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 Hawkward View Post
    I'm certainly not advocating drinking cream straight, though I do use it occasionally. I sometimes pour it over strawberries or sliced bananas (I do that with coconut milk also), or use it in mashed potatoes or sauces. I use Kalona cream, which is indeed grass-fed, vat pasteurized at 155 degrees, and no carrageenan. Excellent stuff. A nearby store (Natural Grocers) carries it in 8 oz bottles for about $1.50 I think.

    Like I said, I was just looking for clarification. I find your posts interesting, but every once in a while I see something that seems a bit too rigid - or maybe I just interpret it that way. For example, I had also seen you criticize coconut oil previously (which I use instead of butter sometimes), which obviously has the same MCTs as coconut milk. But maybe you only meant that in reference to people eating spoonfuls of it straight, as opposed to using it on a sweet potato instead of butter, or to add some moisture to a very lean piece of meat like a chicken breast. I would agree that the former is a bit strange, but see no problem with the latter. In fact, I think one would be better off eating a lean piece of chicken with a bit of coconut oil than they would be eating a fatty piece of chicken with its higher PUFA content.
    Yes, your latter assessment is correct. Coconut oil is a useful cooking tool, but it's not "food" in the sense that you should be consuming hundreds of calories worth of it. Cooking your eggs in coconut oil or adding a pat of butter to your sweet potato is a great idea. Taking a tablespoon to your tub of coconut oil or blending 80 grams of butter in your coffee is a terrible idea unless you have a major gut candida issue, you're on a ketogenic diet to suppress seizures, you're an advanced mountain climber or you have some other really, really good reason. Normal people with office jobs should not be doing these things!!! It's all about context. If you're not going to eat sugar by the bagful, you probably shouldn't eat oil by the tubful. It's a similar principle. Empty calories are empty calories.
    Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Hawkward View Post
      I'm certainly not advocating drinking cream straight, though I do use it occasionally. I sometimes pour it over strawberries or sliced bananas (I do that with coconut milk also), or use it in mashed potatoes or sauces. I use Kalona cream, which is indeed grass-fed, vat pasteurized at 155 degrees, and no carrageenan. Excellent stuff. A nearby store (Natural Grocers) carries it in 8 oz bottles for about $1.50 I think.

      Like I said, I was just looking for clarification. I find your posts interesting, but every once in a while I see something that seems a bit too rigid - or maybe I just interpret it that way. For example, I had also seen you criticize coconut oil previously (which I use instead of butter sometimes), which obviously has the same MCTs as coconut milk. But maybe you only meant that in reference to people eating spoonfuls of it straight, as opposed to using it on a sweet potato instead of butter, or to add some moisture to a very lean piece of meat like a chicken breast. I would agree that the former is a bit strange, but see no problem with the latter. In fact, I think one would be better off eating a lean piece of chicken with a bit of coconut oil than they would be eating a fatty piece of chicken with its higher PUFA content.
      I sometimes add cream to my own daily intake. I put a 1/4-1/3 cup in my iced coffee to displace some of the milk precisely because it offers more calories. Depending on how my day goes I might need more later.

      I have medical issues and have problems with not eating enough calories on a regular basis due to lack of hunger and nausea. Forcing myself to eat more food makes me sick to the point where I'm completely miserable and will skip food later or I will actually vomit it up.
      The cream I get is raw, grass fed/pastured, and local... the same as my milk.
      Having the whole milk and cream in my coffee is as good as it gets for me as 'breakfast'. I can't chew or it causes me to have worse nausea. I've tried some whey protein in there too... but it tastes weird and makes the nausea worse as well.

      Sometimes I also use coconut milk... with the white separated, lightly sweetened, and whipped to get calories as well.
      But for me the coconut milk will not be added to coffee, or drunk by itself... as I think it tastes pretty gross on it's own.

      If I don't do these things I tend to chronically under eat because I simply cannot eat a normal volume of food most days, and when I do eat I usually want a good amount of vegetables which lowers the amount of fat, and I don't always want very fatty meats.
      I found that under eating was actually causing me to stall and not lose weight in addition to making me very tired. Adding the easily consumable calories from cream, and sometimes whipped coconut fat has actually helped me a lot.
      I don't do it every single day. But I can tell when I've been eating too low and it's time to add the liquid fat in to give me a boost. The BEST thing about the cream is that it takes so little to help get my calories up to a suitable level. The small volume is key for me, while still being palatable. I can't eat pure butter or coconut oil off a spoon like some around here do... it also makes me feel more nauseous.

      So, there can be reasons for other people to consume products that you don't find optimum for yourself...
      Last edited by cori93437; 07-13-2012, 11:13 AM.
      “You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.”
      ~Friedrich Nietzsche
      And that's why I'm here eating HFLC Primal/Paleo.

