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.

(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?

Sometimes I like to cover my sweet potato in butter and honey and then put cinnamon and nutmeg on it and then put some roast chicken on the side because I would like to think that my paleolithic ancestors would be as interested in delicious food combinations as I am. I also eat with a fork because I like to stay classy.

Adding on to that, I honestly can't stand when people bash other ways of eating. I see this coming from both sides. It isn't everyone but it's definitely there. I'm happy that it works for you, and you're free to express your opinion but why do you feel the need to bash another way of doing things?

I was just thinking of how PUFA's may be the real evil in our diet, and not so much the carbs such as fructose or even grains. I like how as I soon as I asked a related question, several questions pop up about whether sugar/grains are really that bad for you. Paleohackers think alike.

That's an interesting study about HFCS having more calories than commonly thought. Aside from that, he just seems like a guy that likes orange juice and is otherwise healthy.

My guess is he has some great advice if you make it your own.

I get the impression he resolved his hairloss primarily through fixing his digestive problems (something that brought many people to figuring out what is best for them to eat) and ensuring he gets the right nutrients at the same time.

Because of this, really, his advice comes from trying to make sure plenty of certain nutrients are in his diet, but from substances that aren't causing him any problems. This however doesn't mean that the same food will serve you personally as well; you may be better suited to finding these nutrients elsewhere.

The principle of first resolving digestion (remembering that digestive stress promotes hairloss) and then making sure you get pro-hair nutrients without creating digestive stress seems to me to be the key to his success and the best thing to take away from his work (in addition to this understand the nutrients required and things to avoid in order to promote hair growth).

For instance: he recommends eating a lot of dairy, and no vegetables. Now, maybe I'm mad, but this wouldn't suit me... I tolerate dairy fine, but a lot of it definitely increases mucus in me and I don't feel as good. I eat cheese, and drink milk, but in moderation.

Lots of green salad leaves are my staple, and have massively improved my heath. If I don't get them in, I decline. He apparently doesn't need them.

Seafood, orange juice, carrots, organ meats... all seem like very sound advice to me, and another thing to note is that he eats simple meals: a glass of orange juice, cup of coffee and a bowl or cottage cheese... mono eating, or close to it, is probably very good for one's digestion.

Follow the money...

Robert Lustig is the propagator of fructose=poison. Lustig worked at the rockefeller biochem lab and has the equivalent of a post-grad education. Lustig wants to tax sugar because of the devil fructose.

Classic debt slave control of the masses.

Danny makes many claims, esp. Re: hair loss, which is of interest to me, but I have yet to see good studies to back up his claims...

Who would you rather look like peat- or lustig-

I don't think fruit is bad at all and that moderate consumption of fruit in healthy, active people will not stall fat loss. I think fructose is bad because we eat calorically dense items (candy, ice cream, soda, juice, etc) and then push ourselves into a caloric surpluss, where excess fructose will lead to unhealthy weight gain. If you are eating maintenance or below, I think the inclusion of fresh fruits is a good thing.