Overcoming A 4 Year Battle With Hypogonadism And Insomnia

Hi Aragorn,
I don't have the gear for regular blood glucose testing. My last fasting blood glucose lab test about a year ago was OK. I'd been eating more sugar for while then, I think. You could read TheBigPeatowski's thread, for a low fat high sugar story. I don't know what is typical, but it seems there is quite a range of different responses. Probably depends a bit on which systems have been run down/overwhelmed, eg liver. The better your liver glycogen storage capacity is, the more glucose you can store for later, and the easier it is to maintain stable blood sugar between meals. I think it is reasonable to make changes gradually and monitor effects. I have read stories of people who majorly improved their glucose handling by throwing lots of carbs (and less fat) at it, but I don't know what proportion this applies to. Peat has made the point that the pancreas requires glucose to generate new pancreatic beta cells. As jyb says, PUFAs tend to poison them

I understand Peat to say that many of the problems associated with hyperglycemia/diabetes are caused by the lack of energy resuting from difficulties in oxidising glucose, rather than from the high blood glucose itself, though that may also be problematic if it is prolonged. Also, insulin supplementation causes a number of problems of it's own, which are often attributed to diabetes.

If the cells are having trouble burning straight glucose, they are often able to produce more energy from a mix of fructose and glucose as in sucrose, honey, and many fruits. Sucrose (half glucose half fructose) should raise insulin less than a comparable amount of starches, eg white rice (all glucose), and so produce less of the 'bouncy' blood glucose some of us have experienced with more starch (eg reactive hypoglycemia?). Talk of high blood sugar in diabetes contexts usually means glucose, not fructose. I heard there have been times when fructose has been used to treat diabetes.

I think anyone adding large amounts of refined sucrose probably needs to really pay attention to getting plenty of all the other cofactors for sugar metabolism from other food - potassium, magnesium, B-vitamins, etc. Fruit brings minerals along with the glucose and fructose. Liver is a great source of several micronutrients, including one of the best sources of vit-A and copper. Oysters are one of the richesst sources of zinc. Cronometer can help make sure you cover your bases (as long as you don't believe its calorie recommendations).

When there is a lot of fat available in the bloodstream, either from a recent fatty meal or from fat stores liberated during stress (including low blood sugar stress), sugar oxidation is suppressed in favour of fat burning (Randle 'Cycle'). As jyb says, Peat recommends largely running on glucose (and fuctose), rather than fat.
Under low oxygen supply, cells will use glycolysis instead of oxidation to produce energy. Glycolysis is nowhere near as efficient as oxidation. One common effect of low metabolism and/or low carb intake is reduced CO2 production. Low CO2 levels (from low metabolism and/or hyperventilation) impair the oxygen supply to tissues (Bohr effect). A sustainably strong metabolism seems to require a lot of carbs.

There is some discussion of the points you raise in other recent threads.

Evaluating new information for yourself rather than accepting on faith makes sense to me. So far Peat's basic concepts are looking pretty ocohesive and credible to me. But who knows what we'll learn next? Testing things out and seeing how they work for you is a more reliable way forward than blindly following anyone.

If I've understood it right, vitamin K is protective against the excess bleeding effects of regular aspirin. Many people here supplement vit K with aspirin for this and other reasons.

I know what you mean by all the contradictory information. I've briefly followed a couple of paths that I've since turned around on. Not least the 'sugar is poison' path. I'm finding both the many contradictions out there, and the challenges Peat brings to many things I thought I knew, to be stimulating and liberating.

tara said:

When there is a lot of fat available in the bloodstream, either from a recent fatty meal or from fat stores liberated during stress (including low blood sugar stress), sugar oxidation is suppressed in favour of fat burning (Randle 'Cycle'). As jyb says, Peat recommends largely running on glucose (and fuctose), rather than fat.
Under low oxygen supply, cells will use glycolysis instead of oxidation to produce energy. Glycolysis is nowhere near as efficient as oxidation. One common effect of low metabolism and/or low carb intake is reduced CO2 production. Low CO2 levels (from low metabolism and/or hyperventilation) impair the oxygen supply to tissues (Bohr effect). A sustainably strong metabolism seems to require a lot of carbs.

Click to expand...

