Scientists Now Think That Being Fat Can Protect Your Health

tara

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
10,368
Don't think I can improve on Tarmander's response, but will add some.

cantstoppeating said:
post 111371 Obviously but you're talking talking about acute the effects of adrenaline when the discussion (implied by my statement) is about the chronic effects.
Sure, brief acute adrenaline and brief acute hunger don't ususally cause major long term trouble; it's the chronic cases that are of more concern.
But sometimes chronic stress requires a chronic adrenaline response for survival. Have you read the posts here about people trying to use various substances to lower adrenaline (eg pregnenolone), who then find they can't function?
And chronic hunger sometimes requires longer-term adaptations, such as, amongst others, reduction in lean mass and increased propensity to store fat.

cantstoppeating said:
post 111371 The better approach is to focus on the substances/protocols/experiments that offer a solution to the root cause of the problem which appears to be a deranged liver. And it's not about restricting calories than it is about restricting excess calories and taking specific substances to clean the liver.
I agree that where possible addressing the root causes of health issues is generally desirable.

I agree that there are some promising approaches to helping restore the liver, and in some cases they are likely to resolve or improve the underlying issues. There are some stories of that happening here. Good. This shifts the focus to the liver, which makes sense to me, and moves it away from fat quantities and distribution. If you are certain that at this time these tactics can be counted on to be always straightforward and successful for everyone, then I think your confidence exeeds the supporting data.

I also think it is likely that there are some cases where people cause themselves stress by overeating in some form, and avoiding this excess may be helpful for resolving their health issues.

We had some discussion in another thread a while ago about what people mean by calorie excess and deficit. It seems to me that we can distinguish between different uses of the terms. Excess and deficit can be defined relative to:
1. What it takes to maintain current weight at current metabolic rate. (One common usage.)
2. What it would take for a particular individual to attain/maintain normative weight or body-fat standards. (For people who are weight-stable in the normative range, 1 and 2 may be the same.)
3. What common public calorie calculators estimate - general estimates rather than individual. (Often underestimate what a healthy metabolism burns.)
4. What common public health advice proposes people eat. (These are usually based on inaccurate data derived from unreliable self-report methods.)
5. What an individual can currently make good use of. (This may be where other tactics addresing root causes such as liver health, nutrient-deficiencies, non-food tactics, etc, may make a difference, and where gradual changes sometimes allow the body to adapt more easily.)
6. What is required for an individual to attain and maintain a healthy metabolism. (This is what youreatopia focusses on, with additional reference to 7 below.)
7. What is required to satisfy appetite. (Since we are so incredibly complex, it is fortunate that we have an appetite evolved to guide us, even if it gets confused sometimes. When it has not been too badly messed with, it can take into account much more of our complex day to day needs than our consious minds can figure out. )
Maybe there are more possibilities, including considering relative lean and fat mass.

Conflating these different meanings can confuse the discussion. For a particular individual, they may all lead to different numbers, so it's not always straight forward knowing what is enough or too much or too little. I'm not sure which meaning you are using, but I suspect from the context that it may be 2, and/or possibly 5? I tend to often favour 5,6 and 7, maybe weighted differently depending on the context, since they can sometimes conflict.

cantstoppeating said:
post 111371 Like I said above; there's enough info on this forum to reveal that the liver is often at the root of fat gain when eating carbs.
Quite likely a major contributor for many people. Maybe this means it would be more useful to focus on liver health than on judgements about appropriate amounts of fat.

cantstoppeating said:
post 111371 I've seen many of your posts on this forum and whenever the topic of fatloss/weightloss comes up, you're quick to offer justifications for excess fat (along with implied suggestions of consuming excess calories) with reasons of anorexia and notions of famine. (And even in the case of famine, it easy to see how a long period of burning through (PUFA filled) fat and muscle tissue with increased cortisol and adrenaline can lead to a deranged liver.)
This is a bunch of value judgments reflecting your current viewpoint, not just statements of facts.
"Justifications" implies that what I have said is invalid or wrong, without providing any actual reasons. 'Excess' refers to a judgment in a disputed area, not an established fact. 'Implied' seems to refer to things I have not said and do not think - possibly a consequence of different meanings of 'excess calories'.

