Injectable Progesterone SC may not be the best route of administration

Jim Marlowe said:

Yes. Clean hands. One drop the size of a kernel of corn to the index finger and massage into gums. I think the pad of the finger is calloused enough that it is going into the gum and not the finger!

Click to expand...

I have been doing the same since Monday, after about 30/45min I feel super relaxed.

Some people also put the drops on the tongue then massage into the gums.

I’m starting to think this is really the best way to get Progesterone in, I’ll do some labs in a week or so

Gianluca said:

I saw this video before. If I had learned about Ray Peat earlier, I would have probably saved allot of time. But when years ago I was exposed to his work, I thought he was a lunatic!

Click to expand...

I discovered his work probably 20 years ago and still think he is (was) a lunatic. What aspect of his ideas have you come to appreciate?

FunkOdyssey said:

I discovered his work probably 20 years ago and still think he is (was) a lunatic. What aspect of his ideas have you come to appreciate?

Click to expand...

He understood that human health is based on optimal energy production. For instance, cancer is at its core metabolic disfunction.
Peat wasn't perfect, but he had deep insight into human health. What from 20 years ago makes you "still think he is a lunatic"? I certainly didn't encounter his ideas until I was experiencing negative health effects. Every time I looked into an issue, there was something Ray Peat had discussed that proved more accurate than anything I had read or heard before. Mercola--who also has his flaws--only realized in the last two years what a genius Ray Peat was.

Jim Marlowe said:

What from 20 years ago makes you "still think he is a lunatic"?

Click to expand...

1. Advocating for refined sugar as a health promoting substance
2. Promoting high levels of thyroid hormone when higher levels are associated with reduced longevity (animal models support a causal relationship).
3. Blanket demonization of estrogen when we know it is responsible for countless health benefits in both sexes.
4. Pseudoscientific dietary recommendations like consumption of shredded carrots to reduce pathogenic bacteria and/or endotoxin levels (no evidence for this, just as likely to do the opposite)
5. Recommendations to take vitamin E at doses associated with increased all-cause mortality.

That's just off the top of my head, I'm sure there's far more dangerous nonsense than that in his body of work.

O

FunkOdyssey said:

I discovered his work probably 20 years ago and still think he is (was) a lunatic. What aspect of his ideas have you come to appreciate?

Click to expand...

I found in his work some "little personal discoveries" I found by digging in the medical literature my self, even before even stumbling into his work. It made me to connect some dots about health, that Peat put together many years ago already.

Example of his work the importance of burning glucose as primary source of energy for optimal cellular energy and mitochondrial function, he does mentioned sugar over starches, and I may not fully agree with this, even if the sugar comes entirely from fruit.

As Jim mentions, Peat work describes how metabolism is so important in the development of the major disease, and when metabolism of glucose is impaired, that is when we start to develop the major diseases. It is hard to explain this in detail, and it would take plenty of writing here.

I think overall I appreciate how he was able to understand the main human health issues, and put them all together to improve health.

His discovering of how Serotonin can be actually harmful to mental and physical health for example

The importance of balancing the aminoacid from meat with gelatin/collagen/bone broth. This made a difference for me. Perhaps the fact that obtaining the major of protein from dairy can be a better thing. Calcium and the parathyroid hormone is another interesting article of his to read

But when I said that if had read Peat work it would have saved me years, I was referring about the hormones. Unfortunately, me like the majority here I would think, when we discovered we had low T, we want to immediately jump on TRT, and the clinics we use and the good doctors we know, don't know any better, nor have the time to look into other things other than prescribing Testosterone, at least for the most part. It took me years of trial and error and researching, to understand that the base of HRT is #1 adrenals hormones, #2 Thyroid and the really last is Testosterone only if really necessary. But I believe we do the opposite, at least it is what I did. Many of us then, "run" into issues with TRT, and wonder why...

I'm wondering now, if before starting TRT, I would have: #1 increased my calories/Carbohydrates, #2 optimized Thyroid, #3 Progesterone # 4 Pregnenolone and last DHEA only if needed, how my low T symptoms would have improved, and if there was a true need for TRT.

Just like Peat, that mentions the Importance of Progesterone and Thyroid, then Pregnenolone DHEA.

FunkOdyssey said:

1. Advocating for refined sugar as a health promoting substance
2. Promoting high levels of thyroid hormone when higher levels are associated with reduced longevity (animal models support a causal relationship).
3. Blanket demonization of estrogen when we know it is responsible for countless health benefits in both sexes.
4. Pseudoscientific dietary recommendations like consumption of shredded carrots to reduce pathogenic bacteria and/or endotoxin levels (no evidence for this, just as likely to do the opposite)
5. Recommendations to take vitamin E at doses associated with increased all-cause mortality.

That's just off the top of my head, I'm sure there's far more dangerous nonsense than that in his body of work.

Click to expand...

Peat's concerns about estrogen aren't to be confused with the misguided use of aromatase inhibitors for those taking exogenous Testosterone.
Peat was right about excessive estrogen. And of course all the hormones are important, as noted in this thread, including cortisol and estrogen. But our current environment is an estrogen-biased environment. Endocrine-disrupting chemicals are estrogen dominant.
I doubt the implications of the thyroid research you are citing. What Peat said is that people should be supplementing with T3 and T4, not just T4 because of the opposition from reverse T3. That goes back to Broda Barnes's book "Hypothyroidism: The Unsuspected Illness." He is totally correct about that. The book was written in 1976 and it is still accurate today.
Your Fourth point is a fair point in terms of wide disagreement that persists about the role of probiotics. He was not astute on SIBO, but he understood the danger of lipopolysaccharides, and there is wide agreement on that.
The Vitamin E stuff is debatable. All-cause mortality increases, but that probably relates to the sources, including L-isomer based Vit E and Alpha-Tocopherols only.

Gianluca said:

Example of his work the importance of burning glucose as primary source of energy for optimal cellular energy and mitochondrial function, he does mentioned sugar over starches, and I may not fully agree with this, even if the sugar comes entirely from fruit.

Click to expand...

This isn’t true at all tho. It’s not even debatable either. It’s biology 101 that the body and brain prefers ketones as its primary fuel source. Cellular energy is better while in ketosis, and mitochondria perform better, in many different ways, while in ketosis, vs burning glucose as the main fuel source. Again, this isn’t a debatable thing, it’s simply biology. For 99.99% of our evolution, ketones were our main fuel source, and glucose would be a backup/ alternative fuel source, but absolutely not preferred. Glucose only became the main fuel source, in most humans, around the time when agriculture became a common thing, around 8,000-12,000 years ago. But most of our evolution, humans were hunter/ gatherers. Consuming an animal, nose to tail, was where most of our calories came from. So mostly protein and fats, as far as macronutrients go. Then we would rarely consume honey, if it was available, and in season, and same for fruits. We would consume them, when in season, and not in huge quantities. And u have to remember, fruit had a very low sugar content throughout most of our evolution, before humans started genetically modifying it. Throughout most of our evolution, fruits were much smaller, and were mostly fiber and seeds. So we wouldn’t get even close to the amount of carbs from them, as we do consuming fruit currently. Anyways, short story long, glucose absolutely isn’t the human body’s main, or preferred, fuel source. It’s always been ketones. Glucose has always been the backup fuel source. At least up until very recently in our evolution. So ray peat is absolutely incorrect about that whole subject

Gianluca said:

As Jim mentions, Peat work describes how metabolism is so important in the development of the major disease, and when metabolism of glucose is impaired, that is when we start to develop the major diseases. It is hard to explain this in detail, and it would take plenty of writing here.

Click to expand...

He is right when he said that metabolism is very crucial, when it comes to the development of most major diseases. Metabolic dysnfunction/ insulin resistance/ chronic inflammation are absolutely the causes of most major diseases. However, not sure that the impairment of glucose metabolism is responsible for the development of most major diseases. Insulin resistance is basically the cause of most diseases tho, so if glucose metabolism and insulin resistance are basically referring to the same thing, then I would say he’s correct about this, as well

FunkOdyssey said:

1. Advocating for refined sugar as a health promoting substance
2. Promoting high levels of thyroid hormone when higher levels are associated with reduced longevity (animal models support a causal relationship).
3. Blanket demonization of estrogen when we know it is responsible for countless health benefits in both sexes.
4. Pseudoscientific dietary recommendations like consumption of shredded carrots to reduce pathogenic bacteria and/or endotoxin levels (no evidence for this, just as likely to do the opposite)
5. Recommendations to take vitamin E at doses associated with increased all-cause mortality.

That's just off the top of my head, I'm sure there's far more dangerous nonsense than that in

Click to expand...

What were the vitamin E dosages you recall he was recommending?

As far as thyroid, I don’t think he ever recommended high doses of thyroid hormone. He based his thyroid work on Broda Barnes, who would pay attention to body temperature, heart rate and paid attention to TSH, which I do not think he liked to suppress.

Gman86 said:

This isn’t true at all tho. It’s not even debatable either. It’s biology 101 that the body and brain prefers ketones as its primary fuel source. Cellular energy is better while in ketosis, and mitochondria perform better, in many different ways, while in ketosis, vs burning glucose as the main fuel source. Again, this isn’t a debatable thing, it’s simply biology. For 99.99% of our evolution, ketones were are main fuel source, and glucose would be a backup/ alternative fuel source, but absolutely not preferred. Glucose only became the main fuel source, in most humans, around the time when agriculture became a common thing. But most of our evolution, humans were hunter/ gatherers. Consuming an animal, nose to tail, was where most of our calories came from. So mostly protein and fats, as far as macronutrients go. Then we would rarely consume honey, if it was available, and in season, and same for fruits. We would consume them, when in season, and not in huge quantities. And u have to remember, fruit had a very low sugar content throughout most of our evolution, before humans started genetically modifying it. Throughout most of our evolution, fruits were much smaller, and were mostly fiber and seeds. So we wouldn’t get even close to the amount of carbs from them, as we do consuming fruit currently. Anyways, short story long, glucose absolutely isn’t the human body’s main, or preferred, fuel source. It’s always been ketones. Glucose has always been the backup fuel source. At least up until very recently in our evolution. So ray peat is absolutely incorrect about that whole subject

He is right when he said that metabolism is very crucial, when it comes to the development of most major diseases. Metabolic dysnfunction/ insulin resistance/ chronic inflammation are absolutely the causes of most major diseases. However, not sure that the impairment of glucose metabolism is responsible for the development of most major diseases. Insulin resistance is basically the cause of most diseases tho, so if glucose metabolism and insulin resistance are basically referring to the same thing, then I would say he’s correct about this, as well

Click to expand...

it sounds like you have some solid biology here to argue with Ray Peat, too bad he is not longer with us.

Gman86 said:

This isn’t true at all tho. It’s not even debatable either. It’s biology 101 that the body and brain prefers ketones as its primary fuel source. ...

Click to expand...

It is absolutely debatable, and you are overstating things.



Ketones are an emergency energy source, while glucose is the default.

This article has a balanced look at some of the evidence.

Cataceous said:

It is absolutely debatable, and you are overstating things.

Under normal physiological conditions the brain primarily utilizes glucose for ATP generation. However, in situations where glucose is sparse, e.g., during prolonged fasting, ketone bodies become an important energy source for the brain. [R]​

Ketone bodies are believed to be adaptive molecules secreted by the liver and quickly distributed to vital organs as a part of an integrated survival mechanism evolved and conserved to provide bioenergetic and signaling advantages when humans face life-threatening conditions or risk factors that could increase the likelihood of premature death [R].​

Ketones are an emergency energy source, while glucose is the default.

This article has a balanced look at some of the evidence.

In essence, the research has shown that ketosis itself is not an unnatural or even an unhealthy process, and the research shows that ketosis may actually have some benefits for your brain.​

​

However, there’s little research that compares ketones to glucose head to head in terms of brain performance, so it’s hard to categorize either fuel source as “the best” specifically for your brain.​

​

Taking a broader perspective though, a ketogenic diet can actually present long-term metabolic complications. Though ketosis has short term benefits including rapid weight loss, reduced blood glucose, reduced triglycerides, and reduced blood pressure, ultimately it impairs insulin action in your liver and muscle, which can set the stage for an increase in the risk of prediabetes and type 2 diabetes in the long-term.​

​

One alternative to more safely and sustainably produce ketone bodies, while also adding the benefits of weight loss and reduced insulin resistance, is intermittent fasting, strategic periods of fasting that can put your body into ketosis without requiring a high-fat diet.​

​

And when intermittent fasting is combined with a low-fat, plant-based, whole-food diet, you can add the health benefits of eating fruits and vegetables, you can multiply the mental and physical benefits of ketosis, without any of the negative side effects.​

...​

​

Click to expand...

and here Cataceous comes as usual with some unbiased, fair and articulate comment backed up with actual science, I much appreciate you.

To add to your comment, even while on ketosis, the brain and some other tissues, still require some glucose. In fact, I would think ketones as brain glucose sparing molecole in cases such as during starvation.

I do not have the reference on hand, but I remember reading some paper years ago with this.

Cataceous said:

It is absolutely debatable, and you are overstating things.

Under normal physiological conditions the brain primarily utilizes glucose for ATP generation. However, in situations where glucose is sparse, e.g., during prolonged fasting, ketone bodies become an important energy source for the brain. [R]​

Click to expand...

what does “under normal physiological conditions” mean? That seems like a subjective statement

I just don’t understand how glucose can be the body’s primary/ preferred fuel source, when throughout 99.99% of our evolution, humans would be in ketosis, and primarily run off of ketones. Our specifies has been hunter/ gatherers for almost 2 million years. Which means we would have been in a state of ketosis, the heavy majority of that time. There would have been very few periods where we would have primarily ran off of glucose, for our main fuel source. It’s like saying that dogs and cats primary/ preferred fuel source is glucose, just because that’s what humans mainly feed them, even though throughout 99.99% of their evolution, they were both carnivores, and their body’s ran primarily off of ketones, as their main fuel source. Just because humans currently run primarily off of glucose, because of the poor diets most people eat, does not mean that it’s what our body’s prefer. I can understand why some people can make that connection, but doesn’t mean it’s true

Cataceous said:

Ketone bodies are believed to be adaptive molecules secreted by the liver and quickly distributed to vital organs as a part of an integrated survival mechanism evolved and conserved to provide bioenergetic and signaling advantages when humans face life-threatening conditions or risk factors that could increase the likelihood of premature death [R].​

Ketones are an emergency energy source, while glucose is the default.

Click to expand...

If we consider ketones being produced during a fast, a survival mechanism, wouldn’t the liver releasing stored glycogen, in a fasting state, be considered a survival mechanism? The only difference between these processes, is ketones come from the breakdown of stored fat, and glucose comes from the breakdown of stored glycogen, in a fasting state.

Cataceous said:

This article has a balanced look at some of the evidence.

In essence, the research has shown that ketosis itself is not an unnatural or even an unhealthy process, and the research shows that ketosis may actually have some benefits for your brain.​

​

However, there’s little research that compares ketones to glucose head to head in terms of brain performance, so it’s hard to categorize either fuel source as “the best” specifically for your brain.​

​

Taking a broader perspective though, a ketogenic diet can actually present long-term metabolic complications. Though ketosis has short term benefits including rapid weight loss, reduced blood glucose, reduced triglycerides, and reduced blood pressure, ultimately it impairs insulin action in your liver and muscle, which can set the stage for an increase in the risk of prediabetes and type 2 diabetes in the long-term.​

​

One alternative to more safely and sustainably produce ketone bodies, while also adding the benefits of weight loss and reduced insulin resistance, is intermittent fasting, strategic periods of fasting that can put your body into ketosis without requiring a high-fat diet.​

​

And when intermittent fasting is combined with a low-fat, plant-based, whole-food diet, you can add the health benefits of eating fruits and vegetables, you can multiply the mental and physical benefits of ketosis, without any of the negative side effects.​

...​

​

Click to expand...

Ok, the fact that u take this information seriously is honestly concerning. And I’m not trying to be rude or degrading or anything. I unfortunately can’t take anything u say seriously, when it comes to diet and nutrition, if u chose this excerpt to defend ur stance. It’s so ridiculous that I almost feel like it doesn’t even deserve a response. This excerpt says that running primarily off of ketones, can increase ur risk of becoming insulin resistant/ diabetic. This might be the most absurd thing I’ve ever heard, when it comes to diet/ nutrition. In reality, it’s actually the complete opposite. The #1 way to prevent/ cure diabetes/ insulin resistance, is to go on a carnivore and/ or ketogenic diet, and have the body run primarily off of ketones. Doing either diet will always lower A1C levels, lower fasting insulin levels, and improve insulin resistance. Short or long term. There’s plenty of people that have been doing carnivore for the majority of their life, and they’re currently 65+ or older, and have stellar labs, when it comes to A1C levels, fasting insulin levels, and all markers of insulin sensitivity in general. So it’s not like a carnivore/ ketogenic diet only helps with these things in the short term, and in the long term has the opposite effect. So saying that running primarily off of glucose is better to prevent/ cure diabetes, is just an absurd statement to make, and could not be further from what actually happens

Plus, if running off of ketones, primarily, caused insulin resistance and diabetes, in the long term, all of our ancestors, throughout evolution, would have eventually became diabetic. But as we know, diabetes only became a thing once modern agriculture became common. U cannot get diabetes if u primarily consume ruminant animal meat and healthy fats. I challenge anyone to prove me wrong.

Maybe the issue is that people don’t realize how long our ancestors have been hunter/ gatherers for. So I’ll attach a pic of how long we have been doing so. It’s roughly around 2 million years. Again, we have only been running off of glucose, as our primary fuel source, since agriculture became popular. Agriculture came about around 12,000 years ago, and probably didn’t become popular until a few thousand years later. 8-12k years is a blink of an eye, when it comes to our evolution as a whole

And let’s not forget that it’s not debatable that the best food for baby’s is breast milk from their mother. When baby’s are only living off of breast milk, they are in a state of ketosis. Why would the optimal state for a baby be ketosis, but not for a toddler, or child, or adolescent, or adult?

Gianluca said:

and here Cataceous comes as usual with some unbiased, fair and articulate comment backed up with actual science, I much appreciate you.

To add to your comment, even while on ketosis, the brain and some other tissues, still require some glucose. In fact, I would think ketones as brain glucose sparing molecole in cases such as during starvation.

I do not have the reference on hand, but I remember reading some paper years ago with this.

Click to expand...

Yes, the body still requires some glucose, even while in ketosis. This is why the process of gluconeogenesis exists, and why a person in ketosis, consuming no carbohydrates, will still have a healthy blood sugar level.

Fact is, the brain runs better on ketones, mitochondria perform better on ketones, and the body, as a whole, functions better on ketones. Why would this all be the case if the body was supposedly meant to run primarily on glucose? That makes no sense to me that the body would run better, as a whole, and more efficiently, on an “alternative/ backup/ survival fuel source”

Most people commonly confuse what’s “normal” in today’s age as what’s preferable. Don’t be like most people lol

Gman86 said:

This isn’t true at all tho. It’s not even debatable either. It’s biology 101 that the body and brain prefers ketones as its primary fuel source. Cellular energy is better while in ketosis, and mitochondria perform better, in many different ways, while in ketosis, vs burning glucose as the main fuel source. Again, this isn’t a debatable thing, it’s simply biology. For 99.99% of our evolution, ketones were our main fuel source, and glucose would be a backup/ alternative fuel source, but absolutely not preferred. Glucose only became the main fuel source, in most humans, around the time when agriculture became a common thing, around 8,000-12,000 years ago. But most of our evolution, humans were hunter/ gatherers. Consuming an animal, nose to tail, was where most of our calories came from. So mostly protein and fats, as far as macronutrients go. Then we would rarely consume honey, if it was available, and in season, and same for fruits. We would consume them, when in season, and not in huge quantities. And u have to remember, fruit had a very low sugar content throughout most of our evolution, before humans started genetically modifying it. Throughout most of our evolution, fruits were much smaller, and were mostly fiber and seeds. So we wouldn’t get even close to the amount of carbs from them, as we do consuming fruit currently. Anyways, short story long, glucose absolutely isn’t the human body’s main, or preferred, fuel source. It’s always been ketones. Glucose has always been the backup fuel source. At least up until very recently in our evolution. So ray peat is absolutely incorrect about that whole subject

He is right when he said that metabolism is very crucial, when it comes to the development of most major diseases. Metabolic dysnfunction/ insulin resistance/ chronic inflammation are absolutely the causes of most major diseases. However, not sure that the impairment of glucose metabolism is responsible for the development of most major diseases. Insulin resistance is basically the cause of most diseases tho, so if glucose metabolism and insulin resistance are basically referring to the same thing, then I would say he’s correct about this, as well

Click to expand...

@Gman86 - As I think I've mentioned to you, I did low carb / keto for 22 years. I "walked the walk." The vast majority of time, my carb consumption was very low. Less than 30 grams a day. When I did consume carbs, it was from mostly fruit. I saw the benefits. I think eating that way resulted in my keeping a Zero cardiac calcium scan score. However, about six years ago, I watched my HbA1c creep up. My fasting glucose wasn't low like it used to be. I had central adiposity even though I was thin. I was "skinny fat." In any case, that is where I looked into bioenergetics. What I was missing was that years of eating keto / low carb was putting me in a hypothyroid state. My energy metabolism was wrecked. And I had been eating enormous amounts of PUFA. Here are the Strong Sisters discussing the Randall cycle, acknowledging your point about the brain preferring ketones. The Randle Cycle

Jim Marlowe said:

@Gman86 - As I think I've mentioned to you, I did low carb / keto for 22 years. I "walked the walk." The vast majority of time, my carb consumption was very low. Less than 30 grams a day. When I did consume carbs, it was from mostly fruit. I saw the benefits. I think eating that way resulted in my keeping a Zero cardiac calcium scan score. However, about six years ago, I watched my HbA1c creep up. My fasting glucose wasn't low like it used to be. I had central adiposity even though I was thin. I was "skinny fat." In any case, that is where I looked into bioenergetics. What I was missing was that years of eating keto / low carb was putting me in a hypothyroid state. My energy metabolism was wrecked. And I had been eating enormous amounts of PUFA. Here are the Strong Sisters discussing the Randall cycle, acknowledging your point about the brain preferring ketones. The Randle Cycle

Click to expand...

Thanks for chiming in. So first thing, and I think u’ll agree with this, a ketogenic diet cannot be compared to a carnivore or lion diet. They’re more different than they are similar, imo. I personally haven’t seen many examples of someone doing a ketogenic diet successfully long term. But I’ve seen hundreds of anecdotes of people having long term success doing carnivore or the lion diet, and probably thousands, at this point, of people having success in the short to mid term, doing carnivore or the lion diet. I’ve honestly probably seen more anecdotes of people successfully doing a fruitarian or vegan diet long term, than I have a ketogenic diet. And the reason for that most likely has to do with what I go over below about processed foods.

