine as far as it goes, and maybe chugging high levels of fructose in the absence of PUFA does exploit some otherwise unknown loophole in our metabolic process. It's possible, but my perspective is that we have a rather poor track record at that type of attempt to improve upon or circumvent 'mother nature', and I certainly would need to see a heck of a lot more evidence before considering it valid.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by dwkdnvr View Post
          It's not a question of 'importance', it's a question of role/function.

          To make the logic more explicit......

          If burning fat is 'stressful' but burning sugar isn't, then that would imply that the body will preferentially burn sugar whenever it's available. Since our glycogen storage is limited, burning it for basal metabolic processes would result in it running out in less than a single day. From an evolutionary standpoint, this makes no sense because the *critical* role that glycogen plays is anaerobic metabolism - i.e. fueling high-intensity activity of a 'flight or fight' nature'. Fat CAN'T fulfill this role. One day without food would leave you glycogen depleted, which is exactly when you're going to need to tap into it to go hunt etc.

          So, burning glycogen for basal metabolism would leave the typical individual drained of glycogen unless they could do the modern 'several meals' deal EVERY SINGLE DAY. You have little to no resilience in the face of food scarcity. Leaving yourself drained of glycogen and thus unable to hunt/flee etc is simply not a behavior that would survive evolution for very long.

          Thus, the evolutionary viewpoint seems pretty unmistakable - fat is used for fueling basic metabolism since it's abundant and can carry an individual for a very long time in the face of food scarcity, and can do it while sparing glycogen for when it's truly needed.

          Having said that, it's pretty clear that Peat and his followers have no interest in this type of evolutionary thought process - they're basing their behavior on observation. That's fine as far as it goes, and maybe chugging high levels of fructose in the absence of PUFA does exploit some otherwise unknown loophole in our metabolic process. It's possible, but my perspective is that we have a rather poor track record at that type of attempt to improve upon or circumvent 'mother nature', and I certainly would need to see a heck of a lot more evidence before considering it valid.
          Great points for sure.

          At the same time, I do think there's value in actually studying things on the cellular level rather than looking at how we think things evolved from a "common sense" level.

          Because I've noticed that in nutrition "common sense" isn't always common

          Regardless though. Even if we're supposed to use fat as a primary fuel, how come "leanness" is so valued and fat loss is such a large discussion?
          www.SeanBissell.com

          Comment


          • Originally posted by SeanBissell View Post
            Regardless though. Even if we're supposed to use fat as a primary fuel, how come "leanness" is so valued and fat loss is such a large discussion?
            Great point! And one reason that I for one see no real value to hacking various forms of exercise or diet to achieve some preconceived (media driven) ideal level of leanness. As a male I sit in the 12-15% category for body fat and am quite happy with that. So what if you can't see the veins in my abs.....lol I didn't know you were suppose to!

            Comment


            • Originally posted by SeanBissell View Post
              At the same time, I do think there's value in actually studying things on the cellular level rather than looking at how we think things evolved from a "common sense" level.
              Bingo, Sean! Unless you guys are living in a 100% paleolithic simulator, you can't use that to guide you. The modern world is fast paced, climate controlled and stressful. We have evolved quite a bit since paleo times. You have to eat and live for the modern world, not what it was 10,000 years ago.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by SeanBissell View Post
                Great points for sure.

                At the same time, I do think there's value in actually studying things on the cellular level rather than looking at how we think things evolved from a "common sense" level.

                Because I've noticed that in nutrition "common sense" isn't always common
                I actually agree with you. But I think a balance of the two can take you further than one or the other. Science is often wrong, and common sense, as you noted, is often just a massive speculation

                Originally posted by SeanBissell View Post
                Regardless though. Even if we're supposed to use fat as a primary fuel, how come "leanness" is so valued and fat loss is such a large discussion?
                Cos' it's fashionable! The 1900's was the first time it became cool to be thin and tanned. Prior to that it was regarded as a 'peasant' look. People wanted to be fat and pale because it demonstrated affluence (they had money to eat well, and didn't have to work in the fields).

                Nowadays leanness is regarded as a sign of health and vitality. I don't think it's a natural state for all people though. If you look at primates (sorry to go back to the evolutionary thing!), many of the families are flabby. Most people have to work really hard to have a buff physique.
                "I think the basic anti-aging diet is also the best diet for prevention and treatment of diabetes, scleroderma, and the various "connective tissue diseases." This would emphasize high protein, low unsaturated fats, low iron, and high antioxidant consumption, with a moderate or low starch consumption.

                In practice, this means that a major part of the diet should be milk, cheese, eggs, shellfish, fruits and coconut oil, with vitamin E and salt as the safest supplements."

                - Ray Peat

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Gilleh View Post
                  It was nectarines, apples and peaches.
                  Lot of nectarines.
                  do you have any issues with almonds? a friend of mine is allergic to almonds/stone fruit and anything of that sort

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by SeanBissell View Post

                    At the same time, I do think there's value in actually studying things on the cellular level rather than looking at how we think things evolved from a "common sense" level.

                    Because I've noticed that in nutrition "common sense" isn't always common
                    No disagreement there - observation trumps all. However, given how far wrong we've gone in many ways ostensibly based on 'the science', I don't think it's radical to say that appearances can be deceiving. Given that the effects of nutrition are so complex, and play out over years/decades, it's very difficult to be certain of the long-term implications of an observation.

                    Still, this is why I'd say I'm 'skeptical' of Peat, rather than 'dismissive', at least at this point.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by bopfer View Post
                      We have evolved quite a bit since paleo times. You have to eat and live for the modern world, not what it was 10,000 years ago.
                      Sounds good! GMO Soy Burgers for everyone! Nothing says 'modern world' better than industrially produced vegan delights!

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Neckhammer View Post
                        Great point! And one reason that I for one see no real value to hacking various forms of exercise or diet to achieve some preconceived (media driven) ideal level of leanness. As a male I sit in the 12-15% category for body fat and am quite happy with that. So what if you can't see the veins in my abs.....lol I didn't know you were suppose to!
                        Advertising picks whatever people aren't to worship- it's harder to sell to people who have good self image.

                        Get rid of all TV, movies, media, etc, and natural tastes revert.
                        Lifting Journal

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by dwkdnvr View Post
                          Still, this is why I'd say I'm 'skeptical' of Peat, rather than 'dismissive', at least at this point.
                          You don't have to believe Peat. There are plenty of others promoting more fruit and starches with less fat. Denise Minger, Chris Masterjohn, and Stephan Guyenet just to name a few. Heck even Chris Kresser and Mat LaLonde are coming around. Give it another year or 2 and most of these people (and more) will be closer to Peat then to Sisson or Wolf.

                          Nutrition is very complex and NO ONE has all the answers. We are all just trying to figure out what makes the most sense. I once thought Paleo/Primal was the one. But, I have evolved beyond it.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by dwkdnvr View Post
                            Sounds good! GMO Soy Burgers for everyone! Nothing says 'modern world' better than industrially produced vegan delights!
                            Way to twist things around to make an irrelevant point. If you read all my posts, you would see that I agree that modern food is crap. But, that's just in the last 50-100 years. No need to go back any further.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by bopfer View Post
                              Way to twist things around to make an irrelevant point. If you read all my posts, you would see that I agree that modern food is crap. But, that's just in the last 50-100 years. No need to go back any further.
                              And you pick the one thing in his past several posts that you could possibly argue.....way to twist things around indeed.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Neckhammer View Post
                                I disagree with your assessment completely. Running on fat is not stressful in the physiological or metabolic sense either. This is utter bull.
                                If you wanna run on sugar go ahead, but don't attempt to spread such nonsense.
                                Thank you. I like conciseness.

                                Originally posted by RichMahogany View Post
                                The ability to burn energy in the form in which we store it is an adaptation to keep you alive short-term? I can't see how that makes any sense.
                                Exactly. We store fuel primarily as fat not glycogen.

                                Originally posted by dwkdnvr View Post
                                I have to say, though, it really doesn't pass the 'sniff test' for me, and the last few posts are a succinct start on why - the big 'epiphany' for me with Primal was seeing an extremely elegant description of how human metabolism worked, shaped by evolution. The fact that we can store only a very minimal amount of carbs but a great amount of fat seems to point clearly to an expectation that we'd run off fat as the base of our metabolism - the only other rational conclusion is that carbs were ubiquitously available and meal timing/frequency were entirely predictable; this seems absurd on it's face. If metabolizing stored fat were 'stressful' to the point of compromising health, one has to think that an adaptation towards higher glycogen storage would have become dominant. Or, equivalently, an alternate fat metabolic pathway that is less stressful would have been selected.

                                This type of argument doesn't 'prove' anything, but certainly makes it extremely difficult to accept something like 'burning fat is stressful' without substantial supporting evidence.
                                Exactly. If metabolizing our primary fuel storage was so stressful, we would have died out long ago.

                                Originally posted by dwkdnvr View Post
                                If burning fat is 'stressful' but burning sugar isn't, then that would imply that the body will preferentially burn sugar whenever it's available. Since our glycogen storage is limited, burning it for basal metabolic processes would result in it running out in less than a single day. From an evolutionary standpoint, this makes no sense because the *critical* role that glycogen plays is anaerobic metabolism - i.e. fueling high-intensity activity of a 'flight or fight' nature'. One day without food would leave you glycogen depleted, which is exactly when you're going to need to tap into it to go hunt etc.

                                So, burning glycogen for basal metabolism would leave the typical individual drained of glycogen unless they could do the modern 'several meals' deal EVERY SINGLE DAY. You have little to no resilience in the face of food scarcity. Leaving yourself drained of glycogen and thus unable to hunt/flee etc is simply not a behavior that would survive evolution for very long.

                                Thus, the evolutionary viewpoint seems pretty unmistakable - fat is used for fueling basic metabolism since it's abundant and can carry an individual for a very long time in the face of food scarcity, and can do it while sparing glycogen for when it's truly needed.

                                Having said that, it's pretty clear that Peat and his followers have no interest in this type of evolutionary thought process. It's possible, but my perspective is that we have a rather poor track record at that type of attempt to improve upon or circumvent 'mother nature', and I certainly would need to see a heck of a lot more evidence before considering it valid.
                                You can't just dismiss 2.5 million years of evolution.

                                Originally posted by bopfer View Post
                                Bingo, Sean! Unless you guys are living in a 100% paleolithic simulator, you can't use that to guide you. The modern world is fast paced, climate controlled and stressful. We have evolved quite a bit since paleo times. You have to eat and live for the modern world, not what it was 10,000 years ago.
                                While I and even Mark agree that Paleo re-enactment is silly, this statement is simply wrong biologically. There have been a few human adaptations such as lactose tolerance after weaning but, genetically, we are exactly the same as our Hunter Gatherer ancestors.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X