Every 5% Increase Of Total Calories From Saturated Fat Associated With Higher Risk Of Mortality

[Birdie]

Thanks for the tips :)

hmm I will experiment more with starch and see how I can incorporate it more in my life in a healthy manner.

I find that a little apple juice helps with starch.

 

[James IV]

Nevermind. The files are in the computer.

 

[James IV]

Well I continue to choose food. Lots of it, all macros. The best way I've found to cure food issues is more food.

 

[Wagner83]

Well I continue to choose food. Lots of it, all macros. The best way I've found to cure food issues is more food.

Don't you get sluggish and moody after certain meals though? That's my main issue, energy levels and mood, ratio of macros seem to play a part .

 

[James IV]

Sure. Some meals make me feel better than others. But who says we are supposed to feel exactly the same all the time?

 

[Kyle M]

Here's the thing with these kinds of studies, and I haven't looked into this one in detail but I can make an educated guess on a methodological problem. Simply, the category defined as "saturated fat" vs. the category defined as "carbohydrate" is likely an amalgamation of several foods that are different than what comes into the readers mind when reading those categorical definitions.

For example, someone falling into a higher saturated fat intake category on these questionnaire studies is not likely on a paleo diet and eating a lot of grass fed beef fat, cage-free eggs, or coconut oil. The average person they capture in these studies is getting their saturated fat intake from fast food, commercial meat (lots of PUFA heavy pork and chicken) as well as from vegetable oils. Even though a vegetable oil is higher in PUFA than SFA, that doesn't mean eating a lot of it (in salad dressings or fried foods) will not pick up your saturated fat intake compared to someone who eats low fat.

So the picture painted, intentionally, is that eating a beef steak or egg omelet is directly linked to disease states, but the only thing the data are likely suggesting is that eating fried chicken and cheese steaks and pizza with pepperoni on it is associated with higher disease likelihood. I would put those people in the basic category of "not giving a ***t about diet." They probably eat a lot of sugar too, which is why it's so easy to show sugar is bad as well, because the same kinds of people eating a fast food burger are likely washing it down with a soda.

The only relevant comparison would be looking at a group like paleo dieters, or people on this forum, that intentionally eat a higher than average saturated fat diet while not eating complete junk.

Of course, fat does have an open question about health very active on this forum, dealing with endotoxin transport, but that is a niche question that this kind of imprecise study is not equipped to ask. These kinds of studies largely separate two groups of people, those who care about their diet and lifestyle and those that don't.

 

[Wagner83]

Sure. Some meals make me feel better than others. But who says we are supposed to feel exactly the same all the time?

Trying to pinpoint what affects us positively or negatively makes sense, having 0 energy after a meal is extremely annoying if it happens often. We're never going to feel exactly the same because of other factors, but issues with diet are not just about not eating enough imo, that would relegate diet as a very minor contributor to various health issues.

 

[jb116]

Here's the thing with these kinds of studies, and I haven't looked into this one in detail but I can make an educated guess on a methodological problem. Simply, the category defined as "saturated fat" vs. the category defined as "carbohydrate" is likely an amalgamation of several foods that are different than what comes into the readers mind when reading those categorical definitions.

For example, someone falling into a higher saturated fat intake category on these questionnaire studies is not likely on a paleo diet and eating a lot of grass fed beef fat, cage-free eggs, or coconut oil. The average person they capture in these studies is getting their saturated fat intake from fast food, commercial meat (lots of PUFA heavy pork and chicken) as well as from vegetable oils. Even though a vegetable oil is higher in PUFA than SFA, that doesn't mean eating a lot of it (in salad dressings or fried foods) will not pick up your saturated fat intake compared to someone who eats low fat.

So the picture painted, intentionally, is that eating a beef steak or egg omelet is directly linked to disease states, but the only thing the data are likely suggesting is that eating fried chicken and cheese steaks and pizza with pepperoni on it is associated with higher disease likelihood. I would put those people in the basic category of "not giving a ***t about diet." They probably eat a lot of sugar too, which is why it's so easy to show sugar is bad as well, because the same kinds of people eating a fast food burger are likely washing it down with a soda.

The only relevant comparison would be looking at a group like paleo dieters, or people on this forum, that intentionally eat a higher than average saturated fat diet while not eating complete junk.

Of course, fat does have an open question about health very active on this forum, dealing with endotoxin transport, but that is a niche question that this kind of imprecise study is not equipped to ask. These kinds of studies largely separate two groups of people, those who care about their diet and lifestyle and those that don't.

Absolutely agree.
Also one step further regarding those people also having sugar: most of the time it's not even sugar as we know and love. As Peat has also mentioned the "sugars" in those sodas are vastly, large starch molecules. Then, more to your point as to what is labeled in what fashion, "sugar" is normally denoted by doughnuts, pastries, etc. Point being, there are all kinds of obfuscation from a to z.

 

[James IV]

Trying to pinpoint what affects us positively or negatively makes sense, having 0 energy after a meal is extremely annoying if it happens often. We're never going to feel exactly the same because of other factors, but issues with diet are not just about not eating enough imo, that would relegate diet as a very minor contributor to various health issues.

If you always have low energy after eating, you may just need rest.

Eating enough is absolutely vital. That's a huge part of Ray's writing. He's said the healthiest people eat the most. I'd argue most health problems come from deficiency.

 

[Wagner83]

If you always have low energy after eating, you may just need rest.

Eating enough is absolutely vital. That's a huge part of Ray's writing. He's said the healthiest people eat the most. I'd argue most health problems come from deficiency.

I understand the point of eating enough has value, but a lot of things seem to play a part (as far as I am concerned), ratio of macro nutrients can have a big impact, types of food too, various foods will affect digestion in different ways which will have an important impact on mood (blood sugar levels may play a part as well) . Food coma happened to me, becoming irritated because of spicy foods (or else) also happened, getting almost instant bloating from rice too etc... It's possible you may have experimented and progressed sufficiently to reach a state of health where eating enough is what you need but I doubt it's that simple for everyone . I could be wrong (of course).

 

[johnwester130]

so should I throw away my coconut oil ?

 

[James IV]

I understand the point of eating enough has value, but a lot of things seem to play a part (as far as I am concerned), ratio of macro nutrients can have a big impact, types of food too, various foods will affect digestion in different ways which will have an important impact on mood (blood sugar levels may play a part as well) . Food coma happened to me, becoming irritated because of spicy foods (or else) also happened, getting almost instant bloating from rice too etc... It's possible you may have experimented and progressed sufficiently to reach a state of health where eating enough is what you need but I doubt it's that simple for everyone . I could be wrong (of course).

For sure. avoiding foods you can't digest completely is important for healing. A simple diet works very well for this. But I wouldn't be too concerned with macros other than just making sure you are hitting minimums. Just don't eat the foods that you can't digest, and eat lots of the foods you can. keep your blood sugar up all the time for a few weeks and you will be amazed at what your body can deal with.

 

[xiaohua]

so should I throw away my coconut oil ?

Yes, and I'd quit the Ray Peat diet altogether if I were you. It's clearly been debunked!

 

[Wagner83]

For sure. avoiding foods you can't digest completely is important for healing. A simple diet works very well for this. But I wouldn't be too concerned with macros other than just making sure you are hitting minimums. Just don't eat the foods that you can't digest, and eat lots of the foods you can. keep your blood sugar up all the time for a few weeks and you will be amazed at what your body can deal with.

What would you do to keep blood sugar up all the time? For me macros seem to play a part when it comes to breakfast and lunch, dinner is not really a concern. As tyw and others (amazoniac?) discussed on an other thread, eating a lunch after a breakfast with potatoes + fat does not lead to the same response as if it follows a breakfast made of mostly carbs, working out seem to make a difference in terms of shifting preference of fuel towards carbs (you suggested something along those lines too) . I have made important steps forward over the last few months but I can still see a lot of room for improvement, the past few weeks there have been a few days where I felt excellent, low stress, oily face, much more pleasure to do things, natural confidence, good libido, good brain function etc..
I also remember you wanted to make a high carb diet work but could not really be successful with it (unlike a high fat diet).

 

[James IV]

What would you do to keep blood sugar up all the time? For me macros seem to play a part when it comes to breakfast and lunch, dinner is not really a concern. As tyw and others (amazoniac?) discussed on an other thread, eating a lunch after a breakfast with potatoes + fat does not lead to the same response as if it follows a breakfast made of mostly carbs, working out seem to make a difference in terms of shifting preference of fuel towards carbs (you suggested something along those lines) . I have made important steps forward over the last few months but I can still see a lot of room for improvement.
I also remember you wanted to make a high carb diet work but could not really be successful with it (unlike a high fat diet).

You are correct, although I must clarify that I couldn't make a high carb/LOW FAT diet work. I now eat what would possibly be considered a high everything diet? I honestly don't know what my macros are, but I avoid none of them. I just eat mostly nutritious foods, that match my cravings as best as possible.

The thing to keep in mind is that you have to be able to use the energy you are taking in, regardless of macros. Using the energy has a lot more to do with vitamin and mineral status, than anything else. Eating certain foods helps with utilizing others. So if you are limiting macros (which naturally limits certain foods) you can get into trouble, no matter how much you eat, if you are not perfect with supplementation.

Fat appears to be the easiest energy to use in a state of deficiency, which I think is a large part of why many people "feel" better on low carb (high fat) diets these days, at least initially. This will also will slow your metabolic rate, which further Makes it easier to operate in a nutritional deficit.

Eating fat with carbs is a natural way to keep blood sugar elevated for a longer period of time. But again, you must also be consuming sufficient nutrition to utilize the sugar. Glucose appears to require the most nutrition to utilize, which is another reason fructose may work better for some people.

If your nutrition is adequate, you should be able to use any energy source efficiently.

 

[Wagner83]

Ok thanks for sharing your thoughts, I'll keep them in mind .

 

[James IV]

Sure thing. Just try to take the angle that food is the answer, not the problem. It may help. My progress increased exponentially when I stopped trying to figure out what foods to avoid or limit, and began trying to figure out what was missing that was keeping me from properly utilizing those foods.

 

[raypeatclips]

figure out what was missing that was keeping me from properly utilizing those foods.

What do you mean by this, deficiencies? Or supplements?

 

[James IV]

What do you mean by this, deficiencies? Or supplements?

Vitamin and/or mineral deficiencies. Which can be address by food or supplements, the former being preferred.

 

[Tarmander]

You are correct, although I must clarify that I couldn't make a high carb/LOW FAT diet work. I now eat what would possibly be considered a high everything diet? I honestly don't know what my macros are, but I avoid none of them. I just eat mostly nutritious foods, that match my cravings as best as possible.

The thing to keep in mind is that you have to be able to use the energy you are taking in, regardless of macros. Using the energy has a lot more to do with vitamin and mineral status, than anything else. Eating certain foods helps with utilizing others. So if you are limiting macros (which naturally limits certain foods) you can get into trouble, no matter how much you eat, if you are not perfect with supplementation.

Fat appears to be the easiest energy to use in a state of deficiency, which I think is a large part of why many people "feel" better on low carb (high fat) diets these days, at least initially. This will also will slow your metabolic rate, which further Makes it easier to operate in a nutritional deficit.

Eating fat with carbs is a natural way to keep blood sugar elevated for a longer period of time. But again, you must also be consuming sufficient nutrition to utilize the sugar. Glucose appears to require the most nutrition to utilize, which is another reason fructose may work better for some people.

If your nutrition is adequate, you should be able to use any energy source efficiently.

You sound a lot like Matt stone. His high everything diet, which in part I think was inspired by Peat, but I've never seen Peat actually say anything close to it. In fact at times peat has talked in ways that don't gel with Matt/youreatopia.

I wish eat high everything worked for me, but I felt bad after awhile and just kept gaining weight. Same happen to Matt actually if you read his recent blog posts. He is definitely chasing the super high metabolic rate through lots of food but it doesn't seem to have worked for him yet. Maybe if he added the thyroid he snubs.

Anyways. I was curious how long you have been adhering to high everything? Like more then 2 years?