The key to any diet, if optimal health is the goal, is cutting out processed foods. The problem with a ketogenic diet, and the thing that makes it drastically different than a carnivore or lion diet, is that with a ketogenic diet, u can consume all ur calories from processed foods, while still being in a state of ketosis. So even though I do appreciate ur anecdote, it doesn’t apply to my argument/ what I’m trying to explain, whatsoever. People doing carnivore or the lion diet will never see their insulin sensitivity get worse, and very rarely, if at all, acquire hypothyroidism. Yes, they usually do see a drop in thyroid levels. But I don’t think I’ve ever seen someone on carnivore or the lion diet experience low thyroid symptoms. Insulin sensitivity isn’t just about carb intake. It’s much more complicated than that. Damage to the body, in general, from food, has more to do with it than a persons carb intake. Processed foods and crap seed oils, and possibly too high of an intake of PUFA’s contribute more to insulin resistance than a persons carb intake.

There’s just zero evidence for someone’s metabolism/ metabolic status becoming compromised, when a person is on a lion diet or carnivore diet. And I’m not being biased or anything. I don’t do either of those diets myself. I’m strictly going by what everyone experiences while doing them. Short, mid and even long term. At least in the VAST majority. I guess we have to always leave room for the 1% of genetic outliers.

I guarantee if u would have, or if u currently tried a carnivore or lion diet, u wouldn’t have seen the issues u did on a ketogenic diet

Gman86 said:

what does “under normal physiological conditions” mean? That seems like a subjective statement
...

Click to expand...

In this case it means that when a sufficient amount is available then it will be used preferentially. Contrary to your implication, glucose is so important that ketosis is maintained through evolution to prevent excessive depletion of glucose. Ketosis is an emergency backup system, not the preferred one.

Gman86 said:

...
I just don’t understand how glucose can be the body’s primary/ preferred fuel source, when throughout 99.99% of our evolution, humans would be in ketosis, and primarily run off of ketones. ...

Click to expand...

Evidence, please. If ketosis were clearly superior from an evolutionary standpoint then it would be preferred even when glucose is plentiful. This is clearly not the case.

I'd also like to see evidence that ketones are "preferred" in a normal heart rather than a diseased one.

Gman86 said:

...
Ok, the fact that u take this information seriously is honestly concerning. ...

Click to expand...

I figured that article would trigger you. But if you want to be taken seriously yourself then support some of your statements. You haven't tried to qualify your statements about ketones being preferred, so they cannot be given much credence.

The various references say that the long-term safety of a ketogenic diet is not established. You're free to speculate that it is safe, but I am likewise free to suggest that using an emergency backup system indefinitely may not be a good idea....

Gman86 said:

And let’s not forget that it’s not debatable that the best food for baby’s is breast milk from their mother. When baby’s are only living off of breast milk, they are in a state of ketosis. Why would the optimal state for a baby be ketosis, but not for a toddler, or child, or adolescent, or adult?

Click to expand...

You should not be promulgating this bit of misinformation. It is a myth.

[R]

Gman86 said:

Thanks for chiming in. So first thing, and I think u’ll agree with this, a ketogenic diet cannot be compared to a carnivore or lion diet. They’re more different than they are similar, imo. I personally haven’t seen many examples of someone doing a ketogenic diet successfully long term. But I’ve seen hundreds of anecdotes of people having long term success doing carnivore or the lion diet, and probably thousands, at this point, of people having success in the short to mid term, doing carnivore or the lion diet. I’ve honestly probably seen more anecdotes of people successfully doing a fruitarian or vegan diet long term, than I have a ketogenic diet. And the reason for that most likely has to do with what I go over below about processed foods.

The key to any diet, if optimal health is the goal, is cutting out processed foods. The problem with a ketogenic diet, and the thing that makes it drastically different than a carnivore or lion diet, is that with a ketogenic diet, u can consume all ur calories from processed foods, while still being in a state of ketosis. So even though I do appreciate ur anecdote, it doesn’t apply to my argument/ what I’m trying to explain, whatsoever. People doing carnivore or the lion diet will never see their insulin sensitivity get worse, and very rarely, if at all, acquire hypothyroidism. Yes, they usually do see a drop in thyroid levels. But I don’t think I’ve ever seen someone on carnivore or the lion diet experience low thyroid symptoms. Insulin sensitivity isn’t just about carb intake. It’s much more complicated than that. Damage to the body, in general, from food, has more to do with it than a persons carb intake. Processed foods and crap seed oils, and possibly too high of an intake of PUFA’s contribute more to insulin resistance than a persons carb intake.

There’s just zero evidence for someone’s metabolism/ metabolic status becoming compromised, when a person is on a lion diet or carnivore diet. And I’m not being biased or anything. I don’t do either of those diets myself. I’m strictly going by what everyone experiences while doing them. Short, mid and even long term. At least in the VAST majority. I guess we have to always leave room for the 1% of genetic outliers.

I guarantee if u would have, or if u currently tried a carnivore or lion diet, u wouldn’t have seen the issues u did on a ketogenic diet

Click to expand...

Those diets avoid autoimmune reactions and inflammation, but they don't avoid hypothyroidism for the precise reason we're discussing. They are not energy efficient over the long term.

Today's words of the day....

"Gluconeogenesis"

"Adaptive glucose sparing"



In terms of need it’s the brain. 80-120 g/day glucose in carb fed person and 30 g/day glucose (~10g/d synthesized from N/protein/muscle and ~20 g/d synthesized from glycerol via fat stores) once adapted to nutritional ketosis. Other 50-90 g/day of glucose equivalent are easily substituted by ketone bodies (beta-hydroxybutyrate and acetoacetate) once in keto state.


love this graph.

Gman86 said:

I guarantee if u would have, or if u currently tried a carnivore or lion diet, u wouldn’t have seen the issues u did on a ketogenic diet

Click to expand...

I experienced some of what Jim Marlowe is talking about with a standard low carb diet. I was not eating particularly high protein, and getting many of my calories from high PUFA nuts, salads drenched in olive oil, the sort of "healthy fats" promoted by mainstream nutritionists, Mediterranean diet, etc. On that diet, I experienced some hypothyroid symptoms, like frequently feeling cold, dry skin, etc and saw an elevated TSH on labwork. This led to a very unproductive period of experimentation with thyroid supplementation, where I tried every possible combination of synthetic T4, dessicated porcine thyroid, synthetic T3, at various dosages, and experienced zero benefit and a plethora of side effects.

An important difference with carnivore diets are the massive bolus doses of protein you consume when eating over a pound of meat in a meal. These tend to spike insulin and gluconeogenesis sufficiently to stop electrolyte wasting, maintain metabolic flexibility, and prevent any significant downregulation of thyroid function. It's certainly a different metabolic state than a classical lower protein keto diet.

I have no hypothyroid or hypometabolic type symptoms after many years with pure carnivore or low fruit carnivore. I'm actually hotter in the winter months when I stay closer to pure carnivore - it's like I have an internal furnace that kicks on, where I basically don't need to wear any winter gear to stay warm. Too much fruit will kick me out of that state and return me to a more normal susceptibility to cold temps.

Jim Marlowe said:

Those diets avoid autoimmune reactions and inflammation, but they don't avoid hypothyroidism for the precise reason we're discussing. They are not energy efficient over the long term.

Click to expand...

It’s the opposite my friend. Go checkout lifelong carnivores. U’d be hard pressed to find people in their 80’s and 90’s with more energy, and that are more metabolically healthy, than lifelong carnivores. I actually challenge u to find me a person that’s doing carnivore, or the lion diet, that are not metabolically healthy, and don’t have more energy than they had prior to going carnivore or doing the lion diet. At the end of the day, most important metric is what people are experiencing in the real world. Not theoretically what “should” happen, and not what a person should feel with certain lab levels. Would it make sense for a person on carnivore or the lion diet, with very high and consistent energy levels throughout the entire day, that is able to retain muscle easily, and lose fat easily, give up the way their eating because their thyroid labs might be a little lower? Or should they continue eating the way they are, and continuing to feel and function optimally? Sometimes we have to keep things simple, in order to see what’s truly going on. Go ask any person doing a carnivore or lion diet correctly if they feel hypothyroid, and then report back to me when u find even one person that reports having hypothyroid symptoms. I’ll wait lol