In the book 180 Degree Metabolism: The Smart Strategy for Fat Loss, I mentioned how the primary driver of leptin resistance and/or excess fat gain in general without the corresponding decrease in hunger and increase in metabolism is unknown. With some All-American speculation, I came up with what I believed to be the 5 most common causes of excess fat accumulation.
Dieting, stress, inflammation, and excessive fructose intake all got their own special chapters. In addition to that, I mentioned Seth Roberts and the Flavor-Calorie Association Theory of obesity that I got super nerded-out on last week in THIS POST.
Out of all causes of obesity; however, there is no doubt that Seth’s explanation ? that foods that exert the most stimulus to the reward centers in our brains and thus causing a rise in weight set point (the ?ponderstat?), is the most promising. Not only is it the most promising, but it helps to explain multiple phenomena. Let’s get into it a little deeper, and clear up some of the misconceptions that metastasized last week.
First off, I explained my current diet, which contains about 1/3 of the fat that I have been eating over the last several years (call it 60-70 grams per day averaged out throughout the week as opposed to 180-210 grams per day) as ?bland.
Oops, ?bland? is a major misnomer. Actually, my food is FAR more flavorful than it has been over the past several years, as I have substituted things like spices and potent salsa LIKE THIS for butter, creamy cheeses, heavy use of coconut oil, and fatty cuts of meat. No one would argue that salsa has less flavor than any of the above-mentioned foods. My salsa is like a nuclear bomb hitting my tongue.
But what my food is, or at least was initially, was less pleasurable to eat. Eating boiled potatoes with salsa as opposed to eating fried potatoes covered in parmesan cheese and truffle oil has a different level of satisfaction ? just like eating a strawberry on a lettuce leaf has a different level of satisfaction than eating a chocolate-covered strawberry topped with whipped cream on a shortcake.
Now, if you love potatoes covered with creamy Fromager D?Affinois, there’s no foreseeable reason to stop eating them that way. That wasn’t the point. The point, rather, is furthering the discussion about ways you can get your body to cooperate with losing weight if weight loss is something you are seeking. In other words, what can you eat that helps increase your metabolism in relation to your appetite?
First, let’s examine the extreme importance of that question. If it takes 3,000 calories to satisfy your appetite, and your metabolism burns 3,000 calories in a normal day, then eating to appetite will neither cause weight loss or weight gain. Sure, you could slowly replace fat with muscle while in calorie balance from doing something like Metabolic Enhancement Training, and I hope to post about that next week, but for the most part your weight is unlikely to change much while in calorie balance.
Actually, I shouldn’t downplay what is at least physically possible. Since 6 pounds of muscle and 1 pound of fat contain the same amount of calories, theoretically you could lose 10 pounds of fat, gain 60 pounds of muscle, and increase your weight by 50 pounds without a calorie surplus. You’re not likely to do anything like this to such an extreme, but mathematically, it is possible. Likewise, you could lose 50 pounds while in calorie balance on the other side of that coin. I’m sure Arnold, during his heyday, could have easily achieved a 50-pound weight loss while in calorie balance by doing a prolonged juice fast and taking a break from the weights and the roids.
But assuming no change in muscle to fat ratio – when your appetite is satisfied on fewer calories than you burn metabolically you will lose weight. Likewise, when you need more calories to satisfy your appetite than your body burns you will gain weight. This can happen at high calorie intakes which is most typical, or low calorie intakes (if you have to average 1,600 calories per day to satisfy your hunger but your body refuses to burn more than 1,500 on average, you will gain weight ? more than 10 pounds per year with such a disparity in the appetite to metabolism ratio).
Okay, so that’s outta the way. Let’s get going further with the Flavor-Calorie Theory.
First of all, forget Seth Roberts and what he calls the Flavor-Calorie Theory. What he is really talking about is Pleasure Center Activation Theory (PCAT) of weight set point.
Yeah, it was time to bust out a new acronym. PCAT is a sweet one, and it can also be referred to as ?Poodie Tat. Too many people were getting caught up on ?flavor? and not focusing on the real meat of the theory, which is that reward centers in the human brain that guide us towards foods that have the most bang for the buck exert a powerful influence over our weight set point.
The primary pleasure center substance is called dopamine ? or ?dope,? and it be some good shit.
It’s really very useful. The ?land of milk and honey? was not called the ?land of lettuce and lentil sprouts? because lettuce and lentil sprouts don’t activate the pleasure centers in the brain to the same extent of milk and honey ? which are without question the most calorie-dense, rapidly-ingested, rapidly-absorbed calories that can be consumed on God’s green earth without some form of refinement (including cooking). Remember that liquids activate pleasure centers more than solids (to a certain extent ? once the diet is 100% liquid that is no longer true? monotony rules and it has the opposite effect).
But modern foodstuffs and substances exploit the pleasure centers and spike dopamine to levels that real food, no matter how calorie-dense or flavorful, is simply not capable of doing to the same degree.
In terms of promoting a rise in weight set point, which increases the appetite to metabolism ratio (AM Ratio ? kinda like AM Radio), the most powerful promoters seem to be substances that are the most sweet. Saccharine, Aspartame, and Sucralose (Splenda) cause much greater increase in the AM Ratio than plain ol? sugar. Of course, throwing caffeine into the mix activates those pleasure centers even more. Diet drinks are the perfect obesigenic substances when paired with a calorie-dense meal. Say what you want about Stevia, but that is another dime-a-dozen sweetener for raising your weight set point ? it just comes without so much of the neurotoxicity of aspartame, or the bowel destruction of sucralose.
Anyway, I will continue to try to poke holes in PCAT like I have over the past several years after coming across the work of Seth Roberts, but as of now I have little doubt that the PCAT explains most cases of obesity ? and by eating foods that trigger a smaller dopamine response one can easily become satisfied on fewer calories and lose weight without a revolt from the metabolism (drop in body temperature).
More reasons why I find the Pleasure Center Activation Theory to be so compelling:
1) Ethnic groups with a history of eating foods that are not very calorie dense, or without a long history of alcohol use (which spikes the hell out of dopamine) are naturally FAR more susceptible to obesity, diabetes, and alcoholism than Whitey, who has consumed milk, honey, grain, and alcohol in abundance for thousands of years ? and has consumed refined sugar and grain longer than most other Ethnic groups.
This suggests to me that many various ethnic groups have much more highly-attuned dopamine receptors (although dopamine is just one pleasure neurotransmitter, serotonin could certainly be involved as well) ? to have a more acute sense for calorie-dense and rapidly-absorbed calories for the purposes of survival. When encountering alcohol as well as foods that are more calorie dense, highly-sweetened, and rapidly-absorbed, such as is the case with the Nauru of the Pacific (above) and the Pima of Arizona (the two fattest, most diabetic peoples on earth) who saw their sparse, lean, fibrous diets replaced by tons of animal and vegetable fat, soft drinks, refined grain, packaged junk foods, and alcohol, a huge rise in weight set point struck a large percentage of the population.
2) Alcoholism is considered to have a very strong hereditary component. Obesity researchers know very little about what causes obesity, but they do know that the’strongest correlation by far?is heredity. In fact, twins that are separated at birth and live separate lives with different families and different diets and influences almost invariably end up at the exact same weight ? and even store excess fat in the exact same place on their bodies. Neurotransmitter profiles are certainly hereditary, and would explain the connections between both alcoholism and heredity and obesity and heredity.
3) It seems after hearing hundreds of testimonials for both weight loss and weight gain following my advice to eat to appetite of a ?high-everything? whole foods (slower absorption) no sugar (unsweet), low to no alcohol diet, that the prime determinant of whether a person loses weight or not can be directly linked to the degree of pleasure center activation of the diet they ate preceding RRARF. In other words, if they were eating to appetite of fast food, doughnuts, Pepsi or diet drinks, white bread, and beer and switched to a whole foods diet with no sugar or alcohol, there was typically an instant drop in weight set point ? causing rapid weight loss and presumably?a big decrease in calorie intake.
Those who were eating a calorie-restricted diet, a carbohydrate-restricted diet, an already unsweetened diet with no alcohol, a vegan diet, a raw foods diet, or any other version of a diet that provided LESS pleasure center activation, often GAINED weight eating to appetite on RRARF and had a sudden increase in appetite and calorie intake. These people were the equivalent, basically, of ethnic groups’that are highly sensitive to weight gain when switching from a low-calorie density diet with very little alcohol and sweetness to standard “Western” fare.
To read more about this, please check out the eBook DIET RECOVERY.
Final Thoughts?
The PCAT is a similar theory to the Thrifty Gene Hypothesis, except that the abundance of food is not the reason our ?biology that once insured survival has now turned against us. Rather, it is the nature of that food, not the quantity of it, that has taken the biological mechanisms of those predisposed to fat gain and switched on the fat storage programs. I believe these same mechanisms underlie many forms of addiction.
Unfortunately, even if this is the undeniable way that most people gain excess body fat and run into metabolic disease, trying to lose body fat and reverse disease remains a tricky thing to solve that reeks of tail-chasing (the PCAT chasing?its tail, not a dog). It is tail-chasing because simply eating whole foods that have low-calorie density, like Joel Fuhrman’s nutritarian diet for example, which by definition is all about eating foods with the lowest calorie-density, upregulates the pleasure center receptors even more. So it in no way enables a person to be able to eat the calorie-dense foods that the rest of society eats, and that everyone enjoys, without becoming increasingly sensitive to their fattening effects. But I guess the good news is that the more you eat low-dopamine triggering foods the more tasty they become (trust me, when your pleasure neurotransmitters are upregulated enough, even the blandest food on earth will taste incredible).
This scores yet another big point in favor of the fat loss strategies of guys like Martin Berkhan and Joel Marion ? who punctuate plain, whole foods-centric weight loss diets with major Cheesecake and pizza slayings. Berkhan has also been known to spank some Heineys.
Could it be that this acute, infrequent,?monster dopamine rush is enough to keep the dopamine and/or serotonin receptors from opening up? Could this enable your average 100-pounds overweight Joe to take advantage of low-calorie density foods that induce weight loss while still being able to eat Brie-bombed potatoes and Jambalaya without falling off the deep end once ideal weight has been achieved? I dunno. We’ll see I guess.
Great post Matt! Can't wait for the peat fans to "prove" you wrong… I can almost hear them rushing to their keyboards
This makes a lot of sense and gives another reason why different types of restricting diets are every hard to be satisfied on, even if they are nutrient dense.
In the past you have said ruminant animals convert PUFA's to mainly saturated fats, where is this from? Just for a reference.
"But I guess the good news is that the more you eat low-dopamine triggering foods the more tasty they become (trust me, when your pleasure neurotransmitters are upregulated enough, even the blandest food on earth will taste incredible)."
I guess that explains the native crying over rice.
Great job getting into the nitty gritty of Seth's theory, and expanding on it. It makes a lot of sense, and really ties together how areas beyond diet may also contribute to the fat set point going up and down.
:o)
Really great post!
I think this was well needed for a lot of people at 180 including myself. It seemed that people were spinning in circles and screaming.
This really helped give me a rational for some of those outliers who can eat lots of sugar yet still be "thin". Though I still am not fully convinced that this theory is true/relevant.
The interesting thing about this theory is that it is very encompassing, like completely in fact.
Though what was your reference you used for the twin thing?
So for the last three weeks I have applied a "lower" fat (a dollop-a do ya) high starch, moderate protein diet with a once a week huge (large bacon pizza, beers, plus breakfast, and lunch) feeding days and I have leaned out almost to the point I was at during low carb. Of course this is with much better skin, mood, and about 12-15lbs heavier.
It has become a very convincing approach for me. Though I don't really plan on being strict about this, I was just curious.
How about trickle dosing some "dope" by using nicotine patches?
It may also mobilise a little extra fat burning by lowering LPL activity.
Oh and I have to admit that I was on the road for about a week and half of those three weeks and I bought a lot of food at……Walmart!!! I know, I know. In cans, and not organic!
How come almost everyone who likes/follows Peat thinks he is right about absolutely everything all the time? Of course, many things he claims are true, but sometimes his references are hard to follow (or aren't there).
What about the french? Healthiest and slimmest population in the western world. Arguably also the western culture that places the most emphasis on food being a pleasurable experience.
Also, doesn't this theory predict that maintaining a low weight while preventing starvation mode should be easier the blander and less pleasurable your diet is? That doesn't seem to jive with the experiences of most failed dieters with restrictive diets. Nor with my own personal experience, as the easiest time I've had maintaining a low weight (prior to HED) was when I moved from my usual very low-fat fare to incorporate more tasty fat (but before I went total low-carb). I'm not just talking about appetite here but about poor glucose regulation, fatigue, low body temp, all the standard starvation symptoms.
Finally, how can you explain the different effects of the HED and the SAD diet on these pleasure systems? In mine and probably others experience, doing the HED for several months completely eliminated sugar cravings and suppressed general appetite, whereas eating the SAD ad libitum for years never did anything of the sort, even though it is supposedly the most dopamine-stimulating diet. Why is it that both highly restrictive diets AND an ad libitum SAD diet can hypersensitize you to highly pleasurable foods, whereas doing the HED more or less abolishes this sensitivity? How does the PCAT account for that?
I'm still more into the theory that various environmental and lifestyle factors trick the body into activating the famine response. It seems you would have to ignore all the evidence pointing to that obesity is caused by a misguided famine response, leptin resistance, low metabolism, etc to make this theory work. The reason we have these hyper-pleasurable responses to sugar, fat, etc, is to signal the presence of energy dense foods, right? By extension, it should send your body the message that the environment is abundant with energy-dense high quality food. Why would the body respond to this message by initiating a famine response/leptin resistance? Aren't times of abundance when the body ought to be at it's most vibrant, virile and metabolically active?
Anyway, that was a good post and did much to clarify a theory which so far has seemed very murky to me. I can't help but being skeptical still though.
You deleted my vtec post??
