Burning fat, maintaining glucose supply...

Primal2Peat

Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2012
Messages
46
Isn't it possible to burn fat and maintain glucose levels so that the body isn't releasing free fatty acids into the blood causing damage?

I get the idea from people here that you need to maintain your weight and body fat percentage until you convert your body fat from poly-unsaturated to saturated.

I guess I'm asking if I can burn fat if I maintain a constant flow of sugar.

I'm not quite clear on how the body or liver uses stored fat.

Maybe I'm being a little impatient, because I want to lower the body fat percentage thinking that the turnover to a more saturated supply will occur more quickly.

On a side note, the more fat I burn, the better my skin looks. Why would that be?
 

cliff

Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2012
Messages
425
Age
35
Location
Los Angeles
eating smaller more frequent meals and minimizing fat intake to decrease cals will help burn more fat while avoiding the stressful effects of calorie restricting. Weight lifting to increase lean mass will help you to burn more fat.
 

KT-John

Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2013
Messages
10
I'll have to second Cliff's recommendation. High sugar and protein combined with a low fat intake has had a pretty profound effect on my body comp.
 
OP
P

Primal2Peat

Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2012
Messages
46
That's what I'm doing right now, and it's awesome.

I just get the idea from some people on here that burning fat fast is bad, and that it should take a long time to replace stored PUFA with saturated fat.

Where as I feel you can do it quickly by lifting weights and keeping a constant flow of sugar/protein.
 
J

j.

Guest
cliff said:
burning a lot of fat on a starvation diet is bad

is PUFA release the worst thing about it? also, if you happen to know, does PUFA release to the bloodstream produce long term damage?
 

cliff

Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2012
Messages
425
Age
35
Location
Los Angeles
j. said:
cliff said:
burning a lot of fat on a starvation diet is bad

is PUFA release the worst thing about it? also, if you happen to know, does PUFA release to the bloodstream produce long term damage?

the stress hormones+pufa release(which amplifies the stress hormones) is the main concern. I think the damage is reversible caused by excessive pufa release for the most part.
 

gretchen

Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2012
Messages
816
Not eating between meals allows insulin to drop so you can burn fat. At least some anyway... I can go 3 hours between meals at least if I eat the right ratios/amounts of protein & carbs.
 
J

j.

Guest
gretchen said:
Not eating between meals allows insulin to drop so you can burn fat. At least some anyway... I can go 3 hours between meals at least if I eat the right ratios/amounts of protein & carbs.

RP thinks eating frequently also has benefits, but I don't know how these relate to weight loss.

Frequent, but smaller, meals can reduce PTH.

Dividing any food into smaller meals can lower the PTH, and milk is a convenient food to use in small amounts and frequently.

Milk in context: allergies, ecology, and some myths
 

cliff

Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2012
Messages
425
Age
35
Location
Los Angeles
gretchen said:
Not eating between meals allows insulin to drop so you can burn fat.

You can burn fat when insulin is high. Waiting too long to eat increases stress hormones.
 

charlie

Admin
The Law & Order Admin
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
14,359
Location
USA
There was a statement made somewhere, that we are always burning fat to some degree or another. Especially when we sleep. That true?
 

cliff

Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2012
Messages
425
Age
35
Location
Los Angeles
Charlie said:
There was a statement made somewhere, that we are always burning fat to some degree or another. Especially when we sleep. That true?

Yes, higher muscle mass allows more to be burned without ffa becoming high in the blood.
 

KT-John

Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2013
Messages
10
Primal2Peat said:
That's what I'm doing right now, and it's awesome.

I just get the idea from some people on here that burning fat fast is bad, and that it should take a long time to replace stored PUFA with saturated fat.

Where as I feel you can do it quickly by lifting weights and keeping a constant flow of sugar/protein.

That's always been my thinking too. In fact, I got the idea from an old Burr's study from the 1930s, where they were trying to prove the "essentiallity" (not a word, I know) of the essential fatty acids. One of the members of the research team volunteered to go on a fat-free diet for 6 months. His food intake consisted of a gallon of skim milk, biscuit made out of potato starch, juice from half an orange with the remainder of the calories coming from sucrose (sounds kinda of like a Peat diet actually).

During the 6 month experiment many great things happened:

1) He lost weight despite being on a calorie/weight-maintenance diet (although he was already lean to begin with so this may or may not be good depending on one's interpretation).

2) Increased his resting metabolic rate from below normal to near normal (indicative of improved thyroid function?).

3) Improved his blood pressure (which was high in the beginning).

4) Completely eliminated his migraines (which had previously plagued him for years as I recall).

5) Improved energy levels (going on memory, I think it said something like "no longer experienced the normal fatigue at the end of the work day").

6) And last but not least, significantly decreased the PUFA content in his (fat?) tissues.

Of course, the Burrs considered the decrease in PUFAs as a negative and proof that humans need to consume the EFAs.

I believe Ray Peat even discussed the above experiment in one of the more recent articles on sugar. However, he did not comment on the fat-free part of the study and the effect it had on tissue PUFA levels. So perhaps Peat does not consider it good to decrease PUFA levels at such a fast rate (as opposed to a slower method via glucoronidation(sp)) as recently discussed in another post. I don't know.

Who knows. Personally, I'd rather do something fast (even if it caused problems in the short term) than slow. I guess it depends on how you look at it.
 

superhuman

Member
Joined
May 31, 2013
Messages
1,124
This is an awesome topic.

The only thing i find hard is i have a BIG appetite so when i eat i EAT maybe its also because im used to intermittent fasting and stuff but still. I like to just eat when hungry wich is usually after 12+ hours and i also feel its a little hassle to eat all the time. Kind of frustrating.

In terms of fat/weight loss it has been proven that calories are the most important factor not the meal frequency ? ofc frequency can have some effects on hormone stuff that got mentioned here but i have never seen any benefits from the studies in terms of more meals vs less meals its actually quite the opposite. People tend to loose more fat and get better results with eating fewer meals.
 

aquaman

Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2013
Messages
1,297
superhuman said:
In terms of fat/weight loss it has been proven that calories are the most important factor not the meal frequency ? ofc frequency can have some effects on hormone stuff that got mentioned here but i have never seen any benefits from the studies in terms of more meals vs less meals its actually quite the opposite. People tend to loose more fat and get better results with eating fewer meals.

"proven" eh??!

by whom? When?

Frankly your statement above is nonsense (at least in my humble opinion!).
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom