98 replies to this topic

[DukeNukem]

As I've been saying for a few years, carb-loading and carbs in general are NOT the preferred fuel for our body. The heart, especially, runs of fatty acids as the preferred fuel. The brain is the only organ that requires glucose, and it performs optimally on a mix of fatty acids (ketones) and glucose, around a 50/50 mixture, which requires NO dietary carb consumption at all to maintain.

Carbohydrate-enriched diet impairs cardiac performance by decreasing the utilization of fatty acid and glucose. Conclusion: Our data suggest that a high-carbohydrate diet can damage myocardial contractile function by decreasing the cardiac utilization of glucose and fatty acids and, consequently, the ATP pool.
http://tak.sagepub.c...5/1/11.abstract

Also...

Damaged Hearts Pump Better When Fueled With Fats, Study Suggests
http://www.scienceda...10504140919.htm

News Flash: A non-damaged heart also pumps better when fueled by fats.

BTW, all of our organs run better (and cleaner -- with less metabolic damage) on fat. Again, the one exception is our brain, which runs best on a 50/50 mix of fat and glucose. But, this is NOT a reason to eat carbs, because our body can make all the glucose the brain needs from the protein we ingest. We can live our entire lifetime without consume a gram of carbs. Yet we will quickly die if we do not consume fat and/or proteins.

Most modern brain dysfunctions, like Alzheimer's, are the result of long-term carb overdose, overwhelming the brain with metabolic waste. Burning fat does not create most of this waste by-product, and leaves the brain free of intercellular gunk.

[e Volution]

What do you think is the reason for the Brain being the exception here?

I know Art de Vany has his thoughts on this:
"Insulin resistance spares glucose for the brain and was an essential adaptation to the glucose scarcity during the Ice Ages. In a modern world abundant in cheap and readily available carbohydrate, insulin resistance sets us up for hyperinsulemia (chronically elevated insulin) which is a major factor in almost all modern diseases."

[DukeNukem]

What do you think is the reason for the Brain being the exception here?

I know Art de Vany has his thoughts on this:
"Insulin resistance spares glucose for the brain and was an essential adaptation to the glucose scarcity during the Ice Ages. In a modern world abundant in cheap and readily available carbohydrate, insulin resistance sets us up for hyperinsulemia (chronically elevated insulin) which is a major factor in almost all modern diseases."

Not sure why the brain requires glucose versus the rest of the body. Art de Vany's quote doesn't really offer an answer--except to partially explain a potential purpose of insulin resistance. I suspect that glucose is a faster fuel and maybe that's why the brain needs it. Maybe glucose is like a premium gas for the brain. But this is just a guess.

[Thorsten3]

Ahhh Duke Dukem where for art thou?!? haha ... Where has this guy been

[Thorsten3]

Proponents of the raw food diet (which I also see benefits for) would argue that feasting on meat (cooked) is toxic for the body. AGEs?

Do you have an opinion on this?

The only reason I ask is because I'd imagine it is pretty tricky doing the ketogenic thing if you try to avoid meat. Even nuts seem to contain sufficient amounts of carbs so would be very suitable as a stand in.

[TheFountain]

Oh, another rat study. Move along, nothing to see here....

[DukeNukem]

Proponents of the raw food diet (which I also see benefits for) would argue that feasting on meat (cooked) is toxic for the body. AGEs?

Do you have an opinion on this?

The only reason I ask is because I'd imagine it is pretty tricky doing the ketogenic thing if you try to avoid meat. Even nuts seem to contain sufficient amounts of carbs so would be very suitable as a stand in.

I suspect that glucose is the greater cause of AGEs in humans. But definitely I'd love to see more studies that nail down the damage from consuming "AGE'd" foods.

But regardless, I think that a paleo diet is significantly healthier than a raw vegetarian diet in the long run, when all the pro's and con's are considered.

[Thorsten3]

What's your opinion on the process of cooking whereby some people claim that by doing so you destroy all of the natural enzymes and much of the nutrition. When I look at food in a frying pan being cooked to death I do often wonder if these people have a point.

Therefore do you think that cooking meat increases your risk of getting cancer? As humans (presuming we evolved eating meat) would we have always cooked the meat or would we have eaten it raw as we caught it?

Thanks for your thoughts.

Edited by Thorsten2, 28 November 2011 - 04:29 PM.

