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

Giraffe

Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2015
Messages
3,730
haidut said:
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?
Information I read about insulin secretion and blood glucose levels in response to a meal seem contradictory and twisted to support a specific dietary doctrine. I searched a bit and found a study on insulin response after a high-protein meal. - "Test meals consisted of 500 g of either cooked ground beef or chicken liver calculated to contain 8.0 and 10.2 g of leucine, respectively." - Protein-rich indead!
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... 7-0135.pdf

In average plasma insulin peaked after one hour, and it was still elevated at the fourth hour in some tests. In one subject "plasma insulin had not returned to control levels by the eight hour."


Could it be that our understanding of the role of insulin is misled?

From the paper I linked...

"It is unlikely that the increases in blood glucose either caused or contributed importantly to the increases in plasma insulin observed."

Ray Peat ...

It was this sort of experiment that led to the concept of "glycemic index," that ranks foods according to their ability to raise the blood sugar. David Jenkins, in 1981, knew enough about the old studies of starch digestion to realize that the dietitians had created a dangerous cult around the “complex carbohydrates,” and he did a series of measurements that showed that starch is more “glycemic” than sucrose. But he simply used the amount of increase in blood glucose during the first two hours after ingesting the food sample, compared to that following ingestion of pure glucose, for the comparison, neglecting the physiologically complex facts, all of the processes involved in causing a certain amount of glucose to be present in the blood during a certain time. (Even the taste of sweetness, without swallowing anything, can stimulate the release of glucagon, which raises blood sugar.)

Insulin is important in the regulation of blood sugar, but its importance has been exaggerated because of the diabetes/insulin industry. Insulin itself has been found to account for only about 8% of the "insulin-like activity" of the blood, with potassium being probably the largest factor. There probably isn't any process in the body that doesn't potentially affect blood sugar.
Glucagon, cortisol, adrenalin, growth hormone and thyroid tend to increase the blood sugar, but it is common to interpret hyperglycemia as "diabetes," without measuring any of these factors. Even when "insulin dependent diabetes" is diagnosed, it isn't customary to measure the insulin to see whether it is actually deficient, before writing a prescription for insulin. People resign themselves to a lifetime of insulin injections, without knowing why their blood sugar is high.
http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/glycemia.shtml

By the way, I searched Ray Peat's references, the study I linked is not mentioned on his website.
 

Attachments

  • plasma insulin.GIF
    plasma insulin.GIF
    50.1 KB · Views: 803

narouz

Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2012
Messages
4,429
Going back and re-reading haidut's original "rant,"
I'm a little confused.
I'm sure it's my fault and probably because I'm missing some context,
but if someone could unkink my twisted mind for me...
Here's the part I'm having trouble with:


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.

The build-up would seem to be to the conclusion that saturated fat heals the liver.
But then the conclusion is...that sugar burning is preferrable to fat burning.
I know I'm missing something....
 

narouz

Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2012
Messages
4,429
And then, on a completely different tack,
have we talked about calcipotriol?


http://www.salk.edu/news/pressrelease_details.php?press_id=612

I think I might've heard Peat say in an interview
that some synthetic form of D might be bad--
that he had heard some bad things about it.
Perhaps he was referring to calcipotriol?

In general, I don't think I've seen much in our liver threads here
about the possible role of vitamin D upon the liver's health.
Most of the stuff I've seen on the subject
tends to put the causative relationship the other way around:
good liver function enables good vitamin D absorption....
 

franko

Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2015
Messages
187
haidut said:
post 77864 A possible exception is exemestane, which is actually a synthetic version of the hormone DHT and is much safer. Peat has even said that taking DHT topically would be a good idea, so this drug would be a possible alternative to topical DHT. In people it lowers estrogen, increases T and DHT and has anti-depressant activity.

Haidut, what are you basing this on? The chemical structure? I've tried searching for info on the Google about exemestane as synthetic DHT but haven't found anything.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

haidut

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
19,798
Location
USA / Europe
franko said:
post 107866
haidut said:
post 77864 A possible exception is exemestane, which is actually a synthetic version of the hormone DHT and is much safer. Peat has even said that taking DHT topically would be a good idea, so this drug would be a possible alternative to topical DHT. In people it lowers estrogen, increases T and DHT and has anti-depressant activity.

Haidut, what are you basing this on? The chemical structure? I've tried searching for info on the Google about exemestane as synthetic DHT but haven't found anything.

Exemestane was developed as an analog to androstenedione and DHT.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exemestane
"...Exemestane is an irreversible, steroidal aromatase inactivator, structurally related to the natural substrate androstenedione. It acts as a false substrate for the aromatase enzyme, and is processed to an intermediate that binds irreversibly to the active site of the enzyme causing its inactivation, an effect also known as "suicide inhibition." By being structurally similar to enzyme targets, Exemestane permanently binds to the enzymes, preventing them from converting androgen into estrogen."
The doses of exemestane used are basically identical to the doses of DHT used in male HRT. DHT inhibits estrogen synthesis much like exemestane does. AFAIK, exmestane was developed as an alternative to DHT that does not suppress LH/FSH as much as taking DHT directly does.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Makrosky

Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2014
Messages
3,982
haidut said:
post 65295
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?

Woah!!! Great rant!!! Finally a real discussion. Haidut, why don't you ask those concerns to Peat himself?? I think he will love to dialog with someone who spend so much time studying his writings and making meaningful objections. I think the issue is crucial. If you don't do it I think I'll copy/paste your rant and send it to him like if it was mine :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :mrgreen:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

haidut

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
19,798
Location
USA / Europe
Makrosky said:
haidut said:
post 65295
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?

Woah!!! Great rant!!! Finally a real discussion. Haidut, why don't you ask those concerns to Peat himself?? I think he will love to dialog with someone who spend so much time studying his writings and making meaningful objections. I think the issue is crucial. If you don't do it I think I'll copy/paste your rant and send it to him like if it was mine :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :mrgreen:

I think I already found answers to most of my concerns as described in the original rant. Peat regularly talks about thyroid and most people's need to take it since it helps oxidizing the sugar. You can achieve similar results with vitamin B1 and biotin, caffeine, methylene blue, etc. I guess the point is that with so many estrogenic chemicals and thyroid inhibitors in our environment and especially in our food, a supplement of some sort if necessary for most people to kickstart metabolism. BPA and related chemicals like BPS are both estrogen "receptor" agonists and thyroid "receptor" antagonists. Pretty nasty stuff.
You can ask him if you want, I'd still be curious to hear what he thinks even though I sort of anticipate what he will say. Feel free to pose the question as it came from you, I have no copyright on words:):
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joined
Nov 21, 2015
Messages
10,501
haidut said:
post 107948
Makrosky said:
haidut said:
post 65295
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?

Woah!!! Great rant!!! Finally a real discussion. Haidut, why don't you ask those concerns to Peat himself?? I think he will love to dialog with someone who spend so much time studying his writings and making meaningful objections. I think the issue is crucial. If you don't do it I think I'll copy/paste your rant and send it to him like if it was mine :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :mrgreen:

I think I already found answers to most of my concerns as described in the original rant. Peat regularly talks about thyroid and most people's need to take it since it helps oxidizing the sugar. You can achieve similar results with vitamin B1 and biotin, caffeine, methylene blue, etc. I guess the point is that with so many estrogenic chemicals and thyroid inhibitors in our environment and especially in our food, a supplement of some sort if necessary for most people to kickstart metabolism. BPA and related chemicals like BPS are both estrogen "receptor" agonists and thyroid "receptor" antagonists. Pretty nasty stuff.
You can ask him if you want, I'd still be curious to hear what he thinks even though I sort of anticipate what he will say. Feel free to pose the question as it came from you, I have no copyright on words:):

so what *are* the answers that you found? I'm on the edge of my seat!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mauritio

Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2018
Messages
5,669
Woah!!! Great rant!!! Finally a real discussion. Haidut, why don't you ask those concerns to Peat himself?? I think he will love to dialog with someone who spend so much time studying his writings and making meaningful objections. I think the issue is crucial. If you don't do it I think I'll copy/paste your rant and send it to him like if it was mine :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :mrgreen:
Did you ever ask him?
 

Mauritio

Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2018
Messages
5,669

Mauritio

Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2018
Messages
5,669
I take glycine because it helps me sleep, but I think it can possibly cause hypoglycemia and tiredness in others.
Okay that can probably be taken care of with a glass of orange juice, maybe next to your bed if it happens at night . Just get up and take a few sips. Do you see any benefits concerning liver health ?
 

TreasureVibe

Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2016
Messages
1,941
I think the plain ubiquinone is best, ubiquinol has some studies showing bad effects. Just get whatever product has the least additives. If you look at the studies with Coq10 they all used pretty generic stuff, sometimes buying it from the local drug store. But, Coq10 won't match the effectiveness of K2 as far as I know. In doses of 2,400mg per day it may be as effective for mitochondrial health as K2 but won't be as effective for liver health. I just suggested it for alternative for people that absolutely cannot get their hands on K2 at doses of 15mg or more.
Do you still support Coq10 being better than Ubiquinol?
 

Dr. B

Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2021
Messages
4,320
Exemestane was developed as an analog to androstenedione and DHT.
Exemestane - Wikipedia
"...Exemestane is an irreversible, steroidal aromatase inactivator, structurally related to the natural substrate androstenedione. It acts as a false substrate for the aromatase enzyme, and is processed to an intermediate that binds irreversibly to the active site of the enzyme causing its inactivation, an effect also known as "suicide inhibition." By being structurally similar to enzyme targets, Exemestane permanently binds to the enzymes, preventing them from converting androgen into estrogen."
The doses of exemestane used are basically identical to the doses of DHT used in male HRT. DHT inhibits estrogen synthesis much like exemestane does. AFAIK, exmestane was developed as an alternative to DHT that does not suppress LH/FSH as much as taking DHT directly does.
by permanent, irreversible, it means you take it for a short time and it permanently breaks down the aromatase enzyme? i wonder how many other supplements/hormones out there are also permanent like this, where you take them once and their effects are permanent? a lot of Peats writings are based around recovery, healing, fueling and growth of the body, but are the numerous metabolic issues people are having simply the result of a permanent issue with metabolism etc caused by one time/short time usage of some chemical or supplement etc?
 

maillol

Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2019
Messages
388
by permanent, irreversible, it means you take it for a short time and it permanently breaks down the aromatase enzyme? i wonder how many other supplements/hormones out there are also permanent like this, where you take them once and their effects are permanent? a lot of Peats writings are based around recovery, healing, fueling and growth of the body, but are the numerous metabolic issues people are having simply the result of a permanent issue with metabolism etc caused by one time/short time usage of some chemical or supplement etc?
It's not really permanent. It's irreversible in the sense that the aromatase is destroyed but your body then makes new aromatase.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom