Jimmy Moore has posted our “Ask the Low-Carb Experts” show podcast, and will have show notes up shortly. The topic was “All Things Hunger (Satiety 101).” Over the course of the show I discussed four significant drivers of appetite:
- Malnourishment leading to “nutrient hunger”;
- Immune system reactions and inflammatory pathways to hunger;
- The role of gut bacteria and gut dysbioses in promoting hunger;
- The role of circadian rhythm disruption in increasing appetite.
These are all pathways that can be modulated to minimize appetite and make weight loss easier.
The callers had a number of challenging questions, so it was an interesting show.
Meanwhile, I also recorded an “AskBryan” podcast with Bryan Davis. AskBryan is also known as “Doc Fermento Discovers the World”. Bryan brings a different perspective and it was a fun show.
Enjoy!
via this link:
Good morning Paul,
re: human breast milk fat
I thought Pamela’s experience in her practice was interesting regarding the drastically lower amount of fat in ApoE4 women breast milk, possibly suggesting ApoE4 people require far less dietary fat. Pamela herself is ApoE4/3 and has done a great deal of work with differences between ApoE alleles.
McDonald NP, Pamela (2010-11-11). The Perfect Gene Diet (Kindle Locations 10226-10228). Hay House. Kindle Edition:
Hi Mark,
That would be an extremely surprising result, and I can’t find anything supporting it in Pubmed.
There are papers about the effect of ApoE phenotype on infant serum lipids, eg http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10996348 (triglycerides), http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9144090 (LDL and total cholesterol). But I didn’t see any on the lipid composition of breast milk. There is evidence that ApoE e4 infants may be more tolerant of a low-fat diet, eg http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8885957.
I have really liked your website for some time. I even bought your book. However I now feel so disappointed in you for linking to someone who is as misogynistic and racist as mangan and his ilk.
Marika,
“The line between good and evil runs through every human heart” – Alexander Solzhenitsyn. Every person does good and bad acts. When people do good, they deserve a tip of the cap and an acknowledgement, even if at other times they do ill. It serves to encourage them in good ways. If you search my links, you will find that every link is to a praiseworthy act of pursuit of knowledge about health.
As far as denouncing or shunning those who do ill, let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
It is not “casting stones” to choose not to associate someone who promotes an ethos you consider evil or harmful.
As a more extreme example, would you give the same atta-boy to a pro-health post written by a NAMBLA member who is unapologetic about his on-going child molestation?
Especially given that you know people will take your hyperlink as an endorsement/acceptance of his other behaviors, the cost-benefit analysis leans heavily toward “not worth linking to this guy’s post.” So the fact that you link anyway is even more confusing/suspicious to people.
Jeff, no sane person takes a hyperlink as a blanket endorsement of every aspect of another person’s behavior, any more than they take a vote for a politician as a blanket endorsement of every act that politician has ever engaged in. A link makes only this statement: “It may be worth your while to read the content at the other end of this link.” It says nothing more than that. Nothing.
It is a safe assumption that every person is a sinner. The idea that one can’t link to useful content without (a) conducting an inquisition into the author’s ethics, and (b) depriving anyone whose ethics are found imperfect of any human contact, is socially destructive. It requires everyone to engage in a never-ending Spanish Inquisition. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uprjmoSMJ-o
There seem to be quite a number of people around the Internet who are ready to declare other people evil and obliged to be shunned. I see this as exactly the same sin as misogyny, racism, and nationalism. It is declaring the other evil and seeking to drive them out of society.
You didn’t like the stone casting line. Try this one: http://bible.cc/matthew/7-5.htm.
You’ve missed the point. I did not say “blanket endorsement.” A simple fact about humans (insanity not required) is that they will form opinions about you based upon who you associate with.
I’m not arguing anyone is right to do so, so providing reasons that people shouldn’t do so is pointless.
Given that people *will* raise their estimation that you are racist/misogynist if you associate with racist/misogynist people, and given the value of that link vs. the social-network trouble such a link results in, why do you think it is worth it to post the link and then defend it to this extent?
Hi Jeff,
I think you’ve missed multiple points. Here are four:
– You think my self-interest should be the determining factor in whether I link to someone. I reject that. It is virtuous to reward virtuous conduct with recognition, intelligent science blogging is virtuous conduct, and it should be rewarded whether or not that redounds to my self interest. Recall the parable of the Good Samaritan: “Love your neighbor as yourself … And who is my neighbor?” Just because someone is unpopular or scorned does not mean he should be deprived of our association.
– You act as if it were a simple thing to establish the character of a person. God judges the heart, but men cannot; we are qualified only to judge acts. What if all these charges of racism and misogyny are false? I think that is more than likely than not. Then it would be shameful for me to join in a witch hunt, no matter how popular witch hunting may be.
– Christians are generally forbidden from ostracism of sinners. “He associates with sinners” was the charge levied against Jesus. We are obliged to love sinners, which implies association. Ostracism imposes a kind of social death – indeed, actual death by starvation if everyone were to adopt it.
– What we are qualified to judge are acts, and this is the level at which Christians are commanded to judge and act: We are obliged to extend our cooperation to virtuous acts and withhold our cooperation from sinful acts. This is what I have done.
If you step back and think of how moral principles would be applied in ordinary aspects of life toward ordinarily sinful people, I think you’ll quickly see that the Christian approach generally leads to good outcomes and the approach you are recommending would generally lead to disastrous outcomes. Indeed, the approach you are defending is wrong for the same reasons misogyny, racism, and nationalism are wrong: all four advocate ungenerosity, lack of charity, ostracism, hostility, discord, and division, create an ugly and unpleasant society, and call it virtue.
Paul,
Actually, if your interest is utterly other-interested, you would still be better off not associating with Mangan, because shrinking your audience means fewer people you can help with your health research.
Hi Jeff,
I think that is correct. And so if utilitarianism were my ethics, then shunning Mangan would clearly be the correct course of action.
But Christians are obliged to be not utilitarians, but lovers. “Love your neighbor as yourself” – even if the neighbor is unpopular, as in the lesson of the Good Samaritan.
We are also called to place the success of our ventures in God’s hands, and simply to focus on doing what is right.
And so in the end, I have to trust in the goodwill and good sense of our readers, and hope that they will recognize that these insinuations of “guilt by association” are baseless.
There is also the question of whether it is healthy to work in an atmosphere of fear, worrying about what others might think. At what point to we begin to consider censoring not just others, but ourselves, for the wrong reasons?
As someone who lived through the academic “political correctness” craze of the 1980s, I’ve realized that, in an imperfect world, it is healthier to tolerate a few things that offend me than shut down debate for emotional reasons.
Some people who are disagreeable now will change their views as they grow up, others will not, and we cannot always predict who will become who.
I notice that Paul still links to Carbsane. That’s Christian tolerance for you.
Increasing the health of your readership is also a form of loving your neighbor, so you are making a comparative determination regarding which “love your neighbor” pursuit to undertake (praise Mangan – one neighbor – or reach more readers – multiple neighbors).
For reasons such as these, we are all utilitarians, whether Christian or not, who happen to have different utility functions. (Mathematically speaking, it can be shown that any given deontological or virtue-ethical decision system is isomorphic to a utilitarian one.)
I think we understand one another now, and agree up to a point of differing interpretations of what it means to love one’s neighbors.
The new book is a great update. Hope you have a good day despite the rumblings of a fickle ‘net.
Great talk Paul, thanks for sharing
Maybe women can’t intermittent fast as well because they have less lean muscle for storing glycogen or cannibalizing?
Hi Tam,
Interesting thought. I don’t know if that’s been tested.
Paul, I think that your links are entirely self-serving and that your so-called christian argument about sinners is specious at best. If Jimmy Moore and Mangans had not endorsed your book you would not have linked to them. So please don’t be both self righteous and hypocritical.
Nonsense, marika. Dennis Mangan is an astute biomedical scientist who writes intelligent posts about diet, biology, and health. It’s true that without our book I would never have discovered his blog. But I certainly don’t link to him or anyone else in exchange for reviews. I link because I think others may benefit from reading the linked material. As for Jimmy, I like him, but his stance toward our book has hardly been uniformly positive. You might wish to look back at the “Safe Starches Debate” posts.
Women can fast just as well as men. I am part of a Facebook Leangains group of 4000 women who fast daily, lift heavy weights and eat very well, many paleo (but high protein and more carbs, unlike PHD).
Hi Kate,
Thanks. It may be carb+protein undereating that is the main issue.
That struck me what you said about the body being able to store about 500 grams of carbs in the muscles and the liver. I can’t fast or even sleep through the night without 1 or 2 snacks. I might be undereating myself. Disappointingly the scale goes up when I eat more carbs.
Paul, Thanks for your tempered manner to be and stay who you are, faithfull and full of compassion.
Words are nothing regardless this never endeing time you pass on this Q/A and the heartful way of delivering your help throughout this blog.
Best,and Blessings, July
Thank you July. I appreciate it.
Paul, although I still don’t agree with you about linking, I do also appreciate your attempts at answering everyone even if they disagree with you.
Speaking of lowering hunger, I find myself less hungry after adding an acid to a meal. Maybe that applies to the immunity or gut flora rule. Maybe with yogurt too.
12:31 was a very profound post.
I enjoy the tone set in here.
I am appalled that you would appear on Jimmy Moore’s podcast.
First of all, he’s a weight loss fraud. Anyone with half a brain can see that. Anyone with half a brain would have lost interest in his brand of stupid and crazy long ago.
Most of all is the fact that he openly consorted with David Duke.
I defend your right to link to Mangan, and to Vdare. They may be extremist, but extremism in the defense of liberty is, in my opinion, no vice. In our society, people link to people who link to people…that is the way our society rolls.
But appearing on Moore’s podcast is different, because of what he did.
Jimmy Moore appeared on the podcast of a vicious, paranoid, liar, an obsessive conspiracy-mongering anti-Semite. He blew off people who questioned him about this. I was one. He scrubbed his website when he saw that that didn’t look good.
Then he lied about the whole sorry escapade.
Shame on Jimmy Moore for doing this, and shame on you for appearing on his podcast.
I went back and read some of these comments. You say, “- You think my self-interest should be the determining factor in whether I link to someone. I reject that.”
and then you say “. As for Jimmy, I like him, but his stance toward our book has hardly been uniformly positive. You might wish to look back at the “Safe Starches Debate” posts.”
You don’t fool me. There’s no such thing as bad publicity, bub.
He gave you exposure, so you go on his podcast.
You are nothing but a Bible-thumping phony.
Wow,
I searched for Apo e and found this post. I sure wasn’t expecting the turn the comments made. Interesting! All information is worthy. It is up to us to decide if it suits our lives and our consciences. Those who don’t agree can choose not to read.
Now, what is up with Apo e? A few years ago, I had the Berkley Heart Lab tests done and found out that I was Apo e4/3, if I remember correctly. I kinda blew off the info my doc said about keeping my fat intake to below 20%, because it seemed to me to be an extreme version of staying low fat and the standard advice given to patients – you know, stay away from sat. fats, use canole, etc. What should I be doing with this info? Is staying that low fat really something I need to think about? Shudder…That would be horrendous! I’m going to check out the links, but any advice you might have would be greatly appreciated. I am working on getting to the weight loss version of PHD, as I have a few decades of pounds to lose!
What is your opinion on eating coconut flour? coconut oil? I use coconut flour for bread making-no grains included.
I’d be interested in hearing your thoughts on coconut flour as well. Looking for good options for occasional baked treats. I wonder if the high fiber content might be a problem.
I think coconut flour is fine; it is mostly fiber. We personally use gluten-free flours made with rice flour, potato starch, and tapioca starch; we’re not afraid to get some carb calories from baked goods. Coconut oil is excellent, though we pretty much get it from coconut milk these days.
Truth about coconut
Pure virgin coconut oil, containing no hydrogenation (the process of adding hydrogen to make a liquid fat hard), contains 92% saturated fat — the highest amount of saturated fat of any fat. It is also high is lauric acid, a medium chain fat, that increases LDL levels as well. Therefore, despite all the hype about the health benefits of coconut oil, milk, and water, it’s very high in saturate fats which have an adverse impact on LDL and Tchol levels in most studies. Additionally, saturated fat intake should be limited to 7% of total daily caloric intake which equals approximately 15 g/d for women and 20-25 g/d for men. One cup of coconut milk has about 42 g of saturated fat.