Why does Danny Roddy recommend sugar to reduce stress/estrogen? page 45

[bopfer]

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.

[YogaBare]

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

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.

[not on the rug]

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

[dwkdnvr]

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.

[dwkdnvr]

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!

[Apex Predator]

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.

[bopfer]

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.

[bopfer]

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.

[Neckhammer]

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.

[Paleobird]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.