Low/No Fat Diet Without Weight Loss

Inspired

Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
104
My thought is that fasting increases cortisol, and if cortisol is behind belly fat, then I'd be doing myself a disservice by fasting. Besides I've tried that too. I get insane hunger pangs (I'm assuming because I've been eating sugar for 18 months, my body is craving it).

Also, Peat has mentioned that sugar burning brings about autophagy (the main reason for fasting), but in a safe manner. Correct me if I'm wrong. I don't like attributing something to Peat if I'm inaccurate in any way.
Sugar isn't working for you now. Something isn't right. One way to find out....is to fast. Do some intermittent fasting. The first day or so, you have to ignore the sugar cravings. They'll go away.
 
OP
iPeat

iPeat

Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2018
Messages
222
Sugar isn't working for you now. Something isn't right. One way to find out....is to fast. Do some intermittent fasting. The first day or so, you have to ignore the sugar cravings. They'll go away.

I agree that something isn't right. That's the reason for my main question. If someone is eating zero fat/high sugar/high protein, what could be the possible mechanisms behind continual weight gain, if de novo liponeogensis is supposed to be insignificant?

I agree with Cirion that PUFA-release is a top contender, even though I had hoped that most of my stored PUFA would be gone by now.
 

Cirion

Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
3,731
Location
St. Louis, Missouri
It's not just PUFA either. In fact, ALL body fat is inflammation promoting, even MUFA and even SFA. Why? Because many toxins (pesticides, heavy metals, estrogens, and more) are lipophilic (aka, they are attracted to fat and end up being stored in your body fat). While these toxins are stored in your body fat they are inert, but once your body fat is mobilized, all of this comes out in full force. You can get hit with a double whammy -- PUFA release AND toxin release, a perfect storm for feeling absolutely horrendous. So I definitely acknowledge that being fat is harmful. But at some point you get so fat that you're basically screwed (like me) because at this point, the only way to recover is to expose yourself to basically lethal doses of PUFA and toxins from your body fat (it sure feels lethal sometimes)
 

Dino D

Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2017
Messages
365
I agree that something isn't right. That's the reason for my main question. If someone is eating zero fat/high sugar/high protein, what could be the possible mechanisms behind continual weight gain, if de novo liponeogensis is supposed to be insignificant?

I agree with Cirion that PUFA-release is a top contender, even though I had hoped that most of my stored PUFA would be gone by now.
Is the machanisim of raising insulin to often (it comes from low carb and keto theories) trully and exclusively false? So insulin up, carbs get stored as fat in the moment when your sugar stores are full... also the more often you ,,use insulin" you get resistance and gain fat more easy...
I bet you know this theory, everyone who was keto and low carb know that... and here we are on this forum where this theory or mechanism is not accepted at all... like 0%, jus sip your sugar all they long, lean back, and get ripped
 

Ron J

Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2016
Messages
746
@iPeat
It could be the empty calories. I did gain some weight with zero fat and a significant portion being empty calories(I was supplementing b vitamins to compensate). I think at first I was maintaining or even lost some weight, but the empty calories must have created a deficiency.
 

Cirion

Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
3,731
Location
St. Louis, Missouri
Carbs are not stored as body fat. Not really. The studies show that what does/can happen though is the insulin spikes can and do cause ingested dietary fat to be shuttled to body fat. This is why mixing fats and carbs can be problematic. Out of the three macronutrients, dietary fat is the most readily stored, which makes sense. Thus, this is what leads one to believe that eating zero fat can make you lose body fat. I did feel better on zero fat in many ways, but my weight didn't budge (either down or up) in the long run. The reason why one can eat keto (300+ gram of fat) and not store the fat I presume is due to lack of insulin spikes.
 

Dino D

Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2017
Messages
365
Carbs are not stored as body fat. Not really. The studies show that what does/can happen though is the insulin spikes can and do cause ingested dietary fat to be shuttled to body fat. This is why mixing fats and carbs can be problematic. Out of the three macronutrients, dietary fat is the most readily stored, which makes sense. Thus, this is what leads one to believe that eating zero fat can make you lose body fat. I did feel better on zero fat in many ways, but my weight didn't budge (either down or up) in the long run.
This cant be true... sooo many people lose weight by limiting carbs, and so many do gain weight with increasing carbs... i personaly do also...
This just cant be true, its like the whole world and every know sportist and every person that i know is wrong, and every observation made by me and from 100 of personal trainers known to me is wrong, and just some study should be THE TRUTH...
Eating to much energy (sugar) much more then you burn, must cause weight gain... if you burn 3-4000 calories and eat 10.000 calories of sugar, that sugar must be stored as fat... (part of it will be burned, part of it lost and part of it stored)...
To much sugar (starch or pure sugar) will make 98,9 % of people fat...
 

Cirion

Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
3,731
Location
St. Louis, Missouri
This cant be true... sooo many people lose weight by limiting carbs, and so many do gain weight with increasing carbs... i personaly do also...
This just cant be true, its like the whole world and every know sportist and every person that i know is wrong, and every observation made by me and from 100 of personal trainers known to me is wrong, and just some study should be THE TRUTH...
Eating to much energy (sugar) much more then you burn, must cause weight gain... if you burn 3-4000 calories and eat 10.000 calories of sugar, that sugar must be stored as fat... (part of it will be burned, part of it lost and part of it stored)...
To much sugar (starch or pure sugar) will make 98,9 % of people fat...

People lose weight from limiting carbs because they're eating too much fat with the carbs. Like I said, see my example on Keto and eating 300 gram of fat and yet not getting fat (I used to eat 350 gram of fat a day and maintain my weight bc I ate zero carb).

It is literally impossible to gain fat from carbs alone if carbs are 500g or less (Studies show this). De novo lipogenesis doesn't even occur until the 500-600 gram mark. But, if one is still eating 10 gram of dietary fat, and there is an excess of carbs in the diet, those 10 grams of fat will be immediately stored. The only way to avoid dietary fat being stored is to somehow eat a truly zero fat diet (Almost impossible outside of a laboratory environment). Even "zero fat foods" add up to around 5-15 gram total fat a day, since every thing has trace amounts of fat in it, even fruit. I'm not saying you can't store fat from DNL, but its unlikely, and the rate of storage is low compared to straight up dietary fat. You probably gain more bodyfat from the small 10-15 gram of fat than you do from a small amount of DNL. Of course if you eat 10,000 calories of carbs you will get fat, that's just an extreme example, no one does this in reality.
 

Light

Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2018
Messages
304
I'm just curious if anyone knows what the implications are of the situation where someone eats almost no fat, yet doesn't lose weight while in an overweight condition. Temps and pulse are ok with thyroid supplementation.

Diet consisting of mostly:
Strained, fat free yogurt
Jelly/jam
Milk (fat free)
Fruit juices
White sugar
Honey
Maple syrup
Candy
Occasional potatoes
Daily carrots
Coffee
Occasional Coca-Cola

Everything organic or as clean as possible.

And supplementation talked about a lot on this forum (as clean as I can find them)

Cronometer tags me around 2,500 calories. I'm 6 foot, 206 pounds. Gained a lot weight on a Peat-inspired diet over the course of 18 months only in my midsection and slight gynecomastia. I came from a Keto diet and great physical appearance (felt like crap).

Peat mentioned on a KMUD that some researcher/doctor (forget which) went on a zero fat diet and his weight stabilized much lower than when he started.

What does it mean when the weight loss doesn't happen, and in fact goes in the opposite direction or stays put?
I have just finished 6 weeks of very very low fat, on foods similar to what you've been eating, and also didn't really lose weight.
After 6 weeks of keto I was losing several inches every week.

I'm not recommending keto, it caused a lot of problems, but it is the only thing that made me thin...

I'm following this thread, if you do make progress please share it.

Edit - Btw @ecstatichamster has a thread about seperating carbs and fat:
I'm Trying Separate Meals - Carbs Or Fat Not Both
It might offer some insight
 

RobertJM

Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2017
Messages
413
I just nees to respod... water weigt is not a problem... yea you can bloat a bit, or a bit more... but its mostly fat people who try to comfort them selfs... there is no mistake in what fat is, grab your belly and if there is a soft tushue it is fat... if someone is fat and if he would lose all of the waterweight he still would be fat... if someone is lean and would bloat up, he would be a bit watery, lower weins, bloated, but not fat...
The wors thing is when youre fat and bloated, then you look superfat but youre just fat and you comfort your self that all of that is water... this response is not personaly 4U, but i dont like the argumet about water weight in a context where simeone is trully fat and then concludea that it is mostly water...

Its definitely fat. I’m in the same boat. 6ft, with this thick tyre around my mid section, weighing in at a mighty 210 ibs (whereas, previously, all of my life prior to Peat I weighed 170ibs). When i temporarily go low carb, my belly evens out slightly, but the pad of fat is still there and so far, nothing I have tried has made a dent at shifting it.

For me, over the past few years, the weight gain has been down to eating too much dietary fat (easily done on this approach to eating because fructose just doesn’t suffice for satiation, no matter how much you eat it), but also down to just eating too much fructose in general (which is directly shunted to the liver and fat production can increase further). And especially these things in combination, and along with high calories, because some of us on the forum unfortunately bought into this concept of ‘re-feeding’, and now we seem to be stuck with this added fat on our bodies.

One day I will work out this belly fat thing. I just don’t think I can make improvements in my health at all until, physically, I am in better shape to start building from a decent platform.

I was thinking this as well, so I've been keeping a close eye on my pulse/temps and thyroid supplement levels. It has been erratic. There was actually a day where I thought I was going to pass out and got heavy anxiety. My pulse was 60 despite me taking mostly t3 supplements (I do take some t4 - learned that lesson).

I've also been taking TocoVit daily to mitigate this. Still hasn't helped. I must have a serious amount of PUFA in me if this is the case.

Well I’m six years PUFA depleted and the new formula of tovovit also has zero results for me (well, since the formula changed from the old one). The old formula used to heat me up significantly. I personally have doubts about what the new formulation does exactly.

It's not just PUFA either. In fact, ALL body fat is inflammation promoting, even MUFA and even SFA. Why? Because many toxins (pesticides, heavy metals, estrogens, and more) are lipophilic (aka, they are attracted to fat and end up being stored in your body fat). While these toxins are stored in your body fat they are inert, but once your body fat is mobilized, all of this comes out in full force. You can get hit with a double whammy -- PUFA release AND toxin release, a perfect storm for feeling absolutely horrendous. So I definitely acknowledge that being fat is harmful. But at some point you get so fat that you're basically screwed (like me) because at this point, the only way to recover is to expose yourself to basically lethal doses of PUFA and toxins from your body fat (it sure feels lethal sometimes)

How heavy are you? Yeah totally agree with all of that. And when you go through this detox phase, you can hammer your liver and kidneys if you’re not careful. Be careful guys.
You don’t want to end up like me with proteinuria (the degenerative start of my declining kidney health). Once your kidneys are fully gone, you are pretty much done. It’s game over. Experts don’t know what has caused my proteinuria but I’m convinced that years of PUFA depleting and the tissue toxicity released into my blood stream has taken its toll.
 

redsun

Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2018
Messages
3,013
Sugar isn't working for you now. Something isn't right. One way to find out....is to fast. Do some intermittent fasting. The first day or so, you have to ignore the sugar cravings. They'll go away.

Enough of this IF nonsense. Its insane how quickly IF is pervading this forum. IF works for weight loss, everyone knows that. Why? Because it is starvation. I am 100% proof that IF works for weight loss. I did it for 2 years, Was lean very low bodyweight but felt like trash most of the time until after I finally ate at the end of the day. Didnt even manage to get a six pack on it. You cant get a six pack if you dont have the energy to work the abs, obviously. Consistently high FFAs throughout the day which were likely mostly PUFA, depleted glycogen. Thats no ******* way to live. Naturally as soon as I stopped IF, I gained weight, and the good kind of weight. I didnt actually get fat, but I got really muscular. I was a good weight on IF but my body shape was soft. Going back to eating normally which included starch and sugar hardened my body and muscle tissue and I got built like crazy at only age 19. Could not build enough muscle and a masculine shape on keto IF or regular IF with carbs(the carbs one was obviously better). Not too mention at such a young age I had poor energy for obvious reasons. Someone who is young should tons of energy, not the opposite which IF causes. This is even worse the older you are.

"Something isn't right." Really... sherlock holmes everyone. So whenever "something isn't right" just IF aka starve intermittently. The solution is pretty clear to me and it has nothing to do with IF.

@iPeat your diet is mostly empty calories from sugar. This is bad and unsustainable, That's part of the reason why you aren't seeing progress. Dropping empty sugar and relying on nutritious fruits which are mostly tropical fruits like banana, orange, kiwi, etc for sugars would do you much good. Potatoes are much more nutritious then fruits, you may do better with more potatoes. Your only source of protein seems to be yogurt and milk. In reality, very few people do well relying on dairy for protein and nutrients. You are likely not one of them. Starting to bring some meat and eggs for protein will likely serve you better. You don't need zero fat to lose weight.

Your insanely high fructose consumption is also contributing to your inability to lose weight. Your liver can only handle so much fructose, despite the pro-fructose stance here, unlimited fructose does you no good as fructose easily gets converted to fat when the liver glycogen is full. Not too mention more fructose means more choline to deal with it, which you clearly are not getting seeing as you dont eat any eggs or liver. Sugar without choline is a nice way to fatten up the liver, especially when eaten beyond the liver's glycogen capacity on a constant, day to day basis.

I wouldnt get scared of fat that much. Many lose weight with fat and fat helps satiation. Relying on empty sugar makes one eat much more then they would eat normally. Nutrient dense foods reduce calorie consumption because they properly feed the body.
 
Last edited:

Dino D

Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2017
Messages
365
People lose weight from limiting carbs because they're eating too much fat with the carbs. Like I said, see my example on Keto and eating 300 gram of fat and yet not getting fat (I used to eat 350 gram of fat a day and maintain my weight bc I ate zero carb).

It is literally impossible to gain fat from carbs alone if carbs are 500g or less (Studies show this). De novo lipogenesis doesn't even occur until the 500-600 gram mark. But, if one is still eating 10 gram of dietary fat, and there is an excess of carbs in the diet, those 10 grams of fat will be immediately stored. The only way to avoid dietary fat being stored is to somehow eat a truly zero fat diet (Almost impossible outside of a laboratory environment). Even "zero fat foods" add up to around 5-15 gram total fat a day, since every thing has trace amounts of fat in it, even fruit. I'm not saying you can't store fat from DNL, but its unlikely, and the rate of storage is low compared to straight up dietary fat. You probably gain more bodyfat from the small 10-15 gram of fat than you do from a small amount of DNL. Of course if you eat 10,000 calories of carbs you will get fat, that's just an extreme example, no one does this in reality.
Then people eating low or 0 fat should lose weight... you dont, ipeat does not, i do not, other on this topic also dont...
Because its not true... to much sugar and to much energy with to many insulin spikes and you get fat...

Balance protein, fat and carbs, eat carbs twice or once a day, (max 3 times),,, dont go to high cal and there you go=slow steady and healthy weight loss
 

redsun

Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2018
Messages
3,013
Then people eating low or 0 fat should lose weight... you dont, ipeat does not, i do not, other on this topic also dont...
Because its not true... to much sugar and to much energy with to many insulin spikes and you get fat...

Balance protein, fat and carbs, eat carbs twice or once a day, (max 3 times),,, dont go to high cal and there you go=slow steady and healthy weight loss

If the carbs were mostly glucose in the form of starch you would lose weight. Problem is the fructose itself is still like eating fat because it gets easily converted to fat beyond a certain point, especially when the tissues are saturated with glycogen. Glucose does not have this same effect.
 

Cirion

Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
3,731
Location
St. Louis, Missouri
Again, with less than 500 gram a day it's literally impossible to gain fat on high carb without dietary fat at least. But the caveat is 500 gram. Yes, if you eat more than 500 gram it could cause fat gain, or at the very least trigger de novo lipogenesis. No one here eats a truly zero fat diet. Even skim milk has trace fats. Again, you can store just the 10 grams of fat you're eating incidentally on a "zero fat diet". I've eaten way more than 500 gram of carbs in a day, so of course DNL gets triggered then. So yes, if you eat 600,700...1000+ gram of carb yes it can trigger DNL and yes it can trigger fat gain without fat, that's not what I'm referring to. I'm referring to < 500 gram intakes.

If the carbs were mostly glucose in the form of starch you would lose weight. Problem is the fructose itself is still like eating fat because it gets easily converted to fat beyond a certain point, especially when the tissues are saturated with glycogen. Glucose does not have this same effect.

I wonder if someone has done a study examining the effects of DNL from fructose compared to pure glucose and finally compared to a mix of fructose/glucose (aka sugar)? the 500 gram amount I like to quote, it's unclear how that compares to different partitioning of glucose/fructose.

The benefit of fructose is it has a lower insulin effect. Insulin is the driver for body fat gain from the dietary fat in your diet. A pure glucose spikes insulin a lot, which would shuttle almost all the dietary fat you intake into body fat. But then, fructose has a drawback because it (may) trigger more DNL. So it's unclear whether fructose or glucose are better in the long run.
 
Last edited:

redsun

Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2018
Messages
3,013
Again, with less than 500 gram a day it's literally impossible to gain fat on high carb without dietary fat at least. But the caveat is 500 gram. Yes, if you eat more than 500 gram it could cause fat gain, or at the very least trigger de novo lipogenesis. No one here eats a truly zero fat diet. Even skim milk has trace fats. Again, you can store just the 10 grams of fat you're eating incidentally on a "zero fat diet". I've eaten way more than 500 gram of carbs in a day, so of course DNL gets triggered then. So yes, if you eat 600,700...1000+ gram of carb yes it can trigger DNL and yes it can trigger fat gain without fat, that's not what I'm referring to. I'm referring to < 500 gram intakes.



I wonder if someone has done a study examining the effects of DNL from fructose compared to pure glucose and finally compared to a mix of fructose/glucose (aka sugar)? the 500 gram amount I like to quote, it's unclear how that compares to different partitioning of glucose/fructose.

The benefit of fructose is it has a lower insulin effect. Insulin is the driver for body fat gain from the dietary fat in your diet. A pure glucose spikes insulin a lot, which would shuttle almost all the dietary fat you intake into body fat. But then, fructose has a drawback because it (may) trigger more DNL. So it's unclear whether fructose or glucose are better in the long run.

Chris Masterjohns post "The Truth About Liver and Egg Yolks" somewhat shows us that glucose as primary carbs is like the best source of fuel that minimizes liver fat compared to sucrose or increased fructose. Sucrose increased fat in the liver more then starch in a methionine and choline deficient diet. Its not a far stretch to say that this is just showcasing us how sucrose is dealt with in the body compared to starch(glucose). Fructose has to go to the liver first. Glucose does not. The resources the liver has, its glycogen capacity, and how well it functions determines how it deals with what food its given.

Sucrose causes more fatty liver because of fructose. Starch doesnt as much because it doesnt have fructose. We can probably infer that in a diet that is not purposefully deficient in choline and methionine, in other words, and balanced diet, sucrose would still fatten up the liver more the starch. The fructose is clearly turning into fat in the rat's liver, meaning more DNL from sucrose. Doesnt get much clearer then that.

High insulin doesnt necessarily inhibit fat loss.

"Carbohydrates are needed to support thyroid function, increase thyroid hormone conversion, keep glycogen stores full, stimulate glucose oxidation and speed up the metabolic rate, keep lipolysis under control, keep cortisol and adrenaline low, increase ATP and CO2 production, increase thermogenesis, glutathione synthesis, etc."

Hormones And Fat Loss
 

Cirion

Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
3,731
Location
St. Louis, Missouri
Chris Masterjohns post "The Truth About Liver and Egg Yolks" somewhat shows us that glucose as primary carbs is like the best source of fuel that minimizes liver fat compared to sucrose or increased fructose. Sucrose increased fat in the liver more then starch in a methionine and choline deficient diet. Its not a far stretch to say that this is just showcasing us how sucrose is dealt with in the body compared to starch(glucose). Fructose has to go to the liver first. Glucose does not. The resources the liver has, its glycogen capacity, and how well it functions determines how it deals with what food its given.

Sucrose causes more fatty liver because of fructose. Starch doesnt as much because it doesnt have fructose. We can probably infer that in a diet that is not purposefully deficient in choline and methionine, in other words, and balanced diet, sucrose would still fatten up the liver more the starch. The fructose is clearly turning into fat in the rat's liver, meaning more DNL from sucrose. Doesnt get much clearer then that.

High insulin doesnt necessarily inhibit fat loss.

"Carbohydrates are needed to support thyroid function, increase thyroid hormone conversion, keep glycogen stores full, stimulate glucose oxidation and speed up the metabolic rate, keep lipolysis under control, keep cortisol and adrenaline low, increase ATP and CO2 production, increase thermogenesis, glutathione synthesis, etc."

Hormones And Fat Loss

If I have time this evening, I will read up in more detail the 500g DNL paper and see what partition of the carbs were glucose vs. fructose, as I'm not sure the type of carbs used.

Also there's a paper I want to examine in greater detail which Chris Walker used to claim that fructose does not cause fatty liver as long as choline is enough (1-2 gram a day) but yes absolutely, fructose can and does cause fatty liver when choline is not enough. I don't know that you can extrapolate that it also causes more fatty liver in the case of sufficient choline, the fact is if you're exporting it faster than it stores it, then it won't.. Chris is adamant that fructose under the right conditions does NOT cause fatty liver, he spends a good several pages talking about it. He does have quite a lot of research papers for me to go through when I get some free time (his whole ebook has 355 references... that's kind of overwhelming lol)
 

redsun

Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2018
Messages
3,013
If I have time this evening, I will read up in more detail the 500g DNL paper and see what partition of the carbs were glucose vs. fructose, as I'm not sure the type of carbs used.

Also there's a paper I want to examine in greater detail which Chris Walker used to claim that fructose does not cause fatty liver as long as choline is enough (1-2 gram a day) but yes absolutely, fructose can and does cause fatty liver when choline is not enough. I don't know that you can extrapolate that it also causes more fatty liver in the case of sufficient choline, the fact is if you're exporting it faster than it stores it, then it won't.. Chris is adamant that fructose under the right conditions does NOT cause fatty liver, he spends a good several pages talking about it. He does have quite a lot of research papers for me to go through when I get some free time (his whole ebook has 355 references... that's kind of overwhelming lol)

"Balanced diet" isnt necessarily 1-2g choline a day. That would be the RDA which is 550mg. I dont doubt that enough choline can reduce fat accumulation from fructose, but most dont get near that much and likely wont ever get that much. I wouldnt necessarily call it a good thing... needing high doses of choline to prevent fatty liver from fructose. Choline can be put the better uses in the body besides being taxis to the high influx of fructose. But that's just my opinion.
 
OP
iPeat

iPeat

Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2018
Messages
222
If the carbs were mostly glucose in the form of starch you would lose weight. Problem is the fructose itself is still like eating fat because it gets easily converted to fat beyond a certain point, especially when the tissues are saturated with glycogen. Glucose does not have this same effect.


Didn't think of the fructose thing. I may try to lower that and see what happens. I am consuming a lot of fructose.

I actually just did the potato hack about a month ago. I did it for 2 weeks and lost 8 pounds. I just couldn't keep it up and gained everything back, to the pound, in 2 days of eating "normal."
 

Cirion

Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
3,731
Location
St. Louis, Missouri
"Balanced diet" isnt necessarily 1-2g choline a day. That would be the RDA which is 550mg. I dont doubt that enough choline can reduce fat accumulation from fructose, but most dont get near that much and likely wont ever get that much. I wouldnt necessarily call it a good thing... needing high doses of choline to prevent fatty liver from fructose. Choline can be put the better uses in the body besides being taxis to the high influx of fructose. But that's just my opinion.

Fair enough, but once your liver is fatty even in a "balanced diet" you'd still need large dosages of choline to recover from a fatty liver regardless. I don't think I can recover from all my issues without going above and beyond the call of duty at this point. I think his argument for high fructose intake is primarily that when fructose is exported from the liver it makes cholesterol, which promotes higher androgens, and his way of eating is all about maximizing androgens.
 

redsun

Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2018
Messages
3,013
Fair enough, but once your liver is fatty even in a "balanced diet" you'd still need large dosages of choline to recover from a fatty liver regardless. I don't think I can recover from all my issues without going above and beyond the call of duty at this point. I think his argument for high fructose intake is primarily that when fructose is exported from the liver it makes cholesterol, which promotes higher androgens, and his way of eating is all about maximizing androgens.

I am not saying that you shouldnt have high choline intake or that its not needed, everyone should. 1g a day is a good start, and 2g even better I'm sure. But would 2g of choline not serve to lean out the liver, improve brain function, build necessary phospholipids, increase acetylcholine production, lower homocysteine(through methylation cycle), if the burden of fructose was lower? Probably.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom