Ok, I haven't heard of this guy before, though from what I see, he did paleo for a while and then decided it wasn't working. The interesting thing about the article is the claims that low blood sugar/fat metabolism is stressful to the body, causes aging and inhibits the thyroid. He references Ray Peat and Chris Masterjohn.
So generally seems kinda counter to paleo (aside from him blatantly stating so), but it seems to be working for him. As people are often quick to point out when disproving the lipid hypothesis, counterexamples need to be explainable or you have to rethink your current model. So how are his results explainable under paleo and/or how is paleo incomplete?
I list several mechanisms in that article, but don't feel compelled to address any of them.
I didn't ditch a high-starch paleo because I was having a "hard time," I actually felt quite well compared to my experience with ZC/pemmican/vegetarianism/veganism/LC paleo.
I ditched it because Peat's ideas are more dialed in and explain gigantic holes in paleosphere's never-ending-go-no-where-war-with-stress.
I have "coached" with several dozen people since December, mostly males, and I had them all get extensive Peat-oriented lab work.
Not only is Peat spot on about there issues corresponding with different hormones, but his approach is based on actual physiology and not some wild guess on what made our ancestors or an isolated group of people healthy.
I have a strong feeling that most people are not sure what Peat is suggesting and are extremely confused on why he's suggesting it.
One such example is Travis, who is quick to outright make fun of me for how I make a living, but in a thread a few days ago was asking Cliff to clear up what people who follow Peat actually eat.
There is a natural spectrum from insulin resistance to insulin sensitivity, and each of us are at one extreme or somewhere in between.
The people writers like Taubes are writing to are the more insulin resistant. This group has problems even walking past a cookie!
People who are insulin sensitive can live off bottled cokes and wonder what the fuss is all about, until they get older and feel the damage.
He lived on pemmican only. He developed vitamin deficiencies. Now he feasts on sugar. I think he went from one extreme to another while the healthy spot lies somewhere inbetween.
His hair protocol is about hormonal control. Hormones are the key to how much sugar is ok. Unfortunately, he mentions nowhere that high carb intake can also mess up hormones, as any diabetic can attest to. Chronically high blood sugar can do a lot of damage and it's known that high carb intake can lead to reactive hypoglycemia, the "thin man's diabetes".
There's nothing magical about sugar. It's all about blood sugar levels. Oral glucose tolerance tests show that for many, the sweet spot lies around 70g glucose/d. Since starch is just slowly absorbed glucose, what you get from sugar and fruit is just a sharper blood sugar spike. How well can you stash it away? Seeing as blood sugar can tell us where we stand, I wouldn't go higher than 70g carbs from all sources without testing my own glucose tolerance.
I'm interested in this question as well. My body seems to handle moderate (<100g/day) amounts of sugar without incident. My trigs were low to very low even on bad SAD, so I have no reason to think they are elevated, and that amount of sugar does not prompt the inflammation I find with O6 polys. It also doesn't trigger cravings in me. I'm young-ish, have been primal for years, am more active than average and have a higher muscle mass than average. I consistently do heavy progressive barbell training. I initially had success with VLC, then hit a wall ~1 yr later. Added back in starches with excellent results. After adding in starches, I noticed when I did consume sugar, it had no effect.
Is it possible that some people may be able to handle such an amount of sugar without damage? It initially appears to be the case for me.
i dont get why people need reason for the extremes....if your vlc and having problems, this does not mean vlc doesnt work, or that you are going to die, just MAYBE you should eat a damned piece of fruit, not go figure out how to juice gallons of orange juice with jello jigglers, whizzed up egg shells sprinkled on 3 bottles of skim milk and oysters. taking insulin to either extreme will prolly make you resistant
instead of looking to justify drinking oj all day why dont you just add some fruit and see what happens
At the risk of passing judgment on something I really haven't read or know anything about at all, I have to say I suspect this is pure contrarianism. Across the board, people interested in nutrition are beginning to realize that sugar, in the amount it is present in contemporary American food, is something approaching toxic. This guy sees a niche in championing the opposite view.
If you can handle a certain amount of sugar, then fine, but it certainly doesn't have much use beyond adding a little pleasure to the gustatory experience.
I think if one is not metabolically derranged, then it could work well. Variation/balance, I believe, are key. You don't want to overwork the pancreas, or liver, but you also don't want to under utilize the thyroid, other organs, etc.
Paleo and allergies? 7 Answers
Calling All Ray Peat Fans! 4 Answers