The red wine diet to lose weight? Believe it (sort of) - Wine & Health Blog

wine and health: The red wine diet to lose weight? Believe it (sort of)

Tuesday, April 17, 2012

If you follow the news about red wine you will have been deluged with coverage of a recent study finding that it prevents fat cells from maturing, and is therefore the latest miracle weight loss solution. The specific ingredient, a polyphenol called piceatannol, has not previously received a lot of attention. It does provide some answers to questions such as why wine drinkers are less likely to gain weight or develop type 2 diabetes, but raises some new questions too.

What the study found is that piceatannol inhibits the development of young fat cells – called preadipocytes – into permanent adult type fat cells. It accomplishes this by blocking the effect of insulin which activates genes in these cells that signal them to grow up and store fat. In theory, then, this could explain one of the benefits of a daily tipple.

The study also sheds some light on the role of resveratrol, the molecule that has received so much attention in recent years. As I pointed out in my book Age Gets Better with Wine, resveratrol doesn’t seem to last long in the blood stream after ingestion, one reason being that much of it is metabolized into piceatannol. Without knowing much about the effects of piceatannol, it is hard to give much credit to resveratrol. (Another problem still not explained is that there isn’t enough resveratrol in wine to explain the range of benefits that wine drinkers experience.)

So we are still left with a bit of a conundrum in that neither piceatannol nor resveratrol are the answer. It is just too big of a leap from treating cells in a dish in a laboratory to understanding the effects in the human body. Wine drinkers are healthier in large part because they eat better, exercise more, and tend to take a balanced approach to wine consumption. For these and other reasons, I will continue to patronize my local wine shop instead of the supplement store.

Dave Asprey - The Bulletproof Executive

Blog | The Bulletproof Executive

iTunes - Podcasts - Upgraded Self Radio by Dave Asprey and Armi Legge

The LLVLC Show (Episode 569): There’s So Much More To Dave Asprey Than His Famous ‘Bulletproof Coffee’ « Jimmy Moore's Livin' La Vida Low Carb Blog

The LLVLC Show (Episode 569): There’s So Much More To Dave Asprey Than His Famous ‘Bulletproof Coffee’ « Jimmy Moore's Livin' La Vida Low Carb Blog

The LLVLC Show (Episode 569): There’s So Much More To Dave Asprey Than His Famous ‘Bulletproof Coffee’


In Episode 569 of “The Livin’ La Vida Low-Carb Show with Jimmy Moore,” we are pleased to welcome one of the most unique health bloggers I’ve ever come across. Much in the same vein as some of my previous podcast guests such as Tim Ferriss, Seth Roberts and Richard Nikoley, self-experimentation is taken to a whole new level with entrepreneur and personal biohacker Dave Asprey from “The Bulletproof Executive.” You’ve probably already heard about Dave but you know him better as the man behind “Bulletproof Coffee” which uses Kerrygold grass-fed butter to create a powerful morning cup of joe. But there’s so much more to this man of mystery than meets the eye.

Dave could have just as easily called his web site “The Counterintuitive Executive” because virtually everything he has seen happening to his own body through $250,000 worth of experiments and tests over a 15-year period have trumped what conventional wisdom says is supposed to happen. He lost over 100 pounds consuming 4500 calories a day and no exercise. He increased his IQ by more than 20 points. He conditioned his body to thrive on less than four hours of sleep at night. He discovered what it takes to be focused and ready for any situation in just one week. All of this sounds like a late-night informercial ad for some new supplement product, but it’s just Dave Aspry sharing what he does best–the lessons he has learned along the way (which includes healthy low-carb Paleo living, by the way!) to help others discover more about themselves as well. He shares about what he has learned in his popular new health podcast entitled Upgraded Self-Radio along with his intelligent co-host Armi Legge. ENJOY this enlightening interview!

Listen to Dave Asprey share about his many experiments to “upgrade” his body:

  • How he was “kind of an obese kid” and sick growing up

  • He noticed in his mid-20s how he couldn’t concentrate eating low-calorie

  • Why he fired his doctor and then spent $250,000 on various tests on himself

  • He slept less than 4 hours per night for two years straight

  • How he got a six-pack without doing any exercise

  • He attempted a raw vegan diet and “it works for a while”

  • There’s maybe an excess of fiber and the wrong kind of oils with veganism

  • He added back in meat with his raw diet and ate raw beef, chicken, etc.

  • Meat is healthier if it is fresh and raw, but it’s “a lot of work”

  • His current diet is full of a variety of fresh foods

  • Our bodies should run on a diet that helps our “engine” run well

  • Former podcast guest Marshall Deutsch on the “fat nocebo” effect

  • A third of his content is on stress-management and cognitive performance

  • Gut problems can solve themselves when you use a $200 device

  • Train yourself in a month to control your heart rate with M-Wave 2

  • It gives you more alpha brain waves when you breathe correctly

  • How he’d never heard of Paleo or primal when he created his Bulletproof Diet

  • Why the Bulletproof Diet really isn’t Paleo (and yet it is!)

  • The major differences between the Bulletproof Diet and Paleo

  • Why he embraces sugar alcohols and “the flavor sweet”

  • His love for the use of xylitol and erythritol in cooking

  • Raw honey is a great way to get “higher quality sleep in less time”

  • Consume 3-4 teaspoons of raw honey just prior to going to bed

  • If you eat low-carb, this will not kick you out of ketosis

  • How he spent $99 using an at-home sleep machine to monitor his sleep

  • Why raw honey is better for glycogen through the liver than white potato

  • A reader sent him an fascinating book called The Honey Revolution

  • Using raw honey “medicinally” three nights a week for better sleep

  • How he performed getting only five hours of sleep nightly

  • He finished a book and got a promotion at his work during this time

  • Sleeping less “enabled” him to be able to get more done

  • If someone sleeps 9 hours a night then “there’s a problem” going on

  • Sleeping 6 1/2 hours nightly have better longevity than 8 hours a night

  • How his young children were his homemade “alarm” clock to get him up

  • He didn’t walk around “like a zombie” all day although he was tired at times

  • His job performance was good and he found his cortisol levels dropped

  • He consumed a “very high-fat, 4500-calorie diet” and lost 100 pounds

  • How he still only gets an average of five hours of sleep nightly

  • His desire to “put a nail in the calorie thing” with his high-calorie intake

  • Gary Taubes’ book called “bull****” on calories in, calories out

  • Why people still believe in the calorie hypothesis

  • His kids are “so healthy” and enjoy gnawing on a stick of Kerrygold butter

  • His Better Baby Book project set to release

  • The “utter chaos” going on inside of his head before hacking himself

  • The foods that you need to consume to heal and function well

  • How he “put an upgrade” into place with him and his wife to get pregnant

  • The genesis of his Bulletproof Coffee concept

  • His visit to Tibet where they drank fresh yak butter in their hot tea

  • He felt “awesome” consuming that and decided to try it in coffee instead

  • He’s long been a coffee guy but gave it up because he “felt like crap”

  • Modern coffee is produced in such high volume that it contains “toxins”

  • Coffee people know about flavor, but they don’t know about toxins

  • He launched Upgraded Coffee to produce toxin-free coffee

  • The many testimonials of people who consumed Bulletproof Coffee on Twitter

  • A high-fat, caffeinated drink that keeps you satisfied for hours

  • Why Kerrygold grassfed butter and not coconut oil in the Bulletproof Coffee

  • Grassfed, cultured butter gives “a phenomenal effect on your body”

  • Getting butyrate in your body is the key health benefit of the butter

  • The things that are “bordering on magic” with Bulletproof Coffee

  • How he grew a six-pack without exercise because of inhibiting mTOR

  • Your body thinks it is intermittent fasting when drinking Bulletproof Coffee

  • Eliminating mycotoxins is a key part of optimizing your health

  • 91.7% of coffee from South America contains mycotoxins in it

  • How he might have 1000 calories with his Bulletproof Coffee in the morning

  • When he has protein with his Bulletproof Coffee he gets hungrier faster

  • Taking an international flight, he deliberately doesn’t eat on the flight

  • To turn on your prefrontal cortex, you have to eat animal fat and flesh

  • Don’t eat animals that were tortured or fed crap–but eat the meat!

  • Add creatine to your supplements if you are over the age of 30

  • The “Bulletproof Mindware” software that improves your mind

  • If you show your brain how to work better, it will work better to spite you

  • Increasing your creativity and intuition through training your brain

  • His popular “Upgraded Self-Radio” podcast on iTunesThere are four ways you can listen to Episode 569:
    1. Listen at the iTunes page for the podcast:

    2. Listen and comment about the show at the official web site for the podcast:

  • (video report) Major dairy brands - siphoning milk out and replacing it with waste products

    Coming up on Today Tonight

    Milk's hidden additives

    April 16, 2012, 6:18 pm Helen Wellings Today Tonight

    A special report reveals the widespread industry practice of adding additives to milk, making it cheaper to produce while changing its texture.

    Most of us drink it every single day, but it appears that milk isn't as natural as you might think.
    What dairy producers are putting in your milk - and there's a lot of it - will shock you. If you think the milk you drink is pure and straight from the cow, it's time to think again.

    Milk is being tampered with, and waste products are being added to it. Now for the first time, an industry whistleblower has come forward to spill the beans.

    The whistleblower still works in the dairy industry, having spent years working in milk processing, and fears repercussions if his voice is heard or his identity revealed.

    “I've seen it, I was part of it, and it's wrong,” the whistleblower said. “It's about time the public knew what the companies are up to. It's a waste product - it used to be tipped down the drain, then companies saw they could use it to save money. It's a tightly held secret they don't want the public to know about. Companies know it would be detrimental to their sales if people found out.”

    What the major companies are doing is that after milking, solids that are separated out, pasteurized, homogenized, reduced, and refined are then mixed back. The big secret that's kept from the public is they also mix in a lot of the cheap, filler additive consisting mainly of lactose. The left-overs of milk production called permeate.

    Peter Nathan runs the A2 milk company, which produces milk from specially bred Guernsey and Jersey cows. A2 does not contain a protein found in normal milks, called A1 beta casein protein, which is allegedly linked to a range of illnesses, including heart disease and allergies. And A2, which is more expensive than normal milks, does not have permeate added.

    ”It's got an additive that most consumers don't know they've got in their milk, and it doesn't taste the way milk should taste,” A2 Milk CEO Peter Nathan said.

    Permeate's up to twenty per cent of most milks, including full cream, skim, low fat, and the supermarkets’ private labels.

    “The public have a right to know about this ingredient because they're not told about it,” Nathan said.
    Permeate is not required to be disclosed on the label, so shoppers have no way of knowing if it's there and how much of it is present.

    The amount companies add varies, depending on the amount of protein present in cow's milk through the seasons.

    Prevention Magazine: Which milk is best for you?

    So why do companies add permeate?

    “You can see that in January 7 0.98 per cent was added in, then later in the year, more, 15 per cent, then 13.29, and drops to eleven then nine. Why wouldn't they use permeate, (when they’re saving $25 million a year? It's a no-brainer,” the whistleblower said.

    Normal milk from the farmer is around 50 cents a litre, while permeate's about fifteen cents - 35 cents a litre cheaper. A large milk processing company produces around 1.64 million litres of milk a day, 600 million litres a year. Substituting twelve per cent of that milk with permeate, saves $69,000 a day, or $25 million a year.

    Men's Health: Find the milk that fits your needs

    “It's no secret that the industry is caught in a price war at the moment, and the large milk processers are caught. They need to reduce costs, so what they do is they add in permeate, and it's no secret in the industry that these times we believe more permeate is being added,” Nathan said.

    “A2 is less processed than the big brands from the big manufacturers in Australia. A2 is fresh from the cow, it's pasteurized to kill the bad bacteria, homogenized to spread the fat around. Other manufacturers could produce milk without permeate if they wanted to, however they are focused on costs - we are focused on quality. When they drink A2 they are getting real milk, not a modified version of milk,” he said.

    ”Thousands of consumers have told us they do discern a significant difference between A2 and other milks that don't contain permeate and brands that do.”

    Ingrid Just from Choice says “the reports into milk that we at Choice have done over the years have shown that there is very little nutritional difference between milk that probably has permeate and milk that doesn't.”

    Companies told us they use permeate to make different dairy products, and to maintain a consistent taste in milk through the year, from different pastures. Just stresses permeates are not harmful for health. and companies must adhere to a nutritional formula, but they can add as much permeate as they can get away with legally.

    “Milk is essentially quite standardised, especially when it comes to minimum fat levels, and if it's skim milk for example or low fat milk, there are particular percentages that the milks have to address,” Just said.

    Permeate is not the only issue under the microscope for normal milk.

    A study is being conducted on why many people can't drink milk. Lactose intolerance accounts for 25 per cent to 30 per cent of milk intolerance, but Curtin University is testing people to compare how they react to normal milk - which has A1 beta casein protein, and A2 - which doesn't.

    “People who are concerned about digestion are often attracted to A2 milk,” Nathan said.
    The results of that study will be disclosed mid-year, but meanwhile permeate remains shrouded in secret.

    “If a milk doesn't have permeate in it, the supermarkets don't want them to declare it on the label, as it shows up the other companies that do put it in,” the whistleblower concluded.

    Milk companies which do not include permeate in their milk:
    More stories from Today Tonight

    Attempting to define the "Damaged Metabolism"

    My Carb Sane-Asylum: Attempting to define the "Damaged Metabolism"

    Attempting to define the "Damaged Metabolism"

    Where obesity is concerned, lots of excuse-making going on vis a vis the damaged metabolism.  Usually when someone challenges this to clarify what they mean, they are met with silence.  I've got four candidates based on various low carb theories and dieting truths.  So just some thoughts:  (OK a lot of thoughts - grin)

    Insulin Resistance:

    The original damaged metabolism, also referred to as a deranged metabolism.  The insulin resistant definitely have out of whack glucose (and fatty acid) metabolism.  As TWICHOO goes, carbs raise insulin leading to insulin resistance & hyperinsulinemia leading to fat accumulation as it is trapped in fat cells.  Leaving aside how one becomes IR, the state is indeed a deranged metabolism.  From Atkins-on, being IR has been blamed for an inability to lose weight, especially on standard CRD's.  Here's one area where LC truly shines!  It should probably be the first intervention for the morbidly obese insulin resistant person.  Yes, you read that correctly.  Why?  Because in free-living studies, it has been shown that LC diets work better for the short run producing more weight loss with less "effort" and experiencing less hunger.  But in controlled settings, it has been demonstrated that there's no magic for how LC works, it works by spontaneously reducing intake, and may even help increase NEAT though I'm not sure I've seen any study that measured significantly greater TDEE (the opposite actually).  Further, also in controlled studies where intake is controlled, it is calories and not the type of calories that produce weight loss.  Still further,  fasting insulin simply does not correlate with weight loss.  

    While there may well be genetically pre-disposed "weight loss resistant" types, the fact remains that when compliance is verified, those who self-identify as resistant to weight loss, lose weight.  There is no evidence that IR and the ensuing hyperinsulinemia hamper weight loss.  To wit, I came across a study a while back that I blogged on:  Does Metabolic Syndrome hamper weight loss efforts?

    Methods: A total of 107 women aged 49.1 ± 13.5 years old, with a body mass index (BMI) greater than 25 were studied. The subjects were prescribed a low-fat diet plus weight-reducing drugs when necessary.
    Results: After 3 months, the subjects with metabolic syndrome lost more weight than those without (6.62% vs. 4.50%; P < 0.05). There was a positive correlation between the percentage of weight loss and the number of the components of metabolic syndrome present at baseline (Spearman ρ = 0.329; P < 0.01). Furthermore, patients in the quartile with the highest homeostasis model assessment index (HOMA-index) lost more weight than the remaining subjects (8.17% ± 3.34 vs. 5.59% ± 3.87; P < 0.05). These results were significant, even after adjustment for the medical treatment prescribed.
    While it is possible the most "ill" were also given more weight-reducing drugs (though they controlled for this it may have contributed to the degree of the difference in weight loss), this still doesn't negate the fact that so-called "failed conventional means" of a low fat diet + (possible) meds produced superior results in those with the most damaged metabolisms where glucose/insulin are concerned.   

    Leptin Resistance/Deficiency

    Although there can be really no doubt that leptin is the dominant hormone regulating fat mass, studies using leptin to correct obesity have been limited in their success.  Leptin seems far more effective at preventing regain.  Human obesity associated with inherent leptin deficiency or signaling (the equivalents of db/db or ob/ob mice)  is rare.  And yet obesity is associated with elevated leptin levels indicating a degree of leptin resistance.  The whole "resistance" tag is getting increasingly murky if you ask me, because it implies decreased sensitivity to the action of a hormone when perhaps there are simply limits to how much a hormone can do.  Leptin stimulates fatty acid oxidation and raises metabolism, but it cannot completely compensate for chronic caloric excesses and can only upregulate one's metabolic rate so much.  Yet if fat cells continue to grow, they secrete more leptin that isn't usable.  It could be as simple as that.  Like pouring water (leptin) through a bucket with holes (receptors). Maybe the holes aren't clogged, they can only allow for 1 gallon per minute to drain through, pour in more than that and the water level in the bucket rises.  

    The whole leptin discussion is confusing enough if one just looks at legitimate science.  After all it was discovered less than 20 years ago.  This is certainly not helped any by the low carb "experts".  Nora Gedgaudas comes close to plagiarizing Ron Rosedale whose theories on leptin spiking causing resistance are unsubstantiated by the literature.  Leptin Man himself -- Jack Kruse and his Leptin Reset protocol -- has yet to offer ANY rational for how the SAD causes LR or how his diet restores sensitivity.   Little if anything has been determined as to a dietary cause of leptin resistance, though triglycerides have been mentioned.  So what triglycerides?  Triglycerides are a generic term for the esterified form of fatty acids carried by various lipoproteins. Much to be done here, nothing to implicate either fat or carb per se.  So then we have what to do about this resistance if we've developed it.  Near as I can see, Jack is onto something hardly novel with his high protein breakfast.  I've linked to studies here before showing dietary protein seems to lower overnight leptin levels by increasing sensitivity (I'll try and come back to link to that).  But other than this, other speculations on leptin being the damaged component of one's metabolism -- from a dietary perspective -- are slim to none.  Certainly there is no evidence to substantiate some epic epigenetic switch whereby we can eat with abandon with leptin sensitivity and suddenly all hell breaks loose when we lose it.  

    Leptin levels seem to be far more related -- again absent a genetic deficiency -- with the number and size of fat cells.  So there's quite a bit of evidence that the reduced-obese tend to be leptin deficient compared to those who have never become obese in the first place.  I suppose this contributes to a "damaged metabolism" of sorts, but it has nothing that I can find in the literature to do with the composition of one's diet, with the possible exception of protein.   I would like to see leptin replacement therapy and/or leptin sensitizers looked at more rigorously to assist those with maintenance.  BUT ... it seems that for the obese, any sort of "broken leptin metabolism" is not at the root of failure to lose weight.

    Mitochondrial Dysfunction

    Where to begin.  There has been a lot of fuss over dysfunctional mitochondria -- impaired fatty acid oxidation in particular -- in the larger community over the past year or so.  Near as I can figure this traces back to a post series on satiety and hunger written by J Stanton of Gnolls.org.  At the risk of veering into gossip land a bit ... Eh, WTF, I'm going there!  When I first heard of J it was because of the series and folks like Beth of WeightMaven and Paul of Perfect Health linking to his site.  Gnolls?  Whassat??   Gnolls are the characters in a science fiction novel he wrote near as I can tell.  Do we learn any more about J and his background?  No.  So when one goes to his site and reads a "science" post, we are forewarned with the graphic up there.  Oh boy, I'm a'scared ... NOT!  Not SCIENCE!!  As a scientist, when someone warns me about the science or complexity of what they're about to present, I first go looking for some cred.  Not because that's the be all and end all, but it helps me calibrate my BS detector before proceeding, and when it goes off ....   And, so, I look at the FAQ and near as I can figure his "thang" is about reclaiming our evolutionary heritage which he relates in his book?  Anything about Stanton's background?  Nope.  So the guy's a paleo aficionado who advocates "eating like a predator" which presumably is a meat dominated diet.  Nothing else.  As serendipity would have it, one of Leptin Man's posts I read was on gnolls and Mg and IR.  So just in case this makes a difference to you, it appears J's day job is hair styling.  Not that there's anything wrong with that, but I become far more skeptical of his version of science as he presents it.  Much of his theories hinge on a few papers (here, go read from Part I if you must ;D )

    For the sake of brevity, I'm going to skip the nitty gritty here and get to the punchline:  the "pre obese" and "post obese" have high RQ's while the obese actually have low RQ's.  A higher RQ favors carb burning over fats, a low RQ favors the opposite.  The closer to 1 the more carbs you are burning, the closer to 0.7 the more fats you are burning.  So this whole theory hinges on "pre obesity" suppressing fat burning, and "post obese not being good fat burners either thus leading to propensity to regain.  Impaired fat burning.  Dysfunctional mitochondria.  Fatty fat fat for you, and don't dare eat carbs!  Well, the paper this comes from seems to be a bit of an outlier.  That is, obese do not, in most studies, have lower RQ than lean per se.  However it is true that obesity + high fat diet will lower your RQ as your cells are essentially forced to burn fat.  I have many more thoughts on this for another day, but this dysfunction thing doesn't hold water.  Because:
    • If Stanton's paper is taken at face value, the obese burn fatty acids at higher rates and should be blowing through body fat
    • If the lower fatty acid oxidation by the mitochondria is due to a DEFECT in the fatty acid oxidation biochemistry/physiology itself, eating a higher fat diet (with or without carbs) would not fix it.
    Peter/Hyperlipid picked up on this and ran with it, but frankly folks, once one admits to falsifying and fudging data, it's a long road back to credibility if that road ever ends.  Now J. Stanton recently put up another installment of his hunger/satiety series, and ... sigh ... he's slated to give a talk at AHS12 on the topic.  So address this I must, no matter how minor a player he seems to be.

    There are some conditions that are genetic that are traced to mitochondrial defects.  These are rare and that rarity is the bottom line that should prevent us from wasting time searching down this rabbit hole to explain the obesity epidemic.  End of discussion ... but not for some with seemingly endless desire to poke at real obesity researchers and rationalize low carbing as the be all and end all.  But if common sense doesn't help you come to the realization that the dysfunction is the result of dietary abuses and excesses and not the cause of them, believe me when I tell you the scientific literature is full of studies looking at this, but almost totally absent of results demonstrating a mitochondrial dysfunction etiology of all metabolic ills.  Let me be clear, dysfunctional mitochondria pop up all over the place.  They are very real as are deranged metabolisms as a result.  And I have great pity for those who have the rare predisposition to such abnormalities, because your condition will probably be glossed over due to the vast majority not having it so the general population data make you scientifically non-existent in today's hyper obese environment.

    Of one thing I'm pretty sure, if not certain.  Eating carbohydrate per se is not causing mitochondrial dysfunction and defective fat burning capacity in your mitochondria.  

    Depressed Metabolic Rate

    This one is actually the most "real" of the four.  Because the rise in "simple" obesity cannot be explained by either of the first two "damages".  Yes, transfats and fructose can be tied to IR, but the causal link just isn't there in the literature.  And yes, we can identify mitochondrial dysfunction in certain metabolic states, again, the causal link just isn't there either.  Indeed in both cases, as I've discussed, the causal link is opposite of the claims:  e.g. the "damage" is the result of the obesity/chronic caloric surplus and not the cause of it.  But having become obese and losing the weight vs. never becoming obese at all does "damage" one's metabolism.  And the more one cycles weight, and the more drastic the cycles, the greater that "damage" is likely to be.  Here are things we know to be almost absolute truths when generalizing to averages of populations: 
    • Resting metabolic rate (RMR aka basal BMR) is highly correlated with lean body mass in normal individuals.  
    • The obese have higher metabolic rates than the lean
    • Sustained caloric restriction can and often does elicit compensatory adaptations reducing RMR/BMR
    • Body weight loss almost always involves loss of both fat and lean mass
    We also know to a reasonable degree of certainty, again generalizing to averages:
    • A reduced obese person weighing XX pounds likely has a lower RMR/BMR than a never-obese person weighing the same XX lbs
    And for the individual, I'd bet on the following being true, although we can never know with certainty unless someone does a prospective study on a large population measuring this through the years:
    • A reduced obese person weighing XX pounds has a lower RMR/BMR than had they never become obese and had to lose a lot of weight in the first place.
    • A person who has cycled weight exacerbates the RMR/BMR lowering
    This is compounded by aging, and for women, menopause.  While FAR from perfect, the caloric expenditure calculators out there almost invariable include gender, height & age in the "input" to estimate.   But, but, my 90 y.o. grandfather eats like a 20 y.o. and hasn't gained weight.  I don't care.  Does this fact change the reality that most of us "slow down" naturally as we age and/or go through hormonal upheaval?  No.  

    One problem I've encountered with all these studies, is that "post obese" can often mean as little as two months maintaining a significant weight loss.  I would love to see several years where RMR is measured along with weight.  As much as I hate anecdotes, I did seem to be able to eat more calories after about two years, so this "damage" while very real, is not necessarily permanent.  I have a post on this in the works with some thoughts on how to minimize it during weight loss and/or recover.

    Onward ....

    So ... where does all of this leave us?  Well, I've been around the LC internet community for just over 3 years now, read countless comments by others or directed at me in discussions, etc.  One thing is clear.  People are DESPERATE.  Not only to lose weight, but to divest themselves of ANY responsibility in their obesity.  Gary Taubes was *the savior* in that regard.  For over a decade he's convinced you that the guvmint and nutritionists and evil/bad scientists have been f'en with your health for the profit of Big Pharma and Agro and whatnot.  Look, any American who denies some role of lobbying and subsidies in all this is misguided IMO.  But the fact of the matter is that Americans didn't listen to the whole grain, low fat, LIMITED SWEETS ATOP THE PYRAMID, dogma as they guzzled down the sodas Lustig wants to use the force of that very same government to tax/regulate into oblivion.  Low fat dairy didn't make us fat either.  We -- Americans and other countries of relative affluence or citizens of far more countries with means -- are eating more and/or moving less.  This is neither brain surgery nor rocket science.  It's not *simple*, far from it, but "simple obesity", the stuff this epidemic is made of, is no mystery.  Dieting per se to combat it -- e.g. food restriction and cycling long periods of adherence with going off the diet -- is A contributing factor no doubt.  

    If you are struggling beyond all struggling.  Cannot eat less than 3000 cal/day for example struggling.  There is something else going on, and perhaps you need to seek help elsewhere for your eating disorder.  I've hinted recently that I'll be addressing these soon.  And hopefully if there's something hormonal going on that is COMPLICATING (but likely not causing) matters, I wish you all the best in sorting that out without draining precious resources from your wallet.  But in my heart of hearts I see this damaged metabolism schtick put forth by various gurus as nothing more than another means of preying on desperate people for profit.  The beauty of it all for the profiteers is that when their magical plans don't work for you they can just blame it on you being irreparably damaged.  How sweet is that road to the bank?

    Out of the blue last weekend my Dad started singing "I beg your pardon, I never promised you a rose garden, along with the sunshine, there's gotta be a little rain sometime.  Google the lyrics if you're a youngsta.  It's so relevent here.  Reality is the latter, which includes self responsibility.  The former is what books are selling.   But ya know what folks?  Running around in the rain half nekkid if a bit pudgy can be sheer delight!!


    CarbSane you didnt mention the Hepatic IR problem that Lustig pointed out in his recent paper. I guess you wasnt aware of it? TBH I only found out about it myself recently after a very kind person sent me the full text.

    The short of it is, that people with "damaged metabolism's" have a problem in turning off hepatic glucose production in the face of an oral carbohydrate load. This leads to excessive postprandial hyperglycemia and hyperinsulemia/IR and all the other problems one gets on the obesity->T2DM road.

    This also explains why one does well staying off the potatoes/starch, flooding your blood with generic glucose molecules will not be a good idea if you have trouble turning off hepatic glucose production.


    Miranda Kerr's coconut oil habit risky, warn experts | Herald Sun

    Miranda Kerr's coconut oil habit risky, warn experts | Herald Sun

    Miranda Kerr
    Miranda Kerr has attributed coconut oil to her stunning looks. Picture: PerthNow
    US experts yesterday warned against consuming large amounts of coconut oil after Australian supermodel Miranda Kerr said the high-fat oil was the key to her clear skin, shiny hair and trim figure.
    Kerr told Australia's Cosmopolitan magazine that she had been consuming the oil since she was a teenager.

    "I've been drinking it since I was 14 and it's the one thing I can't live without," the new mother said.
    "I will not go a day without coconut oil. I personally take four tablespoons per day, either on my salads, in my cooking or in my cups of green tea."

    But experts said the oil, which is a saturated fat with a high calorie count and few vitamins and minerals, should not be consumed in such large doses, ABC News reported.

    The World Health Organization has also warned the oil could contribute to an increased risk of coronary heart disease if taken to excess.

    Keith Ayoob, director of the nutrition clinic at the Children's Evaluation and Rehabilitation Center at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, said the oil will not give you the body of a supermodel.

    "I can't say I'd want people consuming lots of coconut oil. You should use it sparingly," Ayoob said.

    "You want to cut back on saturated fats in your diet. I don't know what benefit it would have for weight management because it has just as many calories as any other fat."

    Kerr's dose of four tablespoons a day adds up to about 460 calories, which Ayoob said was too much saturated fat for most people.

    "She's getting two and a half times the amount of saturated fat I would recommend for a person consuming 2,000 calories per day," he said.

    Dr. Robert Eckel, director of the General Clinical Research Center at Colorado Health Science University in Denver, also expressed concerns about the effect of the oil on a person's cholesterol.
    "Saturated fat intake does contribute to LDL [low-density lipoprotein] cholesterol, and that has been pretty well documented by research," Eckel said referring to "bad" cholesterol.

    Ayood recommended people consume 28 grams of dark chocolate - at about 150 calories - instead of coconut oil.

    "It probably has more nutritional benefit than coconut oil," he said. "And it's certainly going to be more satisfying."


    Healthy Milk: What Is It? | The Alliance for Natural Health USA

    Healthy Milk: What Is It? | The Alliance for Natural Health USA

    Healthy Milk: What Is It?

    February 21, 2012
    healthy milk 
    And what’s standing in the way of your getting it?
    A report from Harvard suggests that milk from factory farms may be associated with hormone-related cancers because of the industrial agricultural practice of milking a cow throughout her pregnancy. The later in pregnancy a cow is, the more hormones appear in her milk. Milk from a cow in the late stage of pregnancy contains up to 33 times as much of a signature estrogen compound (estrone sulfate) as milk from a cow following pregnancy, as well as much higher levels of other hormones.

    The very healthiest milk would therefore be raw, grass-fed, organic, and from a cow that is only milked for the first six months after giving birth (which would include the first four months of a new pregnancy).
    Why can’t we get milk that even remotely resembles this ideal?

    It’s because federal regulatory policy, controlled by special interests like the dairy industry, is making our milk even more unhealthy—and shackling consumer choice.

    Congress is set to introduce the 2012 Farm Bill, which will set the course of federal agriculture and food assistance programs for the next five years. It will have a major impact on farmers, consumers, rural communities, and global agribusiness—a primary beneficiary of US federal agriculture programs.

    Current federal regulations are designed to encourage farmers to take dairy cows off pasture and put them into CAFOs (see our article on factory farms in this issue). The regulations, called the Pasteurized Milk Ordinance, are written for stationary systems to increase milk production per cow; this is known as the Total Confinement Dairy Model—that is, the huge dairy factory farms. This practice, however, cuts the productive life expectancy of the cow in half or even more, creates unmanageable disease (not to mention an environmental disaster), and hurts smaller organic dairy farmers. The real solution is to find the most cost-effective models specific to a region’s particular environment, and balance that with the health of the cow and the best possible milk product. For example, what works in the arid climates of the western US (evaporative systems to keep cows comfortable) will not work in the more humid climate of the southeast.

    The federal government seems to feel that “all milk is the same,” whereas the nutrient content (such as butterfat and protein) varies greatly between different breeds of cows. According to our sources, the 2012 Farm Bill may contain provisions to outlaw “component pricing” of milk, in which a producer is paid more for higher protein, or higher butterfat milk. Component pricing tends to incentivize higher quality milk and better agricultural practices, because healthy cows put to pasture will produce more valuable milk than sick cows in stalls. Some states have tried to create better policies for milk. California, for example, has higher standards for components of 1% and 2% milk than the government requires—higher protein content, more calcium, and so forth. Yet the government is trying to stop shut down California’s standards.

    The federal government is also fighting local, organic, and small dairy producers, mainly because of its cozy relationships with Big Dairy (the USDA’s Dairy Industry Advisory Committee). And then there’s the pseudo-independent Dairy Management, Inc. (DMI), which owns the trade names American Dairy Association, National Dairy Council, and US Dairy Export Council. DMI claims to have been “created by farmers, for farmers, and is funded by America’s dairy farm families—and only by dairy farmers. It does not use any government or taxpayer dollars to promote dairy products in the United States.” What DMI doesn’t reveal, but the New York Times does, is that DMI is not a private business consultant. It is a marketing creation of the USDA—the same agency at the center of a federal anti-obesity drive that discourages over-consumption of some of the very foods Dairy Management is vigorously promoting, as we discussed last year. Conflict of interest, anyone?
    You may recall that there is a new proposal afoot to merge USDA’s food safety wing with FDA’s food safety unit. As we noted last month, the real issue is that USDA is in the pocket of the agricultural industry (“Big Farma”)—the administration instead wants to shift food safety over to the FDA, where both Big Farma and Big Pharma rule the roost.

    As you know, the FDA has a vendetta against raw milk. Raw milk (which is far more healthful than pasteurized milk) is allowed in some states, though the FDA is shutting down raw milk production whenever it can. Just this month, the FDA shut down an Amish farmer who was selling fresh raw milk to eager consumers in the Washington, DC, region. A judge banned Daniel Allgyer from selling his milk across state lines, which resulted in the closing of his dairy operation—a decision that enraged Allgyer’s customers, some of whom have been buying from him for six years and say the government is interfering with their parental rights to feed their children. These customers owned “cowshares” and therefore were part- owners of the cow, but the judge ruled that this was a subterfuge.
    As Dr. Joseph Mercola reminds us, there have been no deaths in 38 years from consuming raw milk—ever since the data started being collected. There have been over 80 deaths from pasteurized milk during that same time period, including 50 people who were killed in 1985 alone by cheese from pasteurized milk.

    If you have not done so already, please contact your representative and ask him or her to support HR 1830, the Unpasteurized Milk Bill. This bill would allow the shipment and distribution of unpasteurized milk and milk products for human consumption across state lines. This legislation removes an unconstitutional restraint on farmers who wish to sell or otherwise distribute—and people who wish to consume—raw milk and milk products.  Also ask your senators to introduce and support similar legislation in the Senate. Take action now!

    Pasteurized milk 150 times more contaminated with blood, pus and feces than fresh milk - videos the CDC won't show you

    Pasteurized milk 150 times more contaminated with blood, pus and feces than fresh milk - videos the CDC won't show you

    Dairy cows are routinely abused and left to suffer in total filth

    Want to know how conventional (pasteurized) dairy cows are really treated? Here's something the CDC won't show you.

    Watch this highly disturbing video of dairy cows being kicked, tortured, abused and injured by conventional dairy workers. This was filmed with an undercover spy cam (WARNING: DISTURBING IMAGERY):

    When you buy pasteurized milk at the grocery store, you are supporting an industry that tortures cows and produces a dirty, filthy product!

    Of course, the dairy industry would much rather force everybody to pasteurize their milk and outlaw clean raw dairy than to clean up their own act. That's the whole point of the CDC going after raw dairy: To destroy the raw dairy industry and force everyone to drink dirty, contaminated pasteurized milk that's extracted from tortured cows.

    Here are some other short videos you may want to view (WARNING):

    Dairy Cow Abuse - "Mercy For Animals" hidden camera in New York:

    The disgusting treatment of (conventional) dairy cows:

    Dairy cows with injuries and infections:

    ABC Nightline - Dairy farm abuse:

    So get it through your heads, folks: If you buy pasteurized, homogenized milk, you are supporting an industry of filth, torture, infected animals and dirty, dirty milk.

    Blood, pus, bacteria and fecal matter - drink up, kiddies!

    The reason all that milk has to be pasteurized is because it's strongly contaminated with:

    • blood
    • pus
    • bacteria
    • fecal matter

    In addition, conventional dairy cows are:

    • Pumped full of bovine growth hormones
    • Fed masses of antibiotics
    • Fed tons of GMOs such as corn and soy
    • Heavily contaminated with chemical pesticides

    That's what you get when you buy "Pasteurized" milk. Plus the feces in the milk, of course.

    So the next time somebody gets mad at you in bumper-to-bumper traffic and they scream out the window: "EAT SH*T!" just hand them a glass of pasteurized milk. Let them drink it, huh?

    The cleanest milk in the world? RAW, fresh milk!

    You want to see a super clean dairy operation? Go to a raw dairy farm and check out their operation. It's the cleanest, most pristine dairy operation you'll ever find. And why? Because it has to be. If you want to produce clean, fresh dairy without pasteurization, you have to run a super clean facility with healthy cows, stringent cleanliness practices and a commitment to producing wholesome food.

    Only raw milk dairies have this kind of commitment to cleanliness.

    View this powerful comparison between pasteurized milk and raw milk:

    In fact, if you took a gallon of unpasteurized milk from a conventional dairy and you compared it to a gallon of unpasteurized milk from a quality-certified raw milk dairy, I have no doubt you would find that the conventional dairy has at least 150 times the level of blood, pus, feces and dangerous bacteria (if not more).

    In contrast, raw milk from a reputable dairy operation such as Organic Pastures (www.OrganicPastures.com) is the cleanest milk on the planet, bar none. Sure, it has friendly bacteria in it, but that bacteria is good for you -- it's probiotics. The CDC, of course, is so clueless about infectious disease that they hate ALL bacteria and want to destroy them all with chemicals or heat.

    The CDC won't dare discuss any of this, however. Instead, the CDC has resorted to what can only be called a raw milk fear mongering campaign using the exact same tactic they used to promote vaccine sales by pushing false swine flu fear.

    The only thing dirtier than pasteurized milk, it seems, is the CDC itself, which has degraded from a once-respected group of actual scientists to a cabal of junk science fear mongerers and political prostitutes who drop trow and bend over for Big Business (Big Pharma, Big Dairy, etc.) at every opportunity. Instead of doing something important to stop the spread of infectious disease (like promoting vitamin D, immune-boosting nutrition and improved sanitation), the CDC is now a total sellout to the interests of the corporate giants who feed us filth and call it food.

    So it's no surprise to see the CDC promoting pasteurized milk -- the very product whose digestive enzymes have been destroyed so that it causes allergic reactions in those who consume it.

    Pasteurized, homogenized milk also promotes heart disease, obesity, autoimmune disorders, constipation, sinus congestion and many other chronic health conditions. It is the perfect food for the uninformed masses who the U.S. government seems to be trying to keep in a state of lifelong disease and medical enslavement.

    Keep reading NaturalNews to learn more about what's wrong with conventional pasteurized dairy products. We're working on several articles covering this topic.

    And remember:

    Pasteurized milk is so disgustingly dirty that if they didn't kill everything in it with heat, the liquid would probably kill YOU.



    Enter RealMilk.com
    Enter RealMilk.com Click On The RealCow Enter RealMilk.com
    A Campaign for Real Milk is a project of The Weston A. Price Foundation.
    For sources of Real Milk visit our WHERE pages!

    Welcome to RealMilk.com

    In our ongoing efforts to ensure that our website is accurate and up to date, we ask that you contact us at webmaster@realmilk.com for any comments, corrections or additions. We update the website frequently.

    For those who wish detailed information on the safety and health benefits of raw milk, we suggest the following documents:
    Please note that this website recommends Real Milk--that is, milk that is full-fat, unprocessed, and from pasture-fed animals. We do NOT recommend consumption of raw milk from conventional confinement dairies or dairies which produce milk intended for pasteurization. Nor do we recommend the consumption of lowfat or skim raw milk--there are important protective factors in the butterfat. Real Milk, that is, raw whole milk from grass-fed animals (fed pasture, hay and silage), produced under clean conditions and promptly refrigerated, contains many anti-microbial and immune-supporting components; but this protective system in raw milk can be overwhelmed, and the milk contaminated, in situations conducive to filth and disease. Know your farmer! For sources of raw milk, go to our WHERE pages or contact your nearest local chapter of the Weston A. Price Foundation.

    Ray Peat on why Sugar is [Pure, White & Awesome] - The Danny Roddy Weblog

    Sugar: Pure, White & Awesome - The Danny Roddy Weblog - Nutrition For Sex, Hair & Health

    Sugar: Pure, White & Awesome


    ♫ Audio ArticleDownload a free audio version of this article with commentary, or subscribe in iTunes! 

    Before we start, kudos to Dr. Stephan Guyenet who came out with an amazing article absolving sugar of many of its supposed harms. Many thanks to him for publishing a progressive and ballsy piece of work.

    This (long) article will be review for many, but will focus on why carbohydrate (predominantly fruit, but honey and simple syrup as well) is an optimal main source of fuel.

    Familiarizing yourself with serotoninoxidative energy, and the importance of calcium will increase the readability of this article.

    The Anti-Stress Fuel

    If you'll remember from my primer on Dr. Peat, energy and structure are interdependent. This suggests that energizing the cell will have a beneficial "ripple effect" throughout the entire organism. Put simply, "regeneration" cannot happen without efficient oxidative energy:

    "I see the interaction between the flow of energy (e.g. between a sugar and oxygen) and the structure as one in which the flow is retarded by the structure, and used by the structure, in maintaining and complexity itself. (Another way of looking at this is that if energy can do something, it does something; and what it it does is build structure. The life structure is a kind of energy charge, but the important thing is the spontaneous nature of the interactions, in the presence of an energy supply.) The chemical nature of the energy source (and the energy "sink," which is usually oxygen) influences the nature of the structure-building." -Ray Peat

    The cells cannot be energized without the active thyroid hormone, triiodothyronine (T3). The largest chunk of T3 is produced in the liver by an enzymatic conversion of thyroxine (T4) into T3 by the deiodinase enzymes.

    Keeping the liver "energized" is an important factor in thyroid health. The inability to store glycogen, the storage form of sugar, can decreases the conversion of T4 to T3.
    Stressful situations require more glucose. Once something has interfered with our ability to produce energy (a great stress), adrenaline is released to mobilize glucose from the liver to provide the missing glucose to help overcome the stress:

    "...This increased consumption of glucose tends to lower the concentration of glucose in the blood, and this (or various other signals, such as pain or fear, that are associated with the need for more glucose) causes the secretion of adrenalin, which can mobilize glucose from the liver's glycogen stores. If the glucose stores are depleted, the body resorts to the secretion of cortisol, to provide glucose (and other material) by cannibalizing protein from tissues which are momentarily less essential." -Ray Peat

    This suggests that low blood sugar is analogous to stress. Chronic low blood sugar makes one susceptible to the release of adrenaline and cortisol and is even more likely if liver glycogen is low (fructose avoidance, low thyroid).

    Carbon Dioxide (CO2)

    Before we dive into the follies of using fat as a main fuel source, let's discuss sugar's relation to carbon dioxide.

    An oxidative metabolism requires sufficient glucose and oxygen and in the presence of inadequate CO2 the mitochondria cannot utilize oxygen properly:

    "In old age, a person's life expectancy strongly depends on the amount of oxygen that can be used. When the mitochondria can't use oxygen vigorously, cells must depend on inefficient glycolysis for their energy." -Ray Peat

    Peat's description of both aerobic and anaerobic glycolysis can be a noodle scratcher without understanding his views on carbon dioxide:

    "Aerobic glycolysis ["Warburg Effect"], the conversion of glucose to lactic acid even in the presence of oxygen. The presence of oxygen normally restrains glycolysis so that glucose is converted to carbon dioxide instead of lactic acid.

    Anaerobic glycolysis, the increased conversion of glucose to lactic acid when the supply of oxygen isn't sufficient, which is a normal event during intense muscle action." -Ray Peat
    When questioned about the "right way" for the cell to perform glycolysis Peat replied:
    "Meaning the entry of lactate into the blood stream inappropriately, which would usually be called aerobic glycolysis, though you can't be sure how much oxygen is getting to the cells when CO2 is deficient, since its absence causes many problems in oxygen delivery and use." -Ray Peat

    Optimizing the production of carbon dioxide relies on using carbohydrate as a main source of fuel:

    "When carbon dioxide production can be measured at the same time as oxygen consumption, it's possible to estimate the proportion of energy that is being derived from glucose, rather than fat or protein, since oxidation of glucose produces more carbon dioxide than oxidation of fat doesGlucose oxidation is efficient, and suggests a state of low stress." -Ray Peat

    Moreover, low CO2 levels promote the inflammatory stress cycle causing platelets to "spill" serotonin instead of being detoxified in the lungs:

    "The blood platelets that become incontinent and leak serotonin in the absence of carbon dioxide are undergoing the same structural stresses experience by endothelial cells, smooth muscle cells, mast cells and all other cells when carbon dioxide is depleted." -Ray Peat

    Running On Fat Promotes Stress

    Using fat as a source of energy is a feature of aging; it is truly a secondary fuel... I know, shift of paradigm... Again.

    In the face of low glycogen, adrenaline will mobilize free fatty acids for fuel. The release of free fatty acids can inhibit the proper use of sugar via the Randle cycle:

    "The last of these mechanisms, discovered by Denis McGarry and Daniel Foster in 1977, provides an almost exact complement to the mechanism described in the glucose-fatty acid cycle whereby high concentrations of fatty acids inhibit glucose utilization. These additional discoveries have not detracted from the important of the glucose-fatty acid cycle: rather, they have reinforced the importance of mechanisms whereby glucose and fat can interact."

    - From: Rob Turner (PUFA Causative in Diabetes – Randle Cycle) more studies in the link.

    While adrenaline is busy mobilizing fat (if glycogen isn't sufficient) cortisol is released to break down structure (thymus, muscles), into amino acids, and then into glucose.

    Some of these amino acids, specifically tryptophan, further potentiate the stress inflammatory cycle:

    "Both adrenaline and serotonin will stimulate the release of cortisol, which mobilizes amino acids from tissues such as the large skeletal muscles. Those muscles contain a large amount of cysteine and tryptophan, which, among other effects, suppress the thyroid. 

    The increased tryptophan, especially in the presence of free fatty acids, is likely to be converted into additional serotonin, since fatty acids release tryptophan from albumin, increasing its entry into the brain. Free fatty acids and increased serotonin reduce metabolic efficiency (leading to insulin resistance, for example) and promote an inflammatory state." -Ray Peat

    Chris Masterjohn has also suggested that free fatty acids are involved in inhibiting thyroid signaling:

    "There's good preliminary evidence that any unsaturated free fatty acids are quite good at inhibiting thyroid function. Not just PUFA but oleic acid is pretty good at it too. You can't do anything to suppress oleic acid because your body can produce it itself. PUFAs play a role, but you have a lot more oleic acid in the body. 

    Basically, any release of free fatty acids will inhibit thyroid signaling. The best evidence for this is at the level of thyroid binding to the nuclear receptor and then binding to DNA. It seems that the concentrations of free fatty acids can get high enough in the nucleus of the cell to inhibit signaling there and that will not be reflected in free T3 levels in the blood or anything like that. It would be very difficult to detect it clinically." - Chris Masterjohn


    The above ideas are—INCOMPATIBLEwith the current trend of ancestral eating (must eat "real food"). If I get another email about "blending Peat with Paleo" I will have to increase my sugared orange juice consumption.

    EDIT (02/28/12): Getting lots of comments about the above statement. I should clarify that "just eating real food" does not specifically address the hormones Peat believes lead to degeneration.

    My interpretation of Peat's work suggests that energizing the cell is the most important aspect of diet. This is why "non-real foods" like simple syrup can be utilized.

    Invest in the lab work listed on this page and take advantage of evidence-based health decisions.

    *A huge thanks to both Rob Turner and Cliff McCrary for their always helpful correspondence regarding some of Ray's more "advanced" ideas.

    Why Thyroid Is So Important:Ray Peat vs Dr. Paul Jaminet - The Danny Roddy Weblog - Nutrition For Sex, Hair & Health

    Why Thyroid Is So Important: A Response to Dr. Paul Jaminet - The Danny Roddy Weblog - Nutrition For Sex, Hair & Health

    Why Thyroid Is So Important: A Response to Dr. Paul Jaminet

    ♫ Audio ArticleDownload a free audio version of this article with commentary, or subscribe in iTunes! 
     A few weeks ago I wrote up a critique of The Perfect Health Diet by Dr. Paul Jaminet and his wife, Dr. Shou Ching.
    Dr. Jaminet wrote a response to my assertion that liver glycogen was an important factor in resisting stress, and followed up the original post with another on the supposed follies of sugar consumption.
    In the article, Dr. Jaminet agreed that carbohydrate intake is critical for the synthesis of the active thyroid hormone, triiodothyronine (T3), however, Dr. Jaminet is not under the impression that thyroid, or any hormone for that matter, should be the focus of a diet for perfect health:

    "...In any case I don’t normally discuss hormonal biology because it is too complicated and doesn’t normally provide much insight into what we should do." 

    Let's briefly discuss my interpretation of why Dr. Peat believes thyroid hormone is so important.

    Oxidative Metabolism

    Peat views thyroid as an integral part in the cell's ability to produce energy as well as maintain optimal health:

    Thyroid hormone is necessary for respiration on the cellular level, and makes possible all higher biological functions. Without the metabolic efficiency, which is promoted by thyroid hormone, life couldn’t get much beyond the single-cell stage.
    Without adequate thyroid, we become sluggishclumsycoldanemic, and subject to infectionsheart diseaseheadaches, cancer, and many other diseases, and seem to be prematurely aged, because none of our tissues can function normally." - Ray Peat

    Active thyroid hormone allows for an oxidative metabolism (the metabolism of our youth). In short, an oxidative metabolism creates a lot of ATP, utilizes oxygen properly, and produces boatloads of CO2.
    Peat's work suggests that the ability of the cell to produce energy and utilize oxygen (CO2) is the greatest factor in promoting longevity and avoiding degeneration.

    An oxidative metabolism goes awry when "respiratory defects," or the inability to metabolize glucose and utilize oxygen, accumulate. PUFA, stress, nutrient deficiencies and numerous other anti-metabolic factors (serotonin, estrogen, prolactin, endotoxin, cortisol, adrenaline, aldosterone, parathyroid hormone, free fatty acids, etc.) can cause respiratory defects.

    "Many other diseases are now known to be caused by respiratory defects. Inflammation, stress, immunodeficiency, autoimmunity, developmental and degenerative diseases, and aging, all involve significantly abnormal oxidative processes. Just brief oxygen deprivation triggers processes that lead to lipid peroxidation, producing a chain of other oxidative reactions when oxygen is restored." 

    If a reduction in thyroid performance coincides with a decrease in cellular energy, this may explain the extremely broad, beneficial actions of thyroid supplementation (Barnes).
    Sugar Increases Adrenaline?

    Paul did note something quite strange in his article about sugar and its "stressful effects." Paul mentions that in an experiment sucrose lead to increased elevations of adrenaline:

    "We can see the stressfulness of sucrose by its effects on the “fight-or-flight” stress hormones adrenaline (epinephrine) and noradrenaline (norepinephrine). Here is a study that fed high-fat, high-starch, and high-sucrose diets for 14 days to healthy non-obese subjects, and measured the hormonal response."

    Paul continues to suggest that Peat has been running on adrenaline for the last several decades:

    "One of the effects of adrenaline and noradrenaline is to speed up the pulse rate. If Peat really does eat 400 g of carbs per day, predominantly from sucrose, then he may be achieving his high pulse rate from an “adrenaline rush” that helps dispose of an excess of fructose.

    If, indeed, this is a source of improved sense of well-being on Peat-style diets, it may be a double-edged sword. Chronic stimulation of the “fight-or-flight” hormones to aid in fructose disposal may have long-run negative consequences."

    If Peat were achieving his high pulse with high levels of adrenaline, it would suggest, A) that he truly has no idea what he's doing, and 2) that his followers would also feel the negative effects of elevated adrenaline (cold hands and feet, cold nose, poor sleep, anxiety). I don't experience this; perhaps some other followers of Peat can leave some thoughts in the comments.

    While studies are fun to deconstruct, the results of the experiment don't align with the basic physiology that Peat subscribes to:

    "As soon as something interferes with the oxidative production of energy (not having enough oxygen, for example, as when running) we adapt biochemically first by increasing the consumption of glucose for glycolytic energy production. This increased consumption of glucose tends to lower the concentration of glucose in the blood, and this (or various other signals, such as pain or fear, that are associated with the need for more glucose) causes the secretion of adrenalin, which can mobilize glucose from the liver's glycogen stores. If the glucose stores are depleted, the body resorts to the secretion of cortisol, to provide glucose (and other material) by cannibalizing protein from tissues which are momentarily less essential."

    This may be a solid reason to rely on personal labs and self-diagnostics instead of interpretations of various studies.