What Happens When A Type Two Diabetic Follows Peat Ideas And Eats A Lot Of Sugar

mangoes

Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2013
Messages
457
@Westside PUFAs

I'd love to read a write up of how you fixed your circadian rhythm. I've been a night owl for years too long and need to change it. Or just the key points if it's too long.
 
Joined
Aug 18, 2015
Messages
1,817
if the "first thing" they did was eat sugar, they'd have a pretty bad time... i'd say they need to rebuild their mineral levels up asap, get blood work to see where they are at like parathyroid hormone or cholesterol
 

tyw

Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2015
Messages
407
Location
Cairns, Australia
Are the triaglycerols stored inside the adipocytes the same as the triglycerides in the blood (except that they've moved from the bloodstream into the fat cell)? Do triglycerides in the blood have any correlation with FFA's in the bloodstream?

Good question. Calling @tyw
.

The terms "triglyceride", "triacylglycerol", and "triacylglyceride" all refer to the same thing, which is basically 3 fatty acid molecules attached to a molecule of glycerol.

Free Fatty Acids (FFA) just mean that individual fatty acids are floating around, not attached to any carrier molecule (ie: not in triglyceride or phospholipid form).

In terms of digestion, intestinal uptake is always in the triglyceride (TG) form. Whether it be MCTs (which are named "Medium Chain Triglycerides" for a reason), isolated TGs through intestinal storage release, or TGs in chylomicrons ...... dietary fat is always taken into the bloodstream in the form of Triglycerides, and can be taken into adipose tissue in this form. Therefore, yes, the TGs stored in adipocytes behave in the same way as TGs in the blood.

Though of course, you can eat one set of TGs in the morning, have that stored by midday, and have some other previously stored set of TGs mobilised at night.​

Regarding use of fatty acids for energy, you either need to have uptake of FFAs into tissues (and eventually to the miochondria of those tissues), or you need a lipoprotein lipase (LPL) in the tissue to break apart a Triglyceride unit (and thus liberate the 3 bound FFAs). Direct FFA uptake is the more common case, since not all tissues exhibit LPL activity.

Therefore, the generic case is for lipolysis of TGs in adipose tissue, and then liberation of those FFAs into the bloodstream, and then transport and uptake to the tissues that will end up using those fatty acids

.....
 
J

James IV

Guest
Maybe have it earlier in the day. If you don't have enough energy from HFLC then you have to tweak it.

.

Energy isn't a problem, on either diet. I honestly just want to try and make higher carb work, because it's cheaper.
 
Joined
Feb 4, 2015
Messages
1,972
The terms "triglyceride", "triacylglycerol", and "triacylglyceride" all refer to the same thing, which is basically 3 fatty acid molecules attached to a molecule of glycerol.

Free Fatty Acids (FFA) just mean that individual fatty acids are floating around, not attached to any carrier molecule (ie: not in triglyceride or phospholipid form).

In terms of digestion, intestinal uptake is always in the triglyceride (TG) form. Whether it be MCTs (which are named "Medium Chain Triglycerides" for a reason), isolated TGs through intestinal storage release, or TGs in chylomicrons ...... dietary fat is always taken into the bloodstream in the form of Triglycerides, and can be taken into adipose tissue in this form. Therefore, yes, the TGs stored in adipocytes behave in the same way as TGs in the blood.

Though of course, you can eat one set of TGs in the morning, have that stored by midday, and have some other previously stored set of TGs mobilised at night.​

Regarding use of fatty acids for energy, you either need to have uptake of FFAs into tissues (and eventually to the miochondria of those tissues), or you need a lipoprotein lipase (LPL) in the tissue to break apart a Triglyceride unit (and thus liberate the 3 bound FFAs). Direct FFA uptake is the more common case, since not all tissues exhibit LPL activity.

Therefore, the generic case is for lipolysis of TGs in adipose tissue, and then liberation of those FFAs into the bloodstream, and then transport and uptake to the tissues that will end up using those fatty acids

.....

Thanks. I think it's important to remember exactly which tissue can only and will only burn those free fatty acids. Or to remember which tissues can only burn glucose and can not burn FFA or ketone bodies.

Some excerpts:

"Brain - Glucose is virtually the sole fuel for the human brain, except during prolonged starvation. The brain lacks fuel stores and hence requires a continuous supply of glucose. It consumes about 120 g daily, which corresponds to an energy input of about 420 kcal (1760 kJ), accounting for some 60% of the utilization of glucose by the whole body in the resting state."

