Theory - Dietary Fat Induces Starvation Metabolism And Biological Failure?

[cry0genicz]

I'd also like to mention that, we can apply the "fat slows metabolism", "protein/carb speeds up metabolism" in our modern situation. If you're in a developed country with the financial ability to avoid food shortage, then the risk of starvation and the need for starvation defense (fat) becomes less important. I suppose having a 20% fat intake in the old world would have been better for survival , but in the modern day without such threat of famine, then we can eat less fat. I think a lot of us are looking for optimal diets that can allow us to perform at our best, not just diets that allow us to simply survive.

Kind of a woowoo energy association thing I think of:

Fat: Survival, Caution, Energy Conservation, Safety Net, Inhibition, Inward, Stress\Worry
Carbs/Protein: Action, Power, Energy Flow, Risk Taking, Expressiveness, Outward, Confidence, Mental calm

Eating whichever will tip the balance in one way or the other.

 

[Sicutnoxsilente]

It always cracks me up that the assumption is that our ancestors were mostly carnivorous, there's archeological evidence in the teeth and stomach of pre-agriculture early humans that they ate legumes and even cooked grains, there's also evidence they ate fruits and animals but to assume that they were mostly carnivorous is ridiculous and the fundament for a lot of bs diets like the paleo and keto.

 

[cry0genicz]

Accidental post. Disregard.

 

[CarbAppreciator]

Rabbit starvation is a real thing. I think that would be more of a concern for a person not carrying much body fat though. If you're very lean and healthy, an intake of 15%-20% fat would make more sense than 5%. However, if you're low energy with low metabolism with body fat to burn, then deliberate fat restriction would be better. If you're very lean and low energy, you're probably just hypocaloric.

I've seen some arguments that say a lot of fructose can result in fat gain and some others say that it doesn't seem to have that effect. I'm not sure there. I neglected starch in my original post, so perhaps its not 100% fruit for the carb intake, but starches thrown in there as well. I've seen arguments for 'excess' starches going towards thermogensis instead of going purely to the formation of fat.

Fat is easy calories, sure, but why eat fat for boosting caloric intake when you could just eat more protein/carb?

I think we are largely in agreement, fwiw personally, after trying low/high fat, I eat around 33% fat cals, I think its highly personal.

 

[Ron J]

Can someone explain why starch would fill muscle glycogen more than sugar? Sugar contains both glucose and fructose, so I don't see why it would make much difference, as long as you eat enough sugar. I've read similar comments, but I assumed that it was just in their head, or not enough sugar consumption.

 

[cry0genicz]

Can someone explain why starch would fill muscle glycogen more than sugar? Sugar contains both glucose and fructose, so I don't see why it would make much difference, as long as you eat enough sugar. I've read similar comments, but I assumed that it was just in their head, or not enough sugar consumption.

Fructose can only be used to refill liver glycogen. So one would have to eat twice as much sugar (fructose/glucose) than starch (glucose) to reach the same level of muscle glycogen saturation. This becomes more of a convenience issue especially for those interested in building muscle mass, as well developed muscles can hold several times more glycogen than the liver.

 

[cyclops]

Fructose can only be used to refill liver glycogen. So one would have to eat twice as much sugar (fructose/glucose) than starch (glucose) to reach the same level of muscle glycogen saturation. This becomes more of a convenience issue especially for those interested in building muscle mass, as well developed muscles can hold several times more glycogen than the liver.

What about starch though...can that only be used to replenish muscle gylcogen? Or does some of it go to the liver as well?

 

[Prosper]

I feel the best when I eat a lot of everything. Limiting fat just for sake of limiting something is unproductive. There are no "optimal diets". All food is a compromise.

 

[CarbAppreciator]

What about starch though...can that only be used to replenish muscle gylcogen? Or does some of it go to the liver as well?

Starch will replenish both types, fructose does not enter the blood circulation while starch does, fructose is soaked up almost exclusively by the liver and intestine and either exported as glucose or fat once liver glycogen is replete.

 

[cyclops]

Starch will replenish both types, fructose does not enter the blood circulation while starch does, fructose is soaked up almost exclusively by the liver and intestine and either exported as glucose or fat once liver glycogen is replete.

So it seems that both starch and sugar can refill both muscle and liver glycogen then, it's just a matter of which they refill first it seems.

 

[bond]

One such sweet fruit, native to Africa, is called "Junglesop", which has a very sweet "peachy" flavor...

Do you know how much time of the year are those high sugar fruits available? I doubt they could've eaten as much as they wanted all year round...

On the more broad topic I doubt there is a 'perfect diet' that you stay on without changing anything and being healthy. The body adapts to particular levels of hormones/nutrients by downregulating pathways and receptors so you eventually reach a point of diminishing returns and hit a plateau. You constantly run high insulin - you get insulin resistant, you run high in cortisol - you get cortisol resitant. I believe the same holds true for thyroid hormones and that a 'sanitizing' period would be beneficial.

 

[managing]

It always cracks me up that the assumption is that our ancestors were mostly carnivorous, there's archeological evidence in the teeth and stomach of pre-agriculture early humans that they ate legumes and even cooked grains, there's also evidence they ate fruits and animals but to assume that they were mostly carnivorous is ridiculous and the fundament for a lot of bs diets like the paleo and keto.

I think you need to specify which "ancestors". If you isolate it to the original hominids of East Africa, you are absolutely right. But if you are talking the human diaspora that first started leaving those plains 70,000 years ago, they spread out over virtually every climate the world has to offer (other than Antarctica). And then there were the Neanderthals, which make up some of our DNA (especially those of European descent). They lived in Europe over 300,000 years ago and almost certainly were omnivores.

Its the problem with the "Paleo" argument. Sure, current Paleo logic makes about as much sense as modern politics. BUt trying to find the "right" Paleo is fraught with problems too.

The human organism can, and does, adapt to all conceivable macronutrient extremes. From Inuit to Pacific Islander and everything in between. Our current "problems" are a combination of the "first world problem" of being able to even take the time to consider issues such as this, combined with the fact that the vast majority of our macros are diminished and contaminated.