Theory - Dietary Fat Induces Starvation Metabolism And Biological Failure?

[cry0genicz]

I don't think I have any unheard-of-ideas, but over the years of messing around with different ways of eating during my interest in bodybuilding and reading people like Ray Peat and Matt Stone, I've seen nearly every possible perspective imaginable when dealing with nutrition. Everybody argues their way is the right way and I still remain skeptical. Here are some personal thoughts and theory about the effects of dietary fat on the overall energy metabolism and biological success that I hope can be used to create a good discussion. I'm sure some of these ideas overlap with Ray Peat's as well.

I like to think of nutrition in a context of how early humans ate before civilization and mass agriculture, and even cooking with fire. Sort of like Raw/ Paleo, but I think Raw/Paleo could be optimized. I think it would be better to eat how a caveman WANTED to, not simply eat things that would be available to a caveman. What would a caveman want to eat? Things that tasted good. I doubt they had any desire to eat bitter or sour foods, they're off-putting. Kids don't even like those things, but adults do because they want to believe that it's good for their health and it becomes an acquired taste. Anyway, I think we can determine what caveman yummy foods are by taking a look at our most pleasurable taste senses. Sweet and savory/umami. Fruit and meat. Carbs and protein. (Note: I'm sure many animals were quite lean back then as well, so even fat intake from animal consumption would be low).

Fresh fruit and meat are only available to successful caveman hunter gatherers. A steady supply of fresh fruit and meat is only available in a healthy and plentiful ecosystem. The consumption of fresh fruit and meat is indicative that the organism is existing in a successful and plentiful environment. The context is: No stress, no starvation, high energy, and biological success.

What happens when there is no yummy fruits and animals to eat? Plan B. Eat these tough, undigestible, bitter vegetable stalks and leaves, nuts, and seeds. May not be pleasing to eat, but it is at least SOMETHING to survive off of. A caveman eating vegetables, nuts, and seeds is in a starvation/stress/failure context; living in an environment without plentiful GOOD foods. It appears that fat is the primary nutrient in this group.

Protein/Carbs: Biological Success Context
Fat: Starvation/Failure Context

Perhaps this is why fat is 9 calories per gram. It is energy dense, to provide calories during starvation. It's nature's way of coping with starvation. It's plan B. But its NOT optimal nor sustainable for long periods. I've done keto and I got very lean, but that's only because it consumed my entire body in the process. It did damage and slowed my metabolism to survive during the perceived "famine" of preferable foods. Keto people tend to rave the increased "mental awareness" and the ability to go longer periods without eating. Perhaps this mental awareness is from increases in adrenaline, giving you hypervigilancy to aid in helping you find preferable foods (ANXIETY anyone??). Less intense hunger pangs help you not be in agony while starving, it's a defensive mechanism. I feel like depression is implied here as well, you feel so bad because your biology deep within KNOWS you're failing. Diabetes, often associated with these issues, is probably related as well.

It comes down to convincing your biology that you exist within a certain environmental context. Fat directs you into a starvation/failure context, whereas protein/carbohydrates direct you into a successful context. When your body is in a success context, your reproductive/hormonal function goes up. You're a successful human with energy and resources and you're allowed to procreate. The starving people get stuck with low hormonal/reproductive function because the universe wants them to NOT make children; they are failures. Survival of the fittest comes down to resources.

Why are people in the most developed areas of the world being plagued by diseases and hormonal problems!? We have so many resources and power!? Because we eat good Plan A nutrients (carbs and proteins), tainted with lots of Plan B nutrients (fat). We are tipping ourselves into the direction of starvation context with the intake of fats. Restaurants using extra fats and oils, processed foods with oils, perceived "healthy fats" with high intake of nuts and nut butters. We've completely lost touch with our natural selves in modern day society and foods have become so perverted from their natural form that you really can't blame people for having problems.

This isn't to say that fat has benefits (fat soluable vitamins), but I believe a caveman living in the success context would be eating very little fat, only getting small amounts from the naturally lean animals they have access to. Could tipping our balance in favor of success heal us of our metabolic woes?

 

[benaoao]

Looking at it from a thyroid and mitochondrial standpoint what you're saying is correct. Remember the cavemen would eat the whole animal to the bone. Make sure you do so yourself. Oh and fruits before weren't super high in fructose like ours. So there are some evolutionary details to have in mind when thinking this way.

But yeah from a macro standpoint I dont see why more than, say 20% fat would make sense. The exception being coconut since the shorter the saturated carbon chain, the higher the metabolism.

 

[Hans]

Good topic. I too have thought of these things, but more in terms of when I was a child. As a child I had tons of energy, slept well, wanted to explore, be creative and create things. I see that as a very healthy metabolism. Now, I know there is differences between a kid and an adult, but basicly I want to achieve that kind of metabolism again.
I too have done keto, but it was not a magic pill as some would say it was, with the benfits of better energy, better mental focus and less hunger,...for me at least.

So what I liked to eat as a kid was meat, milk and lots a fruit. When I ate fatty stuff I got really nauseous. But as an adult we sometimes force our bodies to adapt to something because we think it's healthy lol.

Bottom line is, I agree with plan A, that would be optimal for health, a healthy metabolism and well-being.

 

[cyclops]

good stuff.

 

[Tenacity]

What about the fat present in milk?

 

[cry0genicz]

Looking at it from a thyroid and mitochondrial standpoint what you're saying is correct. Remember the cavemen would eat the whole animal to the bone. Make sure you do so yourself. Oh and fruits before weren't super high in fructose like ours. So there are some evolutionary details to have in mind when thinking this way.

But yeah from a macro standpoint I dont see why more than, say 20% fat would make sense. The exception being coconut since the shorter the saturated carbon chain, the higher the metabolism.

Benaoao, good points. I know Ray Peat talks highly of coconut oil and saturated fat, but I believe intakes of those should still be low. It's just a BETTER fat source than the polyunsatures; if youre going to eat fat. Right? Also, for the people carrying excess body fat, could it be considered safe to limit fat intake to very low percentages (<5%) as bodily fat stores can be used to provide fatty acids for those biological process that need it?

 

[cry0genicz]

What about the fat present in milk?

That's a worthy consideration. I'm still unsure about on how some things may fit into this idea. Milk and starches are two big ones. I know milk has been consumed for a very long time, but I'm not sure how very early humans would have approached animal milks. Prior to agriculture and some technological advances, milk probably wouldn't have been accessible in high quantities as we do now with our preservation techniques. Even if they started domesticating animals who knows if they collected their milk for human consumption; perhaps they simply left it alone for the baby animals.

Really unsure about starches. Kind of a neutral substance in my opinion at the moment.

 

[Waremu]

The evolutionary argument is often full of assumptions, and bad thinking, in my opinion. It does have its place, in context, but “what we did tens of thousands of years ago is what’s the most natural” just isn’t a very good argument for many reasons.

For example, apes spend much if not most of their time eating when they cannot find ripe fruit. So they have to chew pounds of raw green vegetation, which takes a lot of time and effort and jaw power. Not very efficient.

Humans, however, spend less time looking for or eating food because they —- being more intelligent —- look for more concentrated sources of calories when they go out looking for food, so it occupies less time and energy when they are able to find food (in a tropical area this was less of an issue where you had fresh fruit year around, fish, and coconuts).

According to the same evolutionary argument, one can say we should sit around chewing pounds of greens like apes do because that’s “more natural” than having large supplies of fruit year around (which is also debatable).

Also, the idea that there weren’t many high sugar fruits around is largely an assumption and there is evidence that even back then, there were tropical fruits that were quite plentiful in sugars as well. One such sweet fruit, native to Africa, is called "Junglesop", which has a very sweet "peachy" flavor:


Junglesop is one of the largest fruits, but not as large as Jackfruit. Where it occurs naturally, the tree is not generally cultivated, possibly due to the availability of the fruit from wild trees.

Another sweety fruit is the soursop. The soursop is an often-gigantic fruit of the Annona family that grows wild, but is now being increasingly cultivated in the tropics due to its unique sweet flavor. The inside is moist and creamy white. They’re fairly high in sugar (30 grams per 150-calorie serving).




And there are any more wild tropical fruits even today which have a fair amount of sugar calories. You also had honey (which is actually not all that uncommon to come across in the wild tropics, and when you do there is so much honey to last you days if not weeks or more, depending on other factors).

In our past we were also exposed to a lot more stress. According to the same evolutionary argument, we then should spend far more time doing things that expose us to more stress as well because it has to be more natural, right? But we know scientifically this is not the case. Natural does not necessarily equate to healthy. More stress usually results is less quality of life/health. Humans improve and build things as well, being the creatures that they are. That is also 'natural.'

The way I see higher carb fruit today is that throughout our time and natural adaptation, we evolved to concentrate on the more healthy things (less stress, more carbs) and do less of the unhealthy things (more stress, starvation/less calories/carbs).

Humans are more efficient, larger brain creatures and thus require more of the "good stuff" (simple sugars) energy to perform or function well. We made use of natural things that existed back then (fruit sugars) and super-concentrated them via agriculture, etc.