Very interesting post, Matt, but I have to agree with Collden. Also, I don't understand the theoretical value of feasting on hyper tasty foods once in a while, since if the receptors stay closed, the normal food would be untasty and the addiction problem would continue. Is like curing cocaine addiction by feasting on cocaine every once in a while. ???
Althoug I don't know what Collden means by a low fat diet (quality of food).
Uggh, althoug…
Inactivity plays more of a role in fat gain than diet.
I would venture to guess a lot of the native groups prone to obesity also have endocrine damage.
if dopamine is low i think testosterone levels are low too
just thought I'd share this great photostream I found that has some cool shots of Kitavans:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/chaparralbrad/with/3778186166/
I like their boats. Looks like they place great importance on fishing.
And, of course, they are very fit people from the looks of it.
Your article was great one. But, I don't follow any for this tips , i do Yoga and little bit for exercise daily. This keeps me fit and loss weight..Hope people will do Yoga daily, which keeps there mind and soul together..anyways thanks for sharing!!
Really good article Matt, some very interesting points coming up now…… I find it interesting you think that artificial sweeteners could be more fattening than things like veggie oils…..
I don't eat any now, except a piece of gum here and there, but in the past I have lost weight and had stable blood sugar while drinking crazy amounts of diet drink. I stopped more because of the neurotoxicity and because eating artificial crap just doesn't make sense.
ANyways I have been trying this low fat high carb stuff for a few meals here and there and the results are pretty impressive. Definite body recomping while keeping temps up and feeling good (which is most important) I love the flexibility it gives to how I feel as I am always light yet satisfied when eating high natural starch and low fat.
Collden,
The French eat a diet that is pretty high in saturated fat and low in PUFA. They eat a lot milk products, especially cheese which gives them a lot of high quality protein.
I think that is much more important than any flavor associations.
Collden wrote: "What about the french? Healthiest and slimmest population in the western world. Arguably also the western culture that places the most emphasis on food being a pleasurable experience."
Sure, but is a Frenchman eating a French meal getting more of a dopamine kick than an American eating a Big Mac? If they've been eating that way since childhood, and for generations to boot, then the dopamine receptors are likely down-regulated. I don't think that "flavourfulness" is an absolute. In any case, the typical French diet is probably much closer to HED than the typical American diet. The French place a lot of emphasis on the quality and freshness of food, not processed, canned crap full of sugar, HFCS, or (quelle horreur) rape seed oil.
Very interesting and confusing as always. Reminds me of how effortless it was for me to remain thin, while meal skipping easily without increases in hunger, and eating naughty without fuss, when I was smoking cigarettes and didn't care about health. The cigarettes went, the health obsession kicked in and guessed where I am now… Yep… Appetite for 3 people, huge rebound gain and all the rest of it.
And I'd like to add… Rest of the family are going away for a few days. Once upon a time this would mean starving and exercising like crazy without risking anyone noticing. This time I'm having my own personal binge festival dedicated to the potato. Can't wait. LOL. Take that appetite.
I think I'm throwing my vote with Collden too. To me, PCAT sounds a bit…forced. Probably my favorite thing about HED is the happy factor — meals are so satisfying, my children don't bicker and are almost crazily cheerful, despite getting some SAD crap at other people's houses.
I'm sure if I had gained a bunch of weight that would be bumming me out. But I've been slamming the camembert for about 10 months and so far so good.
I guess, to be fair, that I have occasional "binges", like when I've gone to a wedding and had a glass of wine and dessert. But the idea of weekly cheesecake benders sounds suspicious to me — like something is wrong with the neurotransmitter profile for that to be appealing. And then kind of backsolving a theory to support doing it.
…hmm…Whenever I used to eat a pint of ice cream, I would crave a second. Now, after getting used to yams and rice, one pint is more than enough.
Tezza, I agree that the french diet is pretty close to the concept of HED, and they probably exert similar stabilizing effects on ones reward systems, minimizing the susceptibility to food addictions.
It comes back to the question of why the typical american diet does not stabilize the reward systems, while the equally (at least) pleasurable french diet and the HED do stabilize them. I don't see how the flavour-calorie theory can account for that. I think it more likely that the stability of your reward systems and susceptibility to hyper-pleasurable foods like fast foods and sweets, depends mostly on ones overall nutritional state and metabolic health.
Interesting thoughts guys.
The French are fat and getting much fatter, but it's not due to their historic good food, but rather, the dope junk foods that are infiltrating their diet.
Americans get fat because they eat 1,000 calorie bags of Cheetos in one sitting and wash it down with a 1-liter bottle of Pepsi and then get hungry 2 hours later for more food. Appetite mechanisms are tremendously perverted, but the question why still remains.
I guarantee that if you get in a laboratory and you test the dopamine response to a Big Mac, large order of fries, and a 32-ounce diet soda you will see a much, much larger dopamine response than anything in the traditional French diet. Cheese on a baguette can't compete. Starch cannot compete with sweet, as sweet is simply more rewarding. No one gets hooked on potatoes or boiled wheat berries.
This is probably also why when French people come to the U.S. they are shocked by the size of the soft drinks. They can't fathom wanting so much, much less actually drinking it.
As for consuming calorie-free sweeteners, they are not fattening as they don't contain any calories. The problem is that they cause a big spike in dopamine and make people seek out more sweet and calorie-dense foods and mega meals. With the lab animals fed saccharin and aspartame for example and allowed to eat to appetite, they went and started eating the hell out of sugary foods and total calories. They were running around satisfying – not a physiological need, but eating to satisfy a neurochemical need.
Eating potatoes with salsa I have never said to myself, "okay, Matt, you've had enough. You're full now. Stop eating."
Yet, if someone were to take a half eaten pint of Haagen Daz away from me during my sugared prime they could've lost their lives over it.
Although I have challenged such assertions, most theorists still believe that both insulin and leptin resistance, which go together almost always, are caused by a release of way too much insulin and leptin. This would only occur from massive overeating, and I'm saying that massive overeating is caused by addiction.
People who take 2 bites of a brownie and lose interest have no such addiction. People who have 1 beer and lose interest have no addiction.
One thing the HED may do effectively is perhaps raise dopamine levels – actually cause a larger generation of the chemical itself on a permanent basis. Increased nutritional quality and adequate caloric and macronutrient intake will do such a thing.
This in turn would make one less sensitive to addiction, as it is the person who has low dopamine levels and wide open dopamine receptors that is most sensitive to things that cause the biggest dopamine rush.
Anyway, good points about treating cocaine addiction by having a cocaine binge once every so often. I hesitated to add the part about cheesecake and pizza slaying because of that obvious contradiction.
But like I said I feel confident about the theory. How to manipulate the system to extract precise results is a much more complicated matter that we are far from solving.
Collden said:
"I think it more likely that the stability of your reward systems and susceptibility to hyper-pleasurable foods like fast foods and sweets, depends mostly on ones overall nutritional state and metabolic health."
Great point. But I also think all of this ties together. While dopamine receptors may be connected to weight, it can be downright impossible to stay away from hyper-stimulating foods if you aren't simultaneously trying to address metabolic deficiencies in some way.
And Collden, I would add that it's not as though people are making an informed choice between HED and SAD, having tried both to see which feels and tastes better. The 75-year cultural slide to processed food made the transition not very clear cut and obvious, as a little more processed food would get added each generation until the diet was totally adulterated but the people eating it had no other reference.
I agree that current nutritional and metabolic health, including neurotransmitter status, has a massive effect on diet choices. If you're feeling really low energy, depressed, and fat, it's hard to resist the short-term happy of dessert, and the connection people make is all about the moment of eating it, and not about the total effect on neurotransmitters that leaves a person feeling worse in the aftermath.
Here's another theory of mine. Traditionally, foods that had high flavor also had high nutrients with high energy (cheese, fruit). They were healthy for your body. It's very confusing to the body to have high-flavor without the accompanying nutrients (aspartame, cheetos, etc.). That could definitely cause an appetite increase. I'm also with the others who say HED (and similar like the French diet) stabilize you. My appetite for things like dessert and wine have gone WAY down. Now a few bites or a small glass really are enough. -Amy
I wonder if downregulated dopamine system can be restored to prior function. This has implications beyond HED.
One of the things I always noticed about myself was my low susceptibility to addiction. I never got into caffeine or nicotine. My alcohol intake was low and sociable although I would occasionally binge, and I never had a problem maintaining it that way. And I quit pop spontaneously just because I decided I just didn't like it overall. But I was not a restrictive dieter and was always lean, and I ate SAD pretty heavily.
Fast forward to now. I had been doing low-carb and over-exercising and I think also compensating for being in a bad relationship. It surprises me how much I'd turned to caffeine, alcohol, and sugar for stimulation. And going to HED, I also gained undesired weight, but nothing drastic.
I think there's truth to the pleasure center activation theory, but I'm wondering how much. In theory, all our hormonal systems should be able to come back in line, including dopamine and seratonin. I would hate to think I'd really whacked one of those.
Overall it seems like this is more about lifestyle than diet. I was considering the other day why I was still having difficulty controlling my eating (sort of a Jon Gabriel type exercise). And I realized I was kind of upset and frustrated: with all the energy I'd spent on studying health, with slipping gradually into orthorexia (Gary Taubes and WAPF were big factors here), with all the enjoyment it cost me, and how it all just left me further behind. It was sort of an F you at something, I'm not sure exactly what.
Gabriel-
I think you may be dead wrong about hypersensitive native people on "primitive" diets having some kind of endocrine problem. In fact, take a Japanese person who is healthier than an American, raise them on American fare, and they have a much higher likelihood of becoming obese and diabetic than a typical Anglo-American.
We all know that Kitavans, rural Africans, isolated South Americans, etc. are the healthiest people in the world. However, when any of those people are exposed to Western food they are much more hypersensitive to it – and develop much higher obesity and diabetes rates.
At first I naturally resisted this idea, but Robert Pool brought up a good example when he compared the Pima Indians to the Sand Rat.
The Sand Rat, upon exposure to high-everything "chow" becomes massively obese and diabetic, whereas a normal strain of mice or rats will not. The difference, Pool and obesity researchers hypothesized, was because of the sand rat's natural diet of very fibrous, low-calorie density foods, low calorie intake in general, etc. from living in a sparse desert environment (similar to what the Pima endured prior to Western food exposure – the Pima also experienced famine right before Western food exposure – worst timing ever).
On Twins-
This was discussed in both Gina Kolata's Rethinking Thin and Robert Pool's Fat: Fighting the Obesity Epidemic in which actual obesity research was the focus of those two books.
On PUFA-
Jon Gabriel lost over 200 pounds eating an extremely high-PUFA diet. I also experienced no change in bodyweight from eating a high-PUFA diet of nearly 50 grams of PUFA per day when I was eating primarily raw foods and ate nuts relentlessly. Aurora lost 30 pounds eating 3-4 jars of peanut butter per week.
I'm not saying these are healthy practices, but the idea that PUFA, acting alone, exerts some impact on weight is totally false.
Watch this Jon Gabriel video which I was tempted to post on this blog post.
He talks about "no longer craving sweet foods," as he displaces more and more calories with low-nutrient density raw vegetables. He talks about the guy losing weight disinterested in a milkshake while he would kill for it while going back and forth between Atkins and Pritikin diets (which probably both reduced dopamine and/or serotonin), and other things that can be explained, to some extent, by PCAT.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O19OAYCueLo
Nell-
Good point. And the fact that I have no desire to eat cheesecake or junk food – especially eating to appetite on a high-starch diet, is a good indication that my neurotransmitter production is good. Both Berkhan and Marion (and Abel) diet hard during the week and are hungry by the time the cheesecake is served, so it's hard to compare what they do to someone like me who refuses to experience the slightest feeling of hunger ever again for one second of my life unless forced to.
Hi everyone,
It's Martin Verbeke. I jump in as French people have been mentioned a couple of times. I'm not really French but as I'm one hour away from France, speak French and have a holiday house in Cannes, I supposed I qualify more than anyone else here to speak in the name of the French people.
First of all, as Matt said, this is an old myth. Americans (especially the low carb crowd) love to bring it up all the time but it isn't true anymore. French people are getting fatter like everyone else. If I had to picture myself a French person, I'd see an old fat guy playing balls with an accent from Marseilles. This is simply not the case. Come to France, look around !!
But one thing is very very true: we cannot believe the size of your food portions in fast food restaurants. There's nothing like it here. No one would eat it. One of my best friends went to america for a whole year and that's the first thing he told me when I talked to him was this: "Oh my god, you can't imagine how much fat they eat. They fry everything, they're out of their minds !! And you should see the size of the food in McDonald's, their smallest meal is our largest !!". Keep in mind he was raised on a traditional french diet, which is high in fat. But you eat much much more oil than we do, that must be what shocked him.
Last week I went on holiday to Spain and we went to Burger king. I ordered a "triple whooper" from burger king. It was 1000cal. I ate it like it was nothing, seriously. Like empty food. I wanted more but knew it was not a good idea. My friends ordered a soda (150cal), some fries (300cal) and a cheeseburger (350cal) with it. No one said that they had eaten too much. But their average meal was 1600cal !! More than any of them could possibly eat in any traditional meal. Not even our famous "fondue au fromage" !!!
When I left Burger King, I thought that wondering why the world became population is becoming obese is pointless. This answer obviously lies in those foods and those foods alone. It's liek they hide the calories !!!
I'm sure anyone could eat 5000cal a day without even noticing if fed such meals all the time (which happens in the US).
Just one thing to say: you are fucking insane to have come up with such (bad tasting) caloric-dense foods. I don't know if my pleasure centers aren't ready for Burger King but the triple whooper was awful. Berk !!
Hi everyone,
It's Martin Verbeke. I jump in as French people have been mentioned a couple of times. I'm not really French but as I'm one hour away from France, speak French and have a holiday house in Cannes, I supposed I qualify more than anyone else here to speak in the name of the French people.
