https://proteinpower.com/drmike/

Very technical and hard to follow for a layperson, but interesting. It's the first of a two-part series.

Maybe someone here can read it and explain it to me!

So the most basic take-home message summarized seems to be saturated fat signals (through all that mitochondrial complexity he presented) the cell to stop taking in more energy because it's full, while polyunsaturated fat messes with this signalling so the cell will continue to fill up further even though already full enough. So eat saturated not polyunsaturated (think industrial seed oils) fats to give your cells the I'm-full signal, not bypass it and keep gaining fat. The mechanism why was interesting to read about but I'm not going to try to summarize that. Maybe someone else? The sad part to me is how all of us in the 80's were told saturated fat was so bad, to avoid it and consume the heart-healthy etc. industrial polyunsaturated stuff. Turns out, not healthy at all.

I appreciate the summary, Zei. The theory is compelling and logical.. It was such a torment to eat “the way I was supposed to” and never be free of hunger for long, no matter how much I ate!

It’s no wonder this Lipid Hypothesis was such a train wreck for certain kinds of metabolism. My current VLC regimen might be because I’ve had so many years of poor health; but then again, it might be what I needed ALL ALONG.

That's what I took away from the article, too. It does answer certain questions. Really, the only seed oils I have are in salad dressings, and since the times I have salads are no more frequent than a blue moon, I don't think I get much.

I do wish I could figure out what to do to actually start losing again, though. Right now I'm pretty much 95% carnivore and the rest low-carb. Because of a tendency toward diverticulitis, I can eat only very limited quantities of raw and even cooked veggies, nuts, and anything with a lot of fiber.

My husband asked me to put him on a low-carb diet in September. He lost almost 20 pounds in the first two months (I lost 2 pounds in the same time, despite being stricter than he was), maintained over the holidays (I gained 7 pounds), and is now losing again for a total of about 25 pounds. I'm still trying to lose that 7 pounds again.

I wish I had an answer for you.
Perhaps, and this is just a perhaps, you are building muscle to replace the fat?
I commiserate.

Diverticulitis. Usually triggered by insoluable fiber, ue small seed particles. How does soluable fiber work for you ??

Good summaries of Dr E presentation. The effect is based on a traffic jam, and impatient cars take a Uturn and go back the way they came.A biochemical does this triggering IR. A good version of IR, triggering "Full ." Made me wonder where the extra food energy goes. Perhaps that is the missing trigger for fullness that some of ys are missing......????

I notice your diet description says high protein. I don't recall, are you one of the people already following Dr. Ted Naiman's Protein to Energy Ratio plan? If not it's a good one to look into. I finally lost weight on it when nothing else including keto seemed to work, although I've since needed to raise my fat intake to feel more comfortable so risking regain.

Yes, that was the plan, but I got away from it. I'll be retiring on March 6 so I'll have a lot more time for things. I should take some time this weekend and study the book again and get my head wrapped around it. Thanks for the nudge!

I guess beef or other herbivorous meat, or any lean meat plus butter might be worth a shot.

My simple monkey brain got--a FADH reaction that's not as present when oxidizing polyunsaturated fat as with saturated fat generates extra electrons (or an extra pathway for electron generation). More electrons equals more potential energy production--more electrons also makes for higher production of superoxide, the proposed molecular signal for insulin resistance.

I wonder about other factors--rate of ATP production, more direct signalling effects of various fatty acids. Whether there are citric acid cycle metabolite consequences of changing fadh/nadh ratios, whether there's a difference in malonyl-CoA production--malonyl CoA is molecular switch for fatty acid/triglyceride synthesis, generally when these are increased, fatty acid oxidation is decreased, so it's also a switch to some degree for fat versus carb oxidation (high metabolism of glucose increases malonyl-CoA, that makes sense, increased fat synthesis as an excess glucose sink).

There's also a series of studies in mice that proposes a different mechanism for a fattening omega 6 effect--at 8 percent linoleic acid, a high, low or moderate fat diet are all fattening, bring it down to 1 or 2 percent, it's not. The omega 6 is used to produce endocannabinoids, blocking their production reverses the fattening effect. Maybe not that surprisingly in humans blocking endocannabinoids has a risk for depression.


