The Truth About High Fat Diets

[ecstatichamster]

much as we attribute recommendations to Peat, he makes really almost no recommendations at all. He makes observations and provides anecdotal evidence and explains how things work.

He has said for instance that you can drink a gallon of milk and half gallon of orange juice each day. But he doesn't say that this is the diet he "recommends."

I did low fat and high fat and paleo and protein power and Atkins and I even did calorie reduction for a year. I did intermittent fasting for almost 2 years.

I'm finally feeling warmer these days which I suppose it good. Point is this. I was on high fat, and low carb, and for awhile I felt okay (although I craved carbs like mad), but over time it ran me down. I was cold and my metabolism was very low and very slow.

I think that I was heading in a bad direction.

Now for the first time I'm at 98.4 (just checked) and although it's hard to lose weight, I feel good and in the main I think I'm better off. With high carb, lowish fat.

I don't think I was benefiting at all from intermittent fasting. And I think it was hurting me. But it did make me feel mentally clear and I can see huge benefit in sometimes fasting for autophagy reasons and to let your body heal without the burdens of digestion.

I'm not sure you can trust how you feel, is my point. It can feel good for awhile (like low carb and IF did) and be running you down.

One thing I am more and more convinced of though. And that is about the DANGER of losing weight through most conventional diets. I think they are terribly dangerous and only serve to make people thinner at best, and unhealthier than ever before at the same time.

Two things are very harmful:

1. Modern medicine, and
2. Modern "dieting"

 

[James IV]

@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.

My only tests were observational, and blood glucose monitoring. My muscles hang larger and more full, and I believe they are actually supercompensating with glycogen storage. When I do eat carbohydrate I can actually watch them "fill up" in the time after the meal. When I ate larger amounts of carbohydrate and low fat, consistently, they never looked full nor had this filling effect. I think a certain degree of phisological insulin resistance is good to drive hepatic and muscle glycogen storage.
I can go much longer between meals with minimal change in blood glucose or energy levels. I would need to eat very often to keep my blood glucose stable when I try a carb based diet. I found it very difficult and my numbers would fluctuate 10-20 (or more) points throughout the day, as opposed to 2-4 points with a protein fat based diet. I am also able to miss meals without a stress response, and sleep deeply through the night.
My endurance for work, and exercise is vastly improved, without having to continuously fuel. I also don't get cold or anxious when I can't eat, as I did before. No more twitching muscles or exaggerated adrenaline responses to stressors. My bowel movements improved immensely. On low fat I actually developed Crohns/Diverticulitus like symptoms, which effected my nervous system, very severe, like thought I may die severe.

To be honest, every observational sign of more efficient metabolism and energy storage improves for me with a animal and vegetable based diet, with carbs matched to daily environment.

The only "negatives" are that my fasting glucose is about 20 points lower on a protein/fat based diet than a carb based. However, I personally don't see that as a negative since it's far more stable. Ray says large fluctuations in blood glucose are really what's damaging.
I also cannot (and don't want to) generate extremely high physical output without pushing my blood glucose up a bit through food. In other words I need higher glucose in the blood to reach maximal speed (sprinting for instance). However, I am stronger in all other respects. The nice thing is, if for some reason I need to win a race, I can eat a small amount of glucose a bit before the event, and it's like rocket fuel. Then after the race, I can still jog home without eating while the other guy is sucking down gel packs and Gatorade :)

Again, this is only my experience. However, it does mirror the results of the majority of my clients. It's also important to note that prior to discovering Dr Peat, I had been on a lower (cyclical) carbohydrate diet for almost 8 years, with bouts of unscheduled fasting. Then, for about 6 months I began pushing the fasting and ignoring hunger signals, and that got me into trouble with the telltale signs of a poor weakens metabolism. That's when I found Dr Peat, Matt Stone, etc. High carb high calorie worked to quickly warm me up, like within a week or two, but then everything went backwards fast. I tried for almost 2 years to make a high carbohydrate diet work, trying every practical variation, and it only served to really damage my health. After going back to my original "diet" my health has steadily improved.

EDIT* I agree with @ecstatichamster that conventional dieting, i.e. conscious and consistent denial of dietary energy, is not good for health. Any caloric restriction a person achieves should come naturally and with minimal to no effort.

 

[Steve]

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

Good post...............I was just thinking along these lines yesterday.
I've been researching diet for months & months now because of a health issue, but I decided yesterday I'm just about done deciding what the best diet is.
Every time I read something that really makes sense I then find the complete opposite which also really makes sense.
As you say there is a lot we haven't figured out regarding human metabolism.

I think a better way to go about things is to make a list of things to "avoid", because we know for sure that certain foods & certain actions & certain environments are extremely risky for most humans.
(Dont' eat vegetable oil, artificial weird ingredients, PUFA mixed with a lot of sugar or alcohol. Don't go on a long-term diet mixed with endurance exercise unless you want no muscle. Avoid extreme stress. Don't sit inside all day long. Etc, etc, etc).

We don't know for sure what things are healthy for most humans (although I think we know "some" things), so I'm done trying to figure it out.
As long as I avoid what is known to be bad then just I'm just going to eat whatever the hell I feel like eating (whole, natural foods) which may change depending on my environment (which includes the outside environment & my own body's environment on that particular day). What happens, happens.
Listen to your body.

 

[Braveheart]

The forum lesson for me this week was the reminder that supplements and hormones can cause imbalances if overdone....now trying to re evaluate what I'm doing so as not to create new problems. It's been drummed into me that older people need more of everything (I'm 72) but...? Balance in everything....no?

 

[Westside PUFAs]

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.

A very broad statement. There is many different and contrary literature on this forum. So what? Also, just be honest. You're a keto guy. Nothing wrong with that. You guys have a certain worldview. Therefore, don't pretend like you've "tried" eating more "sugar" because of "Peat" but you didn't feel good for a day so you went back to keto. That doesn't mean Peat is wrong about getting enough sugar or starch.

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.

Good for you. My experience has been the opposite. People lower their butter, cream, cheese, olive, nut, seed, condiment oils, fried foods and any non-skimmed dairy product and increased boiled starch and get those same results.

Reducing carbohydrate and fasting, has been used as a healing and fat loss tactic since the beginning of recorded medical history.

This woman healed her cancer by reducing fat and fasting and eating high starch. Published in BMJ.

You can find references to it even in ancient spiritual literature

Ancient spiritual literature also has a lot of nonsense in it.

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.

So berries get a pass now? Berries are sugar. So is starch. Sugar is sugar once in the bloodstream. You keto guys should just be honest about what you really have a problem with which is funny because starch, not fat, is the reason you're alive today, in terms of it's importance to civilization.

Shoot, look at Halle Berry. She has been on a ketogenic diet most of her life,

Do you actually believe that? Do you really think she's been testing the amount of ketones in her pee for years?

First of all, she's mixed. Mixed people tend to turn out to be better looking than non-mixed people. Second, she was born that way. It's the luck of the draw. Some people are born with good looking genetics. They're called models. Third, it's called botox/cosmetic surgery. Fourth, it's called having extremely low levels of stress due to having obtained massive amounts of currency from a joke of a job.

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.

Ah yes, the typical "jacked" guy who knows nothing about how carbohydrate is really used in the body and claims to do low carb/keto when really his results are from exogenous anabolic substances. The guy who thinks eating pasta with cheese and olive oil is the same as eating boiled potatoes and rice and thinks chocolate and ice cream are "carbs."

I don't believe everyone should eat lower carbohydrate, appropriate carbohydrate would be more accurate.

I can say the same thing about fat. Appropriate fat would be more accurate.

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.

Any scientist that claims that sugar has harmful effects is a moron and doesn't understand what sugar is. That article is garbage. Those scientists don't even know what glycolysis is.

 

[Westside PUFAs]

much as we attribute recommendations to Peat, he makes really almost no recommendations at all.

Not true. Every one of his newsletters has recomendaitons at the end of it.

 

[Westside PUFAs]

Fasting for that long will literally DESTROY your health.

How do you explain this then?

this guy probably lost significant portion of his muscle tissue which is very hard to recover once the low metabolism adaptation sets in.

Not true. You lose some of the muscle "juice" but not the actual muscle cells. That only happens if you go long enough to use up all adipose tissue aka starvation.

 

[Dobbler]

I hope gbolduev stays writing in this forum tbh. Hes ideas about fasting are refreshing compared to this huge warmongerin towards it.

 

[squanch]

Not true. You lose some of the muscle "juice" but not the actual muscle cells. That only happens if you go long enough to use up all adipose tissue aka starvation.

Which happens very quickly if somebody doesn't have a lot of adipose tissue to begin with.
It's a therapeutic tool for specific situations, in other situations it can do some very serious damage.

 

[lvysaur]

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

Nah, I get it. You were comparing our ability to "make our own fats" to the ability to "make our own glucose". You think that making our own fats isn't preferential because of some unknown reason which you can't describe right now.

You then compared it to a well-known degenerative process, which is totally unrelated, even in the most basic of bodily dichotomies (catabolic vs anabolic). In short, you used a bad analogy.

 

[Tarmander]

How do you explain this then?

Nice story there. There are a lot of great testimonies of people curing cancer, diabetes, lowering cholesterol and bp, with fasting. I am not going to say those results are all bunk because obviously they are numerous enough to lend credit to the science of fasting.

Perhaps I could sum up my statement more succinctly. Fasting is like learning to run by running from lions. You will learn to run very fast, your whole body will put in the work and you may be a specimen of excellence. Or you may trip. Just google "fasting messed me up," or something along those lines and you will see people who wrecked themselves fasting, and others pointing out that if they had just broken their fast properly, they would not have the debilitating tendon damage, or back pain, or whatever. It is tragic to learn after a 2 week fast that your health issue is not touched by fasting.

If you are young and fat from sitting in front of a screen, then fasting can probably be beneficial. If you go to a clinic which can monitor you while you fast, you are also probably going to minimize the risks.

 

[James IV]

A very broad statement. There is many different and contrary literature on this forum. So what? Also, just be honest. You're a keto guy. Nothing wrong with that. You guys have a certain worldview. Therefore, don't pretend like you've "tried" eating more "sugar" because of "Peat" but you didn't feel good for a day so you went back to keto. That doesn't mean Peat is wrong about getting enough sugar or starch.



Good for you. My experience has been the opposite. People lower their butter, cream, cheese, olive, nut, seed, condiment oils, fried foods and any non-skimmed dairy product and increased boiled starch and get those same results.



This woman healed her cancer by reducing fat and fasting and eating high starch. Published in BMJ.



Ancient spiritual literature also has a lot of nonsense in it.



So berries get a pass now? Berries are sugar. So is starch. Sugar is sugar once in the bloodstream. You keto guys should just be honest about what you really have a problem with which is funny because starch, not fat, is the reason you're alive today, in terms of it's importance to civilization.



Do you actually believe that? Do you really think she's been testing the amount of ketones in her pee for years?

First of all, she's mixed. Mixed people tend to turn out to be better looking than non-mixed people. Second, she was born that way. It's the luck of the draw. Some people are born with good looking genetics. They're called models. Third, it's called botox/cosmetic surgery. Fourth, it's called having extremely low levels of stress due to having obtained massive amounts of currency from a joke of a job.



Ah yes, the typical "jacked" guy who knows nothing about how carbohydrate is really used in the body and claims to do low carb/keto when really his results are from exogenous anabolic substances. The guy who thinks eating pasta with cheese and olive oil is the same as eating boiled potatoes and rice and thinks chocolate and ice cream are "carbs."



I can say the same thing about fat. Appropriate fat would be more accurate.



Any scientist that claims that sugar has harmful effects is a moron and doesn't understand what sugar is. That article is garbage. Those scientists don't even know what glycolysis is.

Cool mate. Once again, I am not trying to prove anything, I think that's pretty clear from my post. Just sharing my experience and perspective.

Halle Berry is a type 1 diabetic, so yeah, I tend to believe she probably watches her carb intake pretty closely.

Im not a "keto guy", and I'm still not Asian. I don't do drugs, and I didn't try low fat "for a few days." Not sure why you are so defensive, and keep trying to pigeonhole me for whatever reason.

I agree agriculture and starch specifically, is a big reason humans have been able to proliferate.

Anyway, I go out of my way to be very clear that I'm only sharing my opinions and experiences. Cheers.

 

[James IV]

Nah, I get it. You were comparing our ability to "make our own fats" to the ability to "make our own glucose". You think that making our own fats isn't preferential because of some unknown reason which you can't describe right now.

You then compared it to a well-known degenerative process, which is totally unrelated, even in the most basic of bodily dichotomies (catabolic vs anabolic). In short, you used a bad analogy.

You are right, It was a bad anaology. In the very next post I said it was a bad analogy, and corrected myself.

I never said making your own fat or glucose was bad or good. In fact the whole point I was making was that the ability to convert one energy substrate to another does not make it bad or good, and shouldn't be a measure of whether is preferential or detrimental.

I disagree that catabolism is always degenerative and anabolism is always restorative. That is far too simplistic a statement.

 

[Namer]

[QUOTE="First of all, she's mixed. Mixed people tend to turn out to be better looking than non-mixed people. [/QUOTE]

Rubbish. Fine if you prefer that though, "Better looking is very subjective"

 

[Mito]

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.

Your observational experience fits gbolduev’s theory that most (~80%) people are slow oxidizers. He says slow oxidizers do better with lower carbs (generating less CO2) especially if they are physically inactive (modern lifestyle).

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.

Can’t deny that she looks great for 50, but maybe not the best example since she has superior genetics in physical appearance. She’s also a type 1 diabetic pretty much all her life. She uses the keto diet to reduce her need for insulin.

 

[Westside PUFAs]

@Mito sorry for bringing up fasting which diverted the thread. I should've just left it at my radioactive fat comment.

 

[Regina]

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.

He looks horrible on the right.
I can easily predict how his body would feel from aikido. I don't encounter many people with supple energetic-feeling bodies in aikido.

 

[Westside PUFAs]

He looks horrible on the right.
I can easily predict how his body would feel from aikido. It's hard even to train with people anymore whose bodies feel energetic.

That's the point. It's on a continuum. No one expects to look amazing after a 40 day water-only fast. But once they re-feed and re-build, it's like a new life. Your tastes buds reset, you don't need as much salt and flavorings for natural foods, energy, sleep, libido, mood etc. all improve. And some do it as a cancer prevention strategy and for spiritual purposes. I've seen people doing it in real life and it's inspiring.

Even young gamers are doing it:



.

 

[Westside PUFAs]

Cool mate. Once again, I am not trying to prove anything, I think that's pretty clear from my post. Just sharing my experience and perspective.

Me too.

Halle Berry is a type 1 diabetic, so yeah, I tend to believe she probably watches her carb intake pretty closely.

Type one diabetics don't make any insulin or enough insulin, therefore, all they have to do is inject the right amount for them. That doesn't mean that they somehow have to go keto. This type 1 diabetic eats extremely low fat.

Im not a "keto guy", and I'm still not Asian. I don't do drugs, and I didn't try low fat "for a few days." Not sure why you are so defensive, and keep trying to pigeonhole me for whatever reason.

I was talking about the "jacked guys" you know. Not defensive, just coffee shop talk. If we were sitting in a coffee shop, try to picture me responding to you with a skeptical smirk on my face and raising my eyebrows. It's not that serious. I'm just responding and making an argument.

.

 

[haidut]

How do you explain this then?



Not true. You lose some of the muscle "juice" but not the actual muscle cells. That only happens if you go long enough to use up all adipose tissue aka starvation.

We actually don't know either way. Could be muscle loss, could be water loss. Neck becoming thinner though is not a good sign. In males, it is a negative predictor of all-cause mortality.