Why Is There A Lot Of Fat In Baby Milk (half Sugar/fat) If It Exacerbates The Randle Cycle?

[tara]

If fat was harmful to our metabolism, it certainly wouldn't make sense to have it be our primary storage form of energy.

This doesn't follow at all. Fat is an efficient way to put energy into long-term storage. This is a very useful feature for survival. It doesn't say anything about what is optimal as primary daily fuel. Most likely some fat is not harmful to metabolism, but excess may be, and how much is excess probably varies from person to person.

People should likely be eating less often, not more. 3 meals a day is an invention of bored aristocrats. More than that an invention of supplement industry.

Are you sure it wasn't those bored aristocrats figuring that three meals a day was the minimum they could get away with allowing their employees/serfs and still have them put in a reasonable ROI (day's work)? While they themselves continued to eat elevenses and afternoon tea and supper in addition to those three 'meals' a day?

Humans (industrialized) eat more and move less than ever.

Depends which ones. There is hunger now (some of it self-inflicted), and there was hunger before. There have also been groups who have eaten generously in the past. At this point, life expectancy is low in the countries with low calorie intake, and high in the countries with high calorie intake (with a few exceptions, possibly more to do with who equitable the distribution of the available food is).

 

[Peatish Ninja]

Majority of health issues are likely caused by over nutrition. Digestion and assimilation are incredibly energy intensive, and inhibit the bodies natural
cellular "recycling" processes. The notion we need to constantly feed to maintain our energy/blood sugar/whatever, is hogwash. There is a reason we have such large livers, it's aN incredible fuel tank for maintaining proper energy ratios in the bloodstream. For metabolically healthy people, the liver and body fat can provide plenty of clean energy. We are (should be) perfectly capable of going many hours, even days, without food. If you need to constantly eat to maintain your energy levels, you are broken. If fat was harmful to our metabolism, it certainly wouldn't make sense to have it be our primary storage form of energy.

Humans (industrialized) eat more and move less than ever. If you are sedentary, you will not be at optimal health, regardless of your diet. As the old saying goes 1/3 of what you eat is for you, 2/3 is for your doctor.
People should likely be eating less often, not more. 3 meals a day is an invention of bored aristocrats. More than that an invention of supplement industry.
Your energy and clarity should be highest when you are in a fasted state. Feeding should be used to stimulate relaxation and repair.

Upon thorough experimentation, I can say that this is quite a controversial post, but an important one. I happen to agree.

One thing I have discovered about fat is that MUFA is most optimal while SFA and PUFA (most of all) should be kept to a minimum.

 

[tara]

Majority of health issues are likely caused by over nutrition.

Have you noticed that the countries with low food pc food (calorie) consumption roughly correspond with the ones with the shortest life expectancy?

 

[Peater Piper]

Upon thorough experimentation, I can say that this is quite a controversial post, but an important one. I happen to agree.

One thing I have discovered about fat is that MUFA is most optimal while SFA and PUFA (most of all) should be kept to a minimum.

What are you eating to accomplish this? I'd favor MUFA too, the problem is most major MUFA sources come with a fair amount of PUFA. Macadamia nuts are good, then you have things like almonds, hazelnuts, olive oil, and avocado, which each come with a few grams of PUFA per serving, but also contain Vitamin E. Many animal fats contain decent amounts of both MUFA and SFA, with varying amounts of PUFA.

 

[Peatish Ninja]

What are you eating to accomplish this? I'd favor MUFA too, the problem is most major MUFA sources come with a fair amount of PUFA. Macadamia nuts are good, then you have things like almonds, hazelnuts, olive oil, and avocado, which each come with a few grams of PUFA per serving, but also contain Vitamin E. Many animal fats contain decent amounts of both MUFA and SFA, with varying amounts of PUFA.

I don't consume almonds or hazelnuts. I mostly consume macadamia nuts (including oil and butter), extra-virgin olive oil and avocados. Olive oil contains the most PUFA out of the three per g but it's negligible due to its ratio with SFA. Other oils are more toxic and unstable including animal fats.

 

[James IV]

This doesn't follow at all. Fat is an efficient way to put energy into long-term storage. This is a very useful feature for survival. It doesn't say anything about what is optimal as primary daily fuel. Most likely some fat is not harmful to metabolism, but excess may be, and how much is excess probably varies from person to person.

Excess anything can be harmful to your health. I don't believe you should consume fat beyond your metabolic capacity. However, I don't believe "burning" fat is detrimental either. I observe some folks believe this is the case, and are constantly trying to avoid this scenario.

Are you sure it wasn't those bored aristocrats figuring that three meals a day was the minimum they could get away with allowing their employees/serfs and still have them put in a reasonable ROI (day's work)? While they themselves continued to eat elevenses and afternoon tea and supper in addition to those three 'meals' a day?

No. I don't believe this is the case. My studies and observations of indigenous human has taught me that the notion of eating meals to fuel daily activity is a relatively modern invention. It appears that in a natural human setting, food has been the reward for a hard days work, not the catalyst. And I can tell you our bodies have the capacity for incredible amounts of work, without the need for daily, preemptive feeding. Many of the everyday citizens of these populations would be considered Olympic level athletes in our "developed" society.

Depends which ones. There is hunger now (some of it self-inflicted), and there was hunger before. There have also been groups who have eaten generously in the past. At this point, life expectancy is low in the countries with low calorie intake, and high in the countries with high calorie intake (with a few exceptions, possibly more to do with who equitable the distribution of the available food is).

Have you noticed that the countries with low food pc food (calorie) consumption roughly correspond with the ones with the shortest life expectancy?

I think life expectancy is always going to be a skewed statistic. Infant mortality, disease, malnutrition, etc, will greatly effect these numbers. Are people not living as long because they are eating less, or are they not living as long because they are poor. In a modern diet, inexpensive food also happens to be the most nutrient void.


Let me be clear that I don't believe in concious and continuous caloric restriction. I think one should become in tune with their body. That's how every other living thing on this planet does it, why should we be different. However, like I stated. If you are unable to function (at any level) without constant feeding, I believe you are likely damaged. The best way to heal is debatable, but I have my theories.

 

[James IV]

I kind of disagree with this view. I agree you can get chubby by eating more at one time than you can metabolize before the next time you eat, but I think the larger issue is environmental and lifestyle hormonal cues that stimulate stress hormones which decrease the metabolic rate to a large degree.

Here's an experiment I'd like to try: Take two people who are nearly completely sedentary and feed them a high calorie diet for a year. One spends their entire day in an artificially lit room. The other outdoors from dawn until dusk. I would expect after a year for the outdoor person to be slimmer and healthier in every way mostly from lowered serotonin and cortisol, with increased dopamine and progesterone from an excellent circadian rhythm.

Then adding lifestyle tweaks to the outdoor person like being engaged in fun work and play with enjoyable company I would further expect their health markers to increase while still remaining sedentary from higher dopamine and oxytocin release.

Then adding in only a few half hour resistance training sessions per week their metabolic rate would further increase by a large amount due to increased insulin sensitivity and youth hormone production, especially DHT. While the lonely indoor, non-resistance training person would have poor health in comparison.

This is actually kind of the story of my life over the last couple of years. I attribute my increase in metabolic rate and health more to subtle environment and lifestyle tweaks that of themselves don't require much more energy expenditure but rather stimulate a hormonal environment which continuously keeps metabolism higher 24/7.

So I think its misguided to worry about calorie intake and meal frequency too much, high or low. I prefer two large meals per day myself, but I think much more important is all of the subtle environmental, social, psychological, and muscle stimulation that affect hormones that are involved in living a well rounded life.

Your views and my views don't seem to be conflicting. I'm not implying that meal frequency and total intake are the only factors to health. In fact I stated that exercise is a major factor. However I have observed that less frequent eating tends to naturally lead to increased energy, and in turn motivation to take part in the activities you describe.

 

[James IV]

I disagree with this. This is called running on cortisol during the day and loading up on calories in the evening??? Many people do this, and are not ANY healthier than those that eat throughout the day. I don't necessarily agree with sipping milk all day, but I eat when I'm hungry and I have never been overweight. The people I know who are never hungry in the morning don't eat one thing til lunch and then not very much then gorge at dinner slowly gain more and more weight as the years go by. High cortisol.

Elevated cortisol is not inherantly unhealthy. In fact low cortisol is a major health issue. Cortisol dysregulation is the issue when it comes to health.
You are making many assumptions with this post about the way people eat, based on your personal beliefs. All I can say is that less frequent eating does not automatically create health problems. In fact, when done properly, it often cures them.

 

[tara]

Excess anything can be harmful to your health. I don't believe you should consume fat beyond your metabolic capacity.

Agreed, in general. Though there may be exceptions.

However, I don't believe "burning" fat is detrimental either. I observe some folks believe this is the case, and are constantly trying to avoid this scenario.

I don't think its always harmful either - I'm inclined to think it depends on context and scale. I expect there are situations where eating quite a bit of fat could make a lot of sense, in the context of a generally nutritious mixed diet.

No. I don't believe this is the case. My studies and observations of indigenous human has taught me that the notion of eating meals to fuel daily activity is a relatively modern invention. It appears that in a natural human setting, food has been the reward for a hard days work, not the catalyst. And I can tell you our bodies have the capacity for incredible amounts of work, without the need for daily, preemptive feeding. Many of the everyday citizens of these populations would be considered Olympic level athletes in our "developed" society.

Maybe, but that's not the same context as the one you mentioned earlier with 'aristocrats' in it.

I think life expectancy is always going to be a skewed statistic. Infant mortality, disease, malnutrition, etc, will greatly effect these numbers.

Indeed. But quite a lot of that malnutrition is happening with lack of adequate quantities of food, not just lack of good quality.

I think life expectancy is always going to be a skewed statistic. Infant mortality, disease, malnutrition, etc, will greatly effect these numbers. Are people not living as long because they are eating less, or are they not living as long because they are poor. In a modern diet, inexpensive food also happens to be the most nutrient void.

Sure, there are lots of other factors other than just food quantity involved in higher mortality stats. Social organisation, wars, maternity care, otehr hazards are no doubt also important, along with the potential food quality deficits. But I'd say there's a good chance that for people who are really poor in low-food supply countries - eg a lot of sub-saharan Africa - not getting enough basic calories is a pretty important contributor. If the average pc calorie consumption in Burundi and Eritrea is under 1700 cals, then straight hunger - caloric-deficiency - probably undermines most people's health there (presuming some get more and some get less than the average).

However, like I stated. If you are unable to function (at any level) without constant feeding, I believe you are likely damaged.

This seems likely to me too. And many of us are here because we are already damaged. I imagine the route to recovery depends in part on how the damage has played out for each of us.