You jinxed me. The electricity flashed on and off tonight and I got pitched ass over teakettle over a chair and on to the floor.

I am fine though. It is better to be sturdy than to be good.

You jinxed me. The electricity flashed on and off tonight and I got pitched ass over teakettle over a chair and on to the floor.
In 1992, Schmidt was studying the complications of diabetes when she and her team made what she calls a startling discovery: Humans and other mammals have a protein on the surface of fat cells called the receptor for advanced glycation end products, or RAGE, which appeared to play previously unobserved roles in a host of the body’s metabolic and inflammatory responses. Eventually, it became clear that the protein was also present in nondiabetic tissues, which suggested RAGE had consequences far beyond just a few chronic diseases.
Schmidt’s latest study found an enormous difference in weight gain between two test groups: conventional mice and mice whose RAGE pathway had been deleted. The latter group gained 70 percent less weight than conventional mice, had lower glucose levels, and expended more energy while eating the same high-fat diet and doing the same amount of physical activity. The conventional mice’s bodies hit the metabolism brakes, making it impossible for them to burn as much energy as their RAGE-deleted counterparts.
Schmidt posits that RAGE might have evolved to protect mammals, including humans, when another meal might not be predictably forthcoming and the body’s ability to retain its resources would be a boon. “However, in time of plenty, when there is no shortage of nutrients, the receptor is still present and is able to continue to exert that unfortunate role of hoarding the energy and not allowing it to be expended,” she explains. It makes sense that the body would conserve resources when it detects a potential need, but it feels particularly cruel, at least in modern times, that humans might experience the same metabolic slowdown after a hearty meal.
![]()
With the qualification that the study’s findings are in mice and its exact translation to humans is not yet known, Utpal Pajvani, a professor and an endocrinologist at Columbia University, expressed similar optimism about the new RAGE findings. “These data are quite interesting, and are consistent with the hypothesis that the obesity epidemic is in part due to evolutionary pressures to prevent starvation in stress,” he told me via email. “The current study adds to [Schmidt’s] impressive body of work, and suggest that methods to reduce RAGE signaling in fat may have benefit in people.”
p0rtia wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2019 3:04 pmAnswering here, since we have the nice new thread.Danraft wrote: ↑Sat Jun 22, 2019 10:42 pm Re: Why isn't the keto diet recommended more? I'm not a nutritionist and don't know for sure what the emphasis is in today's curriculum, but, I took my courses and I read current research. These are my contemplative thoughts, and, while I have seen some supported in the literature, it wasn't my focus and I have a full plate.
I find it potentially dangerous. As others have mentioned, evolution is a good basis to consider implications ( it is my goto method).
It is "hacking the system" that is meant to respond to stressful situations and maintain balance in the organism. The very old roots of these "stress response" still exist and many "extra" ones are built on the same motifs. The response in the archaic system was dramatic-- a change in proteins to a more heat-stable version, or to shut down, or to do any number of cataclysmic metabolic responses...
Which goes back to Dan-ism "A diseased/stressed system does not respond the same way as a healthy system." The ancient system has roots in nutrient sensing (TOR) and to keep the system in a state of "special" nutrient needs is foolhardy. Unfortunately, and this is my guess, the stress-response systems only "feels" evolutionary selective pressure at rare times and may be more prone to accumulated errors. Being in this Keto state is hard on the organism. It uses a less efficient pathway, that by its very nature, is going to produce more reactive oxygen that causes more mutations.
I mentioned by-products-- burning carbohydrates, as the name suggests, produces CO2 and H20 and energy. That is pure. There isn't any dark smoke coming from that chimney ( if I may use that analogy) whereas burning proteins and fat for energy is akin to burning carpet in the wood stove. Yes, it burns, but the smoke is black and sooty with various byproducts that can clog up the works. The body has systems that counter this, in the liver and kidneys especially, but it is hard work and requires even more calories and invokes even more problems.
Autophagy, in the keto circles, means fasting until the cells have a product shortage and start processing all the items marked for recycling and those items in the recycling centers ( lysosomes) and this can be healthy. It also causes the number of mitochondria per cell to be decreased-- benefits depend on the specific situation. But, the act of fasting also activates systems that are less ideal. And, if done too often, can be detrimental. (In some types of cancer, say the estrogen sensitive ones, it is important to note that even though a receptor has been moved from the cell membrane, that doesn't mean it stops signaling. If, for instance, the sorting mechanisms are not functioning (common in disease state), it may not make it to the lysosome where it would be broken down( and it just keeps signaling). This simple error is made by almost every cell modeling program I have examined.)
