The Truth About High Fat Diets

[yerrag]

Protein Vs Keto Acids

Thanks. I think the answer to that is yes, keto acids can combine with ammonia to produce protein, but what kind of protein, in terms of amino acid profile, was not addressed. And keto acids can complement the intake of protein, and increase the protein intake, but can't in itself take the place of protein.

 

[Mito]

Thanks. Do you know if it's just the liver cells doing the conversion from glucose to fats?

I don't think so it could be in any cell where the excess citrate accumulates. But dietary glucose goes from the intestines through the portal vein to the liver first so the liver is probably the most significant source? I'm not sure.

 

[Tarmander]

That guy, Steve Pavlina, who fasted for 40 days, is unbelievably stupid in my opinion...and it is just my opinion.

Fasting for that long will literally DESTROY your health. I fasted for 6 days once, and of all the stupid health experiments I did, from friday fasting to MMS, that was probably the dumbest. I was not the same afterwards. I was never as insulin sensitive as I was before that 6 day fast. I never had the same amount of energy.

Just watching that video where he talks about how now, if there is a food shortage, he is totally going to be okay missing food for a week....idiotic and idiotic to the people who follow him. He is never going to have the same fasting experience as he did this time. It will never be the same, it will be harder the next time. He is going to balloon up, and his kids for generations to come will have lower metabolisms because of him.

I don't know the guy, but I would also guess that all of his personal relationships suffered while he was doing this. In the next few years, his businesses will probably fall apart as well as the amount of energy he can generate will fall. This is his peak right here.

 

[ecstatichamster]

That guy, Steve Pavlina, who fasted for 40 days, is unbelievably stupid in my opinion...and it is just my opinion.

Fasting for that long will literally DESTROY your health. I fasted for 6 days once, and of all the stupid health experiments I did, from friday fasting to MMS, that was probably the dumbest. I was not the same afterwards. I was never as insulin sensitive as I was before that 6 day fast. I never had the same amount of energy.

Just watching that video where he talks about how now, if there is a food shortage, he is totally going to be okay missing food for a week....idiotic and idiotic to the people who follow him. He is never going to have the same fasting experience as he did this time. It will never be the same, it will be harder the next time. He is going to balloon up, and his kids for generations to come will have lower metabolisms because of him.

I don't know the guy, but I would also guess that all of his personal relationships suffered while he was doing this. In the next few years, his businesses will probably fall apart as well as the amount of energy he can generate will fall. This is his peak right here.

Completely agree.

 

[yerrag]

Completely agree.

I agree it's that bad, but how is it that it will affect his kids for generations to come?

 

[ecstatichamster]

I agree it's that bad, but how is it that it will affect his kids for generations to come?

Epigenetic effects even through dad.
http://people.ucls.uchicago.edu/~cj...hy-Fathers-Really-Matter-NYTimes-2012-9-9.pdf

 

[yerrag]

Epigenetic effects even through dad.
http://people.ucls.uchicago.edu/~cj...hy-Fathers-Really-Matter-NYTimes-2012-9-9.pdf

Thanks!

I hope he saved some sperm before he started on this experiment, unless he already sired some.

 

[Herbie]

 

[Watson350]

Fat is not satiating but the high protein that comes from avoiding sugars and fruits certainly is. I think a better understanding of macros can help with stasis weight and dropping lbs. On days where I eat steak I am less likely to consume 32 oz of orange juice as I normally do. Small things like this I believe help body composition.

 

[haidut]

Didn't @haidut say that one reason for eating a lower fat diet was to reduce FFA? Haidut, any insight?

EDIT: Looking through Haidut's posts, seems I might have confused lowering serotonin with lowering FFA. Apologies if I have misrepresented your position, Haidut.

See my response to James below.

 

[haidut]

I'd argue a low fat diet will result in higher FFA

If enough carbs are consumed FFA should be low due to insulin release. That is one of the reasons Peat favors high-carb diets - i.e. keeps FFA low. On the other hand, higher carb diet in people with poor glycogen storage may increase triglycerides, which is not optimal but still better than high FFA levels.

 

[haidut]

View attachment 6500

Note the gaunt look on the right picture and specially the thinner neck. Neck circumference is one of the best surrogates for whole-body lean muscle mass. Aside from looking very unwell, this guy probably lost significant portion of his muscle tissue which is very hard to recover once the low metabolism adaptation sets in.

 

[lvysaur]

Ok, but we can make glucose from muscle tissue. Which many argue shows the essentiality of dietary glucose. Would this not apply to fat as well?

Just because we can do it, doesn't necessarily mean it's preferential.

Are you seriously comparing turning muscle to glucose with turning starch into fat? lmao

One is not preferential because it destroys your muscle tissue. The other is not preferential because....it kills too many beet roots? Potatoes?

 

[Herbie]

Note the gaunt look on the right picture and specially the thinner neck. Neck circumference is one of the best surrogates for whole-body lean muscle mass. Aside from looking very unwell, this guy probably lost significant portion of his muscle tissue which is very hard to recover once the low metabolism adaptation sets in.

Good points.

-Is that edema on his lower eye lids?
-Eyes bulging.
-Hair looks wirery and thinner.
-Right shoulder has further dropped indicating spine scoliosis where the rib cage drops down and puts pressure on the liver and the muscles between the rib cage and pelvis tighten up and block respiration in that area.

 

[James IV]

Are you seriously comparing turning muscle to glucose with turning starch into fat? lmao

One is not preferential because it destroys your muscle tissue. The other is not preferential because....it kills too many beet roots? Potatoes?

I was as clear as I can be. Sorry you don't get it.

 

[James IV]

My biggest issue is that despite all the science literature shared on this forum, and all the explanations of how things should work in the body, I've personally never experienced any of the things that are "supposed" to happen according to the interpretations here, with myself, nor any of my clients. In my experience, for most modern lifestyles, eating less carbohydrate, less often, results in BETTER glycogen storage, more muscle mass, less fat mass, and better energy levels. Fasting and eating more protein and fat, increases resiliency to stress, creates better skin and hair, and a more youthful appreance. It's also cured thousands of people, including myself, of seemingly incurable diseases.

I have found observational science far more reliable and accurate than any lab science from the last few decades. Reducing carbohydrate and fasting, has been used as a healing and fat loss tactic since the beginning of recorded medical history. It's been used in mental wards to heal patiences, it's still been used to treat obesity, diabetes, and a variety of neurological and behavioral disorders. You can find references to it even in ancient spiritual literature, speaking of the "grain free men" that lived off the meat and berries of the land and grew to 150years of age. How starchy grains created demons in men, etc.

Shoot, look at Halle Berry. She has been on a ketogenic diet most of her life, and she is one of the best looking women in Hollywood, particularly for her age. The most jacked dudes I know eat low carb diets, so where is all this muscle wasting? If burning fat is so detrimental, we would be seeing these people getting sicker, and that's just not the case.

Anyway, I'm certainly not telling anyone how to eat. I don't believe everyone should eat lower carbohydrate, appropriate carbohydrate would be more accurate. I do think there is a lot about human metabolism that we haven't figured out, at all. I also think we as humans have a tendency to try to simplify things. We blame diets for damaging us, when the reality is it's the lack of understanding of how to apply a diet to match environment that's usually the problem. You can't have a static diet in a dynamic environment and be healthy. Sorry, you just can't. If you apply an inappropriate diet for the environment, it will never be healthy, no matter the quality or quantity of food.

So my "truth" about diets, is that there is no universal truth, nor is there a universal diet. Anyone that argues that there are universal truths to how people will respond biologically, to particular diets, and whether that is helpful, or harmful, is not seeing the forrest through the trees.

And for the folks that still prefer to get their info from the guys in the white coats; Here is a recent study that illustrates my point. Of course many will say that the scientist are wrong, or don't get it. But that just shows that there is no "correct" answer, there is only interpretation.

The body's own fat-metabolism protects against the harmful effects of sugar

 

[raypeatclips]

My biggest issue is that despite all the science literature shared on this forum, and all the explanations of how things should work in the body, I've personally never experienced any of the things that are "supposed" to happen according to the interpretations here, with myself, nor any of my clients. In my experience, for most modern lifestyles, eating less carbohydrate, less often, results in BETTER glycogen storage, more muscle mass, less fat mass, and better energy levels. Fasting and eating more protein and fat, increases resiliency to stress, creates better skin and hair, and a more youthful appreance. It's also cured thousands of people, including myself, of seemingly incurable diseases.

I have found observational science far more reliable and accurate than any lab science from the last few decades. Reducing carbohydrate and fasting, has been used as a healing and fat loss tactic since the beginning of recorded medical history. It's been used in mental wards to heal patiences, it's still been used to treat obesity, diabetes, and a variety of neurological and behavioral disorders. You can find references to it even in ancient spiritual literature, speaking of the "grain free men" that lived off the land and grew to 150years of age. How grains created demons in men, etc.

Shoot, look at Halle Berry. She has been on a ketogenic diet most of her life, and she is one of the best looking women in Hollywood, particularly for her age. The most jacked dudes I know eat low carb diets, so where is all this muscle wasting? If burning fat is so detrimental, we would be seeing these people getting sicker, and that's just not the case.

Anyway, I'm certainly not telling anyone how to eat. I don't believe everyone should eat lower carbohydrate, appropriate carbohydrate would be more accurate. I do think there is a lot about human metabolism that we haven't figured out, at all. I also think we as humans have a tendency to try to simplify things. We blame diets for damaging us, when the reality is it's the lack of understanding of how to apply a diet to match environment that's usually the problem. You can't have a static diet in a dynamic environment and be healthy. Sorry, you just can't. If you apply an inappropriate diet for the environment, it will never be healthy, no matter the quality or quantity of food.

So my "truth" about diets, is that there is no universal truth, nor is there a universal diet. Anyone that argues that there are universal truths to how people will respond biologically, to particular diets, and whether that is helpful, or harmful, is not seeing the forrest through the trees.

And for the folks that still prefer to get their info from the guys in the white coats; Here is a recent study that illustrates my point. Of course many will say that the scientist are wrong, or don't get it. But that just shows that there is no "correct" answer, there is only interpretation.

The body's own fat-metabolism protects against the harmful effects of sugar

Excellent post.

 

[Braveheart]

My biggest issue is that despite all the science literature shared on this forum, and all the explanations of how things should work in the body, I've personally never experienced any of the things that are "supposed" to happen according to the interpretations here, with myself, nor any of my clients. In my experience, for most modern lifestyles, eating less carbohydrate, less often, results in BETTER glycogen storage, more muscle mass, less fat mass, and better energy levels. Fasting and eating more protein and fat, increases resiliency to stress, creates better skin and hair, and a more youthful appreance. It's also cured thousands of people, including myself, of seemingly incurable diseases.

I have found observational science far more reliable and accurate than any lab science from the last few decades. Reducing carbohydrate and fasting, has been used as a healing and fat loss tactic since the beginning of recorded medical history. It's been used in mental wards to heal patiences, it's still been used to treat obesity, diabetes, and a variety of neurological and behavioral disorders. You can find references to it even in ancient spiritual literature, speaking of the "grain free men" that lived off the meat and berries of the land and grew to 150years of age. How starchy grains created demons in men, etc.

Shoot, look at Halle Berry. She has been on a ketogenic diet most of her life, and she is one of the best looking women in Hollywood, particularly for her age. The most jacked dudes I know eat low carb diets, so where is all this muscle wasting? If burning fat is so detrimental, we would be seeing these people getting sicker, and that's just not the case.

Anyway, I'm certainly not telling anyone how to eat. I don't believe everyone should eat lower carbohydrate, appropriate carbohydrate would be more accurate. I do think there is a lot about human metabolism that we haven't figured out, at all. I also think we as humans have a tendency to try to simplify things. We blame diets for damaging us, when the reality is it's the lack of understanding of how to apply a diet to match environment that's usually the problem. You can't have a static diet in a dynamic environment and be healthy. Sorry, you just can't. If you apply an inappropriate diet for the environment, it will never be healthy, no matter the quality or quantity of food.

So my "truth" about diets, is that there is no universal truth, nor is there a universal diet. Anyone that argues that there are universal truths to how people will respond biologically, to particular diets, and whether that is helpful, or harmful, is not seeing the forrest through the trees.

And for the folks that still prefer to get their info from the guys in the white coats; Here is a recent study that illustrates my point. Of course many will say that the scientist are wrong, or don't get it. But that just shows that there is no "correct" answer, there is only interpretation.

The body's own fat-metabolism protects against the harmful effects of sugar

 

[What-a-Riot]

@James IV do you have an actual test you use for glycogen storage? i'm really not educated in this stuff, and that needs to be understood absolutely, but my thought is that without a test to be sure, it shouldn't be assumed that storage is the issue rather than utilization. Effectively it's the same thing, fuel that can't be accessed and utilized when it's needed isn't really fuel at all, but it's worth knowing because that's a different issue that may need to be addressed in a different way. Or possibly it would be addressed in the same way, but the resolution would be coming about by different mechanisms.

 

[Ras]

My biggest issue is that despite all the science literature shared on this forum, and all the explanations of how things should work in the body, I've personally never experienced any of the things that are "supposed" to happen according to the interpretations here, with myself, nor any of my clients. In my experience, for most modern lifestyles, eating less carbohydrate, less often, results in BETTER glycogen storage, more muscle mass, less fat mass, and better energy levels. Fasting and eating more protein and fat, increases resiliency to stress, creates better skin and hair, and a more youthful appreance. It's also cured thousands of people, including myself, of seemingly incurable diseases.

I have found observational science far more reliable and accurate than any lab science from the last few decades. Reducing carbohydrate and fasting, has been used as a healing and fat loss tactic since the beginning of recorded medical history. It's been used in mental wards to heal patiences, it's still been used to treat obesity, diabetes, and a variety of neurological and behavioral disorders. You can find references to it even in ancient spiritual literature, speaking of the "grain free men" that lived off the meat and berries of the land and grew to 150years of age. How starchy grains created demons in men, etc.

Shoot, look at Halle Berry. She has been on a ketogenic diet most of her life, and she is one of the best looking women in Hollywood, particularly for her age. The most jacked dudes I know eat low carb diets, so where is all this muscle wasting? If burning fat is so detrimental, we would be seeing these people getting sicker, and that's just not the case.

Anyway, I'm certainly not telling anyone how to eat. I don't believe everyone should eat lower carbohydrate, appropriate carbohydrate would be more accurate. I do think there is a lot about human metabolism that we haven't figured out, at all. I also think we as humans have a tendency to try to simplify things. We blame diets for damaging us, when the reality is it's the lack of understanding of how to apply a diet to match environment that's usually the problem. You can't have a static diet in a dynamic environment and be healthy. Sorry, you just can't. If you apply an inappropriate diet for the environment, it will never be healthy, no matter the quality or quantity of food.

So my "truth" about diets, is that there is no universal truth, nor is there a universal diet. Anyone that argues that there are universal truths to how people will respond biologically, to particular diets, and whether that is helpful, or harmful, is not seeing the forrest through the trees.

And for the folks that still prefer to get their info from the guys in the white coats; Here is a recent study that illustrates my point. Of course many will say that the scientist are wrong, or don't get it. But that just shows that there is no "correct" answer, there is only interpretation.

The body's own fat-metabolism protects against the harmful effects of sugar

Well said.