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

[lilies]

[..]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.
[..]

Sunlight exposure - as per Dr. Kruse's advice - and careful sun gazing seems to help with carbs cravings. Getting the curtains away from the window and sit in the warm room and wait, when the sun comes unfiltered in and let the skin soak it all up for at least 30 minutes. I'm occasionally blinking into the sun and lowering my eyes, so sunlight still gets into my brain indirectly through the optic nerves, but I keep the sun "above my eyebrows". Otherwise sunbathing with eyes closed. Gurdjieff mentioned the importance of all emanations, for some people taking rays from the morning sun as well. On page 22 in the book titled "Gurdjieff and the Women of the Rope":

He said morning sun is best for us, the only time of day when the
rays contain certain properties necessary for our understanding. He
said, the stronger physically a man is, the weaker his brain; that

The whole question of any craving is energy deficiency, I think, and mitochondria state in our bodies, in how good shape our metabolism is kept: think about a hunter chasing prey for miles running with a bow through rough terrain[snow], that level of fitness I mean.

Acute deficiency of exercise [sunlight and grounding], I think, causes all these symptoms that people report here, when switching to various detox procedures, iodine, etc..

With near "hunter fitness" or at least moving toward that ideal goal once or twice a week a lot of these symptoms don't even show up. No colds, no flu, no coughing, no stomach viruses, because of the state of "in skin contact" with harsh nature, being cold adapted, sleeping in an unheated cold room [you would be surprised how your body becomes a furnace under your blankets], during exercise letting the skin get into contact with ice, snow, cold water, while the sunlight hits the skin and the body is grounded via barefoot. Direct skin contact with nature, be it summer or winter.

Maybe the ancient Pure Energy Mastery [Session 29 July 2006] involved those bodies being in direct contact with harsh nature and the sun as well, (among other important factors lost since then of course).

I think most of current illnesses are energy deficiency sicknesses stemming from this abomination of modern civilization: degeneration of agriculture via toxins compared to the nutrient rich foods from agriculture a couple centuries ago. Nowadays toxic animals, poisoned food, polluted water and unhealthy air are making any "I want to stay healthy" aim ridiculous.

What we are against now is our environment, our situation of "Life" resembles a stunning upside-down caricature of "Wellness": a 'mockumentary' movie about building a Recreational Health Center complete with healing spas inside a Uranium mine surrounded by green acid lakes and suffocating green-purple fog.

 

[SeekinTruth]

[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.

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"?[/quote]

To clarify what I was getting at, I didn't say or mean you were disrespectful, but was also taking into account the "Circadian Biology Determines Health, Not Food" thread, where similar back and forth went on early in the thread. So, it was a cumulative impression about making flippant statements. The point being not to jump to the kinds of statements such as "food doesn't matter for health". That it was a tendency/impression that was cumulative wasn't communicated in my post, and should have been.

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.

As I said in my post, it just needs to be better presented; I don't think there's anything wrong with you posting this material. And there's nothing wrong with trying to work out a theoretical framework - that's actually very important. It's just that I'm not aware of diabetics doing better consuming high carb/sugar than on low carb diets. I'd be interested in clinical cases / controlled studies. Neither I nor anyone else is suggesting that some people can't handle quite a lot of carbs. I'm one that can handle it too. I just feel better in the long run on low carbs.

I don't want to discourage you from posting your research findings at all - you've posted very interesting material in Circadian Biology thread. Perhaps now that you are aware of the tendency to use your energy in a manic manner, you can slow down when finalizing your posts and just point out the kinds of things above/put some caveats in, etc.

 

[dugdeep]

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.

I haven't read Peat's material, so I may be off here, but it seems like in the above description, there's some faulty logic. To me, it seems to break down like this: stress metabolism induces fatty acid metabolism therefore inducing fatty acid metabolism will cause a stress response. Kinda sounds like it's saying "A causes X and B causes X, therefore B is just like A". No idea if that's a clear explanation

The question is, is there any difference between fat metabolism caused by stress and a self-induced fat burning state? Is the hormonal cascade associated with stress actually caused by fatty acid metabolism or something else (or a combination of factors)?

