Applying Peat Principles To Low-Carb High-Saturated Fat: Incredible Results

[Sefton10]

@Jam @Maljam This might be a dumb question so apologies in advance. Do you guys think you are still running the oxidative metabolism that Peat believes is so important, it's just you've found the least amount of carbs needed for you to keep it ticking over?

 

[Rafael Lao Wai]

The lack of bloating means much less endotoxins. This in itself can improve the metabolism a lot, since these toxins are known to cytochrome c oxidase, which is the last part of the electron transport chain, as well as the PDH enzyme, which is essential for making proper use of carbs.

I do think the increase in saturated fat was also quite beneficial. It lowers cortisol( preserves the muscles and bones), stimulates the PDH enzyme( makes you metabolize carbs better), is extremely beneficial for liver health( see the studies by Nanji et al), helps to absorb the fat soluble vitamins, can protect against endotoxin( this is a controversial one), etc.

 

[Jam]

@Jam @Maljam This might be a dumb question so apologies in advance. Do you guys think you are still running the oxidative metabolism that Peat believes is so important, it's just you've found the least amount of carbs needed for you to keep it ticking over?

Yes, exactly. I basically eat just enough carbs to keep my glycogen topped up, and not a grain of sugar more.

 

[Sefton10]

Yes, exactly. I basically eat just enough carbs to keep my glycogen topped up, and not a grain of sugar more.

Cheers @Jam, that makes a lot more intuitive sense to me compared to eating the carbs for eating carbs sake. I have definitely been pushing the higher sugar and keeping fat low despite it not feeling quite “right” and never really improving things for me.

Get enough carbs to keep oxidation going and avoid dipping into the stress metabolism, get enough protein, then fill in the rest with fat to whatever level gives the desired satiety. More active days or a workout might mean more carbs, less active days less.

Quite serendipitously I listened to @JFwellness and @CLASH on their latest podcast this morning and they got into the importance of fat, it really crystallised things for me.

 

[Maljam]

Get enough carbs to keep oxidation going and avoid dipping into the stress metabolism, get enough protein, then fill in the rest with fat to whatever level gives the desired satiety. More active days or a workout might mean more carbs, less active days less.

Yes that is exactly it.

I never felt right eating higher carb lower fat but still persevered for too long with it.

 

[Nomane Euger]

@Jam @Maljam This might be a dumb question so apologies in advance. Do you guys think you are still running the oxidative metabolism that Peat believes is so important, it's just you've found the least amount of carbs needed for you to keep it ticking over?

It’s not a dumb a question.how would they or do you asses that you are on an efficient oxydative metabolism?

 

[Jam]

Do you guys think you are still running the oxidative metabolism that Peat believes is so important?

Sorry, I kind of missed this question.

If there is a problem with this forum, it's that there seems to be a gross misunderstanding amongst many users that seem to think that sugar is the only nutrient that powers oxidative metabolism, and that fats are somehow not supportive of this process.

This is absolutely incorrect when applied to SFA. It is only correct when applied to PUFA, and somewhat correct when applied to MUFA.

We MUST stop treating fat is if it were all PUFA.

Saturated fatty acids are perfectly supportive of oxidative metabolism. Most of the cells in the body run on fat, not glucose! Especially at rest.

More ATP is generated by the metabolism of one gram of palmitic or stearic acids, for example, than from one gram of glucose. In terms of overall metabolic efficiency, glucose and palmitic acid are virtually identical (42% vs 41%).

Beta oxidation of SFA produces energy very optimally via oxidative phosphorylation through the ETC.

There is nothing "wrong" or bad with beta oxidation of saturated fatty acids. Quite the contrary!

 

[Rafael Lao Wai]

Sorry, I kind of missed this question.

If there is a problem with this forum, it's that there seems to be a gross misunderstanding amongst many users that seem to think that sugar is the only nutrient that powers oxidative metabolism, and that fats are somehow not supportive of this process.

This is absolutely incorrect when applied to SFA. It is only correct when applied to PUFA, and somewhat correct when applied to MUFA.

We MUST stop treating fat is if it were all PUFA.

Saturated fatty acids are perfectly supportive of oxidative metabolism. Most of the cells in the body run on fat, not glucose! Especially at rest.

More ATP is generated by the metabolism of one gram of palmitic or stearic acids, for example, than from one gram of glucose. In terms of overall metabolic efficiency, glucose and palmitic acid are virtually identical (42% vs 41%).

Beta oxidation of SFA produces energy very optimally via oxidative phosphorylation through the ETC.

There is nothing "wrong" or bad with beta oxidation of saturated fatty acids. Quite the contrary!

Carbs generate 50% more CO2 than fats when you equalize the amount of ATP they produce. The reason is the PDH enzyme. When a fat gets broken down, it yields acetyl coa, but when carbs get broken down, you end up with pyruvate, which then gets converted to acetyl coa. This process produces CO2. A gram of fat is more calorific than a gram of carbs, so it makes sense that more ATP will be produced by the former if we re given the same weight of fat and carbs.

I agree that oxidizing SFAs is safe. MUFAs don't seem to cause problems either. Probably the more muscle one has, the more fat they can eat.

 

[Jam]

Carbs generate 50% more CO2 than fats when you equalize the amount of ATP they produce. The reason is the PDH enzyme. When a fat gets broken down, it yields acetyl coa, but when carbs get broken down, you end up with pyruvate, which then gets converted to acetyl coa. This process produces CO2. A gram of fat is more calorific than a gram of carbs, so it makes sense that more ATP will be produced by the former if we re given the same weight of fat and carbs.

I agree that oxidizing SFAs is safe. MUFAs don't seem to cause problems either. Probably the more muscle one has, the more fat they can eat.

Yes, carbs generate more CO2. This is why I'm against ketogenic diets.
Regarding SFA, the longer the chain length, the more ATP is generated, so it's not just based on caloric value (9 for fat vs 4 for carbs).
MUFA are generally safe but not as metabolic healthy as SFA. Optimizing the SFA:MUFA ratio is good practice.

 

[Jam]

Yes, carbs generate more CO2. This is why I'm against ketogenic diets.
Regarding SFA, the longer the chain length, the more ATP is generated, so it's not just based on caloric value (9 for fat vs 4 for carbs).
MUFA are generally safe but not as metabolic healthy as SFA. Optimizing the SFA:MUFA ratio is good practice.

I guess the main question I have is: what would be the advantage of consuming more carbs than is necessary for replenishing glycogen? Assuming adequate protein, and the balance made up predominantly by saturated fats. I still have not found a satisfactory answer that would convince me that this would be something to strive for.

Obviously, if you are stuck on a tropical island with no cows, eating plenty of tropical fruit with some lean fish is just fine. Your body would produce an adequate amount of mono and saturated fatty acids to keep you relatively healthy. But for people living in more northern latitudes, where local fruit is in season only very sporadically throughout the year, I don't think such a diet is optimal. It certainly was not possible before the industrial age.

 

[Maljam]

Carbs generate 50% more CO2 than fats when you equalize the amount of ATP they produce. The reason is the PDH enzyme. When a fat gets broken down, it yields acetyl coa, but when carbs get broken down, you end up with pyruvate, which then gets converted to acetyl coa. This process produces CO2. A gram of fat is more calorific than a gram of carbs, so it makes sense that more ATP will be produced by the former if we re given the same weight of fat and carbs.

I agree that oxidizing SFAs is safe. MUFAs don't seem to cause problems either. Probably the more muscle one has, the more fat they can eat.

What were your thoughts on muscle mass being needed for fat? I would have thought the opposite, bigger muscles needing more glycogen from carbs, were true.

 

[Jam]

What were your thoughts on muscle mass being needed for fat? I would have thought the opposite, bigger muscles needing more glycogen from carbs, were true.

I'm not Rafael, but bigger, versus smaller muscles, burn more fat (as that is the fuel they burn at rest) and store more glycogen thus requiring a bit more carbs to top up. But, unless you are engaging in weight training or other intense physical activity, the glycogen is pretty much locked away in the muscle glycogen tank, and you don't need to top it up daily.

 

[MitchMitchell]

it’s certainly looking good to me!

 

[Sefton10]

I'm not Rafael, but bigger, versus smaller muscles, burn more fat (as that is the fuel they burn at rest) and store more glycogen thus requiring a bit more carbs to top up. But, unless you are engaging in weight training or other intense physical activity, the glycogen is pretty much locked away in the muscle glycogen tank, and you don't need to top it up daily.

This would explain why I struggle a bit on high carb/low fat and no matter how much sugar I get down still feeling a bit meh - I’m not exactly Ronnie Coleman, but I‘m 6ft 2 and carry a decent bit of muscle mass, so not providing enough fat in the diet probably not a good idea. Only a pretty strenuous workout is going to deplete enough muscle glycogen to justify needing a higher amount of carbs for replenishment purposes.

 

[Jam]

Nice one Mitch, a bit too boring for my tastes but yeah besides that looks pretty much ideal to me.

 

[Rafael Lao Wai]

Yes, carbs generate more CO2. This is why I'm against ketogenic diets.
Regarding SFA, the longer the chain length, the more ATP is generated, so it's not just based on caloric value (9 for fat vs 4 for carbs).
MUFA are generally safe but not as metabolic healthy as SFA. Optimizing the SFA:MUFA ratio is good practice.

I personally don't like ketogenic diets either. Always felt better ingesting carbs.

I agree that, the longer the chain length, the more acetyl CoA molecules will be produced when the fatty acid is broken down. But one thing that is easy to overlook is that, when you increase the size of the molecule, the amount of calories in a gram of this molecule doesn't change, because the number of molecules that can fit into the one gram measurement will decrease. So, in other words, 1 gram of fat has 9 kcal, not mattering the chain length. When talking about calories per mol of a certain substance though, you're correct: the longer the chain, the more atoms there will be in it( more mass), and the more calories there will be in it too, because the bigger the amount of atoms, the more substance you'll have per mol( since mol is a measure of the amount of molecules, not of weight). I'd be thankful if somebody could read this and see if I'm not hallucinating, but right now it's making sense to me.

I think SFAs are more androgenic than MUFAs, and since they have no double bonds in the main chain, they are even more stable, so I could definitely see a reason to prioritize those.

What were your thoughts on muscle mass being needed for fat? I would have thought the opposite, bigger muscles needing more glycogen from carbs, were true.

My opinion on it is pretty much identical to what Jam said. I was thinking of what Ray said once about the muscles burning almost pure fat when at rest,or when doing very light exercise( walking for example), and that being a good way to remain lean( by having relatively large muscles).

 

[Jam]

Here's what I had yesterday, for comparison... a bit more variety and a touch less carbs than usual, but I was so stuffed after dinner that I could only manage a small apple for "desert"... Also, my raw goat milk pusher is currently out of bounds as we're back in full lockdom here.

 

[Jam]

Btw, I purchased a CGM (continuous glucose monitor) the other day for shits and giggles, and my blood glucose is consistently steady within the 80-100 mg/dL range. The lowest point is always right after breakfast, it goes down to 79-80 for ten minutes or so. Might be the "dawn phenomenon" (where insulin is a bit higher than normal when we wake up).

 

[Jam]

(Oh, FWIW I also measured my heartrate (82bpm), O2 (97%), BP (138/72) and temps (37.0 C) yesterday mid-afternoon.)

 

[Sefton10]

it’s certainly looking good to me!

What do your meals typically look like, @MitchMitchell?

Here's what I had yesterday, for comparison... a bit more variety and a touch less carbs than usual, but I was so stuffed after dinner that I could only manage a small apple for "desert"... Also, my raw goat milk pusher is currently out of bounds as we're back in full lockdom here.

@Jam the number of tabs you have open there is terrifying!