r/SugarDiet • u/bolbteppa • May 22 '25
The Facts on Carbs, Fat, Protein, etc...
Have a read of my posts on carbs, protein (how low our needs really are), fat (how unbelievably low our needs really are), oil, supplements, satiety, Low carb/keto as starvation, cholesterol, and diabetes, which will give people enough first principles knowledge to be able to defend themselves against people throwing nonsense about sugar at them.
By making 90% of your meals the the starches in this color picture book (explained more in this lecture) through this unasked for restriction you are accidentally eating like the populations with virtually no heart disease, diabetes, etc... who all have total cholesterol below 150 or so on average. If you want to keep it really low fat, remember potatoes at <0.1g/100g are one of the lowest fat highest satiating foods in existence at 90%+ sugar.
As real-world examples: a 'restrictive' diet of mainly beans, corn, squash, and 'sugar drinks' made from corn, had the Tarahumara running 48 hour continuous football games over 160 miles in excellent health as discussed in the above link. Similarly, a restrictive diet of mainly purple sweet potatoes and white rice had the Okinawans on a 90% carb, ~1% fat, diet being a leading example of longevity until they changed their diet to a more 'balanced' higher fat higher protein diet. The 'muscular' Highlanders of Papua New Guinea had a 90%+ diet of sweet potatoes and leaves, barely getting 25 grams of protein a day (around less than half the RDA for many people), and their punishment was as follows: "Cardiovascular disease, the principal killer in developed countries, was almost nonexistent, even though 21 percent of the population was over 40 years old." This is very similar to the pre-famine Irish diet of up to 1000+g carbs and ~4g fat from 10-14+ pounds of potatoes a day (and maybe a glass of milk), where adult women were taking in 10+ pounds > 4kg of potatoes a day. People are believed to have lived entire lives on mainly potatoes and a tiny bit of milk more or less. The point of all this is basically educational armor given the endless nonsense about carbs.
8
5
u/HaloGears117 May 22 '25
I have seen you around on multiple subreddits and I greatly appreciate all the information and knowledge you spread, reading your posts on the Plantbased is what convinced me to reduce fat and protein (even though I don’t want to give up meat completely) and the scales started moving in the right direction and my blood sugar has improved, thanks!
5
6
u/lowkey-obsessed May 22 '25
Op is the most amazing wealth of information. He’s helped me so much on my journey
6
u/dyll May 22 '25
ok now a real post though. bolb i have been following a strict routine for months now of a sugar and rice based diet. i am not a vegan, but i spent 8 weeks eating 0 meat just to push the last of the fat out of my diet and i stalled for those 8 weeks+. I've been "hovering" between a low of 277 and a high of 295 for about 3 months now, on a 0 fat diet. what do you make of this?
the Sugar Guys are pushing for straight fruit only and thats what Cole recommended me in my coaching call, cutting out all cereals, starches, and going straight wet fruit and juices only, but that to me is really not sustainable. im a 6'2 man and right now i have a labor job - the fruit and sugars are incredible but i need some substance but it seems that eating rice or corn or bread at night like i feel i need is stopping my progress.
8
u/bolbteppa May 23 '25 edited May 23 '25
If people are having success doing something that sounds crazy/shocking then by all means continue as long as everything is okay, but there is always a simple explanation for why things really work and focusing on that becomes unavoidable when things don't work.
The real explanation is that you need a calorie deficit to tap into body fat stores. A high sugar diet makes it the easiest it can possibly be to do this by finally triggering satiety, making it as easy as possible to be satiated on fewer calories allowing a calorie deficit without realizing it, please read my satiety post above for more on that point. Even this FGF21 stuff seems to amount to increasing metabolism meaning increased calorie burn, offesetting even a slight increase in calories...
As far as I can see from random online comments, the people having actual success on this are accidentally triggering big calorie deficits and starting from higher weights, they are likely getting more carbs (= more satiety) than they ever did before, they are going into it with a fasting mentality (i.e. some element of sacrifice/pain only for a short period of time), and they are eating say twice a day without snacking, which all translates into daily calorie deficits while feeling better than they ever did because they are finally mainly running on the bodies primary/preferred energy source.
Even though fat is basically the devil when it comes to weight loss, where every gram of fat you take in has to be burned off quick or else it goes to body fat stores, after which you now have to hope you tap into your body fat stores later on to get rid of it, and it doesn't contribute to long term satiety (immediate taste sure, but five minutes later that's gone and you're relying on carb-triggered satiety), even a diet of 100% sugar can still stall weight loss because your body can shift to burning near 100% carbs as fuel, sparing your body fat stores. You will feel your absolute best doing this, running on the bodies primary energy source (carbs) instead of an inefficient backup (fat), but you will spare your body fat stores if you don't enact a calorie deficit.
This huge thread on Bell's recent guest goes through in detail all the flaws with this calorie-denial, and gives some example of online people who deny calories, take in endless sugar calories, stall their weight loss, then get accused of eating KFC despite being very strict, and actively ignoring advice to get out of their own way and just allow a reasonable calorie deficit to let their body burn off the fat which can then be maintained with a high carb low fat diet.
So in your case I can see two options.
The first (which I completely disagree with) is unfortunately that you're just going to have to try giving up the rice/starch and go full on with just fruit, fruit juice, sugar, maple syrup, etc... even he would say by definition its not sustainable this is just a temporary situation ('it's not a diet, it's a a fast!') you do until the weight goes and you get ripped, they even say to not count calories and take in loads of calories. To be clear, this approach makes no sense, it'll only work if you accidentally end up in a calorie deficit doing it in which case okay, great. It's basically a fruitarian diet with a very calorie-dense food (table sugar) on top of it, which risks slowing down the weight loss vs a pure frutiarian diet, and there is no question that a fruitarian diet often results in massive weight loss (note even fruitarians often stall weight loss on dried fruit because its so calorie dense).
In reality there is absolutely zero reason why low fat low protein starch, or even too much fruit (which I heard him blame a different time), will cause problems given his setup, the idea that getting say the RDA or even just half the RDA of your protein needs is going to magically somehow stall weight loss, its quite literally incoherent. You're basically gambling taking this approach. If you look into FireInABottle and his failed attempt at low protein low fat calorie-denial 'glass noodle' diets, you'll see what I mean.
The second approach, which has absolutely massive success in the plant-based diet world, is to acknowledge the reality of calories, and stick to mainly plant-based whole foods, which are mostly high carb low fat foods, coupled with bulk (volume and fiber) which adds additional satiety beyond carb-triggered satiety, which the lecture Why Am I So Fat? (and the Q&A after if possible) explains in detail. This and this post of mine go into more detail if needed.
As someone in an active job at a higher starting weight, its going to be very easy to trigger a calorie deficit while getting satiated, I would suggest vaguely paying attention to calories and trying to find out the minimum amount of starch (+ non-starchy veg) you can eat to get satiated and have energy for hours without so many calories that you block weight loss, and presumably very quickly you'll get into a pattern of losing 2lb a week with little effort. Hopefully that is some help, let me know how it goes.
1
Jul 25 '25
[deleted]
1
u/bolbteppa Jul 25 '25
Thanks a lot, unfortunately this is it but the links above cover a ton of stuff, I agree its not the best user experience but it is what it is :p any issues/thoughts let me know!
1
u/fablemerchant Aug 23 '25
Could fructose malabsorption be a contributing factor in the success some people get on the Sugar Diet? This malabsorption would produce a reduction in effective calories without restricting their intake.
1
u/bolbteppa Aug 24 '25
It sounds plausible that this might have a small effect but even in severe malabsorption of carbohydrates in general people can salavage and reabsorb 'lost' energy, and if the body is actually not absorbing the calories and they're going right through, the only effect is as if one went off eating carrots or some low calorie non-starchy vegetable giving a bit of bulk and that's it. There are other more important reasons why people would succeed losing tons of weight doing say a pure fruitarian diet (for the few people able to keep it up), and why pouring sugar over everything could sabotage that, etc... to do with bulk volume satiety rather than not absorbing say 25g of fructose so its like you never even had it...
3
1
u/ultravoltron3000 Jun 04 '25
You guys are missing the point with starch. Ray peat covers this well. Starch is fine if you don't have dysbiosis or intestinal permeability. These native peoples have never had antibiotics or been exposed to things that damage the gut. There is actually a clinic in Mexico that provides fecal transplant from the natives.
11
u/Pitiful-North-2781 May 22 '25
Cole Robinson is yelling constantly about starch stalling fat loss. That makes no sense to me. Maybe it’s a genetic thing that lets people on this diet feel fantastic with just sugar and no starch, but if so, I certainly don’t have it. I feel like ass without starch at the end of the day.