First of all, as Matt said, this is an old myth. Americans (especially the low carb crowd) love to bring it up all the time but it isn't true anymore. French people are getting fatter like everyone else. If I had to picture myself a French person, I'd see an old fat guy playing balls with an accent from Marseilles. This is simply not the case. Come to France, look around !!
But one thing is very very true: we cannot believe the size of your food portions in fast food restaurants. There's nothing like it here. No one would eat it. One of my best friends went to america for a whole year and that's the first thing he told me when I talked to him was this: "Oh my god, you can't imagine how much fat they eat. They fry everything, they're out of their minds !! And you should see the size of the food in McDonald's, their smallest meal is our largest !!". Keep in mind he was raised on a traditional french diet, which is high in fat. But you eat much much more oil than we do, that must be what shocked him.
Last week I went on holiday to Spain and we went to Burger king. I ordered a "triple whooper" from burger king. It was 1000cal. I ate it like it was nothing, seriously. Like empty food. I wanted more but knew it was not a good idea. My friends ordered a soda (150cal), some fries (300cal) and a cheeseburger (350cal) with it. No one said that they had eaten too much. But their average meal was 1600cal !! More than any of them could possibly eat in any traditional meal. Not even our famous "fondue au fromage" !!!
When I left Burger King, I thought that wondering why the world became population is becoming obese is pointless. This answer obviously lies in those foods and those foods alone. It's liek they hide the calories !!!
I'm sure anyone could eat 5000cal a day without even noticing if fed such meals all the time (which happens in the US).
Just one thing to say: you are fucking insane to have come up with such (bad tasting) caloric-dense foods. I don't know if my pleasure centers aren't ready for Burger King but the triple whooper was awful. Berk !!
AaronF:
Boy, I can relate to that. My addiction susceptibility increased dramatically during my die-hard dieting phase. I never had an inkling of desire for caffeine or alcohol until then. I can also think of numerous other habits that stimulate neurotransmitters that I never developed until my diet/lifestyle were really bad. Flash forward to now, and I've been able to drop many of those unwanted habits, I never desire alcohol and I very rarely even have a taste for coffee. I also don't have mad daily cravings for things like ice cream and chocolate the way I used to, though I could still go for them every now and then.
Brain chemistry is way outta my league but with a bipolar kid, an ADHD kid and an ex with recreational drug abuse addictions let’s just say I been on the neurotransmitter merry go round a time or two.
I can’t find my source right now but the theory of incentive salience says: (forgive the Wiki reference but I don’t have my source materials in front of me)
?Dopamine's role in experiencing pleasure has been questioned by several researchers. It has been argued that dopamine is more associated with anticipatory desire and motivation (commonly referred to as "wanting") as opposed to actual consummatory pleasure (commonly referred to as "liking").
So is the food the cart or the horse?
On the other hand the natural substrate for PPOs in bananas is dopamine so what’s up with Banana Girl?
My brain is in a whirl.
Brain chemistry is way outta my league but with a bipolar kid, an ADHD kid and an ex with recreational drug abuse addictions let’s just say I been on the neurotransmitter merry go round a time or two.
I can’t find my source right now but the theory of incentive salience says: (forgive the Wiki reference but I don’t have my source materials in front of me)
?Dopamine's role in experiencing pleasure has been questioned by several researchers. It has been argued that dopamine is more associated with anticipatory desire and motivation (commonly referred to as "wanting") as opposed to actual consummatory pleasure (commonly referred to as "liking").
So is the food the cart or the horse?
On the other hand the natural substrate for PPOs in bananas is dopamine so what’s up with Banana Girl?
My brain is in a whirl.
sorry for the double post
I'm another that thinks this seems forced. It makes sense when you're talking about switching diets, but it doesn't describe what happens when you're on a particular diet. If the reason you gain weight going from a low-carb diet to a balanced one is that the increased stimulation raises your set point, then how do you explain people who gain or can't lose weight on low-carb? I low-carbed for months on natural foods, no artificial sweeteners or refined stuff, and very rarely ate away from home. According to this theory my set point should have been very low, but I plateaued at 40 pounds overweight. Why was my set point still so high? As soon as I started eating carbs — sticking specifically to non-stimulating ones like potatoes and rice — the weight started coming back on. On the other hand, we all know people who eat nothing but junk food, but are super-thin: why don't they have high set points?
I think this theory might have a place, at least in explaining why drastic changes in diet cause swings in weight that don't continue. But I don't think it's anywhere near the whole story of obesity, and inflammation still looks like a more likely driver of leptin resistance and overall set-point to me.
AaronF-
You said:
"One of the things I always noticed about myself was my low susceptibility to addiction. I never got into caffeine or nicotine. My alcohol intake was low and sociable although I would occasionally binge, and I never had a problem maintaining it that way. And I quit pop spontaneously just because I decided I just didn't like it overall. But I was not a restrictive dieter and was always lean, and I ate SAD pretty heavily."
Yes, great point. I liked sugar but hated caffeine, couldn't stand alcohol and didn't start drinking at all until age 23. I had low susceptibility to addiction.
Heavy exercise and trying to actively eat more/and exercise less every single day in a battle vs. myself massively increased the pull of sugar.
Starving myself in the Wilderness for 44 days took it to the next level, making alcohol much more appealing, caffeine irrestible – 10 cups of Earl Grey daily (partly because I was always cold all the time too), and sugar became something that was no longer tasty but my absolute nemesis (ate more than a pound of candy daily).
I do think that dopamine and serotonin production can be restored to levels that decrease addiction and susceptibility to addiction as that has been a repeated theme since day 1.
It's not "metabolic health" per se as Collden suggests, as the Mexican Maycoba ("wild" Pima) are very metabolically healthy and massively sensitive to processed foods and alcohol, but I do think levels can easily be brought up to a level in which addiction more or less disappears.
It's Martin again. Don't pay attention to the numerous language mistakes. I couldn't be bothered to check what I wrote. Many of my sentences start in on way and finish in another. I'm ill and haven't slept well in days. Sorry guys. If you want some fun, you can read what I wrote while picturing a heavy French accent in your head lol.
I also wanted to add that I don't think that anyone could eat 1600cal of MNP-style meal at one sitting except Takeru Kobayashi lol. So obviously people with easy acces to Burger King are bound to be fatter than rural Chinese eating plain rice. There's no need to waste our time anymore lol. Let's just burn all those stupid fast food restaurants once and for all lol.
Kidding.
Aaron-
Losing weight is tricky. The body adapts to any single type of regular eating, low-carb especially, which causes big declines in T3 and increases in cortisol and insulin resistance more so than other diets.
But you did instantly gain weight when your diet increased in pleasure, which is the point.
The point is that decreasing the pleasure of your foods may make you increasingly susceptible to gaining weight when you return to pleasurable foods, which is another reason why dieting in any form is tail-chasing.
Martin-
Classic comments by the way. If people want to talk about how people eat where obesity is uncommon (unlike France) they should be talking about the Andes villagers, the Kitavans, and those living in sub-saharan Africa. Maybe southeast Asia as well.
Matt,
Is it the actual pleasure that causes the body to go into a fat storage mode or is it merely pleasure causing hyperphagia which in turn leads to weight gain?
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/ajcn.2010.29620v1
in this study, ONLY STARCHY carbs caused type 2 diabetes…. just sayin!
As I'm reading this and other previous posts about PCAT, I can't help but think that this is putting a scientific spin on the old adage that anything that tastes good must be bad for you (and vice versa). :-)
Speaking from personal experience, looking back, when I was a fat kid, the only things I was eating in any quantity that I dont eat now (am very fit now, more so since including more starch) was sodas and donuts.
I remember after school I would always go get a cheap 25 cent soda and some donuts and eat them. I dont know why I was starving so much. Maybe because I hadnt had enough calories during school.
I have no doubt that PUFA's and HFCS had wreaked havoc on my metabolism.
Over the years I have developed this sensitivity to my own homeostasis. I can just 'feel' when my metabolism is working, and when it is not. When my digestion is perfect, when there are blockages (high protein created a lot of blockages).
When I have a good metabolism, I don't crave foods that are high in taste. I may ear a few bites of cake then not any more. Certain foods are 'too sweet'.
Riles-
Probably through hyperphagia. But it's interesting that no rise in say, body temperature accompanies it like it would in a force-feeding study.
What about your feedback on what Gabriel said. Was it the soft drinks that made for a chubby Riles or a combination of things?
Of course, with PCAT you don't have to blame one thing or another, but the whole diet on pleasure center activation.
In Nauru it appears that canned meat (probably with MSG added), lamb fat imported from New Zealand, refined carbs, and alcohol are the primary drivers.
In fact, one reported accused New Zealand of "dietary genocide" for sending mutton flaps to Nauru!!
Greg I think you missed the point. That is too broad of a statement. I think carrots taste good. They are nice and sweet and delicious. I think peppers when just right are sweet, and tasty. I actually think that white rice is delicious, call me crazy.
Soda/Pop/Coke are unimaginably intense. Just can't imaging drinking a 12 oz can of the stuff. I also prefer dry alcohol, so go figure.
I really can't understand why Americans have this view of French people as the perfect example of health. I have spent quite a bit of time there and I was never impressed. They are mostly skinny fat, not lean or muscular. It is true that here are not as many obese people there. There is more to it than just the macro-nutrient ratios of the food, the whole lifestyle is different.
Hi Martin,
You said:
"I also wanted to add that I don't think that anyone could eat 1600cal of MNP-style meal at one sitting except Takeru Kobayashi lol."
Well, I've came close. I mean, I think 1,200 calories is pretty close.
By the way, I am going to give a review (thoughts, conclusions) on MNP soon.
Ha ha DML. 1,200 ain't that close! Still pretty impressive though.
I'm making no attempt to overfeed whatsoever and I'm still having to use a serving bowl instead of a regular bowl to fit all my food in it!
I have lived in France for 6 months, am somewhat familiar with their culture. The french and italians are undeniably among the least fat western populations, while at the same time having what are considered to be the most pleasurable traditional food cultures.
The point I was making is that just because some modern processed foods happen to be dope bombs as well as fattening (for whatever reason), it doesn't follow that there is a straight correlation between how pleasurable a food is and how fattening it is. If so, France and Italy would've been widely known as the most obese nations before the advent of modern fast foods. Instead, they are among those who are most resilient to the modern obesity trend.
I don't doubt for a second that the easy availability of hyper-pleasurable fast foods play a big role in making susceptible persons obese by tempting them to constantly overeat past satiety. For me personally, back when my sugar addiction was most severe, it really did help a lot to simply not have any of those tempting sweets in the house.
But its self-evident that if you are sensitive to hyper-pleasurable foods, you'll be more likely to regularly overeat past satiety and slowly gain weight. The real issue is what causes the susceptibility in the first place. People who are naturally resistant to obesity in todays society are likely so because they're not very susceptible to hyper-pleasurable foods. Why not? If exposure to modern dope junk food could in of itself cause this susceptibility, then everyone would become obese. But some people can evidently eat this junk food dope regularly and ye remain slim. The underlying cause of the susceptibility comes back to all the things you've been discussing before you got into this theory – nutritional deficiencies, leptin resistance, famine response, etc.
The goal is (or used to be) to deal with the susceptibility, not cater to it, which is what this PCAT theory sounds like to me.
There is something uniquely masculine and macho about eating a giant serving of food not matter its contents. I take pride in my eating feats that leave my friends shocked with how it is possible to eat X amount of food at one go.
"Let's just burn all those stupid fast food restaurants once and for all." Ha! Jose Bove had the right idea.
Hey Matt, if you're so smart why isn't Oprah thin with her "diet for a week, fall off the wagon binge, and start new diet the next week protocol???"
Riles or anyone that works out a lot, have you ever experienced a drastic change in appetite along with a different exercise routine?
With an emphasis on max strength, I find I'm hungrier more often and can eat more in a sitting. When I do more conditioning (circuit traing), I get full much more quickly.
John,
Yes, I experience pretty much the exact the same thing as you. I also reach an even higher level of hunger on my "rest" days where I do not lift after lifting heavy the previous days.
Kirk, who says Matt is smart? He just reads a bunch of books…
…jk, jk…
Do you have Oprah's food intake diary? The fact that she has been fat implies some type of metabolic damage. Perhaps her low calorie diets of blueberries and pomegranates combined with "binges" isn't working…
@Nathan – I get it, I meant that as a joke. Sorry if that came across as a serious observation! It is perhaps applicable to a "typical" American who doesn't think that carrots taste good and that 12oz of soda is a lot.
Hi Matt
"I think you may be dead wrong about hypersensitive native people on "primitive" diets having some kind of endocrine problem. In fact, take a Japanese person who is healthier than an American, raise them on American fare, and they have a much higher likelihood of becoming obese and diabetic than a typical Anglo-American."
I tend to look at everything in conjunction with digestion. If there is fat gain, it is because the liver is clogged. This is a very Chinese medicine approach. But if the human is fat, they have fatty liver, which slows their metabolism.
No doubt high fat, high processed foods clog the liver. Improperly leavened white flour breads are hard on the digestion too I think. SO yeah you feed a Japanese McDonalds and they will get fat.
But tasty foods don't necessarily result in a fatty liver. Some do. Some don't. MOderate amounts don't. But yes if you have people eating three meals a day of cake and soda and they will end up fat, and I suspect an anatomical reason for this, rather than simply because the food is tasty,
malpaz,
thanks for the study. There are unfortunately not many good long term studies that look at different types of carbohydrates.
But the few that I have seen all say the same: Starch, especially refinded, is linked to obesity whereas sugar isn't.
"We all know that Kitavans, rural Africans, isolated South Americans, etc. are the healthiest people in the world. However, when any of those people are exposed to Western food they are much more hypersensitive to it – and develop much higher obesity and diabetes rates."
Again I would first look at something like fatty liver rather than blaming the taste of the food. Yes people tend to eat more tasty food, But that doesnt mean they get fat because the food is tasty. It is perfectly possible to live on a diet that includes some tasty food. The French and Italians being an example. (though they are experiencing more obesity now, but their diets are increasingly Anglicized)
Genetically there is less difference between a Pima Indian and an Italian than there is between different groups of Chimps living in the African rain forest. It is so common and easy to blame genetics for everything.
These Samoans and other native peoples we see that are morbidly obese have some anatomical damage. Maybe endocrine, definitely fatty livers, etc. There is something in their diets that is causing this. My guess is that the root of their damage is not home made natural tiramisu, but rather some bad food like boxed macaroni and cheese.
True, some populations do respond differently to alcohol. So maybe I am wrong. But I would really like to see how these Natives would fare on a traditional French or Italian diet. My guess is they would not be so fat.
Jannis, I'm very curious to see where this sugar commentary goes. I have felt great eating how I laid out last week: Unlimited meat, vegetables, and starch (rice, potatoes, corn, well-cooked beans) and a little bit of added fruit and fat. Strive to avoid gluten, refined fructose, artificial sweeteners, refined sugar, and processed PUFAs.
All the talk of dopamine makes sense too. After eating to corn tortillas, rice, and ground beef to satiety, I will be stuffed but still desire that sweet like ice cream or something. I don't plan on avoiding it forever, just keeping it limited to family functions and going out for dinner here and there, instead of a little every day.
Also, I think it will be tough to analyze white sugars effects as white flour usually goes hand-in-hand with an introduction of white sugar.
"If people want to talk about how people eat where obesity is uncommon (unlike France) they should be talking about the Andes villagers, the Kitavans, and those living in sub-saharan Africa. Maybe southeast Asia as well."
Sorry to be mundane, but when I think about all of the above peoples (except for southeast Asia), I think of people eating bland diets who according to your theory would be extremely susceptible to fat gain if their diets changed to include more flavor-intense foods. The southeast Asians however, are known for massive variety in their diets and very much flavor, so not really the type to have up-regulated dopamine receptors I would think *scratches head.*
What all of your example people have in common though, is that they don't eat daily calorie totals above their metabolic ability to process them, don't you think? Then is the value of the theory like someone said above, mainly that it fits for people who change their diet to include new and/or previously forbidden foods, which causes them to eat more than to appetite, and as a result their total calories rise higher than their metabolism can deal with?
Back to the dopamine thing…caused me to think about one time I was taking Wellbutrin, the drug originally prescribed for people wanting to quit smoking but then found to be "helpful" for people suffering from depression. This drug (buproprion) works on both serotonin and dopamine receptors; if not mistaken it slows down re-uptake (not sure on this). Anyway, during the couple of months that I took it, I found a marked increase in addictive/compulsive behavior and binging! It was like, Whoa! I got off of that stuff few months later, when I realized it was making my hair fall out (but that's another story). Do you think there is a tie-in here, between the actions of buproprion and the PCAT theory?
Jannis, could you also clarify again your definition of sugar? (natural in fruit, honey, brown rice syrup, white sugar, etc.) Right now I'm avoiding added sugar that isn't already in fruit.
"Ha ha DML. 1,200 ain't that close! Still pretty impressive though."
Aw Matt, that really hurts! : )
Nah, I actually I see what you're saying. 400 extra calories is more than a pound of taters or about a 1.5 cups of rice –both of which have a lot of bulk. I'll have to see if I can do it sometime.
3 meals per day of cake and soda does not make everyone fat. That's what Collden was implying.
Everyone knows the "grandma that lived to 97 on nothing but coffee, cake, and chocolate." Collden wants to know how we can get a Pima Indian to have the same response to such foods as the thin-as-a-rail granny.
Collden-
I'm hinting in this post that the French and Italians are less susceptible precisely because they've eaten "high-everything" with alcohol for centuries, have had fewer famines due to increased prosperity, and other factors that lead to a naturally high production of neurotransmitters and low susceptibility to addiction.
Other cultures are essentially coming off of a low-everything, highly restricted diet with low dopamine levels that helps them better secure adequate calorie-dense foods. Hence why Native Americans, African Americans, Aborigines, Pacific Islanders, Eskimos, and so on have a much higher propensity to develop alcoholism and metabolic disease when encountering "high-fat" foods, refined carbohydrates, intense sweets, and psychoactive substances – all mixed together.
It's not that they are less healthy, just more "primed" for it like someone who has been on a highly-restricted diet for a long time – like Oprah who probably binges like a m'fer after 2 bites of a brownie or ice cream sundae, or like a long-time low-carber with natural weight gain tendencies reintroducing starch with his/her meat, butter, and cheese.
It's all relative.
Oprah has problems because she has been fighting against her appetite her whole life. Her binges are not well-controlled one meal or one sitting binges either like Berkhan or Joel Marion, but probably last 3 months and entail 40 pounds of fat gain.
She would not want to binge if she were not hungry or didn't have cravings.
That's why I think, for someone wanting to actively lose weight, that a diet that decreases hunger and cravings is a valuable tool. First, you have to feed yourself well to get there as most of us have experienced.
But I know personally that if I were to eat low-calorie Zone bars sweetened with sucrose or Atkins bars sweetened with sucralose I would be hungry as hell and have huge cravings on the same number of calories that I am getting now from a primarily starch-based diet.
…but the people who experience rebound weight gain after low carb could easily have a similar experience after low fat, which looks dangerously close to… calories being the bottom line…
Anonymous-
Those people are very susceptible to "Western" food, including the Southeast Asians. Like I said, it is Whitey that is the least susceptible because Whitey was already consuming a high-everything diet, alcohol, etc.
But this brings up an interesting point and is why this information or theory must be used intelligently, because going to any diet that increases hunger and cravings increases the susceptibility of a person, not decreases it.
Yes, psyche meds are some of the most fattening things on the planet (the ones that aren't hardcore stimulants that is).
Gabriel-
I still think you got it backwards. I think the fatty liver comes from overconsumption of PUFA, fructose, and overall calories.
Consuming too many calories, too many sweets, etc. comes from a perversion in appetite.
Perversion in appetite comes from being hypersensitive to foods that stimulate reward centers the most. The king would be artificial sweeteners.
If it were about health, then the healthiest people would be the most resilient and the least healthy would be the least resilient, but it is the opposite.
In other words, when you took a Kitavan or a Japanese group of people way healthier than a typical Anglo American and exposed them to Western food they would have lower chances of become obese or diabetic, but the opposite is true.
Jannis, Mark, Malpaz-
The general idea behind PCAT is that it is not sugar, or starch, or PUFA, or alcohol, or any single item in isolation that causes greater propensity to obesity/diabetes.
Rather, it falls in line with the mainstream view that basically states:
Insulin and leptin resistance is caused by eating more calories than you burn.
Low-carbers see it the other way around, and think that insulin and leptin resistance make you eat too much.
And since ALL of the obesity research reveals that people have no conscious control over their appeitite to metabolism ratio, one can only assume that the real answer lies in altering diet and lifestyle to make appetite and metabolism unconsciously come into balance.
RRARF does this, only it involves a little fat gain for most people coming off of a scant diet prior.
The harder, and still unsolved question remains – how do you get the fat off once you are already fat?
"The southeast Asians however, are known for massive variety in their diets and very much flavor, so not really the type to have up-regulated dopamine receptors I would think *scratches head.*"
But it's not just about the flavor. For PCAT to apply, there has to be a huge calorie association with the highly flavored food. Which, if I understand correctly, southeastern Asian cuisine would not be really calorie dense at all. The reason Burger King food is fattening is because of its highly artificial and uniform flavor combined with high calorie density.
Crap do you get the comments.
John-
The mainstream does feel like calories are the bottom line. But consciously trying to change calorie intake does not alter the weight set point or weight long-term – except to the upside as it pertains to calorie restriction.
So even if calories are the bottom line, trying to count calories consumed and calories burned has never been a long-term solution. More attention needs to be paid to why the systems of the body that aren't regulating weight properly aren't functioning right.
It could be as simple as addiction overriding the normal feedback mechanisms that keep weight constant, and in a state of equilibrium.
I've long thought that the reason my friends and I were all so skinny back in the 70s — compared to kids today, anyway — was because the food was just not that tempting. No happy meals. No pizza pockets. Dinner was some kind of terrible casserole, lunch was a bologna sandwich and an apple, breakfast was Raisin Bran or Cheerios. Even the candy was kind of bad. Anyone remember Bit o Honey? Or those wax bottles with "juice" in them? It was the era of the Salisbury steak, and Hamburger Helper. Gah, who thought up such unpleasurable foods? You can't get fat if you can barely choke down your food.
…as in choosing lower calorie foods that satisfy appetite…
But then what is the overarching goal: Do we want optimal health by eating similar to the Kitavan (or another healthy culture), or do we want to be able to eat high everything and not get fat–do we have to choose just one of these?
The idea that calorie number could be very important makes this tricky…
John, I think the goal is a high whole foods diet (to appetite) but to get un-fat we might have to try some tricks such as a very bland low calorie density whole foods diet with dopamine refeeds every now and then.
Matt:
"I still think you got it backwards. I think the fatty liver comes from overconsumption of PUFA, fructose, and overall calories."
I agree with this. Certain foods fatten up the liver more than others. But I don't think those foods are things like home made apple pie.
Good tasting food is not the culprit here IMO.
"Consuming too many calories, too many sweets, etc. comes from a perversion in appetite."
Or lack of choice. Plus inactivity. Like I mentioned earlier, I used to be fat. I weighed 155 lbs at 12 years old and a height of 5'5''. I was a husky kid. But I was an inactive kid who ate artificial donuts and cheap sodas.
'Perversion in appetite comes from being hypersensitive to foods that stimulate reward centers the most. The king would be artificial sweeteners.'
Perversion of appetite can come from a host of problems. Epstein Barr Virus can wreak havoc on the brain, metabolism, and digestion. Stress can cause binge eating. Blaming metabolic syndrome on tasty food is kind of simplistic. People were eating tasty food long before obesity became an epidemic, albeit in moderation.
'In other words, when you took a Kitavan or a Japanese group of people way healthier than a typical Anglo American and exposed them to Western food they would have lower chances of become obese or diabetic, but the opposite is true.'
Well, I don't know about the Japanese. And I don't agree with the Western food part, I think a traditional Western diet like a traditional French diet would be fine for a Kitavan. A modern Western diet probably not.
Matt,
basically you are right. Obesity isn't caused by a single factor. You become obese when you eat more than you can burn.
But how much you can eat depends on your metabolic rate. Some people can maintain their weight on a 1500 calorie diet because their metabolic rate is so slow. I think one study even showed that some women with a very low metabolism can maintain their weight on a 1200 calorie diet. Others need to eat more than 3000.
Thus, anything that slows down your metabolic rate will increase your tendency to become fat.
That's why you need to avoid PUFA, excess tryptophan and such things. Because they poison your thyroid system and slow down your metabolism.
On the other hand, things that increase the metabolic rate such as saturated fats, sugar, thyroid or high quality protein will make you able to eat more and maintain your body weight.
All carbohydrates increase thyroid. But sugar is more efficient than starch. Some hypothyroid people have problems with starch and do much much better on sugar because if you are in a hypothyroid state starch tends to cause hypoglycemia because your body's insulin system doesn't work as it should.
The massive insulin secretion that is caused by starch will make you bs fall below starting value.
Hey Matt,
Thanks for clarifying. I'm going to utilize this when I begin to start trying to loose weight. (I'm still in the RRARF phase, healing my metabolism by overeating. But my weight gain stopped at week 4 and I've not gained since then no matter how much I've overeaten, also, my hunger took a turn for the more normal by then.)
The neurotransmitter and dopamine references are super interesting to me. I was struck with how my daily stevia and other sweets cravings left within a few days of HED, and mildly returned when I first switched to white rice, but then disappeared again once I learned how to overeat on white rice (saffron rice was my solution lol).
Before HED I had hourly sugar cravings my entire life.
Stevia is now totally disgusting to me. I never crave it anymore.
Having gained 15 pounds on HED and totally turned off my sugar addiction, I'd say there's a powerful connection there.
Matt wrote:
"(trust me, when your pleasure neurotransmitters are upregulated enough, even the blandest food on earth will taste incredible). "
I totally agree with this. It's happened to me. I can easily get a feeling of high from saffron rice with a little sea salt and butter in it now.
Btw did you know that "mat" means "food" in Swedish. Almost like your name. lol….
@Matt, this is totally off topic, but I just read a comment of yours on the Disease Proof blog. I was cracking up like crazy and then glanced up and realized you were the one who made the comment. Not surprising, I guess. It was an excellent comeback.
Jannis,
Can you post or e-mail me some refs that show sugar's advantages over starch/glucose. I have some that seem to show equality, but most show an advantage for starch/glucose, especially with any considerable amount of fat in the diet (isocaloric). Fructose alone however seems to reduce appetite or at least preference for sweet (Glucose vs sucrose vs fructose solutions). Fructose [as far as I know] is always accompanied with glucose though.
Jannis-
Again, the belief that high insulin secretion in response to starch leads to low blood sugar is a fallacy. Terry Shintani, Melvin Page, the discoverer of hyperinsulinism Seale Harris and others have all noticed that blood sugar is more erratic on sucrose, honey, alcohol, etc. than it is on starch. Even Francine Kauffman of the ADA has used corn starch successfullly in preventing hypoglycemia. Peat's beliefs about starch, absorption rate, blood glucose regulation, etc. are straight up incorrect.
And don't take offense to this because I say it pretty much for the entertainment of Rosenfelt, but "Don't be a Peatard."
Gabriel-
I've come across many a convincing argument/evidence that lack of desire to exercise is an effect of obesity, not a cause.
For example in studies performed by M.R.C. Greenwood on obesity-prone rats, the rats get fat, then eat more and stop exercising.
This suggests a sudden cause of disparity between appetite and metabolism, followed by eating more and exercising less which is a systemic response to being below the weight set point.
Of course, forced exercise has always been known to mitigate some of the damages, but I don't believe it cuts to the core of the problem.
I'm also not saying that tasty food is the cause of obesity, but unnaturally-stimulating substances that go beyond what natural foods are capable of doing and thus have a drug-like effect for those who are hypersensitive.
Those unnatural foods are:
White carbohydrate powders, particularly white sugar which is more stimulating to most because of its cracklike sweetness, artificial sweeteners and other flavor enhancers, liquid sugars (even more cracklike), fiberless juice, and alcohol/drugs.
Kirk-
That's kind of the going hypothesis, and thanks for reiterating the point of this conversation.
I will add that when I most recently ate sweets, alcohol, and calorie dense foods all mixed together on vacation recently (April) – it wasn't until about the 5th or 6th day that I was laying in bed at night starving my ass off, and it took 2-3 days to get my appetite regulated again (mostly by eating burgers and pizza with no sugar or alcohol in the airport in transit and on the way home).
So I don't think the effect is instant. I've also noticed I can eat all the sugar in the world one day, and it doesn't re-awaken my sugar cravings until 3 or 4 consecutive days of doing that. So potentially, when acute, you could spike dopamine/serotonin without falling off the deep end as long as it doesn't become a 3-month Oprah-esque bender.
In other words,
1) Do RRARF to raise metabolism and dopamine to healthier levels – lose cravings for sweets, alcohol, junk foods, and other triggers…
2) Lower set point with low calorie-density foods and start losing weight (if needed)
3) Spike the hell out of dopamine once weekly to keep dopamine levels from falling and prevent excessive dopamine upregulation so that you don't become hypersensitive to calorie dense foods afterward.
Hopefully this would allow a person with a weight problem to….
1) Fix metabolism
2) Lose fat
3) Graduate to a maintenance diet that is not macronutrient restricted but still well-rounded, nutritious, and whole food based (still with no cravings for unhealthy junk)
Very interesting post and comments! I have been thinking about 'bitter' and how it fits in. First, there is a genetic marker for those who positively like bitter(can supply ref). Bitter has its many physiological effects from the effects on the taste buds solely(because none of the bitter liquid gets beyond the throat when taking bitters). So we know taste alone can set in motion organ functions. While idly surfing one day, I came across a wholefooder's site with a poll for most favourite food. Our carnivores/omnivores offered many choices, but our veggies invariably went for one thing-cabbage family-they loved it, they really loved it! Now, one, what veg do non-veg eaters hate most-cabbage. What is the bitterest veg family-cabbage. What does bitters help with-digestion. What are our wholefood veggies going to be eating alot of-grain. Grain is supposed to be hard to digest so perhaps they are attracted to greens because their bitter flavour gets associated with improved digestion eg (relative) calorie density of their diet with or without bitter/cabbage. I have been frustrated in not being able to find much scientific on the topic. I also wonder if the attraction of coffee is its bitterness, theres not much bitter out there. I think people in the olden days liked bitter and sour more than moderns. IMO the palate has become progressively more baby-fied with industrial foods. But, with alot of posters here, I doubt this flavour theory will work out to be pivotal, we will see.
Matt and Jannis: Sticking with the sugar focus. Are we saying to eat natural sugars as desired and that these are pretty much just fruit? Then once a week eat some artificial foods like ice cream to spike dopamine receptors and making the body aligned for the rest of the week? Outside of this spike meal, we're eating unrefined starch (potatoes, corn, and I think corn tortillas and rice are fine here too?), veggies, meat, fruit, and some natural fats to appetite > aka whole foods?
"But you did instantly gain weight when your diet increased in pleasure, which is the point." — Matt
I don't think adding potatoes and rice to a diet of steak, eggs, fish, vegetables, bacon, pork chops, and buttery reduction sauces increased the pleasure very much. Maybe in a direct starch->sugar->dopamine sense, but certainly not in an overwhelmed-with-intense-flavor sense. I realize some people may eat boring burgers every day on low-carb, but that's not a requirement.
Besides, that's practically a tautology: you gained weight, so whatever you ate must have been pleasurable, and whatever you ate when you weren't gaining must not have been pleasurable. Never mind that your pork chops were so good people wait in line to come eat at your house; they weren't as pleasurable as a baked potato. If that's true, then you're using a definition of pleasure that doesn't involve the taste-buds, so using the word 'flavor' is just confusing.
Interesting sydney. I've noticed how sometimes recently the bitter taste of plain yogurt is amazingly delicious but other times I'm totally indifferent
"Peatards" Lmao.
Is that probably why Scott Abel's diet seems to work well for a lot of people? They don't eat sugar on consecutive days, just maybe enough sugar to feed argentina in one day lol
Matt, you really need to read "French Women Don't Get Fat." (I know I've said it before) Basically, the author grew up in France, healthy weight eating French foods, then went to the US for a year as an exchange student and got fat, then came back to France and got fatter eating French foods. She then had an "intervention" by her French doctor who re-taught her the principles of French eating, lost the weight and is still thin 40 years later. She proved that you could get just as fat on French food as American if you ate it the wrong way (in her case, too many desserts, not a balanced diet, eating too fast standing up, feeling guilty about food, etc.)She explains a lot of principles of French eating, and I think she would probably agree that junk foods spike domamine and mess with your cravings/brain (she says too much sugar will too), but she claims that a key reason the French stay thin is because their food tastes so good and because they focus on it and savor it, eating meals slowly and allowing themselves to become satisfied. They therefore need less to be satisfied. (Gabriel, she's also a proponent of a short leek soup detox preceeding weight loss and a couple of times/year). The book is genius, and clearly she has maintained a healthy metabolism for years using its methods. It allows you to be sane about food and is probably the #1 thing that helped me get over my eating disorder. I keep going back to it. You should read it, Matt, and see what you think. Or Will Clower's books about the French diet. Both believe the way you eat, and not being deprived, are very important. And neither advises under-eating or calorie counting as a weight loss method. Rather, you should never starve yourself, and should always listen to your hunger, eating 3 meals/day, no snacks.
Also, the Japenese don't necessarily get fat on any highly flavored diet. The ones who moved to the US early in the 1900s and adapted a high-fat American diet did fine. It's only on the junk, PUFA, HFCS that they are now becoming obese. And white people are even fatter so they're probably more susceptible.
-Amy
I like this Colliden: "The underlying cause of the susceptibility comes back to all the things you've been discussing before you got into this theory – nutritional deficiencies, leptin resistance, famine response, etc."
While this is an interesting side trip, this exploration of pleasure activation and so forth seems like spinning wheels to me. Maybe I'm just revealing my bias as a big fan of Gabriel and all that mind-body stuff, but this point about why some people can not get tripped up on these highly pleasurable foods and others can't is of huge importance. Plus I just don't like where all this is going, because the story, that seeking pleasure is our downfall, doesn't jive with me. We're not base creatures who need to be kept on the straight and narrow to be healthy. I like what Charles Eisenstein says in 'Transformational Weight Loss,' that we have to *really* taste our food and look more carefully and closely at what it is we're experiencing, and in so doing, we may find that we broaden and change what pleasure means to us. That awarness, as much as or more than starch overfeeding, might facilitate ending our addiction to the things that make us ill. Starch overfeeding might help, but not for everyone (not me I suspect, because the damn experiment seems so dreadful and dispiriting), and might be forcing rather than coaxing the body.
It reminds me of when people talk about how real food doesn't taste as good as fake food, but I think it tastes better, because there's greater richness and depth to the flavors, and a story to put the food into that Velveeta cheese doesn't have. I think we can intercede and impact what sort of 'pleasure' we experience from what we consume based on where we put our awareness. *Really* tasting McDonalds might well mean that it loses its hold on us.
Also, a truly integrated vision of health seems necessary. A few months ago, the thyroid hormones, and maybe adrenal hormones, were the body chemicals of choice. Now it's dopamine/seratonin. I can't imagine they're not all important, but that twisting the dials trying to optimize each is an exercise in futility. I like the notion that health happens effortlessly once you get the roadblocks out of the way, and you won't ever have to concern yourself with whether you're spiking dopamine too often or too much, or timing it in the right doses to never be fat again. That seems like the old 'the cost of freedom is eternal vigilance' deal, which isn't actually freedom, as far as I can see. Instead, what whole system strategies can we put in place so that all that stuff does it on its own, so that we can get onto the business of enjoying life and not counting calories, or calibrating hormones or whatever?
I like your rigor Matt, and the folks here are bright thoughtful contributors. In my mind though, I can't let go of the notion that we're spinning our wheels here a bit, and the answers I seek, anyway, are broader in scope than what we're talking about these days.
Rob, that's exactly what Mireille Guiliano talks about in French Women Don't Get Fat (enjoying your food, really experiencing it and tasting it, enjoying the depth of flavor in real food). Agreed, I have no interest in stuffing myself with bland food, and honestly I don't think it would lead to sustainable weight loss. -Amy
This is the reason I call Doritos "crack". Can you eat just one? uh.. no, most people can't. I think Mr. Stone is headed in the correct direction here with the blander, but yes, oh so tasty tatos and starches.
Had me a nice baked sweet potato with some salsa for breakfast.
sweet.. starch that is.
Hmnnn…well might be kind of a chicken and the egg thing.
I still dont see how we can blame lack of exercise on being fat. Usually someone has to stop exercising to get fat, not get fat to stop exercising.
john,
I am currently sorting all the studies Peat has sent me. Give me your email and I will send you everything I have about sugar and fructose in a few days.
Matt,
Sugar doesn't stimulate insulin as much as starch does. People that are hypoglycemic often get very low BS because of the massive stumulation that is followed by starch consumption. I cant remember that peat writes about that in one of his articles. I know that from my own and others experience. For normal people starch is absolutely fine but I am talking about hypoglycemics.
I know you don't believe that starch is much more insulin stimulating than sugar because you refuse to read the studies.
I think when it comes to understanding certain things you'd better be Peatard than a retard.
Endocrinology. 1981 Sep;109(3):966-70.
Impaired insulin secretion after oral sucrose and fructose in rats.
Hara E, Saito M.
The effects of sucrose and fructose on responses in plasma glucose and insulin to glucose given orally and/or iv wer examined in unanesthetized, unrestrained rats. The plasma insulin response to oral administration of sucrose or a mixture of glucose and fructose was much lower than that to oral glucose despite the fact that plasma glucose responses to these administrations were similar. Oral
administration fructose had no effect on the insulin response to iv infusion of glucose. Intravenous infusion of fructose also did not affect the plasma glucose and insulin responses to oral administration of glucose. The inhibitory effect of oral fructose on the insulin response to oral glucose was reversed by oral administration of soybean oil, which is known to stimulate insulin secretion induced by iv glucose. We conclude that the inhibitory effect of fructose on
insulin secretion is mediated by some signals generated in the gastrointestinal tract.
The book named as 180 degree metabolism defines all the strategy for reducing the fat of the body. You can take help from them.
I don't think it's possible to create associations in brain that contain ONLY flavor and calories. Brains have fully-associative memories, that integrate all senses together. For example if you know the food you can determine (recollect and feel) it's taste just from looking at it. So this theory should be extended to include looks of food (including packaging, colorants, decorations etc.), but also positive/negative experiences with food, like parents giving candies as a reward (association of candy with achievement, reward etc.).
Debbie Can I eat just one dorito? I can't eat even one! The other day they were there and why not?,one bite and my taste buds got all stroppy, they weren't having it. Most people can't eat only one dorito, most people eat SAD.
The comments about the French way of eating; reminds me that 'diets' that concentrated on portion control and how one eats, rather than changing the food eaten, have had quite good results for long term weight reduction compared to calorie restriction. However if this diet will get you as slim as alot of people want to be I'm not sure.
I lived in France (southwest, land of foie gras) in 2007-8. IME, both things are true — they have very solid food traditions including a reverence for good food, AND American processed food is making inroads, and there are a lot more fat people than there were ten years ago.
One really big thing was that food and how to eat it was an important thing taught to kids at school. They had an hour and a half off in the middle of the day, to eat and then play. They ate on real plates, used real glasses, and even little ones had knives and were shown how to use them. Three or four courses for school lunch every day, mostly made from scratch right there. The menu was sophisticated and varied and not "children's food" the way it is here, all chicken nuggets and pizza.
Compared to the 20 minutes my kids get in the US to hurl their bag lunch down their throats, and all around them their classmates are eating nothing but the worst crap, the French at least are teaching the young ones what's what. No need for Jamie Oliver to bring his Food Revolution there.
For the most part, the families we met mostly ate whole food and cooked at home, but usually had some American junk food in the mix too. Sadly part of this comes from so many families with two working parents. If a grandparent wasn't around to do the cooking, how to uphold those glorious food traditions if no one has the time to do the daily shopping and the long simmering etc?
Where I was in France, out in the provinces, people generally would rather take a few hours off work for a leisurely home-cooked lunch than make more money.Food clearly matters. But at, say, the village bingo night, people were drinking wine, and beer, and lots of Coke. Made with sugar and not HFCS, but still, tragic.
Matt You have some weird spammer-v. iagra, get it. If you click on his name you get an ad. I thought his comment was a bit strange!
http://img.perezhilton.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/oprahaug1e__oPt.jpg
Gabriel said: "I still dont see how we can blame lack of exercise on being fat. Usually someone has to stop exercising to get fat, not get fat to stop exercising."
A lot of chronic over-exercisers gain weight when they stop exercising, that's true. This probably has to do with teaching the body to prefer fat as an energy source and exhausting the adrenals to the point where they need major recovery.
But the question is, why did someone stop exercising? Why did they suddenly lack the energy? Why was a program that seemed sustainable suddenly not anymore? It's more important to consider the physiological roots of an issue, and there are often biochemical imbalances that trigger this kind of change.
So what are you suggesting Jannis? Is it that fruit-girl's diet is superior to a starch based RRARF?
Matt's whole theory is that insulin is not some evil thing to run from… Rather, to be tamed.
According to Stephen Guyenet, overweight/obesity is uncommon in many non-industrial natiev populations, without respect to how much they exercise: http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2009/01/exercise-and-bodyfat.html
Makes sense to me- again, why would your body want to be fat? Why wouldn't it adjust your appetite and metabolic expenditure when you're less active? That goes back to the whole debate over whether we can consciously control the calorie equation, and it seems like there's lots of evidence that we can't long term. So in a body that wants to be fat, we can fight against it by exercising four hours a day, but that by no means indicates that it's positively healthy or necessary, or that other avenues might not work as well or better. Part of why exercise might help is because it might lower the set point and ecourage more calories out and less calories in almost unrelated to the energy burned during the movement.
Jannis,
You can just click my name, and my e-mail is on my profile.
Anyway, just because fructose gets a lower insulin response does not necessarily mean it's better. Most acknowledge that fructose doesn't spike insulin. That's not too telling though…
…sugar raises metabolism. What specifically does this mean? Eating anything raises your metabolism. That doesn't mean it has negative calories; ie, you can continuously consume sugar and get leaner. Can we compare sugar vs starch [vs fats] as part of a complete diet over a longer time?
Matt said,
"I still think you got it backwards. I think the fatty liver comes from overconsumption of PUFA, fructose, and overall calories.
Consuming too many calories, too many sweets, etc. comes from a perversion in appetite."
Aren't we supposed to be overconsuming to some extent if our temps are low? Or should the temps be coming up as longing as we're eating whole foods to appetite and trying to avoid junk? This seems a little chicken and egg.
I like the comments about French food lifestyle. It is more in line with the kind of relationship I would like to have with food. I had been gradually heading in this direction, eating more whole foods and lowering the amount of sweets, before I jumped on the low-carb bandwagon.
Sorry I'm being pig-headed about this but I still think this is off base. Since the amino acid in protein releases neurotransmitters wouldn't low carb be preferrable for weight loss. I used to feel high (euphoric) on LC. Before the crash of course.
I see studies that show low levels of dopamine in obese subjects and the theory is that causes overeating to satisfy the dopamine receptors. Am I just misunderstanding what y'all are saying? Maybe my dopeamine is low and I need to eat a chicken leg and smoke a cig.
Susan, there's a long comment by Matt a little up that is a nice summary.
Susan-
Yes, low levels of dopamine are precisely what predispose someone to obesity. Whatever spikes dopamine the most will be what they are compelled to seek out, as this theory goes.
Rob-
If you think this is just spinning wheels, then you probably aren't grasping the breadth and significance of what I'm saying.
Jannis-
Starch spikes insulin higher than sucrose, HFCS, fruit, juice, etc.
But I've explained hypoglycemia like this in the past…
If x food provides 8 units of carbohydrate and evokes and insulin release of 10 units, your blood sugar will fall below baseline.
If x food provides 15 units of carbohydrate and evokes a release of 15 units of insulin, blood sugar will come back to baseline but now below.
Page, Shintani, Seale Harris – these guys studied rigorous 5-hour glucose tests in hundreds of patients to see, over and over again, that blood sugar went below baseline in those with poor glucose metabolism when eating sugar, but not starch – although white flour was still problematic in the starch category.
In other words, starch caused a release of the right amount of insulin per unit of carbohydrate, while sugar caused a release of too much insulin – what Harris coined as "hyperinsulinism." His thoughts about it, via E.M. Abrahamson's Body, Mind, and Sugar (1951) was:
?There is no glamorous cure for hyperinsulinism that can be bought in a package. Its diagnosis and treatment demand pains from the physician and sacrifices from the patient, who must give up candy, sugar, pies, alcohol, coffee, and sometimes smoking.
p. 65
?As [Dr. Seale Harris] pointed out, overindulgence in caffeine is a common cause for [hyperinsulinism]. Harris conducted his research in Birmingham, Alabama, the heart of the South, where various beverages consisting of sweetened and flavored water ‘spiked? with caffeine are water substitutes. Hyperinsulinism may be induced in persons predisposed to the condition by the very combination of caffeine and sugar found in these beverages.
p. 67
?This means no sugar, candy, or other sweets, no cake with icing, no pies or other pastry, no ice cream, no honey, no syrup, no grape juice or prune juice. And regrettably, our string of ?no’s? includes cocktails, wines, cordials, and beer. Finally, if you have hyperinsulinism, you must avoid caffeine as you would the pest.
Matt, just wanted to say that a lot has come out of this post in particular: stay away from artificial sweeteners, a lot of coffee is bad, sugar outside of some fruit here and there is not good (sorry Jannis, in full disclosure I don't like the research on fructose), and eating pleasurable foods (ice cream and some processed stuff) to spike dopamine levels about once a week is necessary. In the past two weeks, I don't know if I have seen fat drop off but my muscle size has definitely come back after eating much more starch. Strength has been good despite not eating much protein, well no where near what I was eating on Martin's program. I'm excited to see where this goes.
On French eating:
American eating used to be more or less the same, but kids don't like food like that anymore, nor do their parents, precisely because they have been exposed to foods that are more or less on steroids – capable of doing what no real food is capable of doing.
Give the French a little while longer. They'll stop loving Brie, and foie gras, and all the foods they cherish and will instead seek out Doritos, soft drinks, Happy Meals, and other things that we are already watching now – like a slow-moving train wreck.
Education about eating slowly, or eating balanced meals, or eating from some food pyramid will not save the ones that get hooked on junk food.
Sydney-
You do not like Doritos because you eat real food. You have lost the taste for them. But those who have eaten them enough to create a strong flavor-calorie association can't get enough of them. The more they eat, the less palatable whole foods become, which is the same for highly-sweetened things as well.
Michal also brings up a good point about more than just flavor and calories going into the pleasure equation. Sensory feelings of crunch or other textures, sights, smells, soothing coldness, the bite in the back of the throat from soft drinks, feelings of reward – all kinds of things can factor into the whole equation.
On Jon Gabriel-
Once again, Gabriel says many things that hint at desensitization…
He states that when your body wants to be fat (below set point) your tongue becomes desensitized to sweet and fattening foods. When your body wants to lose fat (above set point) the opposite takes place. You don't want sweets or "fatty foods" anymore.
His method of dealing with fat loss is to:
1) Never go hungry or deprive yourself
2) Start adding low calorie-density foods to your diet, mostly lots of lettuces and raw vegetables
And this he has found to lower the weight set point. I would agree 100%. I'm just going into more detail about Step 2.
The reason for going on tangents is that people greatly underestimate how tricky it is to lose weight without invoking a revolt from the metabolism.
Jon Gabriel's success is 1 in a 1000, but I believe he offers up some of the best insights on fat loss in the world.
1) Weight loss can only be sustainably achieved through lowering your body weight set point – wanting to eat less and exercise more is a result of dropping set point, not a cause of dropping set point (forced calorie restriction and forced exercise actually raises it)
2) Displacing more and more junk food with unrefined, wholesome, low-calorie density food lowers the weight set point, making weight loss automatic
There are obviously other tenets of his program worthy of much attention, and addictive foods colliding with proneness to addiction is only part of the story.
John,
I will send them to you asap.
Except in some cases the insulin response is not so important. What is important is that sugar increases the convertion of T4 into T3, heat production and glycogen reserves. I posted some studies which support those claims a few times already.
I find it interesting that practically all of the most intelligent land animals
have a sweet tooth. Apes, humans, bees, ants and hummingbirds all love sugar.
Anonymus,
If she ate some extra protein and a few animal products rich in fat-solubale vitamins, yes.
A high starch diet is fine but it is inferior to a diet that includes sugar as well.
Matt,
could you provide some abstracts from the studies those guys conducted. I don't set much store by conclusions without knowing the methods.
If I did I would be eating lettuce, raw grains and soy oil all day long.
Not many "studies" from those guys. That was just the conclusion of multiple decades of treating real people successfully, which I put a LOT more stock in than studies – obviously, or I would not be a such a huge proponent of Broda Barnes/Starr/Langer/Sonkin/Hertoghe and the importance of high metabolic rate on a pound for pound basis.
"Give the French a little while longer. They'll stop loving Brie, and foie gras, and all the foods they cherish and will instead seek out Doritos, soft drinks, Happy Meals, and other things that we are already watching now – like a slow-moving train wreck.
Education about eating slowly, or eating balanced meals, or eating from some food pyramid will not save the ones that get hooked on junk food. "
I live in SE France and next door to Italy. Obesity is no doubt increasing and as you say will continue to. However I still very rarely see any morbidly obese people. I think the French will resist long and hard as their food IS part of their identity just as their language is and they protect this aggressively. I agree the train wreck will eventually come but one thing which will continue to slow it down is portion size (as in Italy) no-one I know eats the large portions I have seen each time I visit the USA. It is sad to see our traditional food cultures being displaced and I am gladdened that the vast majority of my friends (including many men) still buy and cook fresh produce from scratch.
I think the thing that is so cool about the Gabriel method is that it sneaks up on you. I did the evening meditation for a month and thought, well, that was nice, but nothing was really happening. Nothing big anyway. I did have a subtle shift from eating lots of calorie dense foods to lighter foods and more starch without fat. All of a sudden this morning his voice pops into my head and I'm imagining myself at my ideal weight, yada, yada yada. I can feel my metabolism in over drive the last two days.
Also I did Callenetics for the first time yesterday. It kicked my ass, but already, my pants fit better. I'm not delusional here.
I don't know whether it's the high starch low fat/the Gabriel method actually kicking into gear or that crazy lady in the 80s leotard with her pornish flute music and even more pornish pelvic rotations, but I can feel my set point going down, yo.
Hi all, Just a quick update on my diet-its all going swimmingly; temps up consistently, feel warmer, full night's sleeping, taste-pleasure reawakening, appetite returning, good energy. On the grain front-more mixed. The extreme sensations in my gut have receded but still getting some flatulence, bms not 100%, loud tummy rumblings etc. Well I'm not going on the potato (potatoes are not the only vegetable) and white rice diet so popular here. I like the taste of grain more. My ancestors on both sides have been of European stock for many generations, so I don't see why I shouldn't be able to eat grain. Today I got impatient(must be my brand new appetite!)and boiled my soaked oats on the hob. They definately tasted raw, I have been using the slow cooker-only takes 5-10 mins-and I think this cooking method adds to the digestibility. Is there any evidence most trad people fermented all their grain? When I read about their fermented food it sounds like it was their convenience food that they liked the taste of, rather than a health strategy. I have read the blogs on the subject over at Whole Health Source, and some information is wrong (from my own experience) or is confusing and lacking appropriate qualification. I've yet to meet a grain or bean that wouldn't germinate overnight, even if heat-treated (assuming rolled oats are heat-treated). I don't like the taste of fermented grain- so its suck it and see for now on soaked grain. On a similar subject, if you want a good laugh, check out the spring 2010 issue of the journal of the WAPF 'Plants Bite Back'. These viscious fuckers are trying to kill you! Be afraid, be very afraid.
About the whole Gabriel-woowoo-stuff:
I think that the mental aspect plays a huge role not only on weight loss but on health in general and I think the effect your own mentality/thinking can have on your physcial appearance/health is waaayy underestimated by most.
Well, and that was basically all i wanted to say.
madMUHHH said:
"I think that the mental aspect plays a huge role not only on weight loss but on health in general and I think the effect your own mentality/thinking can have on your physcial appearance/health is waaayy underestimated by most."
I completely agree. In fact, I can honestly attribute the change in my health and weight during the last several weeks to my attitude. It's been so interesting to me I've considered posting about it on my blog. I finally got very frustrated with trying to "complete" my healing, so to speak. For many months I had been feeling like I "wasn't quite there" yet. A few weeks ago I just up and decided, "You know what? I AM healed. I AM ready to lose weight and I CAN do it without damaging my metabolism." I was so sick of being "almost" there.
And here I am, a few weeks later, eight pounds down from my highest weight, my jeans are getting pretty loose and I'm feeling good. Still room for improvement? Always, I imagine. But I've stopped seeing myself as "damaged" and started seeing myself as a whole, functioning person once again. And that's made all the difference.
@Jenny: Your Callanetics comments crack me up. How do you like the 80s dudes in their skimpy shorts? I try not to laugh when they show these jocks struggling to do what a 90-year-old woman in the back of the room is accomplishing. Those exercises look deceptively easy. But it really does kick your ass. I'm still tempted to think working out harder is better, but I have to admit Callanetics gets results without all the crazy intensity of most workouts.
Hey Sydney, I have been soaking only brown rice before cooking it. I usually put it in the rice cooker the night before, rinse it and then switch it on in the a.m. For steel cut oats, I've never soaked them, but I've never had trouble with them. I usually cook the heck out of them though. I put them in my rice cooker for a minimum of an hour and a half.
It's 95 degrees here this week and my poor family has been fed either steaming grits or oat meal for breakfast every day.
Liz: I love the two dudes. They are obviously gay in a very 80s way and I heart them and their tiny shorts. At least they will have the well toned thighs for those shorts. If you've ever watched the worlds strongest man competition on ESPN you will know, when I say that there are many men who are built like brick shithouses from the waist up who should not wear shorts.
I'm ready for Callenetics to become a full blown part of our cult. I'm going to get a picture of Bernarr MacFadyn,one of Callen Pryke and maybe the 180 tatey for my kitchen bulletin board shrine.
I think the elderly lady is Callen's mom. She was nearly 80 and her arms are way more toned than mine.
Oh my god….brain wave…a 180 calendar…would be so awesome!
