About a month ago we were having a big nerdfest about the role of dopamine in weight set point and what Seth Roberts calls the ?Flavor-Calorie Theory? of obesity ? or what I have started calling, because my coolness rating is so much higher than Seth’s, PCAT (Pleasure Center Activation Theory). But dopamine is only one of the pleasure neurotransmitters that is involved in the human sensation of pleasure ? another is serotonin. And weight is only one thing that is potentially influenced by these reward chemicals.
Here is another connection for you.
Author Jon Gabriel in his book, The Gabriel Method, discusses how pivotal emotions are to weight set point specifically. Negative feelings about your weight or body image are very central to weight problems, and take a small problem and blow it up into a big one in a vicious cycle. Other emotions such as anxiety, guilt, stress, sorrow, worry, and fear may often play a central role as well.
Gabriel loves to reflect upon the work environment that he was in when his weight was the highest ? and how he lived in a constant state of unease around his moody and hot-tempered?colleague who I envision treating the office copy machine like the character Michael Bolton in the movie Office Space. In videos he laughs at how he (Jon Gabriel) would always be on some kind of diet while weighing in at nearly 400 pounds? one week he?d ?be eating the burger without the bun and the next week be eating the bun without the burger.
His business partner, however, would order something like a chocolate milkshake for lunch, would have a few sips of it, and then just throw the rest out ? while Gabriel would be starving and could hardly take his eyes off the milkshake. He just wasn’t interested in the milkshake, and kept losing and losing and losing weight while Gabriel gained weight in the same stressful work environment.
But Gabriel, interestingly, would internalize all of the problems at work and all the stress, whereas his colleague would scream and shout and throw things and then move on. He talks about all this?beginning at?6:00 in this video (and at around 2 minutes in he discusses acute vs. chronic stress?in terms of exercise?which is discussed at the bottom of this post)…
One way of dealing with a situation leads to chronic low-grade stress similar to what is experienced during famine. The other is a more natural way of dealing with stress ? a way that you will see any less cognitively-advanced creature dealing with stress and trauma. There one minute, gone the next. An emotional flurry is gone in a hurry (Yeah, I just made that up? I’m the awesomest).
This theme is repeated throughout Peter Levine’s book on emotional and physical trauma entitled Waking the Tiger. Those who remain active during traumatic situations manage to dissipate the trauma and have very little lasting post-traumatic stress. It’s those that internalize the trauma and shut down physically and mentally that have this trauma stored in the body where it resides, causing disease and distress, on a long-term basis which is far more harmful.
I came across this theme again recently while reading Shawn Talbott’s excellent book, The Cortisol Connection. The concept is simple really. There is acute stress, and there is chronic stress ? and how difficult and traumatic situations are dealt with makes a huge difference in the outcome as regards your health, well-being, and waist measurement.
This is because these negative emotional states induce a release of cortisol. Actually, a more accurate depiction of what happens is that negative emotional states ramp up the activity of 11-HSD-1, an enzyme in cells (particularly centered around the abdomen) that, for lack of a better description, helps cells utilize a larger percentage of the cortisol coursing through the body at any given time.
In other words blood levels = normal. Actual functional cortisol = high, as this intracellular cortisol cannot be measured via normal blood or saliva tests, which are, like thyroid hormone panels, only useful in cases of extreme abnormality (like Talbott says, if you actually have truly abnormal levels of cortisol, you’re lucky to be able to get out of bed in the morning). Huge and unpredictable fluctuations throughout the day in terms of cortisol in the bloodstream complicate the usefulness of testing even further.
Anyway, you can now clearly see why substances that spike neurotransmitters to unnatural highs can lead to an increase in weight set point. Spike serotonin into the stratosphere using foods with extreme sweetness, unnaturally high calorie density, and rapid absorption rates ? or by using psychoactive drugs like alcohol that induces a massive pleasure response, and you do witness downregulation of receptor sites (closure).
The result is that these things send you on an emotional roller coaster ride in which you feel extremely good immediately after consuming these highly-pleasurable things, but then exist in a low-pleasure state the entire time that you are not on one of these substances – depicted very well in Kathleen DesMaisons’short video HERE?(sugar ? particularly the fat-sugar combo, no-calorie sweeteners, alcohol, drugs, white bread, etc.). This results in chronic, low-grade negative emotional states of stress, depression, anxiety, fear, guilt, worry, an inability to shake off painful past experiences, and a tendency to see the worst in the people, places, and things that you interact with in life.
And it’s this chronic, perpetual, low-grade level of psychological malaise that leads to real problems with your cells drowning in a steady flow of cortisol and the manifestation of metabolic disease, frequent infection (cortisol suppresses the immune system), autoimmune disease, allergy/asthma, and so on.
After all, it is cortisol (along with other counter-inflammatory molecules such as SOCS-3 as discussed in the video below) that blocks the action of leptin and insulin ? causing leptin and insulin resistance. This, in turn, leads to lowered testosterone, reduced metabolism, impaired immunity, hyperinsulinemia, impaired glucose tolerance, increased appetite (although your appetite is a lesser factor if you are eating to get a serotonin and/or dopamine high), and so on. Chronic emotional stress, chronic physical’stress in the form of diet and overexercising, and excess tissue composition of omega 6 and other causes of inflammation all contribute to this effect.
The take-home message from this initial serotonin post is simple though. There are foods and substances (all of them with a drug-like quality due to the influence they exert upon the pleasure centers in our brains) that cause chronic low serotonin levels (via receptor closure) of which chronic high cortisol levels is the counter-result. In this way, the vast spectrum of negative moods, if they are chronic, lead to chronic problems with infectious and degenerative illness including weight problems. When you eat to keep pleasure centers as stable as possible, which will be discussed at great length in this series of posts, it is almost impossible to trigger irrationally-negative emotional states ? and the response to stressful and traumatic situations is infinitely enhanced and doesn’t weigh on you for days and weeks like it would someone in a chronic low serotonin state.
In a sense, chronic stress and acute stress are polar opposites, which is an excellent tie-in to the continued conversation we’ve been having on exercise ? from a metabolic standpoint, it appears that short-duration, high-intensity exercise improves the stress response ? sending it in the acute direction. This is, of course, the exact type of exercise Jon Gabriel recommends as the exercise component of his program. Long-duration exercise appears to be more of a chronic stress, which can easily be observed in the difference in body type between an endurance athlete with a characteristic low-testosterone/high-cortisol profile (low muscle mass, gains fat easily when sedentary) compared to a high-performance/short-duration athlete (high muscle mass to body fat ratio ? high testosterone to cortisol ratio).
By the same token, chronic vs. acute consumption of junk food, alcohol, etc. abide by the same rules. In my personal experience, acute consumption of such foods can be equally as beneficial as chronic consumption is harmful.
Stay tuned for more in this series, including how to reset your cortisol clock and stress response, serotonin’s role in our circadian rhythms, serotonin’s role in sleep quality, appetite, cravings, and energy levels, the carbohydrate to protein ratio and how it impacts serotonin, emotional eating, how to potentially keep your serotonin receptor sites from upregulating when eating a diet that keeps serotonin on an even keel, and for more read my eBook DIET RECOVERY.
I win! Excuse me while I go read the post now.
Matt, I see you very interested in the role of serotonin. I would recommend you to read what Peat has to say about serotonin, which is very interesting. Also, to spin your brains a little, one of the most effective antidepressants is called tianeptine and it REDUCES SEROTONIN; see the wikipedia page. Also, the famous SSRIs are associated with emotional blunting and anhedonia (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12135539). Not only that, but it is not proven that the way the actually work (when they do) is via serotonin: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1277931/'tool=pmcentrez So I don't really know from where all the rage for serotonin comes(other than monetary-merchandising reasons, of course).
Nice post. I always like it when people address some of the variables of weight control besides the obvious ones of nutrition and exercise.
I think stress, attitude, and a person's body image also play a bigger role than most people acknowledge.
What's the latest greatest snack food? I gotta know. If I ask three times are you compelled to tell me? What's the snack food? What's the snack food?
Believe me, you don't wanna find a diet that increases your levels of serotonin. Only serotonin research rivals PUFA research for the level of incompetence and fraud.
Check out Ray Peat's article on serotonin!
My girlfriend was taking a serotonin re-uptake inhibitor for some time. It was the worst time of her life and it took a lot of effort to correct the damage it had inflicted.
Serotonin, an important mediator of stress, shock, and inflammation, is a vasoconstrictor that impairs circulation in a great variety of circumstances.
Stress impairs metabolism, and serotonin suppresses mitochondrial energy production.
Stress and shock tend to increase our absorption of bacterial endotoxin from the intestine, and endotoxin causes the release of serotonin from platelets in the blood.
Schizophrenia is one outcome of stress, both cumulative and acute. Prenatal stress commonly predisposes a person to develop schizophrenia at a later age.
Serotonins restriction of circulation to the uterus is a major factor in toxemia of pregnancy and related complications of pregnancy.
Hypothyroidism increases serotonin activity in the body, as it increases estrogen dominance.
Estrogen inhibits the enzyme monoamino oxidase (MAO), and is highly associated with increased serotonin activity. Progesterone has the opposite effect on MAO.
The frontal lobes of the brain are hypometabolic in schizophrenia. Serotonin can cause vasoconstriction in the brain.
Serotonin release causes lipid peroxidation.
Schizophrenics have high levels of lipid peroxidation.
Antioxidants, including uric acid, are deficient in schizophrenics.
Therapies which improve mitochondrial respiration alleviate the symptoms of schizophrenia.
Energy depletion leads to brain atrophy, but with normal stimulation and nutrition even adult brains can grow.
Schizophrenics and depressed people have defective sleep.
Increasing the bodys energy level and temperature improves the quality of sleep.
Whoa, are you … advocating binge drinking for health? I am shocked but also really, really hopeful that you're right.
"Whoa, are you … advocating binge drinking for health? I am shocked but also really, really hopeful that you're right. "
That's actually also kind what I wanted to ask.
In case your theory that occasional pleasure center spikes might have unique positive benefits, do you think that this could also be achieved solely through drinking?
To be honest, I don't really care about eating tons of junk food for one day, even though I'd probably enjoy it. I also barely drink any alcohol, but still the idea of drinking greater amounts of alcohol for health every now and then does sound kinda neat.
Do you have references for your info on schizophrenia? I've been reading Gut And Psychology Syndrome and was interested in how much it links autism and schizophrenia with gut dysbiosis, although I'm sure the picture is always much more complicated.
I've been reading The Mood Cure and The Diet Cure by Julia Ross. There's a lot in these books about achieving stable brain chemistry (not just serotonin, although that's a big one). Diet is definitely a key component. I find it interesting how this can tie in with the fact that the ability to detect various flavors becomes lost with nutrient deficiencies (especially certain B vitamins and zinc). So if you get into a whole eating too much junk, not only will eating real food not be as pleasurable (due to serotonin receptor down-regulation), it will also taste bland (due to nutrient deficiencies).
Digging into the good stuff, eh, Matt? I have a huge interest in the brain-body connection. Nearly everyone I've spoken to has reaffirmed my belief that it's almost downright impossible to eat right when your brain chemistry is out of whack. So, of course, that can be a hell of a vicious cycle! I think if someone is at that point a drastic diet overall is not even an option. You have to address it one small step at a time–try to eat a little better, get somewhat better sleep, reduce a little stress. Eventually this adds up to a snowball effect of sorts, since one positive change begets another. Unfortunately this can work the other way as well if we're not careful! I think is where so many of us hit the two-steps-forward-one-step-back scenario.
Ok, setting up the link to the Sugar Junkie video was just mean.
I am still off all fruit, dates, stevia etc. but damn..
The times I crave it most?
after two hours of exercise.
But my temp was 98.2 this am so Yeah Team.
just don't show me any more chocolate ok?
xo sugar free but still sweet
Re: Jon Gabriel
This may be addressed in your previous posts about him or in his book: How did he keep from having all the excess skin like everyone else that loses a lot of weight, especially the gastric bypass folks? Is it the speed of weight loss? Exercise or not? Just hereditary?
Interesting stuff. I heard mention of inflammation in there and remembered I had a question I wanted to post in regards to what I read on a Mark Sisson blog once, which was that grains cause inflammation and can be a cause for joint pain and stiffness. He also makes mention of potatoes (which I know there are some big fans of on here…including myself). Any thoughts on this?
"I win! Excuse me while I go read the post now."
I can relate to stress affecting weight set point and overall health. I am currently going through a good deal of stress and emotional upheaval relating to job/finances and my body fat has increased for the first time in over a year and a half, and in terms of well-being, well, let's say I've don't feel all that chipper.
I can also relate how remaining active/exercising influences how one deals with stress, as discussed. I talked myself into doing some high intensity exercise –something I had quit doing when the stress began a few weeks ago– the last few days and I feel much better for it, much more optimistic.
I'm not telling all this in order to whine or tell the story of my life –I'll pull through, anyway. Rather, I mention this as anecdotal support of the fact that stress and how we deal with it does indeed influence our health. As others have said, there is something to Gabriel's "woo-woo" approach.
Great post Matt,
This is one of my main problems. I've got chronic inner stress that no amount of meditation, relaxation tapes, nor 15 years of different types of therapy (cognitive and Jungian etc) has been able to resolve completely. I know it's at the core of my health issues. Great to know that diet can effect that.
Since I upped my starchy carb intake, my life stressors have not diminished. However I deal with them much better. When I was high protein I felt uneasy and anxious all the time. Now I am calm and I have lost weight, and actually I have increased my productivity and muti task much better now, so technically my life may be more stressful.
You write that certain foods and drugs result in "downregulation of receptor sites (closure)," yet you imply at the end of your post that keeping your "receptor sites from upregulating" is good. Am I missing something?
Damn, had just wolfed down my 10 pm gluten free whole grain "all natural" cookie and glass of raw milk before I watched that lovely sugar video. damn. damn video.
Ha ha Lisa!
