Why does Danny Roddy recommend sugar to reduce stress/estrogen? page 25

[bloodorchid]

I'm not assuming.


No.

yeah, you are. this is your new pet crusade apparently

[ChocoTaco369]

yeah, you are. this is your new pet crusade apparently

If you are insinuating that better educating myself about a topic I'm not well-versed upon - Ray Peat's approach - is a goal of mine, then you would be correct. I enjoy learning new things. If your only goal is to detract this thread or harass me for some reason, feel free to PM me instead of creating clutter.

[bloodorchid]

do what you gotta do, just don't put on your 'come at me, brah' hat and tell people they're being irrational and have preconceived notions

cause it's pretty dumb

[They call me BUTTLOCK]

by reading danny's posts

i reached the same conclusion

I'm reading the same things you are and did not come to that conclusion.


IIT: people who clearly hate ChocoTaco and what danny has to say. I don't know why, but If you all are just going to argue, get out, please. Seriously. I come to this forum to learn shit and better myself, not listen to a bunch of people argue over whatever-the-fuck.

[bloodorchid]

IIT: people who clearly hate ChocoTaco and what danny has to say.

......



for real tho now. there was a question asked and if it was answered i missed it. how would one lose weight on this way of eating? also, how would one normalize hormones in order to eat more fruit?

[Paleobird]

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.

Here's an excerpt from the MDA post Magic quotes above:

"Why Avoid Sugar?
How could I possibly talk sugar without the warning? If you’ve spent any time around MDA, you likely know the drill. Despite its beloved place (not to mention omnipresence) in our culinary culture, sugar offers the following gifts that keep on giving:

Sugar stimulates a physiological stressor-reaction cascade that provokes adrenaline and cortisol release and thickens the blood.
Sugar effectively disables your immune system by impairing white blood cells’ functioning.
Sugar decreases your body’s production of leptin, a hormone critical for appetite regulation.
Sugar induces significant oxidative stress in the body.
Sugar appears to fuel cancer cells. (Check out Free the Animal for much more on the cancer connection.)
Sugar promotes fat storage and weight gain.
Sugar disrupts the effective transfer of amino acids to muscle tissue.
Sugar intake over time spurs insulin resistance, subsequent Type II diabetes and the entire host of related health issues like nerve damage and cardiovascular disease.
Yes, sugar is one insanely powerful drug. Addictive, to boot.

Read more: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/the-definitive-guide-to-sugar/#ixzz209OQf6dS"

If Peat or any of his disciples could take on all the points in this post and prove them wrong one by one I'd be willing to listen. So far when questions about diabetes and weight loss have been asked (repeatedly) there has been no cogent reply.

But I'm just an emotional wreck, what would I know?

[SeanBissell]

......



for real tho now. there was a question asked and if it was answered i missed it. how would one lose weight on this way of eating? also, how would one normalize hormones in order to eat more fruit?

Bloodorchid,

Regarding weight loss. I don't think "Peat's" approach to diet is very focused on weight loss at all. It seems to me that he's much more focused on what happens in your body on a cellular level. And he's more focused on reducing stress. Weight loss is really not even much of a topic for him in my experience.

That being said, when you're losing weight, it's usually under a "stress response" either from exercising so much that your body has to eat itself to use energy. Or you don't eat enough to supply your body enough energy, so your body eats itself.

Both are stress responses.

Peat is not into stress responses, he's into minimizing stress responses...

So, if you're looking to lose weight, I wouldn't necessarily go to Peat as an easy solution.

That being said, if you tweak his ideas, you can get some good results in my experience, but you inevitably end up activating stress hormones in the process.

Personally, my favorite approach has been to lower fat, keep overall calories in check, and to wait 5+ hours in between meals so that your blood glucose/insulin lowers and you have a "stress response" window where you need to pull energy from your own bodies' reserves (therefore losing weight.)

Happy Monday!
-Sean

[ChocoTaco369]

Here's an excerpt from the MDA post Magic quotes above:

"Why Avoid Sugar?
How could I possibly talk sugar without the warning? If you’ve spent any time around MDA, you likely know the drill. Despite its beloved place (not to mention omnipresence) in our culinary culture, sugar offers the following gifts that keep on giving:

Sugar stimulates a physiological stressor-reaction cascade that provokes adrenaline and cortisol release and thickens the blood.
Sugar effectively disables your immune system by impairing white blood cells’ functioning.
Sugar decreases your body’s production of leptin, a hormone critical for appetite regulation.
Sugar induces significant oxidative stress in the body.
Sugar appears to fuel cancer cells. (Check out Free the Animal for much more on the cancer connection.)
Sugar promotes fat storage and weight gain.
Sugar disrupts the effective transfer of amino acids to muscle tissue.
Sugar intake over time spurs insulin resistance, subsequent Type II diabetes and the entire host of related health issues like nerve damage and cardiovascular disease.
Yes, sugar is one insanely powerful drug. Addictive, to boot.

Read more: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/the-definitive-guide-to-sugar/#ixzz209OQf6dS"

If Peat or any of his disciples could take on all the points in this post and prove them wrong one by one I'd be willing to listen. So far when questions about diabetes and weight loss have been asked (repeatedly) there has been no cogent reply.

But I'm just an emotional wreck, what would I know?

The issue with that information is what is classified as "sugar"? There are dozens of different kinds of sugar.

Isolated fructose? White sugar? Brown sugar? CS? HFCS? Agave syrup? Brown rice syrup? Pasteurized honey? Raw honey? Maple syrup? Molasses? Blackstrap molasses? Coconut/palm sugar? Raw sugar? Sucanat? Date sugar?

What "sugar(s)" did they use to draw that comparison?

See, I could make that same argument about fat. If I did studies and used vegetable oils as my fat of choice, it will show that fat caused all those same things. PUFA's fuel all that horrible, stressful stuff. However, if I did the same studies with SFA's from coconut, pastured beef and lamb, I'd come out with a very different outcome.

This brings us back to self-experimentation. It's the only way to find out what actually works for you because all studies are flawed and they can all be skewed to support an agenda.

Peat doesn't advocate HFCS and agave syrup to my knowledge. He's more of a white sugar/fruit kind of person. We should all like fruit, here. That should go without question. The dark horse is white sugar. We know it's "clean" in terms of toxins (unlike, say, HFCS), but when does it become toxic? A teaspoon here and there is probably okay, but what about a tablespoon? What about 1/2 cup? White sugar likely has a threshold of toxicity (just like water, air and light) - too much is bad. But does it have a point where too little is bad, too? Just because 500g of refined sugar a day seems to be toxic doesn't mean 50g is. Maybe there is an individual level where we'd all be a little better off? Maybe that is what Danny and Peat are after - not too hot, not too cold, but just right.

[dannyroddy]

I'm going to bow out of this thread for a little; I have a lot of work to do.

If anyone has any actual questions, please tag my name next to them and bold them or something.

[cori93437]

Part of the problem is that Chaco often makes assertions based on his own assumptions for which there is no evidence at all.

For instance he has asserted more than once in this thread that he believes that humans evolved eating primarily roots, tuber, and fruits as those things would have always been abundant in equatorial areas. He completely dismisses the fact that there is no scientific basis for this as was thoroughly discussed earlier in this thread.

In other recent threads he made the assertion that sugar cane would be good to eat and that cottage cheese should always be low fat as it was traditionally made from the whey left over after making butter.
Completely wrong on both counts. Sugar cane cane be chewed to get the sweet juice, but it entirely too fibrous to eat... And cottage cheese has always been made by a couple of methods, neither involving the whey left over after making butter. In one method, using cow dairy which is easily skimmed of cream, the cream was traditionally hand skimmed for butter leaving approximately 2% milk to make cottage cheese with, and in the other method they simply used the whole milk at 4-6% because of any of several reasons such as... no cold storage for cream to save for making butter, no time for butter making, milk needs consuming day of harvest, or they were using a different type of dairy such as goat milk that does not naturally separate for easy skimming.

He professed knowledge on these things with an air of expertise, and has done the same on other topics in the past, despite not even having the barest surface knowledge of them and was strictly using his opinion on the matter as a statement of truth.

I would also like to see all of those questions posed by Paleobird answered fully, and not just with dismissive single sentences as seems to be the norm in this post.