Danny Roddy has been writing a lot about the benefits of sugar (inspired by the work of Ray Peat). He used to follow a paleo diet, but not anymore - he advices the consumption of dairy, sugar (white sugar and orange juice,) shellfish, eggs, meat (emphasis on gelatinous cuts), liver... (he does recommend avoiding grains, soy, legumes, etc.).
In his latest post he questions the "anti-fructose crusade" again. Seems like the only problem he sees is HFCS - refined white sugar not being so much of an issue. He lost 20 lbs. by drinking 64 oz. of orange juice every day.
There was already some discussions about Ray Peat on PaleoHacks (here and here) - and for some his dietary advice might might work and are even compatible with a paleo/primal approach (raw dairy, coconut oil, less muscle meat, more shellfish, etc). But I just can't deal with the cognitive dissonance when Peat states that blood sugar should be high and recommending eating Haagen-Dazs ice-cream every day (for the calcium and sugar, apparently).
Not sure about Roddy's position on starch, but Peat advices against it, favoring sugar instead.
So, what do you think? Sound advice or over-focus on healthy hair?
I'm not really a fan of sarcasm so sentences like I cured my "broken metabolism" with a "Naeolithic agent of disease" don't really convince me :)
On a Jimmy Moore interview, Mat Lalonde makes the point that "chronic overconsumption" of fructose is the problem. The controversy is not that it's good or bad, it's how much you can tolerate. Seems sensible.
It's easy to look at Danny's diet and Ray Peats recs and scoff/laugh because it doesn't fit into our evolutionary model... but the improvements Danny made with his Peat-atarian plan are pretty incredible and not without merit.
Alot of his ideas are based around reducing bacterial/fungal endotoxin via reducing the amount of fermentable fibers/starches and improving the metabolic rate. He looks and feels better doing this than he did previously so he's doing something right.
I personally did a few orange juice and raw goat milk + bone broth days when I was feeling a little under the weather and I gotta say... I felt really good. For me, it's not sustainable but I do now incorporate fresh raw OJ and raw goat milk in my diet, eat more fruit and starch, less muscle meats, more eggs, etc etc.
If your not doing great on Paleo... his ideas are worth looking into. I do fairly well on normal paleo but incorporating just a few of his ideas definitely takes me an extra step forward.
I dig the hell out of Paleo and I think the term can be stretched a few ways... but lets not forget we are not Paleolithic anymore... we dont wake up when the sun rises and go to bed as soon as it sets... we have so many modern stressors and we have evolved since the Paleolithic... you can still follow Danny's ideas and be 'Paleo", he still shuns grains, legumes, soy..
Maybe I'm some kind of a libertarian or something, but I shuddered when I saw the AHS interview with Lustig telling us we NEED to make some LAWS to deal with teh ebil fructose. Sounds a lot like the people who also have plenty of scientific papers and are calling to statins in our water system and taxing saturated fat. I think Lustig is bad news and I hope he's not at AHS next year (but he probably will be considering the Harvard Food Law Society had him as a keynote speaker recently). I have no idea what he has to do with paleo anyway. The paleo approach to fructose (which was pioneered by TS Wiley) has always been more nuanced, focusing on seasonality and moderation.
And maybe because I'm an ex raw vegan and I knew people who were lean literally living off fructose, I'm not inclined to demonize it. And that includes Douglas Graham, who is close to Lustig's age. I don't think he looks amazing, but he's leaner and fitter than Lustig. I try not to judge, but when you have someone saying we need to have laws against fructose, that's pretty much throwing stones from a glass house.
Incidentally, I was eating a lot of honey when I worked with bees two years ago in Sweden. And I mean A LOT. And I was very thin, perhaps too thin. I'm strongly in the camp of real food and don't believe in demonizing isolated nutrients that occur naturally in food.
It's pretty confusing, frankly--it's starting to replicate the weekly "this is bad for you" we heard on SAD except now it's "no, it's not that, that's really ok."
I'm going to let the scientists duke it out and I'll ignore some of the buzz just as I never gave up butter, shrimp, on SAD. I'll continue to avoid HFCS and white sugar and use a small amount of honey. I'll continue to use bone broth as the base for most meat dishes. I'll continue having a piece or 2 of fruit. I'll continue to avoid products with lists of ingredients.
Let me know when this fructose issue is settled!
Eating as much whole fruit as you want is one thing, but huge fructose boluses like that are going to glycate proteins throughout the body. We don't have perfect absorption and transport via the hepatic portal vein to the liver for 100% of fructose ingested, so excess for some will reach the gut and create issues as it is fermented there and for others it will be floating around the general bloodstream, which is the last thing you want. There simply isn't an evolutionary precedent for that much fructose at once every single day.
Honey has a fair amount of unbound fructose, but it simply isn't something we were getting our hands on 24/7/365.
The whole point of "safe starch" consumption is that yams, sweet potatoes, yuca and taro, etc. have very little sugar and, hence, very little fructose. I've calculated my average fructose consumption and it's stayed at about 15-20g per day. That used to be about 20-25% of my carbs when I was doing low carb. Now it's about 10-15% of my carbs when I'm consuming 150g of safe starches.
Do I notice any difference? No. But I do notice some significant difference in my skin tone compared to my SAD diet 3 years ago, when I was probably eating 100+g of fructose daily. My skin is velvety and almost translucent, and those skin folds under your neck that make you look wizened are gone. Perhaps this is due to some other dietary changes and the weight loss that followed, but I think abstaining from sugar may have been one such factor.
But the more you stay away from sugar, the more revolting sugar becomes when you accidentally taste it. It's just so much sweeter than any sugar alcohol or stevia that you can't imagine ingesting it. In fact, the safe starches that I eat, like sweet potatoes, are so sweet that I need something sour afterwards -- like cranberries, which also do not have very much sugar. Do look up yams in caloriecounter and see how much sugar/fructose there is: there isn't much. The absence of sugar makes everything else so much more sweeter.
What it does is make the other tastes fuller, restoring the full taste spectrum to your palette. You begin to appreciate sourness, bitterness, and saltiness. All in much smaller doses. That's called liberation from sugar.
"The dose makes the poison" I have no problems using moderate amounts of sucrose + dairy in the context of a super high fat and protein diet. ( for as long as i can remember btw) Cant say the same about potatoes or rice. Don't know if Ray Peat is 100% right about fructose or drinking gallons of orange juice, but imo some Sugar is fine, as long as you also get your nutrients.
(forgive my english)
Uhm... with the little certainty we can still have on nutrition, one of the strongest points for me "against" carbs was/is always the old plan simple tooth decay. Is it at least a fact that sugar is quite cariogenic, and starch can be a little cariogenic ? (At least when a big % of one's diet. And probably "neolithic starch" or "industrialized starch" even more) You never know, but in the carb vs. fat debate, the Yudkin theory arguing the strangeness of something bad for your teeth (and oral health in general) being the best for your overall health, always seemed the more plausible to me. http://jdr.sagepub.com/content/88/6/490.full
lost 20 lbs. by drinking 64 oz. of orange juice every day The more time passes the more I surrend to the fact that, ok you don't need to be costantly on PSMF, those who aim at some tipe of bodycomposition should "lean" towards higher protein ratio. And while I agree that some glucose isn't that fattening or unhealthy, nor is a little fruit, especially compared to bacon as some lcHF folks think (LOL), 1.8 L of ORANGE JUICE a day? REALLY?!? Plus, given that I'm sure all of us, here, train as much as GSP or Haile Gebrselassie.
I like him, his blog, and copy/take some things from him (ex. carrots are one of the vegetables I eat more often, and I don't eat big amounts of veggies anymore), but always with a "grain" (pun intended) of salt: Danny, imo, still "falls in love" to easily. I mean: 1 year on a Pemmican only diet etc.? C'mon.
I tried the O.J. and gelatin protocol and the results were pretty much as depressing as when I tried eating mostly tubers.
From what I can tell, I can have a dark chocolate bar, a little fruit, etc... but if I try imitating the Kitavins or fool with fruit juice, or most recently dried fruit, bad stuff happens.
Most paleo types are likely playing well under the dose that makes fructose poison, and I think Lustig has admitted that.
I agree that much of Roddy's advice is quite sound--he's advocating a diet that is basically low in toxins (with the controversial exception of fructose) and rich in nutrients from shellfish, organ meats, fruits, dairy, etc. I can get on board with that.
I also appreciate the fact that he presents an opposing perspective to the unwavering carb-phobia promoted by the VLC cult. I like carbs a lot, I eat plenty of them, and I think Danny is right to point out the significant flaws of ZC and VLC dieting.
Two places where he loses me: (1) The claim that orange juice (and sugar in general) is an ideal source of carbohydrate, and (2) the implication in much of his material that carbohydrate intake in excess of 50% of calories (so that carbohydrate exceeds fat) is necessary for good health.
Once liver glycogen is topped off, which would happen lickety-split on a diet high in orange juice, and assuming that muscle glycogen is not significantly depleted, any additional carbohydrate (either glucose or fructose) that is ingested would simply accumulate in the bloodstream and cause damage through glycation until the body could properly dispose of it, as Travis Culp notes above. Sure, the body will upregulate metabolism and thermogenesis as a means of disposing of the excess sugars, but it seems that one of the primary mechanisms underlying this adaptive response is a release of stress hormones like adrenalin, which is precisely what Danny is trying to avoid.
I have personally experimented with replacing my moderate starch intake (probably 40-50% of calories) with large amounts of orange juice and ice cream for a few days. My response is consistent with the idea that eating sugar in excess of the requirement for replenishing liver glycogen promotes the release of stress hormones. My body temperature and pulse do rise, but I feel very agitated, flushed, jittery, irritable, etc. Anxiety and even panic seem more difficult to control. And then I crash later on. A meal with goodly amounts of starch and fat, even sometimes 60-100 grams of carbs from rice and potatoes in a single sitting, does not have this effect.
So I'm down with carbs, but I'm still not down with huge amounts of sugar/fructose, no matter what Ray Peat says. I suspect that many people are like me.
A final word about Danny: follow his advice at your own peril. In a year or two the Ray Peat honeymoon will be over, there'll be a nasty break-up, and he'll find himself a new squeeze. And who knows what he'll say about fructose then?