Also, there is evidence that even during 'paleo' times, we ate starchy wild plant foods. These were some of the arguments that put to rest the low carb paleo community, actually. I came from the raw paleo scene many years ago myself and saw the holes in their arguments.

 

[Westside PUFAs]

Everybody argues their way is the right way and I still remain skeptical.

Always remain skeptical but there comes a point of where your basic regime should be like clockwork. You can always adjust it but you still have to live day to day and if you bounce around too much from different templates you could just go in circles.

I like to think of nutrition in a context of how early humans ate before civilization and mass agriculture

I believe that not just humans but pre-humans were famers. We were farming and growing some kinds of starches, greens and maintained fruit trees and vines for a very long time. I believe that's what the human animal is. A natural farmer that got a successful kill from time to time. It shouldn't be "hunter/gatherer," it should be "gatherer/hunter." When you look at every species, they do what they do and humans do what we do. It might seem odd but it's not odd when you study humans who were thosuands of years apart but still did the same things food-wise. I think humans ability to survive was only because we were farmers before we were human in this form. The environment was too rough and dangerous to not live in a village like setting where resources were maintained and secured. As soon as those resources fail, everyone dies. Well, they go into ketosis from their own body fat and if fresh water is available to drink then they could survive on a water fast for a few weeks, depending on how much fat they had on their body.

What would a caveman want to eat? Things that tasted good.

But certain things that taste good now are because our taste buds are adjusted to the supernormal stimuli of todays monkeyed-with foods.

Fresh fruit and meat are only available to successful caveman hunter gatherers. A steady supply of fresh fruit and meat is only available in a healthy and plentiful ecosystem. The consumption of fresh fruit and meat is indicative that the organism is existing in a successful and plentiful environment. The context is: No stress, no starvation, high energy, and biological success.

What happens when there is no yummy fruits and animals to eat? Plan B. Eat these tough, undigestible, bitter vegetable stalks and leaves, nuts, and seeds. May not be pleasing to eat, but it is at least SOMETHING to survive off of. A caveman eating vegetables, nuts, and seeds is in a starvation/stress/failure context; living in an environment without plentiful GOOD foods. It appears that fat is the primary nutrient in this group.

Don't forget energy dense starchy tubers. Starch is sugar linked together. And the reason why rice worked in Asia for 10k years is because it mimics some kind of starchy tuber.

""We agree with Wrangham (2009) that the reduction in gut size is more likely to have occurred due to a gradual replacement of fibrous plants by higher energy-yielding plant foods, including starchy tubers."

"We contend that in terms of energy supplied to an increasingly large brain, as well as to other glucose-dependent tissues, consumption of increased amounts of starch may have provided a substantial evolutionary advantage to Mid-to-Late Pleistocene omnivorous hominins.""

Perhaps this is why fat is 9 calories per gram. It is energy dense, to provide calories during starvation. It's nature's way of coping with starvation. It's plan B. But its NOT optimal nor sustainable for long periods.

Yes and it can only fuel certain tissues and not others and it also produces breakdown byproducts that course problems.

Keto people tend to rave the increased "mental awareness" and the ability to go longer periods without eating.

They don't understand what ketosis really is. It's our way of surviving a famine (if we also have fresh water to drink, without fresh water that's a dry fast and would only survive a few days before dying from dehydration).

Because we eat good Plan A nutrients (carbs and proteins), tainted with lots of Plan B nutrients (fat).

I agree. The added fat causes nothing but problems.

Restaurants using extra fats and oils, processed foods with oils, perceived "healthy fats" with high intake of nuts and nut butters.

Yes but don't forget that saturated fats can cause fat gain too.

This isn't to say that fat has benefits (fat soluable vitamins),

My thoughts on the FVS:

Why I Believe Very Low Fat ("carbosis") May Be Superior For Lean Bulking

but I believe a caveman living in the success context would be eating very little fat, only getting small amounts from the naturally lean animals they have access to.

I agree.

 

[benaoao]

great post @Waremu (and great nickname aha)

we evolved to concentrate on the more healthy things (less stress, more carbs) and do less of the unhealthy things (more stress, starvation/less calories/carbs).

Humans are more efficient, larger brain creatures and thus require more of the "good stuff" (simple sugars) energy to perform or function well. We made use of natural things that existed back then (fruit sugars) and super-concentrated them via agriculture, etc.

Also, there is evidence that even during 'paleo' times, we ate starchy wild plant foods. These were some of the arguments that put to rest the low carb paleo community, actually. I came from the raw paleo scene many years ago myself and saw the holes in their arguments.

that makes the most sense and should probably be the bottom line and foundation for any diet plan. Lots of easy and good stuff full of nutrients.

 

[cry0genicz]

Always remain skeptical but there comes a point of where your basic regime should be like clockwork. You can always adjust it but you still have to live day to day and if you bounce around too much from different templates you could just go in circles.

Don't forget energy dense starchy tubers. Starch is sugar linked together. And the reason why rice worked in Asia for 10k years is because it mimics some kind of starchy tuber.

""We agree with Wrangham (2009) that the reduction in gut size is more likely to have occurred due to a gradual replacement of fibrous plants by higher energy-yielding plant foods, including starchy tubers."

"We contend that in terms of energy supplied to an increasingly large brain, as well as to other glucose-dependent tissues, consumption of increased amounts of starch may have provided a substantial evolutionary advantage to Mid-to-Late Pleistocene omnivorous hominins.""

My thoughts on the FVS:

Why I Believe Very Low Fat ("carbosis") May Be Superior For Lean Bulking

Yeah, that running in circles thing has been all too common lately with me. Very true. & Yeah, I wasn't too sure how to fit in starches in my thoughts. I definitely am aware of the widespread use of it in asia as a good fuel source that doesn't seem to be problematic. It's also a bodybuilder staple, big time. Starch is better than simpler sugars for muscle glycogen. Fruits arent "BAD", just not as helpful for athletic performance. Good points in that VLF post; makes a lot of sense.

 

[lollipop]

great post @Waremu (and great nickname aha)



that makes the most sense and should probably be the bottom line and foundation for any diet plan. Lots of easy and good stuff full of nutrients.

+1 great post.

 

[cyclops]

Starch is sugar linked together

There must be some other difference though. I think the difference between glucose and fructose matters. In my experience Starch seems to refill muscle glycogen more and sugar (like from fruit or even table sugar) seem to refill liver glycogen more.

 

[lollipop]

There must be some other difference though. I think the difference between glucose and fructose matters. In my experience Starch seems to refill muscle glycogen more and sugar (like from fruit or even table sugar) seem to refill liver glycogen more.

Interesting you make this distinction. I seem to have noticed this as well from my n=1 experience. I had not thought about that way until I read your post.

 

[cyclops]

Interesting you make this distinction. I seem to have noticed this as well from my n=1 experience. I had not thought about that way until I read your post.

Yes, it's something that is commonly known/said in bodybuilding, and I have found it to be true in my personal experience as well.

 

[lollipop]

Yes, it's something that is commonly known/said in bodybuilding, and I have found it to be true in my personal experience as well.

Cool. I am DEFINITELY not in the bodybuilding world - lol, but I get the knowledge benefits from folks like yourself

 

[CarbAppreciator]

What about rabbit starvation... I still think the common belief that hunter gatherers sought out the fattier meat is reasonable. Also, once liver glycogen is replete, fructose is largely turned into fat. Fat is certainly not anabolic in isolation, but a decent amount with a meal adds easy calories and facilitates digestion and palatability.

 

[cry0genicz]

What about rabbit starvation... I still think the common belief that hunter gatherers sought out the fattier meat is reasonable. Also, once liver glycogen is replete, fructose is largely turned into fat. Fat is certainly not anabolic in isolation, but a decent amount with a meal adds easy calories and facilitates digestion and palatability.

Rabbit starvation is a real thing. I think that would be more of a concern for a person not carrying much body fat though. If you're very lean and healthy, an intake of 15%-20% fat would make more sense than 5%. However, if you're low energy with low metabolism with body fat to burn, then deliberate fat restriction would be better. If you're very lean and low energy, you're probably just hypocaloric.

I've seen some arguments that say a lot of fructose can result in fat gain and some others say that it doesn't seem to have that effect. I'm not sure there. I neglected starch in my original post, so perhaps its not 100% fruit for the carb intake, but starches thrown in there as well. I've seen arguments for 'excess' starches going towards thermogensis instead of going purely to the formation of fat.

Fat is easy calories, sure, but why eat fat for boosting caloric intake when you could just eat more protein/carb?

 

[LLight]

Note: I'm sure many animals were quite lean back then as well, so even fat intake from animal consumption would be low.

Agree about animals being leaner back then, but what about bone marrow which has some fat ? Is the proportion too low ?

If it is available, humans would eat it.

 

[cry0genicz]

Agree about animals being leaner back then, but what about bone marrow which has some fat ? Is the proportion too low ?

If it is available, humans would eat it.

I suppose bone marrow would count as some fat too. But, overall the overwhelming majority of the animal's composition is protein. It's relatively low in fat and very high in protein.