# Lifestyles & Discussion > Personal Health & Well-Being >  Fat, Not Glucose, is the Preferred Fuel for Your Body

## squarepusher

interesting article I saw on Mercola recently

http://fitness.mercola.com/sites/fit...0_DNL_artNew_1

*By Dr. Mercola* While we may consider ourselves to be at the pinnacle of human  development, our modern food manufacturing processes have utterly failed  at improving health and increasing longevity. 
 During the Paleolithic period, many thousands of years ago, our  ancestors ate primarily vegetables, fruit, nuts, roots and meatand a  wide variety of it. This diet was high in fats and protein, and low in  grain- and sugar-derived carbohydrates. 
 The average persons diet today, on the other hand, is the complete  opposite, and the average persons health is a testament of what happens  when you adhere to a faulty diet. Humans today suffer more chronic and  debilitating diseases than ever before. 
 And there can be little doubt that our food choices play a major role  in this development. Quite simply, you were not designed to eat large  amounts of refined sugar, high fructose corn syrup, cereal, bread,  potatoes and pasteurized milk products.
 As Mark Sisson states in the featured article1: _If you want to live a better life and eat the best foods nature  provided for health and fitness, then it's time to ditch the old  paradigms and climb on to the primal approach to eating better._*Is Glucose Really Your Bodys Preferred Fuel?* The notion that glucose is the preferred fuel for your body is a  pervasive one. Everyone from diabetics to top athletes are advised to  make sure they eat enough carbs to keep their systems from crashing.  This is unfortunate, as this misguided advice is at the very heart of  many of our current health failures. 
 As Mark so succinctly spells out in his article, FAT is actually the  preferred fuel of human metabolism, and this can be traced back to our  evolutionary roots. 
 Historically speaking, carbohydrate intake has always been quite low.  Likewise, the diseases we now know are associated with insulin  resistancewhich is primarily caused by excess consumption of refined  carbshave been quite rare. 
 The evidence is both clear and overwhelming: Carbohydrate intake is  the primary factor that determines your bodys fat ratio, and processed  grains and sugars (particularly fructose) are the primary culprits  behind our skyrocketing obesity and diabetes rates. _It follows logically that if you can limit carb intake to a  range of which is absolutely necessary (and even up to 50 grams a day  over) and make the difference up with tasty fats and protein, you can literally reprogram your genes  back to the evolutionary-based factory setting you had at birth  the  setting that offered you the opportunity to start life as a truly  efficient fat-burning organism and to continue to do so for the rest of  your life as long as you send the right signals to your genes,_ Mark writes. *Why the Low-Carb/High-Fat Diet Works for Weight Loss* Switching from a carb-based diet to a fat- and protein-based diet  will help rebalance your bodys chemistry, and a natural side effect of  this is weight loss, and/or improved weight management once youre at an  ideal weight. One explanation for this is that you don't really get fat  from eating too much and exercising too little.  Nor do you get fat  from eating fat. One researcher that has clearly established this is Dr.  Richard Johnson, whose latest book, The Fat Switch, dispels many of the  most pervasive myths relating to diet and obesity.
 Dr. Johnson discovered the method that animals use to gain fat prior  to times of food scarcity, which turned out to be a powerful adaptive  benefit. His research showed that fructose activates a key enzyme,  fructokinase, which in turn activates another enzyme that _causes cells to accumulate fat_.  When this enzyme is blocked, fat cannot be stored in the cell.  Interestingly, this is the exact same switch animals use to fatten up  in the fall and to burn fat during the winter. _Fructose_ is the dietary ingredient that turns on this switch, causing cells to accumulate fat, both in animals and in humans.
 In essence, overeating and excess weight could be viewed as a symptom  of an improper diet. Its not necessarily the result of eating too many  calories, per se, but rather getting your calories from the wrong  sources. In simple terms, when you consume too many sugars and carbs,  you set off a cascade of chemical reactions in your body that makes you  hungry and craving for sweets:

First, fructose is metabolized differently from glucose, with the majority being turned _directly into_ _fat_ because fructose stimulates a powerful fat switch.This rapidly leads to weight gain and abdominal obesity ("beer  belly"), decreased HDL, increased LDL, elevated triglycerides, elevated  blood sugar, and high blood pressurei.e., classic metabolic syndrome.Dietary carbohydrates, especially fructose, are also the primary  source of a substance called glycerol-3-phosphate (g-3-p), which causes  fat to become _fixed_ in fat tissueAt the same time, high carb intake raises your insulin levels, which prevents fat from being releasedFructose further tricks your body into gaining weight by turning  off your body's appetite-control system. Fructose does not suppress  ghrelin (the "hunger hormone") and doesn't stimulate leptin (the  "satiety hormone"), which together result in feeling hungry all the  time, even though you've eaten. As a result, you overeat and develop  insulin resistance, which is not only an underlying factor of type 2  diabetes, heart disease, and a long list of other chronic diseases
 The resulting equation is simple: fructose and dietary carbohydrates  (grains, which break down into sugar) lead to excess body fat, obesity  and related health issues.  Furthermore, no amount of exercise can  compensate for this damage because if you eat excessive  fructose and  grainsthe primary ingredients NOT found in our ancestral dietit will  activate programming to cause your body to become, and remain, fat. *How Much Glucose or Carbs Do You Really Need?* The debate about whether or not you really need glucose, and if so,  how much, is by no means settled. Earlier this year, I ran a series of  articles featuring the back-and-forth discussion between two  well-researched experts on this topic, Dr. Jaminet and Dr. Rosedale. 
 Dr. Jaminet is a proponent of so-called safe starches, and is of  the conviction that depleting your glycogen store can stress other  systems to provide the glucose your body requires to perform. Dr.  Rosedale, on the other hand, points out that because glucose consumption  will undoubtedly spike blood glucose levels and increase insulin and  leptin, promoting resistance, glucose consumption is _always_ associated with _some incremental degree_ of damage and/or increased risk of mortality. His diet is subsequently extremely carb-restrictive.
 Yet another diet similar to Drs. Jaminet and Rosedale's is the GAPS diet,  created by Dr. Natasha Campbell-McBride, which is specifically designed  to help heal and seal your gut. As such, it primarily consists of  easily digestible, lightly cooked foods that are high in protein, fats,  and fermented foods, and low in fiber and carbs. 
 Mark Sisson also adds valuable insight to this discussion2: _At any one time, the total amount of glucose dissolved in the  bloodstream of a healthy non-diabetic is equivalent to only a teaspoon  (maybe 5 grams). Much more than that is toxic; much less than that and  you pass out. Thats not much range for a so-called preferred fuel, is  it?_ 
_Several studies have shown that under normal low MET conditions  (at rest or low-to mid- levels of activity such as walking and easy  work) the body only needs about 5 grams of glucose an hour. And thats  for people who arent yet fat-adapted or keto-adapted. The brain is the  major consumer of glucose, needing maybe 120 grams a day in people who  arent yet on a low carb eating program._ 
_Low carb eating reduces the brains glucose requirements  considerably, and those who are very low carb (VLC) and keto-adapted may  only require about 30 grams of glucose per day to fuel the brain...  Twenty of those grams can come from glycerol (a byproduct of fat  metabolism) and the balance from gluconeogenesis in the liver (which can  actually make up to a whopping 150 grams a day if you havent  metabolically damaged it with NAFLD through fructose overdosing)._ 
_Bottom line, unless you are a physical laborer or are training (exercising) hard on a daily basis, once you become fat-adapted, you probably dont ever need to consume more than 150 grams of dietary carbs  and you can probably thrive on far less. Many Pbers [Marks diet, Primal Blueprint] do very well (including working out) on 30-70 grams a day._ [Emphasis mine]*Key Point: Replace Carbs with Healthful Fats* As I see it, this is really a non-issue for most people as few people  anywhere near Dr. Jaminet's recommendation of cutting carbs from the  standard 50 percent down to 20-30 percent of total calories. However, if  youve already begun to seriously address your carb intake then you may  want to experiment with various amounts of safe carbs like rice and  potatoes. As Mark describes, the actual amount of carbs could vary  anywhere from 30 to 150 grams a day, depending on whether your body has  adapted to burning ketones and your level of exercise.
 Keep in mind that when we're talking about harmful carbs, we're only referring to grains and sugars, NOT vegetable carbs. 
 When you cut grain/sugar carbs you actually need to radically  increase the amount of vegetables you eat since, by volume, the grains  you need to trade out are denser than vegetables. You also need to  dramatically increase healthful fats such as avocados, coconut oil, egg  yolks, raw grass fed organic butter, olives and nuts. 
 You would not want to use highly processed and genetically engineered  omega-6 oils like corn, canola and soy as they will upset your omega  6/3 ratio. Of course you want to avoid all trans fats, but contrary to  popular advice, saturated fats are a key component of a healthy diet  that will promote weight loss. 
 A reasonable goal will be to have as much as _50-70 percent of your diet as healthy fat_,  which will radically reduce your carbohydrate intake. It can be helpful  to remember that fat is far more satiating than carbs, so if you have  cut down on carbs and  feel ravenous, this is a sign that you have not  replaced them with sufficient amounts of healthy fat. Sources of healthy  fats that you'll want to add to your diet include: 
Olives and Olive oil (for cold dishes)
Coconuts, and coconut oil (for all types of cooking and baking)
Butter made from raw grass-fed organic milk

Raw Nuts, such as, almonds or pecans
Organic pastured egg yolks
Avocados

Pasture finished meats
Palm oil
Unheated organic nut oils




 Most people will likely notice massive improvement in their health by  following this approach as they are presently consuming FAR more grain  and bean carbohydrates in their diet, and _any_ reduction will be a step in the right direction.  To help you get started on the right track, review my Nutritional Plan, which guides you through these dietary changes one step at a time.*Recent Research Confirms Benefits of Low-Carb/High-Fat Diet* Conventional advice has focused on low-fat diets for weight loss and  heart disease prevention, but again and again, studies demonstrate that  this advice is diametrically opposed to reality... In one such study,  researchers at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine's Heart and  Vascular Institute compared the effects of two diets on vascular health;  one low in fat, the other low in carbs. The study in question was  presented at this year's meeting of the American College of Sports  Medicine in Denver, on June 33. 
 The study included a total of 46 men and women weighing on average  218 pounds. The six-month long weight loss program consisted of moderate  aerobic exercise and strength training, and one of two diets, either: 

*Low-carb, high-fat*: Less than 30 percent of  calories from carbs (pastas, breads and sugary fruits), and up to 40  percent from fats (meat, dairy products, and nuts)*Low-fat, high-carb diet*: Less than 30 percent of calories from fat, and 55 percent from carbs
 The low-carb group on average shed 10 pounds in 45 days, while the  low-fat group took 70 days to lose the same amount of weight. In terms  of vascular health, the low-carb, high-fat dieters showed no harmful  vascular changes, which is the primary reason for why so many are afraid  of high-fat diets.
 According to the lead investigator, professor of medicine and director of clinical and research exercise physiology_,_ Kerry Stewart, Ed.D:  _"Our study should help allay the concerns that many people who  need to lose weight have about choosing a low-carb diet instead of a  low-fat one, and provide re-assurance that both types of diet are  effective at weight loss and that a low-carb approach does not seem to  pose any immediate risk to vascular health. More people should be  considering a low-carb diet as a good option."_ Stewart also believes that the emphasis on low-fat diets has likely _contributed_  to the obesity epidemic in the US by promoting overconsumption of  sugars and grains. I couldn't agree more. The simple reason for this is  that grains and sugars raise your insulin levels, which causes insulin  resistance and, ultimately, weight gain, diabetes, and heart disease. *Listen to Your Body* The evidence is quite clear that chronically raising your blood  glucose through consumption of grains and sugars will increase your  insulin resistance, which in turn will increase insulin and leptin  resistance. And _avoiding_ insulin and leptin resistance is perhaps the single most important factors if you seek optimal health and longevity. 
 That said, the _degree_ to which you choose to reduce carbs  however is, ultimately, up to you. And certain individual biochemical  differences can make one diet more beneficial for you than others. The  key point is to be aware that consuming sugar, grains and starches will  promote insulin resistance _to some degree or other_, depending on the amount you consume.
 As always, remember to listen to your body as it will give you  feedback if what you are doing is right for your unique biochemistry and  genetics. So listen to that feedback and adjust your program  accordingly.

----------


## Yieu

The title was humorous, but then I saw the author and had read enough.  If you have a better source I would be willing to look into it.

----------


## squarepusher

> The title was humorous, but then I saw the author and had read enough.  If you have a better source I would be willing to look into it.


http://www.marksdailyapple.com/a-met...#axzz1za02xNxp

----------


## jj-

It could be that people who improve their healths with a high-fat diet do it because they give up things like grains and HFCS, not carbs in general. I suspect most people will also see drastic improvement in their well-being if they have a high-carb diet which eliminates grains, HFCS, and all vegetable oils (except olive and coconut oil). This could be accomplished through a diet high in fruits or potatoes.

The problem with the study is that the high-carb people were given grains. I'd be interested in seeing the results if the carb intake consisted of fruits, potatoes, and/or dairy.




> The study in question was presented at this year's meeting of the American College of Sports Medicine in Denver, on June 33.
> The study included a total of 46 men and women weighing on average 218 pounds. The six-month long weight loss program consisted of moderate aerobic exercise and strength training, and one of two diets, either:
> 
>     Low-carb, high-fat: Less than 30 percent of calories from carbs (*pastas, breads* and sugary fruits), and up to 40 percent from fats (meat, dairy products, and nuts)
>     Low-fat, high-carb diet: Less than 30 percent of calories from fat, and 55 percent from carbs

----------


## Yieu

> http://www.marksdailyapple.com/a-met...#axzz1za02xNxp


I do not trust this source either.  Is there another?  Particularly, I would like to see this on a less-biased science or health related news site, perhaps on pubmed, and especially I would like to see it on a site that is not geared toward a low carb diet because they could be speaking out of bias rather than science.

----------


## jj-

What's your dietary philosophy, Yieu?

----------


## specsaregood

> I do not trust this source either.  Is there another?  Particularly, I would like to see this on a non-biased science or health related news site, perhaps on pubmed, and especially I would like to see it on a site that is not geared toward a low carb diet because they could be speaking out of bias rather than science.


Yes, because those other sources are completely unbiased; we should avoid a source that "could be" speaking out of bias.

----------


## jj-

> Yes, because those other sources are completely unbiased; we should avoid a source that "could be" speaking out of bias.


Since everybody eats, every researcher eats the way he thinks is best, thus, every researcher is "biased" when it comes to nutrition.

----------


## specsaregood

> Since everybody eats, every researcher eats the way he thinks is best, thus, every researcher is "biased" when it comes to nutrition.


Which means we should avoid ALL research on the subject of nutrition.  problem solved!

----------


## Yieu

> Yes, because those other sources are completely unbiased; we should avoid a source that "could be" speaking out of bias.


I mentioned several sources that I would consider with more weight.  What you said is not what I was implying by any means at all.

----------


## Acala

> I do not trust this source either.  Is there another?  Particularly, I would like to see this on a non-biased science or health related news site, perhaps on pubmed, and especially I would like to see it on a site that is not geared toward a low carb diet because they could be speaking out of bias rather than science.


Isn't your diet ultimately based on religious dogma?  Not meant to be offensive, just wondering why someone who eats as directed by ancient scriptures wants other people to back their claims with science.

----------


## jj-

> Which means we should avoid ALL research on the subject of nutrition.  problem solved!


Hey, no need to be meanie. Since research is so corrupted by government and corporate money, I happen to trust the "research" of experimenting with my own body a lot more, although I obviously read the experts to know the hypotheses to experiment with.

----------


## Yieu

> Isn't your diet ultimately based on religious dogma?  Not meant to be offensive, just wondering why someone who eats as directed by ancient scriptures wants other people to back their claims with science.


If you're going to make a scientific claim, then it should be backed up with science. Scriptural claims should be backed with scripture.  My diet is based on scripture, however if someone is going to make a scientific claim through a blog, and it be a severely large claim, then it would make sense to back it up with an equally large dose of proof.

----------


## specsaregood

> I mentioned several sources that I would consider with more weight.  What you said is not what I was implying by any means at all.


No you called those other sources non-biased and you dismissed/avoided the source given because it "could be" influenced by bias.  What you said is exactly what I said.


edit: on a sidenote, I just enjoyed a plate of onions fried in butter.  this would be an approved meal/snack on that "biased site" as well as your own scriptural diet, yes?

----------


## Yieu

> No you called those other sources non-biased and you dismissed/avoided the source given because it "could be" influenced by bias.  What you said is exactly what I said.


Okay, it is true that bias exists everywhere no matter what, even if at 1%, which I was not considering when I used the word "non-biased".  I will edit the post to say "less-biased" to be more grammatically accurate to what I had actually meant.  I do not think that something merely being published in a medical journal makes it true, however I am not so easily persuaded that all it takes to change my mind are some words on a blog.

----------


## Yieu

> edit: on a sidenote, I just enjoyed a plate of onions fried in butter.  this would be an approved meal/snack on that "biased site" as well as your own scriptural diet, yes?


It's not particularly relevant, but I try to avoid onions for scriptural reasons.

----------


## specsaregood

> It's not particularly relevant, but I try to avoid onions for scriptural reasons.


Im sure the other posters wont mind if you posted the scriptural reasons -- if you want-- we're already fairly well offtopic here and I'm interested in them.

----------


## Kluge

> I do not trust this source either.  Is there another?  Particularly, I would like to see this on a less-biased science or health related news site, perhaps on pubmed, and especially I would like to see it on a site that is not geared toward a low carb diet because they could be speaking out of bias rather than science.


Pretty sure Cowlesy started a thread with an article from the NYT saying the same thing in the recent past. I'll see if I can find it.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...T-is-wondering...

----------


## teacherone

Scripture bias.

----------


## Son of Detroit

I eat big pasta dishes at least 5 times a week and I'm not dead yet.  Come at me bro.

----------


## squarepusher

> I eat big pasta dishes at least 5 times a week and I'm not dead yet.  Come at me bro.


what do you weigh, 3?  3 and a half?

----------


## CaptainAmerica

im fine with eating some steak fat. Its good for the body.Whats not good is the fat from oils..saturated fat

----------


## specsaregood

> im fine with eating some steak fat. Its good for the body.Whats not good is the fat from oils..saturated fat


Which fat exactly is it you think is not good?  steak fat is saturated fat.

----------


## Revolution9

> If you're going to make a scientific claim, then it should be backed up with science. Scriptural claims should be backed with scripture.  My diet is based on scripture, however if someone is going to make a scientific claim through a blog, and it be a severely large claim, then it would make sense to back it up with an equally large dose of proof.


It ain't a large claim. I have felt the change and so have a half dozen or more folks I suggested try primal eating habits. I come from the forests of England. There ain't no frikkin' veggies there and my ancestors sure as heck didn't eat that many of them. i gag on a whole swath of them, some give me joint pain though some act as medicinal foods. Please do not start glorifying your religious eating habits and trashing others like you are morally superior and I won't have much else to say. Start your standard BS and I will start my standard anti-BS.

Rev9

----------


## Revolution9

> Okay, it is true that bias exists everywhere no matter what, even if at 1%, which I was not considering when I used the word "non-biased".  I will edit the post to say "less-biased" to be more grammatically accurate to what I had actually meant.  I do not think that something merely being published in a medical journal makes it true, however I am not so easily persuaded that all it takes to change my mind are some words on a blog.


Nobody is trying to change you mind. However your tactic of being morally superior is surely a biased attempt to change others minds and diets who do not share your enthusiasm for your diet.

Rev9

----------


## Revolution9

> I eat big pasta dishes at least 5 times a week and I'm not dead yet.  Come at me bro.


Yer solid muscle?

Rev9

----------


## Revolution9

> Which fat exactly is it you think is not good?  steak fat is saturated fat.


Just got the fattiest two inch thick grassfed ribeye on my grocery run..plus some two pounds of cherries for my excursion into vegetation based foods. I made the complete error of eating my hamburger on a bun the other day and suffered miserably for it with a swollen belly, heroin level grogginess and severe indigestion for three days from the gluten and processed starches. Different stokes..

Rev9

----------


## phill4paul

*Eat moar pizza!*

----------


## trey4sports

i  read Mark Sisson's blog daily.

 I allowed myself a "carb refeed" about a week ago and flipped my daily carb intake from about 70 grams a day to roughly 250 grams in that particular day. It has REALLY messed me up for the last week. It seems like that one high-carb day essentially told my body that i should go back to using carbs instead of fat for my daily energy. Will not be doing a carb-refeed anytime soon.

----------


## specsaregood

> Different stokes..
> Rev9


I think there is something to the blood type theories for diet as well.  The Primal diet just happens to correspond to what they recommend for my blood type "O"..  Whereas according to those theories people with blood type A thrive on grains and people with type B thrive on dairy.  This might explain why what works for some doesn't work for others.. Different strokes indeed.

----------


## Son of Detroit

> what do you weigh, 3?  3 and a half?


155.  Want to start bulking up to 165 for baseball season.

----------


## jj-

> i  read Mark Sisson's blog daily.
> 
>  I allowed myself a "carb refeed" about a week ago and flipped my daily carb intake from about 70 grams a day to roughly 250 grams in that particular day. It has REALLY messed me up for the last week. It seems like that one high-carb day essentially told my body that i should go back to using carbs instead of fat for my daily energy. Will not be doing a carb-refeed anytime soon.


Out of curiosity, what were your sources of carbs?

----------


## jj-

> im fine with eating some steak fat. Its good for the body.Whats not good is the fat from oils..saturated fat


Fat from oils is mostly polyunsaturated. I think that kind of fat is worse than saturated fat. Also, not all saturated fats have the same effect. Saturated fats from coconut oil for example have a different effect than saturated fat from whole milk.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> I do not trust this source either.  Is there another?  Particularly, I would like to see this on a less-biased science or health related news site, perhaps on pubmed, and especially I would like to see it on a site that is not geared toward a low carb diet because they could be speaking out of bias rather than science.


Ok you don't trust sources. Go look it up for yourself and find one you do trust.

----------


## Acala

> Fat from oils is mostly polyunsaturated. I think that kind of fat is worse than saturated fat. Also, not all saturated fats have the same effect. Saturated fats from coconut oil for example have a different effect than saturated fat from whole milk.


Saturated fats are more stable.  Unsaturated fats are more likely to become rancid and release damaging free radicals.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

I agree with the OP (just from my experience with diet and exercise and working with various trainers/teachers).  Fat is a much better fuel for energy than carbs.  It should be pointed out that individual people will likely need to adjust for their unique body type.  I'm a "hard-gainer" and tend toward leanness, so I have to be more methodical than most to gain mass.  I can lose fat easily (I'm currently underweight), but putting on muscle tends to be harder for me.

----------


## specsaregood

> I agree with the OP (just from my experience with diet and exercise and working with various trainers/teachers).  Fat is a much better fuel for energy than carbs.  It should be pointed out that individual people will likely need to adjust for their unique body type.  I'm a "hard-gainer" and tend toward leanness, so I have to be more methodical than most to gain mass.  I can lose fat easily (I'm currently underweight), but putting on muscle tends to be harder for me.


I'm always been an easy gainer, the only way I stayed fit was with "intense" daily excercize, like mini triathalons daily.  I just don't have time for that anymore, of course I also was never much of  meat eater, always liked veggies.  I simply replaced complex carbs in my diet with protein and its working out great.

----------


## trey4sports

> I think there is something to the blood type theories for diet as well.  The Primal diet just happens to correspond to what they recommend for my blood type "O"..  Whereas according to those theories people with blood type A thrive on grains and people with type B thrive on dairy.  *This might explain why what works for some doesn't work for others..* Different strokes indeed.


I've never bought into that idea. 

Granted, i'm basing my opinion on anecdotes rather than scientific proof but for the very majority of our existence as a species we all evolved eating the same primal diet.

----------


## Son of Detroit

> Yer solid muscle?
> 
> Rev9


I'm pretty fit, yes.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I'm always been an easy gainer, the only way I stayed fit was with "intense" daily excercize, like mini triathalons daily.  I just don't have time for that anymore, of course I also was never much of  meat eater, always liked veggies.  I simply replaced complex carbs in my diet with protein and its working out great.


Interesting.  I'd imagine that emphasis on cardio would make it harder for you to gain.  You got lucky genes that way.  /jealous

----------


## trey4sports

> Out of curiosity, what were your sources of carbs?


bleached white flour, HFCS, and sugar.

----------


## jj-

> bleached white flour, *HFCS*, and sugar.


Seriously? HFCS messes me up no matter what I eat and it's obviously (to me, anyway) not healthy or natural. White fluor messes me up as well. I'm a high-carb dieter, but they come mostly from fruits, potatoes, and dairy. Everyday more than 50% of all I eat is fruit, and I feel much better than when my carb intake was from grains. So I'm not sure you should blame carbs in general. So far I would only blame grains and HFCS.

----------


## jj-

> I'm always been an easy gainer, the only way I stayed fit was with "intense" daily excercize, like mini triathalons daily.  I just don't have time for that anymore, of course I also was never much of  meat eater, always liked veggies.  I simply replaced complex carbs in my diet with protein and its working out great.


If you don't mind sharing, how was your consumption of PUFAs (polyunsaturated fats). Main sources of PUFAs are vegetable oils except olive and coconut, margarine, mayo, and some nuts.

----------


## specsaregood

> If you don't mind sharing, how was your consumption of PUFAs (polyunsaturated fats). Main sources of PUFAs are vegetable oils except olive and coconut, margarine, mayo, and some nuts.


Not much change --never have used much in the way of veggie oils -- but have been using butter instead of olive oil a lot.   And i've been working from home for so long, that I haven't eaten much in the way of processed oily fast food for years.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Seriously? HFCS messes me up no matter what I eat and it's obviously (to me, anyway) not healthy or natural. White fluor messes me up as well. I'm a high-carb dieter, but they come mostly from fruits, potatoes, and dairy. Everyday more than 50% of all I eat is fruit, and I feel much better than when my carb intake was from grains. So I'm not sure you should blame carbs in general. So far I would only blame grains and HFCS.


Try using sweet potatoes or yams instead of white potatoes.  More fiber and less starch in them. (better net carb content)  And you're right-not all carbs are created equal.  Vegetables are also a source of carbs, but aren't starchy-thus they don't spike blood sugar/insulin. (too much insulin stimulus results in insulin resistance and diabetes)

----------


## low preference guy

> Not much change --never have used much in the way of veggie oils -- but have been using butter instead of olive oil a lot.


sounds like you never consumed much PUFAs ever.

----------


## jj-

> Vegetables are also a source of carbs, but aren't starchy-thus they don't spike blood sugar/insulin. (too much insulin stimulus results in insulin resistance and diabetes)


My experience tells me otherwise. As long as I don't consume PUFAs, I'm fine. My blood sugar is lower after I quadrupled my sugar intake (I consume fructose, glucose, and lactose) and don't feel weird after consuming sugar anymore. Easily 70% of all I eat is sweet. The non-sweet stuff is just eggs, cheese and some meat.

----------


## Yieu

> Please do not start glorifying your religious eating habits and trashing others like you are morally superior and I won't have much else to say. Start your standard BS and I will start my standard anti-BS.


I never did this and I do not appreciate the claim.




> Nobody is trying to change you mind. However your tactic of being morally superior is surely a biased attempt to change others minds and diets who do not share your enthusiasm for your diet.


I never did this and I do not appreciate the claim.

I only commented because if someone has some medical evidence of how this mechanism would work in the human body, then I would like to read it because it interests me.  I'll bow out though because it is quite clear that my comments are not wanted.

----------


## trey4sports

i know that vegetables and such are much better for you oz for oz than say, sugar ,but isn't any net carb procesed the same way (in terms of weight gain/loss)? 

I mean if you ate a small sucker that had 3 net carbs (total carbs - dietary fiber = net carbs) wouldn't that be the same as eating 3 net carbs from spinach? granted it would take probably 9 oz or so of raw spinach and it would be MUCH healthier in terms of nutrients and fiber, but in terms of weight management and insulin response would it not be the same?

----------


## Yieu

> Im sure the other posters wont mind if you posted the scriptural reasons -- if you want-- we're already fairly well offtopic here and I'm interested in them.


I apologize, but I am sure you can understand why I would not like to post this.  People might see it as judging, even though it is not.

At one point I was considering doing that as a blog item, but I'm not so sure it would be a good idea.

----------


## jj-

> i know that vegetables and such are much better for you oz for oz than say, sugar ,but isn't any net carb procesed the same way (in terms of weight gain/loss)? 
> 
> I mean if you ate a small sucker that had 3 net carbs (total carbs - dietary fiber = net carbs) wouldn't that be the same as eating 3 net carbs from spinach? granted it would take probably 9 oz or so of raw spinach and it would be MUCH healthier in terms of nutrients and fiber, but in terms of weight management and insulin response would it not be the same?


Wheat is often accompanied by polyunsaturated fats and the latter could slow down metabolism. In the right conditions sugar accelerates metabolism so a bit of sugar could be more helpful to weight loss than spinach.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> im fine with eating some steak fat. Its good for the body.Whats not good is the fat from oils..saturated fat





> Which fat exactly is it you think is not good?  steak fat is saturated fat.


And Olive Oil is almost pure HDL, and ridiculously healthy.

----------


## Revolution9

> Saturated fats are more stable.  Unsaturated fats are more likely to become rancid and release damaging free radicals.


Here is the trick. Saturated mean that it's molecular backbone has hydrogens attached from end to end on both sides like a comb or zipper. It slides easily in and out of cells and assists the sticky sugars to slide in. Polyunsaturated and other unsaturated fats have hydrogens attached like a comb with broken teeth. Transfats break the backbone in half and twist it 180 degrees and teeth are broken off all along the comb/zipper. None of these move efficiently in and out of cells like the saturated fats. Consider the hydrogens like a lube and this is what the saturated and mono-unstaturated refer to..how the hydrogens attach to the molecular backbone of the fat.

Rev9

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> im fine with eating some steak fat. Its good for the body.Whats not good is the fat from oils..saturated fat





> Try using sweet potatoes or yams instead of white potatoes.  More fiber and less starch in them. (better net carb content)  And you're right-not all carbs are created equal.  Vegetables are also a source of carbs, but aren't starchy-thus they don't spike blood sugar/insulin. (too much insulin stimulus results in insulin resistance and diabetes)


Last I heard, the sweet potato is one of the most nutritionally dense veggies there is.  I'm not the world's biggest fan, but I am exploring ways to cook sweet potatoes, form them into sort of bars, and dehydrate them to a form that can be vacuum sealed and packed around wherever.

----------


## Revolution9

> I never did this and I do not appreciate the claim.
> 
> 
> 
> I never did this and I do not appreciate the claim.
> 
> I only commented because if someone has some medical evidence of how this mechanism would work in the human body, then I would like to read it because it interests me.  I'll bow out though because it is quite clear that my comments are not wanted.


The replies on here to you are proof that that is how you are viewed or their would not be the references about you that are ensconced in this thread by others..not just me. I seem to have hit a hotspot. If you want proof then the quoting of medical studies and biological mechanisms as posted in the OP give more than enough evidence. But because this evidence comes form a particular source then the science is not good enough for you. Pretty damned two faced in my book. I look at the science and what things are named. They cannot pull the wool over eyes if you have the facts to do further research on.

Rev9

----------


## Revolution9

> I apologize, but I am sure you can understand why I would not like to post this.  People might see it as judging, even though it is not.
> 
> At one point I was considering doing that as a blog item, but I'm not so sure it would be a good idea.


The other times the offense was taken because you presented the dietary beliefs from a moral high ground and that we are animal killers. i don't want to have to dig that thread up to prove it but will if you deny the $#@! out of it. As pure info with no secondary judgements such as people eating what is good for them are murderers of animals it is interesting information worth looking at.

Rev9

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> My experience tells me otherwise. As long as I don't consume PUFAs, I'm fine. My blood sugar is lower after I quadrupled my sugar intake (I consume fructose, glucose, and lactose) and don't feel weird after consuming sugar anymore. Easily 70% of all I eat is sweet. The non-sweet stuff is just eggs, cheese and some meat.


Well, starches (part of carbohydrates) are really just several sugars all chained together.  One of the first things starches do in the body is break down into sugars.  If your former carbohydrate consumption pattern included a lot of starches, then there is a better than zero chance your overall sugar consumption actually went down despite the 4x increase in perceived sugar intake.

----------


## Yieu

> The replies on here to you are proof that that is how you are viewed or their would not be the references about you that are ensconced in this thread by others..not just me. I seem to have hit a hotspot.


You are the only person who has personally insulted me and said something which I believe to be untruthful.  No one else has made a criticism of me as far as I can see, and I did read the thread.  I did not intend to post in this thread further, but I had to make that clear.  I am not going to post further, because replying to you will only provoke further inapplicable insults and I really, really do not wish to take part in that.




> The other times the offense was taken because you presented the dietary beliefs from a moral high ground and that we are animal killers. i don't want to have to dig that thread up to prove it but will if you deny the $#@! out of it. As pure info with no secondary judgements such as people eating what is good for them are murderers of animals it is interesting information worth looking at.


I want to make it as clear as possible that I never, ever, once called anyone an "animal killer", nor did I personally insult anyone.

I never, ever, once claimed a moral high ground.  Assumptions do not do us very well.

Because of you, I cannot post in this kind of topic, you twist everything I say.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Well, starches (part of carbohydrates) are really just several sugars all chained together.  One of the first things starches do in the body is break down into sugars.  If your former carbohydrate consumption pattern included a lot of starches, then there is a better than zero chance your overall sugar consumption actually went down despite the 4x increase in perceived sugar intake.


This^^  Thanks, Gunny.  ~hugs~

----------


## Carson

Fat equals flavor.

----------


## jj-

> Well, starches (part of carbohydrates) are really just several sugars all chained together.  One of the first things starches do in the body is break down into sugars.  If your former carbohydrate consumption pattern included a lot of starches, then there is a better than zero chance your overall sugar consumption actually went down despite the 4x increase in perceived sugar intake.


I doubt my consumption of sugar went down, because as I didn't feel bothered by consuming sweet things, I consumed more of it, so probably my caloric and carbs intake went up. But even if you're right and the sugar I consumed went down, I still eat what most people would consider obscene amounts, and I don't experience any issues with insulin resistance.

----------


## vechorik

I'll drink some whipping cream to that!
Lost 27 lbs. primal, feeling stronger and better!
Tossed my statin drugs!
Primal forever!

----------


## VIDEODROME

I've heard this idea and find it interesting.  The inevitable follow question always seems to be What about those Asians dining on white rice?  

Could be a lean diet with Rice Carbs is okay in a healthy person.  I'm thinking diet gets to far out of balance with refined grains, white breads, HFCS, and sweet drinks in addition to carbs with a lasting effect on metabolism.  So in a way it seems like removing suspect foods like sugary drinks isn't enough, that some people have their hormones thrown out of balance and need to restrict Carbs.  

Even with that I think there are good low carb vegatables people should eat, but maybe avoid heavy starches.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I doubt my consumption of sugar went down, because as I didn't feel bothered by consuming sweet things, I consumed more of it, so probably my caloric and carbs intake went up. But even if you're right and the sugar I consumed went down, I still eat what most people would consider obscene amounts, and I don't experience any issues with insulin resistance.


Well, consider that 10 grams of starch becomes 8.5 grams of sugar after you eat it.  Or some close ratio.  I would still not be surprised to hear you eliminated 35 grams of starch and added 20 grams of sugar.  Which would mean that overall you went down on sugars.  In other words, you may have dropped 30 grams of sugar (from converted starches) and added 20 grams in (actual) sugar.  The net is minus 10.

Starches are extremely deceptive because they are basically sugar chains that don't taste anything like sugar.

----------


## dannno

> i  read Mark Sisson's blog daily.
> 
>  I allowed myself a "carb refeed" about a week ago and flipped my daily carb intake from about 70 grams a day to roughly 250 grams in that particular day. It has REALLY messed me up for the last week. It seems like that one high-carb day essentially told my body that i should go back to using carbs instead of fat for my daily energy. Will not be doing a carb-refeed anytime soon.


Hmm, I'm going to be doing that next Thursday, we'll see how it goes.. Wish me luck!

----------


## dannno

> i know that vegetables and such are much better for you oz for oz than say, sugar ,but isn't any net carb procesed the same way (in terms of weight gain/loss)? 
> 
> I mean if you ate a small sucker that had 3 net carbs (total carbs - dietary fiber = net carbs) wouldn't that be the same as eating 3 net carbs from spinach? granted it would take probably 9 oz or so of raw spinach and it would be MUCH healthier in terms of nutrients and fiber, but in terms of weight management and insulin response would it not be the same?


Nah, insulin response is much worse with refined grains and sugars as compared to whole grains and pasta (even if the pasta is made with refined grains, it digests slower like a whole grain)

----------


## dannno

> I've heard this idea and find it interesting.  The inevitable follow question always seems to be What about those Asians dining on white rice?  
> 
> Could be a lean diet with Rice Carbs is okay in a healthy person.  I'm thinking diet gets to far out of balance with refined grains, white breads, HFCS, and sweet drinks in addition to carbs with a lasting effect on metabolism.  So in a way it seems like removing suspect foods like sugary drinks isn't enough, that some people have their hormones thrown out of balance and need to restrict Carbs.  
> 
> Even with that I think there are good low carb vegatables people should eat, but maybe avoid heavy starches.


Primal Blueprint says that white rice is neutral ... not good for you but not really bad for you ... avoid brown rice

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/is-ri...#axzz23BXKL0Tk

----------


## low preference guy

dannno, did your new diet succeed?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> You are the only person who has personally insulted me and said something which I believe to be untruthful. No one else has made a criticism of me as far as I can see, and I did read the thread. I did not intend to post in this thread further, but I had to make that clear. I am not going to post further, because replying to you will only provoke further inapplicable insults and I really, really do not wish to take part in that.
> 
> I want to make it as clear as possible that I never, ever, once called anyone an "animal killer", nor did I personally insult anyone.
> 
> I never, ever, once claimed a moral high ground. Assumptions do not do us very well.
> 
> Because of you, I cannot post in this kind of topic, you twist everything I say.


I can vouch for having roomed with you and you made no issue around the consumption of creatures vs plants.

I think there is a difference between being proud of yourself for upholding a philosophical point that is important to you, and judging others for doing otherwise.  I have known you to be self-satisfied for your choice of diet, but not to be judgmental of anyone else over it, which, if I understand your faith, is your actual intent.

Rev9 is good people, but jumps with both feet into mouth-dripping-blood warrior mode a little too easily.  In the grand scheme of things, whether a member of the movement is a carnivore, omnivore, or an herbivore matters little or not towards restoring the Constitutional order, except maybe in the selection of event after parties.  

I imagine even R9 knows he gets out ahead of himself occasionally if not often.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Primal Blueprint says that white rice is neutral ... not good for you but not really bad for you ... avoid brown rice
> 
> http://www.marksdailyapple.com/is-ri...#axzz23BXKL0Tk


Odd.  Brown rice has more fiber (fewer net carbs). /shrugs

----------


## specsaregood

> I apologize, but I am sure you can understand why I would not like to post this.  People might see it as judging, even though it is not.
> At one point I was considering doing that as a blog item, but I'm not so sure it would be a good idea.


I can certainly understand it; but if it interests you and you want so share then I say go for it.  Haters and $#@!s are gonna always find something to hate, bitch and complain about.

----------


## jj-

> Well, consider that 10 grams of starch becomes 8.5 grams of sugar after you eat it.  Or some close ratio.  I would still not be surprised to hear you eliminated 35 grams of starch and added 20 grams of sugar.  Which would mean that overall you went down on sugars.  In other words, you may have dropped 30 grams of sugar (from converted starches) and added 20 grams in (actual) sugar.  The net is minus 10.
> 
> Starches are extremely deceptive because they are basically sugar chains that don't taste anything like sugar.


I wasn't eating bread and pastas already. My sources of wheat were foods which contained meat and white flour, like flour-coated chicken, and cookies, but not every day. But since I stopped eating those sources of wheat, I added sweetened condensed milk liberally, went from like 0.5 quarts to 2 quarts of sweet orange juice per day. Went from between 2 and 4 bananas to 8. So my personal experience makes PUFAs a bigger factor in insulin resistance than sugar, if the latter is an issue at all.

----------


## donnay

> I think there is something to the blood type theories for diet as well.  The Primal diet just happens to correspond to what they recommend for my blood type "O"..  Whereas according to those theories people with blood type A thrive on grains and people with type B thrive on dairy.  This might explain why what works for some doesn't work for others.. Different strokes indeed.


I think it is incumbent upon people to know what works well for them, per se.  I do not do well with grains.  I also have problems consuming pasteurized dairy.  The one size fits all, proves, not only in medicine but in what we eat, that not all things work well for all people. 

I also believe there is something to the Mosaic Law.   Only eat fish with scales and fin.  Eat meat from animals with split hooves and that chews their cud.

----------


## squarepusher

Here is some evidence for Yieu (he likes scientific studies)
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/02/17/1119908109

*Opposing effects of fructokinase C and A isoforms on fructose-induced metabolic syndrome in mice                                  * 
Takuji Ishimotoa,Miguel A. Lanaspaa,MyPhuong T. Lea,Gabriela E. Garciaa,Christine P. Diggleb,Paul S. MacLeanc,Matthew R. Jackmanc,Aruna Asipub,Carlos A. Roncal-Jimeneza,Tomoki Kosugia,Christopher J. Rivarda,Shoichi Maruyamad,Bernardo Rodriguez-Iturbee,Laura G. Sánchez-Lozadaf,David T. Bonthronb,Yuri Y. Sauting, andRichard J. Johnsona,g,1,2
+ Author Affiliations

aDivision of Renal Diseases and Hypertension, University of Colorado Denver, Aurora, CO 80045;bLeeds Institute of Molecular Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS9 7TF, United Kingdom;cDivision of Endocrinology, Colorado Nutrition Obesity Research Center, University of Colorado Denver, Aurora, CO, 80045;dDepartment of Nephrology, Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, Nagoya, 466-8550, Japan;eInstituto Venezolano de Investigaciones Científicas-Zulia and Hospital Universitario y Universidad del Zulia, 4001-A, Maracaibo,                            Venezuela;fDepartment of Nephrology, Instituto Nacional de Cardiología Ignacio Chavez, Mexico City, 14080, Mexico; andgDivision of Nephrology and Hypertension, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32610

                         Edited by Kosaku Uyeda, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center and Veterans Affairs Medical Center at Dallas, Dallas,                            TX, and accepted by the Editorial Board January 24, 2012 (received for review December 6, 2011)

*Abstract*                   Fructose intake from added sugars  correlates with the epidemic rise in obesity, metabolic syndrome, and  nonalcoholic fatty                      liver disease. Fructose intake also causes features  of metabolic syndrome in laboratory animals and humans. The first  enzyme                      in fructose metabolism is fructokinase, which  exists as two isoforms, A and C. Here we show that fructose-induced  metabolic                      syndrome is prevented in mice lacking both isoforms  but is exacerbated in mice lacking fructokinase A. Fructokinase C is  expressed                      primarily in liver, intestine, and kidney and has  high affinity for fructose, resulting in rapid metabolism and marked ATP                      depletion. In contrast, fructokinase A is widely  distributed, has low affinity for fructose, and has less dramatic  effects                      on ATP levels. By reducing the amount of fructose  for metabolism in the liver, fructokinase A protects against  fructokinase                      C-mediated metabolic syndrome. These studies  provide insights into the mechanisms by which fructose causes obesity  and metabolic                      syndrome.

----------


## Yieu

Revolution9, I am no longer offended.  I would never say the things you claimed I said, but it is not worth worrying over.

The study above is interesting, though I knew excess fructose was not good, but the thread is about the body using fat as the primary energy source rather than glucose.

----------


## specsaregood

> My experience tells me otherwise. As long as I don't consume PUFAs, I'm fine. My blood sugar is lower after I quadrupled my sugar intake (I consume fructose, glucose, and lactose) and don't feel weird after consuming sugar anymore. Easily 70% of all I eat is sweet. The non-sweet stuff is just eggs, cheese and some meat.


I've actually upped my sugar intact via fruit since I gave up the grains.  I've never eaten fruit, months between having a piece.   But nowadays, I've been forcing myself to have a piece every day.  Of course at the same time I've cut the sugar out of my morning coffee and switched from milk to cream.

----------


## jj-

> I've actually upped my sugar intact via fruit since I gave up the grains.  I've never eaten fruit, months between having a piece.   But nowadays, I've been forcing myself to have a piece every day.  Of course at the same time I've cut the sugar out of my morning coffee and switched from milk to cream.


Sounds good. My favorite fruit is not really a fruit, but orange juice. Since I gave up grains and vegetable oils, I drink between 1 and 2 quarts of OJ in a day, but I can't say I'm *forcing* myself to drink it. The stuff if tasty. I've been losing weight pretty rapidly as well without exercise, but my context is probably different from yours since you seem more of a veggies kind of guy.

----------


## jj-

specs, what fruits do you force yourself to eat?

----------


## specsaregood

> specs, what fruits do you force yourself to eat?


Pluots, peaches, plums and bananas.  Tomatoes are in season, so lots of those but I don't think they really count.

Been having 1 piece late afternoon as a bit of a pick me up instead of coffee or other such stimulants.

----------


## jj-

> Pluots, peaches, plums and bananas.


good stuff.

----------


## Chester Copperpot

Wow I never thought about a different diet based on blood type.. sounds interesting.

----------


## SerArris

Hey guys. I noticed Mark Sisson's name being mentioned here throughout the thread. He seems to generally be a good guy from the emails we have sent back and forth to each other. Another person to check out would be Robb Wolf. He wrote a book called the Paleo Solution. It is the same as the Primal Blueprint minus dairy. Robb has a weekly podcast called "The Paleo Solution" which is very informative and entertaining. He used to be a research bio-chemist that studied lipid metabolism and cancer I believe. Anyway, both of those guys seem to know their stuff and Robb is a pleasure to listen to. Most of the science is way over my head though. Also, they both were presenters at this years Ancestral Health Symposium which ended this past weekend. 

TBH, the Paleo Diet just makes sense to me kind of like libertarianism made sense after listening to guys like Murray Rothbard, Tom Woods, Jeffrey Tucker, and all those guys who are part of the Mises Institute.If anybody is interested, Robb has just started a new podcast about government and political issues called "The Controversial Truth". It espouses market-based solutions to our governmental problems. A little off-topic I know, but I listen to a lot of podcasts while humping the assembly line!

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

Just had a block of baker's chocolate with stevia sprinkled on it. Off to the gym now.

----------


## trey4sports

> Just had a block of baker's chocolate with stevia sprinkled on it. Off to the gym now.



if you like dark chocolate i have a couple recommendations.... 

Green and black's 85% organic dark bar (walmart.com) ($3 - 3.2 oz)

full circle exchange 85% organic dark bar (walmart.com) ($3.33 - 3.2 oz)

Moser Roth 85% dark bar                      (aldi's B&M) ($1.89 - 4.2 oz) 





I think the Moser Roth is the best tasting bar. It's not organic but it is very very tasty and the best bang for your buck.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> if you like dark chocolate i have a couple recommendations.... 
> 
> Green and black's 85% organic dark bar (walmart.com) ($3 - 3.2 oz)
> 
> full circle exchange 85% organic dark bar (walmart.com) ($3.33 - 3.2 oz)
> 
> Moser Roth 85% dark bar                      (aldi's B&M) ($1.89 - 4.2 oz) 
> 
> 
> ...


Too much sugar for me at this point. I can eat the baker's chocolate without the stevia, I just add it because it makes it taste better.

Once I get to my target (not sure what the weight will be at this point, probably somewhere between 215 and 225), I'll consider eating 85%. Thanks for the heads up on them

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

I'm going to have to break down and try coffee and butter/coconut oil before workouts. I'm done after about five minutes in the gym.

----------


## trey4sports

> I'm going to have to break down and try coffee and butter/coconut oil before workouts. I'm done after about five minutes in the gym.


how long have you been primal? You're probably not fully fat-adapted if you're struggling with avoiding carbs.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> how long have you been primal? You're probably not fully fat-adapted if you're struggling with avoiding carbs.


Fully? Couple weeks. Was eating oatmeal with protein powder, cinnamon, butter, and blueberries with my eggs in the morning until a couple weeks ago. That was my last holdout.

I've been sleeping close to 12/13 hours a day since then, too.

----------


## specsaregood

> how long have you been primal? You're probably not fully fat-adapted if you're struggling with avoiding carbs.


Yeah, I slowly transitioned into it over the course of a month or so and never experienced the low carb flu, now when I tally up my day I find it common to be under 50g carbs without even trying.     Of course now I crave fat;  I made a nice chicken soup the other day, full of lean chicken and veggies. as I was eating it, I found myself thinking "I wish I had a big pat of butter on top of this."

----------


## donnay

Saturated fats are excellent for people.  It is the trans-fats which are extremely bad.  Animal fats (from meat that has no antibiotics, steroids or hormones).  Coconut oil (Organic cold pressed), but below is some good articles that break it all down:

*
Enjoy Saturated Fats, They’re Good for You!*

*The Forbidden Food You Should Never Stop Eating*

----------


## Nickels

> if you like dark chocolate i have a couple recommendations.... 
> 
> Green and black's 85% organic dark bar (walmart.com) ($3 - 3.2 oz)
> 
> full circle exchange 85% organic dark bar (walmart.com) ($3.33 - 3.2 oz)
> 
> Moser Roth 85% dark bar                      (aldi's B&M) ($1.89 - 4.2 oz) 
> 
> I think the Moser Roth is the best tasting bar. It's not organic but it is very very tasty and the best bang for your buck.


Thanks for posting walmart, and not some weird new MLM "healthy chocolate" store.

----------

