Peata
Member
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2013
- Messages
- 3,402
So far I seem to be losing, and at a slow but healthy rate. I use coconut oil, occasional evoo, occasional butter. Rare use of lard.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Click Here if you want to upgrade your account
If you were able to post but cannot do so now, send an email to admin at raypeatforum dot com and include your username and we will fix that right up for you.
The reported inhibition of iron
absorption by calcium is the same for nonheme and heme iron
(2, 11). Because heme and nonheme iron are absorbed by different
receptors on the mucosal surface, inhibition by calcium must
be located within the mucosal cell at some transfer step common
to the 2 kinds of iron. This difference between calcium and other
factors influencing iron absorption would by itself not cause
methodologic problems
The reported dose-effect relation between the amount of calcium
given and the degree of inhibition of iron absorption (2)
differs from other factors influencing iron absorption. No effect
of calcium on iron absorption is seen when < 40 mg Ca is present
in a meal and no further inhibition is seen when the calcium
content of the meal exceeds <300 mg. This flat, inverse
S-shaped relation between the amount of calcium in a meal and
the inhibition of iron absorption fits well with equations describing
one-site competitive binding. In practice, this means that
adding 200 mg Ca to a meal with, say, 100 mg Ca would reduce
iron absorption by 40%, whereas no effect would be seen if the
meal already contained <300 mg
As a courtesy to others, kindly provide links to at least some of these studies you refer to?PeaterPan said:Eating carbs and fat together can cause insulin resistance, or at least it make it worse, try separating carbs from fats in your meals, also saturated fats(yes, even coconut oil) decrease insulin sensitivity, extra virgin olive oil improves it on the other hand, i looked a lot of studies to find this, i also did my own statistical analysis , the countries consuming more fat with carbohydrates are fatter and fatter, EXCEPT italy, although the fat intake is very high they are still one of the healthiest nations out there, also asian countries with the low fat intake have a very low obesity rate,...
He also cites a study that shows that only 8% of the changes in blood sugar result from insulin. He thinks that when the body is adequately energized, insulin is a hormone of stress that should not be needed at all.Ray Peat said:One of estrogen's “excitatory” effects is to cause lipolysis, the release of fatty acids from storage fat; it directs the conversion of glucose into fat in the liver, so that the free fatty acids in the circulation remain chronically high under its influence. The free fatty acids inhibit the oxidation of glucose for energy, creating insulin resistance, the condition that normally increases with aging, and that can lead to hyperglycemia and “diabetes.”
M, It seems calcium acetate does block phosphorus but the calcium is not as well absorbed as calcium carbonate and it also does not increase the calcium/phosphorus ratio?Mittir said:Calcium carbonate and calcium acetate also block phosphorus absorption.
So butter with starch creates a higher and longer lasting insulin level? This could be a good anabolic tool to promote muscle growth. It seems like it would be an especially good idea before going to sleep as it would let the glucose stay elevated longer and therefore prevent a nocturnal rise in cortisol. Insulin suppresses muscle protein breakdown as well, so the result could be very anti-catabolic.
It's probably not a good anabolic tool. And chronic elevation of insulin can't be a good thing; same for hyperglycemia. Otherwise diabetes would be a great condition.
At least for me, this issue doesn't appear to be so simple. I would not be surprised if a bit of olive oil or some slices of avocadoes become the darlings for starchy meals back again.
Although butter and coconut oil are safer fats when stored/metabolized, with olive oil and avocado in modest amounts it seems that you get the benefits of both sides: a more controlled deliver of glucose and less insulin insensitivity than the other fats on starchy meals.
At first I thought that there was a threshold of fat intake that would be significant, that if you stayed below that, it wouldn't make much difference the fatty acid profile and how it affects the meal. But apparently there isn't. And a fat free starchy meal is also completely different than one with a bit of added fat.
I'm not on any side, by the way. In fact, I don't like olive oil and avocadoes at all, but I'm open to that idea..
Prince, as far as I know, hyperglycemia by itself is already something beyond your metabolic capacity; even if it's a state that was induced temporarily. The question here is not if it's beneficial or not to add fat, but if by adding fats that are predominantly MUFA, you get those benefits without impairing the use of glucose as much as it happens with SaFA..I am on no side either, but again, youre still accerting all IR is bad. There is a big difference between phisiological IR and transient IR. In this case we are discussin the latter, so the comparison to diabetes is unfounded. And if elevated blood FFA caused diabetes (t2), then fasting or extreme caloric restriction would make it worse, not cure it.
Eating mixed meals will not give you diabetes, or almost everyone would have diabetes. Fattening your pancreas by chronically eating beyond your metabolic capacity/needs, likely will.
both food, and bodyfat (subcutaneous, visceral) are sources of energy. When more of one is available, the other will be utilized less. There is no magic macro ratio that will circumvent this. If you need to lose bodyfat, eat/live in a way that provides you with the most energy output with the least energy intake. It is that simple, and that complicated.
Prince, as far as I know, hyperglycemia by itself is already something beyond your metabolic capacity; even if it's a state that was induced temporarily. The question here is not if it's beneficial or not to add fat, but if by adding fats that are predominantly MUFA, you get those benefits without impairing the use of glucose as much as it happens with SaFA..
Ok, prince was too warming, what about Barber of Seville?Prince?
Hyperglycemia is necessary if you wish to do pretty much any type of physical or even strenuous mental exercise. Even Dr Peat says you want higher blood sugar during the daylight hours. Beyond a certain degree it does appear that hyperglycemia can be detrimental, but this is directly related to energy intake, not macro intake.
In a healthy, fasted, individual, a 500kcal meal of pure starch will cause fast and large hyperglycemia and equally fast fall back to baseline with the cells using the glucose they immediately need, and converting what isn't immediately needed to glycogen, fat, or heat. A 500kcal mixed meal will cause slower and smaller hyperglycemia and an equally slow return to baseline. In the end the cellular energy exposure is the same. The difference is the mixed meal person will likely not be hungry as quickly after the meal, since low blood sugar is a well known stimulus for hunger.
This is all in a metabolically perfect individual, which is likely a small percentage of people. Metabolically damaged individuals will likely put themselves in more danger eating the starch meal, rather than the mixed, because thier capacity for energy utilization/conversion is going to be damaged, which can lead to excessive cellular energy exposure.
Ok, prince was too warming, what about Barber of Seville?
The problem with all that is that when the person is dealing with sugar issues, even what people in general would consider a small amount, is enough to cause problems. Fasting heals those problems but so do consistent meals with plain starches and no added fats. What I mean by hyperglycemia, is toxicity, not just slightly elevated.
Back to the main point: fat clearly interferes with the use of glucose, and the fats affect differently.
From what you imply, the fact that saturated fats interfere the most, is not a problem; might even be beneficial (on healthy lords). Now, how much?
And also, following that same logic: pizzas, hamburguers, etc, are all fine as long as the ingredients are good?
Now tell me honestly, this isn't going to get anywhere, right?
Member that releases elevator tension by opening and closing the message app 30x despite not receiving one in a while,Oh I see, you were making a stab at my character, ok.
So regarding the discussion; Fat will interfere with the use of carbohydrate in the sense that only limited amounts of each can enter the Randal Cycle at a time. But in the big picture both substrates will get used eventually if energy intake is appropriate. You are implying that dietary fat is the issue, and overconsumption of energy is the issue. If fat in the bloodstream is harmful, why does the human body store so much excess energy as fat? Why wouldn't we have a practically unlimited capacity for glucose storage if we are designed to run purely on glucose. Getting fat is a protective response to limit excess cellular energy. Getting fat makes you insulin resistant. So removing fat will not fix the problem if the person does not create an energy deficit and lose bodyfat.
That's the goal.
My observation is in most real life situations, it's much easier and more applicable for people to drastically limit carbohydrate than to drastically limit fat when eating ad libitum. There is a reason the Atkins diet is the most popular diet of all time, it works. And it works for thousands of people that had no results with traditional low fat and calorie restriction. Restricting starch has been a well known cure for obesity for hundreds, if not thousands of years. I think there is a also mitochondrial and gut biome effect to high fat/low carb that is possibly advantageous to individuals with a history of overeating.
I'm not implying severe carbohydrate restriction is the optimal way to eat long term, although I'm not saying it isn't. However for bodyfat loss with muscle retention, and ease of application, it's a great option for many people.
Looking at the transient chemistry of post prandial blood work is not seeing the forest through the trees.
Member that releases elevator tension by opening and closing the message app 30x despite not receiving one in a while,
I didn't write that dietary fat is an issue; if I'm trying to understand how much and what type of fat is better, it's quite the opposite of that interpretation.
But what I do insist is that it's not good to create unnecessary oxidative stress by keeping blood sugar and insulin excessively and chronically elevated, something that is not difficult to achieve with a starchy meal with a decent amount of added fat, especially considering that most people are not at their best condition; and something that definitely will happen when there's energy excess.
Now, James my little lord, don't quote me, otherwise my multiple edits become @Pointless
One more time, please don't skim: I don't have any problem with added fats. I'm just trying to find what type of fat is best and how much of it.I unsure what your first paragraph is referring to. And im not sure why you've adopted a patronizing tone, but it isn't going to change my thoughts on this matter.
Anyway, your statements are now becoming a bit muddied. Your original assertion indicated that you beleived dietary fat was the driver of phisiological insulin resistance, and that removing fat from your diet will cure or heal an insulin resistant person. Now you seem to be saying that it's an energy balance issue, which was my point. Although you also seem to imply that fat is still an issue in the environment of energy excess? Which I don't agree with, and would say that's actually backwards. In an overfed environment, fat will likely cause the least amount of damage to the cells.
I will succeed this debate, because I agree that it's not going anywhere.