Carbohydrates don't cause insulin resistance or diabetes

[SaraOG]

I just started listening to his podcast, really interesting stuff! I’m not planning to change my diet too much, but I have decided it’s worth the effort to double down on avoiding vegetable oils!!

[Madeleine]

I mainly don’t believe meat increases cranial size because fish and/or whole nuts/oily seeds were the only foods which improved my cursive handwriting in drastic ways. I also noticed that eating more Omega 3’s to Omega 6’s caused my cursive handwriting to become sloppy as if I should be writing Chinese while eating more Omega 6’s to Omega 3’s made my cursive handwriting impeccable and legible.

This is so interesting! My penmanship is pretty much always a mess but it’s because I’m usually in a rush, so it might be that whatever WOE calms me down a bit will improve my penmanship but otherwise I would have a hard time using that as a measure…

[ellenor2000]

Au contraire , our farmer ancestors, including the Egyptians, did not have the benefit of concentrated PUFAs in seed oils and still got diabetes and other metabolic diseases:

counterpoint: i’m pretty sure they did use the seeds from which those oils came.

From my experience. Refined sugar is highly addictive and it dysregulates the nervous system while organic fruit does neither.

don’t think organic necessarily matters. i’ve found that fruit can, shall we say, subtly increase my appetite.

Diabetes Type I has always been with us (it was first described in classical antiquity), but Type II and the metabolic diseases associated with it (I’m thinking of gout and dental caries, in particular) were always diseases of the rich until modern industrial processes made refined sugar cheap and plentiful.

It wouldn’t make sense that type 2 diabetes “was always [a] disease[] of the rich”. If anything it’d be a disease of all of those who eat like the rich.

What about all those diabetic ancient egyptians… don’t think they drank canola oil by the bucketfull just ate loads of grains…

don’t those grains contain a bunch of these oils we’re rightly or wrongly vilifying here though?

I doubt meat ONLY eaters had tooth brushes and that slimy film would eventually lead to tooth decay and dental disease?

That’s a statement, but you are using a question mark to terminate it. Please stop doing that.

And meat ONLY eaters probably did not live long enough to get tooth decay from that IGF-1 trip hammer which will get you every time?

I doubt that high meat diet people would actually have high IGF1 relative to the general population, so that’s a moot “question” if so reframed.

I drank (good) beer, ate pizza, and ice cream (in that order), which are all low in PUFAs

Pizza is high 6, not low 6.

But then he was never fat (weighs the same now as he did when he was vegetarian).

Wasn’t he like, skinny fat type of fat, where he grew a lot but wasn’t actually any heavier? He did say he had some weight gain…

I mainly don’t believe meat increases cranial size because fish and/or whole nuts/oily seeds were the only foods which improved my cursive handwriting in drastic ways.

you have just contradicted yourself - fish is meat.

This is so interesting! My penmanship is pretty much always a mess but it’s because I’m usually in a rush, so it might be that whatever WOE calms me down a bit will improve my penmanship but otherwise I would have a hard time using that as a measure…

you’ve just given me a new idea (and my right index finger is slit from breaking a plate) - tweak my eating patterns to see if I need to adjust my diet to help make my wronghanded handwriting legible.

[atomicspacebunny]

That’s a statement, but you are using a question mark to terminate it. Please stop doing that.

Always leave it up to the reader to decide for them-selves?

I’m sure you would like to decide for them? So you can hide information “hey come on over here and eat only meat, we are your guru and here have some poison kool-aid?”

I doubt that high meat diet people would actually have high IGF1 relative to the general population, so that’s a moot “question” if so reframed.

IGF-1 is not bad it is when it is constantly dosed or secreted but it also comes from eating too much sugar but eating too much animal protein will do the same just like sugar in addition to many other variables in animal proteins that shorten the life span?? Amount and timing always matters?

[anon81060937]

don’t think organic necessarily matters. i’ve found that fruit can, shall we say, subtly increase my appetite.

Pesticides break down the nervous system.
-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demyelinating_disease

you have just contradicted yourself - fish is meat.

Not from a nutritional and digestive perspective. Fish is higher in Omega 3’s and it doesn’t digest like meat.

Why do we call fish fish and meat meat if they’re all the same? Is there another name for land animal meat?

[PaulL]

It wouldn’t make sense that type 2 diabetes “was always [a] disease[] of the rich”. If anything it’d be a disease of all of those who eat like the rich.

That was actually my point. Refining sugar used to be an expensive, labour-intensive process until the 19th century, when modern industrial methods were brought to bear, bringing the cost of refined sugar within the reach of all segments of society. The consequence was that diseases, such as gout, which appeared principally in the wealthy now appear in all segments of the population.

[OldDoug]

That was actually my point. Refining sugar used to be an expensive, labour-intensive process until the 19th century, when modern industrial methods were brought to bear, bringing the cost of refined sugar within the reach of all segments of society. The consequence was that diseases, such as gout, which appeared principally in the wealthy now appear in all segments of the population.

“White Gold.”

[PaulL]

Is there another name for land animal meat?

I’ve seen the term “flesh meat” used to distinguish land animal meat from fish. This was in the context of the old Christian injunction to eat fish instead of “flesh meat” on Fridays.

Interestingly (I’m just riffing now, so you may wish to stop reading), that injunction now appears to have been motivated more by a desire to stimulate the fishing industry than by spiritual considerations. Although it is often hard to disentangle the reasoning behind religious practices. Unfortunately, there is a tendency to lose the original reasons for doing things a certain way, as the practice in question becomes ingrained habit. (Mediaeval Christian theologians also loved to come up with “spiritual” rationales for practically motivated rituals, which doesn’t help matters.)

Regardless of what considerations may have actually motivated the ancient Jewish injunction against eating pork, it also makes sense in light of the risk of trichinosis, so I wouldn’t be surprised if it could be shown that was a factor in the thinking. In my younger days, I just assumed that the prohibition against allowing the U.S. flag ever to become wet was a matter of profound respect, whereas it turns out that the reason was merely that wet natural fibres tend to rot. The prohibition was removed from the U.S. Flag Code after flags made of synthetic fibres became widely available.

[MarkGossage]

don’t those grains contain a bunch of these oils we’re rightly or wrongly vilifying here though

Not a bunch no… the grains need a lot of processing to get the oil out so eating bread (and honey probably), which is allegedly what the egyptians did, wouldn’t give you so many PUFA’s as cooking in factory refined oil.

[anon81060937]

That was actually my point. Refining sugar used to be an expensive, labour-intensive process until the 19th century, when modern industrial methods were brought to bear, bringing the cost of refined sugar within the reach of all segments of society. The consequence was that diseases, such as gout, which appeared principally in the wealthy now appear in all segments of the population.

The bigger question is why did refine sugar come to be in the first place? Why are fruits made sweeter and sweeter?

[MarkGossage]

I think you have answered your own question… because humans like sweet over sour for the most part.

[PaulL]

And not only that, the fructose in table sugar (i.e., sucrose, which is half glucose and half fructose) has an effect on the nucleus accumbens, the brain’s reward centre, that is similar to the effect of ethanol and other addictive drugs.

(Perhaps fructose and sucrose ought to be on the list of controlled substances?)

[pamplemousse]

It is difficult to know for sure, but Dr. Saladino’s hypothesis is plausible.

Using his logic, I wonder if plant toxins (which are his main reason that he eats an exclusively carnivorous diet) exacerbate issues, not cause them (in the same way that sugar exacerbates metabolic disorders, not causes them)…?

[Madeleine]

Yes, that makes sense. Honestly, I think refined sugar is so different from what our body expects that it’s probably in a different category from high-carb whole foods (even fruits). To me it makes sense that we might have serious damage from processed oils and then have trouble handling starchy roots, squash and some fruits - but that sugar’s a disaster no matter what. We’ll handle concentrated sugar better if we’re very active (and using it as fuel) and not metabolically damaged to begin with, but it’s not ever going to do us any good.

In any case, yes to your post (at least from my understanding), and the plant toxins might be a particularly serious issue for folks with compromised gut lining.

[PaulL]

Dr. Lustig’s position is that the industrial processing of foods does a number of deleterious things. First, the fibre in foods is destroyed, and in sugary foods, this allows the fructose part of the sugar to hit the liver all at once, instead of slowly enough for the liver to handle it without problems. One glass of apple juice or orange juice contains more sugar than you could possibly eat in the form of apples or oranges. And the fibre in the whole fruit goes a long way toward protecting the liver.

Second, the fructose moiety of sucrose (table sugar) can be metabolised only in the liver, where it is managed by the same pathway that manages ethyl alcohol. Fructose in quantity therefore causes the same types of liver damage as ethanol in quantity. (It’s also relevant that fructose and ethanol have a similar addictive effect on the nucleus accumbens in the brain.) The fatty liver disease that results is directly part of the metabolic damage that sugar does.

Third, while fructose acts like a metabolic poison, glucose is not benign, either, when eaten in quantity. Hyperglycaemia is dangerous, which is why the pancreas works so hard to produce enough insulin to get glucose out of the blood and prevent it from doing harm. But the damage to the mitochondria in the muscle cells and adipocytes from advanced glycation end-products and reactive oxygen species is another type of direct metabolic damage, quite apart from the damage done indirectly by chronically elevated insulin levels.

[amwassil]

Rat study, so the usual caveats apply. I think, however, that considering ethanol/fructose as a 4th macro might make lots of sense.

Combination of Alcohol and Fructose Exacerbates Metabolic Imbalance in Terms...

[anon81060937]

I think you have answered your own question… because humans like sweet over sour for the most part.

And why do they like sweet over sour?

[PaulL]

If we’re going to eat a lot of stuff in order to put on weight for the winter, it should taste great, so we’ll keep eating it, that’s why.

Interestingly, children, who are metabolic furnaces, have a much greater tolerance for sweetness than adults do. I remember when my taste changed as I moved into adulthood. I started to enjoy pickles and vinaigrette and all that good stuff (though pickled beets are a no-no, even to this day, yuck!). And these days, after a few years of very low carb and mostly sugar-free eating, snacks I used to enjoy are far too sweet to be tasty. Of course, our taste adjusts, and I’m sure I could easily return to enjoying glazed doughnuts and Napoleons. But I like the fact that I can now eat and enjoy unsweetened chocolate, which, even as recently as three years ago, used to be too bitter to swallow.

[ellenor2000]

I’ve seen the term “flesh meat” used to distinguish land animal meat from fish. This was in the context of the old Christian injunction to eat fish instead of “flesh meat” on Fridays.

Which makes no sense, because fish flesh is still flesh

Regardless of what considerations may have actually motivated the ancient Jewish injunction against eating pork

That injunction is actually Muslim. The Jewish injunction is against all animals which do not have both cloven hooves and the property of rumination, and especially against animals which have only one of those properties (such as swine). Muslims only have an injunction against pork, which is waived in case of desperate need.

An observant Jew, Samaritan or Torah-submissive Christian who was doing a keto diet wouldn’t have been able to survive in inland pre-colonisation Australia and still be a fully observant $RELIGION, since all Australian land animals then were nonkosher. Muslims have no such bad luck.

[PaulL]

Which makes no sense, because fish flesh is still flesh

It’s liturgical language, and what is called a “term of art.” The authorities had to use some descriptor, and that’s what they settled on. The English term is a translation from the Latin, anyway, and the meanings fall very differently, sometimes, in the latter language. It sometimes poses a nice challenge for translators.

That injunction is actually Muslim. The Jewish injunction is against all animals which do not have both cloven hooves and the property of rumination

Which pretty much describes pigs. The only meat I eat that my Jewish friends don’t eat is pork, and they all describe the prohibition as being against pork (no doubt partly because none of us eat rabbits or hares, and partly because they are not being theologically rigourous, since none of them are Talmudic scholars). In any case, the real logic behind the prohibition seems to be that pigs are scavengers. (Hebrew theology of that period was very uncomfortable with things that crossed boundaries.) In the days before anyone knew how to check thoroughly for trichinosis, it was not a bad idea. The types of seafood that are treyf all tend to be scavengers, too, so far as I understand.

Fortunately for me, who love bacon and lobster, the Christian community gave up on the kashrut laws pretty early on, almost before the destruction of the Temple. But don’t get me started; my fundamentalist cousins and I have some serious disagreements about which injunctions in Leviticus must still be obeyed.