Why does Danny Roddy recommend sugar to reduce stress/estrogen? page 27

[SeanBissell]

Danny says that "A low metabolic rate and an increase in stress hormones promotes fat storage and weight gain." Then why does it seem that so many on Peat's plan that you are parroting gain weight? From reading on a couple forums, seems pretty much like any other thing-initially there is improvement but then some back sliding and in the case of this particular plan, weight gain. So if Peat's plan works to increase metabolic rate and decrease stress hormones--why would people gain weight doing it? Seems like a huge contradiction.

It obviously comes down to what works for the individual. It's just irritating that some, act like they definitively know the answers, when if you put Peat, Kruse and a host of other "experts" in the same room they would all cite science and studies and act like the opposing viewpoints are ridiculous.

I certainly don't have the answers but what I do know is that a whole lot more people seem to be having success with plan's like Primal than do those with Peat's approach.

Personally, I think that people gain weight with "Peat's Plan" for two main reasons.

1.) They overeat: Mainly due to all the liquid people think they need, like orange juice, and milk. Then they want "solid food" on top of it, so they eat "normal" stuff too. Then add in coconut oil cause they heard that's good, then some cheese... And they choose whole milk, etc.

2.) They don't really understand "Peat's Plan": Peat really doesn't have a "plan" and doesn't tend to give "advice" from what I've seen. He's more of a facts and figures, this-is-the-way-it-is, type of guy. So he gives data, then stops talking. He doesn't often say "here's some data, so this is what I recommend you do." So people get super confused and off track.

That's been my observation so far.
-Sean

[SeanBissell]

And as a side note, it seems like people lose weight easier when they cut out an entire macronutrient...

I think that works because it super-hard to re-learn how to cook and eat, and that causes you to spontaneously reduce calories due to it being tough to eat enough.

Cause let's face it. When you go to a restaurant and ask the waiter to skip the rice, you don't also ask to ad back some fat.

Peat doesn't seem to restrict any macronutrients specifically, and that seems to allow people to go crazier with the calories.

Not always, but I think it's a factor.
-Sean

[Dan Wich]

To stick up for Danny, I've had mostly-positive results after experimenting with Peat's approach.

For years, I'd been strict paleo/primal, with some Perfect Health Diet tweaks over the past year. Peat always seemed a little kooky to me, but I liked Danny's philosophy of using bloodwork to objectively test health hypotheses. So I ordered some of the cheaper lab tests.

The results concerned me, and were in line with Peat's theories. So despite being skeptical of him, I've been trying his approach for the last 10 weeks, and just received my "post-Peat" results:

1. C-reactive protein (high-sensitivity) dropped from 7.00 to 0.97 mg/L (though it's possible my initial level was transitory)
2. Prolactin dropped from 13.5 to 7.7 ng/mL (I wanted this level to drop because of its connections to hair loss)
3. TSH was 5.77 uIU/mL, which is high. I haven't received the new level yet, but I suspect it's dropped based on body temperature and pulse.
4. Triglycerides dropped from 129 to 83 mg/dL
5. LDL (calculated) dropped from 179 to 112 mg/dL (I realize this test and optimum levels are controversial)
6. HDL unfortunately dropped from 53 to 43 mg/dL
7. My fasting glucose levels have risen slightly (to be expected), but my 1 and 2 hour postprandial testing is similar to my pre-experiment levels.
8. I've gained fat, which seems common with a Peat approach.

So my results are mixed, but I'm generally pleased. I think Danny's "measure and experiment" approach is worth a shot for people. For $100-$200 in lab tests, you can find out whether you're in the state that he and Peat would predict.

[Paleobird]

But can we leave the melodramatic arguments and comments like "I'm just an emotional wreck, what would I know?"
out? So that people reading this thread can get some worthy stuff out of here? Thanks.

That was a direct quote of a baseless accusation by Choco. He didn't like my opinion so he tried to discredit me by saying I was "an emotional wreck" and all my arguments were just "emotional" nonsense as opposed to factual. All the time arguing himself in screaming caps.

Things I would appreciate if you left out of your commentary include the potty mouth. You are new here so, ok. But this is not 4chan.

[Paleobird]

@Paleo Bird
Please consult a physiology text; this isn't accurate.
What damages the immune system is stress; especially cortisol, which breaks down the thymus gland (immunity central).
I don't think leptin is very important in the grand scheme of things. Has of the 9,000 visitors to this thread had their leptin measured? I doubt it.
When unsaturated fats are exposed to oxygen they form free radicals and use up oxygen.
Read Otto Warburg to clear this up.
A low metabolic rate and an increase in stress hormones promotes fat storage and weight gain.
Sugar enhances the transfer of amino acids into the muscle tissue, which is why bodybuilders routinely take dextrose and whey after workouts.
All of those things are the result of a low metabolic rate and stress hormones. Sugar increases the metabolic rate and decreases stress hormones.
The craving for sugar, like salt, is a good indication that the body needs it.
Try to overdose on simple syrup alone.
Appetizing?
Addicting?

Assertions are not evidence. "Consult a physiology textbook" doesn't cut it either. Do you think Mark failed to consult any physiology texts before writing the PB?

[magicmerl]

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.

This is the sort of discussion that I am interested in having. Thankyou.

The practical takeaway I get from this thread is that it's ok to 'treat' the kids to dessert with caramel sauce (which we stopped making when we went primal, since it was 'just sugar').

Wheat / PUFAs / Sugar is all so interwoven that it seems very difficult to separate out the separate negative effects of each. It's entirely possible that sugar in small amounts has a positive effect.

A low metabolic rate and an increase in stress hormones promotes fat storage and weight gain.

But, if you are losing weight, isn't one of the symptoms an increase in stress hormones?

How can losing weight be one of the things that promotes weight gain?

This seems like a contracdiction in terms.

The craving for sugar, like salt, is a good indication that the body needs it.

Try to overdose on simple syrup alone.

Appetizing?

Addicting?

My dad used to eat a dozen belgian biscuits a day. And not little ones like those show in this picture either.
belgian%20biscuits_Crop280x344.jpg
I call that an addiction.

He's also borderline diabetic.

Luckily, his doctor wanted to test him for diabetes and that was the wakeup call for him (he doesn't want to get tested, so has now adopted several semi-primal diet changes, including shifting his addiction over to fruit).

I do think that sugar can be addictive.

[longing2bfit]

My dad used to eat a dozen belgian biscuits a day. And not little ones like those show in this picture either.
belgian%20biscuits_Crop280x344.jpg
I call that an addiction.

He's also borderline diabetic.

Ahhh but was he addicted to the sugar alone? or the unhealthy fats and glutinous grains that held his biscuits together? There is the quandry? Most of us professed sugar aholics were not eating plain sugar by the spoon ful (were we?) we were eating it carefully cacooned in nests of fats, oils, wheat and other grains along with additives, preservatives and a host of processed things. I have never 'binged' on a crate of apples. It was always cake, pie or icecream if it happened. Just an observation.

[Neckhammer]

The disconnect is the basic paradigm of thought. Paleo/Primal and WAPF put stock into what has produced robust healthy humans in the past....in addition to our current knowledge of physiology and biochemistry. Peat's ideas do not, for better or worse.

However if you are looking for intelligent debate on the physiological merits, to his credit, Danny does allow dissenting views in the comments of his blog. Carbon Dioxide: The Real Reason Safe Starches Are a Joke* - The Danny Roddy Weblog - Nutrition For Sex, Hair & Health. I find Celine's comments as a dissenter quite relevant.

[jocelyn357]

My dad used to eat a dozen belgian biscuits a day. And not little ones like those show in this picture either.
belgian%20biscuits_Crop280x344.jpg

Ahhh but was he addicted to the sugar alone? or the unhealthy fats and glutinous grains that held his biscuits together? There is the quandry? Most of us professed sugar aholics were not eating plain sugar by the spoon ful (were we?) we were eating it carefully cacooned in nests of fats, oils, wheat and other grains along with additives, preservatives and a host of processed things. I have never 'binged' on a crate of apples. It was always cake, pie or icecream if it happened. Just an observation.

EXACTLY my experience. The sugar outside of the context of grains and PUFA's was a TOTALLY different experience for me.

[PeaceCorpsCaveMan]

OP here returning from a vacation in the sun. I'm a little surprised at the turn this thread has taken.

It's taken me a few hours to read through this thread in it's entirety, but it was worth it for the information.

I want to thank Danny Roddy for showing up to defend himself. I didn't imagine that happening when I started the thread. It made this thread very interesting, educational, and gives me a lot of respect for him. Although I was critical of his website, I hope the interest generated on the subject helps to make up for it. I hope Danny can use some of the criticisms here to hone in on his message and make it more accessible to laymen. A larger population taking his approach would definitely provide more anecdotal and laboratory data to support or refute his assertions.

I think it's very important for us to not to be dogmatic about anything. The most knowledgeable and intelligent among us have been wrong many times before. I know Danny has also mentioned updating his philosophies to reflect the best information available. This is perfectly allowed in science. The scientific method allows for paradigm shifts on all kinds of levels. I thank every who has contributed constructively to this thread.


Danny Roddy: I'm interested in a WAPF approach to dentistry, as well. I brush and floss but I don't use toothpaste, just a little baking soda and vinegar every now and then. I assumed this approach would only be effective for me because I don't eat sugar and processed foods which tend to contribute to tooth decay in the first place. Do you think your approach could contribute to tooth decay? I know it's a little bit specific, but questions like this are legitimate barriers to buy-in for many of us.