Westside PUFAs
Member
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2015
- Messages
- 1,972
It's not only the bacteria...
Real reasons why starch is on the naughty list.
That is just Rob Turner's biased compilation which is three years old. He should update that list with Peat's recent comments in the clips I posted above, the "if a person has healthy digestion" clip and also the clip about "getting as much sugar and starch in the diet".
He also left these ones out:
"Until your metabolic rate is higher, 80 to 100 grams would be better. Replacing it with sugar, or very well cooked starch, would support thyroid function."
"Potatoes are the only vegetable protein which is of quality equal to egg yolk. It's actually a little higher in quality because it contains precursors to the essential amino acids; it has more protein in effect than it actually has in substance. And people misjudge potatoes because they are given as 2 to 4%, because wet potatoes are measured, where beans are measured in the dry state and have 40% protein, but...you have to divide the bean protein by 10 to make it equivalent to potatoes."
“Two pounds of well-cooked mashed potato has the protein value similar to a liter of milk, about 33 grams of protein. A person would be able to live for a long time on two or three liters of either milk or 4-6 pounds of potatoes per day. The milk drinker would eventually need to supplement iron, the potato eaters would need to supplement vitamin A, possibly B12, but both of them are nearly perfect foods.”
Narouz asks: "How many grams of cooked starchy food(old potatoes,plantains) do you think is safe in the diet?"
"There isn't enough information to judge, but a fair part of the carbohydrate should be in the form of sucrose, fructose, and/or lactose. If it's well cooked, and eaten with butter, it's probably safe for many people."
"If you don't get much sunlight, and during the winter, a vitamin D supplement is necessary to use the calcium effectively. Plain white rice, well cooked, with butter is o.k. The calcium, vitamin D and vitamin A will greatly improve your immunity,the colostrum wouldn't be necessary."
"Masa harina (best), white rice or oats, and brown rice. The phytic acid in the oats block absorption of much of the calcium; cooking the oats much longer than usual might improve its nutritional value."
tca300 asks: "I'm going to be moving to an area that doesn't have any good animal proteins, do you think replacing animal protein with potatoes would work because of their keto acid content? Thank you very much!"
"Yes, people in New Guinea who eat nothing but potatoes for 51 weeks of the year (and pork the other week) have been studied and found to be healthy with no signs of protein deficiency."
_
I understand the point of Rob's article. The point is "concerns with starches" but it would be better named "potential concerns." It's too one way and doesn't emphasize the individual context enough. It's biased because in #3 on that list it focuses on painting starch as fattening because of insulin but not also mentioning the effects of dietary fat and not emphasizing the insulinogenic effect of protein as well. Like this quote on milk from one of the EastWest shows, Peat says "if you're gaining inches instead of muscle," (meaning inches on your waist as in your belly is getting bigger), "then you're probably eating too much fat and overall calories." He didn't say "you're probably eating too much starch." And he then goes on to say the "I've mentioned at times quote." So in that context he's not talking about pufa fat, he's talking about dairy fat. Not to mention the numerous other quotes on butter and cream I've posted. Saturated fat can be fattening too. It's all about context, right? Well don't forget the fat and assume that everyone is eating low fat, which is a crazy assumption. What I mean by that is don't just assume that a fat person who has insulin problems is only in that state because of starch.
It's also unscientific to use raw starch and animals that do not naturally cook starch in their native diet and do not secrete as much amylase as us as evidence for well cooked (which is really just normally cooked because no one eats raw starch) causing problems in humans. I know Peat wrote about those experiments about raw starch but to take those writings and apply them to a cooked human context is odd.
Rob also writes a lot about the negative effects of a "vegetarian" diet while ignoring that Peat's own personal diet is vegetarian by definition: “Daily - milk, fruit (mainly orange juice), eggs, butter, cheese, and coffee.” The occasional liver, oxtail, and pork rinds, are occasional. And those are unique foods. They're not muscle meats. The traditional term vegetarian originally meant one who consumes a diet based on milk, cheese, and fruit. Not a "vegetable" eater. The context here is that someone like Ray sees the intelligence in not eating meat, as in muscle meat, everyday, as opposed to the masses who think that one must eat muscle meats 3 times a day. They are inflammatory, contain too much iron, and cause too many problems when over consumed. Ray has said that muscle meats "turn off the thyroid gland." That's not to say they offer nothing. One may very well need the heme iron from red meat. No, we are not herbivores and we do not have a rumen, but we are also not carnivores, we're omnivores who cook our food and that food includes cooked starch and cooked plants and cooked meat. We cook meat not just to kill bacteria but to make it more digestible, contrary to what raw meat eaters claim. There is evidence that the protein in eggs is better absorbed from cooked eggs. So it's biased to love cooked meat and cooked eggs but hate cooked starch and cooked leaves and blame the cooked versions instead of solely the raw versions. No s*it they have to be cooked, that's obivous. So does meat and so do eggs. Fruit is really the only true raw food for humans. It's biased to think cooked greens and non-fried starch is contributing to the top killers of heart disease, hypertension, cancer etc.
Everything listed on FPS re: starch is accurate.
No it is not because the claim that "because of their glycemia, starches tend to cause blood sugar dysregulation compared to fructose and sugar (sucrose)," is simply not true. One's FFA status is going to be the primary factory in this.
He says "Well-cooked below-ground vegetables, masa harina, and hominy are some of the best starches to consume." That's contradicting to say in that article because of everything else said. He says "Gauge your individual reaction to starches vs. sugar," something that should be clear in the article but the entire article makes it seem as though they all must be avoided for everyone. One thing that needs to be emphasized is that not everyone does well with lactose and fructose/sucrose as their main carbohydrate sources. And not everyone achieves satiation with those sources and without starch. This is important. Starch warms many people up in ways that the other sugars don't. So one could be left clueless if lactose and sucrose don't work for them after reading that article. They won't know what to do because starch is painted as so bad.
.
Last edited: