Weekly Video Roundup

Share on Facebook0Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Google+0

Hey guess what?  I’m a little tired of writing right now.  I was going to try to bust out the free eBook as promised at the mother site (intended to be the overfeeding Bible with the working title:  RRARF!  Medical Applications of Overfeeding), but that’s shaping up to be a May project.  I just don’t think I can pull it off this month.

Instead, I’m going crazy with videos and blogs after a pretty long siesta.  Hey, I feel like talking and cooking after writing a 60,000 word book in 5 weeks.  Strange I know. 

Anyway, that’s enough of that.  This week’s featured videos include:

A video on 180 Degree Metabolism for those who won’t be able to read the book.  In the video I lay out the general premise of the book, which is to heal your metabolism first – and then pursue fat loss wisely and cautiously by focusing on lowering the set point – not your weight. 

A quick video on my disagreement with Ray Peat and his kudos to fructose and sucrose as opposed to glucose from starches as the ideal carbohydrates for raising the metabolism (note at 6:50 it sounds like I say “agree” when I clearly mean “disagree”):

Next in the lineup is a new post at 180 Kitchen. I’ll be doing lots of quick and easy recipes and videos over the coming weeks, starting with the ghetto of the ghetto – my infamous Potachos!  If you want a sneak preview of some of the upcoming posts at 180 Kitchen, you can see the videos that will go with the posts at www.youtube.com/mnobeyed

Last, and certainly not least is Chris Rosenfelt’s 1st video diary on his aggressive attempt at the full-blown milk diet.  Chris is going for it, like I will be myself in a few short weeks.  What I like best about Chris’s video is his drastic overstatement of the popularity and reach of 180DegreeHealth.  We’re not quite there buddy, but I did finally tap into the top 300,000 sites according to Alexa yesterday – having leap-frogged 1 million sites this year.  Not quite Mercola yet though.  Good luck Chris!http://www.blip.tv/file/3471651H

101 Comments

  1. I'll be starting the Milk Diet this coming Sunday. I'll be tracking the weekly progression at my blog. I will be trying the 4 to 6 weeks time frame.

    Raw Holstein, not skimmed, 6 quarts per day, room temp. estimating at ~3500cals per day.

    Reply
  2. Sweet. By the time I get started, you, me, and Chris will all be moo-ing in unison.

    Reply
  3. The popularity and reach of 180 Degree Health cannot be overstated.

    Reply
  4. Great getting this info out. Educate the masses!!

    Reply
  5. @undertow: Is the Holstein milk organic/grass-fed. The milk you use might be similiar to the one I can access. So, I'll use your experience as a guideline whether to try to somehow fit the milk diet into my schedule or not. Go, my guinea pig!

    Reply
  6. Lol ya, we will be the 3 moo-sketeers

    Reply
  7. Hey madMUHHH, natural grassfed from a farm about 30mins from my house. I doubt it has an organic seal of approval, but not too worried about that.

    I am really hoping this will wipeout the last of my health issues. Like rosenfeltc, I have had many rounds of lengthy anti-biotic use in my teens and 20's (for acne and unknown rashes), so I hope this will reboot the digestive tract and bring my temps up quickly. I have been drinking a couple cups per day the last 6 months, but it is time to go full out!

    Reply
  8. Where is Chris' video? Help!

    Reply
  9. Weird. Chris's video disappeared. Let me see if I can get it back up. GD blip tv.

    Rosenfelt-
    The 3 Moo-Sketeers indeed. That is definitely going to be a blog post title.

    Reply
  10. Ah, I made a typo! My comment above should read: “Chris's video”. I am not illiterate. LOL

    Reply
  11. Matt, I need MORE from you on Ray Peat. Yes, I know you promise it for the future – and I know you're busy at the moment – but I will be looking forward to more! Not totally convinced by your argument … after all you admit he is a genius on lipids so why would he get it so wrong … ?

    So, if you are saying it is ok to eat glucose, can one buy pure glucose – to sweeten a drink say on the odd occasion when one wants something sweet? Is glucose the same as dextrose? And what is sucrose? I read that bananas have a high proportion of sucrose – but I thought sucrose was white table sugar. I'm confused by all these sugars and which foods to find them in. Can you point me in the direction of a good explanation of all the different 'oses'/sugars out there so I can understand it all a bit bettter?

    Reply
  12. Color change! YAY! Thank you, thank you, thank you. The new color scheme choice is so much easier on the eyes.

    Reply
  13. With d'Artagnan, weren't there actually four moo-sketeers? That's good, cuz maybe I can be him- once I move back to Virginia at the end of the month, I plan to start the milk diet too for a month. Fingers crossed- we'll see. I'm eager to hear from everyone else's experience between now and then. Good luck, y'all.

    Reply
  14. Mmmm, thinkin' about it, a big problem with this sugar debate is a lack of good studies. I really don't think pure isolated fructose is representative of what may actually be happening… I haven't been able to find one study that sticks to more realistic parameters. That would be fine.

    One thing to note, though, is the huge prevalence of fructose malabsorption, which surely stems from a slow metabolism (and maybe some other factors). That in itself may be enough to justify (hypothesis) many of the "perils of sucrose". In fact, milk is absolutely pathogenic for someone who can't digest it, even though in a more natural or ideal situation it is an awesome food. Milk diet with cold milk or cooked milk can be = death, so…

    We can theorize about this crap all day, anyway, and just lose our time, if we don't have good controls and a way of testing the effects of sucrose on people (or good studies, if only on rats). This is specially true since "modern overconsumption" of sucrose never comes alone.

    Reply
  15. May will officially be milk diet month, lol. I'm thinking of doing a short round then as well. Milk quality should be excellent at that time.

    Chris: Thanks a bunch for the shout-out! :)

    Dinosaur: Glucose is a type of sugar molecule and dextrose just means corn sugar, but it's made up of glucose. Sucrose is table sugar, half glucose/half fructose (honey is similar). Interestingly enough, HFCS is 55% fructose and 45% glucose. Not an astounding difference in my opinion, though the super-refined nature of HFCS can't be good.

    Reply
  16. Charles Sanford Porter permited unlimited fruit consumption (even dried fruits). Wild fruits weren't necessarily less sweet than modern ones: http://donmatesz.blogspot.com/2010/03/paleo-basics-how-much-sugar-in-wild.html Besides, humans would have looked for sweet things whenever they would find them. I know none of these are real definitive arguments, but it is interesting that in that same "ideal" enviroment you (Matt) talk about, a tropical one with saturated fats, sweet fruits are ubiquitous. One could say that it becomes poison in our modern conditions, but I've seen no proof of that (even after what I said of fructose malabsorption), and in a deficient diet (simply put refined foods), living itself may be pathogenic.

    Maybe we shouldn't simplify things so much. There's the brix (quality of food is pivotal, as expressed by Price himself)), there are outer toxins, and a loads of stuff that, even if apparently mercolaesque at first sight, HAVE been proved in a laboratory to be pathogenic, whereas sugar hasn't. Just sayin'. Not to say sugar can't play a especial(maybe somewhat evil)role in all that, but I'm seriously beginning to doubt we know it.

    Reply
  17. According to this, HCFS makes rats obese, but sucrose doesn't: http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/

    There is more difference between HFCS abd sucrose than just the ratio of fructose to glucose. The first is a disaccharide, which needs to be digested by sucrase and then absorbed, and the other an artificial combination of free monosacharides.

    Reply
  18. el66 I can't really disagree with either of both your arguments. Which from what I understood (correct me if I'm wrong) is the refining process has a lot to do with the health consequences and that sugar may not cause obesity.

    Like I've mentioned before I'm willing to keep an open mind on the fact that unrefined sugar may be totally healthy or at least harm neutral. I have no experience of this since the sugar I ate during most of my life was unrefined white sugar.

    The second argument about sugar maybe not being the cause of obesity I can agree with as well since I've always been skinny eating lots of sugar (in fact I've even weighed 155 at 6'1). However, what does that really mean? Obesity in my opinion is just one of the many "diseases of civilization" so if you are somehow implying (which maybe you aren't so I apologize if I'm wrong)that unrefined sugar is okay since it doesn't make you fat then that's where I disagree. In fact not only do I disagree from my personal experience but I think Dr. Weston Price at least shows quite a bit of evidence on the NEGATIVE effect that sugar has on the teeth and jaw formation.

    So even if the negative effects of sugar were just on the teeth and facial structure (which I still doubt sugar isn't involved in many more diseases)I would still not consider it a healthy staple of a diet.

    However, I'm not against fructose from fruit, I just prefer glucose from starches as my carb source and to me it makes even more sense in an evolutionary perspective. Also like I said, I have no clue if unrefined sugar would be harm neutral in all diseases of civilization.

    Reply
  19. love love the new color scheme option ;^)

    Reply
  20. I'm glad that Ray Peat's coming up more often, both here and in Paleoland. Unfortunately no one actually bothers to read his articles, let alone his books, or to listen to his many radio interviews. Even if you're just glanced through his website, you probably understand more about him than most. I should point out, however, that trying to see Peat's big picture is difficult not because it's a complicated pictures, but because he challenges so much of conventional biology. Part of the reason I say 'big picture' is that Peat discusses the cross-species significance of factors, like CO2 regulation in beehives, and the role of unsaturated fats in hibernation. Paleo kids do admirably try to accomplish something similar, but usually they don't get farther than 'Lions hunt on empty stomachs, don't eat pizza hut, etc.'

    I'm glad you're trying to establish a line between you and Peat. So many of the paleo heads don't actually bother to explain what it is that they disagree with. You say that Peat thinks sucrose is better than glucose because glucose raises insulin faster. As far as I know, the insulin component is only one reason Peat would rather eat sucrose than glucose. Also, as far as I know, Peat never wrote that rapid insulin secretion results in increased hunger. If you have a source for this, please let me know.

    Also, I hate to say it but you are looking a little worse for wear. I don't know if it's the new diet, location, or increased stress, or maybe just my imagination, but the pictures of you in your semi-paleo days do look a lot brighter, leaner, and happier than today's.

    Reply
  21. Also, to those starting the milk diet, I tried it myself for two weeks this winter. My results weren't spectacular, and I think it's because I worked rather than rested. Make sure to lie in your bed. Seriously.

    Reply
  22. Matt, you have said that sweet-tasting foods stimulate insulin. And you know that fructose is sweet. So this leads to the conclusion that fructose does stimulate insulin!

    You have said that fructose raise triglycerides. But doesn't a high-fat diet also raise triglycerides?

    (And remember that Lustig said something like "a high-sugar diet is a high-fat diet." This implies that he has some bias against fat.)

    Even if I'm wrong about what I said above, I still don't think that high serum triglycerides have anything to do with a slow metabolism to burn them. I think that high serum triglycerides is caused by insulin resistance, just like how high blood glucose is caused by insulin resistance. (Insulin resistance could be caused by vitamin deficiency, inflammation or excess PUFAs.)

    I think reason that a low-carb diet lowers triglycerides is because dietary fat is more satiating. So people who eat a low-fat diet eat less calories. This leads to lower blood triglycerides, much like how a low-calorie diet lowers blood glucose in the short-term. The second reason that a low-carb diet does this could be by the intake of fat-soluble vitamins in the diet.

    Yes, there may be some problems with fructose compared to glucose. One such problem is that fructose is seven times more likely to form advanced glycation end products compared to glucose. But this, too, can be solved by adequate amounts of vitamin B6, because it protects against AGEs.

    Reply
  23. So May is milk month?

    I wonder if I could do the milk diet. I have two potential sources.

    One is a little shop across the street from my workplace that sells Castle Rock milk and cream. It is delivered super fresh every Wednesday. I'll have to inquire about the pasteurization techniques.

    The other is a traditional foods buying club all the way across town. I'm not sure the specific times I'd have to be there (gotta get the milk directly from the truck yourself in MN, or some BS like that). It'd be whole unpasteurized fresh raw milk from 100% grassfed Jersey cows with a high butterfat content. I think. At least that's what I was getting before. Anyways, YUM!

    But I'm concerned about freshness and logistics. I'd pretty much have to drive straight home and stock it all in my fridge. But I got some friends that live nearby.

    I wonder, would a mix of pasteurized and raw work? Anybody have thoughts on this?

    Reply
  24. d said,

    "Also, I hate to say it but you are looking a little worse for wear. I don't know if it's the new diet, location, or increased stress, or maybe just my imagination, but the pictures of you in your semi-paleo days do look a lot brighter, leaner, and happier than today's."

    Oh for…

    d, how often do you read Matt's blog? I mean really? Don't lie now.

    If you read 180D even semi-regularly you would know the reason why Matt has packed on some weight.

    The weight gain issue is the same vomit that Richard Nikoley spewed a couple of weeks ago –and I lost almost all respect I had for him. Why? Because he was "talking out of his ass." In other words, he was –and is– ignoring the context and information Matt has provided and is thereby attributing his weight gain to HED (or RRARF). How utterly dishonest and foolish! If one wants to criticise that is all well and good; but at least have the integrity to do so in light of all the information that has been provided.

    For instance, that is why I respect JT, even when I sometimes disagree with him; he criticises only when he has all the relevant information.

    Okay…

    Here is why I can never quite buy Peat's pro-sugar, i.e. sucrose stance: Even if one accepts Peat's fancy biochemistry arguments, the fact still remains that Price observed the decline in native tribes health upon the "mere" introduction of sugar. How does one reconcile Ray's position with Price's observational evidence?

    (Yes, I know the issue is somewhat more complex than that, and I know of a couple of ways one can "kind of" reconcile the two. However, the above is an issue/question that Peat and his supporters never seem to address. I would like to see them try, rather than attempting to sweep it under the rug by declaring "Peat wasn't a scientist" or "How do you know his observations were accurate" as I have see n a couple of them trying to do.)

    Reply
  25. "Peat wasn't a scientist" yeah…I meant "PRICE wasn't a scientist."

    Sometimes I think my poor proof-reading skills border on being a disability. Well, not really, but still…

    Reply
  26. Don't assume that everyone who disagrees with you knows less.

    Reply
  27. Well, shoots, I just talked to my milk lady to see how much I can get. She said she could keep me in milk once they get their new cow, but I dunno how long that will be. Maybe I'll be joining the moo-sketeers too.

    Personally, I think Matt's a super-hottie (180 style), and just in need of a little post-winter sun. I tell you, I have to look at the pig-toting photos several times a day. There's nothing sexier than a half-naked man bringing home the bacon (HA! Get it?). Good thing I'm in HI, far away from Matt's girlfriend!

    Reply
  28. @EL 66K

    Charles Sanford Porter permited unlimited fruit consumption (even dried fruits).

    The first Milk Diet I ever did was actually milk and fruit. I did just fine, but technically it is known as the semi-milk diet by the purists.

    Wild fruits weren't necessarily less sweet than modern ones: http://donmatesz.blogspot.com/2010/03/paleo-basics-how-much-sugar-in-wild.html Besides, humans would have looked for sweet things whenever they would find them

    It is about time someone put that myth to rest. Don is a good guy. I like his blog. Obviously I don't agree with everything but he is diligent and dedicated. I like that.

    but it is interesting that in that same "ideal" enviroment you (Matt) talk about, a tropical one with saturated fats, sweet fruits are ubiquitous. One could say that it becomes poison in our modern conditions, but I've seen no proof of that (even after what I said of fructose malabsorption), and in a deficient diet (simply put refined foods), living itself may be pathogenic.

    What everyone seems to forget that even in an ideal climate fruit is not available to eat year around (unless you can store them) and no group who has ready access to them seems to gorge on them.

    According to this, HCFS makes rats obese, but sucrose doesn't: http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/

    That study sucks, to put it mildly.

    @d

    Also, to those starting the milk diet, I tried it myself for two weeks this winter. My results weren't spectacular, and I think it's because I worked rather than rested. Make sure to lie in your bed. Seriously.

    Attempting the Milk Diet on winter milk is not a good idea unless you have no other choice.

    @AaronF

    I wonder, would a mix of pasteurized and raw work? Anybody have thoughts on this?

    Why go there is you don't have to? Cooked milk is definitely a compromise. Use it only as a last resort and if you react well to cooked milk (which I don't).

    Well ladies and gents, as is my usual practice right after Easter every year, I will be starting the Milk Diet later this week, probably Friday when I pick up my huge order of milk for the week.

    I will be posting about it on my blog. Should be fun!

    Reply
  29. I asked Peat some time ago how he explains Price's findings and he said it was PUFA that caused the degeneration.

    Reply
  30. "I asked Peat some time ago how he explains Price's findings and he said it was PUFA that caused the degeneration."

    Oh? And where were these PUFA's coming from? Most native diets were relatively low in PUFA's, and vegetables weren't all that common until about around the late 1940's early 1950's.

    I'm not saying Peat's wrong at this point, I am just curious as to how he reached that conclusion. I mean: what data/history he used, etc.

    Reply
  31. Price did not observe a decline in the native tribes health upon the mere introduction of sugar. What he observed was that the natives health declined when they gave up their traditional diet and changed to white flour, jam and vegetable oils as their main food sources.
    You dont degenerate on a healthy diet just because you add some sugar. The people Price observed degenrated because they completely switched to nutrient deprived foods.

    Peats recommomendations are nowhere near such a diet.
    He recommends a diet very high in nutritional foods such as cheese, milk, eggs,some meat, organs, gelatine, tubers and fruit(juices). He only recommends ice cream to patients because he wants them to eat sugar foods instead of crap like donoughts, pasta etc. He very much prefers fruits which are proportionally high in vitamins and minerals.

    He also says that a high carb diet is superior to high fat diets. What does not mean that he is anti-fat. He recommends eating lots of good fats. But carbs should be the main source for energy.

    Reply
  32. Lol, Jannis, I also forgot the very fact that Price's ideal meals contained both orange juice and (slightly)sweetened fruit:
    "The nutrition provided these children in this one meal included the following foods. About four ounces of tomato juice or orange juice and a teaspoonful of a mixture of equal parts of a very high vitamin natural cod liver oil and an especially high vitamin butter was given at the beginning of the meal. They then received a bowl containing approximately a pint of a very rich vegetable and meat stew, made largely from bone marrow and fine cuts of tender meat: the meat was usually broiled separately to retain its juice and then chopped very fine and added to the bone marrow meat soup which always contained finely chopped vegetables and plenty of very yellow carrots; for the next course they had cooked fruit, with very little sweetening, and rolls made from freshly ground whole wheat, which were spread with the high-vitamin butter. The wheat for the rolls was ground fresh every day in a motor driven coffee mill. Each child was also given two glasses of fresh whole milk."

    Besides, I don't know from where comes the idea that Price had a bias against sugar? He was against refined nutrient-free foods, but never said sweet things were bad per se. I do remember, whoever, that he said that overconsumption of fruit was potentially problematic, in theory, because it was lacking in some important minerals, and it displaced calories. This are specialy bone building minerals, but things like milk have them in spades. There's also (amazingly) proof that orange juice can actually improve the mineral status of a person in a given diet: http://www.jbc.org/content/66/2/829.full.pdf:

    "Calcium assimilation was decidedly benefited when oranges
    formed a part of the diet, the increased retention being considerably
    greater than the calcium added in the oranges and greater
    than might be expected from a stimulus to retention caused by a
    larger calcium intake.
    The increase in phosphorus retention was even more marked
    than that of calcium, more than three times as much phosphorus,
    both in gm. and percentage of intake, being assimilated when
    orange juice was added.
    The magnesium retention was also increased, although to a less
    marked extent than that of calcium and phosphorus.
    Nitrogen assimilation was greater when orange juice was
    ingested, even though the nitrogen intake was not altered.
    Urinary ammonia was decreased, and urinary pH and organic
    acids increased, thus confirming the work of Blatherwick and Long.
    The increase of organic acids amounted to approximately 7 per
    cent of the citric acid of the orange juice ingested.
    A marked increase in the children's weight was observed."

    Old Price was always into something, wans't he?

    Reply
  33. You took the words out of my mouth, Jannis.

    Matt, please do us a favour and don't comment on Ray Peat's ideas until you have thoroughly studied them. Looking forward to your comments then.

    Reply
  34. Rosenfelct, I was not implying more than what I said when showing that article. WYSIWYG. It's just to show that things may be deeper in complexity that just "sugar is bad".

    Michael, what proof do you have that fruit can't be found year round in certain ideal climates? Anyway, I mostly agree whit what you said, and there are no, for the moment, healthy groups I can point at, that based their diet on sugar. There are a lot that consume plenty of fruit, however, including in Price book, like the australians and amazonians, etc. I also doubt they weren't able to store sources of sugar if they wanted to. Dried fruit and syrups are all option, and many cultrues appear to had acces to several sources of unrefined sugar besides fruit. Masai use honey, though I don't know how much, and several american aborigens had acces to sweet syrups from trees, etc. Oh, and there's this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Aboriginal_sweet_foods We humans love sweet stuff, and that doesn't necessarily mean we would want to live just on such items (I personally find it undesirable, and crave starch, though I'm sick), but we indeed seem to search for them whenever is possible. Even eskimos did!

    Michael, also, why do you say the study sucks? It isn't even a study, just an article about a study. Do you have access to the real study? I would rather comment on that.

    On a last note, I want to make very clear that Weston A. Price was NOT against sugar. We WAS against this: "It usually consisted of highly sweetened strong coffee and white bread, vegetable fat, pancakes made of white flour and eaten with syrup, and doughnuts fried in vegetable fat." And yeah, a partial introduction of modern foods in itself seemed harmful, as shown in the eskimo chapter, if I remember well, BUT, as I always say, sugar comes in donuts. It's sad to see the farmers in my country, with a surplus of healthy food all around them, frying their sweet and yummy plantains in soy oil. It's a crime. And most I've seen look like Price fodder. Of course, there are more factors, but it is DEFINITIVELY not simply sugar.

    For Price's quotes, I'm using this as a source: http://www.journeytoforever.org/farm_library/price/price15.html

    Reply
  35. "Dried fruit and syrups are options

    Crap, my writing today was hideous, sorry.

    Reply
  36. Mmmm, and Jannis, Peat may thing fruit is superior, but the fact that he eats a QUART OF ICE CREAM A DAY cannot be left aside… I can sympathize, though.

    Reply
  37. *think, dammit

    Reply
  38. Sup, australians apprently have access to a lot of sweet things, and loved it: http://www.true-blue-green-algae.net/Diet.html

    "The Australian fauna provided many delicious and nutritious fruits throughout the year, particularly in the humid coastal regions. Some of these were eaten raw just after picking, while others were processed. The wild orange was picked just before it was ripe, then buried for one day during which it became very sweet. The wallaby apple was likewise ripened by placing it in the sand for a day. (11) The taste of a type of wild plum improved after storing or burying for a couple of days. (6) Fruit of the quandong, or native peach, was buried for four days. (11) Dried figs were pounded into cakes and eaten with honey. Mangrove fruit was pulped, soaked and mashed through a basket. (11)

    The Aborigines also used fruits like tamarinds and native lime to make refreshing beverages. (11) An acid drink was made from the fruit of lawyer cane by squashing the fruit in water, and from breadfruit by soaking it in water. (6) Certain flowers rich in nectar were gathered in the early morning and steeped in water. This was drunk fresh and also set aside to ferment. (11) Some tribes pounded flowers in a wooden dish, then drained the liquid into another dish and mixed this with the sugary parts of honey ants. This mixture was allowed to ferment for eight to ten days and a brew was made to drink."

    "For sweetness, the Aborigines loved honey. They distinguished between two kinds. One was white and very sweet, and always found in small dead hollow trees. The other was dark, more plentiful, and of a somewhat sour taste. (11) In the desert, the sweet taste came from eating the swollen abdomens of sugar ants. Tree gums were dissolved in water and mixed with honey to form sweets for children. (3) Lerp, the sweet exudate found on certain trees, was collected and chewed or melted with warm water to form a jelly, and eaten. (11)"

    Given that they apparently also consumed an amount of nuts, and other posible sources of PUFAs and omega 6, this is even more interesting. Anyway, a cake made of nuts, ants and honey is light years away from a donnut. My point being, discussion is warranted.

    Reply
  39. I'm not sure if Peats really eats one quart of ice cream a day. I think he only mentioned that he did it for some time. But anyway I dont think that ice cream with a short list of ingredients is that bad a thing. If its just milk, cream, sugar and some flavour I think you could eat it on a regular basis though I wouldnt eat it every day and certainly not one quart.

    And Im sure that Peat does not recommend people to do that. He rather recommends one quart of orange juice and one quart of milk a day. And he also says that tubers such as potatoes are a really good carb source. He basically recommends to eat starch and sugar in equal amounts.

    I mostly drink one glas of orange juice and eat one fresh orange to every meal. I estimate my carbs come 70% from starch and 30% from sucrose (oranges).
    Since I eat that way I feel still a bit better than only on starches.
    I have really great energy levels without beeing hungry between meals.
    I seldom eat refinde sugar since I "believe" in whole natural foods but I think that refinde sugar is better than refinded starch such as whitebread, toast or pasta…

    All in all Matt and Peat are 95% preaching the same thing, I would say. But regarding sugar I think s that Peat is right. I dont think that sugar is the cause for the problems we have today. My personal enemy number one are the Pufas and refinde foods that dont contain any nutrients.

    Reply
  40. AaronF, If I were you I'd go for the Jersey cows. Jersey cows, Guernsey cows, camels, sheep, buffalo, yaks, donkeys, goats, and Asian cows naturally contain mostly these A2 beta casein proteins (which are beneficial), whereas milk from cows such as Holsteins usually contains mostly the protein variant called A1 beta casein (which is implicated in Type 1 Diabetes and autism. Take a look at a book called "Devil in the Milk".

    Reply
  41. Matt,

    Should carbs (including unrefined) be kept to modest portions due to the effect that they have on cholesterol (decreasing HDL while increasing dense LDL)?

    Mitch

    Reply
  42. Mitch,
    who says that carbs increase LDL and lower HDL. Thats not true!

    Reply
  43. I just want to quote Stephan Guyenet who was also faced with some Peat followers on his blog that were claiming that it's just the polyunsaturated fats that are bad and not the sugar. Here is Stephan's response:

    "Fructose is only one factor in AGE formation. Circulating fructose is generally very low compared to glucose. It goes straight from the digestive tract to the liver via the hepatic portal vein. The body keeps it out of circulation as much as possible (and turns it into fat ASAP) because of its glycation potential. It also raises serum uric acid when you eat fructose: uric acid is an anti-glycation agent and one of the main water-soluble antioxidants in serum.

    The point is that glucose glycates as much, if not more than fructose, because there's generally a lot more of it around.

    I read Peat's article. He's correct that the glycemic index isn't worth much. He's also correct that simply making the pancreas work is not behind insulin resistance. But he totally ignores the large body of evidence that fructose causes long-term insulin resistance, and starch doesn't. In fact, he barely mentions fructose.

    If sugar is as harmless as he says, that implies that the diseases of civilization that Price and others saw were entirely due to white flour and/or micronutrient deficiency. Many of these cultures were not eating significant PUFA and they still got sick. The Tokelauans, for example, were at 3% PUFA when their diabetes skyrocketed following the introduction of sugar and white flour.

    There is definitely an interplay between sugar and PUFA though. The combination of the two is the worst. Feeding rodents one or the other isn't as bad as combining them, and that's probably true for humans as well."

    Reply
  44. Lustig, in his presentation, has argued that fructose causes fatty liver, and that fatty liver is caused by the elevated production of triglycerides. He further argued that fatty liver induces insulin resistance because it downregulates the insulin receptors in the liver, so the liver will fail to shut off glucose production when the blood sugar is high.

    I agree that fatty liver causes insulin resistance. What I disagree is that fructose causes fatty liver.

    Yes, plenty of experiments have shown that fructose causes fatty liver. But these experiments are done on rats, who are not as nearly adapted to fructose as primates are. In addition, rats are fed for many months for it to happen. Most surprisingly, the animals are fed with fructose as the majority of their calories, which may make them deficient in nutrients.

    In a previous comment, you have agreed that fructose stimulates insulin:

    "Fructose is problematic because it causes a hypersecretion of insulin in proportion to the rise in blood sugar. This leads to hypoglycemia. Hypoglycemia is bad news for several reasons."

    I agree that fructose does stimulate insulin because of its sweetness. But chewing motions also stimulate insulin. Experiments have found that chewing gum will stimulate insulin. So every time you chew food, your insulin will rise.

    But why has evolution programmed us to stimulate insulin every time we consume fructose? I have a hypothesis:

    In the wild, the only way to get fructose is from fruit or honey. However, in these foods, the proportion of free fructose to free glucose is equal.

    As you know that free glucose will be absorbed in a faster rate than starch, insulin should be higher upon ingestion of free glucose. Fruits and honey contain lots of free glucose, so the body has evolved a mechanism to overstimulate insulin upon ingesting these foods. And because free glucose and free fructose is often paired together, it makes sense for the body to overstimulate insulin when ingesting free fructose. So eating fruits and honey doesn't cause excess secretion of insulin relative to the absorption of food.

    However, it's unnatural to ingest free fructose by itself without ingesting free glucose in equal amounts. If you did it, this will cause hypersecretion of insulin disproportionate to the amount of free glucose. This may be problematic.

    Reply
  45. rosenfeltc,
    I doubt that there is a study which really proves that sucrose is bad for you. What most of these scientists do is feed animals totally unrealistic amounts of fructose in a totally unrealistic diet and then conclude that sugar is bad for you.

    Tokelauans ate white flour and white sugar, little PUFA. They probably got almost no essential nutrients and just ate empty calories and white flour (probably the worst food on earth). How can you make the conclusion that it is the sugar thats responsible for their diabetes?

    In his article "Glycemia, Starch and sugar in context" Peat cites a few interesting studies which you should have a look at.
    One for example showed that a diet of coconutoil and sugar was able to prevent diabetes in rodents.

    Reply
  46. Great discussion you all got going on here. Matt you really need to dig deeper into Peat's stuff, this is going to be awesome.

    I already mentioned this but I think refined and unrefined sugar normally have to be treated as two totally seperate beasts.
    However, and I don't know whether this seems weird to you, I still think many people have to treat unrefined sugar with care. In my opinion there is hardly any doubt that refined sugar, amongst other things, will screw up your body and all its mechanisms. Whether it's refined or unrefined sugar doesn't matter, sucrose, or fructose still takes the same pathway. (@Dinosaur: Dextrose and sucrose (and lactose) are disaccharides, which means that they are composed of two sugar molecules. Sucrose is one part fructose, one part glucose and dextrose is two parts glucose). So wouldn't it be likely to assume that if you fucked up your body with refined sugar (which to sme degree probably many of us have) you would also have problems with unrefined sugar. After all, fructose seems to have damaging effects to some degree, but as long as it comes in an unrefined package it shouldn't be a problem, should it?

    But I actually wanted to post about something slightly different. Many of you make it sound like it's either glucose or fructose you have to consume(which afaik, Peat doesn't think). Of course there might be one substance that is more metabolically stimulating than the other and may have certain advantages in specific situations. I'm still very much rooted in a paleolithic mindset (even though I've come to disagree on many apsects with the paleosphere) and I think both sucrose and starch should have a place in a healthy diet. Personally I'm not consuming any fruit at the moment, but as long as fruit was accesible to humans, they ate it. That doesn't meant that it should be the main source of energy and I think Jannis' approach is quite decent, even though I currently consider a higher starch ratio better for cranking up the metabolism, but what the heck do I know, I could be totally wrong.

    Also I think that there are better and worse fruit choices. Citrus fruits and berries seems to be less problematic to me than many other fruits. Personally, I'm gonna reintroduce some more lemons/limes into my diet, even if it's just for culinary reasons, as those really make lots of foods taste much better.

    Reply
  47. Oh, and about that:
    "Also, I hate to say it but you are looking a little worse for wear"

    I didn't even want to post this originally, but well: I think that's kinda funny, as I thought Matt's face looked much less puffy/healthier than in the last videos, you know the videos Richard Nikoley used in his recent anti Matt Stone post. When I started watching the new videos the first thing I though was "Kinda looks like Matt lost some weight"

    Whatever, kinda irrelevant, but since somebody brought that up already, I thought I'd post this.

    Reply
  48. MadMUHH – I was thinking the same as you. Matt, can you enlighten us as to how you gained the weight and whether you are losing now or what? I know you did vegan experiments and such, but didn't know they put weight on you. What weight/height are you/ were you?

    Also, bear in mind many of these comments are from people who think that the skinnier the better! *Rolleyes*

    Reply
  49. "…Starch and glucose efficiently stimulate insulin secretion, and that accelerates the disposition of glucose, activating its conversion to glycogen and fat, as well as its oxidation. Fructose inhibits the stimulation of insulin by glucose, so this means that eating ordinary sugar, sucrose (a disaccharide, consisting of glucose and fructose), in place of starch, will reduce the tendency to store fat. Eating “complex carbohydrates,” rather than sugars, is a reasonable way to promote obesity. Eating starch, by increasing insulin and lowering the blood sugar, stimulates the appetite, causing a person to eat more, so the effect on fat production becomes much larger than when equal amounts of sugar and starch are eaten. "

    It's mostly this Ray Peat statement that I'm referring to.

    I like Peat. He is awesome. At the same time, the level of his writing lends to blind faith upon many of his readers that what he is saying is accurate. The above statement is not accurate.

    I once thought that postprandial insulin levels had something to do with obesity, diabetes, etc. I was under the false impression that spikes in insulin caused greater hunger levels and triggered insulin resistance. I've since revised these beliefs completely. Insulin has little to do with the whole picture, particularly something as inconsequential as a rise in insulin following a meal. Leptin is the key. Seeing how glucose vs. fructose effects the LONG-TERM levels of leptin and leptin sensitivity far outweighs any short-term effect that glucose and fructose have on insulin and blood sugar.

    There is literally nothing about Peat's statement above that is relevant.

    If glucose raises leptin and increases leptin sensitivity, while fructose has been repeatedly shown to do the opposite, then, long-term, eating starch, which provides the greatest insulin rise after meals, leads to having a higher metabolism, a stronger immune system, greater lipolysis, smaller appetite, and all of the other things that are associated with higher leptin levels combined with greater leptin sensitivity.

    If Peat understood leptin fully, he could get past his nebulous and confusing brain entanglements about sex hormones, thyroid, insulin, and more…

    Because leptin controls all of that.

    But fruit does have a rich amount of nutrients, many of them anti-inflammatory, and can have some advantages. Nutrient density of the diet probably IS more important than fructose in causing health problems of all kinds. I believe that dieting is far more harmful than fructose or vegetable oils.

    Reply
  50. Jannis said,

    "Price did not observe a decline in the native tribes health upon the mere introduction of sugar. What he observed was that the natives health declined when they gave up their traditional diet and changed to white flour, jam and vegetable oils as their main food sources."

    LOL! I might as well 'fess up: I knew that the natives tribes added more than just sugar to their diet when Price observed the decline in their health; that is why I left the parenthetical comment about the issue being more complex than that. What I was doing was giving d a taste of his (or her) own medicine. In other words, I was ignoring information to make a claim that wasn't completely accurate. I was hoping he would point that out to me after I had correctly accused him of the doing just that. Sadly however, he did not. Sometimes the smart alec in me gets the better of me.

    The only thing I kind of disagree with in the above quote is the comment about vegetable oils. It seems that Price observed degeneration among tribes that were eating only sugar and white flour without consumption of vegetable oils. I could be wrong about that, however.

    MadMuhh – I agree.

    Reply
  51. Madmuhhh,
    you and the others that speak of the bad effects that fructose is supposed to have on the human body… Could you call a spade a spade and name the specific problems that you think fructose causes?
    Because I think you pretty much just speculate here.

    If you name some of the evil effects you think fructose has I can contact Peat so that he can clarify a few things. Because I think that a lot that has been written about fructose is as idiotic as the things about SFA.

    Then we might be able to discuss some facts instead of "Its bad!"
    "No it isn"t"

    By the way….where exactly are you from?

    Reply
  52. I talk about my changes in weight in a chapter in the new eBook called "Matt Stone: Case Study in Body Recomposition."

    Overfeeding in May caused my weight to top at 178.

    Then I spent 5 unwanted months in a calorie deficit, weight bottoming at 168 (basal temp dropped from 97.9 to 96.2).

    Then my weight went up to 179 while starting to refeed, which I interrupted with 2 weeks vegan.

    During the 2 weeks vegan I lost quite a bit of muscle mass and became ravenous as my weight bottomed at 172.5 The timing was horrible, as I was previously well on my way to metabolic recovery.

    I then was able to reach new highs in weight – going all the way up to 194.5 (about 13 pounds heavier than my all-time heaviest weight). That was a few weeks before my fat cooking vids. were done – the ones highlighted by Nikoley.

    I've lost 8 pounds this year so far at a pretty steady pace, although in the last month I seem to have lost a greater proportion of fat to muscle than earlier in the year while my weight decrease has remained relatively constant.

    My current weight is 187. I imagine it won't be until about August that my weight has fully returned to my usual 178 – with my usual body temp of around 98 going with it – although the milk diet may change things dramatically.

    Oh, and thanks D. Cool comment. It's amazing that photos of me 1.5 years ago under the Hawaiian sun on a zero-carb diet (FUMP) done by a professional photographer make me look brighter than I do in front of a cheap video camera in poor lighting after spending 6 months indoors and gaining 10 pounds of fat. I should ignore the fact that I was emotionally despondant and/or irrationaly aggressive, was almost impotent, and that my resting pulse was 80% higher and go back to zero carb. Don't wanna lose my edge!

    Reply
  53. Price is just one explorer that saw this type of phenomenon. More interesting is T.L. Cleave, who witnessed degeneration on refined starch and white sugar without the polyunsaturated fat (their diet (Zulu) was more or less the lowest fat diet on earth – roughly 5% of calories).

    He thought sugar was by far the worst offender when comparing refined starch to refined sugar.

    My own personal experience suggested to me that sugar was a bigger offender, certainly in the tooth decay department, as only sugar is capable of giving me tooth pain on a mixed diet. Tooth decay of course being one key arm of Cleave's "The Saccharine Disease."

    McCarrison's work really strengthened this, as he found Indians that ate almost nothing but white rice and had full-blown nutrient deficiency diseases like Beri-Beri and Pellagra – yet had no tooth decay. Only those eating white flour and white sugar (a Western diet he called it) had tooth decay and other related maladies that Cleave lumped together.

    McCarrison also refuted any kind of "gluten" theory of "The Saccharine Disease," as unsoaked/unsprouted whole wheat was the staple of the healthiest and most robust people of India at the time.

    So I was left narrowing it down to white flour vs. white sugar.

    Seeing the differences between how starch and fructose are handled metabolically, their impact on leptin, the many health improvements I've seen in people who have adopted a low-sugar diet, and the far greater associations between consumption of soda and juice and obesity (as opposed to potatoes, white rice, pasta, bread), my suspicions were confirmed that refined sugar was a far greater culprit of modern disease than white flour.

    I could be wrong. I am open to discussion and debate on the matter. I'm just trying to elaborate on what I believe and why I have been led to believe that. We all have holes in our logic and get blinded by one-dimensional paths in our travels. I'm not any more immune to it than anyone else, despite my conscious efforts to perpetually challenge my beliefs for loopholes and false assumptions.

    Jannis-
    I would love to have Peat provide his thoughts on fructose, leptin, leptin sensitivity, de novo lipogenesis, triglycerides, and so forth. I'd kill for a guest post at 180 from him.

    Reply
  54. @Jannis:
    I freely admit that I'm not too well versed in this topic. So basically, when I talk about the "bad" effects of fructose I refer to most of the stuff Matt talks about. The way fructose is metabolized in the liver, the creation of triglycerides and it's potential effect on insuling and leptin resistance.
    As well as its potential to induce hypoglycemia.

    How much all of this is actually accurate I do not feel able to judge, but so far my and especially other persons experiences seem to align especially with the last statement. Robb Wolf talks about how a bowl of fruit will "put him to sleep" and I personally am definitely reacting better to starch than I am reacting to fruit, however this could at least to some degree be my imagination (never underestimate the power of your own imagination) and as I said I think fructose can absolutely play a part in a healthy diet, I just currently think that starches should take the main spot.

    Oh, and I live relatively close to Hamburg and very close to Stade if that says anything to you.

    Reply
  55. I come at this from a WAPF/history nerd point of view. I've spent a fair amount of time reading about the food and health of people in early 19th century England. The wealthy of this period ate an ideal diet that pwns the crap out of anything we can manage today: they ate lots of wild animals, grass fed beef and lamb. They also ate pork (which was foraging and therefore not the omega 6 laden pork we get today). They ate insane amounts of butter. They ate a lot of potatoes. Green vegetables were seasonal items but when they had them, they loved them because there was a status attached to them. Same with fruit. Just read about Mr. Darcy's exotic fruit centerpiece described in almost sexual terms by Jane Austen and you can see that fruit was considered the shiz. They ate a lot of whole grain bread. White flour was yet to even be invented. They ate quite a lot of nuts and seeds as part of enrichment to their diet, but they got nowhere near the level of Omega 6 that we do with vegetable oils which hadn't been invented. With this wonderful diet, did these pre-industrial people have optimal health. No. They had serious tooth decay issues. They had gout. They were obsessed with their digestion to an almost comical degree. They were highly susceptible to infection. One if three women died "in childbirth" (which usually meant they died of a fever a week or so after giving birth.) Their health pretty much sucked. Oh and they were relaxed and not stressed. The gentry did no work at all and they all took moderate exercise like walking and horseback riding in the fresh air. So what is the one thing these people did that Weston Price's healthy groups did not. They loved them some refined sugar. Sugar consumption tripled in Jane Austen's lifetime (still low by modern American standards). They drank it in hot tea in particular, which probably amplified its effects. They drank quite a lot of booze as well, because water was dodgy, but this had been the habit in England for centuries without the rotten teeth and gout. (Henry the VIII had gout famously, but he also had greater access to the luxury good sugar than almost anyone else in Europe at his time.)

    Their sugar was refined. Prior to the late 18th century most sweet things were made from honey or concentrated fruit. Marmelade, that great English staple was fermentented rather than canned with sugar syrup. At precisely this point in history when refined sugar was introduced to a wider segment of the population, people became obsessed with their teeth. Prostitutes were graded by the amount of tooth decay they had. It all happened rather quickly and quite dramatically.

    The problem is in saying unrefined sugar is OK, or fructose is natural therefore its ok, is that the levels at which we can consume fructose easily are nothing like humans have ever experienced in history. A glass of orange juice, something simple we take for granted is not something that people really have had access to until the industrial era. Honey production was seasonal, same with maple sugar.

    My regency example says to me, that sugar can frak your health quickly and in a big way. While healing my metabolism, I still think it's best to avoid fructose and gain calories from other sources. Maybe someday I'll be healed enough to tolerate it.

    Reply
  56. I think rosenfeltc makes a good point about obesity vs. other health problems. Obviously, EL 66K's link shows hfcs is worse than sucrose (probably in every way), but even though sucrose may not lead to obesity, it definitely has health consequences. For example, http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/abstract/128/10/1807

    Reply
  57. muhhh,
    how cool is that…sure I know Stade! I had my "Musterung" there ;) I'm from the same area. I am from Kirchtimke near Zeven, Tarmstedt. But currently im not living there anymore. I moved to Göttingen last year where I study now.

    Matt,
    I will definitely write Peat about those things. I have a lot to do over the next few days. But when Im finished im going to write him. If you have a certain question..shoot. I will include it into my mail.

    Regarding the guest post. Can't say if he would be willing to do that. If you want me to i can bring it up. But I think the chances of success would be increased if you asked him yourself. Peat basically answers everybody how writes him. So if you want to invite him or have questions just use the mailform on his page.

    Reply
  58. So relating that to Peat, he does seem to have some odd ideas. He advises sugar over starch and says that mineral intake/utilization is important for stress regulation and therefore bone/teeth health. But sugar intake achieves the opposite. I think Matt is right in that he looks only at the fructose-insulin connection instead of the whole story…

    Reply
  59. Jenny though I don't disagree with you about sugar. But using Henry the VIII as an example of how bad sugar is by itself is tough to swallow, because of other factors in his life.

    I think Henry the XIII is a prime example of how inflammation can have a huge influence on the homeostasis of our endocrine system. As we know he famously suffered significant trauma which caused a serious infection not just to muscle tissue but probably to bone as well. This took years to "heal" actually probably never really fully healing. This infection could have easily became chronic because of the lack of antibiotics, and subsequently may have caused weight gain, gout, pre-diabetes, and shortened his life.

    So yes sugar probably exacerbated the inflammation that stemmed from something else. So perhaps his version of PUFA and then pour sugar on it and blammo.

    I know there is a lot of inference above but what the hell.

    Reply
  60. Hooray for studying! Still in the 12th class so it will be a while until I get to study, but I'm looking forward to it. What are you studying?
    (Ultra off-topic. Not that anyone in this comment section would care about something being off-topic. That's part of what makes this place so great)

    Reply
  61. Thanks Jannis. I just want to know how Peat accounts for the associations with fructose and de novo lipogensis (triglycerides), no rise in leptin, and an increased ability to cause leptin resistance. Since he doesn't take any of these things into account in his articles that I'm aware, I haven't had much desire to contact him personally for his beliefs about it. The quote above describes why he believes what he does, I know why he believes that, and I know that there are other factors that he is definitely NOT taking into consideration that potentially are far more important and relevant to the big picture.

    Jenny- Great response. I too gauge history as a powerful tool in tracing back the origins of modern disease. It points to sugar moreso than PUFA in most cases, but there's no quetion that the two together are bad news.

    John –
    I said this the other day and knew you would've appreciated it…

    "You know the modern diet is screwed up when white sugar is now considered the 'healthy alternative.'"

    And Organism as a Whole-

    Yes, you're right. Americans are screwed up and insulin resistant. Advice to cut back carbs can help, and may be better advice than a low-fat diet, particularly if carb sources aren't closely investigated.

    But here the interest is in overcoming insulin resistance, not diagnosing it and eating a restricted diet that caters to the flaw but does nothing to fix it.

    And nearly EVERYONE, especially the highly overweight followers of 180, can eat both a high-fat and high-starch diet to appetite or above and quickly get to a point where they are no longer gaining an ounce of weight and in fact are losing. This is due to a rise in leptin and leptin sensitivity, which restores insulin sensitivity and increases lipolysis.

    I believe anyone can overcome insulin resistance.

    Reply
  62. Matt, I agree that anyone can overcome insulin resistance.

    Reply
  63. John,
    One study that "proofes" that sugar decreases mineral utilization…There are 1298 studies out there which "proofe" that Saturated Fat is bad for you…Besides you dont even know the study details. Dont jump to the conclusion because of one study.
    Even the kitavans with their perfect health eat approx. 400g of fruit every single day. Thats already about 40-50g of sucrose.

    Matt,
    Ok, I will ask Peat on this topic.
    As soon as he replies I will tell you.

    muhhh,
    english and sports (Lehramt Gym)
    But I'm toying with the idea of studying medicine. But I really like my curret studies so its just an idea. Do you already belong to the generation that has only 12 years for abitur?

    Reply
  64. Nope, I'm the last one with 13, which sucks because that will mean I will make my Abitur at the same year as the grade below me. Twice as much people storming at the universities than usual.

    Reply
  65. Michael, you wrote
    "What everyone seems to forget that even in an ideal climate fruit is not available to eat year around (unless you can store them) and no group who has ready access to them seems to gorge on them."

    But this just isn't true. In the tropics different species of figs fruit at completely different times of year, making it so that there is fruit available year round.

    Reply
  66. @EL 66K

    Michael, what proof do you have that fruit can't be found year round in certain ideal climates?

    Fruit, in its edible sweet form, is available only on a seasonal basis even in the tropics.

    Anyway, I mostly agree whit what you said, and there are no, for the moment, healthy groups I can point at, that based their diet on sugar.

    None. Price noted that even where fruit was freely available groups went out of their way to gather certain animal foods, especially from the sea. That is one reason I ignore people who want to make a big deal of me going out of my way to gather good food in a modern civilized setting.

    There are a lot that consume plenty of fruit, however, including in Price book, like the australians and amazonians, etc. I also doubt they weren't able to store sources of sugar if they wanted to. Dried fruit and syrups are all option, and many cultrues appear to had acces to several sources of unrefined sugar besides fruit.

    I would like to see the evidence for the Price style groups who stored syrups, though I don't think it is a big deal either way. It is not the presence of sugar that is an issue in my mind, but how it was used.

    I don't doubt they could store dried fruit and we know the eskimos ate berries all year around, but the primary question is how much? Personally I have no problems with unrefined whole sugars per se.

    Masai use honey, though I don't know how much, and several american aborigens had acces to sweet syrups from trees, etc. Oh, and there's this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Aboriginal_sweet_foods We humans love sweet stuff, and that doesn't necessarily mean we would want to live just on such items (I personally find it undesirable, and crave starch, though I'm sick), but we indeed seem to search for them whenever is possible. Even eskimos did!

    I don't doubt any of the above. Tapping palm trees for example to make…ahem…alcoholic beverages (coconut toddy) is an ancient practice that goes way back. :-)

    Michael, also, why do you say the study sucks? It isn't even a study, just an article about a study. Do you have access to the real study? I would rather comment on that.

    Yes, Darya Pinoy sent it to me. Those jokers were confusing to say the least and missed the ball on several points. If I get time I might post some comments here.

    On a last note, I want to make very clear that Weston A. Price was NOT against sugar. We WAS against this: "It usually consisted of highly sweetened strong coffee and white bread, vegetable fat, pancakes made of white flour and eaten with syrup, and doughnuts fried in vegetable fat." And yeah, a partial introduction of modern foods in itself seemed harmful, as shown in the eskimo chapter, if I remember well, BUT, as I always say, sugar comes in donuts. It's sad to see the farmers in my country, with a surplus of healthy food all around them, frying their sweet and yummy plantains in soy oil. It's a crime. And most I've seen look like Price fodder. Of course, there are more factors, but it is DEFINITIVELY not simply sugar.

    Weston Price thought refined sugar and refined flour were the ultimate culprits. He voiced such in the video I posted of him speaking awhile back.

    He also healed children in his dental clinic using a high carbohydrate diet that included unsoaked fresh wheat flour and orange juice.

    Reply
  67. Janis,

    Sorry, I said sugar when I meant sucrose. But anyway, of course it doesn't "prove" it is bad, but what other details could you want? The only dietary difference between the two groups was potato starch vs. sucrose. Anti-saturated fat studies are notorious for poor variable control…

    Also, I personally don't have the reference that Melvin Page cites, but it shows sucrose causes an increase of calcium levels in the blood due to bone resorption…

    You can't assume that because the Kitavan seem to be free of heart disease that their bones are in "perfect" health. Do you have data on this? There are multiple sources showing the Inuit having "bone problems," yet they are free of heart disease. Either case wouldn't be conclusive anyway with a lack of variable control…

    Perhaps a very fast metabolism (as Peat's diet should cause) ameliorates the possible problems associated with sucrose consumption. I don't know–I'm just pointing out a few of Peat's paradoxical points…

    On general sugar vs. sucrose–as far as I know, lactose actually contributes to magnesium and zinc utilization/metabolism…

    Reply
  68. "Fruit, in its edible sweet form, is available only on a seasonal basis even in the tropics."

    Sorry bud, still wrong. I can't find an online citation right now, but I've watched a couple of nature documentaries (possibly including Planet Earth) where they talk about how different figs in the tropics bloom and different times and have multiple crops per year so there's always fruit for the jungle primates.

    Reply
  69. Nathan, good point about Hank 8 and the inflammation. Yes, he had a jousting injury that never healed and festered for ages. The Showtime show, the Tudors highlighted this as the main cause of his later health problems. His ridiculous kingly appetite for meat is most often blamed for his health problems. That image of Charles Laughton chewing on the turkey leg has never faded. My ideas are always based on the wildest of speculation. That's just how I roll.

    Reply
  70. First time poster here. I'm going to start the milk diet on Friday for about 2.5 weeks before I have to head of state for two weeks for a work project. I actually have three sources of grass fed raw milk, 2 within half hour and one about two hours away – all at around $5 a gallon. I plan to drink 6 quarts a day and monitor my weight and basal temp. Will also get plenty of rest and avoid exercising.

    @ Chris Rosenfelt. You mentioned doing 1.5 day fast before starting the diet – what is the main benefit of this? Will I get better results? Are you just drinking water during your initial fast? My last meal was mid-afternoon today and I will start the milk diet Friday morning.

    I will be at work during the week days and so I need to be creative. What are you guys using for drinking containers? I need to find a glass quart jar that is covered to conceal my "obseesion" for the next two weeks, especially at work.

    Reply
  71. Gulp, woman, wanna give me a heart attack? Jennythenipper… Interesting info.

    John, nothing to say against the study you cited. Note, however, the one I cited that shows orange juice improving the mineral status of kids.

    Michael, Ryan Koch said he knew of an amazonian aborigen with good health and and excellent face development which ate really big amounts of unrefined sugar along with his tribe. I would like to hear of that.

    Reply
  72. Jenny,

    "Sugar consumption tripled in Jane Austen's lifetime (still low by modern American standards)"

    Wow that's amazing. I love trivia like that. How would they have measured such a thing?

    Reply
  73. @Kurt I will be starting on the milk diet on Sunday. I have 6 empty plastic 1 liter (1 quart) juice bottles, much lighter then glass. I plan to pour out the milk the night before and let it raise to room temperature. I will be bringing either 4 or 5 liters to work and sipping all day, then finish the rest in the evening. I'll be trying for 4 to 6 weeks, so should get some questions around the office… I wish I could do this laying in bed, but in this day and age that is not possible for me.

    Good luck with your 2 week trail, keep us upto date.

    Reply
  74. @ undertow – Are you doing the 1-2 day fast or are you jumping right in?
    I found out that where I will be working in Dallas area there are tons of raw milk available in the area (its legal there) so I may be able to extend my two weeks into 4 weeks. I will have to have a cheat day I fly down there, though.

    Reply
  75. @EL 66K

    Michael, Ryan Koch said he knew of an amazonian aborigen with good health and and excellent face development which ate really big amounts of unrefined sugar along with his tribe. I would like to hear of that.

    Yeah I read that, but without any real specifics I can't intelligently comment.

    Reply
  76. This note is for Chris rosenfelt concering the yellow B.M's!!! we owned a Jersey cow and dairy goats for 20 odd years and in the spring when the milkers freshen…there are traces of colostrum in the milk. The colostrum colors the offsprings B.M.'s and also anyone else who consumes the milk. Not sure if this was already discussed.

    Reply
  77. Jenny – I like your nutritional analysis of Austin! William Duffy pointed out in The Sugar Blues that England's health declined far longer ago due to easy sugar access, thanks to their imperialism. I think Duffy oversimplifies things a bit when it comes to sugar (can all cases of demonic possession or schizophrenia truly be attributed to sugar???), but I'm sure we all have a mental image of the Brits with their crooked teeth and vulnerability to disease.

    Since I'm mostly of British decent, I know I've got that generational degeneration going. Jaw and teeth and immune system are a mess! And my kids seem even worse off. Bugger it! I am trying to explain to hubby that he's from hardy German peasant stock, so he'll have far better tolerance to crap food than the rest of us (he keeps reminding me that he eats terribly and yet is fine).

    On fruit – I think if you're already healthy, some fruit binging is not going to kill you. But sometimes, when you're healing, a little extremism might be necessary.

    For the past year, I've eaten realllly healthy, basically HED-style, I was realizing. 3000+ calories a day, on a 120lb girl. No food group was excluded, although I was into raw – meat and dairy included, so not a lot of starches, they're not so good raw. But along with a raw lifestyle goes huge fruit and honey and nut consumption. Better than sugar, etc (and yes, I was the kind who would eat sugar straight from the bag if nothing else was available), so that's why I call it healthy. But 5-6 sweet apples a day, plus raw dessert, plus honey in everything… still high fructose and high Omega 6! And we needed to eat 6+ times a day or we'd get shaky. Then after xmas I switched to completely low carb, to kill the sugar habit and the candida I was sure we had to have. I agree with Matt, you have to go waaaay longer than 2 weeks to kick the sugar habit.

    Now we only eat fruit for dessert, but still eat starch, and acne's gone (on me, not the teenage boy), smelliness is better, and mucky-mouth is gone (which was worse when we were anti-candida). My teeth are shiny without effort, and strong (I used to be able to wiggle them all).

    Now we're eating real HED style, and in two weeks, I have gained only 6 lbs – but most of it seems to be in my hiney, based on how tight my jeans are! Still, I've been shoveling in enough food to feed an entire small nation. And my question to Matt is, how 'bout them satiety hormones? When do they kick in? Last night I could barely move, I ate so much – my body felt stuffed, but my stomach kept saying, "I would like to eat more". I'm like the Japanese kid with hot dogs, I can just keep going, and nobody knows where it fits. And I've always been that way. It worries me that I don't seem to have a pause button… you say appetite will naturally decrease, and logically I know I'm past full… and every part of my body except stomach says I'm past full… any clues?

    My other question is, my temperature jumps all over the darn place. Sometimes with mouth being lower than arm, sometimes one arm two degrees different from the other. One day can be two degrees different from the next. I take my temp the way you suggest. It's a brand new thermometer, so I don't think it's that. Any ideas on that one?

    Reply
  78. I think the "evidence" against fructose is becoming a house of cards. I'll leave these claims below:

    - Why don't the scientists experiment fructose with chimpanzees rather than rats? Their digestive system is much more similar to humans.
    - Just because high triglycerides is associated with insulin resistance, it doesn't necessarily mean that high triglycerides is the cause of insulin resistance. Rather, it could be the reverse: insulin resistance causes high triglycerides.
    - Just because you have high blood glucose, it doesn't necessarily mean that your metabolism is too slow to burn them. Inflammation can increase blood glucose regardless of how fast your metabolism is.
    - Just because you have high blood triglycerides, it doesn't necessarily mean that your metabolism is too slow to burn them. In a healthy person, any extra triglycerides will be stored in adipose tissue.
    - Just because fructose increases triglyceride production, it doesn't necessarily mean that it increases fasting triglyceride levels.

    Reply
  79. It would be great to actually have Peat write a post, especially since his ideas fit in here. It is easy to get a basic picture of his suggested diet, but there are so many paradoxical statements that sometimes it's hard to trust him.

    -he promotes coffee, yet seems to always want to minimize cortisol and free fatty acids
    -he promotes carbs, yet is against tryptophan (in regards to serotonin)
    -he criticizes in vitro lipid experiment results, yet then cites them to support his point (rancidity of oils over time)
    -he makes multiple remarks on free fatty acids causing insulin resistance (is this not simply physiological and temporary to prevent hypoglycemia?)

    Maybe these are factored into his recommendations, maybe not–it would just be nice to have come clarification/explanation…

    Jannis, one of Peat's "interesting studies" does not include Houssay preventing diabetes with coconut oil and sugar. Peat merely states this–I'm not saying it's incorrect, but I also couldn't find verification that it was true…

    Reply
  80. John -

    on coffee, Peat makes a point of coffee always being drunk with a meal, or with milk/cream or sugar. the stress response from coffee comes from it being ingested without the fuel for the subsequent metabolism increase. if there is carbohydrate with the coffee, no fatty acids or cortisol will be released.

    Reply
  81. Lorelie – Jumping, unstable temps indicate impaired adrenals.

    Reply
  82. @Kurt, I will be skipping the fasting before hand

    Michael provided this info to rosenfeltc:

    "Preparing your body for a longer liquid diet is always a good idea. But once again, while I have done that for traditional fasting I have never done that for the milk diet. Ate normally one day and started milk dieting the next day. Keep in mind also that using skimmed milk is a lot more like a traditional fast and thus the 2 day preparation period might be necessary. On a full fat milk diet I'm not so sure."

    Reply
  83. I didn't fast before my milk diet, either. I generally do terrible on fasting, so I'd prefer to skip it whenever possible. I did, however, eat light the night before starting on the milk.

    Reply
  84. For those starting the Milk Diet:

    Here’s what Doctor Porter says:
    “In the case of a patient commencing the milk diet and taking about six quarts, should diarrhea occur and continue for more than thirty-six hours, with passages loose, sour or greenish, or containing small undigested curds, it is evident that the bowels are unable to digest all the food. The amount, therefore, must be reduced about one-half until solid movements occur only once or twice daily. Too little milk will cause constipation, and then the amount must be increased. I have seen cases where a variation in the daily amount taken, of two glasses, would make the difference between constipation and diarrhea.”

    Translation:
    Too much milk = diarrhea
    Too little milk = constipation

    Reply
  85. Thanks for the article Kilton.

    And thanks Gazelle. That is pretty much what 180 is all about. How can we eat and live like that, not even giving much thought to food other than how enjoyable it is without being overweight and sick as a result?

    Reply
  86. Danyelle: They measured sugar consumption, I think just by estimating the amount of sugar imported into England. I assume it wasn't all sitting around in piles in warehouses. People were gobbling it up as fast as the slaves could make it.

    If you guys really care, I've written a fair amount about it at my blog, The Jane Austen Diet.

    Reply
  87. rosenfelt

    i'm not registering at blip just to comment on the video so hope you still get to read this.

    maybe you've been asked this as it seems pretty obvious, but what happens if you reverse the way you measure your pits. it seems each time you measure, the temps go up since you've been warming them up more and more. that just makes sense.

    Reply
  88. How do you know if a research studies are valid? Or how do you know good research from bad research? I am not talking about research that has been blatantly been bought and paid for by a company to sell a product?

    Do you know much about the true scientists that Ray Peat has learned from, studied intensely and highly respects? There are very few real scientist left today. Let's take any of the scientists who do research today and let's compare them. We will be hard pressed to find one or two of them that could hold a candle to the scientists that Ray has learned from and references.

    Your youtube video on fructose and Dr. Peat is void of any real scientific proof.

    Please email Ray why you think he is incorrect, state your case provide all the scientific research you can and let's see what happens.
    It is amazing you think you understand him and his thinking "Since he doesn't take any of these things into account in his articles that I'm aware, I haven't had much desire to contact him personally for his beliefs about it. The quote above describes why he believes what he does, I know why he believes that, and I know that there are other factors that he is definitely NOT taking into consideration that potentially are far more important and relevant to the big picture. "

    You are pretty arrogant to say that. If he was sitting in front of you he would make your head spin with his knowledge, experience and understanding of the body and real research. Ray is a gentleman and would not even be trying to insult you with his knowledge.

    You are right in the video, you do need to review his work more thoroughly in the future. You talk about large habitual use of OJ and ice cream being the issue. Is it really compared to the effects of eating grains/starchy vegetables, beans and legumes- bread, rice, pasta, cereal etc. when they convert straight to glucose in the blood and have no fructose to stimulate glucagon to counter balance insulin's lowering effect on blood sugar? Not to mention all the baggage that comes along with them such as PUFAS phytoestrogens, etc.? Ray is not saying just eat fructose he is saying eat fructose and glucose. He is just saying stay away from complex carbohydrates that covert directly into glucose in the blood as they will cause a sharper and bigger drop in blood sugar which will then create more hunger than if OJ or ice cream was consumed. If blood sugar levels are more stable, and they will be with sucrose over glucose, then we don't see hormones such as adrenaline, cortisol, glucagon and growth hormone coming to save the day and raise up blood sugar but with many negative consequences.

    Fructose can be used for making energy much more readily than glucose. Eating sucrose will raise metabolic rate vs. complex carbs. Start having your clients test this by taking their temps after consuming OJ vs. complex carbs and see what happens.

    The problem is not OJ or ice cream it is the consumption of grains in all it's forms and the baggage that comes with them. Even if we eat soaked steel cut oatmeal or other unprocessed grains their effects on our system as a whole are much worse than OJ and sucrose. If we had to make our own grain products from scratch the majority of people would not eat them because of the tremendous amount of work it would take. Where would we know to look for (let alone what they would even look like) wheat, millet, quinoa, rice, oats, etc. if someone said walk outside and get me some whole untouched grains?

    Is leptin really a good thing? Have you read the research below?

    Pathol Oncol Res. 2006;12(2):69-72. Epub 2006 Jun 24. Leptin–from regulation of fat metabolism to stimulation of breast cancer growth. Sulkowska M, Golaszewska J, Wincewicz A, Koda M, Baltaziak M, Sulkowski S.

    Reply
  89. Good response Doug.

    What I do is weigh all of the information I come across against all the other information I've come across, personal experience, the experience of others, history, epidemiology, and the true sciences – like physiology and biochemistry.

    Actually, glucose outperforms sucrose in keeping blood sugar stable. This was monitored more carefully by Melvin Page and Weston A. Price in his 25 years of laboratory research than nearly anyone else. Melvin Page in particular was not a scientist. He was a man who healed people of a wide array of health problems and was even able to prove that he had done so in court during a malpractice case (he was a dentist practicing as a general practitioner and shamed his accusers who were told by the judge to pay closer attention to what he was doing).

    In fact, sucrose was found to be the most disruptive substance to blood sugar and calcium to phosphorous ratios of any other substance Page could find, and he tested them all.

    Fructose and glucagon? How about the protein found in starches and glucagon? No wonder starches are so much more satiating than orange juice, and don't result in blood sugar crashes. A simple look at the glucose curves in Terry Shintani's Good Carbohydrate Revolution will show you that. In fact, Francine Kauffman of the American Diabetes Association has come up with a miraculous way to keep her Diabetic patients blood sugar stable while they sleep – consume some corn starch before bed (not sucrose).

    History shows clearly that the consumption of legumes, starches, grains, etc. were all part of a healthy diet not leading to diabetes, heart disease, caner, etc., as was fruit even though no society ate more fruit than starchy tubers or grains.

    When sugar and white flour were introduced, the health of all citizens in all society's declined and modern diseases emerged. They are guilty until proven innocent and Peat's work, while interesting like the work of dozens of others that I've come across, does not PROVE anything, especially when the bulk of his stance stems from postprandial insulin levels as indicated by the quote referenced in the comments.

    Quite simply, the higher the insulin spike, the higher the leptin spike. The higher the leptin spike, the more the metabolism is driven upwards and the hunger driven downwards. On a meal-to-meal basis this is insignifant, what matters is what happens in the long run, and glucose both raises leptin and increases leptin sensitivity while fructose does neither. Straight glucose is the tool to raising metabolism – the ultimate goal of Peat's work, not fructose or other sugars such as sucrose which contain a large portion as fructose.

    That is just how it works. I'm not aware of a refutation of that.

    Reply
  90. Have you read any of Ray Peat's books? Generative Energy, Progesterone & Orthomolecular Medicine, PMS to Menopause, etc.? Do you really think you are qualified to comment on his work? Do you notice the amount and quality of his references in his books and online articles? Where are your references?

    Do you own a glucometer? Why don't you do your own experiment and take your fasting blood sugar then drink a glass of orange juice and measure your blood sugar 3-4 times per hour for 4 hours and do the same with potatoes and let's see what happens. Put your opinions where your mouth is and let's see what happens to blood sugar levels.

    Can you explain to all of us the various ways PUFAS that are in grains, starchy veggies, beans, legumes and fish cause problems with the thyroid, the liver, hamper the cells ability to produce energy at the cellular level etc.? You seem to over look this.

    Can you also explain how the majority of vegetables damage the gut since we don't have a rumen?

    Can you explain the puffiness in your face? Do think it is caused from your diet?

    If you are really interested in understanding Ray Peat and his work please let me know and I will tell you how to get started with a program created around his work. In the meantime please provide good references from real scientists, read all his books and articles thoroughly.

    Reply
  91. I wasn't commenting on Ray Peat's work, I commented on Ray Peat's beliefs about various sugars and how they affect human metabolism long-term instead of just postprandial levels which are insignificant.

    I have a glucometer, and I have proven that I can keep my postprandial glucose levels below 75 mg/dl consuming over 1 pound of potatoes at a meal. I also showed that going on a vegan diet for 2 weeks caused my postprandial glucose to go to 173 mg/dl on a mixed meal (containing sucrose in all fairness), and that overfeeding following a 5-month calorie deficit and a vegan diet that lowered my body temperature by 1.7 degrees F caused my face to be puffy due to the 22 pounds of fat I gained in less than 60 days.

    Melvin Page, who was not a rinky-dink scientist wading through a bunch of useless studies but actually a health professional that solved people's health problems and developed conclusions of his own based on his observations and experience showed that by removing sucrose from the diet, he could normalize the glucose levels of over half of his patients in just 3 days – clearing up health problems almost immediately.

    I also explain how I lost 7.5 pounds the first 4 months of the year eating to appetite of whatever I could dream of eating.

    Vegetables damaging the gut or fish causing thyroid problems – along with the belief that white sugar is a health food are conclusions that Peat has come to that make me wonder if he has some form of inability to make a logical conclusion about human health seeing that countless humans eating tons of vegetables, grains, and/or fish have been found to be cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and "fill in the blank" free.

    I don't use studies as ways to come up with conclusions that are incorrect, illogical, and easily disputable like that of Peat – and other scientists to an even greater degree.

    Peat is not the legendary nutritional hero that you've been led to believe. You don't have to be seduced by his work. The last thing the world needs is more people believing that white sugar is a health food – when lots of high PUFA diets have been healthful, but diets with white sugar have always brought demise to mankind in every corner of the globe.

    Reply
  92. I have nothing left to say. It looks like you are happy with what you think you know and don't really want to understand Ray's work because you already think you do. I do not want to disturb your happiness.

    Reply
  93. This is why I like Stephan Guyenets approach to nutrition to much. Science is great and stuff, but when it all comes together you cannot ignore the evolutionary context and practical examples of the helathy primitive cultures around the world.

    Fact is, humans have been eating vegetables for millenia, they have been eating fish, they have been eating starch, they have been eating fruit. Our bodies are perfectly capable of handling those foods and actually benefit from it to the most degree. Whether you wanna take it so far as to eliminate grains or dairy is up to you, although I believe this is unnecessary in most cases.

    Science is great, science is awesome, I love science. But the human body is a complex system and I doubt that anybody will ever be able to put together a comprehensive picture of human health and nutrition based solely on science. Sciense has its limits and we shouldn't assume that our scientific research has already brought us so far as to completely understand the human body, this is naive. Ultimately science is just a creation of our very own human minds and does only bring us that far. To really know what's best nutrition wise one has to look at the whole picture. But the problem is, one will probably never be able to do that. So our best guess right know is to use the results of modern science and review it in the context of our evolutionary habits. We simply cannot assume that our science is good enough (yet) to completely drop the evolutionary context and practical experience out and create a diet that only revolves around scientific research.

    In my opinion, this is the typical human mistake to assume that we "know better" than our bodies or nature. This simply is not the case. We as a species have still a lot to learn and probably never will be able to objectively grasp everything around us, our animal brains are simply not made for that.

    Reply
  94. Shame on you, Michael for shamelessly plugging your blog!

    ….

    Nah, just kidding. ;-) You're making a good point.

    Reply

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>