Tarmander
Member
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2015
- Messages
- 3,777
Good post Tarmander, er I mean good post detailing how back arsewards things have suddenly become. I thought Gbold revolutionized peat hormones by emphasizing the counter nature of substance and its receptor so with counter endocrinology you had to effect the system not by raising the hormone but flipping the state of its receptor to a more sensitive value? Maddyb says this is not that circumstance . this is just - hey, we need more substance and more sensitivity. But would not peat say the same thing. But to throw out an answer to your good question regarding sugar and cortisol being the equivalents as Gbold hints, maybe to much cortisol raising to much sugar can have the same bad effects as just taking to much sugar. Which puts us right back at peat who says to eat enough but not to much sugar just the right amount to attenuate the stress reaction from cortisol. So is this what @gbolduev means when he says peat has one case correct and this is why fast oxidizers should eat peat diet?
Yeah, kind of feels like the snake eating its own tail and is tough to translate to action. "Eat the right amount of sugar to attenuate cortisol." Hmm . Great summation though of Gbold's idea of contrarian endocrinology. Definitely got the wheels spinning and lining up some experiences we have heard.
I also want to add that a big idea, propagated by Matt Stone mostly a few years ago when Peat's ideas were gaining momentum, was that increased sugar intake would increase metabolism, usually through increased CO2. Eating more sugar would make sugar easier to eat basically...which funnily enough I could imagine coming out of gbold's mouth, not that he ever said it...but that idea I think was resoundingly debunked for most of the people who tried it. Although Matt Stone said it worked for something like 15-20% of people which is also oddly the amount of fast oxidizers that Gbold says are in the population
Yes, insulin and cortisol are antagonistic. That is why they rise together - to protect from the excess of the other. Insulin drops blood sugar and cortisol raises it.
Okay that makes sense in a certain aspect, although it kind of tosses out my whole idea of what two substances being antagonistic of each other means. You are basically outlining the problem though for many people I think. Raise carb intake, raises insulin, raises cortisol, type 2 diabetes, etc....or lower carb intake because of insulin resistance, raise FFA even more, raise cortisol, type 2 diabetes, etc....