Thoughts On Starch

[Such_Saturation]

Avoiding starch is definitely a challenge for me. My body will get ravenous cravings for something starchy. Moments of weakness that I have to manage.

Does anyone know of the top of their head what Peat says about the amylase enzyme that humans are meant to have for breaking starch down? This would imply that we have been starch eaters. But I know, it doesn't mean it is good for us.

Try a glass of water with salt and sugar, it should affect the craving.

 

[narouz]

Posted this brief review of Peat comments on starch over in another thread...

-------

From the KMUD interview of February 15th.
KMUD: Weight Gain, Foamy Urine, Fats, Light Therapy, Dreams, -- 2-15-2013
http://www.raypeatforum.com/forum/download/file.php?id=312

The questioner is the KMUD co-host, Sarah Murray.
Go to the 48 minute mark of the interview:

SM: "I guess what you're saying is 400 calories from orange juice
is not comparative to 400 calories from potatoes or rice."

Ray Peat: "...uh, definitely not. It [the orange juice] stimulates your metabolism and suppresses
the stress hormones."

SM: "Whereas 400 calories from baked potato and rice would increase your stress hormones
and suppress your metabolism?"

RP: "Yeah. And then there's the matter of the starch particles, that if you don't have some saturated fat
with them some of the starch particles can set up a whole pattern of stress and injury by entering
the blood stream."

-------

"I think the basic anti-aging diet is also the best diet for prevention and treatment of diabetes, scleroderma, and the various "connective tissue diseases." This would emphasize high protein, low unsaturated fats, low iron, and high antioxidant consumption, with a moderate or low starch consumption. In practice, this means that a major part of the diet should be milk, cheese, eggs, shellfish, fruits and coconut oil, with vitamin E and salt as the safest supplements. It should be remembered that amino acids, especially in eggs, stimulate insulin secretion, and that this can cause hypoglycemia, which in turn causes cortisol secretion. Eating fruit (or other carbohydrate), coconut oil, and salt at the same meal will decrease this effect of the protein. Magnesium carbonate and epsom salts can also be useful and safe supplements, except when the synthetic material causes an allergic bowel reaction."

--Dr. Ray Peat
"Diabetes, Scleroderma, Oils and Hormones"
http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/diabetes.shtml

-------

Ray Peat in
Diabetes, Scleroderma, Oils and Hormones
http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/diabetes.shtml


"The starch-based diet, emphasizing grains, beans, nuts, and vegetables, has been promoted with a variety of justifications. When people are urged to reduce their fat and sugar consumption, they are told to eat more starch. Starch stimulates the appetite, promotes fat synthesis by stimulating insulin secretion, and sometimes increases the growth of bacteria that produce toxins. It is often associated with allergens, and according to Gerhard Volkheimer, whole starch grains can be "persorbed" from the intestine directly into the blood stream where they may block arterioles, causing widely distributed nests of cell-death. I have heard dietitians urge the use of "complex carbohydrates" (starch) instead of sugar. In the first physiology lab I took, we fed rats a large blob of moist cornstarch with a stomach tube, and then after waiting a few minutes, were told to dissect the rat to find out "how far the starch had gone." In such a short time, we were surprised to find that not a trace of the starch could be found. The professor's purpose was to impress us with the rapidity with which starch is digested and absorbed. Various studies have demonstrated that starch (composed of pure glucose) raises blood glucose more quickly than sucrose (half fructose, half glucose) does. The sudden increase of blood glucose is sometimes thought to contribute to the development of diabetes, but if it does, it is probably mediated by fat metabolism and the hormones other than just insulin."

-------

Ray Peat wrote:
"There isn't anything wrong with a high carbohydrate diet, and even a high starch diet isn't necessarily incompatible with good health, but when better foods are available they should be used instead of starches."

R. Peat, Glycemia, Starch, and Sugar in Context

-------

"Per calorie, sugar is less fattening than starch, partly because it stimulates less insulin, and, when it's used with a good diet, because it increases the activity of thyroid hormone.."--Ray Peat from http://www.dannyroddy.com/main/2011/12/ ... tandi.html

-------

"Starch and glucose efficiently stimulate insulin secretion, and that accelerates the disposition of glucose, activating its conversion to glycogen and fat, as well as its oxidation. Fructose inhibits the stimulation of insulin by glucose, so this means that eating ordinary sugar, sucrose (a disaccharide, consisting of glucose and fructose), in place of starch, will reduce the tendency to store fat."--Ray Peat, "Glycemia, Starch, and Sugar in Context”

-------

"Any carbohydrate...that is not sugar can potentially feed bacteria [in the intestines] that produce toxins and cause systemic stress."

-Dr. Ray Peat: Glycemia, Starch and SUGAR in Context!
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/eastwesthe ... in-context
(Go to approximately the 29 minute mark of the interview.)

-------

Focusing in on potatoes (around the 46 minute point)
Peat says that "potatoes are almost unique among the plant materials":

"The liquid part of the potato, in between the starch grains...
has the equivalent of amino acids, besides some proteins.
These are the keto acids, which can be used by the brain and heart
as a substitute for sugar or fatty acids and are really an ideal
anti-stress fuel and can instantly turn into amino acids as needed.
And so, apart from the starch, the potato is an amazing food."

Dr. Ray Peat: Glycemia, Starch and SUGAR in Context!
by Josh & Jeanne Rubin
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/eastwesthe ... in-context

-------

from Dr. Peat:

"In an old experiment, a rat was tube-fed ten grams of corn-starch paste, and then anesthetized. Ten minutes after the massive tube feeding, the professor told the students to find how far the starch had moved along the alimentary canal. No trace of the white paste could be found, demonstrating the speed with which starch can be digested and absorbed. The very rapid rise of blood sugar stimulates massive release of insulin, and rapidly converts much of the carbohydrate into fat.

It was this sort of experiment that led to the concept of "glycemic index," that ranks foods according to their ability to raise the blood sugar. David Jenkins, in 1981, knew enough about the old studies of starch digestion to realize that the dietitians had created a dangerous cult around the “complex carbohydrates,” and he did a series of measurements that showed that starch is more “glycemic” than sucrose. But he simply used the amount of increase in blood glucose during the first two hours after ingesting the food sample, compared to that following ingestion of pure glucose, for the comparison, neglecting the physiologically complex facts, all of the processes involved in causing a certain amount of glucose to be present in the blood during a certain time. (Even the taste of sweetness, without swallowing anything, can stimulate the release of glucagon, which raises blood sugar.)"

R. Peat, Glycemia, Starch, and Sugar in Context

-------

-The interview "Sugar Part 1" with the Herb Doctors:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22195338/Kmud_SugarI_kmud_100917_190000fritalk.mp3

Go to about the 19:00 or 20:00 mark for some fairly damning views from Peat on starches
as a source of carbohydrates/sugars.

Also, more generally, a very thorough discussion on the basics of sugars and carbohydrates, healthy and unhealthy.

 

[Such_Saturation]

Good! I remember one interview in which the guy kept asking "but what about, organic, whole-grain, brown rice?" whole grain and organic is the answer to everything.

 

[koganmj]

"Starch and glucose efficiently stimulate insulin secretion, and that accelerates the disposition of glucose, activating its conversion to glycogen and fat, as well as its oxidation. Fructose inhibits the stimulation of insulin by glucose, so this means that eating ordinary sugar, sucrose (a disaccharide, consisting of glucose and fructose), in place of starch, will reduce the tendency to store fat."--Ray Peat, "Glycemia, Starch, and Sugar in Context”

Is Ray saying here that fructose actually decreases (or I guess "inhibits" would be the better word) pancreatic secretion of insulin, or rather, that if you were to eat 400g of carbs, getting that amount from sugar would stimulate a relatively lower secretion of insulin when compared to same amount from starch?

 

[narouz]

"Starch and glucose efficiently stimulate insulin secretion, and that accelerates the disposition of glucose, activating its conversion to glycogen and fat, as well as its oxidation. Fructose inhibits the stimulation of insulin by glucose, so this means that eating ordinary sugar, sucrose (a disaccharide, consisting of glucose and fructose), in place of starch, will reduce the tendency to store fat."--Ray Peat, "Glycemia, Starch, and Sugar in Context”

Is Ray saying here that fructose actually decreases (or I guess "inhibits" would be the better word) pancreatic secretion of insulin, or rather, that if you were to eat 400g of carbs, getting that amount from sugar would stimulate a relatively lower secretion of insulin when compared to same amount from starch?

I believe so, koganmj.
And that is why the standard rubric,
"calories in, calories out,"
is not true in Peat's view:

From the KMUD interview of February 15th.
KMUD: Weight Gain, Foamy Urine, Fats, Light Therapy, Dreams, -- 2-15-2013
http://www.raypeatforum.com/forum/download/file.php?id=312

The questioner is the KMUD co-host, Sarah Murray.
Go to the 48 minute mark of the interview:

SM: "I guess what you're saying is 400 calories from orange juice
is not comparative to 400 calories from potatoes or rice."

Ray Peat: "...uh, definitely not. It [the orange juice] stimulates your metabolism and suppresses
the stress hormones."

SM: "Whereas 400 calories from baked potato and rice would increase your stress hormones
and suppress your metabolism?"

RP: "Yeah. And then there's the matter of the starch particles, that if you don't have some saturated fat
with them some of the starch particles can set up a whole pattern of stress and injury by entering
the blood stream."

 

[BingDing]

My experience has been that starches in my diet have waxed and waned over the 2+ years I've been doing this, mostly waxed. Always as part of a meal that balanced the three macros and included saturated fats.

But I wonder how much can be gleaned from a discussion concentrating on a single form of one macro. We are a complex web of macronutrients, micronutrients, hormones and neurotransmitters, at the least.

I have gotten a lot more out of improving the four main minerals, the fat soluble vitamins, and the B vitamins than I have from fretting about the macros, as long as I get adequate protein.

My current fancy is that if you look up "miserable" in the dictionary it will say: a condition resulting from low thyroid and high estrogen.

So....hell if I know, maybe be flexible and think broadly.

 

[koganmj]

My experience has been that starches in my diet have waxed and waned over the 2+ years I've been doing this, mostly waxed. Always as part of a meal that balanced the three macros and included saturated fats.

But I wonder how much can be gleaned from a discussion concentrating on a single form of one macro. We are a complex web of macronutrients, micronutrients, hormones and neurotransmitters, at the least.

I have gotten a lot more out of improving the four main minerals, the fat soluble vitamins, and the B vitamins than I have from fretting about the macros, as long as I get adequate protein.

My current fancy is that if you look up "miserable" in the dictionary it will say: a condition resulting from low thyroid and high estrogen.

So....hell if I know, maybe be flexible and think broadly.

I share similar sentiments. Sugar definitely makes up the majority of my carb intake, but the days I've experimented without starch completely are physically and mentally unenjoyable. It's all well and good to hear about how Ray is able to get through a gallon of milk a day and almost right there cover most of his nutritional needs, but I run a pretty hot temp. most of the time and yet there's no way I can get anywhere near that. I doubt that will change in the future either.

Balancing macros at each meal, small-er sized more frequent feedings, 15-20g protein per meal (hat-tip Andrew Kim), saturated fat with starch.... get the basics right and don't stress about the minutiae (not to say don't ever give up on striving to always learn more & improve). A little trick I discovered a little while ago: drink some coke after a starchy meal and that 'clumpy' feeling of the starch sitting in the stomach goes away very quickly.

Recently I've been reading through the posts of old user "Edward" - dude was definitely pretty smart, and didn't seem to buy into the starch paranoia. I'm not about to ignore my own biofeedback in order to subscribe to a dogmatic position. (not making any accusations towards anyone of propagating dogma )

 

[Westside PUFAs]

Peat - "The details vary slightly according to what's available. Daily, milk, fruit (mainly orange juice), eggs, butter, cheese, and coffee. As available, liver, shrimp, squid, oysters, cod, sole, ox-tail soup, chicharrones (puffed pork rind), sapotas, pawpaws, cherimoyas, guanabanas, guavas, carrots, bamboo shoots, small turnips, corundas."

Small turnips have some starch. Corundas are made with corn starch.

Peat - "Some fibers, such as raw carrots, that are effective for lowering endotoxin absorption also contain natural antibiotics, so regular use of carrots should be balanced by occasional supplementation with vitamin K, or by occasionally eating liver or broccoli."

In the One Radio Network interview, he said "broccoli is pretty starchy," in the context of having some streamed broccoli with a protein for a carb source with the meal. He is right that steamed broccoli is starchy, but not as starchy as potatoes etc.

Peat - "In 1979 some of my students in Mexico wanted a project to do in the lab. Since several traditional foods are made with corn that has been boiled in alkali, I thought it would be valuable to see whether this treatment reduced the ability of the starch grains to be persorbed. For breakfast one day, they ate only atole, tamales, and tortillas, all made from the alkali treated corn. None of the students could find any starch grains after centrifuging their blood and urine. That led me to substitute those foods whenever possible for other starches."

 

[nikotrope]

I share similar sentiments. Sugar definitely makes up the majority of my carb intake, but the days I've experimented without starch completely are physically and mentally unenjoyable. It's all well and good to hear about how Ray is able to get through a gallon of milk a day and almost right there cover most of his nutritional needs, but I run a pretty hot temp. most of the time and yet there's no way I can get anywhere near that. I doubt that will change in the future either.

Balancing macros at each meal, small-er sized more frequent feedings, 15-20g protein per meal (hat-tip Andrew Kim), saturated fat with starch.... get the basics right and don't stress about the minutiae (not to say don't ever give up on striving to always learn more & improve). A little trick I discovered a little while ago: drink some coke after a starchy meal and that 'clumpy' feeling of the starch sitting in the stomach goes away very quickly.

Recently I've been reading through the posts of old user "Edward" - dude was definitely pretty smart, and didn't seem to buy into the starch paranoia. I'm not about to ignore my own biofeedback in order to subscribe to a dogmatic position. (not making any accusations towards anyone of propagating dogma )

Yes, frequent small meals are probably better when it comes to starch. In Japan, the main starch is white rice and most of the time meals have ~50g of rice (dry weight) except for currys where they eat lots of rice with it. And you can feel the difference! If you want to sleep, eat some curry! In most western meals, you rarely eat less than 100g of carbs (pasta, pizza, burgers/fries/soda, ...). I found that thiamine keeps me from sleeping from the blood sugar crash I have when I eat lots of carbs though. Also if you eat "blank" starches you don't get enough minerals to deal with glucose, then you may have insulin problems too. Coke may help the metabolism by adding fructose to the mix (and perhaps other things).

 

[Such_Saturation]

I've never understood rice... I eat an enormous pile of it, then I go check how many calories that was, and it's like one hundred. Waste of time. Oh yeah, then the hypoglycemia kicks in... then the endotoxic stress after that...

 

[narouz]

Recently I've been reading through the posts of old user "Edward" - dude was definitely pretty smart, and didn't seem to buy into the starch paranoia. I'm not about to ignore my own biofeedback in order to subscribe to a dogmatic position. (not making any accusations towards anyone of propagating dogma )

My take, kog, on this cluster of thoughts is:

1. start with a thorough and accurate assessment of Peat's general nutrition views
2. if it emerges that Peat does not consider starches an optimal food,
well then...that's just Peat's view...not a "dogmatic position."
Don't have to accept it.
Don't have to follow it.
Peat could be wrong--I'm open to that.
3. also, if it emerges that Peat does not consider starches an optimal food,
and if some trust Peat's thinking
and want to eat what Peat considers optimal foods...
well then...that does not amount to "starch paranoia."
It simply amounts to trying to follow Peat rigorously.

Some might not want to do that. That's cool by me.

That Edward guy...
he seemed to believe that simply summarizing Peat's own general ideas about nutrition,
(as I did with starch up the thread a bit)
constituted "propagating dogma."
He then went on to lay out his own general ideas about nutrition--
in an interesting thesis he had for a study he was pursuing--
and somehow that was not "propagating dogma."
It was okay for him to state his own general ideas about nutrition.
But it was "dogma" if someone tried to summarize Peat's general ideas about nutrition.
In short: if he disagreed with something, he called it dogma.

 

[sweetpeat]

RP: "Yeah. And then there's the matter of the starch particles, that if you don't have some saturated fat with them some of the starch particles can set up a whole pattern of stress and injury by entering the blood stream."

So, am I reading this right? It sounds like he's saying that if you eat saturated fat with starch that persorption isn't an issue.

 

[narouz]

RP: "Yeah. And then there's the matter of the starch particles, that if you don't have some saturated fat with them some of the starch particles can set up a whole pattern of stress and injury by entering the blood stream."

So, am I reading this right? It sounds like he's saying that if you eat saturated fat with starch that persorption isn't an issue.

This is a bit of a grey area, for me, sweet.
When Peat talks about potatoes, for example,
he uses a lot of qualifiers:
-if you're not allergic (I guess he refers to the nightshade family)
-if they are really well-cooked, like for 40 minutes (think that's his minimum)
-if eaten with adequate saturated fat
-if appetite stimulation and weight gain are not concerns

So, to your question:
if all of those caveats are satisfied,
does that then mean that
-persorption is no problem?
-that digestion will will be made optimal so no endotoxin problem?

Those are questions I haven't been able to satisfactorily answer for myself.

 

[koganmj]

Recently I've been reading through the posts of old user "Edward" - dude was definitely pretty smart, and didn't seem to buy into the starch paranoia. I'm not about to ignore my own biofeedback in order to subscribe to a dogmatic position. (not making any accusations towards anyone of propagating dogma )

My take, kog, on this cluster of thoughts is:

1. start with a thorough and accurate assessment of Peat's general nutrition views
2. if it emerges that Peat does not consider starches an optimal food,
well then...that's just Peat's view...not a "dogmatic position."
Don't have to accept it.
Don't have to follow it.
Peat could be wrong--I'm open to that.
3. also, if it emerges that Peat does not consider starches an optimal food,
and if some trust Peat's thinking
and want to eat what Peat considers optimal foods...
well then...that does not amount to "starch paranoia."
It simply amounts to trying to follow Peat rigorously.

Some might not want to do that. That's cool by me.

That Edward guy...
he seemed to believe that simply summarizing Peat's own general ideas about nutrition,
(as I did with starch up the thread a bit)
constituted "propagating dogma."
He then went on to lay out his own general ideas about nutrition--
in an interesting thesis he had for a study he was pursuing--
and somehow that was not "propagating dogma."
It was okay for him to state his own general ideas about nutrition.
But it was "dogma" if someone tried to summarize Peat's general ideas about nutrition.
In short: if he disagreed with something, he called it dogma.

He wasn't an angel, I acknowledge that, but nevertheless was very intelligent. I was probably trying to emphasize the idea that people shouldn't ignore their own biofeedback based on the thoughts of one man. I know a lot of people feel very daunted when they first come across the Ray Peat.... don't want to say "protocol." But I would generally agree starches aren't an "optimal" food. But for some, they're still essential.

One thing I always keep in the back of my mind when studying Ray Peat, is that there is some dude in New York named Nicholas Gonzalez who is curing cancer with no less than eleven I believe individualized diets, ranging from raw vegan to red meat 3x/day. Biochemical individuality can never be disregarded.

 

[narouz]

"... people shouldn't ignore their own biofeedback based on the thoughts of one man."

My biofeedback told me in no uncertain terms today
that it wanted a pepperoni pizza. :)

"I know a lot of people feel very daunted when they first come across the Ray Peat.... don't want to say 'protocol'."

This is interesting, kog.
Your appraisal of how a lot of people feel about Peat is
that he is all about protocols...?

But I would generally agree starches aren't an "optimal" food. But for some, they're still essential.

Sadly, this is true.
A lot of the people on Earth can just barely stay alive.
For instance all the refugees from all the world's crises these days.
What do they get at best?
Some lentils. Some milk powder?
But then, in the industialized nations,
often one can get milk and orange juice at least.
That's a good basis for an optimal Peat diet, actually.

Now...as for us living in the modern world,
the essentiality of starches...?

One thing I always keep in the back of my mind when studying Ray Peat, is that there is some dude in New York named Nicholas Gonzalez who is curing cancer with no less than eleven I believe individualized diets, ranging from raw vegan to red meat 3x/day. Biochemical individuality can never be disregarded.

I want to know more about this guy.

 

[koganmj]

"I know a lot of people feel very daunted when they first come across the Ray Peat.... don't want to say 'protocol'."

This is interesting, kog.
Your appraisal of how a lot of people feel about Peat is
that he is all about protocols...?

Well, I said I didn't want to use the word "protocol." If you were to read Ray's articles, no, I would say one would not come to the conclusion he is all about protocols. Rather, he has some of the best insights into physiology on the planet. But I would say that a lot of people who come from Peat's articles to this forum to try and get a handle on how to put Ray's ideas into practice do get somewhat of a sense of "protocols."

Admittedly, it's not fair to ascribe to Ray the word "protocol" in relation to anything he teaches.

But I would generally agree starches aren't an "optimal" food. But for some, they're still essential.

Sadly, this is true.
A lot of the people on Earth can just barely stay alive.
For instance all the refugees from all the world's crises these days.
What do they get at best?
Some lentils. Some milk powder?
But then, in the industialized nations,
often one can get milk and orange juice at least.
That's a good basis for an optimal Peat diet, actually.

Now...as for us living in the modern world,
the essentiality of starches...?

Like I said, I simply cannot get to sleep at night without consuming starch (regardless of copious amounts and combinations of sugar/protein/fat). That would make it pretty essential (for me personally) in my mind.

One thing I always keep in the back of my mind when studying Ray Peat, is that there is some dude in New York named Nicholas Gonzalez who is curing cancer with no less than eleven I believe individualized diets, ranging from raw vegan to red meat 3x/day. Biochemical individuality can never be disregarded.

I want to know more about this guy.

Ask and you shall receive :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWTHbGu ... 61DE7EA067 (excellent interview)
https://vimeo.com/26499947
http://radio.naturalnews.com/Archive-Ro ... ttBell.asp (he's often a guest on the Robert Scott Bell show but I haven't listened to it for ages)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0i-AdCm-Mg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NpnT63PPYs
https://www.google.com.au/webhp?sourcei ... &tbs=dur:l


By the way, when I say "some dude", I'm being humorous. I greatly respect and like Dr Gonzalez.

 

[koganmj]

Coke may help the metabolism by adding fructose to the mix (and perhaps other things).

The carbonation seems to play a part.

 

[nikotrope]

Coke may help the metabolism by adding fructose to the mix (and perhaps other things).

The carbonation seems to play a part.

The most important metabolism boosters for RP are fructose, CO2, caffeine and salt. salt is not significant but you have all the other elements in a cola.

 

[koganmj]

Coke may help the metabolism by adding fructose to the mix (and perhaps other things).

The carbonation seems to play a part.

The most important metabolism boosters for RP are fructose, CO2, caffeine and salt. salt is not significant but you have all the other elements in a cola.

It does seem to be specific to coke. I haven't been able to get the same pronounced effect from soda water + OJ.

 

[nikotrope]

The most important metabolism boosters for RP are fructose, CO2, caffeine and salt. salt is not significant but you have all the other elements in a cola.

It does seem to be specific to coke. I haven't been able to get the same pronounced effect from soda water + OJ.

If you do 50/50 on the soda water and OJ, the liquid would be too watery. Do you add sugar to match the sugar content of coke? Still maybe the coca leaf extract plays a role in the effect you get (and the caffeine your soda water + OJ doesn't have).