07-13-2012, 04:33 PM
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.
07-13-2012, 04:50 PM
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.
07-13-2012, 05:07 PM
By the way, I just saw Paleobird's ass and read her success story, and with all do respect, what a cougar! Congratulations!
From Cancer Back to Health | Mark's Daily Apple
07-13-2012, 05:14 PM
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.
I wouldn't make any suggestions to you if everything was great. I'm not interested in getting everyone to eat like me.
07-13-2012, 05:26 PM
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".
Originally Posted by dannyroddy
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.
07-13-2012, 05:29 PM
Originally Posted by PeaceCorpsCaveMan
07-13-2012, 05:34 PM
At least your grammar is awesome.
I'm going to leave that as is for everyone to assess my intelligence level.
07-13-2012, 05:35 PM
I am going to repost what I posted a few days ago. Hopefully one of you who is mostly anti sugar will acknowledge what I say.
There is evidence that shows that fructose is a developing embryos primary source of fuel. If that is true then how can fructose be bad for us?
Also Robert Lustig, the guy from "Sugar the bitter truth" is basing his evidence that sucrose is the problem off of research that is on people eating pop-tarts, ding-dongs, and other junk. How the hell can you base your research on that? that is horrible research. They should be looking at the unsaturated fats aka PUFAs oils that those foods are loaded with and not to mention the tons of other bad ingredients like gmos, colorings, dyes, and other junk.
Also, glucose is the fuel. Ketosis is a catabolic response to not having enough liver glycogen. Does that mean if you don't eat sugar you will die? Probably not, but someone has to be right about REAL PHYSIOLOGY. Everyone can not be right. There has to be one way that the human body works officially, then other adaptations are next.
07-13-2012, 05:38 PM
Aww. Danny, I don't think you are stupid or uneducated. (That little comment just struck me as funny, being an English professor.)
I just think that you are mis-informed by someone who is taking some legitimate points to an unhealthy extreme.
07-13-2012, 05:45 PM
What is the "extreme" part of Peat's research and ideas on human physiology and nutrition?
Originally Posted by Paleobird
Please articulate how they are unhealthy as well.
Tags for this Thread