Using fat or glucose oxidatively both result in plenty of CO2. Just because you are using saturated fatty acids does not mean you are low in CO2/metabolism/thyroid etc. It doesn't imply either that you are low in blood glucose, if the body wastes it less. If you eat a huge potato, you might get that classic blood glucose swing and get hungry 1 hour after. I personally would not feel safe doing that if I were in pre-diabetes range. Even with normal blood glucose I don't do it. But that's just me. Ray prefers glucose because he thinks eating more fat could risk accumulating pufa over time and the fatty acids correlate with disease (they rise when there are problems), while other writers tend to focus more on keeping a stable glucose level.

jyb said:

Using fat or glucose oxidatively both result in plenty of CO2. Just because you are using saturated fatty acids does not mean you are low in CO2/metabolism/thyroid etc. It doesn't imply either that you are low in blood glucose, if the body wastes it less. If you eat a huge potato, you might get that classic blood glucose swing and get hungry 1 hour after. I personally would not feel safe doing that if I were in pre-diabetes range. Even with normal blood glucose I don't do it. But that's just me. Ray prefers glucose because he thinks eating more fat could risk accumulating pufa over time and the fatty acids correlate with disease (they rise when there are problems), while other writers tend to focus more on keeping a stable glucose level.

Click to expand...

Hi jyb,
My understanding is that Ray favours fructose + glucose over just glucose for improving blood sugar (and energy) stability. So he would probably recommend sweet fruit over potatoes. He also generally recommends eating some protein and saturated fat with carbs, not a no-fat diet. The sat. fat helps keep blood sugar stable after that meal, as well as helping to protect against whatever PUFAs are around in the system. I agree with you that a large potato with little or no fat can cause a problematic blood sugar and energy fluctuation. And so can a lot of sugar, especially when the system is not handling it optimally.

I agree that Peat has been favouring lower fat in order to lower PUFA intake.

What is your understanding of the Randle cycle? My understanding is that high free fatty acids, either from fatty food or from fasting, inhibits sugar oxidation. My quick glance at Wikipedia (I know it's not a reliable source, but I didn't think this was scientifically controversial), seemed to confirm this. Peat has referred to the Randle 'cycle' (and says it's not really a cycle).

If diabetes often involves poor glucose oxidation and a high rate of fat oxidation, I was thinking that reducing this inhibition on sugar oxidation by lowering fat consumption if it is high (not completely eliminating it) while ensuring sufficiently frequent sugar intake to avoid unnecessarily having low blood sugar trigger lipolysis and/or gluconeogenesis, would potentially improve the processes of sugar oxidation. How well this would work, I expect would vary depending on the state of various systems in the body, including damage/depletion/overloading to liver and pancreas. Individuals still have to figure out what works for them.
But I'm not confident about this last part, so I'd be interested in where it might not be right/not the relevantly full story.

tara said:

What is your understanding of the Randle cycle? My understanding is that high free fatty acids, either from fatty food or from fasting, inhibits sugar oxidation. My quick glance at Wikipedia (I know it's not a reliable source, but I didn't think this was scientifically controversial), seemed to confirm this. Peat has referred to the Randle 'cycle' (and says it's not really a cycle).

Click to expand...

Doesn't seem unusual in itself. Depending on how you eat, you body will metabolise things in some order. If you eat lots of sugar, you'll need insulin (if you can still produce some) to use glucose, which will keep fatty acids waiting and get the cells to use that glucose. Or vice versa the fatty acids first. Of course its a problem if you have glucose or pufa or whatever floating around excessively high when you didn't intend that to happen, stopping you from using this or that. That's when something is broken or is causing damage.

Part of what Peat has talked about wrt diabetes is that it is often diagnosed just on the basis of detecting hyperglycemia, and assuming from that that the pancreas is struggling to produce insulin. Sometimes hyperglycemia can occur even when the body is quite capable of producing enough insulin, but other factors are affecting glucose oxidation (eg Randle cycle, micro-nutrient deficiencies) or gluconeogenesis (eg. chronically high cortisol from a range of causes). Low carb dieters sometimes get highish fasting blood sugars, which sometimes lower again after introducing moderate carbs. If the body really can't be persuaded by reasonable means to produce enough insulin, then more fat might sometimes make sense. But in other cases, doing what you can to support sugar oxidation seems like it would make more sense, and trying this first gives you more options later. Might include lowering fats if high for Randle Cycle reasons, ensuring plentiful B vits and other nutrients, etc, frequent small feeding. Going the high-fat route from the beginning is likely to reduce someone's ability to metabolise glucose, and therefore it looks to me to be more suitable as a last resort.

The pancreatic beta cells can be poisoned by PUFA. They can also regenerate (streaming from other pancreatic cells - I forget which ones) under the right conditions. Glucose is one of the requirements for this. I think magnesium might be too, but less sure of this. I don't know what all the other requirements are. Avoiding liberating stored PUFAs unnecessarily, as well as keeping current PUFA intake really low would probably be useful?

Peat has said that a craving for sugar usually indicates a need for sugar.
My current approach is to trust and be guided by this, ie eat/drink as much sugar as I want (mostly fruit, some sucrose, honey, milk). Sometimes I overdo it, or sometimes when I'm sick, sweet things start to taste bad, so I back off. I assume this means my body had more sugar in the system than it could handle for the moment.

Personally, I don't eat particularly low or high fat. Some fat does seem to help sustain me for longer. Can't tell you the numbers, though, because I don't track much.

tara said:

Peat has said that a craving for sugar usually indicates a need for sugar.

Click to expand...

If you rely on sugar and avoid fat for energy, then you'll crave it whenever you run out of sugar (except at night, when the sensors seem to turn off). It's the same if you eat more fat, except you will take longer to crave it (until your hunger re-appears). In my opinion frequent acute cravings (sudden stressful response) is a sign of energy depletion and bad metabolism. In my experience the brain seems to be a particularly good indicator to know whether the metabolism is good, as it affects both mood and sleep quality. I can go from total insomniac to relaxed sleeper or vice versa within a few weeks by just changing these parameters, so I know exactly what my body needs as energy source.

jyb said:

If you rely on sugar and avoid fat for energy, then you'll crave it whenever you run out of sugar (except at night, when the sensors seem to turn off). It's the same if you eat more fat, except you will take longer to crave it (until your hunger re-appears). In my opinion frequent acute cravings (sudden stressful response) is a sign of energy depletion and bad metabolism. In my experience the brain seems to be a particularly good indicator to know whether the metabolism is good, as it affects both mood and sleep quality. I can go from total insomniac to relaxed sleeper or vice versa within a few weeks by just changing these parameters, so I know exactly what my body needs as energy source.

Click to expand...

I agree that frequent acute stressful cravings indicate energy depletion, either from suboptimal metabolism or simply from deficient fuel supply. My experience over the last year or so is that I can now eat much more sugar without it tasting like too much, and that I have far fewer of those sudden stressful (shaky, urgent, followed by crash) energy dips than I used to.
This is from a history of high starch, low sugar. I'm now more focused on micronutrients, too. But I've never cut my fat down very low, and I don't know how I would respond to that.

I'm sure you know I'm not suggesting you should change what you've got working so well for yourself. And I think it is likely I will make some changes for myself as time goes on, though right now I'll not predict them. I think it's probably useful to see a range - we don't all choose the same paths, and we don't all respond the same to similar choices.

Aragorn wrote:
How do people who follow Peat's diet do in the blood sugar and diabetes matters? Do they normally have evelated blood sugar? Do they monitor sugar levels? According to that article if I start eating white sugar now - my blood sugar should normalize, it should go down (it's now borderline high - 101). Will that happen? My mother gave me one of those sugar measuring devices which I never used so I may try that test. Have other Peateterians here reported decrease in blood sugar after starting eating 300 g or more of sugar?

Yes, I can report a decrease in Fasting Blood Glucose since eating sugar....my blood results went from 5.4mmol/l to 4.8 mmol/l. This happened over 3 months. I am amazed, and delighted!

Bluewren,

How are those units (mmol/l) correlate with the numbers we see on glucometers and whatever doctors are using (95, 100, 120 etc.)?

Tara,

Did my link to thyroid supplement I was taking help you understand the ingredients and give you a clue as to why I was not getting any improvements on it? Here it is again: https://www.xymogen.com/products/produc ... px?pid=220

Those clucose measuring straps I have are expired so I'll have to order a new kit. I want to measure my base fasting glucose early morning. Then to increase white sugar intake during the day. If blood glucose goes down then I'll be surprised and will see the light at the end of tunnel. This would mean that not only my sugar normalize but also that would give me a hope that all my other (major) problems are caused by low carb.

However If blood glucose goes up - what would that mean? Would it mean that high carb diet is not for me? How much time should I give it to work?

My main concern right now is not my sugar but extreme fatigue. The reason I'm looking at Ray Peat diet is because of the original poster of this thread who said his thyroid was improved after high carb diet which led to cure of his low testosterone. This is what I'm clinically having right now: low T. I'm reading the book by Broda Barnes about hyperthyroidism that the OP mentioned. All of the symptoms of hypothyroidism he describes in the book match not only my symptoms but my mother's and sister's. But if the root of my problems is thyroid then I don't understand why that supplement wasn't helping me?

BTW, I don't have any cravings. Except for cravings for rest.... I don't get hungry for 6-7 hours.

Hi Aragorn,
I just looked at the link. I see nothing saying that it does not contain natural amounts of T3 and T4, so unless it says something like that on the back of the bottle, I gues they are still in there.
Apparently there can be problems caused by too much iodine as well as too little. Peat usually does not recommend supplementing, as he thinks most people get enough, but I guess it depends on your food supply.

Thyroid hormones help turn fuel into energy. If you are not well nourished, they CAN'T do that. When faced with thyroid supps and inadequate nourishment, the body will defend itself as best it can. I think it sometimes does this by raising rT3 to limit metabolism, and there are probably other mechanisms too.

I do not think I am qualified to guide on how to deal with blood sugars, but if they rise inthe short term with more sucrose, I'd be double checking all the other nutrients are ample. Personally I supplement some, including B vitamins and magnesium, that I think make a difference to sugar handling. And then I'd give it a few weeks and see what happens.

Tara,
Thanks. So if there are T3 and T4 contained in that supplement, what does this mean? How is that good or bad? I didn't understand that part. I've heard that opposite to mainstream doctors who prescribe T3 and T4, alternative doctors and "old-school" endocrinologists prescribe whole dedicated animal thyroid that is supposedly better. This supplement was given to me by an alternative doctor basing on description of my symptoms.

I don't take iodine. Tried for few days, got no results and stopped. Maybe I should take it for longer periods of time.

Re: Overcoming a 4 year battle with hypogonadism and insomnia
Postby Aragorn » Fri Mar 13, 2015 10:13 am

Bluewren,

How are those units (mmol/l) correlate with the numbers we see on glucometers and whatever doctors are using (95, 100, 120 etc.)?

Hi Aragorn,
Here is a link to convert mmols/L to mg/dL

http://www.endmemo.com/medical/unitconvert/Glucose.php

Aragorn said:

Tara,
Thanks. So if there are T3 and T4 contained in that supplement, what does this mean? How is that good or bad? I didn't understand that part. I've heard that opposite to mainstream doctors who prescribe T3 and T4, alternative doctors and "old-school" endocrinologists prescribe whole dedicated animal thyroid that is supposedly better. This supplement was given to me by an alternative doctor basing on description of my symptoms.

I don't take iodine. Tried for few days, got no results and stopped. Maybe I should take it for longer periods of time.

Click to expand...

The link for your thyroid supplement lists iodine amongst several other ingredients that I don't know much about. And I don't know enough about iodine to have any idea if the quantity is enough to potentially be an issue. I am not familiar with this or other brands/formulations. Hopefully someone else knows more.

T3 is the more active thyroid hormone and has a half life measured in ours. T4 has a longer half life, and gets gradually converted to T3, mostly by the liver. I think the ratio the thyroid puts out is approx 1:4 of T3:T4. For some people, the liver has trouble making this conversion at an appropriate rate, and for them a T4 only supplement can cause problems. Using both T4 and T3, either natural (NDT) or synthetic, ends to work better for many people. If you have separate T3 as well as either separate T4 or 1:4 T3:T4 preparations, you can adjust the ratio. If it's NDT you just get the normal ratio. The ideal ratio varies from person, somewhere in the range 1:2 - 1:4, according to Peat.

People have written about thyroid glandular supplements that say they have the active T3 and T4 removed. If the one you have has these active hormones in it, then they should have the effect in your body that your own endogenous T3 and T4 do.

It takes 2-4 weeks for a new or increased dose of T4 (natural like yours or synthetic) to reach a stable level in the blood. The T3 component should be felt much more quickly (I would think minutes or hours, possibly depending on the formulation). The cautious approach to finding a suitable dose is to start with a little, eg 1/4 tablet, track temps and pulse, and increase dose every 3-4 weeks until you get to normal body temp, if you are getting movement in the right diection. Its slow, but it should avoid oversdosing. It seems to me from reading here that people find it hard to find a good level if they have overshot by too much.

Re: Overcoming a 4 year battle with hypogonadism and insomni

stevensmith said:

Peat suggests to "eat to increase the metabolic rate rather than any particular food," and I wholeheartedly agree. It's important to consider the temperature and pulse. If the pulse is high and you have a normal temperature, then your adrenalin is probably way too high. Typically this goes in hand with a low peripheral temperature, and high internal temperature, such as cold hands, feet and genitals. However, if this is you, then your temperature reading might read 98.6. This is a false reading for thyroid because adrenalin acts by pulling heat away from the periphery to heat the core.

Click to expand...

Amazing how 2.5 years after this post, mose posters ( I THINK) don't follow this advice, and instead look to things like Methylene Blue as the answer to their problems!

Ok. So I started taking basal temperature in the morning and it's very low: 96.6 - 97.0, indicating severe hypothyroidism. My fasting blood sugar was 94. I added 2 teaspoons of white sugar to tea at lunch (in addition to some honey and oatmeal crackers. 3 hrs after lunch glucose was 84. Before dinner I drunk 12 oz of raw milk with 2 teaspoons of sugar as well as 2 teaspoons with tea. 2 hrs after dinner blood glucose was 107.

Next morning fasting glucose was 99. Is additional white sugar raising my blood glucose?

Besides, how do you calculate amount of carbs you take a day from different sources such as milk, white sugar, potatoes, oatmeal crackers, brown rice crackers, honey?

Re: Overcoming a 4 year battle with hypogonadism and insomni

aquaman said:

stevensmith said:

Peat suggests to "eat to increase the metabolic rate rather than any particular food," and I wholeheartedly agree. It's important to consider the temperature and pulse. If the pulse is high and you have a normal temperature, then your adrenalin is probably way too high. Typically this goes in hand with a low peripheral temperature, and high internal temperature, such as cold hands, feet and genitals. However, if this is you, then your temperature reading might read 98.6. This is a false reading for thyroid because adrenalin acts by pulling heat away from the periphery to heat the core.

Click to expand...

Amazing how 2.5 years after this post, mose posters ( I THINK) don't follow this advice, and instead look to things like Methylene Blue as the answer to their problems!

Click to expand...

I agree in general with what you say, aqua.
Just knowing and applying "the basics" of Peat's dietary ideas often gets lost
in the leaping after supplements and pharmas.
The forum kinda went into a strange self-censorship
linked to a kind of cult of personality thing
and a mysticism thing,
under the influence of which
exploring and clarifying just what those Peat basics are
became very difficult.
"There is no Peat diet," etc.

For example,
I lately have been re-listening to the Herb Doctor interview
about Calcium and Phosphate.
Now there is a very basic and crucial facet of Peat's nutritional thinking,
and yet it gets pushed to the background
with all our fascination with MB or high amino dosing or odansetron or tianeptine or whatever.
Not to put down the validity of those Peat-inspired substances--
I am thankful to those experimenting and I like to experiment myself.

But...just the fundamentals of Peat's dietary ideas are complex
and often difficult to get a firm grasp on
and to apply consistently.

Another very very basic Peat dietary tenet that often gets brushed past:
Peat has said that in the past and over his years of advising people,
one of his most common suggestions is simply
to stop taking all supplements.
He found that just doing that alone corrected a lot of problems.

Aragorn said:

Ok. So I started taking basal temperature in the morning and it's very low: 96.6 - 97.0, indicating severe hypothyroidism. My fasting blood sugar was 94. I added 2 teaspoons of white sugar to tea at lunch (in addition to some honey and oatmeal crackers. 3 hrs after lunch glucose was 84. Before dinner I drunk 12 oz of raw milk with 2 teaspoons of sugar as well as 2 teaspoons with tea. 2 hrs after dinner blood glucose was 107.

Next morning fasting glucose was 99. Is additional white sugar raising my blood glucose?

Click to expand...

Depends on lots of things, including what else you ate, and maybe other things going on. It often takes the system a while to adapt to changes in diet, so one or two days doesn't necessarily tell you much.

Aragorn said:

Besides, how do you calculate amount of carbs you take a day from different sources such as milk, white sugar, potatoes, oatmeal crackers, brown rice crackers, honey?

Click to expand...

cronometer.com