Mitochondria are exposed to more reactants and have high mutation rates because of this. There error correcting mechanisms are only so-so and. a primary means of checking (and eliminating bad copies), is for two mitochondria to fuse and the bad copy is eliminated. Great. But, if done too often, this is also a problem. How often is too often? Dunno. The lifespan of mitochondria is about 30 days.
To be honest, I have stayed away from Keto as a research topic because I have close friends who are strong advocates, and I just don't want the friction.
I will say, that there are better hacks. Inducing autophagy or mitochondrial fusion doesn't require fasting. And, much of the "benefits" of keto could be obtained by using a different stimulus which is the presence of specific types of digested fiber in the colon.
Then there is the "lack of nutrients". So many plant products offer incredible health benefits and they are not present.
"Sustainable"? Yes, if the individual is able to afford to eat higher priced food. And, from a global environment viewpoint, it would lead to massive food shortages.
So, in my view, without bothering to confirm hunches or debunk myself or seek true expertise, there are easier and less stressful ways to cause many of the metabolic benefits. And, a LOT of studies would need to be made into all the "off the cuff" concerns and more. It's like doctors saying supplements are a waste of money ( because there is a dearth of randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind studies) and then advocating the Mediterranean diet( for which, by definition, one can't have placebos) which has few solid studies supporting it that would not be accomplished by large amounts of just the olive oil. Olive oil is pretty damn good and, BTW activates the endocannabinoid system (as does canola).
And, it's possible that the largest "causative" element is a shift in the mix of gut bacteria caused by a change in diet. Just eliminating sugar is tremendous, for example. And, oils and fats have a far better glycemic index than simple sugars, which means spikes and valleys in glucose are less strong. This area is, and always has been, controversial. C'est la vie.
In the weight-management community, the fact that proteins burn extra carbs is considered a plus.But can you tell me what these by-products of which you speak are? Feel free to use chemical nomenclature. And why would this would be a problem with normally functioning kidneys and liver? And are you Vegan or vegetarian?
Many of your discussion points (fast-mimicking, lack of nutrients, electrolytes, the benefits of olive oil). I am myself currently trying to get a handle on the cortisol issue; I short-term fast a LOT, and find that my sleep is disrupted to greater degrees the longer I fast (fourth night I'm up at 2 or 3 and have a hella hard time getting back to sleep). Which is one of the reasons I'm switching to 44 hour fasts and the occasional OMAD (one meal a day). I have breakfast once in a blue moon.
I'm also slowly moving toward having my supper earlier in the day -- finished by 5, or by 4, or, today, 2. I've read some interesting literature (cohort study results) regarding health concerns that show unpleasant disease recurrence for those who eat in the evening compared to those who don't. Of course, if I don't eat at all, that solves that problem.
It's a puzzle! And thanks for your ongoing input, Danraft. This is the stuff I'm currently interested in. <3
Anecdotal, of course, but I have not found that my circadian rhythms, as I understand them, have not changed. I am still pretty much a morning person, I start waking up around 5, and then doze or read for an hour, then get up. I maintain good energy throughout the day. My witching hour (the time of day when I inevitably become hungry) is 4 PM. I like to head to bed around 9 PM, go to sleep around 10. The wakefulness during nights after a day of fasting is a well documented side effect and does not make me sleep longer in the morning or make me tired during the day (indeed, if anything, it makes me get up earlier). If I'm up past midnight I will sleep till seven, but that's about it. I do not have any experience of my daily rhythm seeming to switch to a 21 hour cycle.Danraft wrote: ↑Mon Jul 22, 2019 4:07 am Losing your circadian rhythm while fasting would be more likely depending on many factors including the amount of light hitting your retina during a small window in the morning. I would bet, that when you lose the circadian and are dysfunctional, that your time precesses, that is, the non-circadian clock is on a 21 hour cycle, so each day you would be 3 hours earlier and in a week, you would be back to normal time.
Interesting article, but it seems to focus on chronotype (who knew?) and mood. I have a couple of relatives who suffer greatly from inability to sleep at night, and I have forwarded the article to them.Danraft wrote: ↑Mon Jul 22, 2019 4:07 am but, more important is if you are a Per3 variant of circadian gene sets. This means that the "Diet" reset, or mealtimes, is the only functioning reset. So, yes, losing time is pretty likely if that is the case. I was just telling Slarti, who, like me, is a night owl and odd hour person, that he needs to stay strict to the rules and force the system to reset.
The dysfunctional circadian is hugely destructive. Entire supergene sets are supposed to work together with synchronized loops unfolding in the same 3D space and the 4th dimension matters. If they are unwound together, then the trans chromosomal interactions fall apart. This is not a small thing.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-07957-4
It that the correct article? Doesn't mention leptin.Danraft wrote: ↑Mon Jul 22, 2019 4:07 am I was actually seeking out this thread because I just came across a "leptin" link that is intriguing.
![]()
On the leptin subject, I found this link following a viral protein's effect on the temporoammonic calcium modified synapse integration center that is involved in other work I am doing of fibromyalgia and schizophrenia. The leptin article is here, there are bunch of these coming in the next year or so. (Most are "embargoed" right now.. and can't be read until the middle of next year-- usually, I can find back door access but not on these).
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/artic ... ne.0165891
I am just now catching up on this thread and read your post.DrIrvingFinegarten wrote: ↑Wed Jul 17, 2019 2:36 am
I'm working on trying to do better at the other meals, but I work a third-shift job, which makes sleep tough, and emotionally it's been a tough year. Within 2 1/2 months between February and mid-April, I lost my job of 19 years and my mom died of cancer and for various reasons, I'm facing a very uncertain future. I'm amazed I haven't been stress eating more.
Dolly wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2019 12:05 amOff TopicI am just now catching up on this thread and read your post.DrIrvingFinegarten wrote: ↑Wed Jul 17, 2019 2:36 am
I'm working on trying to do better at the other meals, but I work a third-shift job, which makes sleep tough, and emotionally it's been a tough year. Within 2 1/2 months between February and mid-April, I lost my job of 19 years and my mom died of cancer and for various reasons, I'm facing a very uncertain future. I'm amazed I haven't been stress eating more.
Sorry about the loss of your Mom. I hope other things are working out for you.![]()
Sweet. I wish you lots of luck. And lots of focus!Flatpointhigh wrote: ↑Wed Sep 11, 2019 4:53 pm Currently doing the Atkins 20 - 22g of carbs/day is really tough and I go over that, but I'm down 4 lbs. no complaints. I should be at 125 by the end of the year if I have a 12lb/month weight loss. (I'm currently @ 162)
Thanks. the 20g is the starting point. I'll be able to add carbs back, but never to the extent I used to consume. Let's do this!!!!p0rtia wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2019 8:01 amSweet. I wish you lots of luck. And lots of focus!Flatpointhigh wrote: ↑Wed Sep 11, 2019 4:53 pm Currently doing the Atkins 20 - 22g of carbs/day is really tough and I go over that, but I'm down 4 lbs. no complaints. I should be at 125 by the end of the year if I have a 12lb/month weight loss. (I'm currently @ 162)
Love me some Atkins. The OG LC weight-loss plan.Was very successful with it for weight lose once upon a time, though I couldn't sustain the very low carb after a few years. Let me know if you need a weigh-loss buddy. I'm always looking for support.
I'm in hour 83 of my fast. Sucking salt![]()
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 193211.htmSummary:
Many people struggle to keep their weight in check as they get older. Now new research has uncovered why that is: lipid turnover in the fat tissue decreases during aging and makes it easier to gain weight.
The scientists studied the fat cells in 54 men and women over an average period of 13 years. In that time, all subjects, regardless of whether they gained or lost weight, showed decreases in lipid turnover in the fat tissue, that is the rate at which lipid (or fat) in the fat cells is removed and stored.
Those who didn't compensate for that by eating less calories gained weight by an average of 20 percent
Prior studies have shown that one way to speed up the lipid turnover in the fat tissue is to exercise more.
Cool, thanks!Sluffy1 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 13, 2019 7:50 am Why people gain weight as they get olderhttps://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 193211.htmSummary:
Many people struggle to keep their weight in check as they get older. Now new research has uncovered why that is: lipid turnover in the fat tissue decreases during aging and makes it easier to gain weight.
The scientists studied the fat cells in 54 men and women over an average period of 13 years. In that time, all subjects, regardless of whether they gained or lost weight, showed decreases in lipid turnover in the fat tissue, that is the rate at which lipid (or fat) in the fat cells is removed and stored.
Those who didn't compensate for that by eating less calories gained weight by an average of 20 percent
Prior studies have shown that one way to speed up the lipid turnover in the fat tissue is to exercise more.
Eat less and exersize more... calories in/calories out... seems so simple.