[QUOTE=joe2.0;889270]Took a look and Roddy seems to be another one advocating high carbs for folk with diabetes/metabolic issues. Perhaps he will explain his position here but seems pretty irresponsible and ignorant of the facts.[/QUOTE]
Why's that? Gabriel Cousens has been curing it with high carb high fat.
[QUOTE=They call me BUTTLOCK;892111]Why's that? Gabriel Cousens has been curing it with high carb high fat.[/QUOTE]
I thought he was curing it with raw foodism? [url=http://www.naturalnews.com/028341_diabetes_living_foods.html]Dr. Gabriel Cousens reveals method for reversing diabetes with raw living foods in exclusive interview[/url]
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_foodism]Raw foodism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/url]
The common denominators seem to be low carb, unrefined food.
This has been a super interesting thread!
A lot of negativity regarding sugar, and saying that Danny is "flat out wrong about sugar", etc.
But, I don't see a lot of actual evidence regarding *why* he's wrong.
Anyone have any data on sugar being bad other than opinions, and feelings?
If it's insulin that we're avoiding, even protein triggers insulin, and sugar has a lower insulin response than potatoes for example.
I'm not seeing the negative data regarding sugar yet.
But it'd be great to see some.
Happy Friday!
-Sean
[QUOTE=SeanBissell;892196]This has been a super interesting thread!
A lot of negativity regarding sugar, and saying that Danny is "flat out wrong about sugar", etc.
But, I don't see a lot of actual evidence regarding *why* he's wrong.
Anyone have any data on sugar being bad other than opinions, and feelings?
If it's insulin that we're avoiding, even protein triggers insulin, and sugar has a lower insulin response than potatoes for example.
I'm not seeing the negative data regarding sugar yet.
But it'd be great to see some.
Happy Friday!
-Sean[/QUOTE]
Read to your heart's content - [url=http://healthydietsandscience.blogspot.com/search/label/Sugar%20and%20Health]HEALTHY DIETS AND SCIENCE: Sugar and Health[/url]
There are plenty more links on the right side on sugar. Enjoy!
[QUOTE=codered5;892204]Read to your heart's content - [url=http://healthydietsandscience.blogspot.com/search/label/Sugar%20and%20Health]HEALTHY DIETS AND SCIENCE: Sugar and Health[/url]
There are plenty more links on the right side on sugar. Enjoy![/QUOTE]
Honestly though, instead of a data dump of studies (I addressed this earlier), explain the mechanism by which sugar promotes disease.
This furthers the conversation instead of inhibiting it.
[QUOTE=ChocoTaco369;891407]We know it because sugar and sodium increase your thyroid, and 9 out of 10 people with thyroid issues are hypothyroid, not hyperthyroid.
I read about it awhile ago and wrote a quick thread. Again, I'm no expert but this is how I understand it:
[B][url]http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum/thread48803.html[/url][/B][/QUOTE]
FWIW, I went lower-carb Primal a couple years ago and lost 25 pounds. Then I started having hypothyroid symptoms. The doctor ran a couple of tests and it turns out that my T3 was way below level. I wanted to do more research before going on medication. During that time I came across a thread that you created [B]Choco[/B] regarding carbs and PUFAs, where you encouraged people to eat more carbs (potato/fruit) and make sure and eliminate the PUFAs. I decided to give it a shot. Low and behold, my T3 went back up to where it was suppose to be and my hypothyroid symptoms went away (and I started losing body fat at a quicker rate as well). So, despite those that argue against your posts, I really appreciate your insite on the various threads in this forum. I like to think that if it weren't for you "running your mouth" ;) I'd probably be on medication right now for my thyroid.
[QUOTE=dannyroddy;892210]Honestly though, instead of a data dump of studies (I addressed this earlier), explain the mechanism by which sugar promotes disease.
This furthers the conversation instead of inhibiting it.[/QUOTE]
I agree with Danny :)
Happy Friday!
-Sean
[QUOTE=Paleobird;891449]Heheheheh. The guy with the caps lock key permanently stuck on his keyboard is saying I argue "emotionally". That's rich.
I deal with diabetes on a daily basis due to taking care of my Dad. I totally agree that toxins are a big piece of the puzzle. You are right that the exact mechanisms that lead to diabetes are not perfectly understood. But we sure as hell know what makes it worse on any given day. Sugar. And we know what makes it better. No sugar. Kinda leads a person to believe that sugar is at least a part of the puzzle. A young healthy person with no metabolic disorders could probably get away with it just fine and feel awesome. For my Dad, Peat's Rx (and yeah I read his website weeks ago) could be deadly.
