Tyw. Said Something That Makes Alot Of Sense!

[haidut]

@haidut

As always, we separately address different topics.

----
Insulin Resistance (the original topic of the thread)

We cannot simply apply simple thinking to topics like insulin resistance. So what if it an "endocrine disorder". What is driving that disorder?

I am not dismissing any evidence whatsoever. I am taking high level mechanics (hormones), low level mechanics (mitochondria), everything in between, marrying that to circadian rhythms (which have HUGE effect on insulin activity), and then showing that one can weave an explanation that suits a particular context.

The fact is that we have all sorts of phenotypes, and insulin resistance is just one facet of the organism as a whole, and obviously shows wildly varying levels in all sorts of different people. Or as Bill Lagakos put it:

There are insulin sensitive obese people & IR lean people.
Tell me again how insulin resistance causes obesity?​

see the whole post for details -- Insulin resistance and obesity

I am completely warranted in saying that there is no way to give generic advice regarding diet macronutrient ratios without knowing the person's context. The real world results speak for themselves, with so many different insulin sensitivity phenotypes experiencing so many different results with the same stimulus.

----
Cortisol

In clinical practice, we see all sorts of patterns that make no sense whatsoever.

@paymanz post here is actually representative of many of the horrible cases that my doctor friends see -- Insulin Resistance As An Endocrine Disorder

For example, one of them told me: "Super High AM, then tanked .... Most of the bad cases either have curves like this or all flat. I have never seen an upside down curve"

Therefore, how do you know that:



There may be a post-meal cortisol spike (which is not normal), and certainly in most cases, cortisol drops after a meal -- Cortisol responses to mental stress, exercise, and meals following caffeine intake in men and women

See figure 1 (Cortisol responses to mental stress, exercise, and meals following caffeine intake in men and women), and note that:
- 200mg caffeine causing increased cortisol in the face of both mental stress and exercise
- mental stress was by far the overriding factor
- how this sort of not-too-stressful exercise barely budges cortisol
- how a mixed meal decreased cortisol levels

For every study like this, I can cite another one using people in a completely different context, and show different results. (eg: chronically exercising athletes, who are consistently over-taxing their system, showing chronic cortisol dysfunction -- Increased Cortisol Production in Women Runners* | The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism | Oxford Academic)

So yes, a change in context can invalidate all mechanics. That is point that I've been trying to get across. Context-free discussions are meaningless. Context must be qualified, and then each individual can decide if the mechanics can be generalised beyond that context, and under what new conditions / constraints.

----

And of course, if PUFA is such a big deal with stress, prove it . Prove that there are generic mechanisms whereby PUFA is the make-it-or-break-it factor when it comes to stress, rather than just some gross trauma or energetic deficit to the tissue.

We know the dangers of PUFA peroxidation on cell membranes, especially on high energy membranes like mitochondrial membranes. Good, scope the mechanics upon that context, and note that membrane PUFA peroxidation is bad.

Now what? Does this randomly scale up to the inter-organ level? Of course not ...... How do we know how one person manages the PUFAs on their membranes. How do we know if they are even going to mobilise a lot of that PUFA. How do we know that they transport it into the cell. How do we differentiate between the different types of PUFA (they all have different effects). How do we know that PUFA isn't beta-oxidised instead.

Want to talk about PUFA as hormone-like ligands? Sure, we know delve into the complicated as hell world of PPARs -- Circadian rhythms, Wnt/beta-catenin pathway and PPAR alpha/gamma profiles in diseases with primary or secondary cardiac dysfunction

There is no answer here .... sure, we can mechanistically describe how certain PUFAs activate PPAR gamma activity (which BTW, is supposed to upregulate carbohydrate metabolism). Now what? Look at that paper, and all the life-threatening illnesses associated with PPAR gamma deficiency, and all the life-threatening illnesses associated with excess activity PPAR gamma. Screwed either way? No, this is part of a fine balancing system that is highly tuned to the context of the organism.

The PPARs are heavily regulated by all the circadian machinery in the body -- https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ppar/2014/653017/ . RXRs, G-coupled protein receptors, etc .... They are truly "at the crossroads of circadian signalling and metabolism".

And tying back to cortisol, look how powerful light (ie: circadian modulators) is in changing the cortisol response -- http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0155601

Just look at Figure 3 and the huge changes in HOMA-IR just by using blue light exposure. Blue light => worst insulin sensitivity. But Blue light => less cortisol .....

I can just as easily claim that chronic unnatural light exposure in today's world, coupled with night-time eating, is responsible for systemic Insulin Resistance. There is more than enough evidence to prove this as a dominant factor in people's lives, but it is a dominant factor in "this particular person's life"? No clue, experiment and find out.

Context mang! Take someone, deprive them of sleep for a day, and all metabolic parameters change.

The practical takeaway from that should have been, "Night time .... Go to sleep!", instead of worrying about macronutritional balances and PUFA mechanics.

SIDENOTE: as an aside, it is usually much better for recovery of circadian cycles, to skip eating during circadian disruption, and then re-start eating during the next circadian morning.

This generalises to everything from staying up too late (no late night snacks), to flying across multiple time zones (try to time flight arrival in morning, do not eat along the way).​

----

Mechanics be come with qualified Context , and that includes all up- and down-stream side effects of that particular mechanic.

I will always err on the side of uncertainty, and never claim to generalise any mechanics beyond the exact context that there were elucidated within.

I have also provided so much counter evidence to show how all these various mechanics at the various hierarchies of the organism can interact in seemingly wildly contradicting ways.

eg: high serum FFA can lead to insulin resistance via the Randle Cycle (serum level). high PUFA flux through mitochondria leads to insulin sensitivity (intercellular level). Which one dominates? Dunno, ask the organism .....

The type of narrative one wants to weave can be completely biased by working only on a particular hierarchy of the system. I'd rather stay honest and say, "wow this is complex, I try my best to tell an accurate story based on existing observations, but you guys interpret this for yourself".


"What is the context of the mechanics I am discussing?", and of course, "How can I apply this to my life? And how do I know if the intervention is working?"

.....

My statements also come from working in a metabolic ward a few days of the week. You want proof for PUFA's role in cortisol and stress? Ingest 5g of arachidonic acid at 3pm when your cortisol is supposed to be lowest. Better yet, test both before/after you ingest. Then test your cortisol and TNFa, estradiol, insulin, and CRP 90min - 120min later. You will find out just how "unique" and "unpredictable" your response would be. Not!
All of the things I mentioned about NSAID, serotonin antagonists, inflammation, etc were all derived experimentally. Maybe there is some deep, complicated mechanism behind it, or maybe it's quite simple. Until I see solid evidence invalidating (falsifying) the role of PUFA and inflammation (coupled with chronic stress, both of which PUFA can trigger) in insulin resistance, diabetes and even cancer I will keep doing what works based on that hypothesis. As far as proof for PUFA being bad - there is no definitive proof. As you know, science can only falsify. But here are some things to consider. If PUFA is a bonafide endocrine disruptor and a carcinogen then why wouldn't one want to be careful with it?
PUFA Is Estrogenic And Androgen/Progesterone Antagonist
Pufa Stimulates Cortisol Production Even In The Absense Of Acth
Omega-3 (DHA, EPA) Degrades The Androgen Receptor
Inhibition Of PUFA Metabolism (LOX) Trigger Immediate Apoptosis In Prostate Cancer
PUFA are carcinogenic, dietary glycine blocks their effect
Contradictory Information On PUFAs
Contradictory Information On PUFAs

Over the last 6 months the clinic where my associates work has used experimentally the drug mifepristone (RU486) to treat diabetes II. It succeeded in every single case. FDA has already approved it for diabetes II but insists it should only be used on people with diabetes caused by the Cushing syndrome.
Mifepristone (Korlym): First FDA-Approved Medication for the Treatment of Cushing’s Syndrome - CSRF - Cushing's Support & Research Foundation
"...There have been scattered case reports over the past 15 years of the use of mifepristone for the treatment of patients with all forms of Cushing’s syndrome (pituitary-ACTH-secreting tumors, ectopic ACTH-secreting tumors, and adrenal tumors). Recently, Corcept Therapeutics (the company who manufactures mifepristone) conducted a multicenter, 24-week study in the United States of 50 patients with various types of Cushing’s syndrome who had failed surgery or who were not candidates for surgical intervention. This study showed a rapid improvement in glucose control in patients with type 2 diabetes due to Cushing’s syndrome. In addition, approximately 50% of the Cushing’s syndrome patients with hypertension had either improvement in their blood pressure or decrease in their antihypertensive medications. Most importantly, an independent review panel evaluated the responses of the patients to many parameters including glucose levels, blood pressure, lipids, weight, body composition change, neuropsychological factors, and physical appearance. Their analysis showed that clinically significant improvement occurred in 87% of patients treated with mifepristone."

Of course, the idea that maybe all diabetes II is caused by high cortisol and inflammation would be too much to bear for the sensitive souls at FDA. Be that as it may, RU486 is now a mainstream diabetes II therapy (off-label) in many clinics across the USA, regardless of Cushingoid status. Do you think there is a hidden epidemic of Cushing-caused diabetes that was a subset of all diabetes cases and was undiagnosed until RU486 was approved? No, the much more likely scenario is that most (if not all) diabetes II is a neuroendocrine disorder caused by HPA dysregulation. PUFA and stress are the primary causative factors in that.
I am not interested in arguing about this any more. In fact, I am not interested in arguing at all. I try to find what works. When so many human clinical trials with diabetes and/or insulin resistance with different drugs targeting the same target (HPA) through different pathways (serotonin, inflammation, cortisol, lipolysis, etc) succeed the case is closed to me.

 

[Wagner83]

I don't know about insulin resistance but I can't see how there wouldn't be a pretty wide range explanation for why so many Americans became obese or at least overweight in the past decades. To me it's pretty obvious the environment changed , I see a few things: PUFA, fortified foods, Sodas, BPAs , screens (TVs , computers, phones etc...) and the corresponding electromagnetic fields, stress and the rhythmic aspect of a day (connected to stress, when do people eat etc..), various drugs ( SSRIs) etc...

 

[haidut]

I don't know about insulin resistance but I can't see how there wouldn't be a pretty wide range explanation for why so many Americans became obese or at least overweight in the past decades. To me it's pretty obvious the environment changed , I see a few things: PUFA, fortified foods, Sodas, BPAs , screens (TVs , computers, phones etc...) and the corresponding electromagnetic fields, stress and the rhythmic aspect of a day (connected to stress, when do people eat etc..), various drugs ( SSRIs) etc...

Right, the causes could be many. But the mechanism through which they manifest their effects on the organism are not that many. That is what attracts so many people to the metabolic pathways of disease. Regardless of the cause, there are only a handful of pathways it can affect metabolically. And if you believe that restoring metabolic activity is therapeutic then you only have to work with very few targets. Look at the recent widely successful clinical trials on MS with biotin. For decades MS was considered a disease so complicated that it was proposed to be classified into no less then 37 separate diseases, all of them with mind boggling array of genes, interactions, biomarkers, etc. And suddenly, something simple like biotin stopped (and even reversed) the pathology in the worst subtype of the disease - Primary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis (PPMS). The mechanism of action? Restoration of mitochondrial function. Simple, right? If it worked for that terrible, progressive, lethal disease, then why search for complicated boogeymen unless we have a reason to? Keep doing what works until you hit a roadblock.

 

[Tarmander]

This is basically western vs eastern thought. Funny how this comes up again and again. Western thought strives for the best, for concrete direction in action. What is the most optimal. Why would we even consume PUFA if it were implicated in these detrimental things. Why would we even flirt with it, even if there is some space that it could be useful. I may have to sacrifice, but further generations will benefit from my adherence to the best. We mold our environment to our values. I choose.

Eastern thought points out situations where PUFA is used safely and the lack of concrete evidence to the contrary. It points to balance as the highest good, where even things that could be so called "wrong" can be right in the right circumstances. It holds many things equal given the environment they come from. It points to cycles of life, and that sometimes living the fullest despite not having optimality is the most optimal thing to do. It points to situations where even something many would call wrong actually have a place in that context, can be explained, and shifting from that context would harm the system. I adapt

 

[haidut]

This is basically western vs eastern thought. Funny how this comes up again and again. Western thought strives for the best, for concrete direction in action. What is the most optimal. Why would we even consume PUFA if it were implicated in these detrimental things. Why would we even flirt with it, even if there is some space that it could be useful. I may have to sacrifice, but further generations will benefit from my adherence to the best. We mold our environment to our values. I choose.

Eastern thought points out situations where PUFA is used safely and the lack of concrete evidence to the contrary. It points to balance as the highest good, where even things that could be so called "wrong" can be right in the right circumstances. It holds many things equal given the environment they come from. It points to cycles of life, and that sometimes living the fullest despite not having optimality is the most optimal thing to do. It points to situations where even something many would call wrong actually have a place in that context, can be explained, and shifting from that context would harm the system. I adapt

Very aptly said. I am not against the very idea of balance. I am against the nebulous idea of balance that is undefinable and always sits somewhere on the long range between the two extremes. But we don't know where it is and it is constanly moving. So, it is pointless to bring it up if it is not material enough to be named, and chosen with enough specificity. To me, invoking the idea of balance is simply an admittance of lack of knowledge of what is optimal. Yes, we don't know in many cases the underlying mechanism. But we know enough to choose instead of revert to mysticism. I will end with this quote:
https://raypeatforum.com/community/quotes/453/

 

[Drareg]

This is basically western vs eastern thought. Funny how this comes up again and again. Western thought strives for the best, for concrete direction in action. What is the most optimal. Why would we even consume PUFA if it were implicated in these detrimental things. Why would we even flirt with it, even if there is some space that it could be useful. I may have to sacrifice, but further generations will benefit from my adherence to the best. We mold our environment to our values. I choose.

Eastern thought points out situations where PUFA is used safely and the lack of concrete evidence to the contrary. It points to balance as the highest good, where even things that could be so called "wrong" can be right in the right circumstances. It holds many things equal given the environment they come from. It points to cycles of life, and that sometimes living the fullest despite not having optimality is the most optimal thing to do. It points to situations where even something many would call wrong actually have a place in that context, can be explained, and shifting from that context would harm the system. I adapt

Meanwhile the reality is both eastern and western thoughts have never had balance and have been slaughtering their fellow people for centuries.
If the population is unbalanced slaughter them,why? Because of the balance!

Romantic claims that both sides never backed up.

Many things are in the environment we don't need,mushroom variety as an example,we can get decent nourishment from some,elightenment and nourishment from others and some make you defacate and vomit to death.
We breath in many different substances each day,some we don't need, you can eat faeces or a lump of coal and your body will try to process what it can.

If meaning can be changed don't settle for it if intuitively you know it can be better.

Perhaps in the grander scheme of complexity there is a purpose for all of it(including a reason for death by defecation from shrooms)but for now we don't know......

 

[Drareg]

Very aptly said. I am not against the very idea of balance. I am against the nebulous idea of balance that is undefinable and always sits somewhere on the long range between the two extremes. But we don't know where it is and it is constanly moving. So, it is pointless to bring it up if it is not material enough to be named, and chosen with enough specificity. To me, invoking the idea of balance is simply an admittance of lack of knowledge of what is optimal. Yes, we don't know in many cases the underlying mechanism. But we know enough to choose instead of revert to mysticism. I will end with this quote:
https://raypeatforum.com/community/quotes/453/

Well said.

For me the call for balance in certain contexts is authoritarian.

 

[paymanz]

@tyw context is everything but you also similify thing, for example you speak about pufa like a macro, putting it with carbs and other fats in same category.

Even if you burn all of pufa , you still get the peroxides and other bad things from their circulation in your blood.

Protective “Essential Fatty Acid Deficiency” – Functional Performance Systems (FPS)

Resistance of essential fatty acid-deficient rats to endotoxin-induced increases in vascular permeability. - PubMed - NCBI

Manipulation of the acute inflammatory response by dietary polyunsaturated fatty acid modulation. - PubMed - NCBI

Essential fatty acid deficiency prevents multiple low-dose streptozotocin-induced diabetes in naive and cyclosporin-treated low-responder murine st... - PubMed - NCBI


To lower stress , ray's recommendation to avoid endotoxins absorption , calcium,salt supplementation, for average person how long it takes to find these methods with self experimenting?

 

[paymanz]

The practical takeaway from that should have been, "Night time .... Go to sleep!", instead of worrying about macronutritional balances and PUFA mechanics.

How one with high level of stress hormones can sleep?

People with insomnia really can't sleep , its not like that to easily choice it.

 

[Tarmander]

Very aptly said. I am not against the very idea of balance. I am against the nebulous idea of balance that is undefinable and always sits somewhere on the long range between the two extremes. But we don't know where it is and it is constanly moving. So, it is pointless to bring it up if it is not material enough to be named, and chosen with enough specificity. To me, invoking the idea of balance is simply an admittance of lack of knowledge of what is optimal. Yes, we don't know in many cases the underlying mechanism. But we know enough to choose instead of revert to mysticism. I will end with this quote:
Excellence is never an accident. It is always... | Ray Peat Forum

Great quote. I am also an Aristotelian and do my best to avoid all things Plato and relativistic. Balance is also something I am not against, and I realize that sometimes compromise with what is, is required, despite its "wrongness." I used to adhere quite strongly to eastern thought until I grew up and realized that eastern thought creates peace, but not love. To really love your family and your friends, you must embrace truth and strive for the best for them.

Children do not understand balance. Telling them that something wrong is right because of the circumstances breaks their mind. Children are too empirical. I am kind of getting off topic...you are also right that there is little point in talking about balance unless it is actionable.

 

[haidut]

Great quote. I am also an Aristotelian and do my best to avoid all things Plato and relativistic. Balance is also something I am not against, and I realize that sometimes compromise with what is, is required, despite its "wrongness." I used to adhere quite strongly to eastern thought until I grew up and realized that eastern thought creates peace, but not love. To really love your family and your friends, you must embrace truth and strive for the best for them.

Children do not understand balance. Telling them that something wrong is right because of the circumstances breaks their mind. Children are too empirical. I am kind of getting off topic...you are also right that there is little point in talking about balance unless it is actionable.

Most of my admiration for Peat and his work comes from the fact that that is how children operate by default. I think intuitive and empirical knowledge comes first and is the only true knowledge. The theory we concoct much later usually to make ourselves feel better about something. With age, I've grown very suspicious of all verbalizations. It seems language is mostly a tool for either manipulation or concealing the truth. Another quote and a link to a hypothesis on language as manipulation tool.

"By and large, language is a tool for concealing the truth". --George Carlin

The argumentative theory of reasoning - i.e. we argue to win arguments, not find truth.
The Argumentative Theory | Edge.org
Why Do Humans Reason? Arguments for an Argumentative Theory by Hugo Mercier, Dan Sperber :: SSRN

 

[Strongbad]

Coming from vegan, low-carb background and recent year of Peating, I'd agree with tyw. Eastern philosophy (balance) rings true especially after I experienced severe downfalls from adopting each of these diets. Because, essentially, they're very "unbalanced". Low-carb, egan, high carb, all meat, no fat, all fat, fruitarian etc. All these diets are all extreme. Only eat specific types of food while avoid the rest. Even regular American-diet is very extreme: too much (PUFA & some SFA) fat, way too much sugar (sodas, candies, sweets, snacks), too little vegetables, too much calories etc. We know how they all turned out...

Our bodies want balance. We see it all over the forum here: Vitamin E vs K, Calcium vs Magnesium, fat vs carb, zinc vs copper etc. If we overdose one vitamin/mineral, we deplete the others. And there are bad symptoms from iron deficiency / serotonin depleted (ie. user kineticz) / PUFA depleted state (flakey skin and bad skin).

Real world scenarios: you work too much, you feel like wanting days off. You work too little/not working at all, you feel the need to be productive and purpose. You are stuck in one city too long, you long to travel. You travel too much, you long for a place to settle down.

That's why I no longer take supplements. Unless you are completely deficient from a mineral/vitamin there's no need to take supplements. Supplement only overdoses one thing while depleting the others. Of course, then most of us here want to "balance" it by **supplementing** those deficient elements! Then on and on and on... So it's a deep, dark spiral of supplementation over and over again. We try to play Gods with our bodies but have no clue what we're really doing until problems arise because of symptoms from "imbalances".

It's all about common sense, really. Don't eat too much, don't eat too little. Don't consume harmful stuff. Don't eat too much of one thing while neglecting the others. Supplement only when it's absolutely necessary.

Very aptly said. I am not against the very idea of balance. I am against the nebulous idea of balance that is undefinable and always sits somewhere on the long range between the two extremes. But we don't know where it is and it is constanly moving. So, it is pointless to bring it up if it is not material enough to be named, and chosen with enough specificity. To me, invoking the idea of balance is simply an admittance of lack of knowledge of what is optimal. Yes, we don't know in many cases the underlying mechanism. But we know enough to choose instead of revert to mysticism. I will end with this quote:
Excellence is never an accident. It is always... | Ray Peat Forum

To "define" the right balance is not only impossible because of the context but also because it's very rigid and simplistic. There's no such thing as **absolutism** in health.

IMO, genetics, race, environment, geographical location play huge parts. Put a black man from Nigeria in Alaska (extreme cold with weird sunrise/sunset schedules) and a white guy from Norway living in Thailand (all year tropical and consistent sunrise-sunset time) and give them the exact same food / diet. I bet they'll have a very different metabolic response.

Meanwhile the reality is both eastern and western thoughts have never had balance and have been slaughtering their fellow people for centuries.
If the population is unbalanced slaughter them,why? Because of the balance!

Romantic claims that both sides never backed up.

That has nothing to do with health and diet. That's about politics, social hierarchy and power. Completely irrelevant.

Many things are in the environment we don't need,mushroom variety as an example,we can get decent nourishment from some,elightenment and nourishment from others and some make you defacate and vomit to death.
We breath in many different substances each day,some we don't need, you can eat faeces or a lump of coal and your body will try to process what it can.

If meaning can be changed don't settle for it if intuitively you know it can be better.

Perhaps in the grander scheme of complexity there is a purpose for all of it(including a reason for death by defecation from shrooms)but for now we don't know......

Obviously, use common sense, avoid stuff that makes you sick. Poisons and feces are to be avoided. Even middle school kids know this stuff.

Well said.
For me the call for balance in certain contexts is authoritarian.

How? And compared to the call for "absolute" answer/solutions to health? Considering balance and context is simply common sense.

And authoritarian means the use of *force* to impose someone's will toward the other. From google: "favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom." From Meriam-Webster: "of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people"

As long as you don't use *force* to impose your will, that's not authoritarian.

 

[Strongbad]

Great quote. I am also an Aristotelian and do my best to avoid all things Plato and relativistic. Balance is also something I am not against, and I realize that sometimes compromise with what is, is required, despite its "wrongness." I used to adhere quite strongly to eastern thought until I grew up and realized that eastern thought creates peace, but not love. To really love your family and your friends, you must embrace truth and strive for the best for them.

Children do not understand balance. Telling them that something wrong is right because of the circumstances breaks their mind. Children are too empirical. I am kind of getting off topic...you are also right that there is little point in talking about balance unless it is actionable.

I agree with you, but that' not health-related. And honestly, that's very vague. These statements: "Wrongness", "eastern thought creates peace, but not love" are very vague and subjective. I'm cool with that. Everyone is different and have different point of views in life.

BTW, balance is actionable. Hint, hint: listen to your body and know what it likes and doesn't. Develop intuition.

 

[Tarmander]

How? And compared to the call for "absolute" answer/solutions to health? Considering balance and context is simply common sense.

And authoritarian means the use of *force* to impose someone's will toward the other. From google: "favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom." From Meriam-Webster: "of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people"

As long as you don't use *force* to impose your will, that's not authoritarian.

I think where drareg is coming from, and maybe I'm wrong here, is how a call for balance often puts a wet rag on conversation while making the person calling for it feel morally superior, untouchable.

For example, someone says "I think red light is actually harmful when done before bed, and here is why..." The person saying this is taking a stand and can be proven wrong.

If someone then responds "well it's all on context really, some people do better with more red light then others and depending on your nationality you may benefit from only red light, while others may need more blue."

The second person has seemingly shown the first they are incorrect, and looks superior. However the second person has not actually added anything useful, only stopped the conversation. No one is better off from the second person's contribution. Now, people might "feel" better because the second person does not challenge anyone's position. If the first person is right people will actually have to change.

So in this Haidut is giving a clear preferential state of being to strive for. It's hard and it might be wrong. Tyw is not, he is showing the mystery and unpredictable nature of things, which is true. But it doesn't actually add much, in fact it ends conversation just as Haidut said. There is no where to go. However you sure feel better about whatever you are doing don't you? His message is much easier to handle and go along with. It allows justification. It is the authoritarianism of relativism.

 

[DaveFoster]

Your taking Peat out of context here as a has tyw on multiple occasions. Why the subtle strawmans is beyond me,subtle as in they are hidden in information overload with selective/cherry picked context ironically! Stepping back and then claiming complexity and balance adds to the confusion.

Peat speaks about context on multiple occasions, threads like these end up going down obvious paths which is here are a load of studies for my view and for yours with little understanding of the techniques used in research,I think Chris masterjohn who works in a laboratory understands the complexity and nuances and seems to be speaking more about said topics.
Peat mentioned some interesting points recently about the studies that make it onto pubmed not being everything we have uncovered,there is also the clear issue with funding for the other view.

The measurement and behaviour of PUFA at the cell membrane where Peat believes it is damaging the membrane hence the speeding up is what a lot of this is based on.
He may have recently mentioned insulins level of importance to @DaveFoster I believe?

Peats theories evolve and are not static,no doors are closed here as more research is needed.
To add to that I have seen nothing in any of these posts or previous that can outright refute what Peat puts forward.
We get there are other views on what's going on in the body,at some point you must experiment,the body was functioning before we knew a lot about it and most great leaps forward were through tinkering and experiment.
Peat calls for more experiment yet it's stifled when it doesn't fit the establishments view.

A Peat dogma doesn't really exist imo,the term dogma gets thrown around too easily,we could start an argument about the "views " you currently support being dogma by you or others with "viewpoints".
Using the term Peat dogma is a subtle attempt to discredit and redundant when apply the same reasoning to you and others we get dogma based on your definitions.

I think there's co-morbidity with regards to excess GH secretion and IGF-1, but I haven't looked into it too extensively.

 

[tyw]

@tyw context is everything but you also similify thing, for example you speak about pufa like a macro, putting it with carbs and other fats in same category.

Even if you burn all of pufa , you still get the peroxides and other bad things from their circulation in your blood.

Protective “Essential Fatty Acid Deficiency” – Functional Performance Systems (FPS)

Resistance of essential fatty acid-deficient rats to endotoxin-induced increases in vascular permeability. - PubMed - NCBI

Manipulation of the acute inflammatory response by dietary polyunsaturated fatty acid modulation. - PubMed - NCBI

Essential fatty acid deficiency prevents multiple low-dose streptozotocin-induced diabetes in naive and cyclosporin-treated low-responder murine st... - PubMed - NCBI

To lower stress , ray's recommendation to avoid endotoxins absorption , calcium,salt supplementation, for average person how long it takes to find these methods with self experimenting?

How one with high level of stress hormones can sleep?

People with insomnia really can't sleep , its not like that to easily choice it.

First, PUFA doesn't automatically turn into peroxides.

eg: for linoleic acid, you need a hydrogen donor plus free radical, attacking the molecule from a specific locus
- An update on products and mechanisms of lipid peroxidation
- http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0009308498000917

How likely it is that a particular PUFA is to be oxidised in dependent on so many factors. I also addressed this in my DHA blog post -- it being the most peroxidisable in the body, it is important to study how the body protects this fatty acid. There are many mechanics, and to what exact they succeed in a particular person is unknown. That is why is say things are not simple, and I never made any claims otherwise.

Note that beta-oxidation of any PUFA leads to none of these breakdown products.

----

Next, context matters, but I cannot comment on all the clinical contexts that I've seen. I provide examples of such thinking, but cannot come up with the exact case that each person needs to experiment with.

One can easily start using a "default template" (if there is one for Peat), and then start experimenting with which one of the items should be replaced (if at all).

Some person may have insomnia because of too much coffee during the day. Maybe try to cut down intake.

Another may have insomnia because of to much blue light before bed.

Another may have insomnia because of eating too much before bed. Another may have insomnia because of not eating enough before bed.

Another may have a VDR-taq SNP that prevents them from making enough melatonin. Controlled melatonin supplementation may be needed.

Another may have a kidney infection, and has effective insomnia due to constantly waking up in the middle of the night to pee.

Any combination of these and many more can be present to lead to insomnia.

What is this particular person's problem? That is something that requires enough knowledge of the person's environment to answer. It this going to take a long time to experiment? Yes, and people will have to choose to be responsible for their health.

....

 

[Wagner83]

Right, the causes could be many. But the mechanism through which they manifest their effects on the organism are not that many. That is what attracts so many people to the metabolic pathways of disease. Regardless of the cause, there are only a handful of pathways it can affect metabolically. And if you believe that restoring metabolic activity is therapeutic then you only have to work with very few targets. Look at the recent widely successful clinical trials on MS with biotin. For decades MS was considered a disease so complicated that it was proposed to be classified into no less then 37 separate diseases, all of them with mind boggling array of genes, interactions, biomarkers, etc. And suddenly, something simple like biotin stopped (and even reversed) the pathology in the worst subtype of the disease - Primary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis (PPMS). The mechanism of action? Restoration of mitochondrial function. Simple, right? If it worked for that terrible, progressive, lethal disease, then why search for complicated boogeymen unless we have a reason to? Keep doing what works until you hit a roadblock.

Actually I meant that to have a whole country , all races, grow so fat within decades there is mainly one main reason behind it imo, a reason which all have in common: environment. So all the things I mentioned and the ones I forgot (other endocrine/thyroid disruptors ) is a big fat adipous reason imo.
I don't know how much this (obesity, insulin resistance, diseases) should be confounded with the problem of the ideal diet, we can see even from the "small" numbers of members here that different people thrive or fail on different diets (starch no-starch, dairy-no dairy, fat - 0 fat). I'm not sure why that is (and maybe this was one of @tyw points) but at least when it comes to diet, if a few guidelines can help I'll refer to your post which rings a bell for me :

I think intuitive and empirical knowledge comes first and is the only true knowledge.

 

[haidut]

The person saying this is taking a stand and can be proven wrong

That is the whole point of science - capability of being proven wrong. Everything else, including talk about some kind of nebulous balance is about as scientific as turtles supporting the earth. Forum member @gbolduev was also talking about a similar kind of balance and eventually admitted that such a thing is unattainable because it is never concrete enough to be studied or implemented. Look at his discussions on Eck and how eventually he lost his mind and kept talking about "purifying" women because they were "filthy" and chelating the hell out of every cell in his body to the point of mutilation.

 

[tyw]

I think where drareg is coming from, and maybe I'm wrong here, is how a call for balance often puts a wet rag on conversation while making the person calling for it feel morally superior, untouchable.

For example, someone says "I think red light is actually harmful when done before bed, and here is why..." The person saying this is taking a stand and can be proven wrong.

If someone then responds "well it's all on context really, some people do better with more red light then others and depending on your nationality you may benefit from only red light, while others may need more blue."

The second person has seemingly shown the first they are incorrect, and looks superior. However the second person has not actually added anything useful, only stopped the conversation. No one is better off from the second person's contribution. Now, people might "feel" better because the second person does not challenge anyone's position. If the first person is right people will actually have to change.

So in this Haidut is giving a clear preferential state of being to strive for. It's hard and it might be wrong. Tyw is not, he is showing the mystery and unpredictable nature of things, which is true. But it doesn't actually add much, in fact it ends conversation just as Haidut said. There is no where to go. However you sure feel better about whatever you are doing don't you? His message is much easier to handle and go along with. It allows justification. It is the authoritarianism of relativism.

This sentiment is true I would wish that there were clear solutions for health issues, but searching for 10 years only led me to find many answers without actual solutions.

Often we can find certainty in particular mechanics. eg: we can say for certain that arachidonic acid will activate PPAR gamma activity. Now, what does that mean in a particular person's real context? I dunno .....

If I could find mechanics that could generalise it, I would have. We are stuck with unpredictability because that is what reality forced upon us ... what to do ..... Each person has to be an authority over their own life. If my posts were to add anything, it would hopefully be a stimulus to take back authority in some areas of health where authority was ceded to some other force.

----

I do not want to discuss statements from @haidut like:

Ingest 5g of arachidonic acid at 3pm when your cortisol is supposed to be lowest. Better yet, test both before/after you ingest. Then test your cortisol and TNFa, estradiol, insulin, and CRP 90min - 120min later. You will find out just how "unique" and "unpredictable" your response would be. Not!

See, that is a particular context, one attribute being "5g of arachidonic acid".

This needs to be qualified. I think haidut is well aware that I have never called for more than 5g total PUFA a day. I have stated all my reasons for ingesting a low PUFA intake, and then letting the body endogenously regulate their end-product quantity and function.

.....

 

[haidut]

One can easily start using a "default template" (if there is one for Peat), and then start experimenting with which one of the items

This. You could have started with this statement and then all arguments would have been avoided