High Fat Nutrition

This guy is a great presenter. The hypothesis behind the damages of fructose actually gets worse than what is presented here, as fructose is implicated in the creation of toxic AGE. For a more in depth overview of the science behind fructose that is accessible, I would recommend Good Calorie, Bad Calorie by Gary Taubes. Aside from fructose, I would actually recommend that book to anyone concerned about their health.

I think it is important to differentiate between normal (hunter-gatherer) levels of fructose consumption (< 5% of total calories, normally closer to 1%, except perhaps in the summer when fruit is more abundant) and the amount we are eating today. That is, if fructose is harmful, the dangers only seem to manifest at the high levels of intake seen today.

Pragmatically, we may not need to be concerned about fructose at all, as eating refined sugar is obviously bad for health, so it should be eliminated anyways. (You need vitamins and minerals, and refined sugar doesn't have any!). Unrefined sources of sugar are not very good nutritional resources either.

Tragically, the damages of fructose may have been multiplied by the government recommendations to replace saturated fat intake with polyunsaturated fat. http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/2009/12/cirrhosis-and-corn-oil.html

The million dollar question!

No one really knows. There are some theories.

One thing is linoleic acid converts into endocannabinoids, which stimulate appetite. Too much n6, too much appetite, obesity, is the theory.

If you google around on e.g. pubmeb you can find various papers proposing this.

But there's probably more to it than that; there are pig and mouse studies where the animals are fed isocaloric diets, but the animals eating high LA get fat. So that strongly suggests that it's not just a appetite-based overeating thing.

The blog hyperlipid proposed a theory involving ROS signaling at a cellular level; my knowledge of biology and metabolism is sadly minimal, but at a very high level I think the theory is something like, "having too much linoleic acid in the diet signals cells to remain unnaturally insulin-sensitive and accumulate fat".

See also: the blog Fire in a Bottle, which tries to summarize the hyperlipid theory at a less low-level, technical level.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27350414/

https://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/2013/08/protons-so-far-some-sort-of-summary.html

https://fireinabottle.net/the-ros-theory-of-obesity/

I was a failed dieter from age 7 to 57. It took me that long to figure out that this body works best on animal products. I was never a particular meat eater and had to be forced to try it by an inability to move my bowels on anything else. But it has reduced and stabilized my weight like nothing else has, while all but eliminating my cravings for SAD food. I really like eating this way now, and get as much or more pleasure from food than ever.

When I switched it was in despair over failure. They all (but the last) stopped working, though I continued to follow them religiously. For years I was an obsessive food diarist, and have books full of logs on what I ate, with charts showing how my weight gradually stabilized well before goal, and started going up again. This followed the trend of my appetite. When I switch diets my appetite goes down, and it recovers gradually over that half-year.

I think going sugar-free is a great move, but from sources like https://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/ have come to think that avoiding seed-oils is even more important, over a span of decades.

Many obesity researchers find Guyenet to be quite the joke.

For example, Peter over at HyperLipid recently ripped him to utter shreds:

http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/2012/06/confused.html

http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/2012/06/insulin-un-dead-and-coffin-nails.html

Not to mention, Taubes countered Guyenet with a 6-part series refuting Guyenet's widely mocked food-reward/palatability hypothesis:

http://garytaubes.com/2011/09/catching-up-on-lost-time-ancestral-health-symposium-food-reward-palatability-insulin-signaling-carbohydrates-kettles-pots-other-odds-ends-part-i/

The thing is, there's a lot of infighting; These guys are always going back and forth. They both have their camps. Those both have their arsenal of studies. It's almost a sport...

The simple fact of the matter is that we're not really going to actually know conclusively and incontrovertibly one way or the other for at least another decade.

Indeed. Wording is important.

I meant that the known mechanism that you have mentioned does not explain all its reported benefits. Specifically in the anti-inflammatory effect, it seems like inhibition of prostaglandin synthesis (via COX enzyme binding) is not the reason[1].

As aspirin has so many potential benefits, it seems to me that it has to have some effect in some very basic and common site and the mitochondrial respiratory chain is a good, if not best, candidate.

If you are interested in uncoupling and free radical production, Peter[2] has a good amount of info about it.

At any rate, aspirin has many knowns unkowns; that´s what I meant in my original post.

[1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2213311/

[2] http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com.es/

It really is an eye opener. I was blown away when I started reading about it all. Some good resources if you're interested.

I totally agree to that. Those sources changed the way I was thinking about human health and nutrition completely. To be quite honest, I was not thinking about these topics very much before. I would also add a source that kind of got me started:

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/

Stephan appears to be a very knowledgeable guy, he is probably the least "radical" in his approaches, writes on a variety of topics and is not afraid to change his opinions when faced with contradicting evidence.

Also, blog of Dr. Mike Eades
http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/
and Hyperlipid
http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/