I seem to remember in the early days of the keto diet here on the forum I came across some material that stated that the keto diet did induce stress but that this stress induced state was temporary. Unfortunately, I can't remember where I found that information. It makes me wonder what Peat's research has looked into in terms of ketosis - how long were the studies he looked at? Did they allow for full adaptation or just temporary? Were they done on humans?

Big FWIW

 

[Voyageur]

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.

Fwiw Keyhole, I read the thread with interest. There is one side and then there are other sides of the complexities of diet's in our human history, were people reside geographically and the food sources that are represented in nature locally, epigenetics, our environment and the overall forms of toxicity that act as molecular compounding effects - I'm still in kindergarten here. However, as for your upcoming practice offering the ability to help people who are suffering or just asking questions, the people of the forum who have been evaluating and experimenting on themselves for many years here; and of course some have variegated outcomes, is a highly interesting and valuable study group. This body of work on the forum, not lab mice in studies, may alone help you to deliver well rounded sound advice to your clients that is not one-sided. Look at the best attributes, the wide assortment of individual success and their comments, and go from there.

I think it is great you are entering this practice and the more you network the better you will help serve people you are treating.

 

[Keyhole]

To clarify what I was getting at, I didn't say or mean you were disrespectful, but was also taking into account the "Circadian Biology Determines Health, Not Food" thread, where similar back and forth went on early in the thread. So, it was a cumulative impression about making flippant statements. The point being not to jump to the kinds of statements such as "food doesn't matter for health". That it was a tendency/impression that was cumulative wasn't communicated in my post, and should have been.
[..]
As I said in my post, it just needs to be better presented; I don't think there's anything wrong with you posting this material. And there's nothing wrong with trying to work out a theoretical framework - that's actually very important. It's just that I'm not aware of diabetics doing better consuming high carb/sugar than on low carb diets. I'd be interested in clinical cases / controlled studies. Neither I nor anyone else is suggesting that some people can't handle quite a lot of carbs. I'm one that can handle it too. I just feel better in the long run on low carbs.

I don't want to discourage you from posting your research findings at all - you've posted very interesting material in Circadian Biology thread. Perhaps now that you are aware of the tendency to use your energy in a manic manner, you can slow down when finalizing your posts and just point out the kinds of things above/put some caveats in, etc.

Thanks for clearing that up, SeekinTruth. I do appreciate the feedback. I will try to focus on presenting the material in a different way in the future, and refrain from making blanket statements and losing track of the bigger picture

I haven't read Peat's material, so I may be off here, but it seems like in the above description, there's some faulty logic. To me, it seems to break down like this: stress metabolism induces fatty acid metabolism therefore inducing fatty acid metabolism will cause a stress response. Kinda sounds like it's saying "A causes X and B causes X, therefore B is just like A". No idea if that's a clear explanation

The question is, is there any difference between fat metabolism caused by stress and a self-induced fat burning state? Is the hormonal cascade associated with stress actually caused by fatty acid metabolism or something else (or a combination of factors)?

Yeah, the faulty logic was my doing. That was my rough impression of his ideas, but it is clearly a lot more complex than the way I presented it and probably quite different as well. The above are good questions which I can't answer at this present moment . From reviewing some more of the material, it is really starting to look like the main issue is PUFA, and not necessarily ketogenic metabolism. Will post some more material soon when I have some time to collate the information.

All I can say right now is... The PUFA situation is looking GRIM.

 

[Laura]

All I can say right now is... The PUFA situation is looking GRIM.

I think it is Sydney MacDonald Baker who gives a brilliant discussion about fats in his book "Detoxification and Healing". He points out that fats are what construct every cell membrane in the body and a host of other things. There is a drawing of what the PUFAs look like transformed into cell membranes... really scary. In short, you are what you eat. If you eat veg oils, you basically become a vegetable.

 

[Laura]

Interesting item from Mercola this a.m.:

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2017/01/22/how-to-safely-bring-wheat-back-into-your-diet.aspx

Is it ever appropriate to eat wheat or grains? John Douillard's book "Eat Wheat: A Scientific and Clinically-Proven Approach to Safely Bringing Wheat and Dairy Back Into Your Diet" would seem to be in direct conflict with my first book, the New York Times Best Seller "The No-Grain Diet: Conquer Carbohydrate Addiction and Stay Slim for Life."

Interestingly, our views are nowhere near as conflicting as you might think. About 90 percent of our views are actually in agreement. But the devil's in the details, so I thought it would be interesting to have a dialog about this perceived conflict.
...
When I wrote "The No-Grain Diet" 13 years ago, it was primarily in response to the majority of the patients I treated that had insulin resistance. Avoiding grains is an important step if you're struggling with this issue. That said, my current position on grains has become more refined over the years.

While I believe normalizing insulin resistance is still crucial, optimizing your mitochondrial function is even more critical for good health and disease prevention. A major part of that is regaining the ability to burn fat as your primary fuel — something 90 to 95 percent of people are challenged with.

Becoming an efficient fat burner involves a dietary shift away from net carbs — including grains — toward higher amounts of healthy fats. For this reason, I believe it's still wise for most people to avoid grains in the early phases of recovering the ability to burn fat as your primary fuel.

As a general rule, I recommend keeping your net carbs below 15 or 20 grams per day, until you've recaptured your ability to burn fat. At THAT point, I believe grains can be reintroduced, and can be part of a healthy diet. ...

According to Douillard, the primary reason people feel ill when eating wheat is not because there's something inherently bad about wheat, but rather because it's hard to digest, and part of the problem relates to an impaired ability to digest foods in the first place.

He believes that if all you do is avoid wheat, you'll continue experiencing problems down the road related to this impaired digestive ability, even if you initially feel better. The reason for this is because you've still not addressed the underlying problem, which is poor digestion.

This is why he advocates getting rid of processed foods and foods contaminated with pesticides. And, when eating grains, eat the right kind of grains. In essence, you need to reset your digestive function. Once that's done, you can begin to enjoy certain types of bread (such as organic whole wheat and sourdough) in moderation without suffering any ill effects.

Read the whole thing.

 

[luc]

Interesting item from Mercola this a.m.:

...

Interesting, I kind of wondered about this myself because of two 'incidents': A couple of months ago, we were invited by people who know roughly how we prefer to eat - it was a big table with maybe 12 people there. When we arrived, the food was already there on the table, and the sausages and meat was mixed with some kind of half-patato, half-wheat noodles. Our host said "sorry, but you can just put the noodles on the side." It was the kind of situation where there was no way out except making a huge wave and looking like a lunatic. Gasp! Shock! Now I will die!!! But guess what? I didn't even notice anything after the meal... (we only ate the meat, but of course we must have had some Gluten in there.)

Recently, we were invited by business clients, and my wife accidentally had some kind of lemonade that is 'brewed', i.e. contains wheat (like beer). She thought it's just apple juice mixed with water. I noticed this and later asked her if she felt anything. She was shocked but also didn't notice any negative effect.

So I kind of concluded that indeed, once we have 'cleaned our system' to a degree and know what ketosis is like, unless we are very sensitive to Gluten, it might not matter that much if we accidentally have some Gluten.

Still, I have a hard time thinking about having bread again, because I programmed myself to really fear this stuff, which was good - otherwise it would have been really difficult to cut it out completely...

 

[Siberia]

So I kind of concluded that indeed, once we have 'cleaned our system' to a degree and know what ketosis is like, unless we are very sensitive to Gluten, it might not matter that much if we accidentally have some Gluten.

Well, in my case it is a bit more serious than that: after a long period of observation I recently came to the conclusion that I don't feel healthy without at least some amount of wheat products.

Here's some background in short. Before finding this Forum, I used to be quite a sweet tooth. Moreover, most of those sweets were bakery products. Needless to say that I had problems with my teeth and skin. After receiving advice to cut out those sweets from my diet here on the Forum, I did that and recovered from those issues.

Following that, I've read the relevant threads about the benefits of animal fats and introduced them into my diet too. That produced a huge positive effect on my health. I will not bore anyone with the details, but the animal fats improved my health tremendously and I'm endlessly grateful to this Forum for this vital info.

And then came the wheat, which appeared to be the real nightmare for me. I realized that I can live without sweets, I can live without diary, but as for wheat... As soon as I cut it out completely, I started losing wight at a really frightening pace. All my relatives started to worry about me, because I looked and felt really skinny, weak and sick. And no amount of other carbs helped me to restore healthy weight until I reintroduced some wheat into my diet again.

I know that wheat can be harmful because of gluten and I do try to eat as little wheat products as possible, but I should not eliminate them entirely, it seems. Now I feel quite healthy: very little sweets, lots of animal fats, almost no diary (except for butter and mascarpone) and yes, some wheat products too.

For now such diet seems optimal for me. Time will tell, if it needs some further improvements, fwiw.

 

[Ollie]

Interesting item from Mercola this a.m.:
...
Read the whole thing.

Interesting article, especially getting the body used to burning fat, or regaining that ability first, before tackling grains, and eating seasonally (for which I'm a great fan :)). Winter: grains, meat, stews, and soups, for example. Makes a lot of sense.

 

[Ant22]

So I kind of concluded that indeed, once we have 'cleaned our system' to a degree and know what ketosis is like, unless we are very sensitive to Gluten, it might not matter that much if we accidentally have some Gluten.

Well, in my case it is a bit more serious than that: after a long period of observation I recently came to the conclusion that I don't feel healthy without at least some amount of wheat products.

Here's some background in short. Before finding this Forum, I used to be quite a sweet tooth. Moreover, most of those sweets were bakery products. Needless to say that I had problems with my teeth and skin. After receiving advice to cut out those sweets from my diet here on the Forum, I did that and recovered from those issues.

Following that, I've read the relevant threads about the benefits of animal fats and introduced them into my diet too. That produced a huge positive effect on my health. I will not bore anyone with the details, but the animal fats improved my health tremendously and I'm endlessly grateful to this Forum for this vital info.

And then came the wheat, which appeared to be the real nightmare for me. I realized that I can live without sweets, I can live without diary, but as for wheat... As soon as I cut it out completely, I started losing wight at a really frightening pace. All my relatives started to worry about me, because I looked and felt really skinny, weak and sick. And no amount of other carbs helped me to restore healthy weight until I reintroduced some wheat into my diet again.

I know that wheat can be harmful because of gluten and I do try to eat as little wheat products as possible, but I should not eliminate them entirely, it seems. Now I feel quite healthy: very little sweets, lots of animal fats, almost no diary (except for butter and mascarpone) and yes, some wheat products too.

For now such diet seems optimal for me. Time will tell, if it needs some further improvements, fwiw.

Hi Siberia, if you don't mind me asking, what's the longest period of time you cut out wheat/gluten for? I came across information in another thread that wheat actually binds to opiate receptors, hence it acts as a drug. If you feel unwell when you cut out what, maybe you're having withdrawal symptoms?

I had to give up gluten approximately 3-4 years ago because of health issues that I couldn't put my finger on and I was told that it will take around 6 weeks to see any improvement should gluten be the reason behind my symptoms. I must say I also felt pretty bad when I stopped eating gluten but my health did improve quite a bit after around a month.

So if it took me 4-6 weeks to see benefits of eliminating gluten, maybe it would take a similar amount of time to stop suffering through gluten withdrawal symptoms? Just a thought.

A couple of excerpts I found about this:

_http://www.wheatbellyblog.com/2012/04/wheat-is-an-opiate/

Wheat is addictive in the sense that there is a distinct withdrawal syndrome characterized by overwhelming fatigue, mental “fog,” inability to exercise, even depression that lasts several days, occasionally several weeks.

Interestingly enough, apart from depression these are exactly the symptoms I was trying to get rid of when I cut gluten out.

_http://www.marksdailyapple.com/is-wheat-addictive/

...there are... exogenous opioid peptides, also known as exorphins (exogenous morphine), found in substances that we don’t normally consider to be repositories of potentially addictive morphine-analogs. Like wheat.

 

[Gaby]

That is an interesting article. I think that an organic spelt could be less toxic than GMO "gluten-free" corn grain. My experiments with the gluten-free industry has taught me that all grains are very inflammatory for me except for rice. But I have tried organic spelt in social gatherings recently. It is very popular in organic shops here in Spain. To my surprise, I tolerated it just fine. Still, it would be something I would be weary to fully introduce in my diet.

Anyway, I got the book to find more information about it.

 

[Siberia]

Hi Ant22,

I was gradually reducing gluten for a long period of time until I excluded it for about 2 months completely, and during that period I was feeling worse and worse until I lost weight to a critical point where I could barely walk, so fatigue was really just a minor symptom as compared to my overall state. My weight was already about 30+ kg at that point. It was hard to even get up without fainting, not to mention go to work. And as I said, no amount of other carbs helped me to restore my weight so that I could function normally until I returned some wheat into my diet. Now I feel well again, I restored my weight back to my normal which I always had (about 48 kg), and now I try to keep the wheat at the minimum in my diet so that I didn't lose weight again. I could try to eliminate it completely once again and see if it leads to the same consequences or not, but I'm not sure I can survive such a shock to my system right now, considering my working schedule: I have to get up at 6 a.m. for work and return at 8 or 9 p.m. Monday through Friday, plus take care of my family in between.

So that's where I am at the moment, but maybe with time things will change, who knows. :)

 

[Ant22]

Hi Ant22,

I was gradually reducing gluten for a long period of time until I excluded it for about 2 months completely, and during that period I was feeling worse and worse until I lost weight to a critical point where I could barely walk, so fatigue was really just a minor symptom as compared to my overall state. My weight was already about 30+ kg at that point. It was hard to even get up without fainting, not to mention go to work. And as I said, no amount of other carbs helped me to restore my weight so that I could function normally until I returned some wheat into my diet. Now I feel well again, I restored my weight back to my normal which I always had (about 48 kg), and now I try to keep the wheat at the minimum in my diet so that I didn't lose weight again. I could try to eliminate it completely once again and see if it leads to the same consequences or not, but I'm not sure I can survive such a shock to my system right now, considering my working schedule: I have to get up at 6 a.m. for work and return at 8 or 9 p.m. Monday through Friday, plus take care of my family in between.
...

Siberia your symptoms sound really awful! Gosh, going down from 48 to 30+ kilograms sounds like a nightmare to be honest, especially that it happened during such a short span of time. Two months is definitely more than enough for any withdrawal symptoms to subside so clearly my guess was wrong.

I guess it may be an example of epigenetics at play, as mentioned above in the thread.

That is an interesting article. I think that an organic spelt could be less toxic than GMO "gluten-free" corn grain. My experiments with the gluten-free industry has taught me that all grains are very inflammatory for me except for rice. But I have tried organic spelt in social gatherings recently. It is very popular in organic shops here in Spain. To my surprise, I tolerated it just fine. Still, it would be something I would be weary to fully introduce in my diet.
...

Same here Gaby, too many grains in any form give me leg pain and I wouldn't be surprised if this was linked to inflammation. Weirdly enough, it's not just join pain but pain in the tibial bones, which I haven't seen reported anywhere here. It used to be quite strong, to the point I sometimes couldn't sleep because of it. Since I eliminated gluten it only comes back if I go crazy on my favourite German-style gluten free bread so it's clearly related to grain consumption in my case.

Interesting item from Mercola this a.m.:

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2017/01/22/how-to-safely-bring-wheat-back-into-your-diet.aspx
... As a general rule, I recommend keeping your net carbs below 15 or 20 grams per day, until you've recaptured your ability to burn fat. At THAT point, I believe grains can be reintroduced, and can be part of a healthy diet. ...

This is super useful, I think that's exactly what I should do because I do struggle with not being able to tolerate high amounts of fat and I definitely consume more than 15-20 grams of carbs per day. I started drinking duck fat in the morning a couple of months ago to increase the amount of animal fat in my diet, but although overall it makes me feel better, I feel a little discomfort for about an hour after having it. Not to mention very unpleasant duck fat burps. Even digestive enzymes such as ox bile don't seem to help much so I would do with improving my ability to digest fat properly.

 

[Siberia]

I guess it may be an example of epigenetics at play, as mentioned above in the thread.

Yes, I also suspect epigenetic factor. It reminds me of this session:

(L) Is there something that you can say to this individual?

A: For many, the transition in diet is either not possible due to epigenetic factors, or must be undertaken very, very slowly. For some, the requirements for carbohydrates is higher. They need to fulfill this need as safely as possible. In this case, the individual has intuited the relationship and should do some experimental adjustments adding root type vegetables and some greens and berries.

I'm hoping that I belong to category two: that I can slowly get there eventually, will be working on it. :)