Question about HLAF / Ray Peat diet - Caustic, abc123, droddy

Everything ive read on IH.org states that one should avoid sugar. Now i hear abc123 saying he's taking in like 700mg of sugar a day on the HLAF diet.

Do you need a special diet to be able to take in that much sugar and not lose hair? Can someone explain?

Trial and error. Everyone is different. I for one need some form of carbs in my diet, namely sweet potatoes or sugar - fruit, cane sugar, juices etc. Inflammation is non existent, where as when i tried a paleo diet i had constant bouts of inflammation and lost a great deal of hair in the temple region due to hormonal stress - cortisol, adrenaline etc.

NDW wrote:Everything ive read on IH.org states that one should avoid sugar. Now i hear abc123 saying he's taking in like 700mg of sugar a day on the HLAF diet.

Do you need a special diet to be able to take in that much sugar and not lose hair? Can someone explain?

You should be on a diet that you feel best on.

Yes you do need a special diet, you need to keep pufa low and your nutrient density high. Foods such as eggs, shellfish, milk, orange juice, liver will accomplish this.

High sugar consumption is one of the worst things you can do IMO. Sure, maybe one can get away with it when they are young like a lot of people on this forum but once you get older it will rapidly age you. You can notice this as wrinkles around the eyes first.

Think the real question is why so many people in the modern world feel better on a high sugar diet. Why they crave it so much. One reason is insulin resistance which I would recommend blood donation for but many supplements that are mentioned on this forum will help and others.

In short, fix other underlying issues such as insulin resistance and you won't need the high sugar consumption and will feel better and will be better for your health.

rdkml wrote:High sugar consumption is one of the worst things you can do IMO. Sure, maybe one can get away with it when they are young like a lot of people on this forum but once you get older it will rapidly age you. You can notice this as wrinkles around the eyes first.

Think the real question is why so many people in the modern world feel better on a high sugar diet. Why they crave it so much. One reason is insulin resistance which I would recommend blood donation for but many supplements that are mentioned on this forum will help and others.

In short, fix other underlying issues such as insulin resistance and you won't need the high sugar consumption and will feel better and will be better for your health.

The reason why it makes people feel better and they crave it is because it lowers ATCH stress hormones. Orange juice actually lowers insulin resistance http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publications.htm?seq_no_115=215944

Orange juice is the safest way to raise cholesterol, which when combined with adequate thyroid (sugar increases this too) converts into pregnenolone. Keeping pregnenolone high is an effective way to prevent aging (wrinkles).

With stress, aging, metabolic and degenerative disease, non esterified fatty acids will often be elevated inhibiting the oxidation of glucose. Eating sucrose, which is 1 part glucose 1 part fructose, can by pass this inhibition of glucose oxidation.

abc123 - I feel good on my diet, but a diet specifically designed for hairloss intrigues me. I was under the impression that the massive amounts of sugar is a necessary pillar of the HLAF diet. Am i wrong? Im pretty sure you said you're putting granulated sugar in beverages simply to boost sugar status. Granulated sugar has no nutrients. The only reason i can think of that someone would want to do that is if its a crucial part of the bigger picture of dietary strategy to modulate hair loss.

I realize with such large amounts of sugar that nutrients must be increased to keep up with metabolism. However, does the HLAF diet include provisions to counteract all of the negative aspects of sugar stated on immortalhair.org? I should probably just buy the book but i dont want to waste money on a book that tells me to dump a half pound of white sugar into my milk every morning.

And now everyone is saying "do whatever works for you" etc. So basically the HLAF is a diet that can work for SOME people but is certainly not for everyone?

NDW wrote:abc123 - I feel good on my diet, but a diet specifically designed for hairloss intrigues me. I was under the impression that the massive amounts of sugar is a necessary pillar of the HLAF diet. Am i wrong? Im pretty sure you said you're putting granulated sugar in beverages simply to boost sugar status. Granulated sugar has no nutrients. The only reason i can think of that someone would want to do that is if its a crucial part of the bigger picture of dietary strategy to modulate hair loss.

I realize with such large amounts of sugar that nutrients must be increased to keep up with metabolism. However, does the HLAF diet include provisions to counteract all of the negative aspects of sugar stated on immortalhair.org? I should probably just buy the book but i dont want to waste money on a book that tells me to dump a half pound of white sugar into my milk every morning.

And now everyone is saying "do whatever works for you" etc. So basically the HLAF is a diet that can work for SOME people but is certainly not for everyone?

Several things here:

With regards to eating sugar, what I wrote in another thread

Refined granulated sugar is extremely pure, but it lacks all of the essential nutrients, so it should be considered as a temporary therapeutic material, or as an occasional substitute when good fruit isn't available, or when available honey is allergenic.



-Dr. Ray Peat

If one was to consume all his carbs from purely white sugar (say 60% of his calories, which would be ridiculous and no one is recommending this), the person could possibly run into long term problems because he is increasing his metabolism and therefore increasing his nutrition requirements, while meeting none of them because sugar is void of them. There is plenty of literature showing people consuming a large amount of calories as pure sucrose from table sugar over a short time frame with no negative effects, in fact sometimes positive.

Several other aspects of fruit make it more desirable than sugar. Fruit will contain anti-inflammatory agents (salicylic acid, flavonoids, phenolics) and factors that help reduce the need for insulin (citrus, potassium, etc).

There should be no problem consuming a moderate amount of sugar daily if the rest of your diet is in check (context and situation). A diet high in fruits, milk, shell fish, liver, eggs will accomplish this.

So basically the diet advocates mainly orange juice as a carb source, but not to worry about moderate sugar consumption in the short term as the fructose is benefecial.

Secondly you asked, "does the HLAF diet include provisions to counteract all of the negative aspects of sugar stated on immortalhair.org?". I clearly don't think, when consumed in a reasonable fashion as outlined above, white table sugar has any negative health effects. There is zero evidence to suggest fruits like orange juice does. If the info on immortalhair.org says otherwise you have to decide who makes the best case and decide for yourself.

Thirdly you asked, "And now everyone is saying "do whatever works for you" etc. So basically the HLAF is a diet that can work for SOME people but is certainly not for everyone?"

No, it means that the diet you feel best on is likely the healthiest for you. This is because when you feel good your body is likely doing everything right. I have tried 5-6 diets and I can say without a doubt that Ray Peat's blows all the others out of the water. I think the science suggests it should will work for everyone, but I cannot be 100% certain in that (like anyone else recommending a diet). Therefore you have to do some self-experimenting.

Hope that helps.

that's what he recommends for sugar is white processed? What about organic evaporated cane juice ,raw turbinado,demerara? Does he talk about raw honey that imo would be much more beneficial?

I know I say this a lot, but it bears repeating. The devil is in the details.

I agree with what abc123 is saying.

Let's say if one avoids vegetable oils, hydrogenated oils, fried foods (except coconut/palm oil) then eating sugar will not be quite as bad--especially if co-factor nutrients are taken in. For example, If I eat something with sugar, I will most certainly take it with magnesium. I take magnesium everyday anyway, and it will help, along with other nutrients to reduce the negative impact of sugar.

I usually satisfy my sweet tooth with fructose containing beverages, which have only a moderate effect on insulin.

Everyone is different, and in my case, if I eat something with wheat and sugar and processed vegetable oil, the inflammation that can arise would be more noticeable.

Would experiment a little. Personally, I take various supplements so that I can have my "cake and eat it too." At the same time, I do avoid certain foods completely, because they are harder to fight, such as the refined vegetable oils, hydrogenated oils and excessive grain products.

I'm very intrigued by Peat's suggestions with sugar, but again I've been conditioned to hate sugar and so I'm wary of the recommendations. I have a few questions about sugar for which Peat may or may not have an answer, which is why I'm asking the forum, because I'd value your input.

What about sugar sensitivity? If you read "Potatoes Not Prozac" by Dr. Kathleen DesMaisons, a book that seems to describe my experience with sugar 100%, she says that some individuals, particularly those who tend to have addictive personalities and come from families with histories of such tendencies (like alcoholism), you are likely sugar sensitive. You are born with naturally low levels of serotonin and beta-endorphin. Thus, the brain upregulates receptors for these neurotransmitters and the stimulus of sugar creates an exaggerated effect on these chemicals, one that primes it for sugar addiction and dramatic swings in blood sugar, thus insulin and the neurotransmitters as well. This produces a Dr. Jekyl/Hyde effect, that I know all too well. How would one deal with this on the Peat diet, considering he advocates simple sugars, when DesMaisons' recommendation is complex carboyhdrate?

Additionally, what about the supposed negative impact of fructose on the liver and the development of fatty liver? We see this with HFCS exposure (I'm aware fruit has far less fructose). What about fructose's effects on blood sugar (even a small dose of fructose can flatline blood sugar). Lastly, how can frequent consumption of sucrose not have a negative impact on insulin resistance?

So if anyone can explain Peat's recs while accounting for these:
1. Sugar Sensitivity
2. Fructose effects on liver
3. Fructose effects of blood sugar
4. Possible promotion of insulin resistance

If I'm missing something obvious, point me in the right direction guys. Like I said, my brain is fighting this recommendation to eat sugar because I've been conditioned to be afraid of it.

anthonyspencer54 wrote:I'm very intrigued by Peat's suggestions with sugar, but again I've been conditioned to hate sugar and so I'm wary of the recommendations. I have a few questions about sugar for which Peat may or may not have an answer, which is why I'm asking the forum, because I'd value your input.

What about sugar sensitivity? If you read "Potatoes Not Prozac" by Dr. Kathleen DesMaisons, a book that seems to describe my experience with sugar 100%, she says that some individuals, particularly those who tend to have addictive personalities and come from families with histories of such tendencies (like alcoholism), you are likely sugar sensitive. You are born with naturally low levels of serotonin and beta-endorphin. Thus, the brain upregulates receptors for these neurotransmitters and the stimulus of sugar creates an exaggerated effect on these chemicals, one that primes it for sugar addiction and dramatic swings in blood sugar, thus insulin and the neurotransmitters as well. This produces a Dr. Jekyl/Hyde effect, that I know all too well. How would one deal with this on the Peat diet, considering he advocates simple sugars, when DesMaisons' recommendation is complex carboyhdrate?

Additionally, what about the supposed negative impact of fructose on the liver and the development of fatty liver? We see this with HFCS exposure (I'm aware fruit has far less fructose). What about fructose's effects on blood sugar (even a small dose of fructose can flatline blood sugar). Lastly, how can frequent consumption of sucrose not have a negative impact on insulin resistance?

So if anyone can explain Peat's recs while accounting for these:
1. Sugar Sensitivity
2. Fructose effects on liver
3. Fructose effects of blood sugar
4. Possible promotion of insulin resistance

If I'm missing something obvious, point me in the right direction guys. Like I said, my brain is fighting this recommendation to eat sugar because I've been conditioned to be afraid of it.

1. When your liver glycogen is full you will lose all desire to eat sucrose. Sugar cravings come from low blood sugar and hypothyroidism.
2. Sucrose is beneficial for fatty liver. Mice fed high sucrose/low pufa do not develop the condition. It increases glucose oxidation which is a good thing.

There are many other things going on with regards to fatty liver. Elevated NEFA, Impaired b-oxidation, increased lipogensis, and poor vldl export. Increasing sucrose intake will help lower NEFA, which is critical for reversing it. Fructose will be stored as glycogen and can be converted to glucose as well.

In short, Lustig et al. are a bunch of retards.

3. I'm not sure I follow

4. Insulin resistance is largely because of elevated NEFA. Seeing as sucrose consumption will eventually lower it, it's protective against insulin resistance. You won't find any evidence of a high fruit or fruit juice diet increasing insulin resistance, like the study I posted it lowers it.

OK thanks for your help guys. I think im starting to put all the pieces of the puzzle together. I still have a couple questions but im busy at the moment. I will get back to this later. Please stick around.

Thanks alot abc. Great info sir.

For the people worried about the sugar aspect of the HLAF/Ray Peat diet, know that you dont have to use granulated sugar. You can get plenty of simple sugar from orange juice, milk and fruit. Think of these foods not so much high in sugar but high in nutrients. In fact orange juice and milk and two of the highest nutrient dense foods out there.

Caustic - You say you agree with what abc123 is saying but I still see two conflicting stories. You are basically saying that sugar, in the right context is not that bad. abc123 is taking in 700mg of sugar a day. To me, anyone taking in 700mgs is a sugar advocate. How is saying something is not too bad the same as being enthusiastic about it enough to take 700mgs?

I would say that sugar, instead of being looked at as food as it is throughout most of society, should be looked at as a medicine, no different from any other herb we consume for a particular effect, that effect in this case being to stimulate better energy metabolism and thyroid function by increasing the oxidation of glucose and production of carbon dioxide, as well as reducing stress hormones.

But like any other medicine, we have to consider the context of the system and the timing and cofactors. For me, I believe the best time to "dose" with sugar is when the body is depleted of glycogen and blood borne amino acids and when it is properly primed for insulin sensitivity. This occurs after an intense bout of exercise. At this stage, an insulin response will not only have the effects mentioned above, but GLUT-4 activation will also help insulin to drive all of the nutrients you consume into muscular tissue, and the sugar into the mitochondria. It is in states of inactivity that large doses of sugar have a negative impact, in my mind, when glut-4 is not being recruited and blood sugar is already sufficient so that any incremental sugar will just be converted to triglycerides in fat tissue. After exercise, sugar will help to add more muscle tissue, increase metabolism, improve nutrient delivery, and reduce the cortisol spikes from the exercise itself.

The only other time of day that I can see simple sugars being reasonably effective is in the morning after a sufficient period of fasting during sleep. Again, with proper cofactors and a nutritionally dense breakfast, the sugar would make nutrient delivery more efficient and reduce the morning spike in cortisol. Aside from these times, I believe simple sugars (at least for certain metabolic types who are sugar sensitive like fast oxidizers) will do more harm that good. Sugar dosing, like taking a medication, should be done strategically.

Like Peat and ABC point to, the cofactors are important also when it comes to mitigating the blood sugar response. I believe that's why they promote orange juice, due to the other factors present. But I still believe that complex carbohydrates are better (if you are a fast oxidizer) unless you are in one of the two situations I mentioned. If your metabolic type suits simple sugars, then I'm sure you've never worried about sugar at all and you might be fine getting all of your carbohydrates from intermittent doses of simple sugars. But if not, I'd stick with complex carbs (sweet potatoes, legumes) unless you are coming out of a fasted state or intense exercise.

NDW wrote:Caustic - You say you agree with what abc123 is saying but I still see two conflicting stories. You are basically saying that sugar, in the right context is not that bad. abc123 is taking in 700mg of sugar a day. To me, anyone taking in 700mgs is a sugar advocate. How is saying something is not too bad the same as being enthusiastic about it enough to take 700mgs?

NDW, I think you have to understand what is meant by sugar.

Sugar can mean, glucose, fructose, sucrose, and white table sugar (sucrose). All are sugars but each are different. For example, a rice based diet is a high sugar diet despite having no white table sugar.

As far as I'm aware CS recommends metabolic typing with the avoidance of vegetable oils. So this diet for the most part is compatible with his views.

I only ever put white table sugar in my coffee or use it for a workout drink. My carbs come from fruit and milk.

anthonyspencer54 wrote:I would say that sugar, instead of being looked at as food as it is throughout most of society, should be looked at as a medicine, no different from any other herb we consume for a particular effect, that effect in this case being to stimulate better energy metabolism and thyroid function by increasing the oxidation of glucose and production of carbon dioxide, as well as reducing stress hormones.

But like any other medicine, we have to consider the context of the system and the timing and cofactors. For me, I believe the best time to "dose" with sugar is when the body is depleted of glycogen and blood borne amino acids and when it is properly primed for insulin sensitivity. This occurs after an intense bout of exercise. At this stage, an insulin response will not only have the effects mentioned above, but GLUT-4 activation will also help insulin to drive all of the nutrients you consume into muscular tissue, and the sugar into the mitochondria. It is in states of inactivity that large doses of sugar have a negative impact, in my mind, when glut-4 is not being recruited and blood sugar is already sufficient so that any incremental sugar will just be converted to triglycerides in fat tissue. After exercise, sugar will help to add more muscle tissue, increase metabolism, improve nutrient delivery, and reduce the cortisol spikes from the exercise itself.

The only other time of day that I can see simple sugars being reasonably effective is in the morning after a sufficient period of fasting during sleep. Again, with proper cofactors and a nutritionally dense breakfast, the sugar would make nutrient delivery more efficient and reduce the morning spike in cortisol. Aside from these times, I believe simple sugars (at least for certain metabolic types who are sugar sensitive like fast oxidizers) will do more harm that good. Sugar dosing, like taking a medication, should be done strategically.

Like Peat and ABC point to, the cofactors are important also when it comes to mitigating the blood sugar response. I believe that's why they promote orange juice, due to the other factors present. But I still believe that complex carbohydrates are better (if you are a fast oxidizer) unless you are in one of the two situations I mentioned. If your metabolic type suits simple sugars, then I'm sure you've never worried about sugar at all and you might be fine getting all of your carbohydrates from intermittent doses of simple sugars. But if not, I'd stick with complex carbs (sweet potatoes, legumes) unless you are coming out of a fasted state or intense exercise.

Some good points ^^

A large part of Peat's diet is the idea that NEFA should be low. When NEFA from PUFA are liberated you are in trouble, but even mono and saturated are not that great.

So you want to have

a) A fast metabolism to prevent sugar from being stored as fat. Peat says this will involve avoiding pufa, increasing thyroid, increasing sucrose, and other things like coconut oil.

b) Low stress/starvation to prevent fatty acids from being liberated.