Article I read From Ron Rosedale from 1999

[kmbrunty]

I read this article by
Ron Rosedale, M.D.
Insulin and It's Metabolic Effect
Presented at Designs for Health Institute's BoulderFest August 1999 Seminar

I have to say that this article opened my eyes wider then ever before and helped me to understand diabetes and other diseases more then any thing I have read in the past. It has me wanting to read and research more on eating 50% of my calories from fat.

I would be interested in hearing from those of you that have been eating the way he descried in this article. I liked to hear how your health changed. :wave:

I am new to this group and I will post a hello later..... Thanks all

[WereBear]

50% of calories from fat? I have happily gone beyond that. On a good day, I do 70%.

I find my body actually craving good fats; coconut oil, fatty meat cuts like chuck steak, hemp oil, butter. Whatever I'm eating, I add extra FAT.

It's funny; I horrify my office mates with my food choices, yet they saw me lose 70 pounds... and have seen me keep it off for years.

[M Levac]

Direct link to pdf presentation: http://www.gregdavis.ca/share/Required%20Reading/Insulin%20and%20Its%20Metabolic%20Effects%20by%20Ron%20Rosedale.pdf

So you want to hear personal stories. Well, I cut out all carbs, ate only fat meat, returned to good health, and went right down to 165 lbs, painlessly and effortlessly. Then I got sick, and the all-meat diet stopped working. So, if diet is all there is, it's gonna work real good. If there's more to it than diet, then diet might not work too well, if at all.

[teaser]

So far so good. In my 30s, I had various issues with back pain, frozen neck/shoulder, that went away. Also high blood pressure normalized. Went from slightly obese to slightly overweight easily. (That's by bmi, but I feel so much better ten pounds down that I think 170 was a bit overweight for me).

Blood sugar's perfect, but I never checked before low carb, so have no idea if that's an improvement.

[rightnow]

stuff like this is just excellent:

It was only in the 70's that they found out that vitamin C was needed by white blood cells so that they could phagocytize bacteria and viruses. White blood cells require a fifty times higher concentration at least inside the cell as outside so they have to accumulate vitamin C. There is something called a phagocytic index which tells you how rapidly a particular macrophage or lymphocyte can gobble up a virus, bacteria, or cancer cell. ... But if we know that vitamin C and glucose have similar chemical structure, what happens when the sugar levels go up? They compete for one another upon entering the cells. And the thing that mediates the entry of vitamin C into the cells is the same thing that mediates the entry of glucose into the cells. If there is more glucose around there is going to be less vitamin C allowed into the cell and it doesn't take much. A blood sugar value of 120 reduces the phagocytic index seventy-five percent.

PJ

[rightnow]

Another summary that is awesome from it:

A lesser known fact is that insulin also stores magnesium. ... But what happens if your cells become resistant to insulin? First of all you can't store magnesium so you lose it, that's one effect, you lose it out the urine. What is one of magnesium's major roles? To relax muscles. Intracellular magnesium relaxes muscles. What happens when you can't store magnesium because the cell is resistant? You lose magnesium and your blood vessels constrict, what does that do? Increases blood pressure, and reduces energy since intracellular magnesium is required for all energy producing reactions that take place in the cell. But most importantly, magnesium is also necessary for the action of insulin. It is also necessary for the manufacture of insulin. So then you raise your insulin, you lose magnesium, and the cells become even more insulin resistant. Blood vessels constrict, glucose and insulin can't get to the tissues, which makes them more insulin resistant, so the insulin levels go up and you lose more magnesium.

PJ

[rightnow]

Wow! So... how do you check insulin, instead of blood glucose??

...insulin resistance. What happens is that if your cells are exposed to insulin at all they get a little bit more resistant to it. So the pancreas just puts out more insulin. I saw a patient today, her blood sugar was 102 and her insulin was 90! ... I've seen other patients where their blood sugar was under 100 and their fasting insulin has been over 90. That is a fasting insulin. I'm not sure how many people are familiar with seeing fasting insulins. But if I drank all the glucose I could possibly drink my insulin would never go above probably 40. So she was extremely insulin resistant. What was happening was she was controlling her blood sugar. Statistically she was not diabetic. She is not even impaired glucose tolerant. Her glucose is totally normal supposedly. But her cells aren't listening to insulin, she just has an exceptionally strong pancreas. Her islet cells that produce insulin are extremely strong and are able to compensate for that insulin resistance by producing thirty times more insulin than what my fasting insulin is. And just by mass action her pancreas is yelling so loud that her cells are able to listen, but they are not going to listen forever. Her pancreas is not going to be able keep up that production forever. Well the usual treatment once she becomes diabetic, which would be inevitable, once her production of insulin starts slowing down or her resistance goes up any more, than her blood sugar goes up and she becomes a diabetic. For many years, decades before that her insulin levels have been elevated. They have been elevated for thirty years probably and have never been checked.

PJ

[Matt51]

I don't agree with Dr Rosedale regarding his intense focus on insulin, or sugar, being the root of all evil. There is far more complexity involved.
I have eaten a very high fat diet the last five years.
Nearly 62 years old, fasting total cholesterol is 132, blood pressure is 120/80. After 3 years, I was eating a nearly all meat diet, was too low in calories, and it failed.
Making many changes, I now eat a stick of butter every day, and eat more fat on top of that. Butter, bacon and coconut oil are the true health foods. Saturated fat is your friend. Having said that, adequate protein (you will get sick if you only eat 40 grams of protein a day), and fruits and vegetables, are a plus, within a total carb limit. Which is what Dr Atkins recommended.
I am eating more calories all the time, while my weight is stable. Counting calories is one way to track metabolism - the goal is to eat more for any given weight. The typical death spiral in many diets is eating fewer calories, then the metabolism slows, so the person then eats fewer calories, and the metabolism slows some more. They are making themselves sick and hypothyroid.
For someone wanting to try a low carb diet, try Dr Atkins, with his carb ladder, as a good starting point. The idea is to follow the plan exactly and see how it works. If it works great, if it does not, modify the plan. Tell your doctor, and have him monitor your progress.
And don't eat only 1200 calories a day, and expect to stay healthy in the long run.

[rightnow]

This may not be of general interest, and I'm putting it here only because it was sparked by reading a section of the article featured in the thread.


This paragraph got my attention:

That is the best alternative; the worst alternative is when those proteins get glycated that can't turn over
very rapidly, like collagen, or like a protein that makes up nerve tissue. These proteins cannot be gotten
rid of, so the protein accumulates, and the A.G.E.'s accumulate and they continue to damage.

Fat cells, depending on who you listen to, can live for literally years, like some of the longest term cells in the body. I've heard this argued all the way down to four months but then I've seen references in studies where after a year only some very tiny percentage of fat cells had been replaced by expected-version-X, which suggests to me that these cells do NOT replace themselves quickly -- at least, some of them.

As many know, Lipedema is what I'm always looking for clues to, and anything that could
a) affect fat cells generally
b) affect fat cells to artificially extend their life or their aggregate of material
c) affect the environment of fat cells to increase inflammatory factors
d) affect the membrane of fat cells for any of the above
is of interest to me.

So I thought, what would happen if sugar glycated with our fat cells or their membranes more than other things, for some reason we aren't clear on yet (but would happen moreso with some people than others and moreso with women than men)? Is it possible?

Just wandering down any road of possibility, as usual.

So with a quick google, here's a brief collection on AGE as related to fat cells and some degree of inflammation.

AGEs form when proteins or lipids interact with aldose sugars for an extended period of time, subsequently undergoing molecular transformations that glycate the protein or lipid, thereby imparting distinct and likely maladaptive signatures in the vessel wall. In hyperglycemic environments and in natural aging, AGEs alter cell structure and function.

AGEs accumulate in the vessel wall, where they may perturb cell structure and function. ... AGEs may modify the extracellular matrix (ECM); modify the action of hormones, cytokines, and free radicals via engagement of cell surface receptors; and impact the function of intracellular proteins.

Once AGEs are formed, they are nearly irreversible. ...

General mechanisms through which AGEs contribute to diabetic complications include the following: (1) formation of cross-links between key molecules in the basement membrane of the ECM, permanently altering cellular structure; and (2) interaction of AGEs with RAGE on cell surfaces, altering cellular function (the Figure). figure: http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/114/6/597/F1.large.jpg

In addition to the formation of AGEs on proteins, AGEs can also form on lipids, as evidenced by the increased lipid-linked AGEs in LDL samples from persons with and without diabetes.

AGEs also form on intracellular proteins. ... The rate of AGE formation on intracellular proteins is slowest in the presence of glucose and more rapid with intracellular natural sugars, like fructose, glyceraldehyde-3-phopshate, and glucose-6-phosphate. Ten times more fructose-derived AGEs form after 5 days than glucose-derived AGEs in vivo.

Pyridoxamine, the natural form of vitamin B6, is effective at inhibiting AGEs at 3 different levels. Pyridoxamine prevents the degradation of protein-Amadori intermediates to protein-AGE products. In diabetic rats, pyridoxamine reduces hyperlipidemia and prevents AGE formation. Pyridoxamine scavenges the carbonyl byproducts of glucose and lipid degradation. Zucker rats treated with pyridoxamine have reduced plasma levels of glyoxal, methylglyoxal, and AGEs in collagen. Benfotiamine, a lipid-soluble thiamine derivative, inhibits the AGE formation pathway. In endothelial cells, water-soluble thiamine is similar to benfotiamine in inhibiting AGE formation in high-glucose environments.

Excretion of AGEs absorbed through the diet is suppressed in diabetic nephropathy patients compared with healthy controls.

AGEs can be absorbed through the diet. Foods high in protein and fat, such as meat, cheese, and egg yolk, are rich in AGEs. Foods high in carbohydrates have the lowest amount of AGEs. In addition, increased cooking temperatures, like broiling and frying, and increased cooking times lead to increased amounts of AGEs. A diet heavy in AGEs results in proportional elevations in serum AGE levels and increased AGE cross-linking in patients with diabetes. Conversely, dietary AGE restriction causes a 30% to 40% decrease of serum AGE levels in healthy subjects.

another article talking about AGE's:

Carnosine is a unique small protein, called a dipeptide, which can interfere with the glycation process. It probably protects against glycation in two ways. First, it may, in a sense, “sacrifice itself.” Instead of sugar reacting to critical cell proteins, it will attack supplemented carnosine instead. I like to call it the glycation martyr. Secondly, carnosine seems to have an ability to help “unfold” (return to normal) the structure of glycated proteins. In a laboratory study, researchers showed that glycated alpha-crystallin (a protein) unfolded and returned to normal structure after carnosine was added.

Another way to prevent glycation is to make sure sugar undergoes normal metabolism — meaning it’s used properly for energy or safely stored away for later use. This is where benfotiamine comes into play — a fat soluble form of vitamin B1. It can help ensure sugar is correctly metabolized. Benfotiamine is a co-factor for the enzyme transketolase — which is critical to blood sugar metabolism. In a landmark study, it boosted healthy transketolase activity in cell cultures. The result was activated glucose metabolism, resulting in healthy blood sugar levels and less sugar available for glycation reactions.

Sub-forms of vitamin B6, like pyridoxamine and pyridoxal-5’-phosphate, have been shown to protect critical cellular fats and proteins against glycation reactions. They probably work similar to benfotiamine by helping our cells manage sugar better and stopping glycation early on, before too much damage occurs. In any case, research has clearly shown that supplementing with them can minimize glycation reactions. A team of biochemists at the University of South Carolina, for instance, were able to show that these sub-forms of B6 trap reactive metabolites formed during the initiation of glycation. They then chaperone them harmlessly into the urine before too much damage occurs.

A comment: It is also well known that the common inexpensive athletic supplement Beta Alanine can elevate carnosine in human subjects. Carnosine is a dipeptide synthesised in the human body from Histidine & Beta alanine. Histidine is generally in plentiful supply (from diet) hence it’s the Beta alanine that is rate limiting factor. There seems some mention in literature that carnosine is broken down into its 2 constituents during digestion anyway, then reassembled. There is some mention that carnosine can in trace be absorbed intact. There is some mention that supplementing beta alanine alone does not confer benefit. My question is. Is there a definitive answer yet available on the above?

A comment: Good question! Orally ingested carnosine can be broken down into beta-alanine and L-histidine in the liver. It can also be absorbed whole into the bloodstream and be transported to different body tissues.

Another article I found interesting:

Kim wanted to see whether glycated proteins affect the speed at which precursor, or immature, fat cells turn into mature fat cells. Using a cell culture, Kim saw no change in how quickly those immature cells accumulated lipids, which is stored as fat in cells, but he did notice something else.

"Older animals don't generally accumulate new fat cells. Those precursor cells lose their ability to become mature as we age," Kim said. "But when exposed to glycated proteins, immature fat cells started to differentiate and accumulate lipids like they would in a younger animal.

"When we continuously consume glycated proteins we might turn on the ability of precursor cells to mature," said Kim, whose findings were published in the Journal of Biological Chemistry.

Kim found that the byproducts of glycated proteins - advanced glycation end products, or AGEs - interfere with cellular processes that should kill immature fat cells in older animals. That means those animals, or people, may accumulate more fat cells than they should, and those cells store compounds that can lead to inflammation and certain types of diseases.

AGEs interact with a protein called p53, which usually begins cell death and aging programs for immature fat cells. With p53 disrupted, the immature fat cells survive and can accumulate lipids.

Couple of points from another article:

1) AGEs are formed on fats also. Cell walls of animals and plants are made of fat. For those of you who remember some high school biology, the cell wall is called the lipid bilayer. Not much can pass through the lipid bilayer. Substances outside of the cell which need to get into the cell, like nutrients, move through little channels. Those channels are made of protein. AGEs can form on these proteins.

2) The nucleus of the cell is made of DNA. One wouldn’t think of DNA as a hotbed of AGE formation, but it is. To keep things organized, the DNA is wrapped around big clumps of protein. The same way you might wrap twine around a piece of cardboard in order to keep the string from tangling, the nucleus wraps DNA around balls of protein Thus, AGEs can be formed on or in any living cell...

PJ

[rightnow]

Nearly 62 years old, fasting total cholesterol is 132, blood pressure is 120/80. After 3 years, I was eating a nearly all meat diet, was too low in calories, and it failed.
Making many changes, I now eat a stick of butter every day, and eat more fat on top of that. Butter, bacon and coconut oil are the true health foods. Saturated fat is your friend. Having said that, adequate protein (you will get sick if you only eat 40 grams of protein a day), and fruits and vegetables, are a plus, within a total carb limit. Which is what Dr Atkins recommended.
I am eating more calories all the time, while my weight is stable. Counting calories is one way to track metabolism - the goal is to eat more for any given weight. The typical death spiral in many diets is eating fewer calories, then the metabolism slows, so the person then eats fewer calories, and the metabolism slows some more. They are making themselves sick and hypothyroid.
Thanks, I find this very interesting.

Were you able to eat more calories by adding the butter? How do you ingest it? Did you increase your calories all at once? This is the hardest thing for me is getting enough calories and getting enough protein which usually means eating vastly more than I feel like eating and/or than I have the physical energy to plan/shop/store/prep/cook/clean/eat. But I do notice that when I keep calories up, I feel better; when I can keep protein up, I feel better; and I was feeling pretty awesome on VLC, despite it being lowcal, until I suddenly felt horrible on it and my liver didn't seem to want to make enough ketones for my survival anymore. But I'm not a big veggie/fruit fan (esp veg) and don't eat gluten which means eating "some" carbs throughout the day (the only way I have any energy at all) is not easy to understate it. So I either end up temporarily not eating at all, or eating but it's VLC again, or eating but it's highcarb, all three of which seem to suck for me. Consistency is the hardest thing. So any advice to this end, since you seem to have accomplished that thing in the middle!, would be great.

PJ

[rightnow]

GAH! I want this list!!

Somebody emailed me who had decided to do a little research. And there are fifty-some essential nutrients to the human body. You know you need to breathe oxygen. It gives us life and it kills us. Same with glucose. Certain tissues require some glucose. We wouldn't be here if there were no glucose, it gives us life and it kills us. We know that we have essential amino acids and we have essential fatty acids. They are essential for life, we better take them in as building blocks or we die. So what he did is he took all the essential nutrients that are known to man and plugged it in to this computer data bank and he asked the computer what are the top ten foods that contain each nutrient that is required by the human body. Each of the fifty-three or fifty-four, depending on who you talk to, essential nutrients that there are were plugged in, and did you know that grains did not come up in the top ten on any one.

PJ

[rightnow]

I didn't expect this article to get into the following topic, but this is what I have been reading a lot about for awhile, as I believe that some issues, possibly lipedema, may be "in great part" (not fully) caused by or contributed to by, the replacement of "phospholipids" (primary cell membrane and nerve sheath material) with bad particularly trans fats (which messes up what nutrients can get in a cell, what waste goes out of a cell, what inflammatory mess the cellular environment they're floating is in, and whether the cell wall can be broken down by lipase at a reasonable time vs. live as long as the twinkie-fats that you ingested which were used as a building block to create that cell membrane).

We think of circulation as that which flows through arteries and veins, and that is not a minor part of our circulation, but it might not even be the major part. The major part of circulation is what goes in and out of the cell. The cell membrane is a fluid mosaic. The major part of our circulation is determined by what goes in and out. It doesn't make any difference what gets to that cell if it can't get into the cell. We know that one of the major ways that you can affect cellular circulation is by modulating the kinds of fatty acids that you eat. So you can increase receptor sensitivity by increasing the fluidity of the cell membrane, which means increasing the omega 3 content, because most people are very deficient. They say that you are what you eat and that mostly pertains to fat because the fatty acids that you eat are the ones that will generally get incorporated into the cell membrane.
Unless you live on a boat in Alaska it's unlikely you can get nearly enough Omega 3's for most of your cell membranes. Phospholipids however you can get and ingest lots of in the form of supplements such as sunflower lecithin. (Note: do not do this if you have massive vein cloggage, without first doing six months of lysine-proline-ascorbic supplements first.)

PJ

[Matt51]

Thanks, I find this very interesting.

Were you able to eat more calories by adding the butter? How do you ingest it? Did you increase your calories all at once? This is the hardest thing for me is getting enough calories and getting enough protein which usually means eating vastly more than I feel like eating and/or than I have the physical energy to plan/shop/store/prep/cook/clean/eat. But I do notice that when I keep calories up, I feel better; when I can keep protein up, I feel better; and I was feeling pretty awesome on VLC, despite it being lowcal, until I suddenly felt horrible on it and my liver didn't seem to want to make enough ketones for my survival anymore. But I'm not a big veggie/fruit fan (esp veg) and don't eat gluten which means eating "some" carbs throughout the day (the only way I have any energy at all) is not easy to understate it. So I either end up temporarily not eating at all, or eating but it's VLC again, or eating but it's highcarb, all three of which seem to suck for me. Consistency is the hardest thing. So any advice to this end, since you seem to have accomplished that thing in the middle!, would be great.

PJ

PJ,

I eat half a Glutino muffin in the morning, and half in the evening. I put a half stick of butter on the gluten free muffin. I also eat gluten free. I eat beef once or twice a day, a half pound total daily maximum. I drink a cup of whole milk morning and evening, so two cups a day, with the muffin. I shoot for a minimum 25 grams protein at each of three meals, which often comes from cheese or cottage cheese.

Typical Breakfast:
Half a muffin, half stick of butter, two fried eggs, cottage cheese and pineapple, a cup of whole milk, low sodium (for higher potassium) V8 juice.

Typical lunch:
A substantial serving of hard cheese, boiled egg, and a small candy bar or orange juice.

Typical evening meal:
Steak or ground beef, muffin with butter, cup of whole milk, and sometimes a bowl of ice cream, along with a vegetable.

I substituted a lot of dairy for beef and pork. I added the butter for feeling full, and a good source of vitamin A. I added the butter all at once, I did not build up gradually. I will try to gradually eat more all the time. I am never hungry. Here is an interesting link to someone who boosted his calorie intake to 6000 calories a day to lose weight:
http://www.billycraig.co.uk/1/post/2012/09/the-no-diet-diet-eating-yourself-slim-healthy.html

[teaser]

Colour me skeptical. Not of individual results, but I think we're deep into your results may vary territory here. (Of course, that's where we spend most of our time).

[WereBear]

Colour me skeptical. Not of individual results, but I think we're deep into your results may vary territory here. (Of course, that's where we spend most of our time).

:lol: True!

I've been eating more fat since getting back into IF (one big lunch leads to a second big lunch) and I'm astounded at how well I do with lots of fat. I'm simply not hungry!

This cuts down on my calories all by itself, I'm sure. I got some gluten-free, low-carb muffin mixes (almond flour) recently, to help my husband switch over.

A half stick of butter would probably make that a meal!

[Matt51]

Reading on the Minnesota Starvation Experiment:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Starvation_Experiment
The semi-starvation level for 24 weeks was 1540 calories a day.

The treatment for anorexia nervosa is
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anorexia_nervosa

"Patients must be fed adequate calories at a measured pace for improvement of their condition to occur. The best level for calorie intake is to start by providing 1200 to 1500 calories daily and increasing this amount by 500 each day. This process should continue until the level of 4000 calories (for male patients) or 3500 calories (for female patients) This system should also decrease effects such as apathy, lethargy, and food-related obsessions.[208]"

We are each an experiment of one. Certain foods have made me very obese. The amount of butter I consume does not, in the context of my current way of eating. I can verify my weight over time (pictures, weight at the doctor). I will get another copy of my latest blood work from my doctor, and post a pdf; or mail to a moderator if this is preferable. Will be later this week.

Note, Dr Kwasniewski recommends dairy fat to boost total fat calories. In his book, Optimal Nutrition, lets look at his calorie levels for the meals in the back of his book.
Day 1 - 2845 calories
Day 2 - 2917 calories
Day 3 - 2424 calories
Day 4 - 2974 calories
Day 5 - 2923 calories
Day 6 - 3201 calories
Day 7 - 2895 calories

Page 37 of Optimal Nutrition:
" Butter, cream, cheese and extra fat milk are all excellent"

Once on a low carb diet, considering the correct amount of protein will be a small percentage of total calories, the only way to get the necessary calories is with fat. Saturated fat being vastly preferable to polyunsaturated fat.

[teaser]

Matt51--that's interesting.

I was a little worried when I mentioned my skepticism that you might think I was doubting your results--and I really wasn't, I was just questioning how universal they might be.

There's certainly a plausibility here--some but not all overweight people seem to have a similar relationship to food to that of a starved or anorexic person. Maybe the higher calories are a way to address binging tendencies. And maybe addressing this, lowering food stress, could sometimes decrease the body's tendency to hold on to fat.

Until recently, I saw binging mostly as what the body does when it thinks it's depleted--a homeostatic mechanism. I had some binging problems a few years ago after I did a five-day fast, and that really biased me in that direction. I still think that's a major cause, but after watching some videos on YouTube about food addiction recently, I no longer think it's the only cause--there's more than one road to the same phenomenon. Of course, there's overlap. For me, eating 3000 calories of pork chops in a day is probably not calorie restriction--but 3000 calories of pizza is.

[Matt51]

Teaser,

Thanks for your comments. Of course there is more than one cause of obesity. Some have speculated obese people would more likely survive famine, so there is a survival of the species advantage to having some portion of the population being genetically predisposed to obesity. Chris Kresser presented data that shows women over the age of 70 have an optimum BMI of 33 for all causes of mortality. So society needs to rethink what is an optimum weight.
Certain foods are bad for me in terms of health and in terms of weight - coffee, caffeine, wheat. I think coffee and caffeine is beneficial for most people, but not all of us. I am sure this applies to many different foods.
I see some women post on this site about how few calories they eat, and I wonder if I am reading about the next Karen Carpenter.
The Lewis and Clark expedition often ate 6000 calories of meat per day, and they were still starving, because the meat they hunted was very lean. Clearly there is more involved than a calorie is a calorie when it comes to weight loss.
Historically Americans ate a lot.
http://www.foodtimeline.org/foodpioneer.html#menu1853
The question is, why can't we eat as well today without getting fat? Certainly physically active people need more food, but while most 19th century women worked long hours, most of their labor was not physically intensive in terms of burning calories.
Polyunsaturated fat (corn oil, soybean oil) are toxins creating obesity and hypothyroidism in the SAD. Combined with genetically modified grains, generally high pollution, and low quality school lunches.
Eating 3000 calories a day of high quality food like pork chops seems like a good start.

[rightnow]

I am posting something in my journal because it would bore everyone with my personal trivia which is not what this thread is about. Thanks for the inspiration Matt.

[shannone10]

Hey guys, I have a different question about the article in this thread. Is he claiming that eating high fat meat (not grass fed) would impede weight loss in an overweight person?

My take on fat is that if I am treating a patient who is generally hyperinsulinemic or overweight, I want
them on a low saturated fat diet. Because most of th
e fat they are storing is
saturated fat. When their
insulin goes down and they are able to start releasing triglycerides to burn as fat, what they are going to
be releasing mostly is saturated fat. So you don't want to take anymore orally. There is a ration of fatty
acids that is desirable, if you took them from the
moment you were born, but we don't, we are dealing
with an imbalance here that we are tr
ying to correct as
rapidly as we can.
You have plenty of saturated fat. Mo
st of us here have enough saturated fat to last the rest of our life.
Truthfully. Your cell membranes require a balance of sa
turated and poly-unsaturated
fat, and it is that
balance that determines the fluidity. As I mentioned,
your cells can become over-fluid if they don't have
any saturated fat.
Saturated fat is a hard fat. We can get the fats from
foods to come mostly from nuts. Nuts are a great
food because it is mostly mono-unsaturated. Your primary energy source ideally would come mostly from
mono-unsaturated fat. It's a good compromise. It is no
t an essential fat, but it is a more fluid fat. Your
body can utilize it very well as an energy source

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

Sorry for screwing up the quote thing!

[teaser]

Dr Rosedale has changed his stance on saturated fats over the years. Last I checked, he still thinks it's good to stick to less saturated fat when first switching to low carb, but not necessary long term;

http://www.healthcentral.com/diabetes/c/17/150821/trouble-saturated/


Dr. Rosedale told me that he had written a lot more detail about why coconut oil is good. But with his agreement HarperCollins took it out. “They didn’t want to confuse people.”

But as a result, they introduced a lot of confusion about his saturated fat recommendations. So, to answer my questions about coconut oil he needed first to discuss saturated fat, just as my correspondent Suresh and I were wondering about.

“I am not adverse to saturated fat,” he told me. “What I have said many times since then, and somewhat in the book too -- but HarperCollins modified it to be not too controversial -- is that I wanted saturated fats to be limited for the first several weeks.”

After a week or so our bodies get better at burning fat, so it makes less difference whether we use saturated or unsaturated fat. But it remains much more difficult to burn saturated fats as fuel as opposed to unsaturated fats.

A lot of robust science will support that, he says. For the same reason that saturated fats are not oxidizable sitting on the counter -- so they won’t turn rancid so easily -- that’s a good thing -- but they are also harder to burn -- to oxidize -- inside our bodies. So when we make the transition from a high carbohydrate to a low carbohydrate-burning fat diet, we are learning how to burn fat.

In this transition period we deprive ourselves of the fuel that we have probably been burning for most of our lives. We know how to burn this fuel, but it is not healthy.

I really don't buy his logic. But who knows? Olive oil and chicken breast might be an easier sell. Time enough to bring people over to the dark side (butter and pork rinds). :lol:

[shannone10]

Thanks Teaser!

I think maybe I don't follow his reasoning because there seem to be quite a few leaps of logic.

Like the comment about saturated fats on the counter. Yeah, many of us can relate to this. I keep bacon fat in a little container on my counter year round. Same with coconut oil. And every other oil. The only time I even think about refrigerating them is during a major heat wave. Which would be like high '90's and above. But that is normal body temp. Right?

OTOH, I do tend to agree with him about the benefits of other fat sources. Like avocados. I fry avocado slices in avocado oil! Absolutely delicious.