[DukeNukem]

What's your opinion on the process of cooking whereby some people claim that by doing so you destroy all of the natural enzymes and much of the nutrition. When I look at food in a frying pan being cooked to death I do often wonder if these people have a point.

Therefore do you think that cooking meat increases your risk of getting cancer? As humans (presuming we evolved eating meat) would we have always cooked the meat or would we have eaten it raw as we caught it?

Thanks for your thoughts.

I think that the enzyme issue is a false worry with regard to eating animal foods. Why? Because I see no evidence to be concerned. As for eating plant foods, I also do not see real-world evidence that there's much to be concerned about. I pay practically no attention to the topic of enzymes because it doesn't seem to be an important factor -- or at least it seems to take care of itself.

As for cooking meat, I'm pretty sure that if burned then it's a concern. Sushi and medium rare meats are the way to go.

[niner]

Heating foods causes the generation of pro-inflammatory exogenous AGEs and ALEs. It happens at relatively low temperatures, too. Hotter is worse, as is longer cooking times. This is the reason that raw food is better for you, assuming you have the nutrient availability problem handled. The nonsense about "killing the living enzymes" is just spew by people who don't know what's actually happening.

[hivemind]

NO NO NO, TOTALLY WRONG!!

Saturated fat makes you stupid:


http://www.ncbi.nlm..../pubmed/8888990

One-month-old rats were fed 1 of 4 high-fat diets (20% fat) or chow (4.5% fat) for 3 months. Dietary saturated (SFA), monounsaturated (MUFA), or polyunsaturated (PUFA) fatty acids varied such that their independent effects on cognitive performance could be tested. Rats were tested on a variable-interval delayed-alternation task. Impairment in both the ability to learn the basic alternation rule and remembering trial-specific information over time was observed in rats fed the experimental diets relative to those fed chow. The degree of impairment was highly associated with the level of SFAs fed and independent of the MUFAs or PUFAs. Dietary fat altered brain phosphatidylcholine fatty-acid profile, but the membrane changes did not correlate with cognitive impairment. The results demonstrate that cognitive impairment is directly associated with SFA intake but suggest that the mechanism is independent of bulk brain membrane compositional changes.

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/12580703

BACKGROUND: Few studies have investigated the effects of dietary fats on the development of Alzheimer disease. We examined the associations between intake of specific types of fat and incident Alzheimer disease in a biracial community study. METHODS: We performed clinical evaluations on a stratified random sample of 815 community residents aged 65 years and older who were unaffected by Alzheimer disease at baseline and who completed a food-frequency questionnaire a mean of 2.3 years before clinical evaluation. RESULTS: After a mean follow-up of 3.9 years, 131 persons developed Alzheimer disease. Intakes of saturated fat and trans-unsaturated fat were positively associated with risk of Alzheimer disease, whereas intakes of omega-6 polyunsaturated fat and monounsaturated fat were inversely associated. Persons in the upper fifth of saturated-fat intake had 2.2 times the risk of incident Alzheimer disease compared with persons in the lowest fifth in a multivariable model adjusted for age, sex, race, education, and apolipoprotein E epsilon4 allele status (95% confidence interval, 1.1-4.7). Risk also increased with consumption of trans-unsaturated fats, beginning with the second fifth of intake (relative risk, 2.4 compared with the lowest fifth; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-5.3). We observed linear inverse associations between Alzheimer disease and vegetable fat (P =.002), and, after further adjustment for other types of fat, marginally significant associations with intake of omega-6 polyunsaturated fat (P =.10 for trend) and monounsaturated fat (P =.10 for trend). Intakes of total fat, animal fat, and dietary cholesterol were not associated with Alzheimer disease. CONCLUSION: High intake of unsaturated, unhydrogenated fats may be protective against Alzheimer disease, whereas intake of saturated or trans-unsaturated (hydrogenated) fats may increase risk.

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/16710090

BACKGROUND:

Lifestyle and vascular factors have been linked to dementia and Alzheimer's disease (AD), but the role of dietary fats in the development of dementia is less clear.
METHODS:

Participants were derived from random, population-based samples initially studied in midlife (1972, 1977, 1982, or 1987). Fat intake from spreads and milk products was assessed using a structured questionnaire and an interview. After an average follow-up of 21 years, a total of 1,449 (73%) individuals aged 65-80 years participated in the re-examination in 1998. Altogether 117 persons had dementia.
RESULTS:

Moderate intake of polyunsaturated fats at midlife decreased the risk of dementia even after adjustment for demographic variables, other subtypes of fats, vascular risk factors and disorders, and apolipoprotein E (ApoE) genotype (OR 0.40, CI 0.17-0.94 for the 2nd quartile vs. 1st quartile), whereas saturated fat intake was associated with an increased risk (OR 2.45, CI 1.10-5.47 for the 2nd quartile). The associations were seen only among the ApoE epsilon4 carriers.
CONCLUSIONS:

Moderate intake of unsaturated fats at midlife is protective, whereas a moderate intake of saturated fats may increase the risk of dementia and AD, especially among ApoE epsilon4 carriers. Thus, dietary interventions may potentially modify the risk of dementia, particularly among genetically susceptible individuals.

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/12580703

BACKGROUND:

Few studies have investigated the effects of dietary fats on the development of Alzheimer disease. We examined the associations between intake of specific types of fat and incident Alzheimer disease in a biracial community study.
METHODS:

We performed clinical evaluations on a stratified random sample of 815 community residents aged 65 years and older who were unaffected by Alzheimer disease at baseline and who completed a food-frequency questionnaire a mean of 2.3 years before clinical evaluation.
RESULTS:

After a mean follow-up of 3.9 years, 131 persons developed Alzheimer disease. Intakes of saturated fat and trans-unsaturated fat were positively associated with risk of Alzheimer disease, whereas intakes of omega-6 polyunsaturated fat and monounsaturated fat were inversely associated. Persons in the upper fifth of saturated-fat intake had 2.2 times the risk of incident Alzheimer disease compared with persons in the lowest fifth in a multivariable model adjusted for age, sex, race, education, and apolipoprotein E epsilon4 allele status (95% confidence interval, 1.1-4.7). Risk also increased with consumption of trans-unsaturated fats, beginning with the second fifth of intake (relative risk, 2.4 compared with the lowest fifth; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-5.3). We observed linear inverse associations between Alzheimer disease and vegetable fat (P =.002), and, after further adjustment for other types of fat, marginally significant associations with intake of omega-6 polyunsaturated fat (P =.10 for trend) and monounsaturated fat (P =.10 for trend). Intakes of total fat, animal fat, and dietary cholesterol were not associated with Alzheimer disease.
CONCLUSION:

A diet high in saturated or trans-unsaturated fat or low in nonhydrogenated unsaturated fats may be associated with cognitive decline among older persons.

Edited by hivemind, 29 November 2011 - 02:07 AM.

[niner]

Saturated fat makes you stupid:

If you're a rat or ApoE epsilon 4. For everyone else, I'm not so sure. I suspect that in these studies, which rely on notoriously unreliable FFQs, the types of fat that they are looking at are proxies for something else that is wrong or right in the patient's diet or lifestyle.

[TheFountain]

^^^ But it's alright to cite rat studies when it's a pro-paleo argument? *facepalm*

[Lufega]

If you look at the fat studies carefully, you'll find the kinda fat they used is either hydrogenated, adulterated and chemically modified in some ways. Also, when they test saturated fats, I've seen some studies where they always include corn or soy oil. No idea why and yet they fail to mention this in the abstracts. Mmmm...

[hivemind]

If you look at the fat studies carefully, you'll find the kinda fat they used is either hydrogenated, adulterated and chemically modified in some ways. Also, when they test saturated fats, I've seen some studies where they always include corn or soy oil. No idea why and yet they fail to mention this in the abstracts. Mmmm...

Not true for that rat study. You can check out the full text:

http://content.apa.o...d/bne/110/3/451

Edited by hivemind, 29 November 2011 - 02:54 AM.

[TheFountain]

If you look at the fat studies carefully, you'll find the kinda fat they used is either hydrogenated, adulterated and chemically modified in some ways. Also, when they test saturated fats, I've seen some studies where they always include corn or soy oil. No idea why and yet they fail to mention this in the abstracts. Mmmm...

Either way it's a rat study, and haven't we learned to look at rat studies with skepticism? Why all of a sudden are rat studies the shiznit? Because it's in favor of supporting a paleo argument?

[hivemind]

Because it's in favor of supporting a paleo argument?

It isn't.

[TheFountain]

Care to expound on that brilliant analysis?

[hivemind]

What rat study are you talking about? The rat study I posted was not in favor of paleo.

Edited by hivemind, 29 November 2011 - 08:21 PM.

[TheFountain]

What rat study are you talking about? The rat study I posted was not in favor of paleo.

I was referring to the OP.

[DukeNukem]

Back to the original topic, here's another study implicating the role of carbs in Alzheimer's disease. For some 10 years now, Alzheimer's disease has been also called type 3 diabetes, which is quite accurate. When the brain runs on too much glucose (which happens when the diet is medium to higher carb), it develops considerable more metabolic damage and waste. The brain remains healthier longer when it runs on ketones, too, which creates less metabolic waste to overwhelm cellular clean-up mechanisms.

Nutrition and Alzheimer's disease: The detrimental role of a high carbohydrate diet
http://www.sciencedi...953620511000045

[Mind]

Agreed that rat studies should be taken with a grain of salt. Humans are omnivores. Rat are evolved vegetarians for the most part.

I am going ridiculously anecdotal here so feel free to intellectually pummel me. All of the paleo/hyper lipid/ketogenic dieters I know (small sample) are in great health. Most of them have been doing it for a few years now. If there was something SERIOUSLY bad about this type of diet, I suspect we would know by now. I am not saying that it is the best for longevity or health because long term effects sometimes take a lifetime to show up, but the short term results do not seem indicate that the diet is deadly (as the hysterical anti-fat crowd would lead us to believe).

[idquest]

All of the paleo/hyper lipid/ketogenic dieters I know (small sample) are in great health. Most of them have been doing it for a few years now. If there was something SERIOUSLY bad about this type of diet, I suspect we would know by now

How old are they? Beacuse up to 50 yo most people can abuse their bodies without immediately noticeable effects. If they are 60-70 yo and have been on the diet for more than 5 years - that would be a serious evidence in favour of the diet.

[niner]

All of the paleo/hyper lipid/ketogenic dieters I know (small sample) are in great health. Most of them have been doing it for a few years now. If there was something SERIOUSLY bad about this type of diet, I suspect we would know by now

How old are they? Beacuse up to 50 yo most people can abuse their bodies without immediately noticeable effects. If they are 60-70 yo and have been on the diet for more than 5 years - that would be a serious evidence in favour of the diet.

Like Duke, I'm over 50, and a light-duty paleo diet works great for me. I haven't had the body composition I have today since my early 20's. I would push the breakpoint on body abuse down quite a bit; 30 is probably closer to the age when bad diet starts catching up with you. Certainly by 40. Michael Rose has a brilliant evolutionary line of reasoning that explains why this happens. I can't say what would happen on a hyperlipid/ketogenic diet. I like to keep those separated from paleo, since there's nothing in the paleo book that says you need to megadose on fat. Paleo in its simplest form just means cut back on (or lose) the sugar, omega 6 PUFAs, and wheat. Blurring that distinction does a disservice to paleo, which is easy to follow and tastes good. I'm not sure I could say the same thing for hyperlipid/ketogenic.

[TheFountain]

Niner, what is this semi-paleo diet you are on like? What does a daily food intake chart for you look like?

Edited by TheFountain, 02 December 2011 - 05:14 AM.

[hggh]

Agreed that rat studies should be taken with a grain of salt. Humans are omnivores. Rat are evolved vegetarians for the most part.

I am going ridiculously anecdotal here so feel free to intellectually pummel me. All of the paleo/hyper lipid/ketogenic dieters I know (small sample) are in great health. Most of them have been doing it for a few years now. If there was something SERIOUSLY bad about this type of diet, I suspect we would know by now. I am not saying that it is the best for longevity or health because long term effects sometimes take a lifetime to show up, but the short term results do not seem indicate that the diet is deadly (as the hysterical anti-fat crowd would lead us to believe).

What if paleo diet is slow release toxin like oxygen?
http://www.reddit.co.../comments/mk3ut http://www.reddit.co...nous_air_fixed/

Or prostate cancer
http://healthcorrela...720027837689172

[hggh]

Agreed that rat studies should be taken with a grain of salt. Humans are omnivores. Rat are evolved vegetarians for the most part.

I am going ridiculously anecdotal here so feel free to intellectually pummel me. All of the paleo/hyper lipid/ketogenic dieters I know (small sample) are in great health. Most of them have been doing it for a few years now. If there was something SERIOUSLY bad about this type of diet, I suspect we would know by now. I am not saying that it is the best for longevity or health because long term effects sometimes take a lifetime to show up, but the short term results do not seem indicate that the diet is deadly (as the hysterical anti-fat crowd would lead us to believe).

What if paleo diet is slow release toxin like oxygen?
http://www.reddit.co.../comments/mk3ut http://www.reddit.co...nous_air_fixed/

Or prostate cancer
http://healthcorrela...720027837689172

(also this reply form is broken on the forum if you quote someone the reply will not go through)

Edited by hggh, 02 December 2011 - 04:17 PM.

[Mind]

Like I said, anedcotal evidence that there are no SHORT TERM, SERIOUSLY BAD, or DEADLY, effects of the paleo diet. In fact, it looks quite good for short term health. I make no claims about long term effects.

As far as older paleo dieters: I think I can name four (I know, ridiculously small sample). Duke, Arthur DeVany, Mark Sisson, and Michael Rose....oh, and Niner, make it 5. They all seem to be doing ok. They are, of course, quite meticulous in how they achieve their paleo status.

[niner]

Duke, Arthur DeVany, Mark Sisson, and Michael Rose....oh, and Niner, make it 5. They all seem to be doing ok. They are, of course, quite meticulous in how they achieve their paleo status.

Well, I'm not as meticulous as the rest of them probably are. I still have a problem with sweets. I try to keep it under control, and not have them in the house, but if I'm at a party or something and there's some really tasty desert, it's not going to be a super paleo day for me... Honestly, I'm not meticulous about any of it. Maybe that's the secret. It's easy to follow because I don't have to be fanatical about it. and it still works!

Niner, what is this semi-paleo diet you are on like? What does a daily food intake chart for you look like?

A typical 'good day' would look something like this:

Breakfast-
Cup of cocoa in water, sweetened with splenda
Oatmeal with coconut oil and blueberries, more splenda
20 oz coffee with half & half, yet more splenda... (i know...)

Lunch- (sometimes skipped)
Usually a smaller quantity of the stuff I have for dinner, but no salad.

Dinner-
Salad with olive oil & vinegar (usually balsamic)
Sauteed Greens
Various Other vegetables, occasional fruit.
A protein source; chicken, ruminant, fish, or a veggie concoction.
Rice or White potatoes occasionally, but I tend to go light on those.
A handful of raw cashews with some semisweet chocolate

On a good day, two or three meals would be it, with no snacks.

I try to avoid sugar, wheat, omega 6 PUFAs, high GI carbs, and burned stuff. Emphasis on "try", since I don't actually 100% avoid any of them. I might split a donut with one of my kids, and blow it on all five at the same time. My "paleo" approach to the donut is to pick the kind that's lowest in sugar, and only have half of one. And it doesn't happen that often. In a week, I'll probably have several flour tortillas and several pieces of bread. That's in comparison to the constant barrage of wheat that I used to eat. I usually don't eat the crusts on bread. (very high in AGEs) While a hardcore paleo guy would probably laugh me out of the room, the distance I've moved from where I used to be is pretty large. I only occasionally drink milk, but eat cheese and greek yogurt, and probably a quarter cup of half & half a day. Omega 6 PUFAs are hard to avoid in the modern world. I've been trying to improve my game there. I just got some Trader Joe's banana chips that are cooked in coconut oil, and are relatively low in sugar. That beats about 99.9% of typical packaged snack foods.

So that's basically my "paleo lite" approach. I try to eat paleo whenever it's not too much of a pain, but it's not a religion.

[niner]

What if paleo diet is slow release toxin like oxygen?
http://www.reddit.co.../comments/mk3ut http://www.reddit.co...nous_air_fixed/

Or prostate cancer
http://healthcorrela...720027837689172

Um, think about how ridiculous this premise is. Paleo is mostly about getting rid of the Franken-food junk that our great grandparents didn't even eat. Omega-6 seed oils? Those oils combined catalytically with hydrogen gas under high pressure? High fructose corn syrup? Animals fed unnatural grains instead of the food they're supposed to eat? We don't even need to ask if this stuff is bad for us. We KNOW it's bad. The typical paleo diet consists of foods that people have been eating for tens of thousands, if not millions of years. It's really defined by what is NOT there, which is all the modern stuff, and some of the semi-modern stuff like gluten grains.