Sometimes Sugar Is Better Than Starch

[Mito]

Our ability to digest starch well depends on the amount of the enzyme amylase in our saliva according to Chris Masterjohn. Salivary amylase begins converting starch into sugar within our mouths. Masterjohn believes that this converted sugar sends signals to the body that carbohydrate is coming which helps the body prepare to digest the starch. Some people might tolerate starch better than others because they have more salivary amylase. If you have low salivary amylase, adding some sugar to your starch might help with starch digestion.

 

[Such_Saturation]

But look at his hairline! Starch is better case closed.

 

[DaveFoster]

What a cheesy intro, pun not intended.

Thanks for summarizing the video.

Paging @Westside PUFAs

 

[Westside PUFAs]

He may or may not show my comment but I'll just post it here:

"Chris,

You forgot about pancreatic amylase. It seems odd that the body would rely only on saliva for eating such large amounts of boiled/steamed starch as billions have/do. I think a real amylase problem is very rare and there are other things that are causing the blood glucose and insulin problems.

If one had “dry mouth” (no saliva) but still ate starch and drank a little water, they would still produce pancreatic amylase, if they did not have any kind of enzyme or pancreatic disorder. If one thinks they may have a deficiency of an enzyme or something else to where they can’t produce any or enough amylase, both pancreatic and salivary, then they should get the correct blood and other tests to see if they truly do.

But there are other things to look at before assuming one is amylase deficient. The first is how much adipose tissue they have. The more adipose tissue, the more likely they will have too much free fatty acids or the “spill over effect” causing glucose and insulin problems. And if one has too much adipose tissue, that shows that they haven’t been eating/living healthfully for at least 6 months but usually much longer. Which is one reason why your purposed experiment is not objective.

The second is their fat intake. I will get to that below when I talk about your purposed experiment.

I think you contradicted yourself a bit by saying that ones blood sugar will still rise rapidly after eating starch if they are a non or low salivary amylase producer and since you didn't mention pancreatic amylase, by that measure one would conclude that their blood sugar would never rise at all after eating the starch because they don't have or produce enough amylase to convert the starch into glucose in the first place. If that were the case, then the person will just be eating a bunch of fiber-like amylopectin and amylose and they wouldn't convert it into sugar.

As far as your experiment, it is as poor experiment because for option 1 of your experiment, a simple potato starch vs dextrose is not objective due to lack of cofactors, something that you once placed prime importance on. A powered potato starch and a dextrose solution likely do not have/or enough of the glucose contributing cofactors like potassium which acts similar to insulin. I know this is why you then purposed option 2, which is the better way to do it but the problems of option one should be noted. But even though option two is better, a persons fat intake is something that is very important when talking about “carbs.”

Many of the people thriving on high starch diets do so in a low fat setting. Not no fat (though no overt fats work for many), but low fat. It seems that high fat, included saturated, mixed in with starch is precisely what causes the energy crashes and blood sugar problems you speak of.

I’m not a vegan as I eat lean animal protein. For me, the two most “insulinogenic” things-starch and protein, are the exact things that cured my blood sugar problems. It was my high fat intake that was causing blood glucose problems. It’s called lipemia - too much fat in the blood.

Fruits are great but fructose does not require insulin and although many fruits do have sucrose, it is boiled/steamed starch with the occasional cultural variant of a tradition flour product (i.e. Ugali, etc) that provide starch in the traditional form. It is likely that even the traditional flour products depend on exactly what they are and how they are prepared. There is also a difference in satiation from fruit vs. satiation from starch which is why people fail on the "Nutritarian" Joel Fuhrman concept, and also fail on raw fruitarian diets. The starch provides much needed glucose from the starch itself and not from non starchy vegetables and fruits. It's the missing link in those diets, of course animal protein may be a factor as well.

When looking at starch from an evolutionary perspective, one has to consider the importance of boiled/steamed starch vs baked and fried starch. I encourage you to read these:

http://www.mccarbthyism.com/Boiled-vs-Baked-Starch.html

http://www.mccarbthyism.com/The-Fourth-Macronutrient.html

”It’s a contradiction to talk about instincts with respect to nutrition and then ignore that there are times when our hunger for carbohydrates varies from the desire for something sweet to the need for something starchy, satisfying, and soothing.

