If Endotoxin Isn't Under Control, Can't Anti Estrogen/cortisol Efforts Actually Increase Them?

[CLASH]

But the discussion is about endotoxin, not digestion, right? Detoxification of endotoxin, not peristalsis, etc. My SFA comes from butter, eggs, lamb or beef fat, and sometimes cream.

@lampofred 's argument was that saturated fat increases endotoxin because it slows digestion.
1) Saturated fat doesnt slow digestion, that was my point above.
2) As I discussed earlier, it also doesnt increase endotoxin in a pathological way.

These fat sources made you feel worse in what way?

What do you think is the most common cause of endotoxic burden, and what is the best long-term solution? Saturated fat + fruit is noted.

Cause: poor diets not compatible with human digestion + not being breast fed, being fed formula garbage + latent subclinical infections in the gut

These three components all go together, they are not necessarily either or situations.

Treatment: Strict diet change, certain herbs/ supplements to break down and eliminate pathogenic biofilms. In my experience the small intestine is quite easy to clear. The large intestine can be very difficult.

 

[Peatogenic]

@lampofred 's argument was that saturated fat increases endotoxin because it slows digestion.
1) Saturated fat doesnt slow digestion, that was my point above.
2) As I discussed earlier, it also doesnt increase endotoxin in a pathological way.

These fat sources made you feel worse in what way?



Cause: poor diets not compatible with human digestion + not being breast fed, being fed formula garbage + latent subclinical infections in the gut

These three components all go together, they are not necessarily either or situations.

Treatment: Strict diet change, certain herbs/ supplements to break down and eliminate pathogenic biofilms. In my experience the small intestine is quite easy to clear. The large intestine can be very difficult.

But neither of those statements are what I've heard or am saying. I don't believe saturated fat to raise endotoxin or to slow digestion. The argument has been that it stalls liver detoxification specifically if "too high". Which was my original concern.

Higher fats make me feel less clear minded. My peristalsis has been good ever since doing three months of Artemisinin and Allicin. But I guess I don't associate good digestion with low endotoxin, really.

 

[CLASH]

But neither of those statements are what I've heard or am saying. I don't believe saturated fat to raise endotoxin or to slow digestion. The argument has been that it stalls liver detoxification specifically if "too high". Which was my original concern.

Higher fats make me feel less clear minded. My peristalsis has been good ever since doing three months of Artemisinin and Allicin. But I guess I don't associate good digestion with low endotoxin, really.

Both of those comments weren't pointed towards you. The slowing of digestion point was towards lampofred. The endotoxin not increasing endotoxin pathologically was pointed towards schultz, that is why I quoted their posts with my responses underneath.

How much fat are you taking in, in a meal? How much beef/lamb fat are you using? how liquid is that beef and lamb fat? High oleic acid can conver to oleamide which has some cannabinoid like effects.

 

[YourUniverse]

@lampofred 's argument was that saturated fat increases endotoxin because it slows digestion.
1) Saturated fat doesnt slow digestion, that was my point above.
2) As I discussed earlier, it also doesnt increase endotoxin in a pathological way.

These fat sources made you feel worse in what way?



Cause: poor diets not compatible with human digestion + not being breast fed, being fed formula garbage + latent subclinical infections in the gut

These three components all go together, they are not necessarily either or situations.

Treatment: Strict diet change, certain herbs/ supplements to break down and eliminate pathogenic biofilms. In my experience the small intestine is quite easy to clear. The large intestine can be very difficult.

Youve talked about diet quite a bit in the past and its also noted. That said, can you elaborate on specifics in the diet, as well as the herbs and supplements you mentioned?

 

[Peatogenic]

Both of those comments weren't pointed towards you. The slowing of digestion point was towards lampofred. The endotoxin not increasing endotoxin pathologically was pointed towards schultz, that is why I quoted their posts with my responses underneath.

How much fat are you taking in, in a meal? How much beef/lamb fat are you using? how liquid is that beef and lamb fat? High oleic acid can conver to oleamide which has some cannabinoid like effects.

Ok, so yeah...the question would be: what evidence is there that too high Saturated fat can stall liver and slow down detox of endotoxin.

I don't count grams anymore, but lately it's probably been about 30-40% fat of macronutrients. It's just the associated fat of steak or lamb chops. I stopped doing chicken thighs for lower fat as an experiment. I eat a lot of roasted root vegetables, and get a lot of butter fat from those, but I actually feel better with boiled roots and no butter.

 

[Ihor]

Problems with the liver, bile is not always due to endotoxin, therefore, the use of a large amount of saturated fat to fight endotoxin is pointless and will not give any result, it only exacerbates everything, like with a lot of fructose or those carbohydrates that are partially consist of fructose, because both fat and frutose are processed in the liver, which in this case works bad, and when liver takes a lot of fat or fructose, it works even worse, therefore the liver is further aggravated and the metabolism is systemically worse, after which the digestion of any product will be worse, and the endotoxin even more, with such a causal relationship, then what good is a ton of these fats with "antimicrobial properties"? Some just explain this by translocation of microbes. LOL what is the translocation of microbes? All this fat is simply not digested and you go to the toilet with a big part of this fat, that's all endotoxin.
Perhaps there is some sense, but for people with a normal liver and bile. For people with poor liver, well cooked starch will not be a little worse than fat, if not better, although at least everyone says it is not completely digested, but at least he doesn’t burden the liver directly
Those who promote a beautiful theory with a lot of saturated fats and which works only for themselves, in fact, just have a normal liver and an outflow of bile, and the context of others who in practice simply get a digestive collapse with this large fats diet, they either ignore or simply do not understand.

 

[Peatogenic]

Problems with the liver, bile is not always due to endotoxin, therefore, the use of a large amount of saturated fat to fight endotoxin is pointless and will not give any result, it only exacerbates everything, like with a lot of fructose or those carbohydrates that are partially consist of fructose, because both fat and frutose are processed in the liver, which in this case works bad, and when liver takes a lot of fat or fructose, it works even worse, therefore the liver is further aggravated and the metabolism is systemically worse, after which the digestion of any product will be worse, and the endotoxin even more, with such a causal relationship, then what good is a ton of these fats with "antimicrobial properties"? Some just explain this by translocation of microbes. LOL what is the translocation of microbes? All this fat is simply not digested and you go to the toilet with a big part of this fat, that's all endotoxin.
Perhaps there is some sense, but for people with a normal liver and bile. For people with poor liver, well cooked starch will not be a little worse than fat, if not better, although at least everyone says it is not completely digested, but at least he doesn’t burden the liver directly
Those who promote a beautiful theory with a lot of saturated fats and which works only for themselves, in fact, just have a normal liver and an outflow of bile, and the context of others who in practice simply get a digestive collapse with this large fats diet, they either ignore or simply do not understand.

I've perceived this with starch vs. Fructose. However, fructose seems to help the digestion of starch. And that was my original thought: if high fat diet improves things, what was the state of the liver before? My ideal diet is pretty low fat and a mix of starch and fructose, leaning a little heavier towards starch. And starches leaning towards plant starches. The only problem I've found is finding suitable snacks.

 

[Ihor]

I've perceived this with starch vs. Fructose. However, fructose seems to help the digestion of starch. And that was my original thought: if high fat diet improves things, what was the state of the liver before? My ideal diet is pretty low fat and a mix of starch and fructose, leaning a little heavier towards starch. And starches leaning towards plant starches. The only problem I've found is finding suitable snacks.

Yes, fructose + starch glucose is also better for me, and a small amount of fat seems to support their glycemia, but a large amount of fat leads to some hypoglycemia, and I just find it undigested in my stool and suspect other nutrients that are emulsified with a lot of this fat were undigested too.
Some suppression of estrogen will probably be appropriate as a compensation for the cause, two years ago when I felt very bad and I had periods of severe hypoglycemia, when I took things that suppressed or lowered cortisol/adrenaline, I became even worse, it was possible then during hypoglycemia, cortisol was raised as compensation for gluconeogenesis to somehow maintain the sugar level, and if at that moment cortisol was suppressed, for example with magnesium and at the same time not to increase the sugar in another way, it will be even worse.

 

[CLASH]

Ok, so yeah...the question would be: what evidence is there that too high Saturated fat can stall liver and slow down detox of endotoxin.

I don't count grams anymore, but lately it's probably been about 30-40% fat of macronutrients. It's just the associated fat of steak or lamb chops. I stopped doing chicken thighs for lower fat as an experiment. I eat a lot of roasted root vegetables, and get a lot of butter fat from those, but I actually feel better with boiled roots and no butter.

Theres evidence that very high fat intake without other nutrients can cause a fatty liver, especially in combination with high amounts of refined sucrose. Many of these studies are in rats and the studies are constructed in a particular way. In real life this doesnt seem to be the case. Although for myself I have found there to be a threshold of about 25-30g of fat in a meal, where if eating more than that, nausea and fogginess can occur. That is why I asked you how much you eat in a meal.

Chicken thighs would most likely be high in PUFA as a fat source. Perhaps the issue lies in the roasting of the root vegetable as opposed to the boiling, rather than the fat itself. Also, I assume your eating the root vegetables with the fatty meat, so if you are adding butter to the vegetables on top of very fatty meat, you could be eating quite a bit of fat and going over that threshold.

Problems with the liver, bile is not always due to endotoxin, therefore, the use of a large amount of saturated fat to fight endotoxin is pointless and will not give any result, it only exacerbates everything, like with a lot of fructose or those carbohydrates that are partially consist of fructose, because both fat and frutose are processed in the liver, which in this case works bad, and when liver takes a lot of fat or fructose, it works even worse, therefore the liver is further aggravated and the metabolism is systemically worse, after which the digestion of any product will be worse, and the endotoxin even more, with such a causal relationship, then what good is a ton of these fats with "antimicrobial properties"? Some just explain this by translocation of microbes. LOL what is the translocation of microbes? All this fat is simply not digested and you go to the toilet with a big part of this fat, that's all endotoxin.
Perhaps there is some sense, but for people with a normal liver and bile. For people with poor liver, well cooked starch will not be a little worse than fat, if not better, although at least everyone says it is not completely digested, but at least he doesn’t burden the liver directly
Those who promote a beautiful theory with a lot of saturated fats and which works only for themselves, in fact, just have a normal liver and an outflow of bile, and the context of others who in practice simply get a digestive collapse with this large fats diet, they either ignore or simply do not understand.

Using saturated fat to fight endotoxin is not pointless, it seems to me that you havent read much research on the subject. As for The question of "large amounts", I defined the amounts I am talking about above in response to peatogenic (about 20-25g of fat per meal, perhaps more if a person is larger/ needs much more calories).
If the problem with the liver is bile related than the best way, in my experience, to clear it out is with fat (up to a point of course). Fat will stimulate the bile release. The first few days may be uncomfortable, especially coming from a very low fat diet as the body clears the gallbladder, but after that it should normalize. This is often talked about on keto/ paleo forums.

Fructose only causes issues in excess of glucose as it is not absorbed alone and can then be fermented by bacteria, at least from my reading. It would he hard to eat enough fructose, if in a 1:1 ratio of glucose or close to it, especially from fruit, to create an issue for the liver. In fact in many studies fruit juices reverse fatty liver/ protect from its development... Many of the so called high fructose studies come from rats being fed high amounts of free form fructose, which is rarely if ever found in nature. These free form fructose diets are often missing particular nutrients and can incorporate high amounts of PUFA. Endotoxin generated from the unabsorbed fructose and PUFA together are a direct recipe for fatty liver; this is essentially what these diets are. Human livers and intestines have different capabilities and functions than rats, at least from what I have read. Whereas many of these fructose and saturated fat studies, in my experience, are coming from Rats/ mice. Also, we share the same evolutionary lineage with apes who primarily subsist on ripe fruit and high fat diets, so I find the idea of a limited capacity of the liver to metabolize fructose from ripe fruit and fats to be a very questionable proposition to me. Also, many hunter gatherer populations such as the Hadza have a direct preference for honey, berries and meat, and use tubers primarily as a fall back food (grains arent really an option).