Yeah, Liz, I pretty much had the exact same realization. I was afraid to diet to undo my health progress. But now that I'm aware of my metabolism, monitoring my temps and looking at my whole health as part of the package, not just the scale, I think I really can't go too far wrong with this. Also, I'm not dieting in any way that is like anything I've ever done before. I'm not keeping track. I'm eating to satiety (or sometimes even a little beyond). I can feel my metabolism firing up because two hours after a huge starch based meal, I'm hungry again. But it's not the "oh my god, I'm gonna eat pizza kind of hunger," I really actually want more of the same. That rice cooker has already paid for itself. As it's been running almost nonstop since it arrived.
Matt,
But than it is impossible for me to evaluate that statement. Studies show no such effect of sugar. And if you believe it or not, Ray Peat has also treated a lot of real people successfully.
Matt said:
""""""I'm also not saying that tasty food is the cause of obesity, but unnaturally-stimulating substances that go beyond what natural foods are capable of doing and thus have a drug-like effect for those who are hypersensitive.
Those unnatural foods are:
White carbohydrate powders, particularly white sugar which is more stimulating to most because of its cracklike sweetness, artificial sweeteners and other flavor enhancers, liquid sugars (even more cracklike), fiberless juice, and alcohol/drugs. """""
read, reread, then reread again this comment. it is $$. cut the crap thn work on YOU, not your obsessing about diet and the rights and wrongs. health is about experiencing yourself as a whole. if you understand how your mind works, then diet shouldnt be a factor really, given the advice matt posted above. your mind should not be so preoccupied/future tripping on any aspect that has to do with food.
if you think' something will damage you, cause weight gain, etc…then i undoubtedly think it will. if low carbers "fear" la potato they will gain from it. if john fears sugar, hes gonna have problems with it. if jannis thinks sugar is superior to starch then that will work FOR her because she is not freaking out about sugar. start overfeeding her starch, she may induce some problems.
i fully 100% agree that the health of your brain reflects the health of your body. if you are mentally healthy and follow the quoted advice from matt above i really think it will all work out.
if you are on the fructose fro fruit is bad bandwagon, then your body is going to react bad.
To all those who think that it is sugar itself that is addicting. Eat a few spoons of sugar – pure sugar only! You will stop after a few because you can't stand it any more.
But the same could be said for any pure molecule.
Janis, I recently received many abstracts from Riles (through you through Peat, I think) on fructose. The problem is that they are simply showing a lack of insulin response to a single meal, which everyone agrees with. If you want to look at fructose alone, there are tons of studies showing the harm–here's a few that show different problems…
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18703413
*high fructose diet leads to higher weight gain in response to "high-fat" feeding
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16583308
*fructose & glycation
http://hyper.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/hypertensionaha;45/5/1012
*high fructose diet induces fatty liver
http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/2/1/5
*review of many fructose papers (you can easily follow-up on each ref too)
If you want to argue that isolated/high fructose is unnatural/unrealistic/etc, here is a paper that shows no difference in body composition with regards to corn starch vs sucrose, but if you look at the results, the sucrose rats had about 33% higher fasting insulin*… http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/reprint/47/3/420 …I'll agree that overall weight statistics tend not to differ much with sucrose and starch, but as shown here, there's simply more to it thatn sucrose is more thermogenic and less insulinemic…
Higher fasting insulin isn't necessarily a bad thing. And as you said, there was no change in body composition. I know the first study- it is crap. It uses no fructose but HFCS and artificial leptin.
I have no time to read the others today.
I agree: I don't think you can say hfcs=fructose in fruit or fructose in refined sucrose. But, processing is the only way to isolate fructose–Peat cites studies which do this to support fructose, so I thought it'd be okay to do the opposite.
Ha, I was oh-so-close to putting a star with an end-note saying, "This is assuming higher fasting insulin is a negative." Well, if you look at the data, the sucrose rats did have more body fat and more weight gained, but within the study it wasn't statistically significant–perhaps the results would be more noticeable with more time or ad-libitum feeding.
What would be a reason higher fasting insulin is good (assuming a minimum level associated with a healthy liver and pancreas)?
…How do you know the first study used hfcs anyway? The full text isn't available, and since hfcs is typically 55% fructose, a diet of 60% (stated in abstract) fructose would be impossible.
The "artificial leptin" point is irrelevant: Something bad occurred in the rats fed fructose (whether it was so-called leptin resistance or not doesn't matter); otherwise, they wouldn't have gotten fat from the diet that followed.
180 posse,
How about HED on this stuff?
http://www.delish.com/food-fun/weird-fried-food?GT1=47007
Gosh Matt, you're hurting my brain!!
Sooooo, all this "…good fat is good for you…" isn't true after all?? The best way to lose weight is to eat low fat after all?
I'm coming from the Sally Fallon/Nourishing traditions mindset and am feeding my family lots of good fat. I guess that's why I'm still more than 50lbs overweight??? However what you wrote here triggered a memory- when my first two children were babies (they were 11 months apart) it was so stressful just to care for them, that by the time naps came around, I NEEDED a coke. I struggled with postpartum depression, and that would explain the NEED for cokes. It's been happening lately to me again- needing some form of soda, which do contain caffeine and high fructose, as well as being addicted to my coffee with "natural cane juice" and heavy cream AND my southern sweetened ice tea.
Epiphany!!!
But, it makes me sad…what will I do to replace those things that I feel I need to get through the stress?
Jessica
john,
Here is the full text to the piece-of-crap leptin-fructose rat study:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18703413.
All my critiques of that shameful paper that I expressed on the Joel Marion thread still stand.
Matt you said "The harder, and still unsolved question remains – how do you get the fat off once you are already fat?" and this is the point I often make.
You can try and emulate the diets of healthy natives but the fact is, they never were fat in the first place, so how does that apply to someone that is already fat? These natives never had to lose it, so does their diet make for an excellent weight loss tool? Just an observation.
And now a very appropriate cartoon for this post…
http://www.seattlepi.com/fun/comic.asp?feature_id=Bizarro&feature_date=2010-08-10
I'm on Ray Peat's side on sugar. There isn't any real evidence that sucrose is harmful.
I searched on Google, and all of the two studies I have found proves that sucrose is safe.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3044068
Metabolic effects of dietary sucrose and fructose in type II diabetic subjects. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that in the short and middle terms, high fructose and sucrose diets do not adversely affect glycemia, lipemia, or insulin and C-peptide secretion in well-controlled type II diabetic subjects.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8908389
Metabolic effects of dietary sucrose and fructose in type II diabetic subjects. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that in the short and middle terms, high fructose and sucrose diets do not adversely affect glycemia, lipemia, or insulin and C-peptide secretion in well-controlled type II diabetic subjects.
And I found an interesting quote:
http://www.benefits-of-honey.com/hibernation-diet.html
"Fructose also triggers the glucose enzyme in the liver allowing the liver to take in as much glucose as it requires. This has been referred to as the Fructose Paradox. In other words, fructose lowers the Glycemic Index of glucose; fructose enters the liver and opens the gate for glucose entry preventing a rapid rise in blood glucose. This natural blood glucose regulator found in fruits, vegetables and honey, regulate blood glucose levels and stabilize blood glucose to maintain a regular supply of glucose to the brain."
I don't know if it's true or not. But if it's true, then Ray Peat might be right again.
There is more to the sugar vs. starch debate than just how it affects blood sugar levels and the liver.
Sugar is oxidized more effectively, spares oxygen, raises CO2, etc. etc. etc.
Sugar is more beneficial.
i wonder if this has anything to do with sex. orgasm is the biggest blast of dopamine the body can manufacture. there is a natural drop in dopamine after the surge of dopamine at orgasm. people going through the dopamine withdrawal are more likely to eat foods that will raise their dopamine, or be pressured to continue the cycle with another orgasm. addiction creates a chronic lowering of dopamine levels.
DML, that's just the abstract, and I already said I agree that it's not useful. You're making a straw man argument: I never said anything about leptin or that fructose in food=processed fructose. What about the others?
Because they all use pure fructose, I then posted one with sucrose vs corn starch. The sucrose group had insignificantly higher body fat but significantly higher fasting insulin.
Luming, the study with the diabetics further shows that sucrose leads to higher insulin–did you read it?? And again, regarding the quote, we already know fructose gets a lower insulin response, and we already know that immediate post-prandial blood glucose doesn't mean much. Otherwise, it'd be obvious that we should be low carb.
To Anonymous and other die-hard Peat fans, I have read his stuff too, so when you're making an argument, it carries no weight to simply quote or paraphrase him…
…I enjoy his stuff a lot, but I don't see any reason to close my mind off to everything else…
Matt, sorry to have this argument again–it seems every comment section becomes a starch vs sugar war…
…but, I haven't been contributing, so just one more…
http://www.springerlink.com/content/k464800q5306881k/
*sucrose diet increases fasting insulin compared to starch
@ Luming: Interesting you brought up the hibernation diet, the quote seems pretty solid. I tried the hibernation diet years back and it had mixed results while I slept better it eventually after 4-6 weeks of doing it every night I got pretty bad gas and digestion got messed up….
The basic premise is having 1tbsp of honey before bed to provide your brain with a drip feed of energy throughout the night via the fructose store in the liver. Fascinating idea but whether or not it has any real backing is questionable. here is the link again http://goo.gl/q4dJ and here is a pretty interesting video by the author http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3c1lbfhPLeM explaining the process
I would like to see what Matt thinks of some pre-bed fructose to stabilize blood sugar through the night…..
Jessica,
Check out Julia Ross's The Mood Cure. She's great on what to take to wean yourself off various substances, including caffeine and sugar. She talks a lot about diet too, but says sometimes people get in a deep enough hole that they need supplements in the short-term to manage various problems.
I've been following her advice for my stimulant-addicted husband, and it is working better than either of expected. Practically a miracle.
Sugar hounds:
There is no study you can put in front of me that will convince me that sugar is a healthy food. (Talking about added or refined sugar only.) It has bad emotional effects on my entire family, plus I think the evidence of Price is infinitely more compelling than anything coming out of PubMed.
Matt has already commented that he does not think starch leads to unstable blood sugar…
…are you guys joking about considering that site as science?
…if you're worried, add fat
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18097844
Also, Chris I believe Matt has talked about a person you used corn starch to treat hypoglycemia overnight.
john,
The study that compared starch vs. sucrose is pretty useless. Part of their diet was a significant amount of safflower oil.
Besides, I checked some of the references in the text. It's a very good example of apparent fraud. They say that rats eat huge amounts of sucrose when they have unlimited excess to it and therfore get fat. The study they cited to support this claim found this: Different groups of rats had unlimited excess to sugar. One group of rats that had already been made obese before ate more sugar than the other groups. Not quite the same, is it? Check it if you want!
It rather proofes that obese subjects prefer sugar because they intuitively know that the sugar will help them to improve their glucose tolerance.
Peat sent me a study which shows that fructose improves glucose tolerance in obese humans. I can't find it right now.
I am still waiting for a study that shows any negativ effects of either sucrose or fructose.
Chris,
Sugar before bed time is always a good idea. It has the same effect as low doses of thyroid. It increases T3 production and stabilizes blood sugar. Your brain needs energy in the form of T3 and glucose in order to fall asleep. Sugar provides both. If you have trouble to fall asleep drink some milk and OJ before bed time.
Nell,
What kind of problems are you talking about?
I read Price's book completely.
He didn't provide any evidence that sugar is something bad.
You shouldn't ignore objective evidence just because some gurus tell you that substance X is bad. That's the whole misery of science today. Science isn't about experience and observations any more. It has become a fraudulent cult that produces only those results that are most profitable.
Sydney: I DO NOT eat nor crave Doritos, but my daughter can down a small bag like a starving animal.. hence the reason she does not get them at all.
Nell: On your sugar hounds note, all addicts will do anything, say anything, even hurt themselves to get their fix. I know this.. Yes, I have been there.. and still crave dates at some times, I mean a handful of fresh organic dates, but still, I do love them.
I vote starch, without fat on top. It leaves me energized and full, not needing to eat for a long time. Can't say that for my sugars.. sigh.. wish I could.
I find that as I add more green juice, green smoothies with no sweeteners and minimal sweet fruits and lots of raw veggies and cooked yams etc, no dairy, small amounts of coconut oil, I feel the best. and occ. fish/lean bison etc. once a week at most.
Works for me.
And maybe that is the thing we all need to keep in mind.
To Each His or Her Own..
xo deb
I personally think the relying solely on studies is a bit of a tricky subject, especially if we are talking about a ultra complex subject like nutrition.
That's why I think looking at primitive tribes and their eating patterns has a lot of value.
An example that come to my mind would be (once again) the Kitavans. I think it is safe to say that Kitavans have pretty much inlimited access to both natural starches and natural sugars. So which kind of carbohydrate do they eat? Both of course, but as far as I've got it right the amount of starch consumed is significanlty higher. Does that mean that those people know that tubers are better and thus they seek it out intuitively or do they just consume more calories as starch because tubers simply are more calorie-dense? I honestly don't know, but I still think that the Kitavans can serve as a very good indicator for what kind of starch to sugar ratio might be beneficial.
Does anyone else know about some other primitive cultures with access to both sugar and starches? And if yes, does anyone know anything more speicific regarding macronutrient ratios?
In finance, a company can't issue new debt prior to releasing their earnings, this is called the "Quiet Period". I feel like Matt is in his own Quiet Period right now. He's refraining from commenting to stay focused on a new blog post that may address some of the topics that dominate the comments of the prior post. Maybe not but it makes sense to me.
I have the voice of Scott Abel popping into my head rambling on about scientism and paradigm blindness. I think we all need straightforward advice specific to each of our health problems. It make me think of Aryuvedic or Chinese Medicine.
Right now I'm siding with Jon Gabriel and Mireille Guiliano (French Women Don't Get Fat) as the most sensible approach to health.
But I also think some of us need specific advice to get out of certain holes. That probably means researching outside of 180 degree health. Somebody above mentioned the Mood Cure by Julia Ross. Check out this review and how many other books it also recommends. I can personally say I don't have the sleep or mood stability I would truly like. Is it psychological or physiological, it's so impossible to tell. I don't always have the BM I would like, so maybe Gut and Psychology Syndrome would be helpful there. I'm guessing most people here are the type that like to bone up on information.
@Mark: Yeah, you could be right. But maybe he simply is not sitting in front of the computer 24/7 to be able to adress everyone's comments within a time frame of 30 seconds – even though it does seem like that sometimes.
@AaronF: In my opinion trying to draw a border between psychological and physiological issues is futile. I don't know how this is supposed to help you, but whatever.
madmuhhh, good point
jannis, you're putting down a study I didn't use as evidence–but you are implying sunflower oil+starch is better than sunflower oil+sucrose… I would hope you know Ray Peat says sugar protects against the "toxic effects of PUFA."
As I said already, higher fasting insulin from sucrose is the main concern.
Matt, please put up a new post, so we can end this madness!
i dont think much of looking at the kitavans or any other culture or tribe. they were not fat. they did not have weight problems. they did not have blood sugar problems.
they breastfed their babies. they digested their food. they werent deficient in amino acids. they did not give 2 fucks about nutrition. they didnt have these inborn malfunctioning bodies as 2039456013946851348570134 in America and increasingly elsewhere do.
so, they simply did not have ill health as WE DO- save for dying from som bizarre heat stroke, wound, or bacterial disease
just because they were bred healthy, born healthy, and ate 32047510345134 potatoes a day does not in any way convince me that we should mock them…..
Jessica: How about satisfying your caffeine/sugar craving with something a bit less harmful than a coke? A cup of green tea with a tsp of honey is a good little pick me up. Green tea has less caffeine than coke, coffee or black tea and pairs really nicely with honey. Remember to brew it at less than boiling temp for a shorter amount of time (three minutes). You could also use white tea which has half the caffeine of green tea. I gradually weened myself down to white tea and then to herbal. However when I'm really craving caffeine I do occasionally splurge on it. We had really bad thunder storms here and I lost most of two nights sleep. Yesterday I had iced bubble tea which is black tea, plus simple syrup and tapioca pearls. It's load of caffeine and sugar probably worse than a coke. It's not a regular part of my diet, though any more. I have noticed that since I quit drinking caffeine every day, it takes a far smaller amount to get that coffee buzz. Same thing with sugar. I flew through my afternoon yesterday on overdrive and then crashed and was crabby and tired as hell last night. So much for my little treat. But I don't feel guilty about doing it, just stupid and hopefully next time, a little wiser.
madmuuh,
In my opinion the Kitava have not the ultra perfect health some people believe. They are lean and pretty healthy. But if you read Lindeberg's study you will see that they age as fast as western people do and get some of the same problems (high blood presure) They usually don't become very old either. Ok, they don't have excess to medical treatments. But other tribes like the massai or people in Peru often become very old and have a better physical performance.
john,
If you didn't use it as evidence why did you post it than?
Can you provide a study which shows that sugar raises fasting insulin levels in humans?
To be honest, I don't care if it does. I don't think that super low insulin levels (< 70)like made Matt had them during his overfeeding period are something you want to achieve.But if you want to get some extra information about it ask Peat yourself. He will be more than happy to help you.
Hey Jannis,
Thanks for responding. I'm hoping that you can clarify your position. You may have done it before but we've collectively built up a lot of comments this week and I don't know where to look.
Question: I know you like sugar but do you like sugar that's naturally in fruit or do you like sugar that you add to coffee too? Outside of that, I'm having a hard time of thinking of foods that have added sugar and little else (ex. a brownie has flour and usually veggie oils).
I appreciate your perspective and I just want to make sure I understand your position. I have no interest in arguing about study's that use pure fructose or extraneous leptin. I'm just not that smart :)
jannis,
I meant the reference within the one I posted. I was just using the reference to show the fasting insulin–I don't necessarily agree with whatever they say throughout it.
Luming posted the one with diabetics (which can skew results itself) where post prandial insulin was higher–I don't think they mention fasting. Either way, as you propose, maybe fasting insulin isn't a good health indicator. I guess I'll just say I disagree as it's a commonality among many examples of healthy cultures and other slow-aging animals.
Yes, Peat is good with e-mails and providing advice/info.
When you referred to Matt's insulin level, what is the unit for <70? I'm used to using uIU/mL, where low would maybe be less than 4 or so.
…sorry for the triple post…
Mark,
Sugar in fruit is better as refined sugar because the fruit contains a lot of vitamins, minerals and enzyms that help to digest it.
But some refined sugar is ok, too.
I think I eat about 130g of "fruitsugar" and a bit less than 50g of refined sugar on a normal day.
Oops, my bad, I copied and pasted the wrong url. My apologies.
HERE is the full text:
http://ajpregu.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/295/5/R1370.
And I was not making a strawman. I wasn't even debating/arguing with you, for pity's sake. I thought I was being helpful by giving the url to the full text, because you commented that the full text was not available. In fact here is the full quote:
"…How do you know the first study used hfcs anyway? The full text isn't available, and since hfcs is typically 55% fructose, a diet of 60% (stated in abstract) fructose would be impossible."
Oh, and my comment about the "leptin-fructose rat study" was my way of identifying the study, because that is ultimately what is about. It was not to debate with you. And I called it a "piece-of-crap" because that is what it is; once again, not to insult or debate with you. And I said my critiques still stand because, well, they do!
If you want to seem like a reasonable person, I would suggest that you don't drag people into debates or accuse them of "strawmen" when all they are doing is supplying a reference –in this case, the full text to a study.
AaronF:
Excellent points. I've read both of those books you mentioned and highly recommend each. Both have plenty of usable information that most people would benefit from learning, whether or not a person would necessarily need to follow all the advice from those books to the letter.
My personal goal (and professional goal in a sense, relating to my blog) has always been to constantly seek more knowledge in the arena of health and nutrition, generally from as sound of sources as I can find. I tend to follow my gut and not just what makes sense logically. Low-carb made sense to me logically at the time, but my gut said no. Of course I didn't listen to my gut and learned my lesson well. While it's fun to think that one person may have the ultimate answer, the truth is that most experts can offer some degree of useful knowledge, and you never know which source will teach you what you as an individual need to know.
Of course, it's not as neat and tidy as everyone following one sole expert, but I personally think it's necessary to find your own answer more than blindly following someone else's.
john,
mg/dl
The slowest aging apes (unfortunately i forgot their names) live exclusively on fruit. All very intelligent land animals like sucrose.
By the way, my post above was addressed to John, and the post where he informed me that I gave (mistakenly) the link to the abstract to the fructose-leptin rat study.
@Jannis
Thanks for the response. If you don't mind, would you write out a typical of food for you? It would help me wrap my head around it.
Mine for today:
-Coffee with Half 'n' Half, baby carrots with about a 1/3 cup of hummus
-4 corn tortillas with about a cup of jasmine rice and about 4 oz ground beef
-same meal as above
-dinner will probably be something like ~4 oz ground pork, ~2 cups jasmine rice, more corn tortillas and maybe a brownie*
*my wife made them for me yesterday and used coconut oil instead of veggie oil. they are incredible!
Hi Jannis,
You said "In my opinion the Kitava have not the ultra perfect health some people believe. They are lean and pretty healthy. But if you read Lindeberg's study you will see that they age as fast as western people do and get some of the same problems (high blood presure) They usually don't become very old either. Ok, they don't have excess to medical treatments. But other tribes like the massai or people in Peru often become very old and have a better physical performance."
If you would prefer to look at longevity, look at the Okinawans who have more centenarians per capita than anywhere else on the planet…oh wait, they eat lots of rice too. ;-)
http://www.okicent.org/
Honestly, I didn't post that to stir the pot, but I don't know which diet provides the greatest health benefits…but I am keeping my eyes open to all the possibilities!
DML, sorry about that, thanks for the full text.
jannis, hmm, that's something to look into. Some birds that eat mostly sugar live long too. I can't get their insulin levels though. Plus, I wouldn't know what they mean anyway. I do think though that those animals would age slower if calorie restricted (which of course would be almost all sugar, so the heavy metals & tryptophan theories wouldn't be relavent), and perhaps one reason is lower insulin–maybe, maybe not.
Well, they live about 2-3 years longer than the average junk food eating Italian or Swede. Not too impresive. This can for example simply be due to the fact that they have less stress.
Anyway, I didn't say high starch is incompatible with good health. Unfortunately there is no study on human life expectancy and sugar yet.
john,
I doubt that calorie restricting has any effect on how long you live. As Peat pointed out you can get the same results if you restrict cystein and tryptophan.
Maybe excess insulin has something to do with it, I don't know. If it were so that would be another reason to prefer sucrose.
Have you ever seen or played with some hummingbirds? They are awesome and seem to understand a lot of things you would never believe. If you offer them some sugarwater or something they will love you and sit on your hand.
@ all the people who commented on my Kitavan comment:
For the most part, I think that your points are valid. I'm not necessarily saying that we should emulate the Kitavan lifestyle or that they had superb health.
My point was that to some degree they seem to prefer starch over sugar. The Kitavans have access to both fruit and tubers. So, if sugar really were so much more beneficial, don't you guys think that the Kitavans would have noticed over the years that the people consuming more fruit would live longer, be stronger, healthier etc and they would all slowly graduate to a more sugar centric lifestyle? There is certainly a lot of speculation to this argument, but I still think that it might be valid. Those primitive tribes who weren't brainwashed by society or nutritional education in any way often instinctually seek out what is best for them instinctually. I personally think that it's incredible how much "wisdom" those tribes possess about food and nutrition without ever having read anything aboout nutrition, your instincts and biofeedback can get you very far in my opinion.
I know that many people might not agree with my logic and I don't even say that I am 100% cinvinced of this either, but I still think that this is a point worth considering.
Apart from that I agree that our sweet tooth is there for a reason and some fruit/honey probably should be part of a healthy diet, even though I'm not consuming much of that right now.
Oh, and Jannis, what kind of diet do the Peruvian people eat?
oh shit, hummingbirds like sugar??? Damn, that's it, that's all i need to know, somebody pass me a bag of that sweet powdery stuff!
Ok, last post for today.
Mark, I usually eat around 350 or slightly more gramms of Carbohydrates, 130 gramms of protein and something like 90 or 100 gramms of fat.
I have 2 quarts of milk (1.5%), more than 1 quart of orange juice, 150g of meat or fish, a portion of rice and potatos for lunch and dinner, some fruits, cheese, gelatine, butter and coconut oil and some coke or ice cream occasionally. I also take one capsule of Halibut Liver Oil every few days. To get enough of the fat soluble vitamins.
Thanks Jannis. Sounds tasty!
madMUHHH, that is very true. These cultures have been tight and together for many generations, and their traditions are really helpful in our learning.
too much sugars of any kind (milk, fruit, grain) make me bloat and gain weight, but i've recently started fermenting sweet potatoes, ala poi, and its pretty awesome. like a potato yogurt.
whoa, fermented sweet tateys?
do Share your methods :Darius!!
@malpaz
so, they simply did not have ill health as WE DO- save for dying from som bizarre heat stroke, wound, or bacterial disease
I think you are missing the point. They do have ill health as "WE DO" when they adopt and eat the foods that "WE DO."
@Matt
Yeah I always wonder what people mean when they say "I eat the Weston Price way" which clearly tells me nothing unless they are only referring to the lack of white flour and white sugar in their diet, which 99.99% of the time they are not (or mean they are only eating real foods but they still usually have something else in mind).
Oh brother-
This conversation never goes anywhere. I will give Jannis points for persistence, even if the points made are absolutely absurd, like "maybe high fasting insulin is good," or "the Masai live longer than the Kitavans," or "Lindeberg says the Kitavans develop high blood pressure (false)" or, my personal favorite….
"The diabetics ate more sucrose because they instinctually knew that it would cure their glucose metabolism."
Yes, could someone please drop some more sucrose on the Pima reservation so that can hurry up and cure themselves of diabetes.
Mark-
Hilarious.
Malpaz-
Excellent comments.
Will-
Glad you picked up on that point. Weight loss is something that the human body has never needed to achieve before. It's always a great thing to figure out where it came from and how to prevent it, but fixing it is more complex – and something that people don't appreciate the difficulty of achieving successfully unless they are involved in obesity research.
Hey Matt,
You may want to read "The Retrospect of Medicine", published in 1850, which can be found in Google Books by the search "dr budd diabetes". It makes interesting reading. For example, Dr Budd cites the case Elizabeth Hilliard, diabetic (T1?), whom he stabilises by sucrose feeding. First, he gives her 10 oz of sucrose, and when he finds that this reduces her urination, drops the sucrose further to 5oz. The patient begins to gain weight. I think this forms basis of Ray Peat's contention that T1s can be controlled with sugar feeding. Yes, that passed for control in 1850: the patient lived longer. But, I assume still got diabetic retinopathy and suffered foot amputations.
You will also come across experiments on dogs, no Wistar rats for the Victorians!
I think you also find the origin of Peat's reference to experiments with starch feeding in the same volume, as well as reference to a substance they named "hepatine", whose modern equivalent I have not been able to ascertain.
It is better value than McGarrison.
Jannis
Would you please send me the studies too? My address is clotilde dot hunter at gmail dot com
Thank you very much
swallow's nest in an edible gel form is supposed be good for the skin too. it gives that clear and pasty skin that we all love.
it's mad expensive. my brother and i bought some for my mom for her birthday. it was like 400 bucks for like a 6-8 oz jar. Luckily we finally found the one of popular brand online (hongkong-bird-nest.50webs.com/index_e.htm and http://www.euyansang.com/)
dad said it's really popular in indonesia. that a guy has to climb a high mountain to get the nest. that's why it's so expensive.
i mean why doesn't the dude just look for the fabled korean swallow king, capture it and let it lay eggs full of gold! then, he wouldn't have to work so hard and climb them high mountains.