The necessity of eating; hunger and body weight regulation. Pt 1 - The Scribble Pad: Food is not evil

The Scribble Pad: Food is not evil; the necessity of eating; hunger and body weight regulation. Pt 1

Pt 2 to come.
A few days/weeks ago I wrote a blog series regarding the controversial topic of trouble with ketogenic diets. (I have now created a separate tag for this post series and may update them in the future; although I intended to do so with the Guyenet series which I largely abandoned. That reminds me, I really need to get back to work cataloging guyenets' lies as well! This is a service to humanity!)

The cornerstone idea of my "trouble with ketogenic diets" blog is that an overwhelming majority of complaints pertaining to ketogenic dieting is not specifically related to the diet makeup itself; it is more accurately described as the result of rapid prolonged body fat oxidation w/o adequate insulin stimulation of fat tissue (i.e. fat growth) thus better attributed to a chronic prolonged negative fat cell energy balance. It is the expected result of failure to consume enough dietary energy and micronutrients to restore endocrine milieu to a fed state. They are not intrinsic ketogenic eating risks, these are weight loss dieting risks.

It is extremely important people recognize that calorie adequate ketogenic diets are a pleasure to maintain, with absolutely none of these signs/symptoms of starvation being present when consuming a ketogenic diet rich in micronutrients and eucaloric to prevent body fat atrophy. It is important to shout this from the rooftops because of the incredible clinical efficacy of ketogenic dieting for a variety of conditions ranging from the most well known metabolic problems (obesity and blood sugar complaints) to neurological issues such as migraines and seizures and mood and anxiety. Many of us irratioanlly feel we are stuck between choosing the benefits of a VLC or ketogenic diet, vs choosing the "fed state" and its benefits (warmth, sleeping easily, fertility, energy). This is not a choice one ever needs to make, because the "fed state" is possible with a ketogenic diet, assuming one actually eats food.

I also propose the widespread myth that ketogenic diets are bad for women is just as false, and the result of eating disordered, eating dysfunctional, body image disturbed females using ketogenic diets to STARVE THEMSELVES, with a very expected outcome : starvation symptoms. Starving yourself on a ketogenic diet is absolutely no different than starving yourself on a high carb diet so I fail to see why people are surprised they feel poorly several months eating 1200 calories and losing substantial subcutaneous fat.

 Well, I suppose body fat loss is much more effective following a ketogenic diet (due to more calories of protein and constant body fat oxidation/insulin inhibition suppressing fat tissue growth, body fat loss more efficient and muscle sparing is promoted; ironically this superior loss of body fat with a ketogenic diet also triggers and intensifies the starvation symptoms such as infertility/hair loss at higher calorie intakes and higher body weights due to a specific bias of fat cell atrophy/body fat oxidation).
Men do not have these problems in ketosis because they are more likely to eat normally than women; out of any number of men and women adopting a ketogenic diet, dysfunctional and abnormal restrictive eating is expected to be overrepresented amongst the females simply because such behavioral problems are overrepresented amongst females. I've never met a female eating an adequate calorie intake of a ketogenic diet reporting these bizarre starvation symptoms. (If you know of such a person, please email me for $$profit$$)

This "ketogenic diet intolerance" is not an inherent, biologically sex based difference: this is a psychopathological difference, with relatively more women having dysfunctional eating and electing to restrict life giving caloric energy so as to whittle their fat tissue to some arbitrary size. To say ketogenic diets are bad for women, because some women follow them to starve themselves, is like saying alcohol is bad for men because some men happen to binge drink into a coma.

When it comes to starvation, the fat cell rules the day. 
The endocrine stimulation of adipocytes control your brain, metabolism, feeding behavior, and every other endocrine axis in your body. I.E. Guyenet is wrong. I've a whole archive with many arguments and anecdotes illustrating this, the child level intuitive logic required to deduce Guyenet's food reward theory is bogus. Evolutionarily speaking, your fat tissue controls your entire future. Your fat tissue is your reproductive potential, your growth potential, your LIVING potential. His facile, foolish "hedonism" theory can only make any semblance of sense in modern post industrial america where food calories are ubiquitous. Such a concept can only be born of the industrial/tech revolution, with no relationship to the evolutionary pressures shaping our genetics and anatomy/physiology, where minimum caloric nutrition was the concern, i.e. fat cell growth trends. Logically our fat tissue must control our brain, not reverse.  Appetite and feeding never exists in a vaccum; over a long term continuum it is always in service of the fat tissue and representative adipokines. In a pathophysiological feedback loop, insulin drives fat tissue growth drives appetite.

Fat tissue adipokines certainly can modulate our brain and nervous system to promote further weight gain, and indeed when leptin sensitivity is absent (e.g. VMH injury, other brain injury) people will gain weight progressively, seemingly non-terminating with a variety of neuroendocrine derangements purely the result of abnormal leptin signalling. Guyenet has been putting fourth the argument that fat growth is secondary to the brain, and the brain is controlled by our reward centers hijacked by modern hyperpalatable hyperrewarding meals. He has a managerie of loosely understood/referenced animal models and anecdotes to substantiate such wild speculation.

To assume the point of origin defect is in the brain, simply because we can produce animal models (or observe natural examples) where brain level knockout of leptin sensitive neurons produces this phenotype of severe obesity, is what I would call obtuse , perhaps purposefully or unintentionally. But that is the great question of guyenet, that originally incited his fury on hyperlipid: is he really this f'n stupid, or is he pretending just to have his way with his shot at fame?  How on earth can one take a rodent model like ob/ob leptin deficient mouse, and conclude its obesity is a brain disorder ? It's beyond apparent the cause of the obesity is a lack of fat tissue feedback indicating a fed state; abnormalities in the brain secondary to lack of leptin are but one of many defects promoting severe obesity.  Or, you can take a rodent that has sustained hypothalamic damage, rendering it in a similar position as the leptin deficient mouse although the difference is leptin injections fail to work in this case. How on EARTH can one call themselves reasonable or intelligent and purport to say the brain is of superior hierarchy to the fat tissue in controlling long term feeding behavior and appetite and reward / pleasure / hedonistic response to food? To make the brain produce obesity, it nearly always requires damaging substructures or neuron clusters that detect either adipocyte signals or downstream actors of adipocyte signals.

 The CNS perceives and reacts, it never acts, at least not in isolation of input from other organs and the world at large. This is common sense. Our eyes sit on our face right below/next to our brain. Behind our eyes is a nerve stalk feeding right into the brain. Do you think this configuration is incidental? The most primitive rudimentary eye is a cluster of light sensitive cells, evolving and selected spontaneously in response to the presence/pressure of light. The brain naturally complements eyes, and all of our sensory organs. The fat tissue is a sensory organ, at least in terms of detecting and responding to nutrition threat. What kind of moron fool or imbecile would argue our brain tells our fat tissue what to do, without any other feedback directing the brain in such a fashion?

Oh, I forgot, "REWARD" is directing our brain to direct our fat tissue toward growth. Seeing as reward is subjective and not consistent, that's rather like assigning an effect as a cause. Why do starving people find garbage "rewarding" to eat? Why do I almost never feel hungry anymore after gaining 10 pounds? Question oh questions.

Yes, whether SG is stupid or lying will remain the great mystery of the paleosphere. Except, of course, to teh paleo insider mafia, none of which:
1) work with obese clients
2) have controlled obesity in even an n=1 case
3) work on a patient/practitioner level in medicine at all.

Harris is a radiologist. He looks at films. He writes what down what he sees in xrays or visualizes in various isolated organs. He can look at a pair of lungs and give his medical opinion that there is no evidence of infiltrate, merely atelectasis. He can look at a bone and tell me if the fracture is new or old, or present at all, and how the fracture looks (...is it a compression fracture? How did the pt likely sustain such injury? Etc)

He has NO IDEA about consulting with a diabetic patient and observing their progress or monitoring their blood sugar reactions and how it responds to various diets. He is not even a GP. He barely should call himself a physician; he works with films not people. It's grossly misleading to his readers who assume he has any experience treating or counseling or understanding patients. I suppose that's why he's so comfortable with his flights of fancy and absolutist thinking and extreme paradigm shifts every few days. Real doctors know never to speak in absolutes and to allow for exceptions / individuality in patient needs, responses. Also, many different issues can produce similar symptoms. Harris doesn't work with patients. Lungs either do or do not have infiltrate, understand me? The bone IS, OR IS NOT broken. This is the archevorian world. Patients just dont' belong in it.

As for McEwen, Carb"sane", et al?  Zero medical education but they love to pretend.
Krieger is a nutritionist; some of the most dogmatic unscientific faith based thinking has been promoted by nutritionists and dieticians.  Their job is largely to sell government agricultural products and create diet plans to sell industrial medical nutrition supplements such as glucerna, ensure and other dietary supplements.


Pt 2 to come.


Cholesterol as an anti oxidant - Cholesterol Myths, Masai Tribe, Kitavans, and More - 180degreehealth

cholesterol as a anti oxidant - Cholesterol Myths, Masai Tribe, Kitavans, and More - YouTube

I understand cholesterol as a anti oxidant, used by body to quelch free radicals, protect cells from oxidation, etc, if it is too high it is a symptom of to much inflammation and free radical damage like a.g.e.s. used by cells to stiffen up squishy cells from to much poly and not enough sat fats in diet.
it also protects cells from glycation. it is first responder to stimulate immune when invaders are found esp around the heart. fat around heart is probably due to this immune response.


Is Sucrose Found In Honey? | LIVESTRONG.COM

Is Sucrose Found In Honey? | LIVESTRONG.COM

Jul 20, 2011 | By Ashley Jacob
Is Sucrose Found in Honey?
Photo Credit BananaStock/BananaStock/Getty Images
According to the National Honey Board, it takes approximately 60,000 bees to collect the pollen of over 2 million flowers to make a pound of honey. People have used honey as a traditional medicine because of its antiseptic and antibacterial effects. Although many consider honey a more natural sweetener compared to other types of sugar, honey remains a sugar and is mainly made of glucose and fructose, with a small amount of sucrose.


Sucrose is a disaccharide, a molecule made of two smaller molecules bonded together -- a molecule of glucose linked to a molecule of fructose. Glucose and fructose are monosaccharides because they have only one molecule each. Sucrose is in some fruits and vegetables, as well as in table sugar and other sweeteners made from sugar cane and beet sugar. Sucrose is part of the total carbohydrate content of a food and contains 4 calories per gram.

Sugar in Honey

There are different types of sugar found in honey. Although sucrose is one of them, it is not the main one. More precisely, 100 g of honey contains 17.3 g of carbohydrates, all of which are sugars. Of these 17.3 g of sugars, only 0.2 g corresponds to sucrose. The remaining sugars correspond to 8.6 g of free fructose, 7.5 g of free glucose, 0.3 g of maltose and 0.7 g of galactose, according to the USDA National Nutrient Database. The total amount of sugars in honey is similar to that in other sweeteners. However, while the fructose and glucose do not bind together in honey, these monosaccharides link to form the disaccharide sucrose in table sugar.

Glycemic Index

The fact that the fructose and glucose are mostly in their free forms in honey, instead of joining as they do in table sugar, influences how they affect your body and blood sugar levels. Honey has a lower glycemic index value, ranging between 35 and 52, compared to the glycemic index of sucrose, which is moderate at 60. Pure glucose, or dextrose, has a very high glycemic index at 100. Low glycemic index sweetener results in a slower and smaller elevation in your blood sugar levels.

Honey in a Healthful Diet

The low glycemic index of honey makes it a good choice to as a sweetener in your diet. Use it instead of sucrose or table sugar without impairing your blood sugar levels. However, like all sweeteners, honey is not a source of important nutrients and you should only consume it occasionally in small quantities. Try using no more than 1/2 to 1 tsp. to sweeten your tea, plain yogurt, oatmeal or a smoothie.


Websites for Ray Peat Books - links

Websites for Ray Peat Books

  • Email Marketing
  • New car loan rates
  • Trade
  • Quick weight loss diet

        Ray Peat
Ray Peat

Books by Ray Peat FROM PMS TO MENOPAUSE: FEMALE HORMONES IN CONTEXT. Understanding the subject of female sexuality and health scientifically means going against the ...

        Amazon.com: ray peat: Books
Amazon.com: ray peat: Books

Each Day, a Best Seller for 75% Off or More From 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. Pacific time, December 3-14, we'll be offering a select best seller in Books at 75% or more off its ...

        Amazon.com: Ray Peat: Books, Biography, Blog, Audiobooks, Kindle
Amazon.com: Ray Peat: Books, Biography, Blog, Audiobooks, Kindle

Visit Amazon.com's Ray Peat Page and shop for all Ray Peat books and other Ray Peat related products (DVD, CDs, Apparel). Check out pictures, bibliography, biography ...

        Ray Peat
Ray Peat

About Ray Peat Art Gallery Links. Loading. www.RayPeat.com ... As I've discussed in my books, I see painting as an essential part of grasping the world scientifically.

        Peat, Ray Books, Author Bio, Book Reviews & More at Alibris ...
Peat, Ray Books, Author Bio, Book Reviews & More at Alibris ...

Find Peat, Ray books online & save. Get this author's new, rare, signed & used books at our marketplace. Read book reviews & author bio too.

        Ray Peat favorite articles and books? - PaleoHacks.com
Ray Peat favorite articles and books? - PaleoHacks.com

What are your favorite Ray Peat articles and books? And/or what have you learned or applied to diet from reading Ray Peat?

        Ray Peat Books
Ray Peat Books

1 ~ raypeat.com: Nutrition for Women - Ray Peat 2 ~ paleohacks.com: Ray Peat favorite articles and books ? - PaleoHacks.com 3 ~ perfecthealthdiet.com

        Ray Peat (Author of Mind and tissue) - Share Book ...
Ray Peat (Author of Mind and tissue) - Share Book ...

Ray Peat is the author of Mind and tissue (5.00 avg rating, 2 ratings, 0 reviews, published 1985)

        Posts Tagged: Ray Peat books - 180 Degree Health
Posts Tagged: Ray Peat books - 180 Degree Health

Articles tagged with 'Ray Peat Books' at 180 Degree Health

        Dr. Raymond Peat -- Thyroid Information - Thyroid Disease ...
Dr. Raymond Peat -- Thyroid Information - Thyroid Disease ...

For more information about Dr. Ray Peat, see the ... Publications Order Page to order Ray Peat's monthly newsletter, or his books, ...

        The Peat Whisperer by Danny Roddy | Ark of Wellness
The Peat Whisperer by Danny Roddy | Ark of Wellness

In his book, The Peat Whisperer, Danny pieces together all of Ray Peat’s ideas and key concepts. He has written a clear, well-organized guide that interprets Ray ...

        Dr Ray Peat on Coconut Oil - Nutiva | Organic Virgin Coconut ...
Dr Ray Peat on Coconut Oil - Nutiva | Organic Virgin Coconut ...

This is part one of a slightly modified version of Ray Peat’s article, which is found here. ... I thought I might write a small book on it, ...

        Nutrition for women: Amazon.co.uk: Ray Peat: Books
Nutrition for women: Amazon.co.uk: Ray Peat: Books

Amazon.co.uk Trade-In Store Did you know you can trade in your old books for an Amazon.co.uk Gift Card to spend on the things you want? Visit the Books Trade-In Store ...

        Your Favorite Ray Peat Article? - Peatarian Q&A
Your Favorite Ray Peat Article? - Peatarian Q&A

Do you have a favorite Ray Peat article? I used to have several, ... and I found an old online book containing information about them.

        Peat vs. Paleo — The Danny Roddy Weblog
Peat vs. Paleo — The Danny Roddy Weblog

Ray Peat: Similar to the paleosphere, ... as your failure to secure his books proves!" Time will tell if Dr. Peat's ideas infiltrate the paleo 2.0 universe. ...

        Can A Pro-Thyroid Diet Help You? A Review of Danny Roddy's ...
Can A Pro-Thyroid Diet Help You? A Review of Danny Roddy's ...

Dr. Ray Peat: The man, the mystery, the mangoes. What exactly is a “Peat Whisperer”? Let’s dissect the term. Danny Roddy wrote a book with that title, about a ...

        Is Sunlight Through the Window Better? - Peatarian Q&A
Is Sunlight Through the Window Better? - Peatarian Q&A

I just received four of Ray Peat´s books. Happy :-) A lot of the stuff is in his ... outside just feels better than sitting inside behind a window.

        Comfibook: Locate cell telephone information and begin to ...
Comfibook: Locate cell telephone information and begin to ...

Ray Peat W E L C O M E This website currently reports on my research in aging, nutrition, and hormones. You will find this information in the ARTICLES section.

        Ray Peat Forum • Portal
Ray Peat Forum • Portal

Ray Peat Newsletter and Books Commercial Food List Ray Peat Website Articles in PDF Format Supplement List Rules, Guidelines and Medical Disclaimer Suggestions Rules

Review Monday - The Peat Whisperer | Paleo Lifestyle Magazine

Review Monday - The Peat Whisperer | Paleo Lifestyle Magazine

As I stated on Facebook yesterday, I firmly believe that being Paleo means following a general template for eating in order to maximize your own personal health, not strictly following a regimented diet.  To that end, I’m constantly looking at ideas outside of Paleo as a way to tweak what I’m eating in order to maximize my energy and my health.

This “evolving” of my own personal diet is what led me to read Danny Roddy’s book, The Peat Whisperer, which has many similarities to Paleo-style eating, however, is rooted in a much different idea for what is optimal for our bodies.

Throughout The Peat Whisperer, Roddy goes over the work of Dr. Raymond Peat, which, as best I can explain, is that we want our metabolic rate to be as high as possible so that our bodies produce as much energy as possible, and the way we do this is by feeding sugars to our cells.

Again, this is a high level summary, which I’m sure is leaving a lot to be desired.

Basically, the idea expressed throughout The Peat Whisperer is that our bodies operate optimally when they are burning sugars as opposed to fats.  This sort of flies in the face of what many who follow Paleo-centric eating have been led to believe, i.e. our bodies operate optimally when burning fat.

So, what are the similarities between The Peat Whisperer diet and eating Paleo?  Both are very pro seafood (especially oysters and shrimp), though Roddy argues for eating leaner fish.  Both “diets” are very pro saturated fats and trying to maintain a balanced Omega-3 : Omega-6 ratio.  And, both are anti grains, legumes, and soy.

See, like I said, a fair number of similarities.

At the end of the day, I thought Roddy’s book was incredibly interesting and, to some degree, it has caused me to slightly alter how I eat on a daily basis.  This basically means I’m incorporating more fruits and natural sugars into my diet.  I’m not adding refined sugars or anything like that to my diet, but I’ve started putting more berries and orange juice in my breakfast smoothies and I’m actually starting to drink a small bit of milk with at least two meals per day (before I had cut out dairy completely).

After a few weeks of this I’ll reassess and see how I feel, but about a week and a half into this Paleo-Peat way of eating, I feel just as great as I did when I was much more aligned with the “strict” Paleo.

I think it worth taking a look at The Peat Whisperer, if even just to find out you completely disagree with it!

What are your thoughts on this?  Have you heard of this before?  Do you think there are some merits to this?  Leave your comments below and share with the community!


The Peat Whisperer - Increase your metabolic rate [Danny Roddy]

Top 11 Biggest Lies of Mainstream Nutrition

February 11, 2013 | by Kris Gunnars | 701,392 views | 479 Comments
Woman Confused About What to Eat
There is a lot of misinformation circling around in mainstream nutrition.

Here are the top 11 biggest lies, myths and misconceptions of mainstream nutrition.

1. Eggs Are Unhealthy

There’s one thing that nutrition professionals have had remarkable success with… and that is demonizing incredibly healthy foods.

The worst example of that is eggs, which happen to contain a large amount of cholesterol and were therefore considered to increase the risk of heart disease.

But recently it has been proven that the cholesterol in the diet doesn’t really raise the cholesterol in blood. In fact, eggs primarily raise the “good” cholesterol and are NOT associated with increased risk of heart disease (1, 2).

What we’re left with is one of the most nutritious foods on the planet. They’re high in all sorts of nutrients along with unique antioxidants that protect our eyes (3).

To top it all of, despite being a “high fat” food, eating eggs for breakfast is proven to cause significant weight loss compared to bagels for breakfast (4, 5).
Bottom Line: Eggs do not cause heart disease and are among the most nutritious foods on the planet. Eggs for breakfast can help you lose weight.

2. Saturated Fat is Bad For You

Foods High in Saturated Fat
A few decades ago it was decided that the epidemic of heart disease was caused by eating too much fat, in particular saturated fat.

This was based on highly flawed studies and political decisions that have now been proven to be completely wrong.

A massive review article published in 2010 looked at 21 prospective epidemiological studies with a total of 347.747 subjects. Their results: absolutely no association between saturated fat and heart disease (6).

The idea that saturated fat raised the risk of heart disease was an unproven theory that somehow became conventional wisdom (7).

Eating saturated fat raises the amount of HDL (the “good”) cholesterol in the blood and changes the LDL from small, dense LDL (very bad) to Large LDL, which is benign (8, 9).

Meat, coconut oil, cheese, butter… there is absolutely no reason to fear these foods.
Bottom Line: Newer studies have proven that saturated fat does not cause heart disease. Natural foods that are high in saturated fat are good for you.

3. Everybody Should be Eating Grains

The idea that humans should be basing their diets on grains has never made sense to me.

The agricultural revolution happened fairly recently in human evolutionary history and our genes haven’t changed that much.

Grains are fairly low in nutrients compared to other real foods like vegetables. They are also rich in a substance called phytic acid which binds essential minerals in the intestine and prevents them from being absorbed (10).

The most common grain in the western diet, by far, is wheat… and wheat can cause a host of health problems, both minor and serious.

Modern wheat contains a large amount of a protein called gluten, but there is evidence that a significant portion of the population may be sensitive to it (11, 12, 13).

Eating gluten can damage the intestinal lining, cause pain, bloating, stool inconsistency and tiredness (14, 15). Gluten consumption has also been associated with schizophrenia and cerebellar ataxia, both serious disorders of the brain (16, 17).
Bottom Line: Grains are relatively low in nutrients compared to other real foods like vegetables. The gluten grains in particular may lead to a variety of health problems.

4. Eating a Lot of Protein is Bad For Your Bones and Kidneys

A high protein diet has been claimed to cause both osteoporosis and kidney disease.
It is true that eating protein increases calcium excretion from the bones in the short term, but the long term studies actually show the opposite effect.
High Protein Foods
In the long term, protein has a strong association with improved bone health and a lower risk of fracture (18, 19).

Additionally, studies don’t show any association of high protein with kidney disease in otherwise healthy people (20, 21).

In fact, two of the main risk factors for kidney failure are diabetes and high blood pressure. Eating a high protein diet improves both (22, 23).

If anything, a high protein diet should be protective against osteoporosis and kidney failure!
Bottom Line: Eating a high protein diet is associated with improved bone health and a lower risk of fracture. High protein also lowers blood pressure and improves diabetes symptoms, which should lower the risk of kidney failure.

5. Low-Fat Foods Are Good For You

Do you know what regular food tastes like when all the fat has been taken out of it?

Well, it tastes like cardboard. No one would want to eat it.

The food manufacturers know this and therefore they add other things to compensate for the lack of fat.

Usually these are sweeteners… sugar, high fructose corn syrup or artificial sweeteners like aspartame.
We’ll get to the sugar in a moment, but I’d like to point out that even though artificial sweeteners don’t have calories, the evidence does NOT suggest that they are better for you than sugar.

In fact, many observational studies show a consistent, highly significant association with various diseases like obesity, metabolic syndrome, diabetes, heart disease, premature delivery and depression (24, 25, 26).

In these low-fat products, healthy natural fats are being replaced with substances that are extremely harmful.
Bottom Line: Low-fat foods are usually highly processed products loaded with sugar, corn syrup or artificial sweeteners. They are extremely unhealthy.

6. You Should Eat Many Small Meals Throughout The Day

The idea that you should eat many small meals throughout the day in order to “keep metabolism high” is a persistent myth that doesn’t make any sense.

It is true that eating raises your metabolism slightly while you’re digesting the meal, but it’s the total amount of food that determines the energy used, NOT the number of meals.

Small Plate of Pasta
This has actually been put to the test and refuted multiple times. Controlled studies where one group eats many small meals and the other the same amount of food in fewer meals show that there is literally no difference between the two (27, 28).

In fact, one study in obese men revealed that eating 6 meals per day led to less feelings of fullness compared to 3 meals (29).

Not only is eating so often practically useless for most of the people out there, it may even be harmful.
It is not natural for the human body to be constantly in the fed state. In nature, we used to fast from time to time and we didn’t eat nearly as often as we do today.

When we don’t eat for a while, a cellular process called autophagy cleans waste products out of our cells (30). Fasting or not eating from time to time is good for you.

Several observational studies show a drastically increased risk of colon cancer (4th most common cause of cancer death), numbers going as high as a 90% increase for those who eat 4 meals per day compared to 2 (31, 32, 33).
Bottom Line: There is no evidence that eating many small meals throughout the day is better than fewer, bigger meals. Not eating from time to time is good for you. Increased meal frequency is associated with colon cancer.

7. Carbs Should Be Your Biggest Source of Calories

Food Pyramid
The mainstream view is that everyone should eat a low-fat diet, with carbs being around 50-60% of total calories.

This sort of diet contains a lot of grains and sugars, with very small amounts of fatty foods like meat and eggs.

This type of diet may work well for some people, especially those who are naturally lean.
But for those who are obese, have the metabolic syndrome or diabetes, this amount of carbohydrates is downright dangerous.

This has actually been studied extensively. A low-fat, high-carb diet has been compared to a low-carb, high-fat diet in multiple randomized controlled trials.

The results are consistently in favor of low-carb, high-fat diets (34, 35, 36).
Bottom Line: The low-fat, high-carb diet is a miserable failure and has been proven repeatedly to be vastly inferior to lower-carb, higher-fat diets.

8. High Omega-6 Seed and Vegetable Oils Are Good For You

Polyunsaturated Oil
Polyunsaturated fats are considered healthy because some studies show that they lower your risk of heart disease.

But there are many types of polyunsaturated fats and they are not all the same.

Most importantly, we have both Omega-3 fatty acids and Omega-6 fatty acids.

Omega-3s are anti-inflammatory and lower your risk of many diseases related to inflammation (37).

Humans actually need to get Omega-6s and Omega-3s in a certain ratio. If the ratio is too high in favor of Omega-6, it can cause problems (38).

By far the biggest sources of Omega-6 in the modern diet are processed seed and vegetable oils like soybean, corn and sunflower oils.

Throughout evolution, humans never had access to such an abundance of Omega-6 fats. It is unnatural for the human body.

Research that specifically looks at Omega-6 fatty acids instead of polyunsaturated fats in general shows that they actually increase the risk of heart disease (39, 40).

Eat your Omega-3s and consider supplementing with cod fish liver oil, but avoid the industrial seed and vegetable oils.
Bottom Line: Humans need to get Omega-6 and Omega-3 fats in a certain ratio. Eating excess Omega-6 from seed oils raises your risk of disease.

9. Low Carb Diets Are Dangerous

Woman Standing On The Scale Frustrated
I personally believe low-carb diets to be a potential cure for many of the most common health problems in western nations.

The low-fat diet peddled all around the world is fairly useless against many of these diseases. It simply does not work.

However, low-carb diets (demonized by nutritionists and the media) have repeatedly been shown to lead to much better outcomes.

Every randomized controlled trial on low-carb diets shows that they:
  1. Reduce body fat more than calorie-restricted low-fat diets, even though the low-carb dieters are allowed to eat as much as they want (41, 42).
  2. Lower blood pressure significantly (43, 44).
  3. Lower blood sugar and improve symptoms of diabetes much more than low-fat diets (45, 46, 47, 48).
  4. Increase HDL (the good) cholesterol much more (49, 50).
  5. Lower triglycerides much more than low-fat diets (51, 52, 53).
  6. Change the pattern of LDL (bad) cholesterol from small, dense (very bad) to Large LDL, which is benign (54, 55).
  7. Low carb diets are also easier to stick to, probably because they don’t require you to restrict calories and be hungry all the time. More people in the low-carb groups make it to the end of the studies (56, 57).
Many of the health professionals that are supposed to have our best interest in mind have the audacity to claim that these diets are dangerous, then continue to peddle their failed low-fat dogma that is hurting more people than it helps.
Bottom Line: Low-carb diets are the healthiest, easiest and most effective way to lose weight and reverse metabolic disease. It is a scientific fact.

10. Sugar is Unhealthy Because it Contains “Empty” Calories

Junk Food
It is commonly believed that sugar is bad for you because it contains empty calories.

It’s true, sugar has a lot of calories with no essential nutrients. But that is just the tip of the iceberg.
Sugar, primarily because of its high fructose content, affects metabolism in a way that sets us up for rapid fat gain and metabolic disease.

Fructose gets metabolized by the liver and turned into fat which is secreted into the blood as VLDL particles. This leads to elevated triglycerides and cholesterol (58, 59).

It also causes resistance to the hormones insulin and leptin, which is a stepping stone towards obesity, metabolic syndrome and diabetes (60, 61).

This is just to name a few. Sugar causes a relentless biochemical drive for humans to eat more and get fat. It is probably the single worst ingredient in the standard western diet.
Bottom Line: The harmful effects of sugar go way beyond empty calories. Sugar wreaks havoc on our metabolism and sets us up for weight gain and many serious diseases.

11. High Fat Foods Will Make You Fat

It seems kind of intuitive that eating fat would make you get fat.

The stuff that is gathering under our skin and making us look soft and puffy is fat. So… eating fat should give our bodies even more of it.

But it isn’t that simple. Despite fat having more calories per gram than carbohydrate or protein, high-fat diets do not make people fat.

As with anything, this depends on the context. A diet that is high in fat AND high in carbs will make you fat, but it’s NOT because of the fat.

In fact, diets that are high in fat (and low in carbs) cause much greater fat loss than diets that are low in fat (62, 63, 64).

The Scribble Pad: Why people reject ketogenic diets, even when they work.

The Scribble Pad: Why people reject ketogenic diets, even when they work.

At work, a few days ago, I was sitting at the station alongside a new nurse; she's very young (about my age when I first started using a ketogenic diet for my obesity) and she is also very very overweight. In addition to being a young female (thus common sense that she prefers to be thin), observing her eating behavior made it patently obvious this poor girl has been trying for years to correct her obesity.  She always refuses food if offered to her, and when she does bring food, she rarely eats it, and it's always healthy food like salads.

I suspect she may have the common problem of trying to starve herself and abstain from almost all nutrition, only to binge (and possibly purge) on insulinogenic obesigenic foods. Her weight is simply too high to be produced by the eating patterns she demonstrates publically. This type of food avoiding and carb binging behavior is quite common among overweight young women who don't understand or accept the endocrine hypothesis of obesity, which is to say most obese young women. For a description of how this eventually plays out in the end, please see the carbsanity blog. Cyclical bouts of starvation followed by exaggerated hyperinsulinemia from binging produces progressive cortisol + insulin mediated adipocyte hyperplasia, thus ever expanding body weight which is largely permanent. If one is to diet, it is IMPERATIVE not to binge afterward! The binge following starvation/weight loss is how new fat tissue is grown, and it is largely permanent.

People definitely get fatter after every failed (i.e. binge-producing) dieting attempt, which is why it is oh so crucially important to accept the endocrine hypothesis of obesity and maintain, indefinitely, an eating program that inhibits + controls the nature and quality of insulin responses. We do differ in our ability to "progressively fatten" after failed dieting; some of us have the potential to become very obese, some of us don't; most women who are prone to diet are already afflicted with low grade glucose metabolism dysfunction (slight excess weight, occasional hypoglycemia) thus they have a great potential for obesity/fat tissue new growth. It is unfortunately true these are the women who are most at risk to induce upon themselves severe obesity with bouts of starvation and binging, as purely obesity resistant women are less inclined to cylically starve and binge. The exception to this is of course anorexia nervosa, but that is almost the polar opposite condition and not relevant to this discussion (anorexia nervosa, often a manifestation of what can be considered "extreme obesity resistance" and even severe starvation will never provoke rebound weight gain/obesity)

Anyway, back to my unfortunate coworker.

Now I've been in this game long enough to know never, ever, ever talk about weight loss with an overweight person, especially a very young female. 
When they see me, they think I am some kind of obnoxious thin bitch that has no idea what it is like to be fat. They rarely believe my history even when i tell them I used to be obese, and they often think I am too young to know anything (and they rarely believe I am 10 years older than them). Sooner or later though the topic is bound to come up, because I will refuse obesigenic glucose food right along with them... which of course inspires their resentment and ire that such a neurotic, self centered arrogant bitch like me is trying to watch my weight.

I dread that conversation. It is inevitable, though. Women like this monitor the eating habits of all other females around them, especially thin/young women. I refuse to eat shit food to placate others, so it's going to come up .

The unfortunate thing is my instict is to sit there at length and educate these people regarding insulin and blood sugar and how body weight is endocrine mediated and everything you've been told about nutrition is a religiously motivated lie. However, I know *from experience* this is useless, it doesn't work, and our perceptions of weight and eating are heavily seeped in emotional religious dogma and not rationality or science. See the WHS blog for more info about that. Trying to get such a person to accept their body weight and eating behavior ist he product of the endocrine system, body fat growth patterns, leptin and adiponectin and GLP-1 and blood nutrient stability and above all else insulin stimulation of adipocytes ultimately determining fat growth?
I'd have better luck sitting down with middle eastern terrorists and getting them to accept there are no virgins after you blow yourself up, and it's silly to fight a jihad against the west, and these things can be handled in more productive ways.

It's just not going to happen, not from me by myself anyway.

So anyway, it came to pass someone offered us some kind of shitty glucose based nutrition at which point I said "no thank you, I can't eat sugar and only consume diet beverages" (I was eating something else so it was not reasonable to say "I am not hungry") .

 So of course my coworker turned to me and said "Oh ITW, you are ridiculous, you are so thin I can't believe you eat diet food" or something along those lines.

At that point I said "actually I used to be very overweight..." which is when I knew this conversation was going to tread on thin ice. She would probe me for more info, and I would explain I used to be fatter than she was, and then when she asked for help I would give vague answers that I don't exercise and don't starve myself, and I just follow a very carbohydrate restricted diet...which of course would provoke her to respond with incredulity that my story is genuine... because no way anyone could be as thin as me without exercising and starving themselves, right?

Or alternatively she would begin chastising me for eating meat and fat, which a lot of overweight women do when you even remotely suggest that carbohydrates are majorly implicated in the wild insulin excess & endocrine signalling disorders provoking obesity of her severity.

So, I would just prefer the conversation not even come up at all. This girl is doomed to starve, binge, and maybe puke until she is over 300 pounds. There is nothing I can do by myself to change her perceptions. She knows it all, she's an expert dieter, carbs are healthy and all the thin emaciated vegans eat them, and anoretics eat them, and asians eat them, and the government + nutritionists suggest we eat more of them and cut fat instead. Who am I but a person lying about their weight, lying about their age, lying about the fact I don't use drugs or starve or over exercise to stay thin? That's all I am; a crazy bitch telling her to eat meat and fat when this is obviously insane.
Again, see carbsanity for more info.

The most interesting thing about these kinds of dieters is they always have tried a very low carb diet before! And IT WORKED FOR THEM. But when they went off of it (because it's dangerous, because it can't be sustained, because the government + doctors + industry told them to go off it) they regained all of their weight. So clearly, I just don't understand. Everything in moderation.

Usually what happens once the conversation reaches this point (of me vaguely describing my history, and what I do to avoid it being my present reality) is I simply stop talking when they begin ranting about their own unique case and what one needs to do about obesity and how eating fat is terrible and blah blah blah. I just sit there, shut up, listen, and let the conversation humanely terminate a natural death.

I, by myself, have less than zero power to undo decades of poor information and brainwashing and zero social support structures / good resources for obese people.
 I just sit there in silence, like an athiest in the back of a church.

Nigel asked me in my last blog post "what I hope to accomplish" (regarding food not being intrinsically evil/scary, and hunger body weight being endocrinologically mediated)

Nigel? ^^^^^THIS IS WHAT NEEDS TO CHANGE. Young girl, my age when i found ketosis, is doomed to a life of extreme obesity. No help, no support, no real education even though I know she can lose some or all of her excess weight.  She doesn't have my natural "crazy eccentric" ability to reject all major medical advice and independently pursue + see the truth, as most people don't. She has no ability to trust the reaction of her body (weight loss + low appetite on a low carb diet) over the monopoly of religious/ corporate  brainwashing otherwise socially ubiquitous to her. She is DOOMED to cyclically starve herself and then binge her way up to gross adipocyte hyperplasia and terminal intractable permanent obesity.

Perhaps she will be lucky enough to discover + accept a "paleo" type diet and so be able to at least stabilize her weight gain on a moderate carb intake like carbsane. Paleo diets are relatively easy to accept for these types of people as they are not extreme and sort of common sense / almost compatible with CW.
But carbsane's story is actually a happier ending, as she has learned to stop yo-yo dieting and accept she needs to follow at least a moderately low carb insulin suppressive diet. Most fat women don't do that and continue to abusively self starve and binge eat carbs until shortly before frailty dementa and death takes them.

 What do I want to change? This shit. This is what I want to change, Nigel... and seeing as you don't have the privilege of growing up in a severely mutilated cartoon of a body deformed by gross fat accumulation, you can't possibly relate to why I think it's important.

"She has no intellectual curiousity at all - she never tries to figure anything out on her own, she never researches or looks into anything" - The Scribble Pad:

The Scribble Pad: Why people reject ketogenic diets, even when they work.

Steph B said...

This post really resonated with me. Here's why:

I have 7 Sisters-In-Law - I have 3 brothers, my husband has 3 sisters and a brother.

They come in a variety of body sizes, attitudes, and health issues, ranging from extremely thin and unable to gain weight no matter what (splits a McNugget happy meal with her daughter and they can't finish it - legit), but with a host of health issues ranging from thyroid to numerous food intolerances, to very obese in a pear shaped way (almost thin on top). It's very interesting to watch them all and see how they eat, their attitudes to food and dieting, etc etc. I feel like an anthropologist observing another species, sometimes.

So, my really obese SIL has a PHD in psychology and is a really important psychologist in my country who's been interviewed for news shows, helps determine public policies, etc.

She led a lonely life until she met my brother, because of her weight and poor body image. She had pretty much given up on love and having a family.

When I lost 30 lbs on low-carb 5 years ago thanks to Gary Taubes - but more importantly for me, I lost the guilt and shame associated with being overweight and came to see it strictly as a biological disorder which needs a therapeutic intervention, we discussed my weight loss and GT's book and theories, and she was simply not interested, because she can not see how all of her pasta eating, bread baking, etc could possibly contribute to her weight. She's of Italian heritage and giving up pasta is literally not an option - it is how she expresses love and welcome and friendship.

I didn't know her very well at that time, but one thing I was shocked at was her complete and utter lack of curiousity. I thought, great, a PHD, a psychologist - we'd have so much to talk about, she'd read a ton of great books and be interested in everything and I can learn so much from her.

What a major eye-opener for me. She rarely reads unless she has to review something for work, and then she's not happy about it. She has no intellectual curiousity at all - she never tries to figure anything out on her own, she never researches or looks into anything, etc. etc.
Our conversations go nowhere.

Anyway, I look at her, and she's nice and friendly and smart and a good wife and mom, but if most doctors/psychologists are like her - egads, no wonder nothing changes! She could do so much good in this world, because of her history of obesity combined with her position in life, but she won't. She simply won't give any other hypothesis any consideration. It's such a wasted opportunity, for her personally and for advancement of understanding of this disorder.
February 15, 2013 at 8:51 AM

Paleo Movement Succumbs to Market - Primal North

Primal North: Movement Succumbs to Market

As paleo and primal become more complex, authoritarian, licensed, profit driven, subverted and infected with fear based marketing efforts, Primal North seeks to simplify, unify, and advocate a proper level of scientific skepticism to the world of paleo, primal and low carb nutrition. Meat is food, plants are medicine, food is fuel, and movement is pleasure. Lets stop making a mess of it!

Sunday, February 10, 2013

Movement Succumbs to Market

Pretty much all of our paleo gurus have stopped worrying so much about helping us and worry more about marketing to us.

First of all let me be blunt.  Do not waste my time commenting if you do not have a full and thorough comprehension of what provocation marketing is all about.  For an excellent primer check this link.

When you truly understand provocation based marketing, which is nothing short of a scientific method to win trust through the use of seemingly benevolent advice that actually builds fear and doubt, then closing the loop by providing solutions which result in audience trust building and loyalty building.  The ideal ratio is approximate 3:1 to 5:1.  In other words, 1 in 3 articles to 1 in 5 articles a paleo blogger writes should result in asking for a sale with the remaining providing totally free (albeit biased towards your market) advice.

We as a society must become more skeptical and more aware of tactics used to circumvent skepticality in favor of product sales.

Our entire society is profit driven.  The message is that your next raise or even your job security depends on company profits (true even in Governement where you can replace "profit" with "abesnce of budget deficit").

We are conditioned not only to accept the need for profit as a benevolent, society building thing but that also the quest for profit rarely affects the altruistic traits of those with something to sell.

In the paleo and even low carb world we are, like all other markets, surrounded by figures whom we recognize as "friends and advisors" first, while only peripherally aknowledging that the primary reason these people became our friends and advisors was because we had a credit card with available limits.

As long time Primal North readers know, I pretty much universally despise gurus.  I am currently seeing even my most respected gurus pushing, recommending, and reviewing products and approaches that in other circles they would never endorse or try themselves.

In short, pretty much every active blogger with a profit based product line has pretty much been selling out.  And sorry but that is exactly how I see it.

The primary reason I no longer blog for hours a day is because overcoming the effectiveness of this provocation based marketing system, combined with the paleo circle jerk of insincere, deliberate and planned confirmation bias as futile and pointless and quite frankly nearly rewardless in comparison to time spent with my family.  This marketing method is so well executed that even my lamenting it will often feed the beast.

I am not saying these people are nefarious.  They are working within a system and the system demands profit, idolizes profit and considers profit an altruistic and economy building effort.  Since most sales in the blogging world are dropped soundly on credit cards and thus derived from debt its hard to see how this builds an economy but the illusion is that it does thus I cannot call that effort an evil intentioned one.

We as consumers have a duty to recognize the techniques used to bypass healthy and desireable skepticism that are used in order to gain our trust.  The obvious goal:  become a mentor (guru) in our lives, and thus develop loyalty, in return and indirectly shortening the sales cycle for our mentor (AKA future products require much less convincing before we part with our money).

Paleo, low carb, veganism, it just doesn't matter, we are all locked in a mutual circle jerk of confirmation bias.  Time to bust out.

What I See? The death of a movement, replaced by the market

As Richard "The Animal" calls it, "Paleo Masturbation", one example provided below.

Safe starcher Paleo "Looky here! Man eats nothing but potatoes, gets loses weight, feels great.  See, potatoes are awesome! We told you so!"

  • Safe starch paleo = Wow that is awesome! Share share share! Like like like!  Paleo for life! Paleo power!
  • Vegans = simple plant based diet wins again!
  • Low Carbers = not sustainable!  Long term effects not known!  Could be dangerous! Vitamin B12 deficiency, yadda yadda

Low carb paleo "Looky here! Man eats zero carb all grass fed meat diet and hits goal weight in perfect health.  See? You do not need potatoes! We told you so!"

  • Low carbers = Wow that is awesome!  Share share share! Like like like!  "Low carb for life! Keto power!"
  • Vegans = That man is a silent heart attack waiting to happen!
  • Safe stacher paleo = Some people do OK without starch but its just "not optimal" plus you run the risk for scurvy, hair loss, cold hands and feet, nuclear winter and planetary disalignment!
Vegans  "Looky here! I run long endurance races and do well all the time eating massive amounts of fruit and nothing else!  See? You don't need meat! We told you so!"
  • Vegans = Wow that is awesome! Morale high ground! Share share share! Like like like!  "Veganism is the ONLY diet we need for amazing health and MORALE HIGH GROUND!"
  • Low carbers =  This guy is wasting away before our eyes, no muscle tissue, and the B12 deficiency is blinding him to it
  • Safe starch paleo =  Fruits are great but this is "sub optimal" and likely to lead to deficiencies over time, danger danger danger!

So many of our gurus have a massive profit incentive to keep this circle jerk alive

And this is why you will find low carb advocates recommending books named "Sweet Potato Power", and the "Perfect Health Diet" which implicitly describes low carb as dangerous.  The simple reason is, in my mind, because the worm will turn and the low carber will put out a well researched book or article and the potato people will in turn endorse, share or review it in a positive way as well despite the fact it contradicts their own point of view.
In some cases, mutual endorsement is not employed.  Mutual mention is enough.  Potato power people continually mention the low carb people who in turn continually mention the potato power people.  Thus both sides preserve more credibility but mutually increase the confirmation bias and market loyalty of the other.
I often speculate that so many "flame wars" are actually engineered traffic and confirmation bias generation strategies between two opposing bloggers with products to sell.

And do not kid yourself, page clicks are a better than money (which is fake) because they represent REAL USE of time, a commodity and valuable

Internet traffic is a commodity and simply becaues a blogger has no obvious product line that does not mean there is an abesence of financial or even ego incentives to cling to the party line, and mix it up with the more obvious profit bloggers.

Skeptics please, the rest can simply "unlike" as I have no use for market zombies

It is hardly a schock to me that my earliest readers and followers on Facebook were in fact former zealots of one way of thinking or another who started to become open to other methodologies being OK for other people.
I have never truly cared how many likes I have on my page, or how much traffic I generate.  My philosophy has always been that the people who can benefit from what I write will find me on their own, take what is useful, and discard the rest.
To me, my traffic count and page likes are pretty cool but NOT THE POINT AT ALL and I have no problems with the numbers dropping because my message is distasteful and truth based.

Diet identity is a real barrier to personal health

I have often, in Facebook, referred to the dangers of "diet identity".  To me cries of "Paleo/Low Carb/Veganism" for life, that are typically rewarded with "Hell ya!" from so many others read like "I have closed my mind to other possibilities, can some of you other zombies give me a high five?"
Once you have decided you have found the final solution, you are almost guaranteed to end personal growth.