Certainly I mention anorexia and famine from time to time. I want people trying to recover from such struggles to be made as welcome in this forum as everyone else, and for their issues to be taken into account too. Especially since these are both effective ways to lower metabolism, a lot of what this forum is about is how to raise a low metabolism, and there are a number of people here for whom such considerations seem relevant.

While only a small minority of people in our societies are under the influence of fully-fledged diagnosable anorexia nervosa, athletica, etc, less extreme versions affect more people. I don't want this section of the population to be discounted as irrelevant. Do you think it is more important to to avoid excess fat (which may have some long-term down-sides) than to recover from anorexia (which has much higher health risks associated with it)?
Do you have reason to believe that people who are in danger from anorexia etc can have as strong a recovery and avoid gaining 'excess' fat? What I've read on the subject suggests that so far, the most reliable known way to recover is to eat plenty, and this often leads to excess fat. I am open to the possibility that there may be ways to make this work better, but until they have been widely and successfully tried and studied, I don't think there is grounds for certainty about it.

I sometimes use the word famine from the internal point of view of a body receiving insufficient food over an extended period, even though externally there may be plenty of food available. While most westerners are not faced with severe food scarcity most of the time, there are many who have been lead to believe that they should restrict their own food intake to levels inadequate for sustaining a healthy metaobolism. Do you disagree with the idea that restrictive dieting can and often does cause the adaptations I've mentioned, including reduced lean mass, reduced base metabolism, and increased propensity to store fat? I understood the science to be pretty clear that these can occur, even though the detailed mechanisms are not fully understood.

I usually only make explicit suggestions to eat more calories to those people who explicitly spell out that they are in the habit of eating well below the calories normally required to run a healthy metabolism. I do not to propose that everyone eat more than they need. Only that people eat as much as they need. Knowing how much that is is not necessarily straight-forward (see possible definitions of excess/deficit above).

I also object from time to time in other threads when people make oversimplifications, generalisations, and negative judgements like yours, eg that 'there is no excuse for excess fat'. My intention is to draw attention to the variability of our contexts, and to counter the common disrespect from lean people, not to replace a generalised anti-fat attitude with a generalised pro-excess-fat attitude. People do seem to often report reading things from me that I haven't written, though.

cantstoppeating said:
post 111371 Being fat is not OK ...
Value judgement, not fact.

cantstoppeating said:
post 111371 ... shouldn't be excused because it may be the lesser of some comparative evil; ...
I don't see why relative harm should not be used as a basis for decision. Lots of decisions in life involve choosing a less harmful option.
'Excused' implies that you think you and others have a moral right to judge a person for their choices or appearance in this area. I don't agree with that.

cantstoppeating said:
post 111371 ... being fat promotes systemic inflammation (often via aromatase)...
Quite possibly, though there does seem to be some uncertainty when it comes to stored SFA. Peat as said that when stored fats are released under stess conditions, saturated fats tend to limit the stresss reaction, whereas unsaturated fats amplify them. Since PUFAs are not completely avoidable, and it seems we preferentially store te PUFAs, these will be an issue. On the other hand, the fats we create from carbs tend to be saturated, so maybe less of of a problem.

cantstoppeating said:
post 111371 ... and induces mental stress through societal friction.
Society imposes a great deal of disrespect and mistreatment on fat people. It is not the fat that causes this problem, it is the widespread societal attitudes. These attitudes cause a great deal of stress and harm to fat people (and probably also to some lean people who starve themselves to avoid this abusive treatment.) Given the importance of social connections to people's health, as well as the other more directly physical effects of this mistreatment, it could be that these abusive attitudes are a significant contributor to the correlation between large fat and particular health issues. I don't like it when people blame the victims of oppression.

cantstoppeating said:
post 111371 ... It seems to me that you carry excess fat and that you haven't yet lost it and that you find it difficult to lose and so you project your circumstances onto others on this forum.

