Ray Peat - PUFA

It’s time for the Ray Peat finale. Yeah I know, it’s a day late. I moved out of my apartment yesterday and didn’t have enough mojo left to work on it. Anyway, we’ll pick up where we left off in the last Peat article. If you know anything about Peat, know that he has a vendetta against polyunsaturated fat – which could very well be his greatest scientific contribution because of the numerous negative actions that excessive polyunsaturated fat intake exerts on human tissues, organs, and glands like the wondrous thyroid.


"The name, “glycation,” indicates the addition of sugar groups to proteins, such as occurs in diabetes and old age, but when tested in a controlled experiment, lipid peroxidation of polyunsaturated fatty acids produces the protein damage about 23 times faster than the simple sugars do (Fu, et al., 1996). And the oxidation of fats rather than glucose means that the proteins won't have as much protective carbon dioxide combined with their reactive nitrogen atoms, so the real difference in the organism is likely to be greater than that seen by Fu, et al."

You hear low-carbers freaking out about raising blood sugar because it causes glycation of proteins similar to what grilling does to a juicy steak. Of course, eating carbohydrates does not raise blood sugar significantly in a healthy person – and all the focus should be on restoring insulin sensitivity and not avoiding glucose. In fact, one person contacted me last week to share with me a dramatic lowering of blood glucose levels and complete conquering of pretty severe insulin resistance after quadrupling carbohydrate intake – a result of eating a high-starch, low polyunsaturated fat diet. Several years of low-carbing gave her extremely high insulin levels (14-18 iu/M), which dropped to 4.7 in four months of RRARF.

Anyway, that aside, Peat points out that polyunsaturated fatty acids are a much more major culprit in protein glycation than glucose. That rings true for me, as I reversed many signs of aging years ago on a high sugar diet, but seemed to age much more quickly during my years on a low-carb diet, which featured lots of high-PUFA pork, poultry, and total polyunsaturated fat intake (hard to avoid when eating 200-300 grams of fat per day).

"These products of lipid peroxidation, HNE, MDA, acrolein, glyoxal, and other highly reactive aldehydes, damage the mitochondria, reducing the ability to oxidize sugar, and to produce energy and protective carbon dioxide."

Basically the polyunsaturated fats, because they are more heat, oxygen, and light sensitive – degrade much more quickly in the human body. Although certainly better, in the grand scheme of things it probably doesn’t matter if you eat your PUFA with a bunch of vitamins, minerals, and antioxidants or not. When tissues are comprised of polyunsaturated fats they will simply deteriorate and age you more quickly. That’s just how it goes. And because of the byproducts of their degradation, glucose metabolism is eventually impaired – leading to insulin resistance, metabolic syndrome, and type 2 diabetes.

"Fish oil, which is extremely unstable in the presence of oxygen and metals such as iron, produces some of these dangerous products very rapidly. The polyunsaturated “essential fatty acids” and their products, arachidonic acid and many of the prostaglandin-like materials, also produce them."

Peat is very controversial when it comes to fish oil. While we know that there are countless anti-inflammatory benefits to mega-dosing fish oil in the short-term, Peat seems unfazed. He knows that the more fish oil you have in your tissues, the more quickly you will deteriorate. I think Peat would look at fish oil as a get-health-quick scheme that is a terrible long-term investment.

"Brief exposures to polyunsaturated fatty acids can damage the insulin-secreting cells of the pancreas, and the mitochondria in which oxidative energy production takes place. Prolonged exposure causes progressive damage. Acutely, the free polyunsaturated fatty acids cause capillary permeability to increase, and this can be detected at the beginning of “insulin resistance” or “diabetes.” After chronic exposure, the leakiness increases and albumin occurs in the urine, as proteins leak out of the blood vessels. The retina and brain and other organs are damaged by the leaking capillaries."

When I talk about polyunsaturated fat, I usually focus on the anti-metabolic effects of the fats. Peat’s research goes far beyond this to include the various ways they can do damage to tissues, blood vessels, and so forth.

"The blood vessels and other tissues are also damaged by the chronically increased cortisol, and at least in some tissues (the immune system is most sensitive to the interaction) the polyunsaturated fats increase the ability of cortisol to kill the cells."

Like I’ve said before, loading up the tissues with polyunsaturated fat is like giving a sniper a nuclear bomb to take out threats in which a simple long range rifle would have been sufficient. Collateral damage. Yes that's the name of an Arnold movie, and no his love of fairly unattractive maids cannot deter me from worshipping the Sperminator. I know Maria probably eats nothing but salad, and consequently has the sex drive of a panda. She knew what she was getting into. Arnold needs to be coming day and night! This video is even funnier given the recent fiASSco…



"When cells are stressed, they are likely to waste glucose in two ways, turning some of it into lactic acid, and turning some into fatty acids, even while fats are being oxidized, in place of the sugar that is available. Growth hormone and adrenalin, the stress-induced hormones, stimulate the oxidation of fatty acids, as well as their liberation from storage, so the correction of energy metabolism requires the minimization of the stress hormones, and of the free fatty acids. Prolactin, ACTH, and estrogen also cause the shift of metabolism toward the fatty acids."

This translates to resting up and eating a high-carb, high-calorie, low-PUFA diet with a little added fat and protein and frequent feedings. It’s amazing what something so simple can do for glucose metabolism and subsequent health improvements that stem from an impairment in glucose metabolism.

"Sugar and thyroid hormone (T3, triiodothyronine) correct many parts of the problem. The conversion of T4 into the active T3 requires glucose, and in diabetes, cells are deprived of glucose. Logically, all diabetics would be functionally hypothyroid. Providing T3 and sugar tends to shift energy metabolism away from the oxidation of fats, back to the oxidation of sugar."

The lack of glucose is one reason metabolism falls so sharply on low-carbohydrate diets, and why it takes a common root problem (hypothyroidism) and makes it worse. You can also see why having a higher metabolic rate would prevent insulin resistance and keep glucose oxidation firing on all cylinders. Type 2 diabetes could be described as an inability to use glucose properly, not a disease of consuming too much sugar. In fact, eating more carbohydrate improves the ability of your body to use glucose properly – generally-speaking.

"Sodium, which is lost in hypothyroidism and diabetes, increases cellular energy. Diuretics, that cause loss of sodium, can cause apparent diabetes, with increased glucose and fats in the blood. Thyroid, sodium, and glucose work very closely together to maintain cellular energy and stability."

The vendetta that the mainstream has against sodium could be very inappropriate considering the low metabolic rate of the masses. In fact, eating more salt and more carbohydrate could be a more appropriate recommendation to give to a hypothyroid population. When looking at the origins of many of our common diseases with an open mind as Peat and I have, a very different picture emerges.

"In Houssay's experiments, sugar, protein, and coconut oil protected mice against developing diabetes. The saturated fats of coconut oil are similar to those we synthesize ourselves from sugar. Saturated fats, and the polyunsaturated fats synthesized by plants, have very different effects on many important physiological processes. In every case I know about, the vegetable polyunsaturated fats have harmful effects on our physiology."

Aside from his controversial statement about Houssay’s experiments, Peat is basically saying that human biology – and all mammalian biology with maybe the exception of hibernating animals that derive a massive benefit from the anti-metabolic polyunsaturated fats in autumn, favors saturated fats over polyunsaturated fats – or at the very least a high ratio of saturated to unsaturated fat. That is the case with virtually all mammalian milk and also the type of fats that are produced inside the body as well. While many adhere stubbornly to a simple-minded “if it’s natural it HAS to be good” philosophy, it could very well be that there are natural things that are more congruent, and natural things that are less congruent, with our general and individual physiological makeup. There can be better and worse options. Not all things are created equal.

"For example, they bind to the “receptor” proteins for cortisol, progesterone, and estrogen, and to all of the major proteins related to thyroid function, and to the vesicles that take up nerve transmitter substances, such as glutamic acid."

In other words, polyunsaturated fats interfere with normal hormone action, including impairing the effectiveness of the thyroid hormones. This is significant, as you could have normal or even above-normal thyroid hormone production (or other hormones) and still be deficient at the cellular level.

"Unsaturated fatty acids activate the stress hormones, sugar restrains them."

That is the crux of Peat’s belief system right there.

"The protective effects of sugar, and the harmful effects of excessive fat metabolism, are now being widely recognized, in every field of physiology. The unsaturated vegetable fats, linoleic and linolenic acid and their derivatives, such as arachidonic acid and the long chain fish oils, have excitatory, stress promoting effects, that shift metabolism away from the oxidation of glucose, and finally destroy the respiratory metabolism altogether. Since cell injury and death generally involve an imbalance between excitation and the ability to produce energy, it is significant that the oxidation of unsaturated fatty acids seems to consume energy, lowering cellular ATP (Clejan, et al, 1986)."

While Mark Sisson is calling excessive “fat metabolism” a paradigm shift – claiming it is superior, I don’t know if anything could convince me of this after my experience with a slow and steady degradation of health on a high-fat, near-zero sugar diet. Peat claims that it is recognized in “every field of physiology” that glucose oxidation is superior to fat. I don’t know about this.

"The bulk of the age-related tissue damage classified as “glycation end-products” (or “advanced glycation end-products,” AGE) is produced by decomposition of the polyunsaturated fats, rather than by sugars, and this would be minimized by the protective oxidation of glucose to carbon dioxide."

Once again, Peat is casting the blame of glycation on decomposition of polyunsaturated fats more so than exposure to high levels of glucose.

"Protein of the right kind, in the right amount, is essential for reducing stress. Gelatin, with its antiinflammatory amino acid balance, helps to regulate fat metabolism."

I had hoped to talk more about gelatin, but there’s really not that much to say about it other than the amino acid profile of gelatin, because it lacks methionine, cysteine, and tryptophan, tends to have a more anti-inflammatory effect. I’m not sure it is clear what the right kind and amount of protein truly is. It probably is very different for each species, and is highly dependent on activity levels, gender, age, and the context of the rest of the diet. But in the interest of improving glucose oxidation I don’t think there’s any question that eating more calories and more of those calories as carbohydrates – sugar, starch, or a blend of the two, achieves that effect in addition to reducing the overall protein requirement. “Animal” protein is fantastic for muscle-building and during the growth and development phases of life – which is why dairy and eggs for example are so rich in growth-promoting proteins. But otherwise plant proteins seem to keep inflammation much lower. I haven’t found a faster way to reduce inflammation personally or with my own family members than to reduce animal protein ingestion.

Anyway, we’ll let that conclude our month of Ray Peat. You should be pretty sick of Ray Peat by now and ready to move on. But it is important to see where he is coming from, particularly as it pertains to polyunsaturated fat.

When nearly every disease state we know of is being increasingly linked to inflammation, free radical production, and low mitochondrial activity – and the links between each one of the “Big 3” you might call them are clearly negatively impacted by excess polyunsaturated fat intake (which also happens to be the most dramatic dietary change that took place in the 20th century), Peat’s smear campaign against them becomes incredibly valuable and timely. There is no doubt that he is one of the greatest contributors to the understanding of the nutrition-health interaction of any researcher that has come before him. I hope we can continue to learn from him, while also building on his work – better refining and individualizing it in the future. Yay Ray!

www.raypeat.com

Ray Peat - Cortisol and Diabetes

"Oxidation of sugar is metabolically efficient in many ways, including sparing oxygen consumption. It produces more carbon dioxide than oxidizing fat does, and carbon dioxide has many protective functions, including increasing Krebs cycle activity and inhibiting toxic damage to proteins. The glycation of proteins occurs under stress, when less carbon dioxide is being produced, and the proteins are normally protected by carbon dioxide."


I won’t go into this too much, as this was the topic in a recent blog post on sugar and carbon dioxide, but I do believe, especially considering my own experience with both a very high carbohydrate and a very high fat diet, that for things like vasodilation and athletic performance and recovery – a carbohydrate-based diet is vastly superior. Even something as simple as breathing through my nostrils is easier on a carbohydrate-based diet. While it is possible that there is no “best” form of fuel for the human body, nearly all top athletes in the world eat predominantly carbohydrates to increase speed, performance, recovery, and so on. It’s very possible there is a “best” form of fuel for the human body, and that glucose is it.

"When sugar (or starch) is turned into fat, the fats will be either saturated, or in the series derived from omega -9 monounsaturated fatty acids. When sugar isn't available in the diet, stored glycogen will provide some glucose (usually for a few hours, up to a day), but as that is depleted, protein will be metabolized to provide sugar. If protein is eaten without carbohydrate, it will stimulate insulin secretion, lowering blood sugar and activating the stress response, leading to the secretion of adrenalin, cortisol, growth hormone, prolactin, and other hormones. The adrenalin will mobilize glycogen from the liver, and (along with other hormones) will mobilize fatty acids, mainly from fat cells. Cortisol will activate the conversion of protein to amino acids, and then to fat and sugar, for use as energy. (If the diet doesn't contain enough protein to maintain the essential organs, especially the heart, lungs, and brain, they are supplied with protein from the skeletal muscles. Because of the amino acid composition of the muscle proteins, their destruction stimulates the formation of additional cortisol, to accelerate the movement of amino acids from the less important tissues to the essential ones.)"

It’s certainly interesting to note in the first sentence of this passage that any fat that is manufactured in the body is saturated or monounsaturated – mostly palmitic acid and Mead acid. In fact, Peat strongly believes that eating lots of carbohydrates, even if they are converted to fat as in fructose being converted to palmitic acid in the liver, is highly beneficial. Palmitic acid displaces omega 6 (linoleic acid), and is one of the tools in Peat’s toolbox for purging the body of excess polyunsaturated fat.

The rest of the passage is all a pretty accurate portrayal as far as I’m concerned, and is the reason why low-carbohydrate diets can be so metabolically destructive if continued long-term. Simply put, a lack of glucose subjects the body to an increased amount of pro-aging, pro-stress hormones. That’s not to say, as JT has alluded to in the comments in the past (despite the fact that he ended up with severe adrenal fatigue after prolonged carbohydrate restriction) that it’s impossible for you personally to not improve your health on a low to moderate carbohydrate diet. It may be very possible that producing a little more adrenaline and cortisol may help balance out an individual’s physiology – where others need to produce less and derive more of their energy from carbohydrate consumption.

But that is just a theory. Experiment for yourself, but watch out for increased pain, irritability/anxiety, cold fingers and toes, loss of appetite, and other negative signs that can occur when you consume a high ratio of protein to carbohydrate at a meal.

"The diabetic condition is similar in many ways to stress, inflammation, and aging, for example in the chronic elevation of free fatty acids, and in various mediators of inflammation, such as tumor necrosis factor (TNF)."

I used to believe, like Joseph Mercola and other low-carb zealots, in the Obeaster bunny. You know the story, you eat too many carbohydrates, this stimulates insulin, and if you keep at this long enough the obeaster bunny will come and bring you a basket with lots of sugar (high blood sugar/insulin resistance, metabolic syndrome, type 2 diabetes). Yeah, I like that idea. The Obeaster basket. Perhaps if we started calling “Syndrome X” the “Obeaster Basket” people would finally catch on.

But then I encountered a more accurate depiction of what’s really going on – inflammation and cortisol (from psychological stress, sleep loss, chronic infection, chemical contamination, and any number of other things that can trigger the identical hormonal chain reaction) cause a chronic elevation of free fatty acids, which cause insulin resistance and interfere with glucose clearance. I came to the same conclusion as Peat long before I looked closely at his work, only to discover that he saw it the exact same way (but in much greater and elegant detail) and has for decades. The irony is that to keep cortisol down, it requires frequent carbohydrate feedings – what most diabetics have been led to believe by guys like Mercola as being the CAUSE of diabetes. Many of these “alternative renegades” are swimming in the complete wrong direction. Carbohydrate restriction should be reserved only for those who do not produce sufficient insulin, and even in that case it might still be better to eat lots of carbohydrates and take a larger insulin dose.

"Rather than the sustained hyperglycemia which is measured for determining the glycemic index, I think the “diabetogenic” or “carcinogenic” action of starch has to do with the stress reaction that follows the intense stimulation of insulin release. This is most easily seen after a large amount of protein is eaten. Insulin is secreted in response to the amino acids, and besides stimulating cells to take up the amino acids and convert them into protein, the insulin also lowers the blood sugar. This decrease in blood sugar stimulates the formation of many hormones, including cortisol, and under the influence of cortisol both sugar and fat are produced by the breakdown of proteins, including those already forming the tissues of the body. At the same time, adrenalin and several other hormones are causing free fatty acids to appear in the blood."

Again, I’m not sure where he gets the idea that starch is a pro-cancer and pro-diabetes substance in and of itself. An insulin spike in the absence of carbohydrate as happens when you consume protein by itself probably shouldn’t be compared to an insulin spike from starch, which is accompanied by lots of carbohydrates to keep the blood sugar from falling. While some people very well may feel symptoms of adrenal hormone activation from eating starch, many feel this activation from eating sugar but NOT when they eat starch. Again, know what it feels like to be having a surge of adrenaline (cold fingers and toes, irritability, appetite suppression, etc.) and try to figure this out for yourself – free of mental interference from biochemical oversimplifications like the one Peat uses in the above paragraph.

"Since the work of Cushing and Houssay, it has been understood that blood sugar is controlled by antagonistic hormones: Remove the pituitary along with the pancreas, and the lack of insulin doesn't cause hyperglycemia. If something increases cortisol a little, the body can maintain normal blood sugar by secreting more insulin, but that tends to increase cortisol production. A certain degree of glycemia is produced by a particular balance between opposing hormones."

This is more of Peat’s genius shining through. Many hormones are involved in blood sugar regulation. Insulin sends blood sugar down and cortisol sends blood sugar up. Yet, low-carb authors believe that eating carbohydrates, which generally raise insulin and lower cortisol, is the cause of diabetes. Clearly there is more to the story.

The work of Cushing showed the effects of cortisol excess. The disease Cushing’s Disease, which is basically a severe manifestation of metabolic syndrome that is typically caused by taking corticosteroid medication, shows the basic impacts of cortisol excess in the human body. Abdominal obesity, PCOS, moon face, stretch marks/striae, hyperglycemia/diabetes, increased heart disease risk, high cholesterol and triglycerides – you get the picture. It is very clear.
Houssay was a Nobel Prize winner who, at one point in his career, supposedly cured diabetics with sugar and coconut oil according to Peat. I do believe that sugar could very well be a wonderful anti-diabetic tonic (assuming most cases are caused by excess cortisol exposure, which I believe they are), and not the cause of diabetes as many falsely believe. But most comparisons that I’m aware of hint that sugar tends to cause greater levels of free fatty acids in the blood than starch, which would make starch hypothetically preferable to sugar in the treatment of diabetes based on this assumption.

"Tryptophan, from dietary protein or from the catabolism of muscles, is turned into serotonin which activates the pituitary stress hormones, increasing cortisol, and intensifying catabolism, which releases more tryptophan. It suppresses thyroid function, which leads to an increased need for the stress hormones. Serotonin impairs glucose oxidation, and contributes to many of the problems associated with diabetes."

Here Peat thinks that tryptophan might have a role in hyperglycemia, and I have a hunch that all of Peat’s villainous amino acids (tryptophan, methionine, cysteine) may be a very big factor in the grand scheme of things. I know personally that reducing animal protein consumption provides the greatest immediate improvement in overt inflammatory issues I’ve struggled with since my early teens (back pain, pain in lower calf muscles similar to shin splints, asthma). These problems seemed to come to a peak during my milk diet experiment, in which I consumed nearly 200 grams of dairy protein per day (dairy protein is one of the richest sources of tryptophan). And, it’s worth mentioning that virtually every book published on reversing type 2 diabetes or claiming to have dramatic success with the disease is by a vegetarian zealot (Fuhrman, McDougall, Barnard, Whitaker, etc.).

"“Diabetes” is often the diagnosis, when excess cortisol is the problem. The hormones have traditionally not been measured before diagnosing diabetes and prescribing insulin or other chemical to lower the blood sugar. Some of the worst effects of “diabetes,” including retinal damage, are caused or exacerbated by insulin itself."

Every diabetic on earth should know that cortisol can and often is a root cause of insulin resistant diabetes. Unfortunately, cortisol tests are very unreliable and do not test intracellular cortisol – something authors Shawn Talbott and Jon Gabriel have both mentioned being more significant than the amount of cortisol showing up in blood or saliva. Malcolm Kendrick reports that those with high baseline cortisol will have low cortisol levels in response to stressors – similar to how those with high baseline insulin will generally have a low insulin response to food. Like I said, unreliable. But the evidence against cortisol is too strong to seek for an alternate prime suspect in the causation of most cases of diabetes.

Of course, the root causes are very individual if cortisol is the chief culprit – as hundreds of diet, lifestyle, hereditary, and psychological factors can cause hypercortisolism. A very individual investigation is the only way to flush out the root cause(s), but in the meantime one can probably make great improvements by focusing on diet and lifestyle modification that is anti-stress and anti-inflammatory (such as getting lots of sleep, staying well-hydrated, increasing meal frequency, eating plenty of calories, minimizing omega 6 consumption, eating plenty of carbohydrates at each sitting, and decreasing animal protein in the diet).

"Antiserotonin drugs can sometimes alleviate stress and normalize blood sugar. Simply eating sucrose was recently discovered to restrain the stress hormone system (“A new perspective on glucocorticoid feedback: relation to stress, carbohydrate feeding and feeling better,” J Neuroendocrinol 13(9), 2001, KD Laugero)."

Got that? Eating sucrose stifling the stress hormone system… Interesting that diabetics often crave sugar like a mofo, but are afraid to eat it because they are under the impression that sugar caused their diabetes. This may be a tragic mistake akin to thinking that water causes thirst, and avoiding it when you are thirsty – only to finally cave into cravings for water and beat yourself up over a lack of willpower. But there is still much controversy here. Like Rosenfelt has been so good about in the comments section of late – there is a study showing an increase in the stress system when ingesting sugar instead of fat or starch. Saying that sucrose lowers stress hormones as if it were textbook truism may be too great of a leap.

"The free fatty acids released by the stress hormones serve as supplemental fuel, and increase the consumption of oxygen and the production of heat. (This increased oxygen demand is a problem for the heart when it is forced to oxidize fatty acids. [A. Grynberg, 2001]) But if the stored fats happen to be polyunsaturated, they damage the blood vessels and the mitochondria, suppress thyroid function, and cause “glycation” of proteins. They also damage the pancreas, and impair insulin secretion.


A repeated small stress, or overstimulation of insulin secretion, gradually tends to become amplified by the effects of tryptophan and the polyunsaturated fatty acids, with these fats increasing the formation of serotonin, and serotonin increasing the liberation of the fats."

We know that the stored fats in modern humans have become increasingly polyunsaturated due to massive changes in the type of fat consumed over the past century. So at this point the conversation becomes incredibly interesting if polyunsaturated fats really do indeed have such a powerful anti-metabolic and protein-glycating effect. Author Barry Sears who has taken a similar physiological approach to understanding modern disease as Peat has, has dubbed this fat “toxic fat,” believes that storing this fat is actually protective in a sense, and that releasing it into the body via standard dieting can be very poisonous. In my experience, losing fat has been highly detrimental to health and metabolism without exception, and my primary strength has been helping people recover from losing fat, so it’s an interesting point of view. It would be funny if the increasing body fat that Americans see with advancing age was really a great protector against the Standard American Diet. I’ve argued all along that the human body is not stupid, and does the best it can with the tools it is presented with. Keep in mind that in elderly Americans, as was found in the compiled NHANES survey data, the obese (BMI 30-35) have the best mortality and morbidity statistics.

Stay tuned for our next conversation on glycation – a term frequently abused in the carbohydrate witch hunt, and much more about polyunsaturated fat’s role in diabetes.

Breast Milk of a Diabetic Mother

Over the course of the last century, human tissues as well as breast milk have accumulated a massive amount of polyunsaturated linoleic acid (omega 6) as discussed in THIS BLOG POST. This is due to a massive rise in the consumption of vegetable oils, peanut butter, and eating the fat of pigs and poultry (and eggs) fed mostly soy and corn (what cows are fed has little impact on the total linoleic acid content of their meat and milk).

As proposed in 180 Degree Metabolism, it’s hard not to suspect that these dietary changes have been responsible for many subsequent changes in our collective health. They have changed the composition of all of our cells and tissues in a multi-generational cumulative fashion, and this change in cellular composition has a lot of metabolic and inflammatory implications.

Okay I’ll stop sounding so freakin’ nerdy… These fats slow down your metabolism and cause you to produce extra inflammation – the commonality that modern scientists have found between countless seemingly unrelated health conditions.

Of course, one thing the modern world is faced with is this rising tide of hyperinsulinemia and rising blood sugars from our sucky glucose metabolism. Most blame this on carbohydrates despite utter failure of epidemiological evidence to back this theory up, and even more contradictions than what you see with the saturated fat kills hypothesis.

Anyway, Amy, a former La Leche League International leader, passed along an interesting study of the differences in the composition of breast milk in a diabetic mother. We know that children born to women with diabetes have a much higher risk of becoming obese and diabetic, and getting it younger than their parents did…

“Interestingly – and distressingly – we now see diabetes occurring ten to fifteen years earlier with each generation.”
-Virginia Valentine; Diabetes: The New Type 2

So what the heck would be the differences in a diabetic mama’s milk during this key priming period during a human’s development? Most mainstreamists would probably assume it’s higher in saturated fat and cholesterol and lower in “healthy fats,” like oleic acid found in olive oil and polyunsaturated fats found in nuts, seeds, and fish. In fact, in a mainstream book on type 2 diabetes, which the authors call “incurable,” and I would agree 100% when using the approach they call for – I found this fine chunk of dietary wisdumb…

“Avoid saturated fats such as butter, shortening, fats on meats, bacon, and tropical oils like coconut and palm oil. These same foods are also high in cholesterol and promote high levels of LDL cholesterol in the bloodstream.”
- Eisenstat, Stephanie A. and David M. Nathan. Every Woman’s Guide to Diabetes.

Actually, looking at the title of that book, one has to wonder if the book is a guide for having diabetes or a guide on how to get there. 


Well hey, don’t worry Sweet Steph and Diabetic Dave (Blooperheroes??). A diabetic mother has an innate wisdom to produce a diet for the young kid just like you advise. These were the differences between the diabetic mom’s breast milk and what is considered normal…

1) low cholesterol content, only one-fifth of normal milk;
2) decreased medium-chain [Saturated] fatty acids, suggesting impairment of fatty acid synthesis in the mammary gland;
3) increased oleic acid; and
4) high concentrations of polyunsaturated fatty acids, suggesting increased chain elongation.

Interesting, but sadly these wise guys still can’t manage to think outside the box, concluding…

“These results suggest that diabetes produces changes in lipid metabolism in the mammary gland that alter the composition of milk produced by the diabetic mother.”

I think it’s far more likely that an excess of polyunsaturated fats causes diabetes (and an alteration of milk composition), not diabetes causing excess of polyunsaturated fats!!! How would that even happen anyway?

For more on the accumulation of polyunsaturated fats, CLICK HERE

And here’s the study referred to in this post. Not a particularly significant study in terms of numbers or any kind of statistical relevance, but there are certainly no surprises in their findings.

Milk composition and volume during the onset of lactation in a diabetic mother. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2596426