Danny may be very well researched. I don't care. He is also being irresponsible and is flat our wrong about sugar.
The reference to Terry Wahls was because Danny had been going on about taking good care of one's mitochondria. I was telling him that we were in total agreement there.
You accuse me of headline skimming but admit that you stopped reading several pages back. E.g. you would have understood the Terry Walhls reference had you been reading and not skimming. And I even apologized for using the "full of it" language. Which you would know had you been paying attention.
Exactly what makes you think I am an "emotional wreck"? I suppose it is easy to toss out a personal attack like that to avoid dealing with the actual arguments.
Boy, when you get your rant on, you really start burning the strawmen and acting nasty. Calm down, OK?[/QUOTE]
The context is that you're acting like an emotional wreck. Context, context, context. Kind of like the context of sugar.
Have you ever tried putting your dad on a diet of beef, watermelon, cantaloupe and oranges for a few weeks? Ray Peat doesn't recommend starch due to the way it instantizes in the body. He recommends fruit sugar, which has a much lower GI response. There's a difference. I doubt you've tried the meat and fruit diet and only the ketogenic diet. Absence of data is not proof, it's ignorance.
[QUOTE=mle777;892217]FWIW, I went lower-carb Primal a couple years ago and lost 25 pounds. Then I started having hypothyroid symptoms. The doctor ran a couple of tests and it turns out that my T3 was way below level. I wanted to do more research before going on medication. During that time I came across a thread that you created [B]Choco[/B] regarding carbs and PUFAs, where you encouraged people to eat more carbs (potato/fruit) and make sure and eliminate the PUFAs. I decided to give it a shot. Low and behold, my T3 went back up to where it was suppose to be and my hypothyroid symptoms went away (and I started losing body fat at a quicker rate as well). So, despite those that argue against your posts, I really appreciate your insite on the various threads in this forum. I like to think that if it weren't for you "running your mouth" ;) I'd probably be on medication right now for my thyroid.[/QUOTE]
I'm glad it helped you. Natural sugars were never the issue. Fruits and tubers are more appropriate human foods than vegetables. They are lower in toxins and due to the fact that they are a more valuable energy source, you can bet they've been a more fundamental part of our diet than salad. It's no coincidence we perform better when we don't exclude macronutrients from our diets. We're omnivores. People around here tend to forget that.
Danny, I am unclear on something and I hope you can address it. Maybe this is borne out of ignorance because I am not well versed in Ray Peat's way of thinking, but this is the issue I have:
From what I understand, Ray Peat advocates fruit sugar, red meat (beef and lamb), coconut and dairy in copious amounts. He hates fatty fish, chicken, pork, nuts, beans, grains, etc. The reason why is the former tends to store adipose tissue as saturated and monounsaturated fat, while the latter tends to store adipose tissue as monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fat. He believes unsaturated fats to be estrogen-producing, even monounsaturates (although to a lesser extent) and recommends as much saturated fat as possible with very limited consumption of fibrous vegetables (squashes, melons, citrus fruits are okay) and dislikes berries because they force you to eat the (toxic) seeds. I believe the only nut he'd ever consider eating are macadamias and in VERY limited quantities, correct?
Now, what I understand is that Ray Peat dislikes high fat/low carbohydrate diets because they constantly have you tapping into adipose tissue. Because of the standard American diet, most people have unsaturated fat bound up in their adipose tissue, NOT saturated, so burning stored body fat has you dumping lots of unsaturates as free fatty acids in your blood stream. Since American's fat is unsaturate-rich, burning stored body fat creates stress, elevates estrogen and cortisol, and therefore sugar is recommended because it keeps us from dumping the unsatures into our blood stream.
I have read studies and the consensus seems to be it takes anywhere from 2-10 years for adipose tissue turnover, meaning you'd have to adhere to Ray Peat's diet for ~4 years or so for the average person to convert their heavy monounsaturated/polyunsaturated adipose tissue into saturated/monounsaturated to lessen the damage by burning adipose tissue. Ray Peat seems to agree with this.
- BUT -
My question is, if this is all true, HOW DO YOU LOSE BODY FAT ON RAY PEAT'S DIET? It seems like the diet is engineered to keep you from using your stored fat as fuel. That's all well and good if you're highly active and very lean, but the overwhelming majority of us aren't. If I wanted to adopt a Ray Peat-style diet, how can I safely burn stored fat as fuel?