This archived forum used to be called 'Peatarian' (in reference to Ray Peat).

Being overweight can hurt more than just your looks (diagram)

image

asked Feb 24, 2015 by Westside PUFAs
reshown Feb 24, 2015 by Westside PUFAs

Ironically (and sadly too) a lot of these female features on the map start to develop in me,when I eat according to a Peat inspired diet.

Me too, the male side. It's all the cheese, and cream products like ice cream, cream in coffee, butter on starches, meats cooked in butter, any yogurt that is not skim, and any milk that is not skim. I'm saddened by that as well, because those products are delicious.

For me it's actually most of his dietary recommendations;all cowdairy (a bit of goat/sheepcheese is fine),high carb/the sugars especially fructose (starch I'm still not really out on).
Eating a 'pro-thyroid/high metabolism diet',only damages my gut&liver,makes me fat (though it's claimed a pro-thyroid diet will make you lose weigth.:/),lots of edema,did nothing to decrease foodintolerances,hormones out of whack.....
By now I'm starting to think that Paleoish/Primal is more destined for me in the long-term and that I think about maybe adding herring&salmon back in,despite all the PUFA scares.

Did you try not stuffing your face? You get fat by eating too much. Ray Peat only mentions cutting fat by way of suggesting skim milk as an easy way to limit calories while still covering protein and mineral requirements.

The broken record shtick about dietary fats is idiotic. Every controlled study ever finds that the fat vs. carb mix doesn't much matter beyond total calories.

Peat said that "the body stores pufa first because it wants to burn sugar first." That has nothing to do with calories.

Besides body fat and calories, there are other issues with fat in the blood stream, and blood sugar.

No there aren't other issues in practical reality. Aside from avoiding vegetable oils and certain PUFA rich foods there are zero reasons to worry too much about fat vs starch vs sugar. Obviously ketosis and breaking down protein to glucose are bad things, but in the context of adequate calories you don't need heaps of carbohydrate to prevent that. Some OJ alongside lots of butter would be fine, for example.

I never stuffed my face,I ate to satiety.....but as it turned out I apparently 'ate too much or stuffed my face" in your words,bc these foods,especially the fructose&lactose,were causing malabsorption digestive problems which led to eating more.

4a, when you consume sugar and potassium, you create more glycogen than when you consume starch from grains or fats. The glycogen allows you to spare your muscles when you sleep. Your muscles consume fat, thus making you lose weight.

So, no. Consuming adequate amounts of potassium and sugar is much more beneficial for weight loss than consuming high phosphorus starches or fats.

Dutchie, what's the source of carbs in your Peat inspired diet?

I've tried all kinds...potato,white rice. various fruits,raw cane sugar,maple syrup,molasses,honey,palm sugar,white sugar....the latter which quickly robbed me of minerals.

It's nice that the Peat diet is working for people here,but it won't for everyone including me. A small amount in total of natural sugar/sucrose in a day isn't so catastrophic but it should defenitely remain a treat.
Fruits (except for berries,lemon&lime in moderation) are the worst bc of the (free) fructose and cowdairy&lactose are out too.

My digestive and immune system and liver can't handle it (...and possibly lingering Lyme critters).

"potato"

too starchy non-ideal

"white rice"

starch. no potassium.

"various fruits"

which? were any of them goitrogenic?

"raw cane sugar"

no potassium

I suggest sticking to safe fruits for some time, such as orange juice, while avoiding goitrogenic fruits, such as strawberries or peaches, if you haven't done this already.

Avoiding strawberries or peaches? What a bunch of bull shit. This is where someone needs to draw the line. And potatoes and rice aren't a big deal, as long as they are eaten with saturated fat. These ridiculous restrictions create more stress than eating the foods do.

raw cane sugar surely has potassium,as for fruits I ate: OJ/oranges,watermelon,honeydew melon,mango,dates,pineapple,lychee,banana,apples,cherries,papaya.
Other fruits,I don't care much for,neither do I actually for OJ.

I'm still not out on potatos occasionally,they seem to do less harm then fructose. They at least don't create this weird 'opiate' effect like fructose does.However it is a nigthshade and nigthshade veggies cause me gut inflammation,so I'm a bit hesitant to eat them too frequently.

I know you're all pro-Peat,but it's clear that not everyone can find salvation from such a type of diet.
It's time for me to move on (or possibly move backwards dietary as it seems to be the case.)

"Avoiding strawberries or peaches? What a bunch of bull shit. "

If other things hasn't worked. I personally ate strawberry jam all week.

If you're trying to lose weight, clearly, obviously, avoiding goitrogens and replacing them with better fruits is a good thing to try.

potatoes are high in potassium.

the answer is never a diet. the answer is always individual balance. endless discussions on what to eat or ideas to try do absolutely no good for anyone if they don't have the root understanding of endeavoring to balance one's life/food.

1 Answer

First of all, the illustration is ridiculous. The people who created it went out of their way to make these folks look hideous. -Who the heck did the hairdo for that poor woman?

Secondly (and more importantly), it implies that almost all the fat we see is to be considered harmful, barely even mentioning the difference between "central or android fat distribution" and "peripheral or gynoid fat distribution".

The distinction isn't trivial. It may mean the difference between fat that harms health and fat which promotes health. The difference between a frail old age and a vital one.

There is a lot of evidence to suggest that a combination of higher levels of appendicular fat (and lower levels of centrally located fat) may be optimally healthful for both genders. Here are just a few, with all emphasis being mine:

Lower thigh subcutaneous and higher visceral abdominal adipose tissue content both contribute to insulin resistance*.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22262160

"Subjects with a combination of low VAT and high TSAT had the highest insulin sensitivity, subjects with a combination of high VAT and low TSAT were the most insulin resistant. These associations remained significant after adjusting for age and gender. These data confirm that visceral excess abdominal adiposity is associated with IR across a range of middle-age to older men and women, and further suggest that higher thigh subcutaneous fat is favorably associated with better insulin sensitivity. This strongly suggests that these two distinct fat distribution phenotypes should both be considered in IR as important determinants of cardiometabolic risk."

Waist and hip circumferences have independent and opposite effects on cardiovascular disease risk factors: the Quebec Family Study.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11522554

"A narrow hip circumference (adjusted for age, BMI, and waist circumference) was associated with low HDL-cholesterol and high glucose concentrations in men (P < 0.05) and high triacylglycerol and insulin concentrations in men and women (P < 0.05)."

"A narrow waist and large hips may both protect against cardiovascular disease. These specific effects of each girth measure are poorly captured in the waist-to-hip ratio."

Independent and opposite associations of waist and hip circumferences with diabetes, hypertension and dyslipidemia: the AusDiab Study
http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v28/n3/abs/0802567a.html

"CONCLUSION: We found independent and opposite associations of waist and hip circumference with diabetes, dyslipidemia and less strongly with hypertension in a large population-based survey. These results emphasize that waist and hip circumference are important predictors for the metabolic syndrome and should both be considered in epidemiological studies. The associations were consistent in all age groups, except in age greater than or equal to75 y. "Further research should be aimed at verifying hypotheses explaining the 'protective' effect of larger hips."

Trunk fat and leg fat have independent and opposite associations with fasting and postload glucose levels: the Hoorn study.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14747216
"If trunk fat is taken into account, accumulation of fat in the legs seems to be protective against a disturbed glucose metabolism, particularly in women."

Low subcutaneous thigh fat is a risk factor for unfavourable glucose and lipid levels, independently of high abdominal fat. The Health ABC Study.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15660262
"Larger subcutaneous thigh fat is independently associated with more favourable glucose (in men) and lipid levels (in both sexes) after accounting for abdominal fat depots, which are associated with unfavourable glucose and lipid levels."****

Hip Fractures Risk in Older Men and Women Associated with DXA-Derived Measures of Thigh Subcutaneous Fat Thickness, Cross-Sectional Muscle Area, and Muscle Density.

"We found that decreased subcutaneous fat, CT thigh muscle attenuation, and appendicular lean mass by height squared (ALM/Ht2 ) were associated with fracture risk in men, hazard ratios (HR) equal 1.44 (1.02, 2.02), 1.40 (1.05, 1.85), and 0.58 (0.36, 0.91) respectively after adjusting for age, race, clinical site, BMI, chronic disease, hip BMD, self-reported health, alcohol use, smoking status, education, physical activity, cognitive function. In a similar model for women, only decreases in subcutaneous fat and DXA CSA were associated with hip fracture risk."

"Men with a high ALM/Ht2 and low subcutaneous fat thickness had over 8 times higher risk for hip fracture compared to those with low ALM/Ht2 and high subcutaneous fat. In women, ALM/Ht2 did not improve the model when subcutaneous fat included. We conclude that the DXA-derived subcutaneous fat thickness is a strong marker for hip fracture risk in both men and women, and especially men with high ALM/Ht2 ."

I fully expect you to suggest that I would only post this if I were a "fatty". That's okay. You can kiss my fat ass! :-)

answered Feb 25, 2015 by kapow
edited Feb 25, 2015 by kapow

OWNED.

who cares, people are naturally repulsed by fat people.

???? Was that a joke, Anon? Kind of like how we're "naturally repulsed" by women with hairy armpits?

If not, something tells me you're not an art historian. Just a hunch. ;-)

kapow, thank you for this. If I understand it, it seems there are three combinations, low visceral and low subcutaneous (healthy); low visceral and moderate subcutaneous (possibly healthy); high visceral regardless of subcutaneous (damaging).

It seems the visceral fat has direct access to the liver via the portal vein and can damage the liver by shunting free fatty acids and pro-inflammatories.

Helpfully, you can get an idea of your visceral fat by measuring BMI, waist circumference and either neck or four skinfolds with a skin caliper (triceps, biceps, subscapular and suprailiac).

Neck may be negatively correlated (indicating greater lean body mass) with visceral fat, and skinfolds may be positively correlated. (Twisk JW, Kemper HC, van Mechelen W, Post GB, van Lenthe FJ: Body fatness: longitudinal relationship of body mass index and the sum of skinfolds with other risk factors for coronary heart disease.Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 1998, 22:915-922.)

If you think, based on these measurements, you are at risk, then a blood test for triglycerides and gamma-glutamyl-transferase (GGT) will tell you with a high degree of accuracy whether you have visceral fat and fatty liver.

Fatty Liver Index = (e 0.953loge (triglycerides) + 0.139BMI + 0.718loge (ggt) + 0.053waist circumference - 15.745) / (1 + e 0.953loge (triglycerides) + 0.139BMI + 0.718loge (ggt) + 0.053waist circumference - 15.745) * 100

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/547956_3

your opinion of the art of the diagram has nothing to do with the science of having excess adipose tissue. do you want dem to dwah a wittlle pitcha of pweety people? wud dat make u feew beta? that is such a stupid thing to point out. someone can do a new version of this diagram with better graphics, in 3D with good looking people, and still the same fat content of the people, and it would be the same.

keep believing in "fat distribution" and see how far that gets you. keep looking for excuses for justifying having excess body fat. excess fat is excess fat. what matters is its there. and it distributes in the same basic places.

"I fully expect you to suggest that I would only post this if I were a "fatty".

Yep. ;)

I really don't give a shit if you want to stay fat. I'm not looking for arguments over "fat shaming" or emotions about being fat. What I'm looking for is objectivity of excess adipose tissue, and how it relates to health. Thats it.

and I would do more than just kiss your fat ass.

I think kapow has an objectively good point about certain kinds of subcutaneous fat possibly being healthy and protective, as long as visceral fat is minimal.

This is something that needs to be pointed out, so I'm really glad she took the time to do it. Thanks again, kapow.

"I fully expect you to suggest that I would only post this if I were a "fatty".

Yep. ;)

haha!! You're the one who informed pboy that he was a fatty too, right? You're so.....um......uh......um....gosh...what's the word I'm looking for? Oh yeah....stupid. Yes. Stupid is definitely the word that comes to mind.

"What I'm looking for is objectivity of excess adipose tissue, and how it relates to health. Thats it."

Come again? Which of the peer-reviewed studies that I cited failed to meet your criteria?
When I say that you're "stupid", by the way, I mean relative to someone like me (or to a number of people who post on here). Not to someone like Sarah Palin or anything. ;-)

I can post 10,000 peer reviews on the negative effects of being fat. I'm not interested in playing the studies game.

@Rob
I don't really think you're stupid. Just stupefyingly uncurious and frighteningly immature. I have no problem with genuinely stupid people.

Feel free to get back to me when you begin to develop some intellectual curiosity, even if maturity isn't on the horizon. (Even a smidgen will do).
:-)

@the discerning reader:
Do you really think that Rob posted this illustration to raise awareness about obesity's impact on one's health? Did he really think you were unaware of that?

Please realize: This is not about clinical obesity. This is about psychopathology. Or maybe it's about living in California. (Same thing?)

A couple of days ago, he suggested that a 6 foot tall man who weighs 175 lbs is carrying excess fat. I would contend that this is an aesthetic claim, not a health-related one. Just like most of the claims he's made about the human body over the last half year or so. It seems to me that what he is really trying to do is convince us that his personal aesthetic preference, which seems to tend toward the "ultra lean" body type, is optimally healthful for everyone. I have many reasons to believe that such a body type is not necessarily optimally healthy for everyone, and I have provided a small sample of studies to support my claim. However, I am open to the possibility that I am wrong. If there exists any actual scientific evidence to support his ideas, I would absolutely love to see it.

But alas, Rob, I imagine that there is as much chance of seeing this evidence as seeing that picture of yo' model-like self anytime soon.... ;-)

Vision, thank you for always being a gentleman. I purposely avoided using the terms "subcutaneous" and "visceral" fat to describe this apparent phenomenon, because I have seen some evidence to suggest that all belly fat is detrimental, even the subcutaneous kind. (Right now, I tend to think that it's best to get one's belly as flat and one's waist as small as possible, regardless of visceral fat levels, and regardless of whether it turns out that peripheral fat is protective). But I want to study the issue more thoroughly saying anything more about it.

Please take a look at this small but utterly fascinating study:
http://ageing.oxfordjournals.org/content/42/3/359.full
Central and peripheral fat and subclinical vascular damage in older women

"In our study sample the binary logistic regression showed that MAP, the trunk fat mass and the leg fat mass were significant predictors of vascular damage. For every 1 mmHg of increase in MAP and for every kilogram of increase in the trunk fat mass, there was, respectively, a 6% (OR: 1.06) and 25% (OR: 1.25) risk to develop subclinical vascular damage. On the contrary for an increase of 1 kg of peripheral fat, there is a 27% (OR: 0.73) reduction in the risk of developing subclinical vascular damage.

Interestingly, when we stratified the study population considering the body fat distribution, the lowest mean PWVcf (9.7 ± 1.98 m/s) was observed in the group with a combined high-leg fat mass/low trunk mass, whereas the highest was in the group with a combined high-trunk fat mass/low leg fat mass, showing a PWVcf of 12.12 ± 3.69 m/s.

Subcutaneous peripheral fat depots are metabolically different from abdominal visceral fat [22]. Peripheral adipose tissue is known to have higher lipoprotein lipase activity and low fatty acid turnover compared with visceral adipose tissue, which shows high lypolytic activity and elevated FFA flow and metabolism [23].

Furthermore, central adipose tissue is known to have a higher secretion of pro-inflammatory markers, such as leptin and IL 6, advanced glycation and lipoxidation products, whereas gluteo-femoral adipose tissue shows an increased secretion of anti-inflammatory adipokines, such as adiponectin, which has a known protective effect on arterial stiffness too."

"Key Points:

Central and peripheral adiposity are independent predictors, with an opposite effect on subclinical vascular damage.

This study shows a protective role of the gluteal-femoral fat on cardiovascular risk even in elderly.

The study confirms the harmful role of the central fat mass on arteries in the elderly."

Again, I know it's a small study, but it's extremely interesting to me that the group with the high leg fat mass/ low trunk fat mass did even better than the group with the low leg fat/ low trunk fat mass. And of course the high leg fat mass/high trunk fat mass group did better than the group with the low leg fat /high trunk fat mass.

Yes, they are using DXA (a kind of MRI) to reach their conclusions. I would expect a lot of resistance in the medical establishment to studies like these, because the results may be harder to fake. Anyone with a DXA machine could cost-effectively repeat this experiment and build on it.

Faking results and making studies prohibitively expensive is critical for sustaining the massive fraud that is medicine.

karin,

  1. I'm saddened that you believe talking about sex is "objectifying" women. We are all individuals. Sex is natural. People need to get over their taboo view of sex.

  2. You keep mentioning a picture so it's obvious you really want to see me. But it's a two way street. If you want to see me that badly then I have to see you. Skype? I'm not holding my breath.

Chief,

  1. My bad. I guess that I must have misinterpreted what you meant when you used inanimate objects as descriptive terms for women. Or when you talked about sticking stuff into them.

  2. About the Skyping: I'm afraid that can't happen anytime soon.

See, you are everything I am not. In fact, you are everything I could never even hope to be.

You are both "about 5'10" tall (as of September) and 6' tall (as claimed the other day).

You are both extremely "hot" and "slowly losing" excess adipose tissue.

You are overweight and yet impressively unafraid to tell a 130 lb man that he is fat.

You are one to call someone who is taller than you "chubby" (only to quietly admit that you weigh more than him).

You are one to say this:
"My whole life women have been telling me that I should be a model" and to guarantee to another that you have "a more handsome face" than him. One to mock others for failing to "show off their good results"......

....all while promising to show your hard and handsome self only after you "look how you want to look".

And what's so amazing about you is that you manage to do all of this without a hint of shame or embarrassment, something I could never manage to do. I think it is clear what is happening here: If it is possible for one to be seduced by sheer imbecility, then I, a married woman, must be completely smitten.
One thing, however, is certain: you are WAY out of my league. ;-)

Good point, Vision.

By the way Chief,
You know I like giving you a hard time, but I would like it even more if we could occasionally have a sincere conversation. :-)

Top
...