Translocation and lipid rafting are real processes, at least if you believe the work in research to be real.

As to the starch statement for poor liver function, at least in my experience, If liver function is that poor, often times there is an overgrowth of bacteria in the small intestine and well cooked starches can often make it worse as they are more difficult to digest (compared to monosaccharides/ disaccharrides from fruits) due to the glucose molecules being bound up in the starchy structure; particularly amylose. This isn't to mention the resistant starch present. In my experience what determines a persons ability to digest starch is the type of starch they are eating, thier ability to digest it (amylase amounts) and the type of bacteria they have in their colon, since a portion of this starch usually makes its way to the colon. If A dysbiosis is present, then I think its likely that starch will only make things worse. If a small intestine bacterial overgrowth is present than starch will only make this worse in many cases. If the liver is that poor its likely that small intestine overgrowth is present and there is a dysbiosis in the colon.

Alot of assumptions in your post there, I dont have a gallbladder so my "liver and outflow of bile" is anything but normal lol. I never argued that high saturated fat worked for everyone either. I only argued that I dont think it would cause liver problems in most cases, that it doesn't cause endotoxin issues, and that it wont make people fat. Also, this isnt purely theory, its practice for me. I have done this and reproduced it with quite a few people. If I was going by theory I would be making arguments for low fat diets, the randle cycle, etc. which is the modus operandi to a large extent on this forum. I also never made statements as to this diet working for everyone, nor made general statements. Almost every statement I make is stipulated by "in my experience" or "from what I read", etc. for a reason. I dont suppose to know how everyones body works, but I do enjoy trying to figure it out.

 

[Peatogenic]

Theres evidence that very high fat intake without other nutrients can cause a fatty liver, especially in combination with high amounts of refined sucrose. Many of these studies are in rats and the studies are constructed in a particular way. In real life this doesnt seem to be the case. Although for myself I have found there to be a threshold of about 25-30g of fat in a meal, where if eating more than that, nausea and fogginess can occur. That is why I asked you how much you eat in a meal.

Chicken thighs would most likely be high in PUFA as a fat source. Perhaps the issue lies in the roasting of the root vegetable as opposed to the boiling, rather than the fat itself. Also, I assume your eating the root vegetables with the fatty meat, so if you are adding butter to the vegetables on top of very fatty meat, you could be eating quite a bit of fat and going over that threshold.





Using saturated fat to fight endotoxin is not pointless, it seems to me that you havent read much research on the subject. As for The question of "large amounts", I defined the amounts I am talking about above in response to peatogenic (about 20-25g of fat per meal, perhaps more if a person is larger/ needs much more calories).
If the problem with the liver is bile related than the best way, in my experience, to clear it out is with fat (up to a point of course). Fat will stimulate the bile release. The first few days may be uncomfortable, especially coming from a very low fat diet as the body clears the gallbladder, but after that it should normalize. This is often talked about on keto/ paleo forums.

Fructose only causes issues in excess of glucose as it is not absorbed alone and can then be fermented by bacteria, at least from my reading. It would he hard to eat enough fructose, if in a 1:1 ratio of glucose or close to it, especially from fruit, to create an issue for the liver. In fact in many studies fruit juices reverse fatty liver/ protect from its development... Many of the so called high fructose studies come from rats being fed high amounts of free form fructose, which is rarely if ever found in nature. These free form fructose diets are often missing particular nutrients and can incorporate high amounts of PUFA. Endotoxin generated from the unabsorbed fructose and PUFA together are a direct recipe for fatty liver; this is essentially what these diets are. Human livers and intestines have different capabilities and functions than rats, at least from what I have read. Whereas many of these fructose and saturated fat studies, in my experience, are coming from Rats/ mice. Also, we share the same evolutionary lineage with apes who primarily subsist on ripe fruit and high fat diets, so I find the idea of a limited capacity of the liver to metabolize fructose from ripe fruit and fats to be a very questionable proposition to me. Also, many hunter gatherer populations such as the Hadza have a direct preference for honey, berries and meat, and use tubers primarily as a fall back food (grains arent really an option).

Translocation and lipid rafting are real processes, at least if you believe the work in research to be real.

As to the starch statement for poor liver function, at least in my experience, If liver function is that poor, often times there is an overgrowth of bacteria in the small intestine and well cooked starches can often make it worse as they are more difficult to digest (compared to monosaccharides/ disaccharrides from fruits) due to the glucose molecules being bound up in the starchy structure; particularly amylose. This isn't to mention the resistant starch present. In my experience what determines a persons ability to digest starch is the type of starch they are eating, thier ability to digest it (amylase amounts) and the type of bacteria they have in their colon, since a portion of this starch usually makes its way to the colon. If A dysbiosis is present, then I think its likely that starch will only make things worse. If a small intestine bacterial overgrowth is present than starch will only make this worse in many cases. If the liver is that poor its likely that small intestine overgrowth is present and there is a dysbiosis in the colon.

Alot of assumptions in your post there, I dont have a gallbladder so my "liver and outflow of bile" is anything but normal lol. I never argued that high saturated fat worked for everyone either. I only argued that I dont think it would cause liver problems in most cases, that it doesn't cause endotoxin issues, and that it wont make people fat. Also, this isnt purely theory, its practice for me. I have done this and reproduced it with quite a few people. If I was going by theory I would be making arguments for low fat diets, the randle cycle, etc. which is the modus operandi to a large extent on this forum. I also never made statements as to this diet working for everyone, nor made general statements. Almost every statement I make is stipulated by "in my experience" or "from what I read", etc. for a reason. I dont suppose to know how everyones body works, but I do enjoy trying to figure it out.

I've compared the addition of butter vs. not to boiled roots. I feel better without the extra butter, but yes, I think the boiling is better for digestion.

The issue of liver stalling with high fat consumption hasn't been addressed by you yet. Fatty liver is not what's being referred to with liver stalling. My first comment on this matter recognized that there's nothing inherently wrong with high SFA, just that in certain contexts, an excess of SFA could stall liver detox for some. I know you're addressing the other commenters, just wanted to make sure the original concern isn't lost.

 

[CLASH]

I've compared the addition of butter vs. not to boiled roots. I feel better without the extra butter, but yes, I think the boiling is better for digestion.

The issue of liver stalling with high fat consumption hasn't been addressed by you yet. Fatty liver is not what's being referred to with liver stalling. My first comment on this matter recognized that there's nothing inherently wrong with high SFA, just that in certain contexts, an excess of SFA could stall liver detox for some. I know you're addressing the other commenters, just wanted to make sure the original concern isn't lost.

Your going to have to define "liver stalling" then? As far as I'm aware liver stalling, especially in the case of saturated fats, was to mean an inability of the liver to process the fats leading to an accumulation of fats in the liver known as fatty liver. I dont know what else liver stalling could be? Maybe too much fat in a meal causing nausea and some sluggishness as I alluded to before? If thats the case then I stipulated the amounts per meal that I find to be well tolerated.

Also, by liver detox, what do you mean? Detox of endotoxin or detoxification by P450 enzyme? If its endotoxin detox, then again, no, saturated fats shouldnt slow that detox, they should actually help by binding and largely inactivating the endotoxin, inducing bile/ chylomicrons/ lipase/ lipoproteins, removing them from the gut lumen and shielding the endotoxin from macrophages so it can be removed without sparking an immune response. As far as P450 enzymes I dont know the specific effects of the different fatty acids on those, I would assume different fatty acids have different effects. Different plants compounds and foods all have different effects on those enzymes. It can get very in depth and easily bogged down with minutiae trying to look at each enzyme and what effects it in what way, and whether or not its good.

 

[Peatogenic]

Your going to have to define "liver stalling" then? As far as I'm aware liver stalling, especially in the case of saturated fats, was to mean an inability of the liver to process the fats leading to an accumulation of fats in the liver known as fatty liver. I dont know what else liver stalling could be? Maybe too much fat in a meal causing nausea and some sluggishness as I alluded to before? If thats the case then I stipulated the amounts per meal that I find to be well tolerated.

Also, by liver detox, what do you mean? Detox of endotoxin or detoxification by P450 enzyme? If its endotoxin detox, then again, no, saturated fats shouldnt slow that detox, they should actually help by binding and largely inactivating the endotoxin, inducing bile/ chylomicrons/ lipase/ lipoproteins, removing them from the gut lumen and shielding the endotoxin from macrophages so it can be removed without sparking an immune response. As far as P450 enzymes I dont know the specific effects of the different fatty acids on those, I would assume different fatty acids have different effects. Different plants compounds and foods all have different effects on those enzymes. It can get very in depth and easily bogged down with minutiae trying to look at each enzyme and what effects it in what way, and whether or not its good.

Detox of endotoxin. SFA certainly seems to be needed, I just wonder if it's easy to pass that threshold for a particular person's context/needs and inhibit detox. Essentially, we are agreeing I think...not too little and not too much. And that fear of SFA in general is unwarranted. Some people could increase it, and some could decrease it. It's not a panacea, basically....or that risky.

 

[Ihor]

Using saturated fat to fight endotoxin is not pointless, it seems to me that you havent read much research on the subject. As for The question of "large amounts", I defined the amounts I am talking about above in response to peatogenic (about 20-25g of fat per meal, perhaps more if a person is larger/ needs much more calories).
If the problem with the liver is bile related than the best way, in my experience, to clear it out is with fat (up to a point of course). Fat will stimulate the bile release. The first few days may be uncomfortable, especially coming from a very low fat diet as the body clears the gallbladder, but after that it should normalize. This is often talked about on keto/ paleo forums.

Fructose only causes issues in excess of glucose as it is not absorbed alone and can then be fermented by bacteria, at least from my reading. It would he hard to eat enough fructose, if in a 1:1 ratio of glucose or close to it, especially from fruit, to create an issue for the liver. In fact in many studies fruit juices reverse fatty liver/ protect from its development... Many of the so called high fructose studies come from rats being fed high amounts of free form fructose, which is rarely if ever found in nature. These free form fructose diets are often missing particular nutrients and can incorporate high amounts of PUFA. Endotoxin generated from the unabsorbed fructose and PUFA together are a direct recipe for fatty liver; this is essentially what these diets are. Human livers and intestines have different capabilities and functions than rats, at least from what I have read. Whereas many of these fructose and saturated fat studies, in my experience, are coming from Rats/ mice. Also, we share the same evolutionary lineage with apes who primarily subsist on ripe fruit and high fat diets, so I find the idea of a limited capacity of the liver to metabolize fructose from ripe fruit and fats to be a very questionable proposition to me. Also, many hunter gatherer populations such as the Hadza have a direct preference for honey, berries and meat, and use tubers primarily as a fall back food (grains arent really an option).

Translocation and lipid rafting are real processes, at least if you believe the work in research to be real.

As to the starch statement for poor liver function, at least in my experience, If liver function is that poor, often times there is an overgrowth of bacteria in the small intestine and well cooked starches can often make it worse as they are more difficult to digest (compared to monosaccharides/ disaccharrides from fruits) due to the glucose molecules being bound up in the starchy structure; particularly amylose. This isn't to mention the resistant starch present. In my experience what determines a persons ability to digest starch is the type of starch they are eating, thier ability to digest it (amylase amounts) and the type of bacteria they have in their colon, since a portion of this starch usually makes its way to the colon. If A dysbiosis is present, then I think its likely that starch will only make things worse. If a small intestine bacterial overgrowth is present than starch will only make this worse in many cases. If the liver is that poor its likely that small intestine overgrowth is present and there is a dysbiosis in the colon.

