- This topic has 27 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 4 days, 17 hours ago by
.
-
Posts
-
JRK- It’s going pretty well. It does feel like my new sort of IF “weapon.” I can do it for a day or two, and this how Mark Bell said he uses it, too. Sounds like Cari did something similar (I remember the Lemonade Diet, I think I tried it and went half a day or so). It’s great after a sort of “non-peaty” meal, like if you go out to a restaurant, which happens more frequently now that I live closer to my family.
While I like the IF nature of this, I completely agree that you wouldn’t want to go too long on low fat and/or low protein. I do think that holding those macros down for a day or two (or possibly longer, for some people), drive the benefits. By lowering things like serum BCAAs, inflammatory aminos, FFAs, and oxylipins and other acetylated fats, I think that can help improve metabolism, both in the short and long term. I am finding that if I try to push the “Sugar Fast” too much, I start getting to hungry for something other just fruit or candy.
Funny, now Cole Robinson has dropped the “Sugar Diet,” and is now all about low fat, low fat. I did low fat for about 2 months last year, and did see some interesting benefits, but was getting bored with it after two months. I always had at least one “cheat meal” a week, to help the gallbladder turn over, but all the people on the old RPF that did super low fat seemed to note that it was somewhere between 6-12 months when problems started to show up. I wasn’t even going to tempt that time frame.
Your results sound encouraging <span class=”atwho-inserted” contenteditable=”false” data-atwho-at-query=”@Zac”>@Zack-Vegas</span>! I hope that you are able to achieve your goals by adding this to your strategies for health and well being.
I am aware of this notion of the wisdom of the body, and your desire for protein and fats at a higher level makes me wonder if your body was telling you that it needed more of these nutrients?
The Strong Sistas did a few videos on this idea that the reason people over consume food has more to do with the idea.that the body is lacking a certain nutrient or nutrients coining the phrase,” you are not overweight you are undernourished”. It is an idea, but I think that there would need to be an actual hair and nail type of sampling taken then analyses performed to identify the deficiencies then correct them and see what the results might yield. Any thoughts on this concept?JRK- I certainly think there is a big connection between cravings and needed nutrients (be they micro or macro). Like, a craving for chips could reflect a need for more sodium, as an example. But the issue I have, and always had, with the idea of “overeating” or “over” consuming food is….. why doesn’t the body just get rid of excess calories? It doesn’t have to store them as fat. It could waste them as heat, or eliminate them in urine/feces, or just make you bounce off the walls with energy, like the stereotype of a hyperactive child. Or even just correct it with hunger signals.
I don’t know if you ever saw Mike Fave’s breakdown on this 2003 paper by Wlodek, but I think it makes a lot of sense-
It posits that there is a “block” in energy production (during a part of the Krebs cycle), and this block is what drives fat storage in excess. It can happen at lower calorie intakes (like when people seem to starve themselves, have no energy, and still seem to gain weight), and can also drive so called “overeating” (as leptin signals that there is lots of energy available, but the cells can’t access it, sending out counter signals to drive hunger).
The “block” in energy can be caused by lots of things (like endotoxin, for example), and would go right back to the many of the problematic substances in the food supply that Peat always cautioned about (PUFA, excess iron, estrogenic substances, the inflammatory aminos, and so on). Brad Marshall also suggested that MUFA and high serum BCAAs could also be a part of this sort of “block.” To the degree that something like “The Sugar Fast,” and maybe also the Potato Hack can help to lower things like PUFA, FFAs, serum BCAAs and such, means they could be both good short term tools, that also pay dividends after the fast/hack. Even William Brown experienced this after his no fat diet experiment. He used to suffer from migranes, and they went away during the experiment, and apparently did not return after he resumed a normal diet.
<span class=”atwho-inserted” contenteditable=”false” data-atwho-at-query=”@Zack-“>@Zack-Vegas</span> Wouldn’t evolution account for holding on to extra calories as fat, to get through the winter and scarce food? Populations in cold climates, anyway.
<span class=”atwho-inserted” contenteditable=”false” data-atwho-at-query=”@lilac”>@Lilac</span> Evolution is a process, and while that process could account for some extra fat, there is no way it would be a good explanation for the amounts we see today. 50-100 extra pounds of fat is fairly common, in both men and women, and it’s not hard to find someone has something like 200 or more extra pounds. There is no evolutionary benefit to having so much extra fat that reproduction and basic functions like movement are seriously impaired.
If you looked at any of Brad Marshall’s videos, he details the diet that animals switch to when they are trying to pack on weight prior to hibernation. And pack on weight they must, or else death is guaranteed. When gaining this weight, the animals start eating a diet much higher in unsaturated fat (big surprise, I know). Which would indicate that diet, or certain components of the diet, would probably drive fat gain more than “evolution.”
And as Americans have gotten more overweight and obese, PUFA has been increasing in the food supply. We are eating a fattening diet, but hibernation never comes. Here’s a chart from the USDA that shows the PUFA increase from 1909 to 2005. It’s certainly increased in the past 20 years, as hydrogenation and trans fats got demonized. But anything high in “trans fats” was also high in PUFA. Now that the seed oils aren’t being hydrogenated, the people are no longer getting the protective effect of trans fats, and are dealing with a bigger PUFA load.
Modern obesity is a complex problem and not easily solved. I don’t think even olden-days obesity was easily solved, otherwise there would have been no “matronly” society matrons (for one example) if money could have solved their figure problems.
I would not ignore one obvious reason for overeating. Food can be delicious. Ice cream (best Peat-approved type) goes down very, very easily. And it does not give me indigestion. Instead, I will have a lot of energy during waking hours and good sleep at night. But fattening! Healing but fattening. A real dilemma.
Fifty pounds overweight is so common. Such women (talking women here) are often told they look fine. No body shaming! And so on. And in some ways, this makes sense. Because those with 100, 150, 200 pounds overweight would look at the person “only” 50 pounds overweight and wish they were there.
@Lilac- You are still saying “overeating” as if too much food consumption, and that alone, is the problem. I don’t believe that. We have plenty of evidence to the contrary. What about the super thin people that struggle to put on weight even when eating vast amounts of food? What about those lean and non-overweight competitive eaters, like Kobayashi, Matt Stonie, and Joey Chesnut?
And even looking at your own reasoning….. why would food continue to be “delicious” if it were truly “overconsumed?” I think everyone has, at some point in their life, gorged on some food to the point that they actually got sick of it, and lost the taste for a while, sometimes months or years. “Deliciousness” is not an inherent property of food, it’s your body’s reaction to food. So, why aren’t hunger and taste signals regulating food intake?
And also to that point, why not just dispose of excess “calories” in some way? Generate extra heat, have some desire to run around the block a few times or go out dancing, or just excrete it as waste? Why shuttle it to fat? And if it is stored….. why not shuttle it to muscle?
I don’t know what you are referring to as the “olden” days, but being overweight or obese was not a wide scale problem until the 70s or 80s, and it’s prevalence has only increased since then. Really, prior to the 50s, the big issue with weight was being too thin. Sedentary workers used to fall victim to this by losing their appetite. And the “matronly” women you refer to tended to be a lot older, so if they were dealing with weight issues, they were in their 50s, 60s or older, not in their teens, 20s, 30s, or 40s, like so many overweight and obese people are today.
I’ll agree, it’s not easily solved, but a lot of that stems from this refusal to look at some of the conditions and foods that have created this obesity problem (again, excess PUFA and iron fortification, for example), as well as known endocrine changes that affect those who are overweight. For example, cortisol is usually very high, testosterone is usually lower in overweight men, serotonin and endotoxin are higher, fat stores are more unsaturated, enzymes like SCD1 and Fatty Acid Synthase are overactivated, thyroid hormone is at lower levels and so on. Serum levels of glucose, FFAs and BCAAs all tend to be elevated. And with all that, the “official” advice continues to basically be “eat less, move more.” That will always fail in the long run, if the underlying conditions that created the problem in the first place are never addressed.
Some interesting points made here <span class=”atwho-inserted” contenteditable=”false” data-atwho-at-query=”@Za”>@Zack-Vegas</span>. A few others that come to mind would be the widespread use of pharmaceuticals within the populations of the countries that have the widespread obesity issues.
At the risk of sounding redundant just looking at glucocorticoids, these were able to be synthesized in the fifties and like so many other drugs toad were quickly approved and distributed wider for use. By the early sixties though there was a significant number physicians reporting many non therapeutical side effects, including but not limited to weight gain, glucose intolerance, hypertension, and tissue calcification. Rather than remove the product from the approved list they chose to lower the dosage levels as well a limit their use to emergency purposes. By the eighties though they began a campaign to increase glucocorticoids for other treatments along with increasing the dosages slowly so that today they are back almost to the same levels seen in the fifties.
When you take into account the amount of pharmaceuticals as well as other toxic substances that are not eliminated in wastewater treatment such as industrial chemicals and heavy metals. The cocktail of substances that enter our food chain through the waterways and waste from treatment plants that is used as a fertilizer in some agriculture operations as a form of fertilizer it provides a very different food quality compared to the turn of the last century.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Author
