Ray Peat: The importance of sugar and the dangers of fat (stress) metabolism

[Alejo]

White, refined sugar = bad for me. Far too immediately bio available. I can handle some 'slow sugars' in carbs, but even then there's a pretty low tolerance. Trial and error goes a long way to determining what is right for an individual's body. In line with the Keyhole is saying, I don't see any point in trying to uncover 'research' that 'proves' that something is always good or bad for everyone. But put it this way, the individual responses of hundreds of people on this forum to cutting back on sugar and increasing dietary saturated animal fat is a testimony to the fact that more fat and less sugar IS, in a general sense, beneficial for many people.

I think this is right on point. There has always been a individual approach to diet, people must try and and adjust based on results. If certain sugars help in certain conditions for some people then great. But my own experience is that too much sugar or carbs makes me collapse in several ways, winter or summer.

Also, I'm not sure (and perhaps I don't know) if we're less active during winter. Perhaps on cultures that do not live a modern life. But for the most part, people still have to work the same amount of hours. They might spend less time outside but that doesn't mean they're resting in darkness or hibernating. And sometimes, depending on where you live, you're quite active outside during winter.

 

[Laura]

White, refined sugar = bad for me. Far too immediately bio available. I can handle some 'slow sugars' in carbs, but even then there's a pretty low tolerance. Trial and error goes a long way to determining what is right for an individual's body. In line with the Keyhole is saying, I don't see any point in trying to uncover 'research' that 'proves' that something is always good or bad for everyone. But put it this way, the individual responses of hundreds of people on this forum to cutting back on sugar and increasing dietary saturated animal fat is a testimony to the fact that more fat and less sugar IS, in a general sense, beneficial for many people.

Another part of the issue is that it seems that people who have the capacity to wake up and seat a soul have very special genetics and years of observation suggests that carbs are among the things they are "allergic" to.

 

[Keyhole]

I think that this blanket statement cannot be accurate. Mammals all share certain aspects of genetic and metabolic functions and control.

The problem is to make sense of the correlation between animal and human organisms, which is admittedly very difficult. Modern science is developing techniques on a cellular level that may be more accurate than animal models, but only at the cellular level. When it comes to the interplay of cellular mechanisms with the overall control of these, there is no substitute for animal models as or yet.

I am not advocating animal tests nilly-willy as they are done nowadays, but if they are done with the right frame of mind, taking animal welfare seriously, in cases where there is no alternative, and not misused for propaganda purposes, as so often happens nowadays, it still might be something that needs to be done.

Anyway, my 2 centavos.

I think that animal dietary studies can only be transferable to humans IF the animals in question naturally eat a more or less omnivorous diet with emphasis on meats/proteins.

Agreed. I don't think animal studies can be used as conclusive evidence for anything, but they can certainly help us to put together pieces of the puzzle. As long as you are not fundamentally messing with the lifestyle factors of the animal (like feeding a rabbit pure cholesterol for a year), then it can provide useful information.

For example, the SOTT Focus up recently on tobacco cites numerous accounts of mammals who clearly showed benefit from inhaling tobacco smoke. In some cases, animals were 100% protected against cancer. Was it worth dismissing this evidence simple because it was shown in animal studies? Not at all, because it fits well into the wider body of evidence and can act as secondary information to support the argument. Usually, if a chemical causes cancer in rats, it usually causes cancer in humans.

Nearly all of the research done on the herbicide glyphosate was performed on rats, and most of what we know about it's toxicity is because of the effects on their biochemistry. This research is carried on SOTT regularly. So its important not to throw the 'baby out with the bathwater' here.

It makes me wonder if Big-Ag/Big Food are trying to get things back to people eating a lot of carbs again for their profit margin by having research come out in their favor?

I have the same impression and I don't tolerate carbs, as well. I saw how type 1 diabetes was killing my grandma (she eventually died from it) and how my mother was suffering from type 2 diabetes until she switched to ketogenic diet which allowed her to drop all her medications.

So, I'm a bit skeptical about all this new "research".

I'm glad to hear your family benefited from dietary changes Altair. However, what you have said simply supports the points I laid out in my previous post. Ketosis is a natural way of reversing diabetes by natures design... This is seen in hibernating mammalian species. Simply because low-carb ketosis can be used as a clinical tool to treat illness does not mean that high carbohydrate are the cause of insulin-resistance. It does also not support the assumption that this ketogenic state beneficial in the long-term for people who live metabolically active life-styles.

White, refined sugar = bad for me. Far too immediately bio available. I can handle some 'slow sugars' in carbs, but even then there's a pretty low tolerance. Trial and error goes a long way to determining what is right for an individual's body. In line with the Keyhole is saying, I don't see any point in trying to uncover 'research' that 'proves' that something is always good or bad for everyone. But put it this way, the individual responses of hundreds of people on this forum to cutting back on sugar and increasing dietary saturated animal fat is a testimony to the fact that more fat and less sugar IS, in a general sense, beneficial for many people.

I think this is right on point. There has always been a individual approach to diet, people must try and and adjust based on results. If certain sugars help in certain conditions for some people then great. But my own experience is that too much sugar or carbs makes me collapse in several ways, winter or summer.

Again, no one is claiming that refined sugar should be the main fuel source. It is not found in nature, therefore is likely not to be that great. But people's experience can be interpreted in many ways. Through the lens of 'low carb living', the lack of sugar in the diet is attributed to these benefits. But from other perspectives, the results may be attributed to the removal of all the other toxins and PUFAs that make up a 'standard diet'. I can't say with certainty that sugar is not the culprit, because I have yet to study all of the information. However, it seems that there may be some weight to this information. I came across Ray Peat's work on the Jack Kruse forum, and a lot of the research was presented which could not be refuted. Of course, it did not go down well in those circles... because low carb diets are seen as the 'only way' there. Several people who tried ketosis for a very long time actually began to implement Peat's findings, and have had much better outcomes because of it.

So I tried to dismiss the information at first, since it was not conducive with my beliefs about sugar. But the guy cites some really good evidence that is not really conflicting with anything presented here. Simply that ketosis is suited to cyclical low-activity semi-hibernation periods, and can be used as a clinical tool in cases of certain diseases. I don't think it is a radical idea that the diet would change through the seasons, and if humans lived through proper seasons, things like PUFA may not be so detrimental.

Also, I'm not sure (and perhaps I don't know) if we're less active during winter. Perhaps on cultures that do not live a modern life. But for the most part, people still have to work the same amount of hours. They might spend less time outside but that doesn't mean they're resting in darkness or hibernating. And sometimes, depending on where you live, you're quite active outside during winter.

This is exactly the point I was trying to convey. Our modern-day lifestyle features constant metabolic stress, it is summer all year round for us. Glucose metabolism is coupled with a summer environment, because it appears to provide some of the protective measures against the internal stress. Not necessarily high grains and refined sugar, but also not to demonise fruits and other things. This is based on the fact that our oxidative metabolism requires adequate carbs and sugar, and this is not necessarily "bad".

Ever wondered why the body is constantly searching for ways to revert back to glucose metabolism? Isn't that kind of strange? It is easy to get knocked out of ketosis, but it is very difficult to get into and stay in ketosis. This suggests to me me that glucose is not the baddy it has been demonised to be.

 

[Oxajil]

I've done a bit more reading on Ray Peat's diet. One person who summarized the Peat-arian diet on this website, wrote:

This recommendation leads to the mathematical conclusion that a Peat Diet will be higher in carbs and lower in fat. I saw one chart that estimated a Peat Diet was 50% carbs, 25% fat and 25% protein. When you reduce your intake of bad fats (PUFA), you’ll also be reducing all fats. When fats go down, carbs must go up. Although I suppose one could eat fistfuls of coconut oil to boost the fat level, it isn’t necessary since the carbs are boosting metabolism.

And here, comments about a book written by Danny Rodder ("Ray Peat’s most well-known disciple"):

What it means is that Ray Peat’s diet tastes better than most diets. That is, if you like sugar and dairy. Ray Peat is a big proponent of white sugar, fruit, and full-fat dairy. I don’t want to spoil the book, but the reasons have to do with purported metabolic advantages provided by calcium and sugars, as opposed to phosphate and fats. And what do you get when you combine fruit and full-fat cream? You get Haagen Dazs ice cream! I’m lactose intolerant, and pay the price when eating too much ice cream. Ray Peat says that lactose intolerance can be overcome with certain nutrition strategies. I’m skeptical, to say the least, but some people have anecdotally done well when upping their sugar and dairy, Ray Peat style.

At the end of the article:

So what do I really think about Ray Peat? Well, I’m skeptical. I think he’s a kooky guy, and interesting to read. I’ve tried Peat’s diet twice over the past few years, for a month at a time. I didn’t notice any health improvements, but usually don’t notice improvements with diet, for my specific and rare pain condition. I did think the diet was fun. Ice cream at night, lots of orange juice spread throughout the day. I still supplement with gelatin, as I’m fairly sure that a muscle-meat heavy diet is not optimal for a few reasons. Peat also rekindled my interest in endocrinology. But sometimes I’ll read something he writes and have no idea how he drew those conclusions. Thus is the life of a nutrition experimentor. If you like to experiment, and haven’t looked into Ray Peat, I’d recommend doing some reading.

:/

 

[Gaby]

It is easy to get caught in the biochemical pathways and fine details. Every researcher has its own strengths and weaknesses. Some are excellent researchers with no clinical practice and relatively good health, others have clinical experience but demand that their followers be completely obsessed with their research if they are to follow it. A person like that doesn't have an idea of how much people suffer or how difficult it is to even read a few articles when you are chronically sick. Other researchers get their followers by being complacent to people's demands and addictions.

Ray Peat is a physiologist which is very cool. He also gives nutritional advice. That doesn't mean all of his arguments apply to the health catastrophe nowadays. Biochemical pathways which work on ideal circumstances might not apply to what we have today, a non-ideal world. Other research contradicts his working hypothesis.

Some people might thrive on a little bit of more carbs, others seem to have the constitution of a cockroach, others are very sensitive to everything. That we can metabolize sugar doesn't mean it is good for some of us.

By their fruits you shall now them, so to speak. In general, people derive benefits from restricting quantities of carbs and by being picky to the quality of carbs they allow into their diet.

Just a few thoughts.

 

[dugdeep]

It is easy to get caught in the biochemical pathways and fine details. Every researcher has its own strengths and weaknesses. Some are excellent researchers with no clinical practice and relatively good health, others have clinical experience but demand that their followers be completely obsessed with their research if they are to follow it. A person like that doesn't have an idea of how much people suffer or how difficult it is to even read a few articles when you are chronically sick. Other researchers get their followers by being complacent to people's demands and addictions.

Ray Peat is a physiologist which is very cool. He also gives nutritional advice. That doesn't mean all of his arguments apply to the health catastrophe nowadays. Biochemical pathways which work on ideal circumstances might not apply to what we have today, a non-ideal world. Other research contradicts his working hypothesis.

Some people might thrive on a little bit of more carbs, others seem to have the constitution of a cockroach, others are very sensitive to everything. That we can metabolize sugar doesn't mean it is good for some of us.

By their fruits you shall now them, so to speak. In general, people derive benefits from restricting quantities of carbs and by being picky to the quality of carbs they allow into their diet.

Just a few thoughts.

I agree. I think there's a rather huge difference between a physiologist working on biochemical pathways in ideal situations and real, practical experience of individuals and those working in a clinical setting.

While the stuff about polyunsaturated fats makes sense - there's a lot of research showing how delicate these fats are and how easily they can go rancid, both in the body and externally, and how damaging this can be. I can see how glycation and insulin resistance could actually be attributed to damaged PUFAs rather than sugar (note that this doesn't mean that sugar is therefore harmless) and the studies showing PUFAs to actually be more damaging than trans fats is pretty fascinating.

On the other hand, the sugar argument seems entirely too theoretical. What are the symptoms of low carbon dioxide levels? Is there any evidence that those in fat metabolism succumb to these symptoms? Could there be other systems that kick in when in fat burning mode that compensate for this low carbon dioxide state? Is there a way of compensating ourselves (I came across a clinician who uses breathing techniques to complement the ketogenic state, for example. He's had rather glowing success with treating fairly major disease states like cancer and diabetes). Is someone who is entirely fat adapted still in a low carbon dioxide state, or does this achieve a state of equilibrium as part of the adaptation process?

Overall, I'd say it's very important to make the differentiation between what is theory and what we actually see in ourselves and others from real experience. It's all good connecting dots on a biochemical level and coming up with theories about how this can be applied practically. But we have to remember that it is theoretical - it isn't THE TRUTH until we can see it in action. And every theory needs to be applied against what we know so far from practical experience, and I think there's a rather large disparity between the idea that "sugar is good" and the very real experience we've all had with sugar in our own diets.

 

[nicklebleu]

White, refined sugar = bad for me. Far too immediately bio available. I can handle some 'slow sugars' in carbs, but even then there's a pretty low tolerance. Trial and error goes a long way to determining what is right for an individual's body. In line with the Keyhole is saying, I don't see any point in trying to uncover 'research' that 'proves' that something is always good or bad for everyone. But put it this way, the individual responses of hundreds of people on this forum to cutting back on sugar and increasing dietary saturated animal fat is a testimony to the fact that more fat and less sugar IS, in a general sense, beneficial for many people.

I completely agree with you, Joe ... however, the vexing problem that has exercised my line of research the last two years, and for which I BTW haven't really found an answer is the fact that some people - and interestingly it seems to be mainly women - don't fare well with high fat/ low carbs.

Two years ago I thought I had it all figured out - go keto and all will be fine and dandy. And those who didn't fare well - they were just not doing it well enough. But then I experienced a few cases (notably my own sister who is a stubborn SOB and if she does something, she does it 150%!) that didn't go well, where I knew they did it right. They got worse and worse - first I told them to just stick it out, it would eventually get better, but in the end I had to recognise that my presumptions were wrong - back to the drawing board!

Also there are instances of people who are on a strict keto diet and don't loose any weight, some even put some on!

So clearly, I don't fully understand what's going on. Sure, we are all different, but HOW are we different? And WHY do certain people fare badly with high fat/ low carb? I haven't found a satisfactory answer to that for the time being.

So naturally I started to look at the inverse argumentation to see, if there were any clues to be found there. I haven't really dived into that argumentation a lot, even though I tried. I seem to have some mental blockages. For instance I tried to read The Low-Carb Myth by Ari Whitten. He's an appalling writer - condescending and arrogant. So I only managed to read about the first three chapters. Maybe I should be able to be more dispassionately reading that book, but so far I haven't managed to do so - his style is just too infuriating.

The more I read, the less I understand the whole dietary business. I know that keto works for me, and it works very, very well. But what about those that don't? Sure, we all have to investigate what works, and what doesn't, but I'd really like to know WHY it works for some or doesn't work.

 

[Joe]

Again, no one is claiming that refined sugar should be the main fuel source. It is not found in nature, therefore is likely not to be that great. But people's experience can be interpreted in many ways. Through the lens of 'low carb living', the lack of sugar in the diet is attributed to these benefits. But from other perspectives, the results may be attributed to the removal of all the other toxins and PUFAs that make up a 'standard diet'.

In my case, this isn't true. When I said that refine sugar and too many carbs are bad for me, I know for a fact that it is these things that cause adverse reaction. It's very simple, there are a few unpleasant symptoms that do not display when I don't eat too much sugar or carbs, if I eat too much at any one time, it almost immediately provokes these symptoms.

 

[Joe]

I completely agree with you, Joe ... however, the vexing problem that has exercised my line of research the last two years, and for which I BTW haven't really found an answer is the fact that some people - and interestingly it seems to be mainly women - don't fare well with high fat/ low carbs.

As we concluded a few years ago, each person has to take responsibility for themselves and observe their reactions to food and take appropriate measures with their diet. While we might all like to have a 'one size fits all' solution, a kind of dogma that we can all stick to and be healthy to avoid personal responsibility (in other areas too) the reality seems to be that each must decide for him/herself based their own efforts.

It seem we might have launched off on a faulty premise here that "sugar is good". I don't think anyone is saying that, what is being suggested is that sugar might not be as bad as it has been made out to be depending on the amount and the person.

 

[Keyhole]

White, refined sugar = bad for me. Far too immediately bio available. I can handle some 'slow sugars' in carbs, but even then there's a pretty low tolerance. Trial and error goes a long way to determining what is right for an individual's body. In line with the Keyhole is saying, I don't see any point in trying to uncover 'research' that 'proves' that something is always good or bad for everyone. But put it this way, the individual responses of hundreds of people on this forum to cutting back on sugar and increasing dietary saturated animal fat is a testimony to the fact that more fat and less sugar IS, in a general sense, beneficial for many people.

I completely agree with you, Joe ... however, the vexing problem that has exercised my line of research the last two years, and for which I BTW haven't really found an answer is the fact that some people - and interestingly it seems to be mainly women - don't fare well with high fat/ low carbs.

Two years ago I thought I had it all figured out - go keto and all will be fine and dandy. And those who didn't fare well - they were just not doing it well enough. But then I experienced a few cases (notably my own sister who is a stubborn SOB and if she does something, she does it 150%!) that didn't go well, where I knew they did it right. They got worse and worse - first I told them to just stick it out, it would eventually get better, but in the end I had to recognise that my presumptions were wrong - back to the drawing board!

Also there are instances of people who are on a strict keto diet and don't loose any weight, some even put some on!

So clearly, I don't fully understand what's going on. Sure, we are all different, but HOW are we different? And WHY do certain people fare badly with high fat/ low carb? I haven't found a satisfactory answer to that for the time being.

So naturally I started to look at the inverse argumentation to see, if there were any clues to be found there. I haven't really dived into that argumentation a lot, even though I tried. I seem to have some mental blockages. For instance I tried to read The Low-Carb Myth by Ari Whitten. He's an appalling writer - condescending and arrogant. So I only managed to read about the first three chapters. Maybe I should be able to be more dispassionately reading that book, but so far I haven't managed to do so - his style is just too infuriating.

The more I read, the less I understand the whole dietary business. I know that keto works for me, and it works very, very well. But what about those that don't? Sure, we all have to investigate what works, and what doesn't, but I'd really like to know WHY it works for some or doesn't work.

This is simila to how i am feeling about it all. I just want to reiterate that i am not saying that low-carb is bad for everyone, or even most people. Although in a similar way, i am approaching it from another angle and suggesting that perhaps sugar is not bad for everyone either. Perhaps genetic factors determine whether someone is suited to either type of dietary template.

The female link is something i also find fascinating, and am tending toward thinking it has to do with thyroid function and the inability to produce adequate amounts of progesterone on low-carb templates.

 

[SeekinTruth]

There is something that needs to be made clear about this kind of theorizing and speculating. The point about the kind of thing is making cognitive leaps without a clear logical progression is what I find problematic in a specific illness context like diabetes. There is a problem of what is relevant in what context, and there really needs to be a better presentation of the material posted. When the context is a diabetic or someone with very serious health issues, more thought and concern (the first do no harm principal) has to take priority over theoretical speculations and trial and error experimentation; these have their place, but when it comes to advising or disseminating information that people already having diabetes and other serious health issues will consider, the priority should be what works clinically. Also, the PUFA problem itself is not so clear in that you cannot completely eliminate them, so the internal environment where the PUFA's become so dangerous still depends on decreasing inflammation and ROS generation.

So, there has to be discernment and prioritizing for people struggling with serious health issues to get them under control as quickly and effectively as possible. That has to depend on the results of treatments that worked to resolve them, and hypothesizing, speculating, studying mammalian biology in general, etc. is not the primary concern in such cases.

It is flippant in a way, to Laura, and others who have improved and resolved major health issues with dietary intervention. "Oh, that's just you" kind of response isn't appropriate, and just doesn't measure up to an open discussion about diet and health. People who've had serious health issues that have resolved by dietary changes ARE the ones that benefits from dietary changes apply to and are most relevant to. Theorizing and speculating about the issues without showing a track record of the kind of results that are detailed in Art & Science of Low Carb Living, for example is not appropriate for people whose health and lives are on the line. Also, Volek and Phinney show that professional athletes can perform at top level once adapted to ketosis, so activity level in ketosis vs. glucose metabolism is also not convincing - i.e. the only way to meet increased activity needs is glucose metabolism is questionable, as is extrapolating hibernating mammals' physiological processes to modern human lifestyles in any practical way. Practicality in treatment is being subordinated to theorizing, in my opinion.

Just to step back and consider, Keyhole, if you or someone you loved had diabetes (or other life threatening illness) would you continue arguing such things that are not relevant in such a context, rather than concentrating on the clinical experience (and many, many people's own experiences) of solving the problem, and keeping the kind of theoretical/speculative (no concrete proven track record of quick and effective results) to a different category of research? Something to think about.

 

[Alejo]

Thanks for your response Keyhole.

Ever wondered why the body is constantly searching for ways to revert back to glucose metabolism? Isn't that kind of strange? It is easy to get knocked out of ketosis, but it is very difficult to get into and stay in ketosis. This suggests to me me that glucose is not the baddy it has been demonised to be.

That's a very good question.

And without knowing a lot, actually knowing very little, I would suggest that perhaps it has also something to do with our tendency to become addicted to certain states of being even if those states are detrimental. From a biochemical point of view I would think that being constantly stressed (as it's norm in our day and age) is associated with certain hormones (adrenaline, cortisol, testosterone etc) being segregated. These could cause certain reactions throughout the body and in our minds that we've become so used to that we actually become addicted to them.

When I think about that, I'm reminded of the fact that glucose is a form of fuel that is associated with fast explosive burning, which is why it needs to be replenished so much. And that might be a factor why. Also I recall reading somewhere that glucose usually arrives in our bodies through certain avenues (mostly plants and fruits). And these plants and fruits have an agenda of their own in making themselves irresistible and addicting so that they may thrive around the world by being spread by their consumers.

Again this is purely intuitive and without knowing much about biochemical processes in the body.

 

[Keyhole]

[quote author=SeekinTruth]It is flippant in a way, to Laura, and others who have improved and resolved major health issues with dietary intervention. "Oh, that's just you" kind of response isn't appropriate, and just doesn't measure up to an open discussion about diet and health. People who've had serious health issues that have resolved by dietary changes ARE the ones that benefits from dietary changes apply to and are most relevant to. [/quote]
SeekinTruth, I am not in agreement that my response to Laura was flippant or disrespectful, and I think that you may have misinterpreted what was said. To quote the comment: "With all due respect, Laura, this is your individual circumstance. Similar for others who suffer from long-term health conditions and probably benefit from low-carb template. However, this doesn't apply to everyone."

So, I think that I made it clear that both Laura's and other forum member's experience is both valid and valued. At the same time, it seems clear to me that the low-carb template is not applicable to everyone, and I don't think it was disrespectful of me to make that known to others. Can you elaborate on what gave you the impression that my response was "flippant"?

Theorizing and speculating about the issues without showing a track record of the kind of results that are detailed in Art & Science of Low Carb Living, for example is not appropriate for people whose health and lives are on the line. Also, Volek and Phinney show that professional athletes can perform at top level once adapted to ketosis, so activity level in ketosis vs. glucose metabolism is also not convincing - i.e. the only way to meet increased activity needs is glucose metabolism is questionable, as is extrapolating hibernating mammals' physiological processes to modern human lifestyles in any practical way. Practicality in treatment is being subordinated to theorizing, in my opinion.

Just to step back and consider, Keyhole, if you or someone you loved had diabetes (or other life threatening illness) would you continue arguing such things that are not relevant in such a context, rather than concentrating on the clinical experience (and many, many people's own experiences) of solving the problem, and keeping the kind of theoretical/speculative (no concrete proven track record of quick and effective results) to a different category of research? Something to think about.

I think you are blowing things out of proportion here. FWIW, I have several relatives who suffer from diabetes and other serious health conditions, and if they were my clients, I would be the first person to place them on a ketogenic diet.

But I ask, what about those cases where the ketogenic/low-carb template actually makes things worse? This is a question that needs to be confronted openly and honestly. And we must be prepared to face the possibility that some of the widely-held beliefs about certain things could be completely wrong.

The more I research, the more I realise that how little we actually understand about all of it. But to state that my points are "not relevant" is pretty irrational on your part IMO and wholely neglects the experience of a large number of people who don't do well on low-carb diets and who are still suffering from health issues.

I am not stating anything with certainty here. Read through my posts, and you will see that I am simply trying to put together a theoretical framework for how this may be applicable on a practical level, while simultaneously trying to compile a set of objective research in an attempt to understand these anomalies... because the anomalies do exist and should not be ignored.

Also, it would benefit you to go back and read the original post in this thread along with the title of the thread. It says "Ray Peat:..." which means that the ideas clearly belong to Ray Peat. If i was stepping out of line by suggesting these practices to newcomers, then I can see that that would be a problem. But I am not imposing this view on others in other people's threads, and I am also not advocating any particular ideas. I said at the beginning that I was opening up the thread to compile a body of research. This is a research thread, and because of that I see no problem with theoretical speculation if it is relevant to the topic.

To say that there is not concrete clinical evidence is actually massive assumption, and again neglects the experience of so many people who benefit from these kinds of practices. We have a good basis for understanding the mechanism behind how people benefit from ketogenic metabolism, so why is it inappropriate for me to explore the mechanism behind how people benefit from sugar?

Just to add: if admins/mods see this as inappropriate, then I will refrain from posting any further research on the topic in this thread.

 

[Altair]

Keyhole, I have the impression that you are a bit obsessive with the whole topic. Don't you think that you invest too much energy in it? I mean, many people on this forum who are on keto/paleo diet have most certainly already found out - through practical experience - what and how many carbs they can tolerate or benefit from. So what is the practical aspect of your research?

 

[Keyhole]

Keyhole, I have the impression that you are a bit obsessive with the whole topic. Don't you think that you invest too much energy in it? I mean, many people on this forum who are on keto/paleo diet have most certainly already found out - through practical experience - what and how many carbs they can tolerate or benefit from. So what is the practical aspect of your research?

That's probably a fair impression, as I do have a tendency to become a bit one-track-minded with things that I choose to apply myself to. The practical aspect of my research is that I qualify as a clinical nutritional therapist in 18 months, and I am going to be expected to treat patients who suffer from chronic illness on a daily basis, which I am admittedly a bit apprehensive about. I want to be as certain as possible that the advice I give is adequate and useful, so I aim to exhaust as many avenues as possible so that I can understand health and disease better and hopefully not do more harm than good.