Well, 10 pm is the time to do it as we'll discuss over the course of the month.
I'm not advocating high levels of serotonin any more than high levels of leptin or insulin. Rather, the focus will be on opening receptor sites so that one experiences having ample amounts of serotonin instead of having high levels and feeling like they have low levels from a functional standpoint. Another key is making sure that serotonin is at its lowest at a certain time of day and peaks at another.
You can't go to war against any hormone or neurotransmitter. There are no good or bad ones. It's about having the right amount at the right time, which we'll discuss at great length I assure you.
Yeah, I always used to try to go without sugar and then exercise for hours, fail miserably, and then beat myself up over it. Only when I chilled out and ate before I got hungry throughout the day did I succeed, and my body composition completely changed as well to have much higher muscle mass to body fat.
You want your receptor sites to upregulate to some extent. However, when you do you become hypersensitive to pleasure foods and substances – so you can never "go back."
The best approach will be to go through a period of upregulation and then you can use pleasure foods intermittently in acute fashion – or be so upregulated that simply increasing your starch to protein ratio at dinner time will knock you out cold for the best sleep of your life.
Madmuhhh and Samiam-
Not a binge per se, which is probably overkill and only an active dieter's strategy – but doing it on occasion only.
Drinking 1 drink 7 nights per week will cause an adjustment in receptor sites. I don't believe that drinking much more than that once per week has the same effect.
For example, if you go without sugar for a month and eat lots of sugar one night, you won't crave it the next day. However, if you go without it for a month and then eat it 3 days in a row you'll be craving it as much as ever by the end of the third day. That's more what I was getting at.
Acute vs. chronic.
If that's true I just haven't seen it. In my experience RRARF is about the most direct route to fixing most brain chemistry issues. I've tried the supplement protocols. They just aren't as powerful.
An inflammatory reaction to potatoes or wheat (or tobacco for that matter) probably stems more from being in a hyperinflammatory state from stress, overexercising, and overconusumption of omega 6. I don't consider potatoes to truly be a "root" cause of inflammation, lol.
@Matt: I know what you're saying and I agree that pounding some good food and focusing on rest is a vital recovery tool. But I gotta say it's not going to fix everything overnight. Sugar cravings don't always magically disappear, etc. Supplementation seems to help some, but obviously not everyone. My point is that sometimes it just takes *time* to fix this kind of brain chemistry and the road can be a bumpy one, even when doing an intensive recovery program like RRARF. It's not always smooth sailing.
It definitely can take some time – up to several months. But I will say that mood enhancement and lack of cravings are very consistent reports from RRARFERS.
ahhhh i LOVE the brain- body connection researh and reading. my absolute favoite subject- even more than nutrition.
i just finished reading up on the blood-brain barrier which plays big ol rol in chemical balance/ body homeostasis in the brain. you can do a million different technuques, amino supplemets etc but if it is not crossing your BBB then you are not getting the effect you should. fascinating stuff
I have to say that your explanation doesn't gel at all with my recent personal experience. I smoked over 20 unfiltered cigarettes a day for the last year. When I tried to stop, I just couldn't–I was addicted. Then, 2 weeks ago, I stopped so easily that it was like nothing at all. I don't even think about it. Rather than up or down regulating my receptors, I think cigarettes were more likely acting as a replacement for nutrients, thyroid, or stress hormones. When I started to get everything else nutritionally settled, I no longer needed the cigarettes. If what you're saying about receptors is true, then wouldn't I feel like shit right now? Instead I feel great. I don't think that addiction works through these so called pleasure receptors at all.
Only people with low levels of neurotransmitters are susceptible to addiction in the first place. This is why if you starve yourself, or overexercise, or eat a vegan diet or a low-carb diet or something else that decreases neurotransmitter production your tendency towards addiction is heightened.
Likewise, you become much less susceptible to addiction as you do the opposite, as you've experienced.
There are 2 sides to the equation – production and receptor sites. With good production and open receptors, you feel great without any addictive substance.
But with closed receptors or low production or both you feel miserable and cannot quit successfully.
Opening receptors to overcome addiction only works if your production does not fall. It's most successful if it actually rises while your receptors open.
"1)The best approach will be to go through a period of upregulation and then you can use pleasure foods intermittently in acute fashion – or be so upregulated that simply increasing your starch to protein ratio at dinner time will knock you out cold for the best sleep of your life.
2)Drinking 1 drink 7 nights per week will cause an adjustment in receptor sites. I don't believe that drinking much more than that once per week has the same effect.
For example, if you go without sugar for a month and eat lots of sugar one night, you won't crave it the next day. However, if you go without it for a month and then eat it 3 days in a row you'll be craving it as much as ever by the end of the third day. That's more what I was getting at. "
I'm not 100% sure whether I got all this correctly. So let me paraphrase your words and you tell me whether I understood it correctly:
1) Okay, so by eating wholesome "low flavour" or better "low pleasure" foods you upregulated your receptor sites so much that simply by increasing carbs tremendously you are ultra-receptive to the serotonin released that way, which gets converted into melatonin, which means wonderful sleep.
So would you say this is generally a bad thing? Sleeping like a god certainly doesn't sound bad to me, but being upregulated so much, probably might be a little problematic at social gatherings etc. But apart from that, would there be any downsides to being so ultra-upregulated?
2) But that still would mean that those occasional sugar/alcohol increases would downregulate the recptor sites a bit. It would just be more of a spike than a perpetuating adjustment, which would be more beneficial, why exactly?
You mentioned that intense cortisol spikes would lead to reduced basal levels of cortisol. So would intense serotonin spikes through sugar/alcohol also lower serotonin levels, which would be a more beneficial thing why exactly? I think I need to reread some of your posts.
What got me thinking about this Madmuhhh was that after years of a low-carb diet, when I switched to a very high-carb diet my sleep was incredible. Like 10 hours per night of zombie sleep. But then this started to wear off. My mood started to turn south as well. And, if I ate a bunch of meat, I wouldn't be able to sleep at all.
Clearly, it is evident that my body made an adjustment.
It's just like when people go from low-carb to RRARF or high-carb. Their first response is to feel extreme fatigue after meals and throughout the day – but then this goes away as they adjust.
I guess what I'm saying is that if you eat sugar all day every day, eating sugar before bedtime will not help you sleep better.
If you eat lower-carb, starchy, balanced meals throughout the day and then have a little sugar at night – you'll sleep like a baby. Your body is attuned to low pleasure, so when you have that little scoop of ice cream before bed…. Wham!!!
But I think it doesn't need to be so extreme. Actually, just eating a lower ratio of carbs to protein throughout the day and a high ratio at night before bed is enough to get the energy during the day and the great sleep at night without your body making a chornic adjustment to either. We'll talk about all this. Sorry if that is confusing.
Hey Matt, I try to down some high quality protiens/starch combos right after exercise and that helps. Sat after two hours, me at WF, searching for an easy NON FRUITY fix.. I ended up with brown rice crackers, cost me five bucks for about 25 of em. But it helped. I also am drinking coconut water.. is that ok? it tastes sweet but I think it is ok? but maybe not.
color me confused and man, I am still sort of on edge emotionally, rest or no rest. I will give it more time.
I opted out of my usual 1 1/2 spin class today to clean my kids room instead.. 3 1/2 hours later, still not done. I think doing this is more stressful. :(
No, that's not really confusing. I still got some questions though, but it seems like you are gonna answer most of them in the next posts anyway.
So, as you said, spiking serotonin occasionally will result in a mild downregulation, which in turn will make you less sensitive, and thus logically more stable. Correct?
Phrases like 'open receptors' or 'neurotransmitter' production' are quickly becoming completely meaningless in this discussion. If you are ignoring studies, then how do you know how your eating affects these 'receptors?' Wouldn't it be better just to talk about what happens when you eat certain foods, rather than mix it up with a bunch of 'brain chemistry' gibberish?
Sort of Madmuhhh. You definitely don't want to become hypersensitive.
You can follow along in the conversation or not. This is basic brain chemistry/addiction pathology 101. You don't need studies. A simple textbook or life experience shows what happens when a susceptible person consumes addictive substances.
1) Pleasure at first
2) Then the substance is needed just to feel normal over time as receptor sites shut down (downregulation)
3) You are addicted, and have withdrawals when 'x' substance is taken away
The larger the amount consumed, the more frequently it is consumed, and the longer time period it is consumed the greater the likelihood of addiction developing.
Other foods that induce high insulin secretion should also make people tired, regardless of carb content, assuming serotonin is the cause. I get very tired soon after a coconut milk-based meal. I'm going to guess that meals rich in spices may have the same effect.
I also think this whole neurotransmiter and receptor story is mambo jambo. The whole cell is a receptor and it's state defines how it reacts to certain substances. That's why some people are susceptible to drugs and alcohol and others are not. Andrew's smoking experience is a good example.
People with a good metabolism won't become addicted to anything. During my early teenage years I drank a lot of alcohol and was kind of "addicted" to it. Today it tastes just awful to me and I only drink it on special ocassions.
This whole unscientific concept is one of the reasons why some people come up with retarded ideas such as "sugar addiction"
The more I think about this, the more I think that this stuff is very important in the long-term approach. So with your acute vs. chronic approach, would you say it's better to avoid ice cream Monday through Friday and then have a bunch on the weekend to satisfy cravings as opposed to having a couple of spoonfuls every night? Kind of reminds me of the "Cheat to Lose" diet. What I have been doing is eating as much unprocessed foods as I want during the week and then having some processed stuff during the weekend while hanging out with family and friends. Also, my own starch/fruit to protein ratio has been doing better (more rice/taters/bananas and less meat overall). Body comp seems to improve with this along with strength and general mood. I'm no longer falling asleep after eating a carb heavy meal at work. Hooray!
"This is basic brain chemistry/addiction pathology 101. You don't need studies."
Yeah, that's a really good idea especially since we are talking about concepts that not even their creators understand or have any evidence for.
Why look at studies and get your own picture when you can just believe somebody with a fancy idea? Yees….
Matt, I do have to agree that maybe the best is not centering so much in the ideas of upregulation and downregulation of receptors, since things can be more complex. There's more to it than that: pereuvians indians in Price book had cocaine leaves, but I think they weren't addicted, and many times addiction is very related to actual damage to the body, blood sugar issues, neurotoxicity, etc. Besides, you're implying that, in the whole, it's better to not enjoy things so much as it means necessarily that you are more susceptible to addiction, so receptors shouldn't be so "opened", or at least food, but do you have actual proof besides your own theorizing? Remember that facts are king, and there would be no Nutrition and physical regeneration without healthy cultures to study. The brain is a extremely complex organ, and even that which you call "basic science" can be only a small part of the truth, or even wrong. After all, that cholesterol is bad is "basic science".
Also, when you said "My mood started to turn south as well. And, if I ate a bunch of meat, I wouldn't be able to sleep at all." do you mean you're feeling less well than in the past. Are such problems appearing?
jannis or Andrew,
On the subject of receptors, my biology lab experience or knowledge of it isn't enough to have my own idea. So, what are your [Peat's] thoughts about what is going on with mice that are receptor-knockout?
I can understand your theories, and things tend to lose pleasure with repeated iterations, like if eating candies or watching the same movie. However, there are theories of addiction that point to other causes than the simple body managed receptor downregulations, or that are behind that downregulation. For instance most abused drugs have neurotoxic properties, which can be easily implicated in the process of addiction: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15111266 Things like metanphetamine fry the brain. Also, neurotransmitters themselves can be toxic, overstimulating the neurons to the point of killing them, like levodopa in parkinson's. Paradoxically this is worst when there's low energy; that's why hypoglycemia may cause seizures. There are many other effects drugs can have in the body. Allergic or sensitive people often report being addicted to the substance that harms them.
Besides there are many factors which affect the brain development and reactions. Neurosteroids or hormones may reverse things such as Alzheimer "http://pharmweb.usc.edu/brinton-lab/documents/2007/WangJ_CurAlzRes4_2007.pdf" and even prevent tolerance to morphine http://bit.ly/d6FIE1.
Neurotransmitter science makes good sense at first sight, but sadly is tainted ( I believe) by the pharmaceuticals companies and their army of "peer reviewed shit". It's better to stay to true to the facts than go flying with things that lack enough "ground".
"The whole cell is a receptor and it's state defines how it reacts to certain substances."
Sounds pretty definitive. I assume you have references for this statement?
I if I remember right, the Peruvians of Nutrition and physical regeneration used cocaine leaves, and many other cultures used drugs such as alcohol, yet where not apparently addicted nor suffered ill effects. Healthier people just seem more resistant to the effects of addiction, but sadly we don't have tests showing if they have higher quantities of neurotransmitters, or if it is another thing altogether. Do you?
Also, you said ("You want your receptor sites to upregulate to some extent. However, when you do you become hypersensitive to pleasure foods and substances – so you can never "go back."). Do you really think that makes sense? Why would people find their are more resistant to addiction when following HED with time, and not the other way?
Yeah Jannis, wheres the data? Why look at studies and get your own picture when you can just believe somebody with a fancy idea? Yees….
Sorry if I repeated myself a little. Long post is long.
jannis and andrew,
So I think this makes sense [regarding my last comment], assuming Peat is correct:
Scientists think there is a vitamin D receptor; they discover that knocking out gene "X" disrupts the normal actions of calcitriol; they make a gene X knockout mouse and give it a misleading name, vitamin D receptor knockout mouse.
This assumes that much of how things work is unknown, which I think is true?
"This whole unscientific concept is one of the reasons why some people come up with retarded ideas such as "sugar addiction""
Too bad that sugar addiciton is a reality for lots of people. I've experienced it, observed it in others and had it confirmed talking to them. Well, I guess something Ray Peat doesn't agree with can't be real after all.
"Sounds pretty definitive. I assume you have references for this statement?"
You might have seen people that are addicted to donoughts, cookies and chocolate. But there is no such thing as an addiction to sugar. Sometimes one will crave sugar. But if you say that this is an addiction, food in general is a drug. I think according to your definition air is also a drug. Once you've tried it you can't get enough of it.
Not really. I can go without sugar (I mean refined sugar) but cannot go without air, so there is a fundamental difference. And no, not addicted specifically to those foods, but also to sugar in a more plain form, for example putting sugar in their tea or coffee, adding sugar to fruit etc. Heck, when I was a child I liked to eat sugar cubes or suck on rock sugar.
What is the permanent craving for sugar if not an addiction? Is it normal to think about sugary sweets when you're at work? In class? Or talking to your girlfriend? And nothing can satisfy you until you get the next fix? Feeling shame for your addiction and hiding it?
I don't see the difference here between this kind of feeling towards sugar and towards heroine or any other drug. If there is one, please enlighten me.
No, there is no difference between air and sugar. Your body needs glucose as it needs air. Sugar is obviously the form of glucose your body prefers in most situations. Why would your body crave for sugar if it is so fucking bad for you? Do you really believe that nature is so tremendously stupid that it makes us crave for something that poisons us? We instinctively want sugar as the lion wants meet or the cow wants gras.
If you think we were made for eating starch only, try to eat some plain rice or wheat without salt and other things. We like fruits and other forms of sugar but nobody will eat unprepared and unseasoned starch.
Nobody ever even considers that it could be the wheat, artificial sweeteners, hfcs or the other crap that makes people eat tons of donoughts and cookies etc.
"1)No, there is no difference between air and sugar. Your body needs glucose as it needs air. 2)Sugar is obviously the form of glucose your body prefers in most situations. Why would your body crave for sugar if it is so fucking bad for you? 3)Do you really believe that nature is so tremendously stupid that it makes us crave for something that poisons us?
4)We like fruits and other forms of sugar but nobody will eat unprepared and unseasoned starch."
That argument is kinda weak in my opinion.
1)Just because your body needs glucose doesn't mean that it needs sugar. Just as your body needing air does not mean that you need nitrogen. Or in reverse, just because your body needs oxygen does not need that you need the specific form of air that is present in atmosphere. So, just because your body needs glucose means that it needs the specific form of glucose that is called sugar.
2) That sugar is the form of glucose your body prefers is your interpretation. There are arguments for and against that. (I'm not saying that sugar is bad per se btw, maybe a diet with sugar might even be healthier than a diet without, I honestly don't know)
3)In one word: yes. We also might crave alcohol, wheat, cocaine or whatever. Whether we crave something or not is no good indication about whether it's good for us or not. The point I think Hans was trying to make is that many people's reaction to sugar (and we are talking pure (refined) sugar here, not cookies) is very similar to a serious drug addiction. We might need oxygen or certain amino acids, but that still does not mean that we necessarily feel similar to an alcoholic suffering from withdrawal when missing those substances. However there are a lot of reports out there that sugar causes a reaction that is not unsimilar to this exactly.
The #1 problem here in my opinion is the fact that sugar is derived from /mostly perfectly healthy) foods which in itself probably won't do any damage. Get yourself fucked up by sugar however and even something as benign as an apple might cause problems.
4)So what? Whether a food needs to be prepared or not is of no relevance in my opinion. Cooking foods was vital to our evolutionary development, so we have to factor that in to some degree. There are a lot of cultures out there who eat lots of starchy probably unseasoned foods and even seem to prefer them over fruit to some degree – or at least eat more of them than they eat fruit. Comparing fruit to starch is tricky in that aspect in my opinion, simply because starch needs to be prepared somehow, which however does not necessarily give any indications about whether it's a better or worse source of calories than sugar.
You really need to calm down and breath some of that air a little bit cause you're sounding a little angry, perhaps cause you haven't had your morning fix of sugar yet? lol just kidding
Actually, for the past 2 weeks I've been reading a lot of Peat and emailing back and forth with him. I have been adopting a lot of his ideas and nutritional advice in my diet and so far I feel pretty good.
However, as much as I'm willing to accept that I was wrong about fruit, I still don't know about refined sugar, because I can eat a bunch of fruit during the day, get full and not crave anything else. Yet, If I try eating some white sugar, I instantly start thinking about other types of junk food. I'm not sure is this is due to the inherent power of sugar or just due to the lifestyle I grew up in where sugar was always associated with bakery type goods.
Honestly, Ray Peat is a really nice guy, and even though I think he is right about a lot of things I still don't think he is the nutritional guru that knows everything there is to know about diet and exercise. In fact, I think it's a bit screwed up that you and Andrew act like you know 100% about everything nutritionally but then at Andrew's blog you guys talk about basically how unhealthy you guys still are and how you're dependent on a bunch of supplements/thyroid help just to be able to sleep. So I guess what I'm saying is you might want to wait until your 100% healthy and full of energy before you start criticizing other peoples nutritional ideas.
Also, you say "If you think we were made for eating starch only, try to eat some plain rice or wheat without salt and other things." why does it have to be rice? Why not some sort of tuber by itself? Kinda like the Kitavans did, who were surrounded by tropical fruits all year round but decided, without the influence of the media, science or politics or any other bullshit, to eat a ratio of starch to fructose between 3:1 – 4:1. This is something that Peat himself has not answered me on and has basically just avoided the question.
Another thing I disagree with Peat about, is his "all exercise is harmful to the body" approach and I think JT would even agree with me that some types of exercise actually help the body's metabolism and even perhaps enhance it. I've went back to training mixed martial arts 4-5 days a week and I feel like it has greatly improve my energy.
Now, i'm really not trying to just critize Peat cause like I said, I feel he is RIGHT more than he is wrong but at the same time I don't think he is RIGHT about everything cause after all he is human too.
Per your advice to try eating starch by itself without any salt or fat: I've been munching on plain cooled, boiled potatoes with/before breakfast for several weeks now. I thought they would be horrible and I would have to choke them down. But I kinda like 'em. It's strange sounding I know, I wouldn't have believed it if someone had told me. But I'm pretty happy with it as a "supplement" of resistant starch.
In any case, that particular argument doesn't fly with me – that starches are inferior because they "need" doctoring up with fat or salt to be satisfying. I say they don't need it.
"We also might crave alcohol, wheat, cocaine or whatever. Whether we crave something or not is no good indication about whether it's good for us or not."
Yes it is. Every animal's taste reflects it's needs. We like fruits and other foods that contain sugar because it is good for us.
"The point I think Hans was trying to make is that many people's reaction to sugar (and we are talking pure (refined) sugar here, not cookies) is very similar to a serious drug addiction"
How is it similar? There is absolutely no scientific evidence for that claim. Sugar is like every other food. If you've had enough your appetite for it will disappear. Try to eat some pure refined sugar with your meals. It's not nearly the same as with junk food that contains some sugar. Anyway, there is no evidence that sugar is in any way harmful.
This discussion will go the same way as last time. You will tell me that sugar isn't healthy and provide absolutely no evidence for that. I will post some evidence for my point-you will ignore it.
I'm not trying to prove that sugar is better than starch this time.
But this ridiculous idea of a sugar addiction is simply retarded.
I don't pretend that I know everything. There is just no evidence against sugar. And it pisses me off that people demonize it without any evidence in their hands.
Have you visited the Kitava? Have you talked to them? Do you know whether there is enough fruit around to eat it in unlimited quantities all year long?
Lindeberg's studies show that the Kitava get some of the same problems as we get. High blood pressure, hair loss etc.
Btw, yes i took some thyroid. And it helped me a lot. That's the only supplement I take/took. I don't think that my health is perfect yet, but my temperature is stable at 98.1, my pulse at 75 and my mood is really good. And that despite eating a lot of sugar.
That's it. I'm off. Have a nice discussion!
Firstly, saying that something is good for the body because it craves it is very shaky. Peat talks about considering caffeine a nutrient; one could argue sucrose is a drug.
Anyway, by your reasoning, arachidonic acid should not be unhealthy (at least in small amounts). Enzymes that sythensize arachidonic acid from linoleic acid are upregulated on a low PUFA diet–same with DHA and linolenic.
Lindeberg reports that fruit rots while they sit around eating mostly yams.
They have ZERO incidence of high blood pressure or high blood sugar. It's trigs above 100 and cholesterol profiles similar to Swedes that are their "problems."
"They have ZERO incidence of high blood pressure"
You had better read it again
"Yes it is. Every animal's taste reflects it's needs. We like fruits and other foods that contain sugar because it is good for us."
Following that logic alcohol or MSG should also be good for us.
"How is it similar? There is absolutely no scientific evidence for that claim."
Hans already gave a few examples for that:
"What is the permanent craving for sugar if not an addiction? Is it normal to think about sugary sweets when you're at work? In class? Or talking to your girlfriend? And nothing can satisfy you until you get the next fix? Feeling shame for your addiction and hiding it? "
Matt, also mentioned some similarities I think.
Why would you need scientific evidence for that if it seems to be so easily observable that there are several people in this comment board that can come up with examples which not always cannot be explained by PUFAs or other substances:
"This discussion will go the same way as last time. You will tell me that sugar isn't healthy and provide absolutely no evidence for that. I will post some evidence for my point-you will ignore it."
I never said that sugar isn't healthy and if I did, I officially take it back as it is way too generalized.
Also, in my opinion scientific stuidies are not the only acceptable form of "evidence" there is. You might disagree with that, though.
…are you kidding about evidence against sugar?
Within previous posts back I posted several papers, which showed increased fat gain, higher fasting insulin, increased liver triglycerides, and upregulated fatty acid synthase. Instead of providing evidence that countered me, you simply said those things are not necessarily bad, or the study was bad. I always stay open-minded, but it's impossible to debate reasonably with someone who treats science as a religion where Peat is God just as [most] vegans do with Mcdougall/Campbell/etc.
I posted about 5 studies (with both rats and humans )that showed that sucrose groups weighted significantly less than starch groups.
Okay, I guess things are somewhat inconclusive with weight.
What about something like the Tokelau Migrant Study? Stephen Guyenet has several posts on it. Health decreases drastically over 10-20 years with PUFA intake remaining extremely low. Is it simply that the documented PUFA consumption is incorrect? They shouldn't be unhealthy simply because refined sugar and flour are in the diet [according to Peat].
Back to EFAs, do you have the paper that Peat always references (without citation though) to about the rats and EFA deficiency? Evidence that metabolic rate is increased is available but not detailed info about the rats' health or additional interventions such as vitamin supplementation (b6). The one extensive paper I have about rats on fat free diets shows problems with several organs despite receiving vitamins, minerals, and a liver extract. Thyroid measurements are not given.
Other "deficiencies" have similar results as EFA such as vitamin A and methionine.
A lot my friends tell me that sugar and caffeine are addictive. Usually these are people who haven't experienced things like tobacco withdraw. In my mind the 'addiction' to something like cigarettes is an entirely different feeling from the craving for a food, sugar, or caffeine. The only time that I have experienced cravings for sugar was when I was eating a very low carbohydrate diet, and so this makes me think that my body really needed sugar.
Right, hurrying to the supermarket before it closes and buying a week's supply of sweets, hurrying home and eating it all in one sitting, then feeling so sick you can't sleep and having to stick your finger in your throat to get the stuff out of the stomach… all seems pretty normal to me and no problem at all.
I think one of the reasons why there seems to be so many opinions about the addictive effects of certain substances is the fact that personal perdisposition and health probably play an important role in that.
Some people might perceive alcohol, nicotine, sugar or whatever as addictive others who are healthier and more stable physically and emotionally will not find those substances to have addicting qualities at all.
"No, there is no difference between air and sugar. Your body needs glucose as it needs air. Sugar is obviously the form of glucose your body prefers in most situations."
I was talking about refined sugar. It isn't necessary to consume that, hence a fundamental difference.
"Why would your body crave for sugar if it is so fucking bad for you?"
Same with every other drug. Why should an addict's body crave heroin?
"If you think we were made for eating starch only,"
I never said that, actually.
"try to eat some plain rice or wheat without salt and other things."
I eat plain rice or potatoes twice a day as a snack.
"We like fruits and other forms of sugar but nobody will eat unprepared and unseasoned starch."
Not raw, but unseasoned. There's a kind of sweet potato that tastes like cheesecake to me, just much better. I don't recall mentioning fruit, btw.
"Nobody ever even considers that it could be the wheat, artificial sweeteners, hfcs or the other crap that makes people eat tons of donoughts and cookies etc."
In Sugar Blues, William Dufty describes the sugar addiction quite vividly, that was before HFCS. Refined sugar was the sweetener of choice. What about wheat? If people were addicted to wheat, they'd crave wheat, not sweet. (Not saying that it isn't possible to be 'addicted' to wheat.) Personally, sweets made with sticky rice and sugar perfectly satisfied my cravings. No HFCS, no artificial sweeteners, no wheat.
"I think one of the reasons why there seems to be so many opinions about the addictive effects of certain substances is the fact that personal perdisposition and health probably play an important role in that.
Some people might perceive alcohol, nicotine, sugar or whatever as addictive others who are healthier and more stable physically and emotionally will not find those substances to have addicting qualities at all."
Yes, I never felt that alcohol or nicotine were addictive in any way. But then, I don't go around telling people that the idea of alcohol or nicotine addiction is "retarded." It's like saying my and many other peoples' experiences are not valid.
That's an interesting point. There are many times for me where something besides sugar reduces a sugar craving (cream, for example). Other times, I crave protein, but I end up gorging on bananas if they're available first. If I'm eating low carb, I won't crave sugar if I've had enough fat. But, I don't stop craving sugar from eating sugar itself until I'm physically full, which still is not necessarily an end to craving sugar, just any food.
It could very well be possible that people are damaged from years of bad diet, and their systems are confused: I like Ortmann's self-selected nutrient paper.* Notice the wild-type mice choose high fat–it's interesting…
I just want to say that from all the articles I have read from Ray Peat's website and from all the emails back and forth I have had with him, at no point did he say or did I get the idea that sugar (as in refined white sugar) is necessary for health.
In fact, when I asked him about sugar his reply was, "Plain sugar is o.k. when the other
nutrients are adequate."
Also when I asked him what he thought was the best nutritional diet for a human being in terms of health and energy, Ray Peat said "That would be fruits (citrus and tropical), cheeses, eggs, and shellfish."
So even though a person can eat refined sugar and follow Ray Peat's dietary advice, a person can also NOT eat refined sugar and still be following Ray Peat's advice. In fact, I feel that Peat would absolutely, hands down, no questions ask, prefer people to eat fruit before sugar. Anyways, that's just my two cents
Fruit is absolutely better than refined sugar. But refined sugar is not to bad I think.
Peat himself eats more refinded than natural sucrose. He consumes ice cream and coke on a daily basis.
He also does sugar binges (marshmallows, ice cream etc.) from time to time in order to replenish gylcogen stores.
Peat doesn't recommend eating refinded sugar. But he doesn't believe it's bad either.
You mean the Burr&Burr Study from 1929 I guess. I think you should find it with google.
"They shouldn't be unhealthy simply because refined sugar and flour are in the diet [according to Peat]."
Why not? Peat doesn't think that PUFA are the only reason people become fat and unhealthy.Things like nutrients and adequate protein are also very important, especially for thyroid health. I made the experience that a low nutrient diet high in refinded starch (wheat) can be very fattening, even without PUFA.
He does say PUFAs are essential for diabetes and cancer.
…So if they are essential [to diabetes], why would people who consume very low PUFAs get diabetes?
I actually wasn't talking about the Burr papers, which actually claim a yeast supplement (which should provide much B vitamins) did not help the skin condition. I was looking for the paper that shows vitamin B6 curing the resulting skin condition of a fat-free diet. From what I can find, B6 only works in conjunction with [corn] fat (Gyorgy 1935, 1936).
Well, essential doesn't mean that you need them in large quantities.
I suggest you ask Peat about it.
I had the same problem with his claim that fructose inhibits insulin. He writes that fructose inhibits insulin but didn't provide any reference in his article.
He sent it to me after I mailed him.
I agree with Jannis that fruit versus starch may make a difference in weight. High fruit, I was a good weight. High starch and high fat, I put on 20 lbs (15% weight) in two months. That's huge! High starch and low fat, I haven't lost any weight.
BUT – I craved sweetness constantly, and there's no way I needed to replenish my glycogen stores. My mood sucked. I had terrible periods, and my breasts were in a lot of pain. I was cold all the time. I bruised easily. Other things too. So I can't say that it was healthier overall.
It's no scientific study, but anecdotal evidence is what applies to me, not some study!
"Yes it is. Every animal's taste reflects it's needs. We like fruits and other foods that contain sugar because it is good for us."
No. I would think an animals biology reflects its needs.
This whole "sugar isn't addictive" nonsense is dangerous.
And for one, carbohydrate consumption is not required for the human body to function.
Secondly, try going without sugar for a week after consuming it as part of your diet for a while. Then tell me it isn't addictive.
I've been addicted to nicotine and sugar, and let me tell you, sugar was far harder to give up than cigarettes. Maybe because it doesn't seem as harmful and is socially accepted, but I doubt that accounts for too much of it. I never felt an urge to go out and binge on cigarettes, but I absolutely did on sugar.
Let's see, I'll do my rebuttals as well…
"No, there is no difference between air and sugar. Your body needs glucose as it needs air. Sugar is obviously the form of glucose your body prefers in most situations."
Seems like we are mixing terms here. The body needs glucose, which it can get a lot of different ways. This is no way implies the body needs refined sugar (which I'm pretty sure depletes nutrients).
"Why would your body crave for sugar if it is so fucking bad for you?"
It's the physiology of addiction which I think was being argued about above. The body is craving certain hormones or neurotransmitters which sugar ingestion will increase the production of. In a healthy balanced body, there shouldn't be cravings for stimulants that boost neurotransmitters without providing any nutritional quality. This is why many people see sugar, alcohol, and caffeine cravings go away after starting HED. It was certainly my experience.
"If you think we were made for eating starch only, try to eat some plain rice or wheat without salt and other things. We like fruits and other forms of sugar but nobody will eat unprepared and unseasoned starch."
See, it's cool that I like to geek out on books like The Time Before History cause then I know things like the fact that fire and the ability to cook foods most likely did play a role in our evolution.
"Nobody ever even considers that it could be the wheat, artificial sweeteners, hfcs or the other crap that makes people eat tons of donoughts and cookies etc."
In Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, Price certainly seems to attribute most problems to refined flour and refined sugar. I don't discredit the other bad ingredients. I know as a kid I mostly preferred the pure sugar candies: pixie sticks, twizzlers, etc. Also, I can still binge on homemade cookies and there's no PUFA or HFCS in those. Actually, it's easier because they taste better than shitty storebought cookies.
You craved sweets constantly on which diet? High fruit, HED, or high-starch low-fat?
High fruit. I could eat five sweet apples in a row. It was a "clean" diet in terms of wheat, junk or processed food of any kind, and refined sugar. I hardly ate any cooked starch. If it wasn't in its natural state, I didn't eat it (you know what I mean… I did allow for my meat to be cleaned and butchered!). But every single meal had fruit and/or honey up the wazoo. And I craved the next dose. Desperately. We had to eat every two hours.
After Christmas, we went cold turkey on all fruit and sweeteners. It wasn't until about 2 months ago that we started adding back in fruit. Every now and then, we'll eat something very sweet, but it doesn't set us off on a binge. In fact, my hubby's bday cake, which I made myself and "healthified" as much as I could without him noticing, made my littlest puke. I made cookies last night, and whereas before I would've eaten dozens, three did me in.
Now, I eat my breakfast barely sweetened with a little fruit or molasses, and we have dessert, which to most people, is disgusting. My hubby, who's still SAD, won't touch our desserts, but for myself and the kids, they're just sweet enough. I don't desperately crave sweet anymore. My hubby is always looking for the next fix.
Except for the weight (and being tired, which I attribute to hauling around extra weight), I'm much healthier than when I ate clean but my the majority of my carbs came from fruit instead of starch. So what's worse? (Which one *I* think is worse depends on if I've been on the scale lately!)
"High fruit. I could eat five sweet apples in a row. It was a "clean" diet in terms of wheat, junk or processed food of any kind, and refined sugar. I hardly ate any cooked starch. If it wasn't in its natural state, I didn't eat it (you know what I mean… I did allow for my meat to be cleaned and butchered!). But every single meal had fruit and/or honey up the wazoo. And I craved the next dose. Desperately. We had to eat every two hours."
Are you sure you consumed enough calories back then? Fruit has little calories per weight, so if you didn't eat any cooked starches, it's natural you would eat 5 apples in a row. If you didn't eat enough calories then it wouldn't be any wonder you were constantly craving.
Oh, I counted, I ate about 3000 calories a day (lots of fat, mostly from coconut oil and other coconut products, cream and cheese, and some avocado). I ate as much as I wanted and never put on weight.
On addiction: Here's an excerpt from http://ranprieur.com/archives/025.html
May 16. We've all been told that the addictiveness of a drug is in the drug, and that if, say, opium were legal then we'd all become addicts. A Canadian psychologist, Bruce Alexander, wanted to test his hypothesis that addiction is caused by a bad environment, so he set up the Rat Park experiment ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_Park ), in which rats were given very good living conditions, and a choice between plain water and morphine water. "Nothing that we tried produced anything that looked like addiction in rats that were housed in a reasonably normal environment." Not only that, but rats that were forcibly addicted and then moved to Rat Park still chose the plain water.
Still, as an anomalist, I can't help noticing: no matter how you define "high quality of life", you can find examples of humans who had it and still got addicted to cocaine or heroin. I'd like to see a historical study of alcoholism: to what extent did alcohol spread by destroying traditional cultures, and to what extent did it spread by moving in after they had already been destroyed? Or we could ask the same thing about wheat addiction (http://ranprieur.com/readings/origins.html ).
Seems plausible to me- we become addicted to things, or more susceptible to addiction not when we are simply exposed to potentially addictive substances, but when we are primed for addiction by our not having otehr essential needs met. I love the prospect that the Rat Park study offers- if we can identify and meet our real needs, many other side issues that emerged from them liek addiction migth correct themelves. Sort of like RRARF and the fading of sugar cravings.
One thing I do jive with about Peat and Jannis, though, is the notion of trusting out bodies. I keep hearing that we are hurt by having 'too much' salt and fat annd sugar at our disposal, and that's bad for us. But with teh WAPF stuff, I realized that at least fat and salt are actually goood for us. Seems logical and consistent that sugar might be as well, given the same caveats (appropriate, high quality sourcing, etc.) Thta's one thing that resonates with me and that I have a hard time dismissing.
"Oh, I counted, I ate about 3000 calories a day (lots of fat, mostly from coconut oil and other coconut products, cream and cheese, and some avocado). I ate as much as I wanted and never put on weight."
I have similar problem…well it's a problem for me anyway! I'm pounding down food but am not gaining any weight. Although I don't eat a whole lot of fat. About 30%. If I miss a little food or workout the slightest bit I lose more weight.
I am slowly closing in on 4000 calories per day but my weight doesn't budge. I'll eat a huge sweet potato, 2 cups of rice, a cup of beans, 5 oz of chicken, veggies and fruit all in one sitting but to no avail. I eat about 7-8 times per day. If I added wheat and sugar back into my diet I'm sure I'd gain but I won't do that. I don't ever get urges for them either. There's not much more I can add to my menu.
Today's intake is about 50% carbs/20% protein/30% fat. About 3600 cals. Yesterday I lost a lb.
My diet has always been good IMO. I decided to clean it up even more (for health reasons) and now I'm down almost 20 lbs. I want at least 8-10 back but nothing is working. I won't add back the stuff that isn't good for me though.
"…and my mood is really good."
LOL, your conduct in this thread sure attests to that. Keep up the good work.
BTW, when I asked for a reference for your definitive statement that "The whole cell is a receptor", I expected something more than a link to some guy's website who has a hypothesis. Kind of ironic given howo bent out of shape you get when people bash sugar without proof.
Rob A. Rock on, man…
Tommy, I WISH I still had that problem! Curses!
That you are pissed of doesn't neccessarily mean your are emotionally unste
able, does it?Gilbert Ling's work unfortunately isn't something you can't read during your lunch break. But it's really worth reading. He provides really strong evidence for his theories and is highly esteemed by his colleagues.
When I was in high school I found the ideas of "gradient pumps" or receptors that except only one substance pretty silly.
The human body is not an mechanical engine. I think these concepts are the human attempt to apply mechanical knowledge to human biochemistry.
Obviously that attempt has failed. We practically no very little about how our body works and can't even cure the simplest dieseases.
For instance, read the work of Otto Warburg. I think he figured out what causes cancer about 70 years ago. Many scientists subscribe to his idea and until today he hasn't been proven wrong.
It's just our authoritative system that dismisses every idea that doesn't fit into reductionist thinking.
"Yes it is. Every animal's taste reflects it's needs. We like fruits and other foods that contain sugar because it is good for us."
I love freshly baked wheat bread, I dare say it's widely considered to be some of the tastiest foods in the world, considering it's popular place in food traditions around the world. Does that mean wheat is one of the foods best fit for human consumption?
Colliden- I say yes! :-)
Not sure if anyone answered your question. Gabriel does, though. He says, essentially, that people have that extra skin because they are not re-setting their set point lower, but instead forcing the body to lose the weoght. That loose skin is an indication of where their body would rather be, sort of. They lose weight fast, and because their bodies aren't wanting to, they don't retain their elasticity. He says you might end up some some loose skin, but if you're losing weight slowly enough and in the right way, it will be minimized.
Thanks for the reply Rob. That's very interesting. Is that in his book or did you see it in a YouTube video? I need read his book anyway.
You;re welcome, amigo.
Think he mentions it in the video that pops up here: http://www.gabrielmethodreview.org/
It's an hour long interview and the interviewer asks him if he had surgery or something to get rid of the loose skin, and Gabriel says no because he lost it slowly enough that his skin retained its elasticity. The not re-setting the set point was my extrapolation of that.
Amiable brief and this mail helped me alot in my college assignement. Say thank you you as your information.
I lost weight through stress not dieting, and this was over a long period of time. I regained weight, and am probably now a healthy weight, but am 20 pounds less than I was before losing weight (and I wasn't over weight then). I have a bit of a loose skin problem and have written here before about how I found skin brushing effectatious(I only do it when I bathe, every 7-10 days- I am lazy). I do think I am losing the loose skin very gradually eg of its own accord it is reducing. But it has been a couple yrs. since I got my weight back into the normal range so it is slow to catch up. I have been reading Carolyn Cleaves, a face exercise expert, and she says elastin in the skin has a memory, so when you flex the muscle, then smoothe out the skin to stretch over the flexed muscle, the skin will learn to take the shape of the muscle. You don't have to worry about stretching the skin as long as the muscle underneath is flexed. I am only starting her facial exercises but she has a lot of satisfied customers and some convincing before and afterward pictures. With jowls and double chins you are dealing with loose skin. I have tried over the last couple weeks, flexing my thighs and butt(where I have loose skin) and then stretching the skin taut over the flexed muscle and have had good results considering its such a short time. Obviously the muscle is getting bigger so will fill out more skin. But from my own, admittedly very slight, experience I also think the skin itself is shrinking to fit the muscle as well. Its subtle so I could be imagining the effects. But I have bought her facial exercise package and intend to faithfully exercise (I have done facial exercising before- it was fantastic for skin texture/colour, but I started developing weird muscles so stopped). Carolyn recommends 2 days per week total rest from exercising the facial muscles. This made me think she probably know her beans, as I know in bodybuilding rest days are de rigor.
you are correct loose skin does shrink especially with proper nutrition.
i have never tried this stuff but you may want to look into it ( MSM soap) it is supposed to help with loose skin by adding sulfur.. (note i have no opinion)