One area that seems relevant and also supports to some degree the palmitic acid/insulin resistance hypothesis--single-cell studies looking at lipotoxicity. Cells bathed in palmitic acid and glucose (but not palmitic acid or glucose) produce an excess of lipid byproducts. One is ceramide, there's a lot of study on it as causing insulin resistance and cellular damage. Adding some oleic acid is protective (at least in some studies), the proposed mechanism is that triglyceride synthesis, which increases with the addition of the oleic acid to the medium, gives a safer pathway for disposal of the excess free fatty acids, the production of ceramide is decreased. It might not be so much the decrease in free fatty acids but the fact that when the triglyceride pathway increases, the pathway to ceramide synthesis tends to be sort of shut down. This "protective" effect of oleic acid does come with increased triglyceride storage in the cell versus just palmitic acid being present. I've seen this in liver and beta cell studies.

There are also some studies on polyunsaturated fats having an effect through Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors of encouraging fatty acid oxidation (among other things, none of which I can currently name ), maybe this makes sense as something needed to ameliorate what might otherwise be a more fattening effect?

That's my cooking MO - almost everything gets cooked in butter, both meat & vegetables, except for the occasional food that needs a cooking temperature too high for butter. Then I go to olive oil. That way I don't have to figure out fat ratios - I know I'm getting enough. Plus I love the taste.

I can't get most of my fat from meat because that ups the protein too much. I gain weight if I regularly go over 70g of protein a day, I need to be at 60g or less to lose weight. I see so many ads for processed, usually vegetarian keto foods that say they're a great way to increase protein. I doubt there are all that many people who need to increase their protein. Perhaps that's aimed at people who are afraid of meat? Or body builders maybe?

Fasting is what you should look into, not only for weight loss but health.

When I upped my fat--mostly as butter and heavy cream--and started controlling my protein intake a bit more, maintenance at a lower body weight did get easier for me. For years, if I got down to the mid 150's or so, I'd end up popping back up to 170 as soon as I let my guard down. Dropping plants so my carbs mostly come from heavy cream or eggs seems to let me up my protein a bit. But that doesn't seem to be especially necessary to keep my lean mass from wasting away, I went a pretty long time around 60 to 80 grams of protein a day without getting too scrawny. Kids at work accused me of being ripped the other day, I think they were exaggerating, but I'll take it.

I think these things are pretty individual. Ted Naiman, told only what I'm doing now and where my body fat is, would likely say more protein and less fat would make me leaner--been there. Just makes me tend to binge more. I don't think he's wrong as such--eat fat, protein or carbohydrate, there's overlap in the mechanisms for satiety etc. but there's also some big differences, and in the area where there's less overlap, maybe there's variation from individual to individual.

Something that always gets me is the idea that protein is just for structure, not energy. If you get 30 percent or so of your calories from protein, around where Naiman might point you, and in maintenance or near it, 30 percent of the energy produced in your body, ignoring losses, is coming from the oxidation of protein. Sorry, that makes it a major energy source.

And on the other side of the coin, I increased my daily protein intake over the past year+, and I produce a good amount of ketones and remain strongly in fat burning mode. Much easier to maintain this way. Yes, I eat healthy fat, but not to excess. The days of bullet-proof coffee are long gone, and I do much better. Some of the research by Bikman and Naiman's clinical experiences show that as we age, and I'm in my late 60s, we who are already low carb can benefit from increased protein. That's been my experience. Low carbers do not experience an significant impact from glucose produced by gluconeogenesis in response to increased protein. Those on SAD do.

Coupled with findings that also related increased protection from CVD and stroke due to higher cholesterol, LDL, and lower triglycerides, it's interesting that there are more occurrences of these events for those who have lower lipid numbers. Establishing a low carb WOE is healthier for me, and I'm no longer concerned with splitting hairs with protein intake. It's all good if one is starting from a good place.

Low carbing diabetics have a problem with that. My bg numbers got a lot better when I cut down on protein.

The range of "what works" is so diverse; and even individually, it can change.

I set a target of fifty when I started in 2003, and it worked; while accommodating me cooking for someone not on the plan, lots of socializing for work, and a stable hormone situation. However, I also stalled at 150, which I was happy with. While those around me exclaimed over the difference.

But fifteen years later, my hormones were a disaster, my weight had crept close to 165, and I was eating 100 carbs a day. Back down I went to 20 carbs a day, and a ruthless elimination diet began. I settled at 123 or so! Amazing.

For me, it's all about cutting carbs. It's like the number of carbs I eat shows on the scale in a direct correlation.

This also led me to a discovery about cravings: I think they came from eating the wrong things that triggered reactions in my body. Now why an allergy is expressed by the body saying eat more of that is baffling. The only thing I can come up with is that the body is assuming you are eating this non-food because it is an emergency, and the nutrient content is so low you must, to survive, eat lots of it?

And when it comes to PUFAs, I have seen my own inflammatory reaction to them, and I keep them to a minimum. Especially since they cannot exist in nature in nearly these quantities.