      Comment


      • So I tried eating lots of fruits today.
        I don't feel inflammed at all (no burning face/lips) but my head did hurt a bit, which doesn't happen normally.
        What does it mean?
        Everything is bad for something - How do you feel today?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by otzi View Post
          I miss a few days and come back to find that PaleoBird is now a Page 1 celebrity...enjoyed your success story. Congrats. (From Cancer Back to Health | Mark's Daily Apple).

          Concerning Ray Peat's ideas on sugar, thyroid, 03:06, and dietary induced/cold thermogenesis. There was talk earlier in the blogosphere about diabetes being an evolutionary adaptation for early man to withstand cold northern winters. It came about through changes in cell membrane permeability due to the 03:06 changes which followed seasonal eating of sugar/carbs in summer and ketogenic meat/fat in winter. It is also well established that thyroid function changes with daylight hours and exposure to cold temps. While this has been a very interesting discussion, I don't see myself changing anything I'm doing, except a more strict adherence to seasonal eating patterns and exposure to cold temperatures in winter.

          To say one should eat tons of sugar year-round is surely wrong and to say one should avoid sugar year round is also surely wrong.
          Originally posted by Neckhammer View Post
          Wow, I just saw that. Awesome!
          Thanks, guys.
          That is an interesting theory about diabetes, Otzi.

          Comment


          • Congrats on both the success and the write up, Paleobird.
            Lifting Journal

            Comment


            • Thanks, Apex.

              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.
                This is a seriously compelling argument @neckhammer. I would love for you or anyone in this thread who agrees to explain it without relying on opinion.

                You and @paleobird disagree (strongly) about supporting our unique capacity for oxidative energy, but provide no physiological explanation besides wild guesses about our evolutionary adaptation and terms that you will find in no physiology text.
                www.dannyroddy.com

                Comment


                • Originally posted by dannyroddy View Post
                  This is a seriously compelling argument @neckhammer. I would love for you or anyone in this thread who agrees to explain it without relying on opinion.

                  You and @paleobird disagree (strongly) about supporting our unique capacity for oxidative energy, but provide no physiological explanation besides wild guesses about our evolutionary adaptation and terms that you will find in no physiology text.
                  You musta missed the previous links..... so back to you, please tell me where Lucas Tafur: Bioenergetics this is incorrect?

                  Or this by ambiomorph at paleohacks

                  "There is definitely a widespread view that gluconeogenesis necessarily raises cortisol beyond what is needed without gluconeogenesis. I think the evidence is softer than it appears.

                  It is undisputed that cortisol stimulates gluconeogenesis. See, e.g. The Physiology of Stress: Cortisol and the Hypothalamic-Pituitary-Adrenal Axis. This leads to the claim that continual gluconeogenesis requires continually raised levels of cortisol. That's not logically implied and I'm not sure it's true. For example, Dr. Eades says, in response to a related question:

                  [M]ost of the time during fasting, the hormone glucagon,which is the counter-regulatory hormone to insulin, drives gluconeogenesis, not the stress hormone cortisol.

                  This seems consistent with this primer on glucagon physiology, which says:

                  When hypoglycemia is produced in humans by injection of insulin, release of glucagon is stimulated along with that of other counterregulatory hormones when the plasma glucose decreases below 3.8 mM (~68 mg/dl) (Figure 11). Restoration of euglycemia is due to a compensatory increase in hepatic glucose production. Although secretion of catecholamines, growth hormone, and cortisol are stimulated along with that of glucagon, only the increases in plasma glucagon and catecholamines coincide with or precede the compensatory increase in the glucose production rate (66,67). That glucagon is the major acute glucose counterregulatory hormone is suggested by the fact that inhibition of the plasma glucagon responses by somatostatin markedly attenuates the compensatory increase in the glucose production rate and impairs restoration of euglycemia following insulin administration (Figure 12). Prevention of cortisol secretion (68), adrenergic blockade (66), adrenalectomy (65), or acute growth hormone deficiency (66) does not appreciably affect immediate glucose counterregulation. The effects of glucagon during restoration of euglycemia involves both glycogenolysis and gluconeogenesis, predominantly the former (69).

                  This does, suggest, however, that whenever blood sugar goes sufficiently low, cortisol rises. Note that this is no more likely to occur in a ketogenic state than a non-ketogenic state. In fact, most people report much more stable blood sugar levels on a ketogenic diet than otherwise. It may be relevant for fasting, though. If there is a regular stream of dietary protein available for conversion to glucose, blood sugar will probably not drop so low as to raise the cortisol alarm. This is consistent with Chris Kresser's post on [i]ntermittent fasting, cortisol and blood sugar, in which he says that some of his patients, already on a low carb, paleo diet, cannot successfully do intermittent fasting because of cortisol dysregulation. In these cases, he has them eat every 2-3 hours, and they improve. He never suggests, though, that they should abandon carbohydrate restriction.

                  Based on this information, I believe the notion that ketosis is stressful is simply a pervasive myth. Gluconeogenesis is mediated by glucagon, not cortisol. Cortisol will only be raised if there is hypoglycemia from fasting or from excess insulin. In fact, since the best way to control insulin is to lower carbs, ketogenic diets probably reduce the need for cortisol by providing better blood sugar control.

                  Why do people consider ketosis "stressful" to the body? - PaleoHacks.com

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Neckhammer View Post
                    I don't know if this is the best place to post this, but Mark's recent post of blogs got me to this guy. Seems a good spot given the current discussion. He's got some great stuff for us science minded folks.....I'd start with this one Lucas Tafur: Bioenergetics. He seems to present good data without an agenda (well I'm sure he does have his biases)....but fairly balanced, especially when you consider the crux of this post is mathematically based.
                    Hey Danny. This a good read. Get back to us when you have finished it.

                    Don't go saying that we are only offering up unsubstantiated opinion.

                    ETA: Crossposted with Neckhammer. No harm in reinforcing a valid point.
                    Last edited by Paleobird; 07-13-2012, 03:07 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
                      Thanks, guys.
                      That is an interesting theory about diabetes, Otzi.
                      And, it makes perfect sense. More can be read here: Elsevier

                      And here: Elsevier

                      "The reasons for the uneven worldwide distribution of Type 1 diabetes mellitus have yet to be fully explained. Epidemiological studies have shown a higher prevalence of Type 1 diabetes in northern Europe, particularly in Scandinavian countries, and Sardinia. Recent animal research has uncovered the importance of the generation of elevated levels of glucose, glycerol and other sugar derivatives as a physiological means for cold adaptation. High concentrations of these substances depress the freezing point of body fluids and prevent the formation of ice crystals in cells through supercooling, thus acting as a cryoprotectant or antifreeze for vital organs as well as in their muscle tissue. In this paper, we hypothesize that factors predisposing to elevated levels of glucose, glycerol and other sugar derivatives may have been selected for, in part, as adaptive measures in exceedingly cold climates. This cryoprotective adaptation would have protected ancestral northern Europeans from the effects of suddenly increasingly colder climates, such as those believed to have arisen around 14,000 years ago and culminating in the Younger Dryas. When life expectancy was short, factors predisposing to Type 1 diabetes provided a survival advantage. However, deleterious consequences of this condition have become significant only in more modern times, as life expectancy has increased, thus outweighing their protective value. Examples of evolutionary adaptations conferring selection advantages against human pathogens that result in deleterious effects have been previously reported as epidemic pathogenic selection (EPS). Such proposed examples include the cystic fibrosis mutations in the CFTR gene bestowing resistance to Salmonella typhi and hemochromatosis mutations conferring protection against iron-seeking intracellular pathogens. This paper is one of the first accounts of a metabolic disorder providing a selection advantage not against a pathogenic stressor alone, but rather against a climatic change. We thus believe that the concept of EPS should now include environmental factors that may be nonorganismal in nature. In so doing we propose that factors resulting in Type 1 diabetes be considered a result of environmental pathogenic selection (EnPS)."

                      Comment


                      • Glucagon is produced in the pancreas and stimulates the liver to release glycogen when blood sugar falls below the normal range. This is an early feature of low blood sugar, but the effects are potentiated by other glucocorticoids (cortisol).

                        An elevated concentration of glucagon accelerates lipolysis; the liberation and breakdown of fats. As I mentioned, the free fatty acids that get turned into ketones are protective, but the free fatty acids that don't reduce thyroid signaling, increases lactic acid (while reducing carbon dioxide), interfere with glucose metabolism (randle cycle), and breakdown into pro-inflammatory prostaglandins (increasing the production of estrogen and the conversion of tryptophan into serotonin).

                        How this proves your point, I have no idea.
                        www.dannyroddy.com

                        Comment


                        • I really love the discussion and have followed every post and done my best to check into the links people have posted. I guess I am really searching for some takeaway points. I would also still really like the physiological pathways explained in terms someone who regularly reads about diet, health, and has taken university level biology can understand easily.

                          I'm inclined to start looking at Peatitarianism as a functional diet plan and a potentially cool endocrine hack to accomplish the specific goals of increasing hair growth, stress reduction, fixing your thyroid, and the other claims he is making. It does however, clearly have the side effect of weight gain for some. This means that even if everyone lacking what Peatitarianism claims to provide can benefit from the diet, not everyone with a tendency to gain weight would be willing to make that sacrifice. I have a hard time believing that calorie-restriction is a reasonable or realistic way to control weight on a Peatitarian diet because I believe there is sufficient evidence from 3 decades or so of calorie restricting diets that self-control does not work in the long term (just ask Oprah). I do believe vanity and self-esteem are valid reasons to avoid Peatitarianism, even if that means that person may not accomplish what Peat/Roddy/et al consider to be absolute optimal health. It's really all about what makes you the happiest you can be.

                          I also wanted to comment on the picture Danny posted. Danny is thin and lean without a doubt, but I think he definitely is on the lower end of the muscle-mass scale, although we don't have a very good before-shot. His physique reminds me more of that of a vegetarian or a vegan than a body builder (as I mentioned, I'm okay with a little vanity). I'm not trying to be personally critical of Danny because I do respect him, but I just wanted to make that honest observation. As I mentioned, I tend to gain fat and muscle with ease and I always have a good amount of muscle mass no matter what my body fat percentage is. I don't mind carrying a few extra pounds of vanity weight around, but I can't imagine having that little muscle mass .

                          For a person like me who tends to be able to gain muscle and fat pretty easily depending on diet and activity with a great, thick, and shiny mop and the sex drive of a 15 year old, eating a moderate-carb diet with a variety of food, I am not sure if the benefit is completely clear. I assume the takeaway for someone like me might be, as mentioned by others, that it's okay to eat fruit in additional to starches, but probably sticking at around the same quantity of carbs overall given that I personally do gain weight with very high carb intake but it's not something I worry about any more. I say this bearing in mind that I do not belief calorie restriction is a realistic or effective way to control weight for most people. A diet that is "effortless" and feels will-power-free is very important to me.

                          However, I have to compartmentalize Peatitarianism and put it somewhere where mentally where I can accept it so I can move on. I went through the same thing when I started learning about Martin Berkhan's Leangains. Peatitarianism, Leangains, low-carb, VLC, ketosis, (any others?), etc. are great tools in your Paleo tool bag, if you will. They are not without they're physiological and social consequences, but they can be utilized as a way to accomplish a specific goal (getting to X body fat percentage, losing weight, fixing your hairloss, etc.) unless they happen to work for your long-term needs. It is apparent to me Danny Roddy is not basing his assertions on conjecture and there is value in much of what he recommends, although I lack the technical background to be able to verify everything he claims.

                          I am eager to hear your feedback. PALEO PALS, GO!

                          For Danny, I am hoping he can explain what the takeaway points for someone like me would be given I already have hair like a fox, a sex drive like a rabbit, 5-10 vanity pounds not unlike a gorilla, a predisposition to gain weight with very high carbohydrates like a pig, and a lack of faith in the long-term ability of "will power" to maintain a calorie-restricted diet like...well, let's say...Oprah.

                          Comment


                          • By the way, I just saw Paleobird's ass and read her success story, and with all do respect, what a cougar! Congratulations!

                            http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum...d54851-20.html

                            From Cancer Back to Health | Mark's Daily Apple

                            Comment


                            • Also, @neckhammer @paleobird,

                              For all intensive purposes we are in a debate.

                              You know what you don't do when you're debating someone? Hand them a stack of papers to read that proves YOUR point.

                              Being unable to verbalize what you're talking about and consistently resorting to quoting and linking to other people wouldn't be so bad if you guys weren't so hard edged on your claims.

                              PCCV,

                              I wouldn't make any suggestions to you if everything was great. I'm not interested in getting everyone to eat like me.
                              www.dannyroddy.com

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by dannyroddy View Post
                                Also, @neckhammer @paleobird,

                                For all intensive purposes we are in a debate.

                                You know what you don't do when you're debating someone? Hand them a stack of papers to read that proves YOUR point.

                                Being unable to verbalize what you're talking about and consistently resorting to quoting and linking to other people wouldn't be so bad if you guys weren't so hard edged on your claims.

                                PCCV,

                                I wouldn't make any suggestions to you if everything was great. I'm not interested in getting everyone to eat like me.
                                I wouldn't criticize other peoples' ability to verbalize if I were you. The phrase you were looking for is "for all intents and purposes".

                                Who's being "hard edged"? Most people around here have said that Peat probably has a good point about whole fruits being a good part of a Primal diet. Just because we are not buying into chugging sweetened OJ and milk, doesn't make anyone "hard edged". I would say it makes us open minded yet non-extremists.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X