Life In The Cell Begins At The Edge Of Death By Ed Watson

[halken]

After reading through kineticz's fascinating thread about an alternative dietary approach to Ray Peat. I had decided to return to whom first showed me Ray Peat; Ed Watson.

Watson is like RP but in the opposite direction (with one macro being the most important for energy expenditure).

He has updated his site recently and posted an excellent article/lecture about how fat is the main fuel source for the body.

Check it out.

 

[Suikerbuik]

What would be your advice practically? I liked the read though, it shows how magnificent nature is.

 

[Westside PUFAs]

When you look at the sources of polyunsaturated, monounsaturated, and saturated fats that are ingestible for humans, I don't see how eating more than small amounts of them is a strategy for long term health. I can see how the fermentation of carbohydrate by gut bacteria into short-chained butyric acid is useful for adipose tissue and other membranes that use fats but that's different than eating large amounts of overt fats. If what Watson purports about acetic acid is true, it is glycogen that is used first, not fat, to use as the so-called "fuel substrate." The body stores glycogen and fat but glycogen is the first to be mobilized. There are also other indicators that show carbohydrate, especially fructose, as being a preferred source of fuel. When you compare trying to swallow pure fat versus pure sugar, it's clear which one induces gagging in most people. We also have cravings for sweet, which are cravings for simple sugars and a relationship with sperm and fructose, indicating our fruit-eating past as well as starch-digesting amylase which is secreted by both the pancreas and salivary glands.

 

[Suikerbuik]

I agree Westside, practically I think you're right; if only given the effect of free fatty acids on insulin/ glucose intolerance. The brilliance I like is the evolution around Acetyl-Coa as main energy source. The stupidity (I feel) is looking at that chart, showing that nature only forms even number of fatty acids and therefore MUST be the best/only energy source. Fatty acid synthesis is a process in whereas an excess of acetyl-coa (C2) forms an efficient storage molecule. If nature was about to create uneven fatty acids or even restructuring acetyl-coa/fatty acids completely, nature could be considered stupid and illogical.

But I only partly agree what you say below, as I do think fermentation of carbohydrates in the gut is of greater benefit.

post 117729 I can see how the fermentation of carbohydrate by gut bacteria into short-chained butyric acid is useful for adipose tissue and other membranes that use fats

 

[halken]

post 117725 What would be your advice practically? I liked the read though, it shows how magnificent nature is.

I don't really advocate to others what they should eat. I think it is up to them to figure out what works for them. My current theory is that fructose AND fat are the main fuel sources for the body.

post 117729When you compare trying to swallow pure fat versus pure sugar, it's clear which one induces gagging in most people.

What an absurd example. Since when is isolating a macro relevant to nutrition? Pure sugar or pure fat on its own would make me gag either way. Think of just cream on its own; boring, bland. Think of sucrose on its own; too sweet, bland. Now combine the two and see how it tastes.

 

[Such_Saturation]

I'll tell you more, I think we should eliminate electrons entirely and baryons (sorry but it's study after study after study that shows) are the preferred mass source

 

[Suikerbuik]

I'm all in for a positive universe!

 

[Suikerbuik]

Go zero fat and your body will crave fat, at least in my case. I do think fat is an important calorie source too, however not as an extracted substance, like pure butter, coconut fat, olive oil etc.

 

[halken]

Why? It's no different than refined sugar or refined salt. They're holistic supplements.

 

[Suikerbuik]

It's my n=1 personal experience, so I am biased. But despite, study after study after study after study show negative effects of high-fat diets, for example exaggerating serotonin, altering circadian rhythm, changing gut flora, etc., however, this effect is most always migitated by increased fiber intake. This makes sense to me as in nature you'll always find the fats in combination with fiber, even animal products if you include tendons etc. I also think that SCFA produced by our intestinal flora is an important source.

The same can be said for white sugar though.

 

[Xisca]

It's my n=1 personal experience, so I am biased. But despite, study after study after study after study show negative effects of high-fat diets, for example exaggerating serotonin, altering circadian rhythm, changing gut flora, etc., however, this effect is most always migitated by increased fiber intake. This makes sense to me as in nature you'll always find the fats in combination with fiber, even animal products if you include tendons etc. I also think that SCFA produced by our intestinal flora is an important source.

I have found that high fat worked for inuit thanks to the omega3, so a high fat diet would be the case when it is needed, but no fish oil for a normal diet!
No diet is perfect, and I admire humans for having found ways to mitigate the defects of their local diet that they HAD to eat, because they had no plane to bring coconut oil to them!