"Fatty acids do not serve as fuel for the brain, because they are bound to albumin in plasma and so do not traverse the blood-brain barrier. In starvation, ketone bodies generated by the liver partly replace glucose as fuel for the brain."

"Adipose tissue - The triacylglycerols stored in adipose tissue are an enormous reservoir of metabolic fuel (see Table 30.1). In a typical 70-kg man, the 15 kg of triacylglycerols have an energy content of 135,000 kcal (565,000 kJ). Adipose tissue is specialized for the esterification of fatty acids and for their release from triacylglycerols. In human beings, the liver is the major site of fatty acid synthesis. Recall that these fatty acids are esterified in the liver to glycerol phosphate to form triacylglycerol and are transported to the adipose tissue in lipoprotein particles, such as very low density lipoproteins (Section 26.3.1). Triacylglycerols are not taken up by adipocytes; rather, they are first hydrolyzed by an extracellular lipoprotein lipase for uptake. This lipase is stimulated by processes initiated by insulin. After the fatty acids enter the cell, the principal task of adipose tissue is to activate these fatty acids and transfer the resulting CoA derivatives to glycerol in the form of glycerol 3-phosphate. This essential intermediate in lipid biosynthesis comes from the reduction of the glycolytic intermediate dihydroxyacetone phosphate. Thus, adipose cells need glucose for the synthesis of triacylglycerols (Figure 30.13)."

"During starvation, the kidney becomes an important site of gluconeogenesis and may contribute as much as half of the blood glucose."

"However, in the fasting state, the liver converts fatty acids into ketone bodies. How is the fate of liver fatty acids determined? The selection is made according to whether the fatty acids enter the mitochondrial matrix. Recall that long-chain fatty acids traverse the inner mitochondrial membrane only if they are esterified to carnitine."


Each Organ Has a Unique Metabolic Profile - Biochemistry - NCBI Bookshelf

Peat once said that muscles can take up fatty acids that are free or bound to albumin.

Another important thing here is the release of environmental toxins that are also inside the fat cell when the stored fat is released.

Energy isn't a problem, on either diet. I honestly just want to try and make higher carb work, because it's cheaper.

It sure is.
 

RatRancher

Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2017
Messages
41
Where did our ancestors get sugar from?
I can't pull up the data to back this theory up, but I assume
1. Sugars were scare
2. Calories in general were scarce compared to today.
3. Life expectancy was lower, but natural causes included being killed by a bear.

Granting the above,how or why did sugar keep the body in a more optimal state?
A) is it a hold over from earlier ancestors who lived in trees?
B) Are our bodies programed to start dieing based on environmental factors ?
C) are there sources of sugar we are not eating,say tree sap or some bugs,That we are geared to consume?

WE know stress kills , but stress also forces adaptation to the new environment. Species stress and individual stress are different of course,
But individual longevity is not always what's good for the species,especially in times of caloric stress.

I admit I look at this through the filter of a long time HP LC dieter. My weight loss on hi protein low carb was radical,with calories in excess of 4000 calories a day and weight loss of .75 pounds a day for 2 months with 0 exercise. But I can't help but think the high calorie diet I did then or that I read about here is not sustainable or beneficial for the individual or the species.

Believe it or not everything else about RP I can get my head around. But the last is like a wall to me.
 

jaywills

Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2014
Messages
189
@RatRancher ,

1) Point 1 has always been my hesitancy to rely on sugar (fruit, or otherwise) as my primary source of energy. But, as I have come to understand it, and thinking more logically, all foods consumed are ultimately providing energy at the cellular level. All three macros can be converted to glucose and we have specific enzymes to break down carbohydrate matter - think amylase in the mouth (so consuming 'sugar' directly eradicates this unnecessary and 'stressful' process)of converting fats or proteins to glucose - which will happen if you limit Carbohydrate. I guess one benefit of the LC approach is that the body will decide how much carbohydrate it actually needs, as opposed to the risk of overeating carbohydrate when it is not needed. Having said that our bodies can dispose of extra carbohydrate energy through increased movement, or increased heat production so its all relative.

2) I think in regards to point 2 this is exaggerated; looking at hunter gatherer populations they favor the highest and most calorie dense foods - honey is prized and pretty much eaten ab libitum in certain geographic locations, Eskimos in colder climates favor the rich fat over the lean meat. They often live with a feast and purge mentality, eating as much as they can when available. I dont think they were routinely eating 2300 calories or so, i think they were eating more like: day1: 1000 calories, day2: 5,000 calories, day3: 1200 calories and so on and so forth

Other thoughts:
I guess sugar being optimum is that sugar consumption lowers cortisol and thus stress. Like you say some stress is positive but anything over a certain threshold becomes problematic and catabolic. I think society lives in a constant state of stress and thus requires more energy to overcome it. You have to think aswell, what is optimal is to THRIVE and not just survive. Being previous HFLC 'dieter' I very well know that everything was a chore, life was miserable. Increased energy has enabled the human race to progress; its no coincidence that that the agricultural revolution brought about dramatic progress across the board of human endevours.

Also, how did 4000 kcal HPLC (which new to me, usually it is HFLC) turn out for you despite the high calorie flux?
This is not a dig, it is curiosity.... Why have you found yourself here, are experiencing any health issues?
 

RatRancher

Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2017
Messages
41
@RatRancher ,

1) Point 1 has always been my hesitancy to rely on sugar (fruit, or otherwise) as my primary source of energy. But, as I have come to understand it, and thinking more logically, all foods consumed are ultimately providing energy at the cellular level. All three macros can be converted to glucose and we have specific enzymes to break down carbohydrate matter - think amylase in the mouth (so consuming 'sugar' directly eradicates this unnecessary and 'stressful' process)of converting fats or proteins to glucose - which will happen if you limit Carbohydrate. I guess one benefit of the LC approach is that the body will decide how much carbohydrate it actually needs, as opposed to the risk of overeating carbohydrate when it is not needed. Having said that our bodies can dispose of extra carbohydrate energy through increased movement, or increased heat production so its all relative.

2) I think in regards to point 2 this is exaggerated; looking at hunter gatherer populations they favor the highest and most calorie dense foods - honey is prized and pretty much eaten ab libitum in certain geographic locations, Eskimos in colder climates favor the rich fat over the lean meat. They often live with a feast and purge mentality, eating as much as they can when available. I dont think they were routinely eating 2300 calories or so, i think they were eating more like: day1: 1000 calories, day2: 5,000 calories, day3: 1200 calories and so on and so forth

Other thoughts:
I guess sugar being optimum is that sugar consumption lowers cortisol and thus stress. Like you say some stress is positive but anything over a certain threshold becomes problematic and catabolic. I think society lives in a constant state of stress and thus requires more energy to overcome it. You have to think aswell, what is optimal is to THRIVE and not just survive. Being previous HFLC 'dieter' I very well know that everything was a chore, life was miserable. Increased energy has enabled the human race to progress; its no coincidence that that the agricultural revolution brought about dramatic progress across the board of human endevours.

Also, how did 4000 kcal HPLC (which new to me, usually it is HFLC) turn out for you despite the high calorie flux?
This is not a dig, it is curiosity.... Why have you found yourself here, are experiencing any health issues?

Excellent points,thank you for that.

The HF/P LC went great until it did not.
I went through an extended time of EXTREME stress- if you ever see a matrix of life events and the relative stress,I had most of them.
And the body adapted to that in ways that still affect me. Any food intake results in a stress response of adrenaline induced anxiety with a heart rate of about 130. That got me into Intermittent Fasting ,which worked until I eat. I am 50 so researching about T,stress and adrenaline "blockers" got me here . I think I may have rewired my system . Trying to uncross my wires now :).
 

tara

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
10,368
I think the implication was that @Westside PUFAs is of the opinion that type 2 diabetics would recover faster if they were leaner, not that he was prescribing fat loss as a moral command. "Type two diabetics have to lose body fat."... if they want to recover.
Possibly. Though the literal and moral interpretation is consistent with his subsequent comments about 'paying for past mistakes'. (As I see it, apart from the dubiousness of trying to judge how much is 'too much' fat on any particular person, and issues related to whether and when fat may be protective, people can gain more than usual fat for a number of reasons, including ones like inherited or environmentally-induced endocrine/metabolic issues beyond their control. There may well be a case for some people to consider finding safe ways to reduce the fat they are carrying. But assuming all fat is due to a person's own past mistakes strikes me as unjustified and judgemental.)
 

tara

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
10,368
About why gastric bypass surgery seems to favorably impact so many metabolic markers.
Damages and kills quite a few people, too. I know at least one near miss. I wonder what the stats look like twenty or thirty years on from such procedures?
I just found this, but it includes studies just 2 years or longer and doesn't say much about health in terms that speak to me:
"Very few bariatric surgery studies report long-term results with sufficient patient follow-up to minimize biased results. Gastric bypass has better outcomes than gastric band procedures for long-term weight loss, type 2 diabetes control and remission, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia. Insufficient evidence exists regarding long-term outcomes for gastric sleeve resections."
Long-term Follow-up After Bariatric Surgery: A Systematic Review
Indicates that gastric bypass (more than sleeve) tended to reduce disease markers: after surgery more people had significant weight-loss, cholesterol < 200, TG < 200, HbA1c<6.5, blood pressure < 140/90 without medication, etc. Metastudy including studies at least 2 years duration from surgery. But I don't know whether it actually improved health, only markers. Some of those markers may be measurements of protective adaptations to stress, so reductions in the markers in themselves do not demonstrate whether the health improved so that the protections were less needed, or whether the protections were removed to the detriment of health.

Personally, if I were considering a procedure with a documented 1% risk of death and complications like this:
"Complications rates after gastric bypass of incisional hernia, internal hernia, or marginal ulcer were 1% each; anemia, iron deficiency requiring transfusion, or vitamin B12 deficiency were 2% each. Operative revision rates for abdominal pain or nonhealing ulcer were each 0.1%. The gastrointestinal bleeding rate was less than 1%. Complications rates after gastric band were port leak/revision, 6%; band slip/obstruction, 5%; erosion, 1%; treatment failure requiring revision, 3%; band removal, 2%; and esophageal dilation or esophagitis, 1%."
I'd want to know that there was serious likelihood of it improving longevity and quality of life, not just reductions in some numbers that have value in a questionable theoretical framework. Longer term studies measuring mortality and disease progression (not marker progression) would tell more, and wanting at least 80% follow up (extremely rare for this kind of treatment - discussion in the paper suggests this may hide treatment failure in terms of sustained weight-loss, and leads to overly optimistic reports of outcomes).
 

tara

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
10,368
Not sure if it's relevant but you might be interested in Denise Minger's paper "In Defense of Low Fat."
I found that one really interesting. Seems like it worked really well for quite a lot of people, but not everyone. Maybe some minority of people have carbohydrate metabolism so broken that they really do have to go to one or more of medication of some kind or insulin supplementation or high fat diets.
 

tara

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
10,368
I can't pull up the data to back this theory up, but I assume
1. Sugars were scare
I assume that if humans evolved initially in the tropics, then a good part of our physiology probably co-evolved with a reasonable supply of tropical fruit (which also coevolved as food for animals to disperse their seeds).
Denise Minger gathered some related data:
Wild and Ancient Fruit: Is it Really Small, Bitter, and Low in Sugar?

There are also various suggestions around that seem plausible to me that our large brains owe something to the glucose humans could get from cooked starches when they gained control of fire for cooking, eg:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/08/150806133148.htm
 

Tenacity

Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2016
Messages
844
There may well be a case for some people to consider finding safe ways to reduce the fat they are carrying. But assuming all fat is due to a person's own past mistakes strikes me as unjustified and judgemental.

That's fair.:hattip
 
Joined
Apr 9, 2016
Messages
15
would a severely metabolically broken person not necessarily react well to the Peat diet? I am back at trying it, but a year ago I went for it too quickly and all my "health markers" became quite a bit worse within two months, and I developed high blood pressure.
 

Mito

Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2016
Messages
2,554
The terms "triglyceride", "triacylglycerol", and "triacylglyceride" all refer to the same thing, which is basically 3 fatty acid molecules attached to a molecule of glycerol.
Are the 3 fatty acid molecules that make up a single TG always the same fatty acid? For example can you have a TG that is a combo of PUFA and SFA or are that exactly the same such as 3 linoleic fatty acids?

Free Fatty Acids (FFA) just mean that individual fatty acids are floating around, not attached to any carrier molecule (ie: not in triglyceride or phospholipid form). Therefore, the generic case is for lipolysis of TGs in adipose tissue, and then liberation of those FFAs into the bloodstream, and then transport and uptake to the tissues that will end up using those fatty acids.
Once an adipocyte releases a TG into the bloodstream, do the free fatty acids ever recombine with glycerol to form a new TG or are the always oxidized?
 

tara

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
10,368
would a severely metabolically broken person not necessarily react well to the Peat diet? I am back at trying it, but a year ago I went for it too quickly and all my "health markers" became quite a bit worse within two months, and I developed high blood pressure.
I imagine it would depend on what the malfunctions and adaptations are, whether they are structural or functional, how deep they are and how long they have been going on, what the nutritional status/mineral reserves are like, how one goes about a peat-inspired approach.
I do not subscribe to the idea that 'the Peat diet' as a simple identical standard prescription for everyone exists.
I expect that making changes gradually may sometimes make it easier to assess whether they are helpful before one has risked too much harm from radical and sudden change? Some changes can take a while to adapt to, and going slowly could ease that, as well as give you early warning to back off particular tactics.
 

tyw

Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2015
Messages
407
Location
Cairns, Australia
Are the 3 fatty acid molecules that make up a single TG always the same fatty acid? For example can you have a TG that is a combo of PUFA and SFA or are that exactly the same such as 3 linoleic fatty acids?

Technically speaking, any combination of 3 fatty acids is possible.

Practically speaking, this is impossible to determine in real time, and shouldn't be used for any known mechanical consideration.

(SIDENOTE: all the known mechanics for fatty acid transport mostly involved phospholipids, and very specific fatty acids. eg: DHA on the sn-2 position of the glycerol backbone specifically bound to lysophosphatidylcholine. Arachidonic Acid requires similar phospholipid-bound transport, though it is more free to move compared to DHA)

Once an adipocyte releases a TG into the bloodstream, do the free fatty acids ever recombine with glycerol to form a new TG or are the always oxidized?

Technically speaking, the liver can re-form triglycerides from FFA (though not exclusively from FFA) -- Fatty acid synthase and liver triglyceride metabolism: housekeeper or messenger?

Also, adipose tissue itself can uptake FFA and store them away -- Diabetes

Again, these are just technicalities. The real question is: "Does this matter at all? If so, how does it matter?"

There should not be a lot of FFA floating around in the first place ..... normal ranges for Fasting (ie: when FFAs are highest) FFA should not exceed 1.0mmol/L, even in cases of hyperlipidemia. (Diabetes is a different story, but that is not relevant for this discussion)

- http://atvb.ahajournals.org/content/atvbaha/20/1/164.full.pdf
- Distribution of Fasting Plasma Insulin, Free Fatty Acids, and Glucose Concentrations and of Homeostasis Model Assessment of Insulin Resistance in a Representative Sample of Quebec Children and Adolescents | Clinical Chemistry

Therefore:
- let's take the high value of 1.0 mmol (10^-3 moles per liter)
- use an average molar mass of stearic acid (C18), which is 284.4772 g/mol.
- assume that there is 5L of blood in an average human
- assume the standard 9kcal/g caloric content for an average fatty acid

Total mass of free fatty acids in blood in grams is: 284.4772 * (10^-3) * 5 = 1.422386 grams of total fatty acids = 12.8 kcal of fat floating around.

This is in a case of fatty acid disorder. In more normal levels of fasting FFA, which is around 0.3 - 0.6 mmol/L, we are talking about much lower values.

13 kilocalories will probably will probably let you survive 10 mins, and if you're healthy, reduce that to less than 5 mins ..... people obviously don't just drop dead, which is to say that the immediately available fuel in plasma represents a tiny fraction of the fuel that one uses in a day, and that there is constant mobilisation and storage (aka: turnover) of fuels.

There is constant turnover of all fuels, and constant storage and mobilisation. In the case of glucose, there is even less immediate supply -- Four grams of glucose. - PubMed - NCBI

Worrying about minor mechanics is not useful, except for in seeing that they are not useful ;) ..... which hopefully allows for people to focus on the bigger picture items that impact health.

As an aside, this is just yet another reason why we say that 24-hour energy balance is the largest impactor on fuel use. With constant substrate turnover, and with a huge reserves of fat: "A 50% carb, 50% calorie restricted diet, is a ketogenic diet" (credit to ItsTheWooo! for quote).

.....
 
Last edited:

Mito

Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2016
Messages
2,554
Total mass of free fatty acids in blood in grams is: 284.4772 * (10^-3) * 5 = 1.422386 grams of total fatty acids = 12.8 kcal of fat floating around.

This is in a case of fatty acid disorder. In more normal levels of fasting FFA, which is around 0.3 - 0.6 mmol/L, we are talking about much lower values.

13 kilocalories will probably will probably let you survive 10 mins, and if you're healthy, reduce that to less than 5 mins ..... people obviously don't just drop dead, which is to say that the immediately available fuel in plasma represents a tiny fraction of the fuel that one uses in a day, and that there is constant mobilisation and storage (aka: turnover) of fuels.

There is constant turnover of all fuels, and constant storage and mobilisation. In the case of glucose, there is even less immediate supply -- Four grams of glucose. - PubMed - NCBI.
Thanks, this explanation makes it easy to understand why exercise very quickly stimulates lipolysis.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom