Love reading these, so glad you tap them out for us. Regarding the whole DNL section, I don't think you should read into the percent changes as much as you are.
The fatty acid numbers you're working with are percents, not raw quantities. If the raw quantity of stearic, arachidonic, and linoleic acids decrease, then the corresponding percents of those decrease -- but because percents have to add up to 100, the percents of the others (oleic, palmitic, and palmitoleic) have to increase.
That can't be the whole story - oleic acid increases more than palmitic does (the lines cross on your graph), which suggests some DNL, but I think most of the effect is just there being less PUFA floating around to inflate the percents' denominator. Probably DNL is pretty moderate.
But we do see pretty different DNL numbers in long-term avoiders eating normal vs very low amounts of fat, and in the very lean even if eating high fat diets.
I don't see a better way to explain these differences.
This is great work! I remember lots of discussion on the old Ray Peat forum over the years about the quickest way to deplete stored PUFA. It looks like you have found it!
Ha, we'll see with the next test. Or next few tests. So far it's just a glimmer in my eye ;) And I didn't come up with it, I just tried what others were already doing..
I'd suggest that a future Kempner attempt should include a small measure of saturated fat in the diet. Reasoning would be to influence the DNL machinery to remain somewhat quiescent. If a no-fat diet revs it up and ends up producing quite a bit of oleic, then why not provide a little saturated (or oleic) fat directly as an input in the diet?
Not quite a 80/10/10 diet (because the 10 is likely too high) but perhaps a 90/5/5 diet. With a 2500 calorie target, that works out to about 560 grams of carbs, 31 grams protein, and 13 grams of fat. Doubt anyone would want that long-term but it sure sounds feasible in small doses of 30 days or less.
I don't *know* but I suspect yes. If you are receiving some measure of fat as an input, then *maybe* the DNL mechanism won't rev up to provide (from sugar) the saturated and monounsaturated fat that the body needs for internal maintenance.
Yes, I'm assuming that this DNL rev overcompensates for the near complete lack of dietary fat and the overcompensation led you to your fat gain.
On a related note, other studies have shown that while there is always some background DNL going on it happens at a very low rate. You need a LOT of excess to really crank it up. If these other studies are to be believed, it implies you overconsumed carbohydrates which led to the fat gain. Had you reduced that carb intake, the DNL wouldn't have revved up so high and your fat gain would have been negligible (or negative).
Maybe 3300 calories is too much for you and you shouldn't "ad lib" every day. This is why you should try a proper Kempner protocol. He targeted 2500 calories and filled in some extra spaces with white sugar. And that was for his normal, non-obese clients.
Pulse / cycle it. I'm not advocating for permanent reduction. The white sugar "to fill in spaces" is how you would ebb and flow with the Kempner protocol as an example.
I'm just wondering if there would be any benefit to pulsing/cycling it. If the only benefit is that I'm calorie restricted half the time, and thus down 5-10lbs half the time, I don't know. Doesn't sound worth the effort. I'd have to gain some permanent benefit. E.g. deplete PUFA more rapidly, permanently. Or somehow lower my "set point" or "settling point."
Hang on, why would you think you'd be down 5-10 lbs "half the time"? That doesn't make sense. You'd do short-term restriction to lose some fat mass, then return to normal intake to avoid downregulating your metabolism. I don't foresee a 10 lb yo-yo going on here.
Lots of research on periodicity of metabolism. I was looking at the Minnesota Starvation Experiment and I couldn't get a good read from the literature on how long it took for BMR to lower. My recollection was 1-2 weeks but I can't find the reference.
So if you cycle 1-week on and 1-week off, you may avoid the BMR drop. Or, cycle every other day. It would be interesting to see if during the "on" days you ate more to make up for the prior day's shortfall.
Nice job with this! I really like the compass analogy.
My only quibble is that you mistake percentage point changes with percent changes. e.g. "Dropping 4% in one month would be glorious" should technically be "Dropping 4pp [percentage points] in one month would be glorious." But I'm probably being overly pedantic.
Yea I think I actually got mixed up with percentage/ppts at one point. I just find it pretty unintuitive to lay people, at least in the financial context 95% don't seem to know what you're talking about when you say percentage point.
Very cool, would be interesting to see how replace it with fructose or a juice diet (similar to the honey diet), I wonder if that would change the same variables. A few people mention that fructose operates a bit different than starch.
Love reading these, so glad you tap them out for us. Regarding the whole DNL section, I don't think you should read into the percent changes as much as you are.
The fatty acid numbers you're working with are percents, not raw quantities. If the raw quantity of stearic, arachidonic, and linoleic acids decrease, then the corresponding percents of those decrease -- but because percents have to add up to 100, the percents of the others (oleic, palmitic, and palmitoleic) have to increase.
That can't be the whole story - oleic acid increases more than palmitic does (the lines cross on your graph), which suggests some DNL, but I think most of the effect is just there being less PUFA floating around to inflate the percents' denominator. Probably DNL is pretty moderate.
But we do see pretty different DNL numbers in long-term avoiders eating normal vs very low amounts of fat, and in the very lean even if eating high fat diets.
I don't see a better way to explain these differences.
Hmm, yeah seems pretty challenging to tease apart the effects of nutrients consumed vs fats utilized (for calories or otherwise) vs DNL.
Do you know if there's a good general purpose way to do this? Even the indicators in your tool don't seem to cover all the variables
I'm not sure we can differentiate easily. Might depend on the nutrient, too.
This is great work! I remember lots of discussion on the old Ray Peat forum over the years about the quickest way to deplete stored PUFA. It looks like you have found it!
Ha, we'll see with the next test. Or next few tests. So far it's just a glimmer in my eye ;) And I didn't come up with it, I just tried what others were already doing..
Such a pleasure reading your n=1 tests.
Thanks!
Good analysis.
I'd suggest that a future Kempner attempt should include a small measure of saturated fat in the diet. Reasoning would be to influence the DNL machinery to remain somewhat quiescent. If a no-fat diet revs it up and ends up producing quite a bit of oleic, then why not provide a little saturated (or oleic) fat directly as an input in the diet?
Not quite a 80/10/10 diet (because the 10 is likely too high) but perhaps a 90/5/5 diet. With a 2500 calorie target, that works out to about 560 grams of carbs, 31 grams protein, and 13 grams of fat. Doubt anyone would want that long-term but it sure sounds feasible in small doses of 30 days or less.
You think that it would be better if DNL wasn't quite as active?
I don't *know* but I suspect yes. If you are receiving some measure of fat as an input, then *maybe* the DNL mechanism won't rev up to provide (from sugar) the saturated and monounsaturated fat that the body needs for internal maintenance.
Yes, I'm assuming that this DNL rev overcompensates for the near complete lack of dietary fat and the overcompensation led you to your fat gain.
On a related note, other studies have shown that while there is always some background DNL going on it happens at a very low rate. You need a LOT of excess to really crank it up. If these other studies are to be believed, it implies you overconsumed carbohydrates which led to the fat gain. Had you reduced that carb intake, the DNL wouldn't have revved up so high and your fat gain would have been negligible (or negative).
Maybe 3300 calories is too much for you and you shouldn't "ad lib" every day. This is why you should try a proper Kempner protocol. He targeted 2500 calories and filled in some extra spaces with white sugar. And that was for his normal, non-obese clients.
Well, the thing is, I know how restricting carolies ends. The weight comes off, and then when I stop restricting, it comes back on again.
Pulse / cycle it. I'm not advocating for permanent reduction. The white sugar "to fill in spaces" is how you would ebb and flow with the Kempner protocol as an example.
I'm just wondering if there would be any benefit to pulsing/cycling it. If the only benefit is that I'm calorie restricted half the time, and thus down 5-10lbs half the time, I don't know. Doesn't sound worth the effort. I'd have to gain some permanent benefit. E.g. deplete PUFA more rapidly, permanently. Or somehow lower my "set point" or "settling point."
Hang on, why would you think you'd be down 5-10 lbs "half the time"? That doesn't make sense. You'd do short-term restriction to lose some fat mass, then return to normal intake to avoid downregulating your metabolism. I don't foresee a 10 lb yo-yo going on here.
Lots of research on periodicity of metabolism. I was looking at the Minnesota Starvation Experiment and I couldn't get a good read from the literature on how long it took for BMR to lower. My recollection was 1-2 weeks but I can't find the reference.
So if you cycle 1-week on and 1-week off, you may avoid the BMR drop. Or, cycle every other day. It would be interesting to see if during the "on" days you ate more to make up for the prior day's shortfall.
Lastly, how will you know unless you try?
Nice job with this! I really like the compass analogy.
My only quibble is that you mistake percentage point changes with percent changes. e.g. "Dropping 4% in one month would be glorious" should technically be "Dropping 4pp [percentage points] in one month would be glorious." But I'm probably being overly pedantic.
Yea I think I actually got mixed up with percentage/ppts at one point. I just find it pretty unintuitive to lay people, at least in the financial context 95% don't seem to know what you're talking about when you say percentage point.
Very cool, would be interesting to see how replace it with fructose or a juice diet (similar to the honey diet), I wonder if that would change the same variables. A few people mention that fructose operates a bit different than starch.