Starches are chains of glucose sugars that also provide glucose to cells, but the distinct and irreplaceable job of starch is to make muscle cells more responsive to insulin, and thus pull more glucose out of the blood, more so than would be possible if sugars alone were sources of glucose. Insulin is the hormone that controls the entrance of glucose into cells, particularly muscle cells. Since most of what muscle cells do with the glucose they draw from blood is to make glycogen, and since glycogen is the storage form of glucose that muscles tap into for explosive and sustaining movement, starch is critical to energy and endurance. Try to find a successful athlete who doesn’t rely on starch for stamina. Try to find a civilization that does not rely on starch as a staple. It’s only when the climate is severe and farming is impossible that humans are forced to abandon this critical food. So why haven’t we heard this before?

Whenever you hear a discussion of starch and what starch is and where you find starch, the discussion is always in regards to starch in the plant. But starch in the plant is useless unless it’s cooked. We don’t efficiently digest raw starch. Starchy foods must be cooked in water to reach the gelatinization point, usually a temperature slightly below the boiling point of water. It’s here where starch granules absorb water and burst into the soft and fluffy texture that our digestive system can handle. This is starch on the plate (or in the bowl) where it has its effect. However, drive off the water with the high temperatures and dry conditions of baking or frying, and starch loses its unique function. Baked and fried starches are effectively sugars in that they supply glucose to blood but fail to enhance the response of muscle cells to insulin. The reason is simple. Starch-digesting enzymes work only from the end of the starch chain, disassembling the chain in packman-like fashion, signaling the muscles to absorb more glucose from the blood in response to insulin. Baking and frying temperatures shatter the chain, disrupting this signal. Glucose is still provided but without the direction to increase its utilization by muscles. So in reality, the fourth macronutrient is the one we as a species created and adapted to--boiled starch. Only in this form can starch perform its critical function.” - Natalie Zimmerman of McCarbthyism

Although the context here is starch and amylase, I think it’s important to remember these things about glucose:

Glucose is the only fuel used by red blood cells because they lack mitochondria. Without glucose, red blood cells could not survive. Red blood cells carry oxygen from the lungs to the tissues. Without red blood cells, most of the tissues of the body would suffer from a lack of energy because they require oxygen to completely convert their fuels to carbon dioxide and water.

Glycolysis exists. The human body have 10 specific enzymes specifically evolutionary adapted to break down glucose and another additional 8 specific enzymes to convert glucose to ATP in the Citric Acid Cycle. And of course, glycogen.

How you get your glucose is up to you. I prefer boiled starch over most flour products, most fruit outside of craving sweet, most lactose, and it’s probably best to minimize pure sugars like cane/maple, and minimize the conversion of your muscle tissue to glucose.

 

[lollipop]

He may or may not show my comment but I'll just post it here:

"Chris,

You forgot about pancreatic amylase. It seems odd that the body would rely only on saliva for eating such large amounts of boiled/steamed starch as billions have/do. I think a real amylase problem is very rare and there are other things that are causing the blood glucose and insulin problems.

If one had “dry mouth” (no saliva) but still ate starch and drank a little water, they would still produce pancreatic amylase, if they did not have any kind of enzyme or pancreatic disorder. If one thinks they may have a deficiency of an enzyme or something else to where they can’t produce any or enough amylase, both pancreatic and salivary, then they should get the correct blood and other tests to see if they truly do.

But there are other things to look at before assuming one is amylase deficient. The first is how much adipose tissue they have. The more adipose tissue, the more likely they will have too much free fatty acids or the “spill over effect” causing glucose and insulin problems. And if one has too much adipose tissue, that shows that they haven’t been eating/living healthfully for at least 6 months but usually much longer. Which is one reason why your purposed experiment is not objective.

The second is their fat intake. I will get to that below when I talk about your purposed experiment.

I think you contradicted yourself a bit by saying that ones blood sugar will still rise rapidly after eating starch if they are a non or low salivary amylase producer and since you didn't mention pancreatic amylase, by that measure one would conclude that their blood sugar would never rise at all after eating the starch because they don't have or produce enough amylase to convert the starch into glucose in the first place. If that were the case, then the person will just be eating a bunch of fiber-like amylopectin and amylose and they wouldn't convert it into sugar.

As far as your experiment, it is as poor experiment because for option 1 of your experiment, a simple potato starch vs dextrose is not objective due to lack of cofactors, something that you once placed prime importance on. A powered potato starch and a dextrose solution likely do not have/or enough of the glucose contributing cofactors like potassium which acts similar to insulin. I know this is why you then purposed option 2, which is the better way to do it but the problems of option one should be noted. But even though option two is better, a persons fat intake is something that is very important when talking about “carbs.”

Many of the people thriving on high starch diets do so in a low fat setting. Not no fat (though no overt fats work for many), but low fat. It seems that high fat, included saturated, mixed in with starch is precisely what causes the energy crashes and blood sugar problems you speak of.

I’m not a vegan as I eat lean animal protein. For me, the two most “insulinogenic” things-starch and protein, are the exact things that cured my blood sugar problems. It was my high fat intake that was causing blood glucose problems. It’s called lipemia - too much fat in the blood.

Fruits are great but fructose does not require insulin and although many fruits do have sucrose, it is boiled/steamed starch with the occasional cultural variant of a tradition flour product (i.e. Ugali, etc) that provide starch in the traditional form. It is likely that even the traditional flour products depend on exactly what they are and how they are prepared. There is also a difference in satiation from fruit vs. satiation from starch which is why people fail on the "Nutritarian" Joel Fuhrman concept, and also fail on raw fruitarian diets. The starch provides much needed glucose from the starch itself and not from non starchy vegetables and fruits. It's the missing link in those diets, of course animal protein may be a factor as well.

When looking at starch from an evolutionary perspective, one has to consider the importance of boiled/steamed starch vs baked and fried starch. I encourage you to read these:

http://www.mccarbthyism.com/Boiled-vs-Baked-Starch.html

The-Fourth-Macronutrient

”It’s a contradiction to talk about instincts with respect to nutrition and then ignore that there are times when our hunger for carbohydrates varies from the desire for something sweet to the need for something starchy, satisfying, and soothing.

Starches are chains of glucose sugars that also provide glucose to cells, but the distinct and irreplaceable job of starch is to make muscle cells more responsive to insulin, and thus pull more glucose out of the blood, more so than would be possible if sugars alone were sources of glucose. Insulin is the hormone that controls the entrance of glucose into cells, particularly muscle cells. Since most of what muscle cells do with the glucose they draw from blood is to make glycogen, and since glycogen is the storage form of glucose that muscles tap into for explosive and sustaining movement, starch is critical to energy and endurance. Try to find a successful athlete who doesn’t rely on starch for stamina. Try to find a civilization that does not rely on starch as a staple. It’s only when the climate is severe and farming is impossible that humans are forced to abandon this critical food. So why haven’t we heard this before?

Whenever you hear a discussion of starch and what starch is and where you find starch, the discussion is always in regards to starch in the plant. But starch in the plant is useless unless it’s cooked. We don’t efficiently digest raw starch. Starchy foods must be cooked in water to reach the gelatinization point, usually a temperature slightly below the boiling point of water. It’s here where starch granules absorb water and burst into the soft and fluffy texture that our digestive system can handle. This is starch on the plate (or in the bowl) where it has its effect. However, drive off the water with the high temperatures and dry conditions of baking or frying, and starch loses its unique function. Baked and fried starches are effectively sugars in that they supply glucose to blood but fail to enhance the response of muscle cells to insulin. The reason is simple. Starch-digesting enzymes work only from the end of the starch chain, disassembling the chain in packman-like fashion, signaling the muscles to absorb more glucose from the blood in response to insulin. Baking and frying temperatures shatter the chain, disrupting this signal. Glucose is still provided but without the direction to increase its utilization by muscles. So in reality, the fourth macronutrient is the one we as a species created and adapted to--boiled starch. Only in this form can starch perform its critical function.” - Natalie Zimmerman of McCarbthyism

Although the context here is starch and amylase, I think it’s important to remember these things about glucose:

Glucose is the only fuel used by red blood cells because they lack mitochondria. Without glucose, red blood cells could not survive. Red blood cells carry oxygen from the lungs to the tissues. Without red blood cells, most of the tissues of the body would suffer from a lack of energy because they require oxygen to completely convert their fuels to carbon dioxide and water.

Glycolysis exists. The human body have 10 specific enzymes specifically evolutionary adapted to break down glucose and another additional 8 specific enzymes to convert glucose to ATP in the Citric Acid Cycle. And of course, glycogen.

How you get your glucose is up to you. I prefer boiled starch over most flour products, most fruit outside of craving sweet, most lactose, and it’s probably best to minimize pure sugars like cane/maple, and minimize the conversion of your muscle tissue to glucose.

Curious @Westside PUFAs, did he respond to your extensive comment?

 

[Mito]

Curious @Westside PUFAs, did he respond to your extensive comment?

The response....

 

[Westside PUFAs]

His response doesn't make sense. I watched the video he linked and he didn't say anything about pancreatic amylase. In his comment he said "it just wasn't what I was talking about" but that is a weird statement because he was talking about eating starch and blood sugar so to completely ignore pancreatic amylase is very strange. Salivary amylase is just one part of the process. And like I said in my comment, there are many factors to consider like how fat someone is, and how much fat they eat etc., I'm not sure why he chooses to just assume that one can simply test their "tolerance" just by eating a little and that would be objective enough.

 

[Such_Saturation]

He literally talked about needing the sweet flavor in the mouth to start the process. There's no pancreas in our mouths.

 

[Mito]

His response doesn't make sense. I watched the video he linked and he didn't say anything about pancreatic amylase.

I had the same reaction as you. I thought maybe he linked the wrong video. I guess he was stating that the intent of his video in the OP was specifically about the effects of salivary amylase. The other video did expand on that topic a bit more. I thought he might explain more about how the salivary amylase "first phase insulin release" signals the body to prepare to digest starch. Maybe part of this "signaling" is that salivary amylase is important to and related to the later release of pancreatic amylase?

 

[Westside PUFAs]

He literally talked about needing the sweet flavor in the mouth to start the process. There's no pancreas in our mouths.

It is only the varieties of sweet potato and acorn squash that taste sweet. All other starch does not, including all rice, beans, other potato, grain etc. It seems to me that the amylase in saliva is just a "pre" coating but the real process happens down below with the pancreas, among other hormones and enzymes as well.

 

[Such_Saturation]

It is only the varieties of sweet potato and acorn squash that taste sweet. All other starch does not, including all rice, beans, other potato, grain etc. It seems to me that the amylase in saliva is just a "pre" coating but the real process happens down below with the pancreas, among other hormones and enzymes as well.

I think there is some kind of detection in the mouth before there is a conscious tasting of sweet.

 

[Mito]

I think there is some kind of detection in the mouth before there is a conscious tasting of sweet.

He said "we may not notice the sweet taste but our bodies do".

 

[Such_Saturation]

He said "we may not notice the sweet taste but our bodies do".

And I didn't even watch the whole thing

 

[Westside PUFAs]

You can't taste sweet where there is no fructose. Sweet potatoes have fructose, which is why they are sweet. Sucrose tastes sweet because it is half fructose. Rice, other potato, grains, legumes do not have fructose. The argument makes zero sense.

 

[Such_Saturation]

You can't taste sweet where there is no fructose. Sweet potatoes have fructose, which is why they are sweet. Sucrose tastes sweet because it is half fructose. Rice, other potato, grains, legumes do not have fructose. The argument makes zero sense.

Well that should have been in your youtube comment then, because everything we said, he said. We are just clarifying.

 

[Mito]

You can't taste sweet where there is no fructose.

 

[Westside PUFAs]

We're talking about eating starch, not lactose or dextrose. Dextrose, which is made from corn, is probably similar to HFCS but not as sweet. Moreover, fructose does not require insulin, showing more flaws in Masterjohn's argument.

 

[Ukall]

Btw @Westside PUFAs you say some interesting things about boiling instead of frying (regarding water).
But, what do you think about boiling some potatoes (for instance) and then refrigerate/freeze them? Not everyone can cook for every single meal and has to rely on leftovers... Do you think it still applies to what you've said if one reheat them or simple eat them cold chewing them very well?

 

[paymanz]

I think in short , Christ wanted to say some people doesn't have that starch sensing in their mouth,so its better for them to eat sugar?! He also mentioned a test and said it shows you if your diabetics!! I am confused a bit too! LoL

 

[Westside PUFAs]

Btw @Westside PUFAs you say some interesting things about boiling instead of frying.
But, what do you think about boiling some potatoes (for instance) and then refrigerate/freeze them? Not everyone can cook for every single meal and has to rely on leftovers... Do you think it still applies to what you've said if one reheat them or simple eat them cold chewing them very well?

When you eat refrigerated starch, it is going into your 97°F (36.1°C) to 99°F (37.2°C) body to get reheated again. The whole fear of resistant starch is nonsense in my view.