Meat+OJ+Fasting——I Challenge Anyone Not Feeling Optimal On This

[ecstatichamster]

I am enthusiastically supportive of attacking lifestyle choices, including IF.

I haven’t heard Ray Peat discuss differences between different intervals of fasting. Presumably the concerns he raises about 24 hr + fasting, where glycogen store are probably depleted, do not apply to 16hr fasts.

I’m pretty sure having a high proportion of lean mass to body fat correlates with longevity, but I don’t feel like looking it up. There’s no way a BMI of 25-30 is optimal, especially for men. Where does Ray Peat say that? He certainly isn’t that fat.

Here’s a 2012 rodent study that compared an ad libitum high fat diet and a time restricted eating high fat diet, where the time restricted group did way better than the ad lib group. Both groups ate the same amount of calories yet only the fasting mice avoided obesity and disease.

Time restricted feeding without reducing caloric intake prevents metabolic diseases in mice fed a high fat diet

Summary:
While diet-induced obesity has been exclusively attributed to increased caloric intake from fat, animals fed high fat diet (HFD) ad libitum (ad lib) eat frequently throughout day and night disrupting the normal feeding cycle. To test whether obesity and metabolic diseases result from HFD or disruption of metabolic cycles, we subjected mice to either ad lib or time restricted feeding (tRF) of a HFD for 8 h/day. Mice under tRF consume equivalent calories from HFD as those with ad libaccess, yet are protected against obesity, hyperinsulinemia, hepatic steatosis, inflammation, and have improved motor coordination. The tRF regimen improved CREB, mTOR and AMPK pathway function and oscillations of the circadian clock and their target genes' expression. These changes in catabolic and anabolic pathways altered liver metabolome, improved nutrient utilization and energy expenditure. We demonstrate in mice that tRF regimen is a non-pharmacological strategy against obesity and associated diseases.

"Biggest Loser" Fitness Guru (age 51) Suffers Serious Heart Attack

 

[CDT]

Source of this claim?

Herbert. M Shelton, Food Combining Made Easy:

There ya go

 

[LLight]

"Biggest Loser" Fitness Guru (age 51) Suffers Serious Heart Attack

The issue is that if you take two persons that eat a trash diet and do not restrict their calories, one being slim and the other being fatter, there is a chance that the fat one is healthier than the slim. The reasoning is that the slim one may have already reached his maximal adipose tissue fat accumulation. Not necessarily the case for the fat one. Thus, the slim person may have more fat in his internal organs and may be more insulin resistant.

But that doesn't mean that the fat person could not get healthier if he lost weight.

 

[ecstatichamster]

The issue is that if you take two persons that eat a trash diet and do not restrict their calories, one being slim and the other being fatter, there is a chance that the fat one is healthier than the slim. The reasoning is that the slim one may have already reached his maximal adipose tissue fat accumulation. Not necessarily the case for the fat one. Thus, the slim person may have more fat in his internal organs and may be more insulin resistant.

But that doesn't mean that the fat person could not get healthier if he lost weight.

did you read Dr. Peat’s quote? Doesn’t seem like it.

 

[LLight]

did you read Dr. Peat’s quote? Doesn’t seem like it.

There are multiple quotes in this discussion.

I'm refering to this one:
"Ray: I think it varies according to gender and age. For example, young women who are overweight have better outcome of breast cancer (a lower incidence of breast cancer) than those who are underweight."

I'm telling you that it's hard to interpret epidemiology on obesity because of the personal fat threshold (Normal weight individuals who develop type 2 diabetes: the personal fat threshold. - PubMed - NCBI).

Insulin resistance is associated with cancer.

But please enlighten me on what I've missed.

 

[Collden]

Previous "Longevity Experts" don't have a great track record. Bernarr MacFadden, a staunch advocate of fasting, died at 87.

You don't think living to 87 for a person born when the average life expectancy was 40 is quite good?

Walter Breuning, one of the oldest men who ever lived, practiced IF for several decades in the last part of his life.

Couple of other examples of people who are now about 60 years old and in remarkably vibrant health would be Henry Rollins and Wim Hof - both have stated that they only eat one meal a day.

I suppose discussions on IF keep coming back to the table because people keep realizing that constantly being in a fed state is not giving them the results they want.

 

[ExCarniv]

I suppose discussions on IF keep coming back to the table because people keep realizing that constantly being in a fed state is not giving them the results they want

If Fasting keeps you away from eating ***t, of course you'll feel better.

If you eat the right foods for you, to support your metabolism, you can easily eat constantly and feel well.

If you woke up, feel cold and doesn't have hungry, I think probably your thyroid is not working properly and extending that state is not good long-term.

 

[tankasnowgod]

You don't think living to 87 for a person born when the average life expectancy was 40 is quite good?

The life expectancy wasn't 40 at that time. It was much closer to 76. And Macfadden was aiming for 150. It didn't work. I am a huge fan of Macfadden, but some of what he promoted was flawed, some outright wrong.

EDIT- Fasting was not the only thing that MacFadden was an advocate of. He never smoked or drank alcohol. He stood firmly against allopathic medicine. He advocated walking as the best form of exercise. He was an early proponent of weight lifting and bodybuilding. He thought milk was a perfect food, and even advocated an all milk diet for some conditions. He also stood against prudishness and corsets.

Walter Breuning, one of the oldest men who ever lived, practiced IF for several decades in the last part of his life.

Couple of other examples of people who are now about 60 years old and in remarkably vibrant health would be Henry Rollins and Wim Hof - both have stated that they only eat one meal a day.

I suppose discussions on IF keep coming back to the table because people keep realizing that constantly being in a fed state is not giving them the results they want.

So what? Longevity Expert Julia Child lived to be 93, and never practiced IF. She just had a passion for great food. I also don't remember 93 year old Longevity Expert Linus Pauling or 92 year old Longevity Expert Abram Hoffer promoting IF, either. Same with 93+ year old Longevity Expert E.D. Weinberg, who instead, simply keeps iron near deficiency.

There just isn't any proof that IF extends lifespan in any significant way. And any solid proof would only come several decades in the future, even if a well designed experiment were to start today.

 

[Collden]

I don't think IF or regular meal skipping extends life span but there's plenty of anecdotal evidence that it is compatible with good health even into old age, it will not necessarily wreck your metabolism or cause premature aging. Trying to force yourself into a meal pattern that does not feel natural is probably more stressful than skipping a meal.

Another example would be the oldest woman in the world Jeanne Calment, according to some sources she did not eat breakfast, according to others she had just cafe au lait with a biscuit.

 

[ecstatichamster]

Methionine deficiency extends life as much as IFing has been shown to.

Also reducing endotoxins seems to extend life a great deal. Germ free mice live longer, I believe.

 

[ExCarniv]

Methionine deficiency extends life as much as IFing has been shown to.

Also reducing endotoxins seems to extend life a great deal. Germ free mice live longer, I believe.

In rats.

 

[ecstatichamster]

There are multiple quotes in this discussion.

I'm refering to this one:
"Ray: I think it varies according to gender and age. For example, young women who are overweight have better outcome of breast cancer (a lower incidence of breast cancer) than those who are underweight."

I'm telling you that it's hard to interpret epidemiology on obesity because of the personal fat threshold (Normal weight individuals who develop type 2 diabetes: the personal fat threshold. - PubMed - NCBI).

Insulin resistance is associated with cancer.

But please enlighten me on what I've missed.

Dr. Peat says a healthy fat level is probably much higher than most people think, especially as we get older. BMI of up to 30 is mentioned as being highly protective. That is my experience as well.

I would say the CAUSES of fat are the CAUSES of diabetes, PUFAs, iron and endotoxins. The fat itself is not a cause of real problems for people. The underlying issues are a huge problem, the issues that cause the fat coincidentally with everything else (type 2 diabetes, auto immune problems, CVD, etc.)

 

[LLight]

Dr. Peat says a healthy fat level is probably much higher than most people think, especially as we get older. BMI of up to 30 is mentioned as being highly protective. That is my experience as well.

Anorexic or dangerously thin people put aside, based on what?

Epidemiology probably can't answer such question. As I mentioned previously, you probably (the personal fat threshold is a theory) can't compare people because a fixed quantity of body fat has not the same consequences on health for everybody.

From another thread you made, I understand that you are trying to lose weight via calorie reduction. What's the purpose of that since having a BMI near 30 is protective (unless your BMI is over 30)?

What's the experience that you mentioned?
I can talk about the case of my grandfather who has been thin all his life, who is past 90 now, and who has gained weight in the mid section recently while his health has been deteriorating rather quickly. Examples can't prove a thing.

I would say the CAUSES of fat are the CAUSES of diabetes, PUFAs, iron and endotoxins. The fat itself is not a cause of real problems for people. The underlying issues are a huge problem, the issues that cause the fat coincidentally with everything else (type 2 diabetes, auto immune problems, CVD, etc.)

So if someone is loosing weight, woulnd't that mean that the causes you mention become less problematic? Would the body, being still subject to such insults, ready to let fat go and reduce one's appetite? I would think that in such situation the body would reduce its metabolism and increase appetite in order to be able to keep its fat reserves. What do you think about it?

 

[LLight]

Methionine deficiency extends life as much as IFing has been shown to.

Also reducing endotoxins seems to extend life a great deal. Germ free mice live longer, I believe.

Is the Ray peat diet as practiced here (potentially lots of dairy) really low in methionine? Why not both combined?

If intermittent fasting allows to reduce endotoxins, it's a good thing. Is the Ray peat diet really suppressing all causes of endotoxins? I mean, if sick people who do not find health with the diet (you can find some on the forum I think), they should not try a way that can help reducing endotoxins?

 

[ecstatichamster]

Most studies find people who are a bit heavier live longer. Nobody has refuted the so called obesity paradox.

I want to lose a bit of fat for esthetic reasons. Nothing more. I don’t think I’ll be healthier. I think losing fat can be unhealthy and I’m being careful.

I did think I’d do calorie reduction but I never really followed through on it. I don’t measure calorie intake at all.

IFing is a bad idea because it releases free fatty acids and results in high cortisol. Nothing anyone has said has implied otherwise because the data is very clear. Anyone with stored PUFA fats is in danger because they are re liberating stored PUFA free fatty acids that are very destructive to sensitive tissues and lower metabolic rate.

Just because you are younger and can do IFing for awhile doesn’t prove that it is a good idea.

I already shared my experiences doing it. I was in my 40s at the time and it did me no favors. It didn’t let me lose any weight at all and I was hungry during the day. I do think it reduces endotoxins and that is a good thing. But it doesn’t balance out the destructive aspects noted above.

Peat recommends low/no starch especially in the winter time. He is gearing his work to people as they are, often hypothyoid. Low/no starch minimizes endotoxins, as does consuming only well cooked vegetables, along with the carrot salad or bamboo shoots or cooked mushrooms.

These have helped me a lot and I am still working on it all but I am healthier than anyone around me and doing quite well I would say. That’s just +1 but it’s a data point that interests me the most, LOL.

 

[LLight]

Most studies find people who are a bit heavier live longer. Nobody has refuted the so called obesity paradox.

I want to lose a bit of fat for esthetic reasons. Nothing more. I don’t think I’ll be healthier. I think losing fat can be unhealthy and I’m being careful.

I did think I’d do calorie reduction but I never really followed through on it. I don’t measure calorie intake at all.

IFing is a bad idea because it releases free fatty acids and results in high cortisol. Nothing anyone has said has implied otherwise because the data is very clear. Anyone with stored PUFA fats is in danger because they are re liberating stored PUFA free fatty acids that are very destructive to sensitive tissues and lower metabolic rate.

Just because you are younger and can do IFing for awhile doesn’t prove that it is a good idea.

I already shared my experiences doing it. I was in my 40s at the time and it did me no favors. It didn’t let me lose any weight at all and I was hungry during the day. I do think it reduces endotoxins and that is a good thing. But it doesn’t balance out the destructive aspects noted above.

Peat recommends low/no starch especially in the winter time. He is gearing his work to people as they are, often hypothyoid. Low/no starch minimizes endotoxins, as does consuming only well cooked vegetables, along with the carrot salad or bamboo shoots or cooked mushrooms.

These have helped me a lot and I am still working on it all but I am healthier than anyone around me and doing quite well I would say. That’s just +1 but it’s a data point that interests me the most, LOL.

I'll repeat myself a bit but I think you can't compare people between them, so "people who are a bit heavier live longer" has no implication regarding the effect of the variations of the weight of one person on his own health.

If you want to test the idea you seemed to imply previously (if I'm not mistaken), which is that it could be a "bad idea" to try to lose weight because it is protective, you would have to take a group of people and make them lose more or less weight (in a reasonable extent of course) and analyse the outcome on their health based on the weight variation.

"IFing is a bad idea because it releases free fatty acids and results in high cortisol"

I'm not very well versed on lipid metabolism during weight loss but why are you expecting something really different between calorie restriction and IF in that regard?

Aren't free fatty acids released when you're low on glucose, which is not necessarily happening with IF if you are eating enough glucose during the eating window? Also, if you're low on glucose, and thus if you're burning fat, aren't free fatty acids supposed to be used as a fuel and not so elevated after all?

You had a bad experience with IF (which could be explained by other reasons than just the fact you are doing it, like the macro composition you were eating, the amount of water you were drinking or whether you have genes that reduce your fasting ability) but if the OP has a good experience with IF, why should it be bad?

 

[ecstatichamster]

I've given my opinion and in other places, along with here, I've said why. Just look around on the site and you can find lots of people who had bad experiences IFing and Dr. Peat explains why.

If you are not getting enough glucose and dietary fat, then you will release FFAs. If your liver is fatty or you are hypothyroid, then that will happen very soon after not eating. It is happening for most of us when we wake up.

There are numerous studies showing cortisol has spiked at this point, and free fatty acids are released. IFing continues this and creates lasting damage.

If you are younger and healthy it is not a problem. I used an example of my buddy who was in the army. That isn't good for the body but it is tolerable for a young person in good shape. For an older person or someone not in such good shape, it is quite harmful. IFing is like that.

Dr. Peat explained in a recent interview how the livers of IFed animals (I think it was) were clean but the rest of the organism was in a bad way. This is what happens during IFing. It does have some benefit in reduced endotoxins but offsetting that is great damage from FFAs and high cortisol and gluconeogenesis.

FFAs are released as fuel during heavy or extended exercise, and during fasting. In general they are undesirable except as emergency fuel. If someone is healthy they can go to sleep, wake up and not be in a state where they are going on cortisol and FFAs, but most of us are not there and never will be.

 

[redsun]

.

 

[tankasnowgod]

In rats.

...which is no different than all the other longevity experiments.

 

[LLight]

@ecstatichamster

"I've given my opinion and in other places, along with here, I've said why. Just look around on the site and you can find lots of people who had bad experiences IFing and Dr. Peat explains why.

If you are not getting enough glucose and dietary fat, then you will release FFAs. If your liver is fatty or you are hypothyroid, then that will happen very soon after not eating. It is happening for most of us when we wake up."

Yes, I know there are bad experiences about IF (you can find other good experiences about it online), but I also know from browsing this forum that the peat diet also comes with its failures. Does it means that the Rpeat diet is bad in all situations or that all his ideas should be discarded? Nope it doesn't.

I think that one of the use of IF/TRF is to increase your metabolic flexibility. I think that the increase in FFA in the blood stream is an indicator that you can't burn the fat you should be burning or that you are releasing FFA while you don't have the ability to burn them (overfilled adipocytes?).

"There are numerous studies showing cortisol has spiked at this point, and free fatty acids are released. IFing continues this and creates lasting damage.

If you are younger and healthy it is not a problem. I used an example of my buddy who was in the army. That isn't good for the body but it is tolerable for a young person in good shape. For an older person or someone not in such good shape, it is quite harmful. IFing is like that.

Dr. Peat explained in a recent interview how the livers of IFed animals (I think it was) were clean but the rest of the organism was in a bad way. This is what happens during IFing. It does have some benefit in reduced endotoxins but offsetting that is great damage from FFAs and high cortisol and gluconeogenesis."

Mice studies are trash and you know it, they are fed with tons of PUFA. And humans enter ketosis much more easily than mice, that's not comparable.

FFA causing damages should be independent from whether you are doing IF, or better it might lower them because they should then be finally burned.

Cortisol with IF and low carb is a kind of a myth, cortisol production does not start before your blood glucose is very low. Bad studies have been done wrt keto diet where salt was probably not supplemented while it's notorious you need it, and a good part of keto diet studies do not go past the adaptation period. It's like saying that coffee increases cortisol in Ray Peat land.