You are making a bunch of assumptions, and you are using them to justify dismissing my opinion. Do you routinely make assumptions about people basedon your own prejudices? Do you routinely dismiss people's opinions on the basis of their fat? Do you routinely insult people by making up psychological judgements about them?
If you can't see the biases and value judgements in these, as well as many of your previous statements, then maybe it is the water you are swimming in.
I got a glimpse of the water, and that is why I keep speaking up.

When I started reading and writing on this topic, I had been through a couple of bouts of unintentional weight loss in recent years. One gradual one associated with life-stress, and the other more rapid from attempting to address my health issues with another way of eating. Then I stumbled on some basic information about metabolism, and I learned something about how many calories ordinary, weight-stable non-dieting people actually eat, the consequences of chronic undereating, and the common patterns and requirements in recovery from severe under-eating. Most of my life I havebeen in the so-called 'ideal' BMI category, but with lowish energy and a number of symptoms consistent with low metabolism. I do not think I have ever been anorexic. I do think that I have had some extended but not extreme periods of undereating. I think this has caused me significant stress and malnourishment, and therefore may have been a contributor to my chronic health issues.

I also came upon some rational-looking writing challenging the dominant paradigm about the role of fat in health, and the oppressive societal atitudes about fat.

cantstoppeating said:
post 111371 ... so you project your circumstances onto others on this forum.
Unlike you, I don't claim to have simple answers for everybody else's complex health issues. I don't assume that everybody is suffering from undereating; I look at the evidence posters present.

If you are a young man who has been able to simply resolve your own health issues, then you are fortunate.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joined
Nov 11, 2014
Messages
585
Can you provide a TL;DR version?

I had to ingest 50g of sucrose to avoid a stress reaction after seeing such a wall of text.
 

brandonk

Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2015
Messages
145
cantstoppeating said:
Can you provide a TL;DR version?

I had to ingest 50g of sucrose to avoid a stress reaction after seeing such a wall of text.

TL;DR, This is someone who cares a great deal about all the people on this forum, including you. Think about that.
 

tara

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
10,368
Westside PUFAs said:
post 111497 Brilliant, especially the "recovery" fallacy, which only applies to someone who is literally in starvation, suffering.

What is the 'recovery' fallacy? Has anybody here claimed that everybody needs to overeat or gain lots of fat to recover? I don't think I've seen it. (If I've accidentally said something like this myself, I'll be happy to go back and retract.) Do you mean that because it only applies to a subset of people it is somehow invalid? Cantstop is making generalisations as though such people do not exist, or are not important, or do not need to recover, or as though there is some sure-fire alternative route to recovery. Why do you want to exclude the people who actually do need to recover from starvation and associated suffering?

Since I've not see anything from Peat on the subject, I am informed by other sources, including youreatopia and the Minnesota starvation experiment, and a few others. When I see men here in their early twenties who have been eating under 1800 cals a day or women eating under 1600 cals for a long while and wondering why they are suffering, I tend to speculate that there could be a connection. It's hard to know exactly what a particular person needs ahead of time, but these levels seems likely to be way below maintenance calories for a healthy metabolism for at least most adults.

Where do you draw the line, and why? I figure reference points like the Minnesota semi-starvation experiment (~1600 in the starvation phase) and maybe Hitler's starvation death camps (I've seen estimates of ~1300-1700 cals), provide relevant reference points. A number of people have come here with food intakes in that order, and describing some of the expected effects. Their needs are likely to differ in some ways from people who have never done this. Doesn't make them irrelevant, though. Don't you think this counts as severe under-eating? Do you have reason to think that Olwyn and Keyes etc were radically wrong about the consequences of such eating and how to recover?

If anyone has gone from semi-starving to running a healthy metabolism on normal calories without gaining lots of extra fat in the process, they would be interesting stories. Not that it would prove it possible for everyone, but at least for some.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joined
Feb 4, 2015
Messages
1,972
tara said:
post 111522Since I've not see anything from Peat on the subject, I am informed by other sources, including youreatopia and the Minnesota starvation experiment, and a few others.

Minnesota starvation experiment debunked here:

http://bit.ly/1Xn2Pv8

Skip to 46 seconds to where girl starts talking.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

milk_lover

Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2015
Messages
1,909
cantstoppeating said:
post 111514 Can you provide a TL;DR version?

I had to ingest 50g of sucrose to avoid a stress reaction after seeing such a wall of text.
How is that a wall of text? I saw good length paragraphs. Maybe you're trying to joke here :lol:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

tara

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
10,368
@ Westside. She speaks well, does a nice summary of the Experiment, and makes some good points about nutritional needs. Surprised myself by watching it all.
I don't hear her debunking the study - she says it's a really valuable study of the effects of starvation, but is very different from and should not be used to support the rawtill4 diet.

Refers to the phases of study - normal diet to begin (she doesn't say, but ~3200).
Semistarvation: ~1600 cals for 6mths to lose 25% of body weight.
Effects described as typical of what one would expect in anorexia nervosa, very stressful when not eating enough food. Resulted in 40% reduction in BMR. This is one of the reasons I make a point about the importance of avoiding starvation.
No recovery in restricted refeeding phase. She doesn't say, but my recollection is that the study showed that as long as calories were restricted (and I don't recall to what levels), supplementary nutrients did not allow recovery.
5200 cal average during unrestricted refeed, but at much higher fat and lower lean than previously, up to average 10% above original weight.

She recommends a good quality whole foods vegan food diet. Minimally refined and processed. Supplying all macronutrient and micronutrient needs. She says achieving enough calories is really important, encourages eating at least to appetite, and sometimes to more than appetite. She suggests not just focussing on using refined low-nutrient foods to meet calorie goals, but to ensure adequate carbs, protein, fats, micronutrients, fibre. Eg don't turn 10 bananas into a fast drink smoothie with lots of water and coconut sugar, and don't get lot of calories froom white rice. These may be good advice.

I think she makes some good points that might well improve on the recovery diet compared with the one that the Experiment subjects had available to them, and a high refined junk food diet would provide.
She proposes a vegan diet, but doesn't present her reasons in this video for avoiding dairy, meat, eggs. I see no reason for strictly avoiding these unless one has a particular intolerance.

She and Keyes and Olwyn and the rawtill4 crew and i seem to all be in agreement that extreme low calorie dieting tends to reduce metabolism, and that it takes a lot of calories to recover. This speaker says a higher nutrient, slower GI whole foods diet would provide better material for recovery, and would reduce the amount of unnecessary fat gained in recovery. She may be right, but I don't know that it's been demonstrated, and she doesn't mention empirical evidence in this video, just theory. Some of that theory seems to align with Peat's general views, some not so much.

I think she is probably right that getting in high levels of all nutrients, not just calories, is important, and may well make for healthier recovery. Possibly also less additional fat gain that the other methods.
I have concerns about her proposal too, though, because I think being too rigorous about only eating unprocessed whole foods can make it just too difficult to get in and digest enough food through a severely depleted digestive system. Also, being restrictive during recovery from anorexia etc has dangers of its own that can be much more severe than gaining a bit of extra fat, in particular by trigering relapse back into starvation. I currently disagree with some of the people here who have said not to worry about micronutrients because they are not so much needed during recovery, just pound the sugar etc. So I'd probably be saying when you can, eat good quality nutrient-dense food. But when you can't do that, just eat what you can eat.

She says the body can recognise and use whole foods eg a whole banana better than a banana smoothie. I have no idea if this is right, but I know it's easier to get in more calories faster it you make a smoothie out of a couple of bananas with whole milk and a bit of extra honey or icecream, and I think this may have it's place. Personally, I get in more micronutrients, too, by using my blender to puree soup. I was convinced of the healthfulness of whole foods and minimising refined foods for many years. I have never had the general fear of food and lack of appetite associated with anorexia etc, but along with the restrictions I observed for perceived personal intolerances, and poor glycogen storage, this avoidence of refined foods was one of the factors to which I attribute some of my unhelpful chronic undereating. Add in the extra challenges of realanorexia, and you don't want to make it harder than it has to be to eat.

She says including the fibre from whole foods slows down the release of carbs etc into the system, and so it is less likley to get overwhelmed by too much at once, and have trouble with high blood sugars etc. There may be advantages to this recommendation. Since Peat has not written much aout the context of such recovery, I don't know what he would say about this part. But in other contexts he doesn't ususally favour a lot of fermentable fibre - mostly just the less fermentable carrot and bamboo. I think Olwyn would say to eat calorie dense palatable easy-to-digest foods in the initial stages while the GI tract rebuilds, and eventually move on to more micronutritious whole foods etc.

Even if she is right that the extreme fat gain seen in the Experiment is not necessary for most people, there is no evidence there that there would be no extra fat gain, or that no-one would exceed their starting weight, or that it would be a good idea to restrict calories to prevent it.
 

tara

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
10,368
cantstoppeating said:
post 111514 Can you provide a TL;DR version?
TL;DR:
I agree liver health is important.
The rest not so much.
Recovering metabolism from starvation trumps avoiding fat.
Slagging off fat people is rude, unhelpful and endemic.
If you want to know why, you'll have to read the wall. I didn't have time to write it shorter.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joined
Nov 11, 2014
Messages
585
tara said:
post 111603
cantstoppeating said:
post 111514 Can you provide a TL;DR version?
TL;DR:
I agree liver health is important.
The rest not so much.
Recovering metabolism from starvation trumps avoiding fat.
Slagging off fat people is rude, unhelpful and endemic.
If you want to know why, you'll have to read the wall. I didn't have time to write it shorter.

Yes, liver health is important.
False dichotomy; I never said it's either/or. I said getting fat is not a requirement to recovering metabolism.
Slagging off fat people is indeed rude. I haven't slagged off any fat people.

Appreciate the TL;DR version, I avoided reading your lengthy strawmans.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

SQu

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
1,308
"I agree liver health is important.
The rest not so much.
Recovering metabolism from starvation trumps avoiding fat.
Slagging off fat people is rude, unhelpful and endemic"

In a nutshell. Thanks Tara
 

halken

Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2015
Messages
149
cantstoppeating said:
post 111514 Can you provide a TL;DR version?

I had to ingest 50g of sucrose to avoid a stress reaction after seeing such a wall of text.

That is just a justification for your fear of being wrong .
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DaveFoster

Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2015
Messages
5,027
Location
Portland, Oregon
Westside PUFAs said:
post 110410
Haidut said:
"Scientists now think being fat can protect your health"

"Scientists" think a lot of things. Just ask Ray Peat about his professors.

How is having metabolic syndrome healthy? How is the estrogenic effect and toxic cytokines from adipose tissue healthy? These are things I explore.

What is interesting about the article you posted Haidut is that they first mention a guy named Glenn Gaesser who wrote a book about it, "Big Fat Lies." He made a video responding to Dr. Oz and then Dr. Oz invited him on his show in 2011:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Q-sHS27PZU

I'm trying to find the clip of him on the actual show. I remember watching it in 2011 and thinking "F this guy, he's an idiot, he should read Gary Taubes and Weston Price!" :lol: But now 4 years later, I'm the opposite of that, well almost opposite.

So I'm intrigued by Gaesser's options on body fat because he's not fat himself and he promotes a HCLF starchy diet so I'll see what his arguments are. But he sure is odd by being a lean guy and promoting a fat free starchy diet. I like that in that video he says that french fries are not just "carbs" but they are fat as well. I like when people acknowledge that point because most ignore the fat content of "carbs."
This really showcases Ray Peat's work in a positive light. Doctor Gaesser keeps voicing correlative studies over large populations and does not go into the biochemistry of what actually goes on in the body. He says that eating more carbohydrates tends to result in lower bodyfat percentage, but he does not mention the metabolic-stimulating effect of fructose, the excessive insulin spike resulting from pure glucose consumption (starch), or the effect of unsaturated fats in suppressing the metabolism (while butyric acid, capric, and caprylic acid serve as uncouplers).

Rather than generalizing complexity by isolating a single factor and proclaiming that correlation equals causation, it seems more scientific, and indeed more practical, to view things at the most fundamental and integral level; that of biology, or even more fundamentally, that of chemistry.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom