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

[Julius]

I think Keyhole has a very valid point. If you ask me there are 7 Billion perfect diets, one for every one in this planet, for optimizing health, energy and longevity. Long term ketogenic diet benefits a lot of people, it doesn't mean it will benefit all. Ray Peat style dieting might benefit some other people, so as with so many other applied diets/concepts. Overall there are some pretty robust guidelines that seem to benefit the majority but lets not forget the surrounding environment/stimuli/genetics/epigenetics and our current health state all can change the applicable guidelines. I think it is worth considering Ray Peat ideas and consider the cases where people have obtained improvement in their lifes.

 

[Joe]

[quote author=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.
[/quote]

Maybe it's because sugar acts like a drug in the brain, hooking up the dopamine receptors and making us feel super good? Sounds plausible.

 

[hlat]

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.

I know you are in the research phase, so the following comment is for when you are ready to put the research into experiment.

Who are you going to try the experimental protocols on first? It seems to me that you would have to subject yourself to experimental protocols before you would be able to morally direct your patients to those same experimental protocols. Your future patients are not your experiment subjects, unless a clinical trial is set up.

 

[Gaby]

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.

It is refreshing to see your enthusiasm toward health related topics, just be more aware of your tendencies to be "one-track-minded". Fine tuning your reading instrument with the network will help you to apply your knowledge and strengths in a more useful and productive way.

This network has knowledge and experience, is opened minded and really cares about people. Its feedback is invaluable. Whether it is health related topics or any other subject, the network can definitely help you to keep your "one-track" tendencies on check.

 

[Scottie]

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.

It is refreshing to see your enthusiasm toward health related topics, just be more aware of your tendencies to be "one-track-minded". Fine tuning your reading instrument with the network will help you to apply your knowledge and strengths in a more useful and productive way.

This network has knowledge and experience, is opened minded and really cares about people. Its feedback is invaluable. Whether it is health related topics or any other subject, the network can definitely help you to keep your "one-track" tendencies on check.

Agree with what Gaby wrote.

Also, it's totally fine and even normal for you, Keyhole, to be worried about diagnosing people correctly, etc. At the same time, the "one-track-mind" thing can also harm your ability to do just that, which kind of becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

For the record, I didn't perceive your response to Laura as "flippant". A little bit, um, "energetic" maybe, but not rude.

It was almost like, "I hope I have found something really important here, because if I didn't, then I'm not ready... Oh dear god!"

Maybe it would be useful to think about where this kind of "manic" energy comes from? Frankly, you are relatively young, and yet you seem to have an inordinately huge knowledge base already. I think you also have the benefit of certain life experiences that made you "grow up faster", so to speak.

On the other hand, this can have benefits and drawbacks. In general, I would say you should have a bit more confidence in your abilities, while at the same time staying realistic and accepting that you absolutely will not get it right the first time, all the time. And if you don't, the world won't end. ;D

 

[Turgon]

[quote author=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.

Maybe it's because sugar acts like a drug in the brain, hooking up the dopamine receptors and making us feel super good? Sounds plausible.
[/quote]

One thing I noticed is that after 4-5 years of staying in nutritional ketosis most of the time, but not always, is that when I would eat a large amount of carbs for a certain period, it was actually a lot easier to get back into ketosis once I cut them out again. So maybe something could be said for ingrained habits. People eat sugar all their life so the body is used to it. Whereas if you introduce ketosis, it needs to be fairly consistent for a number of years for your body to take a liking to it and say to itself 'Hey! I kinda like this' and go back to it as being the default mode.

 

[T.C.]

[quote author=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.

Maybe it's because sugar acts like a drug in the brain, hooking up the dopamine receptors and making us feel super good? Sounds plausible.

One thing I noticed is that after 4-5 years of staying in nutritional ketosis most of the time, but not always, is that when I would eat a large amount of carbs for a certain period, it was actually a lot easier to get back into ketosis once I cut them out again. So maybe something could be said for ingrained habits. People eat sugar all their life so the body is used to it. Whereas if you introduce ketosis, it needs to be fairly consistent for a number of years for your body to take a liking to it and say to itself 'Hey! I kinda like this' and go back to it as being the default mode.
[/quote]

This question posed by Keyhole came into my head on my way home, and I thought a couple of other answers are:

1) I don't think it'd be very hard to get into and stay in ketosis in an iceage.
2) It's only difficult to stay in ketosis because we are surrounded by a constant supply of sugar and carbs that we can buy and eat any time. It's not difficult to stay in ketosis if you really want to stay in ketosis - you just keep carbs/sugar intake low.

 

[seek10]

Interesting discussion on which diet is better. Despite being vegetarian for the most of my life, I found to be better with Keto. If not any thing else, I only need to eat twice a day with Keto instead of three times with Carbs.

 

[Laura]

A few months back I discussed this problem with Keyhole while he was here for a visit. I said that I was questioning that ketosis was ideal under all conditions, at all times, for all people. It seemed to me that epigenetics might play a role, as well as the fact that our ancestors were mainly omnivores and had other foods available to them seasonally. What I don't like is the title selected for this thread because I think the words "carbs" should have been used instead of "sugar" and I don't agree that fat metabolism is stress metabolism. That is a somewhat misleading juxtaposition of words.

It seems to me that, even as omnivores, for the most part, our ancestors would have been in ketosis much of the time even when other foodstuffs were available. There would probably be a shorter period from about mid-summer to mid-autumn when there were more carbs available in the form of nuts, berries, some wild grains, honey in hives, etc. That would be when females would put on weight for reproduction and when bears put on weight for hibernation. (Bears being omnivores as well.)

Considering epigenetics, I observed at the time that there are likely quite a few people who, because of this aspect of the problem, are much better able to handle carbs and, in some cases, less able to handle fat metabolism and therefore, needing to really consider their carb intake - possibly increasing it. I also noted in a post on the forum around that time that it seems that some people need a bit more carbs, especially in the evening. And here I'm not talking about a lot, but adjusted individually.

I've also noticed that the alcohol sugars are useful in some respects (xylitol, erithrytol, sorbitol, etc), but that they are useless for cooking and, in some cases, not beneficial because they tend to kill microbiota in the gut. So, perhaps people should use real sugar in baking only don't make things with sugar that often? A little indulgence now and then is okay if your diet is good and nourishing.

Having said all that, it still can be observed that individuals who suffer from various conditions do much better on a ketogenic or modified ketogenic diet. Our experiences have shown this as well as many others here on the forum. The modified ketogenic diet includes some veggies on a regular basis (cooked and raw, but mainly cooked) and occasional higher carb days or episodes. I don't think it is good to keep everything exactly the same every day except for some individuals with specific conditions.

 

[Carl]

The impression I get is that sugar would indeed be OK and possibly pretty awesome for us, if we lived in an entirely different world.


But from growing up in this world world we are loaded to the hilt with various toxins and ailments that cause us to think/feel/function much less than optimally. Just think of the sheer number of game changers, even in the past 50-100 years. Even just take the industrial revolution as a starting point. Mercury and lead pollution, nuclear fall out, evil pesticides, antibiotics in meat, fluoride/chlorine in the water, 24/7 light (increasingly blue), xenoestrogens, trans-fats, car fumes, nnEMF, an increasingly vapid and anti-human culture, less real social connection, and probably a thousand more things.


I think all that is quite a game changer and behoves us to take some extra measures in our quest to detox and become healthy. The science can be argued over indefinitely and different things work for different people, but the keto diet done right does seem to have some magical anti-inflammatory effect.


Maybe the negative effect of sugar is overstated given the above list of nasties, but it doesn't seem to be helping. Even if you look at it from a general public health view, people are generally eating more sugar in place of fat and are also generally getting sicker. And that's not considering that the subset of the population who make up this forum tend to be way more likely to respond badly to sugar.


I get the idea: Sugar in itself isn't so bad. If we feel so bad when we eat sugar, then it shows we have some deeper problem. We have a toxic load, compromised health at a more fundamental level.
But at the same time, if you feel bad when you eat sugar, then you probably just shouldn't eat sugar.

 

[Keyhole]

Thanks for that Gaby and Scottie, it is helpful advice. Looking back through some of my posts in the past, it sometimes seems like I am fighting against the network, rather than simply presenting research and trying to contribute. I think it has to do with the same kind of "manic energy" mentioned below:

Maybe it would be useful to think about where this kind of "manic" energy comes from?

I think I have a fairly good idea about where it comes from, thanks to the feedback I received in the past about it. In all honesty, I can't say that I have been expending that energy via the appropriate avenues recently. The "building up" is not something that I am consciously aware of, so any excess energy just gets diverted and used to complete any activity I am doing at the time. It carries with it a pretty manic flavour though. I'll use this as a reminder to make it priority to expending that energy properly. Cheers

 

[Carl]

Thanks for that Gaby and Scottie, it is helpful advice. Looking back through some of my posts in the past, it sometimes seems like I am fighting against the network, rather than simply presenting research and trying to contribute. I think it has to do with the same kind of "manic energy" mentioned below:

It may sound cliche but it is a good power, you just need to channel it properly. The curiosity drives you to learn a whole lot and to share it enthusiastically, and it's really interesting. It's only when it starts to take on a religious flavor that it becomes a problem and probably a blinder as well.

 

[nicklebleu]

I don't think it is good to keep everything exactly the same every day except for some individuals with specific conditions.

That was my experience too. I was on a superstrict keto diet for about three years (less than 10g of total carbs per day). Initially I lost a lot of weight (about 13 kg), but as time went on I started to put this weight back on, even though I didn't change my eating habits one bit. After three years I started to introduce complex carbs back into my diet, mostly veggies and some fruit (blueberries) - and lo and behold, my weight started to go down again. So being on a superstrict keto diet all the time doesn't seem to be the way to go.

So now I have adopted to switching things around periodically, varying the carb content. Sometimes I do a few weeks of superstrict keto, and then I relax it for a few weeks. What I haven't tried so far is to alternate on a smaller timescale, like have a few days of superstrict keto followed by some more carbs. Maybe that is the way to go, something that I want to try out in the near future.

I have not really been able to adapt to seasonality that well, because I travel a lot, switching back and forth from tropical to colder climates, from the southern to the northern hemisphere, so that I am always swapping "seasons" as well.

And this alternating regimen seems to work quite well for me. Of course everyone has to find out for him-/herself what carb level works best, something that can only be found out by trial and error.

 

[Keyhole]

This question posed by Keyhole came into my head on my way home, and I thought a couple of other answers are:

1) I don't think it'd be very hard to get into and stay in ketosis in an iceage.
2) It's only difficult to stay in ketosis because we are surrounded by a constant supply of sugar and carbs that we can buy and eat any time. It's not difficult to stay in ketosis if you really want to stay in ketosis - you just keep carbs/sugar intake low.

Those are fair points. On the flipside, they might be counteracted with this:

1) Humans don't currently live in the iceage, but live in summer conditions all year round. One might say that to separate an organism from specific environmental conditions means that physiological variables and nutritional requirements change to sustain energy metastability. Organisms are optimally adapted to their environment. A polar bear's physiology is perfectly adapted to iceage conditions, a tropical monkey could not sustain itself in that environment though. Humans appear to be similar.

2) Protein has the ability to turn into sugar via gluconeogenesis quite easily. Restriction of protein is a relatively difficult thing to do for many people since it is so satiating. It is possible that people living in traditional cultures were not in full ketosis, even when there was a deficit of carbs/sugar in the environment, simply because of the high protein content of the diet. This has been suggested by several people.

Dr Alexander Wunsch said on yesterday's interview on the Health and Wellness show that he believed (to paraphrase) that disease was a state in which there was lack of rhythmicity of the cyclical processes that take place. He was speaking about how humans are optimally adapted to the environment, and he in his lectures about the importance of chronobiological and circadian cycles. He mainly focuses on the colour temperature of light detected by the system and how that influences the oscillatory functions of the system as a whole, because it essentially comes down to information being transferred. It makes intuitive sense to me that food, like light and all other things, is information at it's most fundamental level. So I question whether certain foods contain chronobiological (seasonal) information and have the ability to impact the rhythmicity of different cyclical actions. An example would be that eating summer foods in winter time may throw off certain cycles, just like eating winter foods in summer time may also do the same. Although this is all theoretical of course.

 

[Keyhole]

A few months back I discussed this problem with Keyhole while he was here for a visit. I said that I was questioning that ketosis was ideal under all conditions, at all times, for all people. It seemed to me that epigenetics might play a role, as well as the fact that our ancestors were mainly omnivores and had other foods available to them seasonally. What I don't like is the title selected for this thread because I think the words "carbs" should have been used instead of "sugar" and I don't agree that fat metabolism is stress metabolism. That is a somewhat misleading juxtaposition of words.

Yeah, it was interesting for me to hear of practical examples where people have actually benefited from a few more carbs because it was inline with my own experience, and finally cemented the idea that ketosis is not the 'be all and end all' for every single individual.

Just to comment on the bolded section, the title of the thread does not reflect my views on the topic. It is literally what Ray Peat is suggesting, and me replacing "sugar" with "carbs" would be misrepresenting his work. His message is that sugar in the form of fructose and lactose is a health food, but that starch is one of the main problems for people. He cites the beneficial effects of fructose in silencing the insulin response, and complains that starch is the food that causes people to get fat, since it contains no fructose to deal with the insulin.

Similarly, ketosis as "stress metabolism" is not necessarily my take on it either. This is entirely Ray Peat's material. From what I understand, the parallels between stress-induced metabolism and fatty-acide metabolism is one of the main aspects of his work, and he would argue that excess fatty acid metabolism is inherently stressfull, due to the hormonal cascade that naturally accompanies it. I am not sure whether the guy is a loony or not, so I started reading his work and cannot refute it, nor can I prove it. Nonetheless, it would be interesting to see some real-life examples of it.