RP Says Glucose Helps T4 To T3, Then Why Fructose?

yoshiesque

Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2014
Messages
367
I am reading this statement below i got from a site:

Did you know that your liver stores sugar (called glycogen), and that you NEED a steady flow of sugar to keep glycogen stores topped off? Without a healthy storage of glycogen, your liver won’t convert thyroid hormone T4 (inactive) to T3 (active form) — which FUELS your metabolism. As endocrinologist Ray Peat, PhD puts it “The liver provides about 70% of our active thyroid hormone, by converting thyroxine to T3, but it can provide this active hormone only when it has adequate glucose.” A waking temperature of less than 97.8 degrees is a sign that your metabolism is lacking (and that thyroid conversion isn’t happening like it should).


and it seems that glucose is the primary thing to help T4 convert to T3, which is my issue atm since i have low T3. But all my sugars are now coming from fruit or fruit juices - doesnt this mean im only gettin fructose?

How is fructose beneficial in this case? I thought its not the same as glucose
 

tara

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
10,368
Fruit and juice has both glucose and fructose, in varying proportions depending on the species and possibly the ripeness. Some are about 50:50, some are a bit more fructose (eg ripe pears and some apples, I think). I guess starchy fruit would be a bit more glucose. So you get lots of glucose from fruit. I think Peat has said fructose can be useful for providing energy without raising insulin so much, and even when there is inadequate insulin, fructose can still be used.
 

tara

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
10,368
Sucrose is a disaccharide that breaks down to half glucose half fuctose.
And milk sugar breaks down to about half glucose and half galactose.
 

Ben

Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2013
Messages
497
Geeze, this hasn't been answered yet? Fructose keeps glucose in the bloodstream and this inhibits cortisol, which is the primary inhibitor of T4-T3 conversion. Basic facts, people.
 

tara

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
10,368
Ben said:
Geeze, this hasn't been answered yet? ... Basic facts, people.
Basic courtesy would be nice.
 

Zachs

Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2014
Messages
593
Also, fructose primarily is stored in the liver where t3 is made. Glucose is primarily stored in muscle tissue.
 

haidut

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
19,798
Location
USA / Europe
Ben said:
Geeze, this hasn't been answered yet? Fructose keeps glucose in the bloodstream and this inhibits cortisol, which is the primary inhibitor of T4-T3 conversion. Basic facts, people.

So, assuming one keeps a steady dietary supply of sucrose (or some other type of sugar), wouldn't the constant presence of glucose in the blood stream keep insulin chronically elevated too? I have read various, and often contradictory, statements from Peat about the whole blood sugar and insulin thing. Often, he says that it is important to always keep blood glucose up to keep cortisol at bay and metabolism high. Of course, this means insulin would be elevated chronically too. On insulin, Ray sometimes says it is a good hormone responsible for anabolism and keeping tumor growth under control. At other times he has said that elevated insulin is not a good thing. So, I am bit confused about the overall dietary guidelines. Should we try to keep blood sugar elevated all the time but at a certain stable (and reasonable) level, which would imply higher (but stable insulin), or should we do pulse feeds which would temporarily bring insulin up to shuttle the glucose to the muscles and then insulin goes down and the body runs on glycogen from the liver?
I suspect a number of people on the forum struggle with this issue as evidenced by several posts of rapid weight gain, elevated blood glucose and insulin on blood tests and worried doctors making recommendations to cut down on sugar, blood pressure rising in people who did not have blood pressure issues before, etc. Some of these things could be beneficial, but there was a post by one person who said her blood pressure went from 120/80 to 150/90 after adopting the higher sugar diet and after some back and forth with her doctor she decided to quit the Peat diet. Then she reported her blood pressure normalizing after reducing sugar intake. Btw, it is well known in the bodybuilding community that cutting carbs works just like diuretics. I am not an advocate of this, but wouldn't people prone to edema and having thyroid problems get their water-retention problems exacerbated if they increase sugar/carbs intake? I guess that would happen at least initially and the theory is that as their metabolism normalizes they should be able to better utilize glucose and then lose all the excess water. So, the million dollar question is how long does one have to re-feed higher carbs diet (and suppress fatty acid oxidation through the Randle effect) until their insulin sensitivity is restored?
Finally, there have been a number of reports on Peatarian and occasionally on this forum of people experiencing proteinuria (protein in the urine) when increasing sugar intake above 200g daily. If you are eating 80g+ of protein then you probably strive to eat at least as many carbs. Peat has said that this proteinuria is due to people burning PUFA, which makes albumin leak in the urine and show up on the tests but as far as I can tell, these people were actually burning fat before adopting the higher sugar diet and only experienced proteinuria after increasing sugar intake. Of course, they could have had this issue all along and only realized it after switching and measuring their urine but there are several reports of this so I doubt it's a random thing. Somebody also posted a study on thousands of university employees and those who consumes the most sugary drinks reported the highest incidence of proteinuria.
It would be nice if we can get some guidelines on this. Personally, I use caffeine to increase the utilization of sugar and don't really have issues with it, but in theory there should be a way to handle sugar from diet without relying on sugar burning aids like caffeine and/or thyroid. Thyroid does not seem to be a good option for me, and I have tried all kinds of supplementing schedules and dosages. As I have posted on other threads, my experience with sugar only improved after I took serious measures to "normalize" my liver function through caffeine and vitamin K2, BUT my liver enzymes were NORMAL according to the standard lab ranges. If the stats are true and over 80% of people over 30 have some degree of fatty liver, which is the real cause behind type II diabetes, then I think many people adopting the Peat diet will likely experience stress reduction through the lower cortisol, but may end up making their fatty liver worse, especially is supplementing niacinamide and aspirin. Such_Saturation and I posted about this in another thread.
So, my main point is that burning sugar is definitely preferable to burning fat based on both Peat's writings and all the studies I have seen about liver disease being caused by increased lipid peroxidation byproducts, and cirrhosis (in alcoholic rats) being easily and succesfully treated by feeding about 60g-70g of saturated fat like butter or coconut oil for a week, while the rats kept drinking alcohol at the same time! So, on the point of burning sugar I think the question is settled that it is preferable to burning fat.
However, the point is to actually BURN the sugar rather than simply feeding ourselves more of it. For people with sluggish livers, many of whom also take niacinamide and aspirin, this is likely to make the metabolism situation worse by fattening the liver even more, even though admittedly the fat synthesized will be saturated since it is made from sugar. But fatty liver will increase your estrogen no matter how saturated the fat is that you are synthesizing. So, fattening up the liver even more probably won't do much good for metabolism. Another suggestion from Peat would be to increase protein intake to at least 80g a day which should support liver function, lower estrogen and increase conversion of T4 into T3. However, that will likely also not work very well in people with sluggish and fatty livers since underperforming liver will convert a lot of that extra protein into ammonia. Even Peat is clear on this point in one of his articles where he says that "hyperammonemia can be caused by exhaustive exercise or hypothyroidism". This is also evidenced by a number of studies showing that people in their late 30s, 40s, and 50s experience chronic fatigue issues that are greatly helped by giving them ammonia-reducing agents like ornithine or sodium benzoate. And those people consume nowhere near the 80g of protein Peat recommends. So, if they are having ammonia issues imagine how would the people loading up on extra protein would feel.
Which brings us to the point that for many people over the age of 30, simply increasing sugar and/or protein will likely not solve the metabolic issues. Thus, the Peat diet, while the correct way to eat, may not be a solution to the issues of hypothyroidism, but rather a way to avoid the worse option of running on cortisol and adrenalin, which while energizing in the short run will ruin you in the longer run.
Considering the Barnes book "Hypoglycemia: It's not your brain, it's your liver", which I read, it seems that restoring optimal liver function is also a key to improving metabolism. Yes, thyroid function is important too, but I think Peat's recommendation on supplementing thyroid even in the presence of normal thyroid labs may cause issues for a number of people. Charlie, and at least 20 other people have posted on struggling with supplementing thyroid. If they take it, they develop teeth issues, skin issues, anxiety or some other unpleasant symptoms. If they don't take it, their digestion slows down to a crawl or they start getting hypothyroid symptoms like brain fog or muscle issues, etc.
So, if the stats are true and the evidence I have seen is legit, then eating according to the peat guidelines is a great strategy AFTER metabolism is fixed. But if 80% of people over 30 are having liver issues or some other problems with metabolism, then the diet will be certainly supportive, but likely not "curative". And for some people with particularly bad liver problems the situation may end up getting worse in a way due to even more fatty liver issues or higher ammonia levels. Just ask anybody over the age of 40 if they are having trouble maintaining (let alone building) muscle mass.
Then the question becomes, what will aid metabolic recovery, other than blindly supplementing thyroid even in the presence of normal thyroid labs? I guess the answer Peat will give is that one needs to wait at least 4 years and get rid of the PUFA before starting to see solid results. There is some solid evidence in favor of lower PUFA fixing metabolic issues. But I wonder if working on liver health or trying to build more muscle will also help while waiting out the PUFA detox period? Uncoupling agents are probably also key, but they should probably be other than aspirin since it may make fatty liver issues worse for many people if used in the doses needed for mitochondrial uncoupling. Finally, increasing CO2 production or intake somehow will also likely have a key role. Just throwing things out there that seem to be cardinal methods for improving metabolism.
Sorry about the long rant, I just felt like this deserves some attention since a number of threads pop on the forum asking the same questions and I have been thinking about this for some time. If someone knows about Peat's definitive opinion on this issue please share it. Maybe I missed it in his articles. IMHO, after reading pretty much all of his published stuff, reading people's testimonies/complaints, cross-referencing this with studies, and my own experience, I think a number of chicken/egg question still remain.
Anybody care to comment?
 

arien

Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2013
Messages
39
One of the points at which fatty acids suppress the use of glucose is at the point at which it is converted into fructose, in the process of glycolysis. When fructose is available, it can by-pass this barrier to the use of glucose, and continue to provide pyruvic acid for continuing oxidative metabolism, and if the mitochondria themselves aren't providing sufficient energy, it can leave the cell as lactate, allowing continuing glycolytic energy production. In the brain, this can sustain life in an emergency. - Ray Peat, 'Glucose and sucrose for diabetes'

If fructose can by-pass the fatty acids' inhibition of glucose metabolism, to be oxidized when glucose can't, and if the metabolism of diabetes involves the oxidation of fatty acids instead of glucose, then we would expect there to be less than the normal amount of fructose in the serum of diabetics, although their defining trait is the presence of an increased amount of glucose. According to Osuagwu and Madumere (2008), that is the case. If a fructose deficiency exists in diabetes, then it is appropriate to supplement it in the diet. - Ray Peat, 'Glucose and sucrose for diabetes'

By stimulating oxidative metabolism when the oxidation of glucose has been impaired, thereby producing carbon dioxide which draws sodium and calcium out of the cell and pulls glucose, potassium and magnesium into the cell, fructose seems to be a potent factor in ceasing the stress metabolism. However, fructose does not seem to be well absorbed on its own (my own experiences with honey which often has a high ratio of f:g certainly attest to this) and is instead better absorded in the presence of equal quantities of glucose (i.e. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2065911).

edit: haidut, you posted while I was writing, so the above should be read as a response to the original question, not yours.
 

nikotrope

Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2014
Messages
318
Location
France
haidut said:
Anybody care to comment?

I have improved my temps and pulse a lot but still have other problems and I really think what you just said made perfect sense. I have been trying to find what could caused me problems and after searching through the forum concluded it was probably my liver that was not functioning properly. And your post reinforces this conclusion of mine.

I am not a coffee drinker (and never was) and even if I drink a lot of tea I don't think I have as much caffeine as I should have. I will try to get more caffeine and vitamin k2 to see if it improves things.
 

fyo

Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2013
Messages
106
Sucrose replenishes glycogen better than glucose or starch. It also raises metabolic rate, which will increase that T4>T3 conversion rate.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2099997
>In the same group of obese subjects, RMR [resting metabolic rate i.e. calorie burning] was found to be significantly higher following fructose in comparison to the glucose response but did not differ from that in controls.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11134101
>In conclusion, low dose fructose improves the glycemic response to an oral glucose load in normal adults without significantly enhancing the insulin or triglyceride response. Fructose appears most effective in those normal individuals who have the poorest glucose tolerance.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1599386/
>Fourteen patients with established maturity-onset diabetes were treated as outpatients with a high-carbohydrate-(about 60% of total daily energy requirements)-modified fat diet (ratio of polyunsaturated fatty acids to other fatty acids greater than or equal to 1:1) for six weeks.” “The findings suggest that it is no longer justifiable to prescribe a low-carbohydrate diet for maturity-onset diabetes.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8213608
>“Fructose ingestion induces a greater thermogenesis than does glucose. This can be explained by the hydrolysis of 3.5-4.5 mol ATP/mol fructose stored as glycogen, vs 2.5 mol ATP/mol glucose stored. Therefore the large thermogenesis of fructose corresponds essentially to an increase in obligatory thermogenesis. Obese individuals and obese patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus commonly have a decrease in glucose-induced thermogenesis. These individuals in contrast display a normal thermogenesis after ingestion of fructose.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3631273
>Fructose prevents hypoxic cell death in liver.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6837766
>Rats consuming Coca-Cola and Purina chow ad libitum increased their total energy intake by 50% without excess weight gain. Their resistance to cold was markedly improved.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3521308
>Synergistic improvement of glucose tolerance by sucrose feeding and exercise training.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18328797
>Rats provided the glucose-sweetened beverage had reduced femur and tibia total P, reduced P and Ca intake and increased urinary Ca excretion compared to the rats provided the fructose-sweetened beverage. The results suggested that glucose rather than fructose exerted more deleterious effects on mineral balance and bone.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3477537
>when ad libitum fed animals were offered a sucrose solution (32%) for 2 days, energy intake increased by 30% and energy expenditure by 9-12%

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15959424
>Fructose and sucrose solutions enhanced daily energy intake by about 15% without increasing rat body weight.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15142987
>Chronic stress promotes palatable feeding, which reduces signs of stress

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15946410
>A recent study from our laboratory has shown that a mixture of glucose and fructose ingested at a rate of 1.8 g/min leads to peak oxidation rates of approximately 1.3 g/min and results in approximately 55% higher exogenous carbohydrate (CHO) oxidation rates compared with the ingestion of an isocaloric amount of glucose.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2729168
>the group consuming the low-Cu fructose diet had significantly more positive balances for all minerals studied than the group fed the low-Cu cornstarch diet. The results indicate that dietary fructose enhances mineral balance.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8476028
>Fructose ingestion was found to increase total oxygen uptake by an average of 9.5% above basal levels; the corresponding increase for glucose was 8.8% and for water only 2.5%. The respiratory exchange ratio increased from 0.84 in the basal state to 0.97 at 45 min after fructose ingestion and rose gradually after glucose to 0.86 after 120 min. The average 2-h thermic effect, expressed as percent of ingested energy, was 5.0% for fructose and 3.7% for glucose (not significant).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1221903
>Contrary to starch, sucrose maintained calcium homeostasis, and apparently, normal ossification, although the femur was lighter than those of animals receiving vitamin D.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15117561
>Natural honey lowers plasma glucose, C-reactive protein, homocysteine, and blood lipids in healthy, diabetic, and hyperlipidemic subjects: comparison with dextrose and sucrose.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8678268
>As demonstrated, parenteral fructose, unlike parenteral glucose, has a significantly less adverse impact than glucose on the glucose balance
 

fyo

Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2013
Messages
106
arien said:
However, fructose does not seem to be well absorbed on its own (my own experiences with honey which often has a high ratio of f:g certainly attest to this) and is instead better absorded in the presence of equal quantities of glucose (i.e. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2065911).

Seconding this. Pure fructose does not absorb well. Malabsorbed fructose goes to feed endotoxin production. This explains all the negative results of pure fructose, which is commonly fed in experiments. Sucrose, not to mention real ******* whole food, has very different effects.
 

Sheila

Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2014
Messages
374
Haidut, I have wondered about the same things and my current conclusion is that without almost constant recalibration, at least initially (and who does that to start with!), it's easy to keep feeding carbs as one example and miss the overall picture in that everything has to be in balance, the old "what 'element' is the rate determining step now?" Miss something critical that prevents utilisation and imbalance problems follow. I've not got the balance right myself from time to time and have been late to realise it and sometimes not wanted to realise it, as it was something that I thought was useful (GTG versus setting gelatine for me for example). Also there seems to be a tendency for certain systems to go certain ways, hence a cluster of people getting the same results (eg. proteinuria). To me it's a bit like we're all at the same train station to start with but then - depending on where we're coming from, how fast or slow we move, and how close we get our choices to our needs, we get on different outgoing trains to different destinations. Some return journeys/diversions and new stops may be in order.

I have had more success with 'what do I feel like now' than routinized eating. I am learning to pay attention to my body, don't eat when not hungry for example and to interrogate why that might be - adrenalin, irritation, no need. I try to be guided by what tastes right. For example, my breakfast coffee with 4 sugars, 4 gelatine, 1/3 milk tastes sweeter some days than others, so I take that as less sweet required right now. I didn't used to pay attention like this and I think that's where I made some mistakes and got on the wrong train. There is now no formula for me, just some guidelines - digestible, frequent, and crono as a reasonable guide, at least for calories and macros. My intention in 2015 is to do many more temp and pulse readings to really see what's working and for how long. Hopefully these will back up what I believe I feel. Maybe not!

A long way of saying, FWIW, I think the principles are largely sound but my application and understanding of them has not been quite right. Ratios, needs, all are person specific. Studies are fantastic, and I thank you for posting so much, but their conclusions may, or may not be right for me, now, or later - hence perhaps your results with thyroid. Not (currently/ever) for you.

Using fructose with starch has been a godsend, starch alone for me is a fast way to cold feet. And regular coffee appears to have done more for my digestion and liver function than any traditional herbs (dandelion, St Mary's Thistle) ever did. But then I did not eat properly back then.....so was on the mainline from East Rogen City, past Wait Gayne and Angs-Iety heading at full speed for the terminus of Dunn Inn.
Sheila
 

honeybee

Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2013
Messages
331
Thanks for pulling all that together for us Haidut.
 

lexis

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
430
I think Ray has mentioned that potato soup can tackle excess ammonia.Also,increasing alkaline minerals can protect proteins.Increased taurine can treat a fatty liver.
 

moss

Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2013
Messages
305
Haidut you raised some interesting thoughts and so very timely. I too have often wondered where there is a compromised/sluggish/fatty/poor liver function, how on earth does one correct metabolic problems, and lets face it who has a perfect liver? The liver is a magnificent organ performing a gazillion functions and so it makes sense and imperative that you get your liver working optimally.
Working with Peat's principles, and learning much from others who have shared on the forum, and a couple of years down the track, it's only in the past few months that I think I am getting a handle of what my body needs. It was like being on the set of Willy Wonka's initially and it was on for young and old..... sometimes a little slow to catch on, it was clear I was not getting enough protein, calories and my metabolism was way out of whack including my increasing bulge around the abdomen! Preferring to then work with a 'less is more' strategy, going back to using temps and pulse regularly. Too many supplements, food changes, etc and I lost the plot. I recently went off thyroid (with no side effects) as I felt it was not actually doing anything. My TSH is slightly high though not worryingly so. I also use regular coffee/sugar/gel/milk with no issue to assist thyroid and liver function. For the past 16 months I have taken a break from using herbs, but in the last few months I have gone back to taking liquid herb extracts/tinctures for liver support with the view of short term use (around 6-8 week cycles). I have also been prompted to increase K2 thanks to your post recently Haidut. The abdomen bulge is disappearing. Increased protein and calories has been a game changer. Clearly, I was not getting enough fuel and will re-consider alternate thyroid meds down the track should they be needed. From my own experience, I am now better able to eat more intuitively and less prescriptively and feel the benefits from that.
Haidut, you raised the possibility of 'guidelines' - IMO, I think your point here is important.

"So, if the stats are true and the evidence I have seen is legit, then eating according to the peat guidelines is a great strategy AFTER metabolism is fixed. But if 80% of people over 30 are having liver issues or some other problems with metabolism, then the diet will be certainly supportive, but likely not "curative".
 

sunmountain

Member
Joined
May 12, 2014
Messages
792
Hi Moss,

I'm struggling with the abdomen bulge, and also a stomach that swells up when I eat. I had low carbed before I came to Peat, and think I am going through refeeding syndrome for the most part.

How did you increase calories? I'm trying to do that every day, even as I am switching slowly to a more milk-based diet.

What herbs did you take for liver support and how long?

How much K did you take, and what benefits did you see?

I do take thyroid and am presently fiddling with the dosage due to changed needs.

thanks
 

Suikerbuik

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
700
Amazing comment Haidut. Been thinking about this too but more in relation to our microbiome. Our gut microbiome and metabolites that plays a major role in fatty liver disease and such.

A disbalance in microbiome often produces urease resulting ammonia issues and antibiotics are prescribed in cases of encephalopathy. The fora helps converting about 20% of T4 into T3. Kidney damage and cardiovascular damage by microbial products (indoles) such as Indoxyl sulfate from tryptophan and p-cresol from tyrosine, likely resulting in protein in urine. And so much more.
 

haidut

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
19,798
Location
USA / Europe
Suikerbuik said:
Amazing comment Haidut. Been thinking about this too but more in relation to our microbiome. Our gut microbiome and metabolites that plays a major role in fatty liver disease and such.

A disbalance in microbiome often produces urease resulting ammonia issues and antibiotics are prescribed in cases of encephalopathy. The fora helps converting about 20% of T4 into T3. Kidney damage and cardiovascular damage by microbial products (indoles) such as Indoxyl sulfate from tryptophan and p-cresol from tyrosine, likely resulting in protein in urine. And so much more.

Yeah, Ray keeps saying that a small amount of antibiotics "sometimes" establishes new flora. However, he is not specific on why "sometimes" and how often to take and under what circumstances. He does not make the same comment about charcoal, even though he says it is good for controlling endotoxin damage. That suggests he thinks charcoal is only for controlling the damage, not changing gut flora. Also, once a person cleans the bacteria a bit with antibiotics, then what kind of flora should one aim for repopulating and how? Or should one just revert back to normal eating habits and hope for the best?
I think Ray recognizes that there are many cases where antibiotics and/or charcoal won't solve the problem but our knowledge on the issues causing microbiome disbalance is probably limited at the moment so he refrains from making more definitive statements. Finally, people with good liver and kidney function can also have ammonia issues if they have slow digestion of things like IBS/IBD, which allows for the food to stay longer in the colon and the ammonia to get reabsorbed. The antibiotic rifaximin, used for treating SIBO, is also used for ammonia encephalopathy precisely for that reason - otherwise healthy people with ammonia buildup issues. I wonder if there is a case for chronically increasing salt intake simply for the purpose of controlling ammonia levels, given how toxic to the metabolilsm it is and how closely related it is with serotonin and histamine. Ray wrote in one of his articles about this toxic trio of amines and how important it is to control their levels. Or maybe taking 5mg of lithium every night, which is close to the levels people ingested daily about 100 years ago in some parts of the US and it was shown that this resulted in increased longevity and decreased illness incidence.
So many possibilities...I wonder if someone has communicated with Peat on these issues.
 

jyb

Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2012
Messages
2,783
Location
UK
haidut said:
So, my main point is that burning sugar is definitely preferable to burning fat based on both Peat's writings and all the studies I have seen about liver disease being caused by increased lipid peroxidation byproducts, and cirrhosis (in alcoholic rats) being easily and succesfully treated by feeding about 60g-70g of saturated fat like butter or coconut oil for a week, while the rats kept drinking alcohol at the same time! So, on the point of burning sugar I think the question is settled that it is preferable to burning fat.

Haidut, thanks for the long post.

In the paragraphs about burning sugar being preferable to burning fat, how do you know? For me it has been a grey area of Ray's articles. I keep reading but they don't give a clear indication of how much sugar and/or fat. Of course, I'm talking about saturated, not pufa.

There are many things that seem good about saturated fat. Including CO2 or raising T3/T4 well, according to studies. From my experience, a good and generous source of saturated fat is essential for everything metabolic: cortistol (or stress), temperature, mood, sleep etc. So, surprisingly if I use many of Ray's teaching (eat whatever raises your metabolism), I often conclude fat should take a key role... In contrast, I find it much less important to get a huge amount of sugar. For things like starch, I find its the contrary (important to limit the amount).
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom