Thoughts On Starch

Amazoniac

Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2014
Messages
8,583
Location
Not Uganda
A lot of Peatatarians are proud of the purity of their diet in terms of feeding gut microbes but most of them are just trading starch for other foods that act as prebiotic.

Large amounts of fruit will provide more than enough - fiber, polyphenols, sugars and some resistant starch in some cases - to feed gut microbes.
Paired with ruminant's milk that are a rich source of pro and prebiotic food.
I once commented how the udders are strategically located in ruminants to collect fecal matter and pass to their babies. The babies get their microbes but it wouldn't make much sense to have them living inside but not feed them. Milk, especially from ruminants, have a lot of prebiotic compounds that mimic plant polysaccharides. Since they rely so much on fermentation, they need to consume from an early stage nutrients in milk that will support those commensal organisms.
Endotoxins are a natural part of having to deal with microbes. It's much wiser to consume foods that are low in toxins and to improve immune function to help to shape your gut microbes than it is to conciously select foods that won't be a source of endotoxins but also won't provide nourishing compounds to feed commensal organisms that will provide many nourishing compounds like SCFAs, K2, B vitamins, etc..

It us unfair to blame starch. If you use white rice as an example, even people with bacterial overgrowths can handle it with no problem due to its rapid absorption, this suggests that is not the starch that is problematic, but the context of living organisms that live on the substrate of consumed foods.
 
Joined
Feb 4, 2015
Messages
1,972
Amazoniac said:
Consuming starch in the context of a meal is important. Satiety comes not only from enough calories, but from suficient macro and micronutrient intake. Eating starch in the context of a meal provides those nutrients and also delays its transit time, so you don't have an excess of energy delivered at once.
Isolating foods from the meals is confusing. Satiety comes from balance, and in the case of sushi, the protein will give most of the satiety; fiber from seaweed, acid from vinegar, viscosity from sugar, cooled rice will all decrease the fast absorption of starch and contribute to satiety.
Other strong indicator that starches are not so great on their on is the palatability. They taste much better in the context of a meal, as complements.

The palatability of everything requires salt and/or seasoning except ripe sweet fruit. You're last sentence is what I refer to as "The Condiment Factor." Low carb hucksters like to point out that starch is not palatable by itself and one must salt and season it to make it enjoyable. That's true but this is a complete facepalm contradiction, and appeal to ignorance. Try eating a steak filet with no salt. I can't do it. Try eating a piece of chicken with no salt and no condiment sauce. What would meat be without salt and condiments? A1 steak sauce, BBQ sauce, sweet n' sour' etc. I make mashed potato and sometimes all I need is to salt to taste to enjoy it. But sometimes I use onion or garlic powder, paprika etc. Bacon is cured and processed with salts, as are deli meats. The bottom line is, fruit, found in its natural form, ripe, is the only non-condiment food. Fruit is the only one true paleo food. It does not need cooking, salting, seasoning, storage, refrigeration etc. You simply just pick it, cut it and eat it. All other foods, most rational people would need salt to make them palatable. Milk? Maybe. But I always enjoyed chocolate (seasoned) milk than regular.

Sushi lovers dip their fish in salty soy sauce.
 

nikotrope

Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2014
Messages
318
Location
France
Amazoniac said:
It us unfair to blame starch. If you use white rice as an example, even people with bacterial overgrowths can handle it with no problem due to its rapid absorption, this suggests that is not the starch that is problematic, but the context of living organisms that live on the substrate of consumed foods.

White rice (used for sushi rice at least) has almost no resistant starch or indigestible fiber, it is closer to white sugar than potatoes. It is not the right example to say that starch is not problematic.

I also think that peatarians blame starch for insulin spikes and coupled with fat for insulin resistance (like Westside PUFAs) which lead to weight gain and other problems.
 

Amazoniac

Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2014
Messages
8,583
Location
Not Uganda
Westside PUFAs said:
Amazoniac said:
Consuming starch in the context of a meal is important. Satiety comes not only from enough calories, but from suficient macro and micronutrient intake. Eating starch in the context of a meal provides those nutrients and also delays its transit time, so you don't have an excess of energy delivered at once.
Isolating foods from the meals is confusing. Satiety comes from balance, and in the case of sushi, the protein will give most of the satiety; fiber from seaweed, acid from vinegar, viscosity from sugar, cooled rice will all decrease the fast absorption of starch and contribute to satiety.
Other strong indicator that starches are not so great on their on is the palatability. They taste much better in the context of a meal, as complements.

The palatability of everything requires salt and/or seasoning except ripe sweet fruit. You're last sentence is what I refer to as "The Condiment Factor." Low carb hucksters like to point out that starch is not palatable by itself and one must salt and season it to make it enjoyable. That's true but this is a complete facepalm contradiction, and appeal to ignorance. Try eating a steak filet with no salt. I can't do it. Try eating a piece of chicken with no salt and no condiment sauce. What would meat be without salt and condiments? A1 steak sauce, BBQ sauce, sweet n' sour' etc. I make mashed potato and sometimes all I need is to salt to taste to enjoy it. But sometimes I use onion or garlic powder, paprika etc. Bacon is cured and processed with salts, as are deli meats. The bottom line is, fruit, found in its natural form, ripe, is the only non-condiment food. Fruit is the only one true paleo food. It does not need cooking, salting, seasoning, storage, refrigeration etc. You simply just pick it, cut it and eat it. All other foods, most rational people would need salt to make them palatable. Milk? Maybe. But I always enjoyed chocolate (seasoned) milk than regular.

Sushi lovers dip their fish in salty soy sauce.

This is exactly what the low-carb huckster meant: palatability in natural foods comes from balance, and if you season to taste you are trying to reach that balance. Just like if you combine starches with other foods, in the context of a meal, it will improve their taste greatly.

Edit: I forgot to mention that considering natural foods, that you described, only fruits are designed to be eaten, so they need to be attractive, so naturally balanced for that purpose. Other foods require steps to reach that balanced, whether by combining, seasoning, etc.
 

Amazoniac

Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2014
Messages
8,583
Location
Not Uganda
nikotrope said:
Amazoniac said:
It us unfair to blame starch. If you use white rice as an example, even people with bacterial overgrowths can handle it with no problem due to its rapid absorption, this suggests that is not the starch that is problematic, but the context of living organisms that live on the substrate of consumed foods.

White rice (used for sushi rice at least) has almost no resistant starch or indigestible fiber, it is closer to white sugar than potatoes. It is not the right example to say that starch is not problematic.

I also think that peatarians blame starch for insulin spikes and coupled with fat for insulin resistance (like Westside PUFAs) which lead to weight gain and other problems.

If white rice is not problematic, the problem is not with the starch itself, but something besides the cooked starch that is causing the problem with endotoxins. This is what I meant.

And regarding blood sugar regulation, I agree that is so much better to consume starches in the context of a meal.
 

koganmj

Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2014
Messages
78
Amazoniac said:
A lot of Peatatarians are proud of the purity of their diet in terms of feeding gut microbes but most of them are just trading starch for other foods that act as prebiotic.

Large amounts of fruit will provide more than enough - fiber, polyphenols, sugars and some resistant starch in some cases - to feed gut microbes.
Paired with ruminant's milk that are a rich source of pro and prebiotic food.
I once commented how the udders are strategically located in ruminants to collect fecal matter and pass to their babies. The babies get their microbes but it wouldn't make much sense to have them living inside but not feed them. Milk, especially from ruminants, have a lot of prebiotic compounds that mimic plant polysaccharides. Since they rely so much on fermentation, they need to consume from an early stage nutrients in milk that will support those commensal organisms.
Endotoxins are a natural part of having to deal with microbes. It's much wiser to consume foods that are low in toxins and to improve immune function to help to shape your gut microbes than it is to conciously select foods that won't be a source of endotoxins but also won't provide nourishing compounds to feed commensal organisms that will provide many nourishing compounds like SCFAs, K2, B vitamins, etc..

It us unfair to blame starch. If you use white rice as an example, even people with bacterial overgrowths can handle it with no problem due to its rapid absorption, this suggests that is not the starch that is problematic, but the context of living organisms that live on the substrate of consumed foods.

Very interesting.
 
Joined
Feb 4, 2015
Messages
1,972
Amazoniac said:
Westside PUFAs said:
Amazoniac said:
This is exactly what the low-carb huckster meant: palatability in natural foods comes from balance, and if you season to taste you are trying to reach that balance. Just like if you combine starches with other foods, in the context of a meal, it will improve their taste greatly.

You completely missed my point. If someone says that starch is not palatable by itself, but then says that meat is, (low carb hucksters) they are ignoring the fact that meat is not only cooked with salt, but people also add salt and condiments after it is cooked. That is a direct contradiciton. The same thing could be said for starch. It doesn't matter what food you are talking about. Besides fruit, all foods require salt and/or condiments. That has nothing to do with balance besides a humans natural salt craving. Fruits do not have sodium. You are not tasting salt when you eat a ripe sweet fruit, you are tasting sweet, fructose. Salads are another example, they are not a starch, yet people consume salads with condiments, salty/sweet and pufa rich dressings. People squirt lemon juice on oysters. You are also ignoring the fact that people who choose to eat a diet such as a high carb low fat vegan diet, are getting fully satiated from fruits and also potatoes/rice which are fat free. There is no "balance" to that.

Cheese is made with salt, therefore not requiring that one adds salt to it after. A salt free cheese would be disgusting, just like salt free butter is disgusting, aka not palitable. Just like salt free potatoes are disgusting.

"Just like if you combine starches with other foods, in the context of a meal, it will improve their taste greatly."

If I eat rice and a steak, I will not pour the steaks juice on my rice, nor will I chew a piece of the steak at the same time while chewing rice. The steak has nothing to do with the rice in that context. Seasoning to taste is different than salting to taste. Seasoning will depend on individual preference, some people like mustard seed, some people like garlic, others hate it. But one thing everyone likes is salt, and there is a reason for it. We require sodium. We crave it. We need it. Without it we would go into a coma. Which is why one of the first things EMT's do when putting someone in an ambulance is inject them with IV sodium.

My point is that it's not just starch that is unpalatable by itself, everything is unpalatable by itself, besides fruit. That is not a good argument against starch, at all. It makes no sense and is contradicting, ignorant, unscientific and not objective.
 

Amazoniac

Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2014
Messages
8,583
Location
Not Uganda
In my comment, I mentioned that combining foods increase their palatability, so it's a great indicator of balance. The way you combine and what is a proper balancement of a meal at each given time for you vary from your nourishment status. I never suggested considering a food without the context of the meal. Salt and seasonings should also be considered part of it. They are contributors to create a balanced meal. It's also a matter of nourishment status: some people enjoy salty foods while others are disgusted.

If you read again my posts, I wasn't in any time against starches, the opposite if anything. I also never mentioned that starches are not so tasty by themselves but other isolated foods are. I was suggesting that it's not so great to consume them plain!
The discussion started from someone mentioning that starches are not satiating by themselves. So I started commenting about the importance of food combination and that they shouldn't be considered out of the context of a meal.

The discussion is starting to run in circles..
 

narouz

Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2012
Messages
4,429
Amazoniac said:
In my comment, I mentioned that combining foods increase their palatability, so it's a great indicator of balance. The way you combine and what is a proper balancement of a meal at each given time for you vary from your nourishment status. I never suggested considering a food without the context of the meal. Salt and seasonings should also be considered part of it. They are contributors to create a balanced meal. It's also a matter of nourishment status: some people enjoy salty foods while others are disgusted.

If you read again my posts, I wasn't in any time against starches, the opposite if anything. I also never mentioned that starches are not so tasty by themselves but other isolated foods are. I was suggesting that it's not so great to consume them plain!
The discussion started from someone mentioning that starches are not satiating by themselves. So I started commenting about the importance of food combination and that they shouldn't be considered out of the context of a meal.

The discussion is starting to run in circles..

Amazoniac-
I find the thread very interesting, so...I'm not complaining.

You put your ideas forward with a lot of certainty,
so I naturally wonder what dietary philosophy/philosophies
you may be drawing upon.
And I believe up the thread some you did say that the fructose ideas
are not simply your own inventions.

Just to be clear,
I don't want you to think I'm trying to come down on you
for promoting ideas that are not Peatian.
(Some mods may, dunno; just speaking for myself).

The satiety thing & Peat diet are an interesting area, to me.
Long ago I explored it in several threads.
I will try to dig those up.
But my point of view was that an optimal Peat diet
in not an intuitive diet,
and is very challenging in terms of satiety, satisfaction, ease, pleasure, etc.
That view was pretty much unanimously rejected
with most posters saying that a Peat diet was the most pleasurable and satisfying
and intuitive diet they had ever eaten
(Well...most of those same posters said there was no such thing as a Peat diet so...
guaranteed to be not just a circular exploration but a meaningless one.... :lol: )

Now, mind you, I was not therefore arguing against the healthfulness of an optimal Peat diet,
and the health promises are the main emphasis for me.
Still...it has always been disconcerting to me
that an optimal Peat diet (having, for instance, a low-to-no starch component)
is--in my opinion--so disconnected from intuitive eating and from things like satiety.

So...I'm interested in where you're coming from with your ideas about diet and satiety and health.
Would you like to fill us in a bit? :D
 
Joined
Feb 4, 2015
Messages
1,972
Some thoughts on starch:

"It’s ironic that low carb has become conflated with paleo. I say it’s ironic for two reasons. For one thing, Loren Cordain, the guy who turned paleo into a celebrity with the publication of The Paleo Diet,™ actually advises people to eat between 35 and 45 percent of their calories from carbohydrates. (Granted, he does suggest that those calories come mostly from low-starch and low-sugar foods, so I’m not sure how on earth anyone could actually accomplish that goal since that would require eating about 6 pounds of kale a day.) For a person who needs 3000 calories per day, that means eating between 1050 and 1350 calories from carbohydrates, which is a far cry from Sisson’s claim that eating more than 150 grams of carbohydrates in a day will lead to “insidious weight gain.”

The second reason I say it’s ironic is that there are very few known examples of traditional diets that are actually low in carbohydrates where we define “low in carbohydrates” by the conventional standards used in most paleo crowds these days, which means less than 200 grams of carbohydrates per day. And, in fact, there are examples of modern hunter-gatherer diets in which the people obtain as much as 85 percent of their calories from carbohydrates—and not just non-starchy, non-sugary carbohydrates. For the record, those people have traditionally had low incidences of disease and haven’t been notably fat.

Does low-carbohydrate eating suit some people some of the time? Sure. Of course it does. But just because some people feel good eating low carb for a while doesn’t mean that everyone should or that most will necessarily thrive on such a diet long term. Again, there are very few known traditional diets in which people have eaten so few carbohydrates. Low-carb paleo enthusiasts may dismiss that evidence, suggesting that all that means is that the majority of humans are and have been addicted to carbohydrates and suffer as a result. But that’s insane since there are innumerable examples of individuals and entire cultures that are and have been quite healthy and happy eating carbohydrates.

Are some people better suited to eating carbohydrates than others? Probably. It turns out that some people secrete more starch-digesting enzymes than others. But it turns out that all humans secrete starch-digesting enzymes. So while your neighbor may be more inclined to eat only 35 percent of his calories from carbohydrates, your other neighbor may be predisposed to functioning better with 85 percent of calories coming from carbohydrates. There’s some room for variation, but by and large, most humans seem to have evolved in the context of eating a significant portion of calories from carbohydrates. Low-carbohydrate diets have been associated with euthyroid sick syndrome (low thyroid hormone levels), disturbed cortisol patterns, and...low leptin and insulin. What are the effects? Fatigue, mood disturbance, insomnia, hair loss, brain fog, and more.

For some people, it takes longer to reach this state on a low-carbohydrate diet than others, which is why some people become low-carb zealots for a few weeks or months or years while other people crash and burn right away. But in the long run, there are not a lot of reports of people who thrive on low-carbohydrate diets in the long term. Most have to at least cycle in some high-carbohydrate days. And, really, there’s a lot that we don’t know about why some people are able to do low-carb eating for a longer term. It could be that there is a genetic component that allows some people to do it while most cannot. To reiterate, I am fully aware that not all paleo advocates promote low-carb diets. However, this criticism is valid and necessary because in many popular paleo crowds, paleo very definitely is synonymous with low-carbohydrate eating."

Lott, Joey (2015-02-08). The Problem with Paleo: Taking a Deeper Look at the Popular Myths and Fallacies of Eating Like a Caveman (Kindle Locations 461-462). Archangel Ink. Kindle Edition.
 
Joined
Feb 4, 2015
Messages
1,972
Lots of starch eaters here:

"And there are dozens more myths, which should remind us all that the internet is mostly uncensored, and the content is not peer reviewed or checked for accuracy. So don’t believe everything you read or see on the internet. In trying to sort out legitimate claims from pseudoscience, the challenge is to know where to begin, given the giant mess of carbohydrate myths that have been perpetuated for the past fifteen years. After analyzing the work of all the major low-carb gurus, we believe that there are really five foundational myths upon which the whole low-carb theory rests. These five foundational myths are:

1) “Carbs spike insulin, and insulin makes you fat!” This is known as the Carbohydrate/Insulin Theory of Obesity, which attempts to blame fat gain (and really the entire obesity epidemic) squarely on the shoulders of carbohydrates and sugars.
2) “Carbs spike insulin, which causes diabetes!” This is the ever-prevalent idea that it is the insulin spikes from consuming carbohydrates that cause insulin resistance.
3) “The Paleo diet is all about eating a low-carb, high-fat diet since it is a scientific fact that our ancestors didn’t eat many carbs.”
4) “Fats are the preferred source of fuel for the body, not carbs. Carbohydrates are not even ‘essential’ nutrients. We have ‘essential fatty acids’ (i.e., fats) and ‘essential amino acids’ (i.e., proteins) but there’s no such thing as ‘essential carbohydrates’—therefore, they are less important.”
5) “Eating a low-carb diet turns you into a fat-burning machine. Instead of burning sugar, you’re burning fat, which will make you lean in no time!” This is the idea that wiring your body to be more of a “fat burner” by eating a low-carb, high-fat diet results in burning off body fat. These are the five foundational myths upon which the whole low-carb diet fad has been built. And as we are about to show you, every one of these is thoroughly unscientific, unsubstantiated by the data, and just plain wrong.

If we want to test out this theory that carbs and insulin cause fatness, one simple way of examining whether it is true is to find some cultures around the world that eat very high-carbohydrate diets and see how fat they are. It really is that simple, and this is not a theory that’s difficult to test. If carbs cause you to be fat, any population group that consumes a lot of carbohydrates each day should have higher rates of overweight and obesity. So let’s have a look at some populations known for eating large amounts of carbohydrates and see if that’s the case:

The Tukisenta tribe in New Guinea: According to Trowell and Burkitt in their book Western Diseases, the Tukisenta ate a diet consisting mostly of sweet potatoes, which was a whopping 94% carbohydrate. The men ate about 2,300 calories each day and the women ate about 1,770 calories each day. The scientists who went to study this tribe found them to be fit, lean, and muscular.

The population of the West Nile district in Uganda during the 1940s: The diet of this population consisted almost entirely of foods extremely rich in carbohydrates: cassava, bananas, millet, corn, lentils, peanuts, and vegetables. According to Trowell and Burkitt, despite a constant abundance of food, “in the 1940s it was quite unusual to see a stout man or woman.” Trowell and Burkitt also noted that the only overweight people in the area were affluent people who deviated from the traditional starch-based diet.124 This same trend has been noted in countless societies in Africa. Nearly the entire continent of Asia during the 20th century: China, India, Japan, Taiwan, and many other countries in Asia eat traditional diets extremely high in carbohydrates. They are largely based on white rice, as well as root vegetables along with some fruit. Yet, up until the Westernization of these countries and incorporation of processed foods into their diet, overweight and obesity were nearly unheard of in these populations. Traditional Chinese, Japanese, and Southern Indians were among the leanest people on the planet.125

Kitava: Up until very recently—the 1990s—the people of the South Pacific island of Kitava had not been influenced by the Western diet and had continued eating the traditional diet that they’d eaten for centuries. Dr. Staffan Lindeberg researched this population heavily during the 1990s and found that their diet consisted mostly of taro, sweet potatoes, cassava, fruit, coconut, and seafood. They ate about 50g a day of unrefined sugar from fruit. Their diet came in at a whopping 69% carbohydrate. Lindeberg found that there were literally no cases of overweight or obesity on the entire island! The lone individual who was slightly overweight had left the island for several years to go live in the city. You may also be interested to know that their fasting insulin level (a measure of insulin resistance and diabetes) was extremely low, and that diabetes and heart disease were unheard of on the island. A diet that is 69% carbohydrates and not a single person on the island has diabetes, and not a single person was even overweight, let alone obese. Lindeberg’s excellent research on the Kitavans makes it very clear that large consumption of carbohydrates does not cause overweight and obesity. 127

Kuna: The Kuna population off the coast of Panama eats a carbohydrate-based diet that is centered around plantains, corn, cassava, kidney beans, coconuts, a variety of fruits, wild game, seafood, and chocolate. They also consume a significant amount of processed white sugar, for a total of 77 grams of sugar (unrefined and refined) per day, in addition to all the other carbohydrate-rich staple foods they consume daily. This population tends to be quite lean.128

Ewe Tribe in West Africa: The Ewe tribe in Togo, Africa, eats a diet composed almost entirely of starchy tubers. 339 This population eats a diet of essentially nothing but starchy tubers—about 84% carbohydrate—and is extremely lean. 129

Tarahumara Indians of Mexico: This group—which is related to the Pima Indians—eats a traditional diet of mostly corn, beans, rice, potatoes, and squash, and has an extremely low incidence of type II diabetes. Their diet is 12% fat and over 75% carbohydrate.131

The Okinawans: They eat a diet made up of a whopping 85% carbohydrates (9% protein, 6% fat), mainly from starchy sweet potatoes, and had minimal incidence of diabetes prior to Westernization.226

The Hadza of Tanzania: This population eats a diet of mostly carbohydrates. They get their carbohydrate from starchy tubers and consume a large portion of it from sugar-rich foods like honey, baobab fruit, and berries.228 They have virtually no type II diabetes or insulin resistance.

The Pima Indians: The Pima Indians are a famous group within the obesity research community, largely because obesity rates are so incredibly high. But there’s also something else interesting about this group—only about half of the Pima Indian population has a tendency to become obese. You see, as the United States defined its borders, the Pima Indian population—which was on the border of New Mexico in the United States and Mexico—got divided. Subsequently, after a drought of the Gila River, the US Pima Indians suffered famine and were rescued by government rations, which consisted of various processed foods and things like canned meats, white flour, vegetable oils, sugar, hydrogenated lard, and other canned foods. They subsequently became obese and have remained that way ever since. However, the Pima Indians on the Mexican side of the border that have largely remained on their traditional diet—which is lower in fat and significantly higher in starchy carbohydrates—have dramatically lower rates of diabetes and obesity. So let me summarize. These two population groups share the same genetics. The US Pima Indians have the highest obesity rates in the world (about 70%) while the Mexican Pima Indians have under 10%. Same genetics, but totally different rates of obesity. The Spanish were the group who first made contact with the Pima Indians back in 1539, and like all groups around the world on their traditional diet, the Spanish found them to be extremely lean and healthy. The traditional Pima diet was a high-carbohydrate diet consisting of beans, corn, and squash, with wild fish, game meat, and plants. “Researchers at the NIDDK in Phoenix have estimated that the traditional Pima diet took about 70 percent of its calories in the form of carbohydrates, 15 percent in protein, and 15 percent in fat. By the 1950s, the proportions had changed to 61 percent carbohydrate, 15 percent in protein, and 24 percent in fat. In 1971 it was 44 percent carbohydrate, 12 percent protein, and 44 percent fat – a tripling of the fat content.”126 During the span of time where they became the most obese population on Earth, carbohydrate content decreased dramatically and fat content of their diet tripled—clearly demonstrating that carbohydrates are not the source of obesity. The Pima Indians do not in any way show us that “carbohydrates make you fat.” They show us that a diet based on processed foods makes you fat.

If eating carbohydrates is the cause of insulin resistance/type II diabetes, how is it that numerous populations around the world who eat far more carbohydrates than the paltry 50% of daily calories that Americans eat have dramatically lower incidences of type II diabetes? How is it that populations that eat almost nothing but insulin-spiking carbohydrates all day, every day for six or seven decades have negligible to nonexistent rates of type II diabetes? This simple fact is our first clue that insulin resistance is not simply a matter of eating carbs (or things that spike insulin)."

Whitten, Ari; Smith MD, Wade (2015-02-05). The Low Carb Myth: Free Yourself from Carb Myths, and Discover the Secret Keys That Really Determine Your Health and Fat Loss Destiny (Kindle Locations 2373-2390). Archangel Ink. Kindle Edition.
 

tara

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
10,368
Fructose malabsorption?: I have wondered whether the possible fructose malabsorption issue might contribute to starch cravings and a feeling of lacking satiety without at least a little starch. I've read but not verified that fructose is most easily absorbed with an equal amount of glucose, which is what you get from sucrose and some fruits. I'm not sure if the theory says this aplies to everyone or just some people. If you drink a lot of juice from apples and pears etc, and honey, you could get quite a bit more fructose than glucose. So I speculate that maybe for some people a problem with high fructose to glucose ratio can be easily solved by eating a little starch to redress the balance. So for some people, sensing this might result in a rational craving for starch.

Thoughts on satiety: Before reading and trying some of Peat's ideas, I was convinced that sugar was harmful, and I didn't eat much of it. I probably wouldn't have distinguished a full belly from satiety. Especially while pregnant and breastfeeding, I tried to always have food in my stomach to prevent morning sickness (at any time of day).
Now that I drink a lot of my calories, go for easier to digest food, and the solids I eat are higher calorie density, I am often satisfied (not hungry) without being full. It took a while to get used to this, and during the transition I think I was sometimes eating more starch than I needed because I felt like I needed it to be full.
G Olwyn refers to people sometimes feeling full and hungry at the same time during recovery from anorexia etc, while their energy needs are very high (sometimes many thousands of calories a day for a period) but their depleted digestive tract is nowhere near up to processing the food that fast - it's full and sluggish, while the cells are still needing more fuel.
 

Amazoniac

Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2014
Messages
8,583
Location
Not Uganda
narouz said:
Amazoniac said:
In my comment, I mentioned that combining foods increase their palatability, so it's a great indicator of balance. The way you combine and what is a proper balancement of a meal at each given time for you vary from your nourishment status. I never suggested considering a food without the context of the meal. Salt and seasonings should also be considered part of it. They are contributors to create a balanced meal. It's also a matter of nourishment status: some people enjoy salty foods while others are disgusted.

If you read again my posts, I wasn't in any time against starches, the opposite if anything. I also never mentioned that starches are not so tasty by themselves but other isolated foods are. I was suggesting that it's not so great to consume them plain!
The discussion started from someone mentioning that starches are not satiating by themselves. So I started commenting about the importance of food combination and that they shouldn't be considered out of the context of a meal.

The discussion is starting to run in circles..

Amazoniac-
I find the thread very interesting, so...I'm not complaining.

You put your ideas forward with a lot of certainty,
so I naturally wonder what dietary philosophy/philosophies
you may be drawing upon.
And I believe up the thread some you did say that the fructose ideas
are not simply your own inventions.

Just to be clear,
I don't want you to think I'm trying to come down on you
for promoting ideas that are not Peatian.
(Some mods may, dunno; just speaking for myself).

The satiety thing & Peat diet are an interesting area, to me.
Long ago I explored it in several threads.
I will try to dig those up.
But my point of view was that an optimal Peat diet
in not an intuitive diet,
and is very challenging in terms of satiety, satisfaction, ease, pleasure, etc.
That view was pretty much unanimously rejected
with most posters saying that a Peat diet was the most pleasurable and satisfying
and intuitive diet they had ever eaten
(Well...most of those same posters said there was no such thing as a Peat diet so...
guaranteed to be not just a circular exploration but a meaningless one.... :lol: )

Now, mind you, I was not therefore arguing against the healthfulness of an optimal Peat diet,
and the health promises are the main emphasis for me.
Still...it has always been disconcerting to me
that an optimal Peat diet (having, for instance, a low-to-no starch component)
is--in my opinion--so disconnected from intuitive eating and from things like satiety.

So...I'm interested in where you're coming from with your ideas about diet and satiety and health.
Would you like to fill us in a bit? :D

I'll send you a PM soon, since it has not much to do with the thread.
 

narouz

Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2012
Messages
4,429
Amazoniac said:
narouz said:
Amazoniac said:
In my comment, I mentioned that combining foods increase their palatability, so it's a great indicator of balance. The way you combine and what is a proper balancement of a meal at each given time for you vary from your nourishment status. I never suggested considering a food without the context of the meal. Salt and seasonings should also be considered part of it. They are contributors to create a balanced meal. It's also a matter of nourishment status: some people enjoy salty foods while others are disgusted.

If you read again my posts, I wasn't in any time against starches, the opposite if anything. I also never mentioned that starches are not so tasty by themselves but other isolated foods are. I was suggesting that it's not so great to consume them plain!
The discussion started from someone mentioning that starches are not satiating by themselves. So I started commenting about the importance of food combination and that they shouldn't be considered out of the context of a meal.

The discussion is starting to run in circles..

Amazoniac-
I find the thread very interesting, so...I'm not complaining.

You put your ideas forward with a lot of certainty,
so I naturally wonder what dietary philosophy/philosophies
you may be drawing upon.
And I believe up the thread some you did say that the fructose ideas
are not simply your own inventions.

Just to be clear,
I don't want you to think I'm trying to come down on you
for promoting ideas that are not Peatian.
(Some mods may, dunno; just speaking for myself).

The satiety thing & Peat diet are an interesting area, to me.
Long ago I explored it in several threads.
I will try to dig those up.
But my point of view was that an optimal Peat diet
in not an intuitive diet,
and is very challenging in terms of satiety, satisfaction, ease, pleasure, etc.
That view was pretty much unanimously rejected
with most posters saying that a Peat diet was the most pleasurable and satisfying
and intuitive diet they had ever eaten
(Well...most of those same posters said there was no such thing as a Peat diet so...
guaranteed to be not just a circular exploration but a meaningless one.... :lol: )

Now, mind you, I was not therefore arguing against the healthfulness of an optimal Peat diet,
and the health promises are the main emphasis for me.
Still...it has always been disconcerting to me
that an optimal Peat diet (having, for instance, a low-to-no starch component)
is--in my opinion--so disconnected from intuitive eating and from things like satiety.

So...I'm interested in where you're coming from with your ideas about diet and satiety and health.
Would you like to fill us in a bit? :D

I'll send you a PM soon, since it has not much to do with the thread.

I got your pm--thanks.
Well...you seem to be talking a lot about starch,
which is the subject of the thread, so.... :)

It does seem that you may be coming from a "Theory of Eating"
which differs in some significant respects from Peat's.
Especially as it bears upon starch.
So I personally wish you would let 'er rip! :lol:

The ironic/weird thing about all this is that,
because the forum is strongly inclined to hide behind the curtain
"There is no Peat Diet,"
it actually should not be considered out-of-line to say starch-eating is fine!

Truth be told,
and judging by this thread,
most Peatians here probably eat a lot of starch. :eek:
So I say: let's discuss it openly.
Maybe it's better to eat starches.
 

Amazoniac

Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2014
Messages
8,583
Location
Not Uganda
narouz said:
I got your pm--thanks.
Well...you seem to be talking a lot about starch,
which is the subject of the thread, so.... :)

It does seem that you may be coming from a "Theory of Eating"
which differs in some significant respects from Peat's.
Especially as it bears upon starch.
So I personally wish you would let 'er rip! :lol:

The ironic/weird thing about all this is that,
because the forum is strongly inclined to hide behind the curtain
"There is no Peat Diet,"
it actually should not be considered out-of-line to say starch-eating is fine!

Truth be told,
and judging by this thread,
most Peatians here probably eat a lot of starch. :eek:
So I say: let's discuss it openly.
Maybe it's better to eat starches.

For that I suggest you check the Perfect Health Diet and their perspective on carb intake.
I find their diet superior in some aspects than Ray Peat's recommendations. They have implemented many of his views on their diet and tweaked a few others. Roughly they took what's best from Ray Peat and the paleo movement.
But check it out and decide for yourself..
 

narouz

Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2012
Messages
4,429
Amazoniac said:
narouz said:
I got your pm--thanks.
Well...you seem to be talking a lot about starch,
which is the subject of the thread, so.... :)

It does seem that you may be coming from a "Theory of Eating"
which differs in some significant respects from Peat's.
Especially as it bears upon starch.
So I personally wish you would let 'er rip! :lol:

The ironic/weird thing about all this is that,
because the forum is strongly inclined to hide behind the curtain
"There is no Peat Diet,"
it actually should not be considered out-of-line to say starch-eating is fine!

Truth be told,
and judging by this thread,
most Peatians here probably eat a lot of starch. :eek:
So I say: let's discuss it openly.
Maybe it's better to eat starches.

For that I suggest you check the Perfect Health Diet and their perspective on carb intake.
I find their diet superior in some aspects than Ray Peat's recommendations. They have implemented many of his views on their diet and tweaked a few others. Roughly they took what's best from Ray Peat and the paleo movement.
But check it out and decide for yourself..

Thanks, Amazon.
Okay: Jaminet.
I am not outraged! :lol:

And considering that,
truth be told,
probably most Peatians eat a lot of starch themselves anyhow :cool: --
despite the fact Peat does not favor it as a significant part of the diet--
it would be good to explore the role of starch openly. :)

I really don't think Peat would be for disallowing discussion of other dietary views than his.
And it would seem that the moderators share this view...?
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom