SeanBissell Posted November 1, 2013 Posted November 1, 2013 Hey everyone,Hope you're doing great!I'm new to this forum, and I'm a bit of a nutrition info addict. About a year and a half ago I started down a crazy rabbit hole of health info that's really blowing my mind. (No I'm not trying to sell anything here )And because I'm a nutrition nut, I just feel like I have to share Here's what I used to think: -Sugar is bad-Saturated fat is bad-Fish oil is good-Nuts and seeds are good-Lean cuts of meat are bestNow I think almost the exact opposite:-Sugar is good-Saturated fat is good-Fish oil is bad-Nuts and seeds are bad-Lean cuts of meat are best in moderation (gelatinous cuts are better.)Why?Well, you could literally read for years on the subjects, but a quick summary:Sugar is probably good because sugar is half glucose, half fructose. Fructose doesn't stimulate insulin, and that means that even a sweet potato has a higher insulin release than refined sugar. Fructose also can get into your cell to create cellular energy (increased metabolism) when your cell is being blocked by free fatty acids in your blood stream (that "effect" is called the Randle Cycle.) Fructose can also increase uric acid, which is one of the most potent anti-oxidants in your body, and has actually been associated with longer life spans. Fructose can also increase cholesterol a bit, and cholesterol is the precursor to good steroid hormones like testosterone. Overall the glucose/fructose balance is sort of a yin/yang effect on your metabolism and seems to do good things. And it does not seem to actually increase bodyfat when you eat it within "reasonable" calorie ranges. Saturated fat is basically the most stable fat you can eat. If you care about free-radical damage, then you probably want to eat "stable" fats, because they don't oxidize very easily. You can observe how stable saturated fats are compared to say, fish oil, or polyunsaturated fats by just leaving out a bottle of coconut oil (saturated fat) and a bottle of canola oil, or fish oil, or vegetable oil, etc. The unsaturated will go rancid much much quicker due to it oxidizing. Also saturated fat is solid at room temperature, and can cook at much higher temperatures without breaking down and burning up/smoking. When unsaturated fats oxidize they can cause "lipid peroxidation" which causes cell damage and is a really nasty thing to have in your system. And the more unsaturated fats you eat, the more you store in your cells, and the more they can break up and cause oxidative damage. Fish oil is probably bad stuff due to the fact that it's highly unstable, and oxidizes super fast. It's quite possible that the anti-inflammatory effects you can get from fish oil is because it down-regulates your immune system due to the damage it's causing, after-all, inflammation is one of the first responses of the immune system, if you knock that down, you reduce inflammation. Fish oil was originally used as an ingredient in paint, until they realized there was better stuff because the fish oil went bad too quickly. So the "industry" re-invented itself as a "health supplement." Ever heard of linseed oil for furniture polish? Well, that's code for "Flax seed oil" which is also touted as a "healthy omega 3 supplement" but the only reason why they use it for polish is because it oxidizes so fast and turns hard. You probably don't want that happening in your body. Nuts and seeds are bad for the same reason as fish oil, but to a lesser degree, they have lots of unsaturated and poly-unsaturated fats as well, and can gunk up your system. Also this applies to the seed oils like soy oil, and canola oil, etc. Lean cuts of meat seem cool and at the same time, if you want to avoid "refined" foods, then you may want to cut down on lean muscle meats, cause you're essentially "refining" the animal down to one specific type of meat and only eating that. Just like refining sugar down to one part, or taking off the husk of rice and calling it "refined white rice" etc. The possible issue with only eating muscle meats is that their is a high concentration of tryptophan and cystine which can overburden your system. Tryptophan can convert to serotonin, which can be good potentially, probably mostly if it's in your *brain* (but that's even under debate) but most of the serotonin ends up in your gut, and too much can be a not-so-good-thing. Also cystine can be a thyroid antagonist and slow your metabolic rate and lead to other issues. Better "cuts" of meat are probably gelatinous cuts, like stuff you have to slow cook, or BBQ to break down the connective tissues. Those are much less rich in tryptophan and cystine, and still have all the protein goodness. They also have lots of "collagen" which can be really good for you as well. There's much much more to it, and I fully admit I could be wrong. At the same time, I do believe lots of health info out there is super-misleading and I feel like I've grabbed onto a little truth. If you've got other opinions I'd love to hear them.And If you have evidence to back me up, that'd be cool too I do like to debate sometimes though Happy Friday!-Sean
Wesley Posted November 1, 2013 Posted November 1, 2013 Fructose does not spike insulin, but it wears on your liver because of how it needs to be processed. Fructose is worse than glusoce and there are better ways to moderate blood sugar levels than to dump on your liver. Fructose should be avoided except in small amount in real fruit (obviously avoiding high fructose corn syrup in packaged foods). This is an instance of counting the benefits and ignoring the costs. Saturated fats can be healthy or unhealthy. Saturated fats in hot dogs probably aren't the best. Saturated fats in coconut oil are great. Everyone should avoid industrial seed and vegetable oils whenever possible. Saturated, polyunsaturated, monounsaturated and trans fats do not ever define if they are good or bad. There are good and bad in each category depending on how they are used and broken down by your body. This is true to some extent, but exaggerated and a bit of scare at the end. It is better to get fish oil by having fish once or twice a week. If you have to take a supplement, put it in a dark, cold area (like your freezer) and it will be unlikely to oxidize. As long as you prevent oxidation, taking fish oil is usually preferable to not taking fish oil in a standard American diet. It depends a bit on the nut/seed. Some are better than others and I would not consider this a universal statement. Nuts an seeds being a sparing snack would be better than many other options that people do snack on. Having a tub of nuts a day would obviously be an issue. Nuts also tend to be high in Omega 6's and will counter your attempts at better balance with your essential fatty acids with fish oil. Again, for the occasional snack it wouldn't be an issue. The lean meats is meh. There are more important things, but the main thing is the quality of fat on the meat has a lot to do with the diet of the animal. If it was a grass fed cow with room to roam, then itll be quality fat and the leanness doesn't matter. If it is an industrially produced cow that wasn't allowed to move and ate crappy grain meant to make it fat and probably the occasional bit of dead, sick cow then I would tend to go on the leaner side (or just avoid that meat when possible). Slow cooking is preferable to fast cooking anyway because there are less carcinogens produced, but you can slow cook lean chicken just like you can a fatty pork belly. The leanness/fattiness of the meat is not a big deal in my book.
SeanBissell Posted November 1, 2013 Author Posted November 1, 2013 Hey Wesley, Hope you're doing great! You've got some interesting thoughts, here's my replies to some: Fructose does not spike insulin, but it wears on your liver because of how it needs to be processed. Fructose is worse than glusoce and there are better ways to moderate blood sugar levels than to dump on your liver. Fructose should be avoided except in small amount in real fruit (obviously avoiding high fructose corn syrup in packaged foods). This is an instance of counting the benefits and ignoring the costs. Fructose can actually *refuel* your liver. Fructose refills liver glycogen more than any other carbohydrate, and glycogen gives your liver energy to process other substances. Anything in super-high quantities can be bad, including fructose. At the same time, your liver can handle quite a bit of fructose, and fructose can be beneficial for your liver especially. The fructose from fruit is chemically identical to that found in refined sugar. The only difference is refined sugar is missing vitamins and minerals. Saturated fats can be healthy or unhealthy. Saturated fats in hot dogs probably aren't the best. Saturated fats in coconut oil are great. Everyone should avoid industrial seed and vegetable oils whenever possible. Saturated, polyunsaturated, monounsaturated and trans fats do not ever define if they are good or bad. There are good and bad in each category depending on how they are used and broken down by your body. Saturated fat is saturated fat. The difference with the hot dog is that the hot dog has lots of added chemicals and other substances. Coconut oil may be a tad better because it includes medium chain fatty acids which are saturated, and are processed first by your liver, just like fructose, and can give your liver some instant energy. This is true to some extent, but exaggerated and a bit of scare at the end. It is better to get fish oil by having fish once or twice a week. If you have to take a supplement, put it in a dark, cold area (like your freezer) and it will be unlikely to oxidize. As long as you prevent oxidation, taking fish oil is usually preferable to not taking fish oil in a standard American diet. Even if your fish oil doesn't oxidize *before* you eat it, your body is about 98 degrees, and fat becomes part of your tissues. It will most likely oxidize *in* your body even if it doesn't before you eat it. The lean meats is meh. There are more important things, but the main thing is the quality of fat on the meat has a lot to do with the diet of the animal. If it was a grass fed cow with room to roam, then itll be quality fat and the leanness doesn't matter. If it is an industrially produced cow that wasn't allowed to move and ate crappy grain meant to make it fat and probably the occasional bit of dead, sick cow then I would tend to go on the leaner side (or just avoid that meat when possible). Slow cooking is preferable to fast cooking anyway because there are less carcinogens produced, but you can slow cook lean chicken just like you can a fatty pork belly. The leanness/fattiness of the meat is not a big deal in my book. What do you define as quality fat? Cows are ruminants which break down cellulose for energy. I agree that grass fed is better because the animals are generally more healthy and out to pasture, etc. They probably have less toxins in their system, and may have more vitamins and minerals in their body. At the same time, the actual structure of their fat is almost identical. There may be slightly more CLA, vitamin K or other substances in grass fed, but again the structure of the fat is going to be the same for all intents and purposes. Gelatinous cuts of meat have less tryptophan and cystine and gelatin contains glycine, which is a very beneficial amino acid, which is not present in non-gelatinous cuts of meat.
Guest Ethan Glover Posted November 1, 2013 Posted November 1, 2013 I think Wesley is right on the money. I read the occasional Natural News/Natural Society article along with Lew Rockwell postings on health, but I find that it's all just a more advanced version of what Tim Ferriss talks about in 4-Hour Body and 4-Hour Chef. I used those books to lose about 35 lbs in 60 days, and I just followed a few simple rules. 1. Avoid "white" carbohydrates. ie. Skip the obvious bready stuff and don't worry about everything else. 2. Eat the same few meals over and over again. 3. Don't drink calories. (No fruit juice and even still, avoid the zero calorie sodas if possible.)4. Don't eat fruit. 5. Take one day off per week. (Take a cheat day on Saturday and pig out every week.) Gizmodo goes over it here. Everything I've found since confirms the details that is gone through in the books and why this works.
SeanBissell Posted November 1, 2013 Author Posted November 1, 2013 Thorax, I know where you're coming from. I personally think that for many people that information is misguided on some basic levels. I agree that "white" carbohydrates *can* be negative for some people. As glucose alone can spike your blood sugar levels high, and then also your insulin levels high. So glucose increases blood sugar, and insulin decreases blood sugar. So you could possibly get a "spike" then a drop in blood sugar. That can be stressful on your system. But on that exact same topic. Fruit juice does *not* do that. Orange juice has a glycemic index of about 50, and white rice has a glycemic index of about 90. That is because orange juice is only half glucose, and the rest is fructose. Fructose does not stimulate insulin, and therefore can help keep blood sugar more stable. I think Tim Ferris' advice is mainly designed to induce weight loss. And I'd personally argue that weight loss is not always healthy.
Wesley Posted November 1, 2013 Posted November 1, 2013 http://lowcarbdiets.about.com/od/nutrition/a/fructosedangers.htm http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/86/4/895.full http://jasn.asnjournals.org/content/18/10/2619.full For starters on fructose
SeanBissell Posted November 1, 2013 Author Posted November 1, 2013 Wesley, I don't think I have time to write a book to refute all the points in these links. But here's some key points. Quote below from this link: http://jasn.asnjournals.org/content/18/10/2619.full So what is the problem with fructose? Fructose is metabolized differently than glucose. Unlike glucose, which is stored as glycogen, fructose is absorbed by the gut and converted into triglycerides by the liver.12 Fructose also elevates uric acid levels through effects on an ADP-IMP pathway in hepatocytes.13 The resulting dyslipidemia and hyperuricemia facilitate insulin resistance,14aggravate hypertension,13 and accelerate endothelial dysfunction.15Attenuation of nitric oxide levels is an important pathogenic mechanism as a final common pathway to poor blood flow.3,16 What we end up with is a familiar caloric additive provoking a new spate of metabolic dysfunction.3 Fructose *is* metabolized differently, but that can be a good thing. No one has proved that moderately high levels of triglycerides are even negative, unless you're way off the charts, then you could get pancreatitis. But I don't see that happening relative to how much fructose people are eating. Also the amount of triglycerides you produce from fructose is not extremely significant for the majority of people. Uric acid is one of the body's most potent antioxidants. Producing some is probably a good thing. Of course you can induce short term insulin resistance using lots of fructose alone without glucose. But where are you ever going to find pure fructose without glucose attached? The reason you can cause short term insulin resistance using fructose is because you don't *need* insulin to metabolize fructose. If your body doesn't need to be conditioned to use insulin it will downregulate insulin production. Just like if you're out in the bright sun, your eyes will constrict. If you suddenly walk into a dark building you won't be able to see well, and your eyes will need to readjust to deal with the low light. Did you just make yourself "light resistant" by hanging out in the sun? Nitric oxide is needed in your body, but too much is bad. Fructose can potentially help keep that in check. Nitric oxide is a free radical and can be "pro-aging."
Wesley Posted November 1, 2013 Posted November 1, 2013 High fructose corn syrup is an industrial food product and far from “natural” or a naturally occurring substance. It is extracted from corn stalks through a process so secret that Archer Daniels Midland and Carghill would not allow the investigative journalist Michael Pollan to observe it for his book The Omnivore’s Dilemma. The sugars are extracted through a chemical enzymatic process resulting in a chemically and biologically novel compound called HFCS. Some basic biochemistry will help you understand this. Regular cane sugar (sucrose) is made of two-sugar molecules bound tightly together– glucose and fructose in equal amounts.The enzymes in your digestive tract must break down the sucrose into glucose and fructose, which are then absorbed into the body. HFCS also consists of glucose and fructose, not in a 50-50 ratio, but a 55-45 fructose to glucose ratio in an unbound form. Fructose is sweeter than glucose. And HFCS is cheaper than sugar because of the government farm bill corn subsidies. Products with HFCS are sweeter and cheaper than products made with cane sugar. This allowed for the average soda size to balloon from 8 ounces to 20 ounces with little financial costs to manufacturers but great human costs of increased obesity, diabetes, and chronic disease. Now back to biochemistry. Since there is there is no chemical bond between them, no digestion is required so they are more rapidly absorbed into your blood stream. Fructose goes right to the liver and triggers lipogenesis (the production of fats like triglycerides and cholesterol) this is why it is the major cause of liver damage in this country and causes a condition called “fatty liver” which affects 70 million people. The rapidly absorbed glucose triggers big spikes in insulin–our body’s major fat storage hormone. Both these features of HFCS lead to increased metabolic disturbances that drive increases in appetite, weight gain, diabetes, heart disease, cancer, dementia, and more. But there was one more thing I learned during lunch with Dr. Bruce Ames. Research done by his group at the Children’s Hospital Oakland Research Institute found that free fructose from HFCS requires more energy to be absorbed by the gut and soaks up two phosphorous molecules from ATP (our body’s energy source). This depletes the energy fuel source, or ATP, in our gut required to maintain the integrity of our intestinal lining. Little “tight junctions” cement each intestinal cell together preventing food and bacteria from “leaking” across the intestinal membrane and triggering an immune reaction and body wide inflammation. High doses of free fructose have been proven to literally punch holes in the intestinal lining allowing nasty byproducts of toxic gut bacteria and partially digested food proteins to enter your blood stream and trigger the inflammation that we know is at the root of obesity, diabetes, cancer, heart disease, dementia, and accelerated aging. Naturally occurring fructose in fruit is part of a complex of nutrients and fiber that doesn’t exhibit the same biological effects as the free high fructose doses found in “corn sugar”. The takeaway: Cane sugar and the industrially produced, euphemistically named “corn sugar” are not biochemically or physiologically the same. http://drhyman.com/blog/2011/05/13/5-reasons-high-fructose-corn-syrup-will-kill-you/#close In short, unpaired fructose rarely happens in nature. However high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is very, very common in production food. 70 million Americans have fatty liver disease, which could be highly linked to HFCS.That is a major problem for a very significant minority of people in America.
SeanBissell Posted November 1, 2013 Author Posted November 1, 2013 High fructose corn syrup may not be the best stuff ever. But it's still basically half glucose, half fructose. In that way, it's almost identical to fruit, beet or cane sugar.
Wesley Posted November 1, 2013 Posted November 1, 2013 The takeaway: Cane sugar and the industrially produced, euphemistically named “corn sugar” are not biochemically or physiologically the same. I think you didn't read what I posted at all
SeanBissell Posted November 1, 2013 Author Posted November 1, 2013 I did read what you posted. But I don't believe it's factual. High fructose corn syrup is basically 50/50 glucose/fructose. Just like other sugar. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_fructose_corn_syrup LovePrevails, I don't have time at the moment to concentrate on an hour long video. But do you have a summary?
Wesley Posted November 1, 2013 Posted November 1, 2013 I did read what you posted. But I don't believe it's factual. High fructose corn syrup is basically 50/50 glucose/fructose. Just like other sugar. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_fructose_corn_syrup Well so far, I have cited 4 sources: 2 of them publish journals and one from a doctor. I have not seen any sources from you. They only seem to be empty assertions. If you have sources, I would be happy to see where these many doctors are wrong on the issue.
SeanBissell Posted November 1, 2013 Author Posted November 1, 2013 I've been focusing on more just the facts of the construction of substances. And biology, I don't believe you need studies to support that. This is an interesting study that compares the effects of a high sugar, high starch, and high fat diet. http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v21/n10/pdf/0800494a.pdf
Wesley Posted November 1, 2013 Posted November 1, 2013 I've been focusing on more just the facts of the construction of substances. And biology, I don't believe you need studies to support that. This is an interesting study that compares the effects of a high sugar, high starch, and high sugar diet. http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v21/n10/pdf/0800494a.pdf See, you do not get to ignore scientific studies because you think the construction of the substances shouldn't result in the result of the study. That is not the best practice for discovering truths. We were talking about the negative effects of high fructose corn syrup and I provided 4 sources, at least 2 of them published and have some credibility. I am very interested in any potential published studies that find that HFCS is healthy as a result of a study. If you have this, then I will look at it. Otherwise, I have provided evidence and you have not which, in general, some evidence is far better than no evidence for proving a proposition.
SeanBissell Posted November 1, 2013 Author Posted November 1, 2013 Well, let's take HFCS out of the picture then and go back to just sugar. I believe the study I just posted shows that sugar helped people build fat free mass where the others lost fat free mass (meaning mostly bone and muscle.) I think that is a positive for sugar.
Wesley Posted November 1, 2013 Posted November 1, 2013 Well, let's take HFCS out of the picture then and go back to just sugar. I believe the study I just posted shows that sugar helped people build fat free mass where the others lost fat free mass (meaning mostly bone and muscle.) I think that is a positive for sugar. The debate is not sugar. Sugar in my opinion is fine. It is fuel for the body. You said that fructose was a preferable source of sugar. I said that it was not only not preferable but harmful, especially in the instance of HFCS. I provided sources. Now you are moving the debate to terms I do not disagree with and would not debate. I am asserting that Fructose is a less preferable sugar source and HFCS is actively negative and harmful to health. You have asserted that Fructose is a preferable sugar source which would include HFCS. Thus, I am asking if you have nay proof that HFCS is a healthier source of sugar than natural sugars or glucose. I would be very interested in this information.
SeanBissell Posted November 1, 2013 Author Posted November 1, 2013 But if you really want to go the HFCS route, this is a study that shows that there probably isn't much difference between sugar and HFCS, at least for weight gain/loss purposes. http://www.nutritionj.com/content/pdf/1475-2891-11-55.pdf Some epidemiologic studies have reported an increase in energy intake in various population groups related to increased sugar sweetened beverage consumption. However, evidence regarding a potential positive association between sugar sweetened beverage consumption and obesity is inconsistent. Because of the metabolic nature of overweight and obesity and the complexity of the western diet, it is unlikely that a single food or food group is the primary cause. Randomized, clinical feeding trials have shown inconsistent results from testing the effects of added sugar on weight gain. Differences in the study instruments and methods, population studies and study design may have contributed to these inconsistent findings....Our data suggest that such actions are pointless and potentially misleading to consumers, since HFCS and sucrose (sugar) are nutritionally interchangeable. I actually don't think fructose is preferable by itself. I think sugar can be beneficial because it has half glucose, and half fructose. Fructose on it's own should probably only be used as a medical intervention for diabetics who can tolerate it. Because fructose can get into your cell without insulin. And can help restore your oxidative metabolism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fructose Fructose is often recommended for diabetics because it does not trigger the production of insulin by pancreatic β cells, probably because β cells have low levels ofGLUT5,[55][56][57]
Wesley Posted November 1, 2013 Posted November 1, 2013 But if you really want to go the HFCS route, this is a study that shows that there probably isn't much difference between sugar and HFCS, at least for weight gain/loss purposes. http://www.nutritionj.com/content/pdf/1475-2891-11-55.pdf Weight loss was not the issue in what I quoted. It was fatty liver disease, obesity, diabetes, cancer, heart disease, dementia, accelerated aging, gut inflammation, and maybe a few other things. The idea that being on a HFCS diet isn't significantly different from another bad diet in the "weight loss" category doesn't address any of those negative consequences (except possibly the obesity, but losing a few pounds often doesn't change whether you are still obese or not). Yes, if you cut calories you can lose weight. However, losing weight is one of many, many signs of health. That study used nearly starvation-level calories and I would consider that dangerous and not a long-term healthy way to eat, but a short-term way to lose a little weight. For illustration: I can eat only 1 pack of Twinkies a day and I will lose weight, but I would not be healthy.
SeanBissell Posted November 1, 2013 Author Posted November 1, 2013 In regards to obesity. Sugar consumption is going down. Including HFCS, and obesity is still rising. See graphic below: In regards to fatty liver disease, the numbers are way overblown to sound scary. There's a difference between fatty liver, and fatty liver disease, and then the actual negative effects of fatty liver disease. And then there's non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Lots of people lump these together. You can have a fatty liver, and not have fatty liver disease. People with a fatty liver, probably also have a fatty stomach, and other "fatty" body parts. It's probably partly due to just being overweight. Here's an article that brings more reasonable numbers to the table: (2-5 percent.) http://health.usnews.com/health-news/family-health/diabetes/articles/2009/04/10/nonalcoholic-fatty-liver-disease-5-tips-for-treatment-prevention Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, also known as nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, or NASH, is a chronic condition that affects 2 to 5 percent of people in the United States. No one has ever shown that fructose actually causes diabetes II, if anything it may help benefit those who have diabetes II, as shown in the previous link about recommending fructose to those who have diabetes. Diabetes II is most likely multiple factors all coming together to create a metabolic dysfunction, no one knows exactly what causes it. And how do you associate dementia with sugar, or accelerated aging, or gut inflammation? It seems like these are just negative things, but I don't know how they are caused by sugar.
Rover Posted November 1, 2013 Posted November 1, 2013 Read this:http://www.amazon.com/The-Paleo-Solution-Original-Human/dp/0982565844/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1383346456&sr=8-1&keywords=paleo+solution Listen to this:http://www.bulletproofexec.com/category/podcasts/
SeanBissell Posted November 1, 2013 Author Posted November 1, 2013 Rover, I'm definitely familiar with the Paleo diet, and with Dave Asprey Been down that rabbit hole. And... I don't think I'd go back at this point. And as a side note. I think Bulletproof coffee is one of the worst ideas ever Super high fat 80+ grams is not only going to just store as fat, but it's most likely going to release endotoxin into your bloodstream. http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/35/2/375.full These studies have highlighted that exposure to a high-fat meal elevates circulating endotoxin irrespective of metabolic state, as early as 1 h after a meal.
wdiaz03 Posted November 2, 2013 Posted November 2, 2013 Rover, I'm definitely familiar with the Paleo diet, and with Dave Asprey Been down that rabbit hole. And... I don't think I'd go back at this point. Do you care to share your opinion of Paleo, what where your results? Also I'll be interested in your typical day diet and level of activity and what effects it has on your body (Are you slimmer? muscular? etc Do you look like an Olympic swimmer, or a long distance runner?) Whats your body fat percent? or fat pinch results of at least subprailiac and abdominal areas? Thanks.
SeanBissell Posted November 2, 2013 Author Posted November 2, 2013 wdiaz03, Hope you're doing great! I honestly think it's tough to even have an opinion of Paleo at this point. There's so much disagreement in the "Paleosphere" on what Paleo even is. Some think you should only eat whole foods, no refined almond flowers, nut butters etc. Others rely heavily on almond and coconut flour. Others think coconut oil is a refined substance and avoid it. Some think potatoes and other tubers are Paleo, while others avoid them and think starch is not Paleo. Some people think fruit is Paleo, others avoid fruit. Some go crazy on bacon, others think that bacon is a processed meat and should be avoided. There's no "universal" definition of what Paleo is. From what I've seen, over the years of being part of the Paleo "community", the majority are scared of carbs, rely heavily on a high fat, high protein diet. And most rely heavily on nuts, nut flours, and nut butters. Personally, I think low carb and high fat, especially from nuts is not optimal. A low carb diet is stressful on your body because you rely on stress hormones to regulate blood sugar by turning protein into carbs through gluconeogenesis and that requires at least glucagon (a stress hormone) and usually cortisol as well (another stress hormone.) Also, unless you're actually allergic to dairy, I think avoiding dairy is potentially more harmful than helpful. (Many Paleo people avoid dairy.) And avoiding salt I think is potentially dangerous to your health. (Many Paleo people avoid salt.) There's lots of aspects of Paleo I don't agree with, but those are the main points. In regards to my diet... It varies, I'm not super-strict with my diet. That being said, here's the simplified diet "guidelines" I use for myself. Keep polyunsaturated fats low, carbs from sugar from fruit are best, but starch is cool too. Salt your food to taste. Don't rely too much on muscle meat for protein, and diversify protein with gelatin, dairy and shellfish. Don't eat protein without carbs. Eat organ meats, especially liver. Keep your calcium to phosphorus ratio about 1:1. Get about 200 grams of carbs at least, and 80 grams of protein (within fuzzy limits relative to your goals and how you feel.) Fill in fat wherever convenient, rely on saturated fat. Make sure to get enough calories to make you feel good. Raw carrots at any time a day, or drinking OJ with high fat meals is also cool to reduce endotoxins. Eat whatever foods you want to get there, and any further tweaks are in the category of "optimization." In regards to how I "look", I honestly don't think that matters much in the context of health (up to a point.) Because totally "shredded" people can look awesome, and be unhealthy. On the other hand, I don't believe being super overweight is healthy for most people. So being really lean and muscular can be misleading. I'm personally not focused on getting "shredded." My wife just had a baby 11 weeks ago, and I'm much more focused on stress reduction and health at this point in my life. But here's a recent picture of me if you need it
wdiaz03 Posted November 2, 2013 Posted November 2, 2013 Thanks Sean for the information. I agree that LGN (Look good naked) factor is not a major determinant, Just wanted to get a sense of the trend your body was taking after following this lifestyle, Are you slowly gaining weight? What was the body Fat percentage trend? etc. You did not go into your level of activity. I'll be interested to know if you are maintaining your weight and if you are "shredded" as you put it, what level of activity was required to maintain it. I could not access your picture. But if posting one is an issue I just wanted to get a sense if how you look, and you can just describe it if that's ok with you. Thanks a lot for your input. and Congrats on the new addition to the family!
SeanBissell Posted November 3, 2013 Author Posted November 3, 2013 Hey widiaz03, I apologize for the file not showing, I thought that link would work, but apparently not Maybe this will work instead: Wow, that's big! Here's a link to a smaller version. http://www.screencast.com/users/SeanBissell/folders/Default/media/d269bfeb-7cf3-49af-9d5e-b0db557c6e63 At the moment my activity level is a *lot* lower than normal due to the new addition to the family, and helping my wife before while pregnant. But I lift weights maybe 20 minutes a day, 2-3 times a week at the moment. Used to do more biking, and also used to do Crossfit for a few years. My body fat is higher than my "leanest" point. I'm not sure what it is but it's probably around 15-20% right now. I plan on eventually bringing that down, but it's definitely not a priority at the moment. And thanks for the congrats Happy Sunday! -Sean
Wesley Posted November 4, 2013 Posted November 4, 2013 In regards to obesity. Sugar consumption is going down. Including HFCS, and obesity is still rising. See graphic below: In regards to fatty liver disease, the numbers are way overblown to sound scary. There's a difference between fatty liver, and fatty liver disease, and then the actual negative effects of fatty liver disease. And then there's non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Lots of people lump these together. You can have a fatty liver, and not have fatty liver disease. People with a fatty liver, probably also have a fatty stomach, and other "fatty" body parts. It's probably partly due to just being overweight. Here's an article that brings more reasonable numbers to the table: (2-5 percent.) http://health.usnews.com/health-news/family-health/diabetes/articles/2009/04/10/nonalcoholic-fatty-liver-disease-5-tips-for-treatment-prevention No one has ever shown that fructose actually causes diabetes II, if anything it may help benefit those who have diabetes II, as shown in the previous link about recommending fructose to those who have diabetes. Diabetes II is most likely multiple factors all coming together to create a metabolic dysfunction, no one knows exactly what causes it. And how do you associate dementia with sugar, or accelerated aging, or gut inflammation? It seems like these are just negative things, but I don't know how they are caused by sugar. Random charts mean nothing. Obesity is a "lifestyle disease" as in the results do not materialize after instant shifts in consumption. Not to mention that these decreases could still be making things worse than they were because they were higher than they should be. It takes something like 70 years before a lifestyle disease changes are reflected in a chart. This change in sugar and no change in obesity has happened 11 years after, by which we have not full realized the negative consequences of kids still coming up with the negative health consequences to HFCS. Even if the decline is not making things worse as it is still wayyyy too high, it will certainly be a significant lagging indicator and will not change immediately with the change in diet. I can post random charts and make up conclusions too: The other parts are somewhat meaningless. Fatty liver is negative even if it is not fatty liver disease, just like fatty people is negative even if you are not so obese you can't get up or something. I posted several links and studies referencing the other problems. I will assume the rest was a mis-post and that you plan on reading the sources and finding problems in the sources and did not mean to imply that they were any sort of arbitrary opinion I was making up. Finally, I addressed the link you gave in that it of obvious that a hypocaloric diet of any kind would lead to less obesity and less diabetes. However, the amount of restriction in the study was still unhealthy and unsustainable for the long term and should not be anything that anyone can base a life diet off of. I will assume you missed my post about why HFCS in hypocaloric vs Non-HFCS in hypocaloric will both lead to weight loss and have nothing to do with sustainable caloric with HFCS vs sustainable caloric vs Non-HFCS.
SeanBissell Posted November 4, 2013 Author Posted November 4, 2013 Wesley, The chart I posted wasn't random. It was said that sugar contributes to obesity, and then I showed a chart that had sugar and obesity together. That's very relevant, not random. Of course any hypocaloric diet will most likely lead to weight loss. I did show a study above that compared high sugar, high starch, and high fat diets. That study was *not* hypocaloric, it was "ad libitum" which means "at one's pleasure", or "unrestricted calories." Sugar built non-fat body mass whereas the others lost it. The others lost more fat, but also lost muscle and bone. Basically they were "wasting" away. Sugar prevented that from happening. In regards to dementia like Alzheimer's, it appears that it may be partly due to calcification of the mitochondria, which occurs when a cell is stressed, and can't use it's oxidative metabolism. This study shows that effect: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4004169 Other data suggest that the PDHC deficiency is related to mitochondrial damage and to impaired calcium homeostasis in Alzheimer nerve cells, which may then mediate a variety of other cellular impairments. And if the cell is being stressed and the mitochondria is calcifying there is a very significant chance that it's due to pyruvate not getting into the mitochondria. Fructose can help re-activate that process and help get things kick started again. As shown in this study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1130852/ In conclusion, dietary fructose appears to have a specific activating effect on hepatic PDH, mediated at least in part by inhibition of PDH kinase. Activating PDH means that pyruvate can get into the mitochondria better. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyruvate_dehydrogenase pyruvate dehydrogenase complex contributes to transforming pyruvate into acetyl-CoA by a process called pyruvate decarboxylation. And in regards to this study, sugar from orange juice can help prevent and reduce inflammation, not cause it: http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/04/gut-microbiome-bacteria-weight-loss I agree, obesity is most likely a "lifestyle" disease, and "lifestyle" includes many more factors other than just sugar. Sugar is often paired with polyunsaturated fats (a Coke and some fries), which can block sugar from getting *into* your cells, therefore causing similar effects of not being able to get pyruvate into your mitochondria. That effect of fats competing for sugar in your bloodstream is called the "Randle Cycle." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randle_cycle The Randle cycle is a metabolic process involving the competition of glucose and fatty acids for substrates.[1] It is theorized to play a role in explaining type 2 diabetes and insulin resistance.[2][3] And inactivity can also mess with your oxidative capacity, which could also contribute to weird sugar metabolism (the pyruvate thing again.) There's many factors involved, not just sugar.
Wesley Posted November 4, 2013 Posted November 4, 2013 ... I never said high carb or high protein or high fat was preferable. I am saying that HFCS is a net negative and should not be recommended for people who may not know a lot about health. Every time I try to narrow the scope onto a particular thing, you bring in extraneous points that have nothing to do with HFCS or are not studies. I have specifically stated many times that my problem is not with sugar, but HFCS. I obviously know there are other factors. Again, nothing to do with whether, on average, HFCS is positive or negative for people. I am very frustrated with this thread.
SeanBissell Posted November 4, 2013 Author Posted November 4, 2013 That's no fun you're frustrated man. That's not what I'm trying to do. I personally don't advocate HFCS, and I'm not focused on trying to defend it. I'm not sure where HFCS got the focus. I don't think it's super bad, but I don't think it's great either. I'm defending "sugar", half fructose, half glucose.
wdiaz03 Posted November 5, 2013 Posted November 5, 2013 Sean, how many grams of sugar should the average person consume a day? when does it become too much of a good thing?
SeanBissell Posted November 5, 2013 Author Posted November 5, 2013 wdiaz03, That's a bit of a tricky question. Everyone is different, some have "better" metabolisms than others. When your metabolism is "broken" or "compromised" then your mitochondria are likely to be damaged, or at the very least, not using their oxidative capacity fully. In the case of a damaged metabolism due to various factors (excessive dieting, low carbohydrates, chronic stress, excessive polyunsaturated fats, and others), you probably won't be using sugar optimally. What can happen in a cell's "damaged" state, is that you can only break glucose or fructose in half, which creates two 3 carbon chains (which is called glycolysis and does not require oxygen to do.) For glucose or fructose to be used fully it has to break into 6 separate carbons, and release 6 molecules of carbon dioxide. If your cell doesn't have enough oxygen, or isn't allowing pyruvate into your mitochondria then glucose/fructose can only break into two separate 3-carbon chains, and then those pyruvate "sugars" can't go through the krebs cycle, or the electron transport chain and create 36 more ATP from the sugar. So when pyruvate can't be processed by your mitochondria, then it turns into lactic acid and when it's built up then it will exit your cells, into your bloodstream, into your liver, and be processed back into glucose. Then that will likely start to raise your blood sugar because you're starting to "back stuff up." Kind of like a clogged drain with the water left on. Basically, in that case, where someone has damaged their mitochondria through those various factors listed above, then they would likely want to start with smaller amounts of sugar and increases over time as their body "heals." And they are able to restore more oxidative capacity, and the ability to generate more ATP. Instead of relying on mostly glycolysis for sugar metabolism. I guess that's a long way of saying... It depends on how well you feel you tolerate sugar or carbohydrates in general. If you're having problems with them, maybe start small and build up over time. I'm not a doctor, and I can't give anyone specific recommendations, but if anyone believes they're having troubles with sugar metabolism, it may be smart to work with a doctor to monitor blood sugar levels and other markers. Happy Tuesday!-Sean
wdiaz03 Posted November 6, 2013 Posted November 6, 2013 Thanks Sean, Can you explain what you mean by "tolerating sugars or carbs"? In your case, how many grams of sugar and carbs do you eat a day? how would you know if you cross that tolerance line? Regards
SeanBissell Posted November 6, 2013 Author Posted November 6, 2013 I think one way to find out if you tolerate carbs well or not is to just see how you feel after eating them. Do you get tired, sluggish, etc? If so, that may be a sign of high blood sugar, and an indicator that you're not using the carbs your eating well, and they're "backing up" in your bloodstream. Otherwise, you could go "scientific" and get a blood glucose monitor and check your levels after you eat. I personally eat about 180-200 grams of sugar a day. Coming mostly from orange juice, honey, and refined sugar. On top of that I usually eat some starch, and carbs in milk as well. So my total carbohydrate intake is probably closer to 250-300 grams a day. But it varies.
Recommended Posts