Alot of assumptions in your post there, I dont have a gallbladder so my "liver and outflow of bile" is anything but normal lol. I never argued that high saturated fat worked for everyone either. I only argued that I dont think it would cause liver problems in most cases, that it doesn't cause endotoxin issues, and that it wont make people fat. Also, this isnt purely theory, its practice for me. I have done this and reproduced it with quite a few people. If I was going by theory I would be making arguments for low fat diets, the randle cycle, etc. which is the modus operandi to a large extent on this forum. I also never made statements as to this diet working for everyone, nor made general statements. Almost every statement I make is stipulated by "in my experience" or "from what I read", etc. for a reason. I dont suppose to know how everyones body works, but I do enjoy trying to figure it out.

Yes, but if the cause of endotoxin, as I already wrote, is non-etched and non-absorbed protein/sugar/fat due to problems with the liver, bile, pancreas, and in this case, if you make saturated fat the main source of calories (100-200 gr./day), then this to some extent compensates for the effect of endotoxin in the sense that bacteria will not eat carbohydrates, on the other hand, in the context of poor digestion, such an amount of unrefined fat will most likely become endotoxin.
I read studies on saturated fats, both good and bad, in my opinion with good digestion they are better than starch, because although they are digested harder, they completely leave nothing to bacteria, but with poor digestion a large amount of fat is not better or worse. My main idea here is that with poor health, switching to a lot of saturated fat and an exception for controlling endotoxin is very likely to worsen the situation, maybe not in all cases, but in most cases, this is what I tested on myself many times starting once with keto and testing many combinations of nutrients, and this is the experience of many participants in this forum when a lot of fat spoils their health, for this reason I do not concentrate much on research in this place, but more on experience.

 

[CLASH]

Yes, but if the cause of endotoxin, as I already wrote, is non-etched and non-absorbed protein/sugar/fat due to problems with the liver, bile, pancreas, and in this case, if you make saturated fat the main source of calories (100-200 gr./day), then this to some extent compensates for the effect of endotoxin in the sense that bacteria will not eat carbohydrates, on the other hand, in the context of poor digestion, such an amount of unrefined fat will most likely become endotoxin.
I read studies on saturated fats, both good and bad, in my opinion with good digestion they are better than starch, because although they are digested harder, they completely leave nothing to bacteria, but with poor digestion a large amount of fat is not better or worse. My main idea here is that with poor health, switching to a lot of saturated fat and an exception for controlling endotoxin is very likely to worsen the situation, maybe not in all cases, but in most cases, this is what I tested on myself many times starting once with keto and testing many combinations of nutrients, and this is the experience of many participants in this forum when a lot of fat spoils their health, for this reason I do not concentrate much on research in this place, but more on experience.

I think if your not absorbing protein, fat or carbs, regardless of what you put in there is going to be some endotoxin. I doubt that fat will produce more endotoxin than carbs or protein. In order to stimulate bacterial growth in culture, the mediums are usually carb and protein based. An even more direct example is that fact that beef tallow, coconut oil etc. can sit on the counter for months without going bad and when they do go bad its often because of rancidity, not bacterial contamination. With that said, I'm pretty sure fats are somewhat antithetical to the growth of most microbes (ad proven with experience and studies). So I dont see your point.

Furthermore, 100-200g of saturated fat is a ton. Eating 100g of fat in a day usually will only give people something like 60-80g of saturated fat, especially with the varieties I mentioned. Coconut oil is a different story. Also, I never stated to make fat the majority of calories. Even with the examples I've given I never called for a mostly fat diet. My macros are around 35-40% of calories from fat with 40-50% carbs and around 15%-20% protein.

I also dont think that fats are necessarily harder to digest than starch as a rule, perhaps individual specific but even then I'm pretty sure humans are well equipped to digest fat. As I mentioned before, I dont have a gallbladder and I'm able to digest fat just fine. Also, even if fat was left in the intestine undigested, I dont think it would feed bacteria.

Considering the mechanisms of saturated fat on endotoxin and my experience I disagree with your point entirely. I also dont think many members here are finding "alot" of fat to spoil thier health. If anything extremely low fat, high sugar diets, refined food based diets, and dairy based diets in people who are intolerant seem to be the biggest issue. Also, I would venture to say people here have issues with starches just as much as they supposedly do with fat. If the digestive organs are as impaired as you mention than I would venture to guess that dysbiosis is also present and a high starch diet quite possibly would only make it worse (especially depending on the starch source).

I'm not discounting your personal experience, I'm disagreeing with your theory.

 

[Ihor]

I think if your not absorbing protein, fat or carbs, regardless of what you put in there is going to be some endotoxin. I doubt that fat will produce more endotoxin than carbs or protein. In order to stimulate bacterial growth in culture, the mediums are usually carb and protein based. An even more direct example is that fact that beef tallow, coconut oil etc. can sit on the counter for months without going bad and when they do go bad its often because of rancidity, not bacterial contamination. With that said, I'm pretty sure fats are somewhat antithetical to the growth of most microbes (ad proven with experience and studies). So I dont see your point.

Furthermore, 100-200g of saturated fat is a ton. Eating 100g of fat in a day usually will only give people something like 60-80g of saturated fat, especially with the varieties I mentioned. Coconut oil is a different story. Also, I never stated to make fat the majority of calories. Even with the examples I've given I never called for a mostly fat diet. My macros are around 35-40% of calories from fat with 40-50% carbs and around 15%-20% protein.

I also dont think that fats are necessarily harder to digest than starch as a rule, perhaps individual specific but even then I'm pretty sure humans are well equipped to digest fat. As I mentioned before, I dont have a gallbladder and I'm able to digest fat just fine. Also, even if fat was left in the intestine undigested, I dont think it would feed bacteria.

Considering the mechanisms of saturated fat on endotoxin and my experience I disagree with your point entirely. I also dont think many members here are finding "alot" of fat to spoil thier health. If anything extremely low fat, high sugar diets, refined food based diets, and dairy based diets in people who are intolerant seem to be the biggest issue. Also, I would venture to say people here have issues with starches just as much as they supposedly do with fat. If the digestive organs are as impaired as you mention than I would venture to guess that dysbiosis is also present and a high starch diet quite possibly would only make it worse (especially depending on the starch source).

Well, given that the majority of views on this forum look at the problem from a biochemical point of view, I think that the structural part of the pathology is often neglected and not taken into account, and although the structure is chemistry dependent as Peat says, sometimes this incorrect structure simply blocks the metabolism , and the diet does not give a result. I had an ultrasound scan of the bile duct, which showed bending of the ducts, some doctors tell me that this pathology greatly affects the outflow of the bile duct, others that it’s not very, I have no stones, but now I look at my poor digestion and wonder if this is a structural bending one of my main digestive problems. This is what I want to say.
Why don't you have gall, did you have stones?

 

[CLASH]

I cant comment on the bending of your bile ducts, but all I can say is that I think the effect of the bend would depend on the degree of bend. From what I understand the gallbladder actually contracts to push Bile out, it doesn't just flow out, so a small bend, in theory, shouldn't make too much of a difference.

No stones. I embarked on a dietary experiment when I was in highschool that made me severely sick. The "omnicient" doctors decided it was my gallbladder that was the issue because "genetics". And in my 17 year old ignorance, under the guidance of my ignorant parents, I agreed to surgery. They pulled it out, there were no stones, nothing visibly wrong besides some inflammation. Too this day I have a series of words that I wont publicly utter about the medical system and doctors. I have had to overcome a lot of physical and digestive issues following that surgery.