Persorption Of Starch?

[tara]

I'm with Brandonk about persorption of starch granules and other microparticles being implicated in some degenerative conditions.
I'm with Westside about large amounts of well-cooked starches having been an important resource for the development of human populations, and consistent with good health for many.
I agree with Brandon that Peat generally recommends sweet carbs over starchy ones when good quality is available.

To me the area of uncertainty has to do with what means of preparation of starches are good enough to keep the persorption risk low enough to be acceptable. It seems cooking them to a gelatinous mush is pretty safe.

What about intermediate cooking methods that cook the starches, but less thoroughly? How much difference is there between cooking spuds for twenty minutes - or till they feel cooked - to cooking them for 40 minutes? What about biscuits and crackers? Hard crusts on bread? Is the difference between polenta made with plain untreated corn and tortillas made with masa harina significant? Is porridge cooked till its soft enough to be pleasant good enough? I never eat rice that is crunchy, but is cooking for twenty minutes till soft good enough? What about baked spuds or chips - if they are soft is this good enough?

Personally, I've been going on the assumption that if they feel soft to my mouth they are probably OK (from the persorption PoV).

post 116640 You're fear mongering. This is a non-issue. No one eats raw starch, except for Peat folk who eat raw carrot, which has raw starch, is that persobed too? No.

To me the persorption risks do not look like a non-issue, but an issue that Peat has addressed directly by suggesting cooking starchy foods well, only using activated charcoal if the likely benefits exceed the risks, and avoiding microparticle excipients in supplements, and noting that mara harina seemed to contribute less to the problem than some other forms of starch.
If carrots have starch granules, it is a very small amount - likely less than 1%. So not really comparable to eating foods that are a third or more starch.
Probably few people deliberately eat much completely raw starch, but I wonder if there may be some issues with dry cooked starches, like some biscuits and crackers. (Some crackers are made with fat, but many are not.) I don't know what the story is with starchy foods that are mixed wet but dried out during cooking. Even if they are made with fat, and fat is somewhat protective, that may not completely eliminate the risk. Do they become solid hard granules again, or do they retain some of the benefits of gelatinisation. I don't know how big a deal this is. I doubt that there has been a lot of scientific methofd applied to this.

post 116640 However, it’s highly unlikely that the lymph and blood vessels are not prepared to handle such intrusions. If not, I doubt our species would have been able to tolerate Underground Storage Organs (USOs). Furthermore, it’s well recognized that the liver is specifically designed to filter such particles from the blood.

Humans may not have eatien very much of the starchy tubers etc until we had cooking technology, and as I undersatnd it, cooking should do a lot to mitigate te potential issue.
I see nothing contradictory about the possibility that persorption of microparticles can contribute to aging and degeneration, but slowly enough to not prevent reproduction of the species. There are many degenerative processes in this category. Avoiding Alzheimers disease after the age of 60 or 70 has not been the key survival issue for the species. The liver and other systems may have some capacity to filter them out, but it could still be preferable to eat smaller rather than larger amounts of them so as not to overwhelm this capacity. Populations can (and often have) grow with a life expectancy of 40 or so, while most of the people die of avoidable degenerative diseases after that.

post 116640 Activated charcoal, has a particle size range of 1-150 microns, and seems to have the ability to detoxify the blood. These are surely persorbed as Volkheimer specifically mentions “charcoal” being persorbed in his subjects.

Yes, I believe Peat has expressed concern about particle size of activated charcoal, and does not recommend it as safe for everyone for regular consumption. I think he has recommended it to a few people, and that these may be cases where the short-term risks of endotoxin (or maybe other toxins) to life may outweigh the longer-term risks of persorbed charcoal.

post 116640 It would seem that persorption probably isn’t some kind of design flaw in our bodies. Combine that with the practice of geophagy (eating dirts and clays) and you get the picture that these particles are probably supposed to temporarily roam through our blood vessels. Persorption appears to be an intentional mechanism with a purpose.

It's possible that this is true, but I don't see much to support it. Seems more likely to me that persorption is just a sometimes unavoidable risk. I imagine it would be hard to design a digestive tract that always gets the filtering perfect under all stresses.
I think Peat has said that some conditions and substances (eg carrageenan) tend to lead to 'leakier' gut barrier, and therefore more risk of damage from intrusion. He does not see this as a good thing, as far as I can tell.

Maybe there are conditions under which the benefits of supplementing minerals from the soil outweigh the downsides of persorbing microparticles.

That many populations have increased while eating a lot of starchy foods doesn't prove that persorption is not an issue, just that getting adequate calories may be more important. One could just as well point to the increase in population over the last century coincident with the massive increase in PUFA consumption as evidence that PUFA is not a problem. I don't think that follows either.

 

[tara]

post 116650 I looked briefly, and did find a line of recent studies cited in the abstracts I quoted that do show that. These studies show that over time there is a risk or likelihood that persorbed particles will build up in the tissues, no matter where you live or which anonymous commenter on a blog you happen to be.

I don't think Ray Peat is fear-mongering, he's just making the simple point that if starch is the only food you can find to subsist on, then of course you should eat it rather than starve (along with saturated fat to decrease the persorption).

But if you can find other food that is low PUFA, low tryptophan/methionine/cysteine/arginine, and starch-free, which provides a balance of vitamins and minerals (such as ripe fruit, non-fat cheese made without GMO enzymes and coconut oil, and perhaps an egg or occasional shellfish), then you will likely be better off eating that, especially as you age and become more susceptible to the effects of degenerative disease.

This makes sense to me, if these foods agree with you and you have access to sufficient quantities and can actually eat enough of them.
That proabbaly still leaves a lot of us reasonably eating some starch, though.

 

[tara]

post 116648 Ray Peat tried it with his students and found starch particles in their blood what's up with that

Do you recall what the comparison was?
Was it something like tortillas made with plain cornmeal vs properly nixtamalised masa harina?

 

[ecstatichamster]

post 116664

post 116648 Ray Peat tried it with his students and found starch particles in their blood what's up with that

Do you recall what the comparison was?
Was it something like tortillas made with plain cornmeal vs properly nixtamalised masa harina?

That's what I think it was.

But to me, why wouldn't there be a persorption issues with large foreign proteins in a colloidal suspension, say milk, entering the body and triggering an immune response if not physically clogging the cells.

I think we are designed to thrive to an extent with persorption. Perhaps is a hormesis thing, a little is good for the body.

 

[tara]

post 116666 That's what I think it was.

Seems as though there are more than one reasons to favour nixtamalised cornmeal.
I used to eat polenta for a while years ago from time to time (not nixtamalised, as far as I know). I liked the taste, but I don't think it made me feel particularly good. I discontinued after a while.

post 116666 I think we are designed to thrive to an extent with persorption. Perhaps is a hormesis thing, a little is good for the body.

My guess is that a little is unavoidable and maybe no big deal, but that larger amounts can cause more harm than good. as with many hormetic stresses.

post 116666 But to me, why wouldn't there be a persorption issues with large foreign proteins in a colloidal suspension, say milk, entering the body and triggering an immune response if not physically clogging the cells.

I wonder about proteins too.
If people have significantly reduced digestive enzymes, and weakened gut barriers that allow through larger amounts of some proteins than the system can easily handle, and this is accompanied by other stresses too, than maybe this could be a contributor to some allergic or intolerance or other reactions? I speculate that my trouble with milk may have to do with inadequately digested milk proteins inappropriately getting into the system and messing with my head. I have not seen this theory from Peat, but from others.
One of those quotes from brandonk above pointed to protein fibres potentially persorbing, too, which I hadn't seen reference to before.

 

[Such_Saturation]

post 116664

post 116648 Ray Peat tried it with his students and found starch particles in their blood what's up with that

Do you recall what the comparison was?
Was it something like tortillas made with plain cornmeal vs properly nixtamalised masa harina?

Yes.

 

[tca300]

[moderator edit: moved from https://raypeatforum.com/forums/threads/ray-peat-on-the-stress-of-ketogenic-diets.9232/]

kmud_140815_190000fritalk

at 44min

Way off topic, what's your opinion on Persorption of starch?

 

[Westside PUFAs]

Way off topic, what's your opinion on Persorption of starch?

I think it's BS. I think it's possible for anything to get persorbed if one has damaged their gut from years eating SAD. People who are anti-starch will cry persorption but they ignore the nuance and massive evidence of humans thriving off of starch. How could so many thrive if persorption was such an issue? Some quote rat studies where they ate raw starch. Rats don't know how to cook starch. They also don't produce as much amylase as humans. The gut is designed to keep things out. It is extremely efficient at this. Drug smugglers swallow all kinds of things including plastics and other things that they then poop out. They don't die from plastic particles "leaking" through the gut. Babies also swallow many foreign non-food things and its the same. Starch is broken down into sugar in the gut and this starts in the month with salvia and the pancreas also produces amylase. The other fiber that was in that starch food is then moved through the gut like any other fiber. The starch part of it is converted into sugar which is glucose for the bloodstream, the rest is not"leaked" through. High-starch eating cultures are a clear example of it working. The claim that starch particles can be persorbed applies to someone with an extremely impaired intestine. This kind of person will have trouble eating anything. Do you think protein powder is not “persorbed?” Supplement particles? Particles that are in food naturally? We can handle some of it. We wouldn’t have survived if we couldn’t.

Persorption debunked here:

"I researched this awhile back and thought I would share my notes, in case this actually were to concern anybody…

Volkheimer used 200g of potato starch to cause embolisms in his subjects. Think about that for a moment. That’s an enormous dose of starch granules. Even people who eat raw potato starch—for the resistant starch—rarely consume more than 40-50g per day. And it would be a challenge to eat more than 8-12g of starch granules in a day from food.

Volkheimer believed that persorption was some kind of flaw in the gut that allowed starch granules to leak through. And if starch granules that were larger than a red blood cell (6-8 microns in diameter) could get stuck in the blood vessels and cause blockages and embolisms. This was theorized because some blood vessels are so tiny that the red blood cells must travel single-file to pass through. However, it’s highly unlikely that the lymph and blood vessels are not prepared to handle such intrusions. If not, I doubt our species would have been able to tolerate Underground Storage Organs (USOs). Furthermore, it’s well recognized that the liver is specifically designed to filter such particles from the blood.

If we are going to worry about starch granules—which are often larger than the diameter of a red blood cell—then we must also worry about anything else that fits this criteria:

Activated charcoal, has a particle size range of 1-150 microns, and seems to have the ability to detoxify the blood. These are surely persorbed as Volkheimer specifically mentions “charcoal” being persorbed in his subjects.

As pointed out, above, carrots have a starch granule size of 4-26 microns, and should therefore cause embolisms according to Volkheimer.

Raw unfiltered honey, contains pollen that range from 2.5 to 1,000 microns! Most honey producers will filter the pollen out their honey with sieves that range from 50 microns (heavily filtered) to 600 microns (lightly filtered). But, as we know, Hunter Gatherer populations tend to eat a lot of honey and they didn’t filter their honey with modern sieves. So, I can imagine lots of large and small pollen getting persorbed by Hunter Gatherers every day.

It would seem that persorption probably isn’t some kind of design flaw in our bodies. Combine that with the practice of geophagy (eating dirts and clays) and you get the picture that these particles are probably supposed to temporarily roam through our blood vessels. Persorption appears to be an intentional mechanism with a purpose.

Obligate carnivores consume raw meat, which is rich in glycans (glycolipids, glycoproteins, etc.), which is what we know of as animal fiber. Animal fiber is persorbed as well, and likely has a very wide range. Some of these glycans are probably used throughout the body. In fact, any fiber particle that is eaten from any food will surely become persorbed in the same manner.

Glycosaminoglycans (GAGs) from blueberries literally get transported to your blood vessels and play a role in maintaining their health. Without persorption, there would be no way for GAGs to contribute to the health of blood vessels...."

that’s a comment from a blog linked here, scroll down my answer here to see more studies and evidence:

https://raypeatforum.com/forums/thr...asily-digested-starch.9010/page-2#post-116640

 

[ecstatichamster]

It seems persorption can be minimized through consumption concurrently of fat. I hunk that's what Ray thinks. Me recommends starch be consumed with fat in what I've read.

 

[Parsifal]

I think it's BS. I think it's possible for anything to get persorbed if one has damaged their gut from years eating SAD. People who are anti-starch will cry persorption but they ignore the nuance and massive evidence of humans thriving off of starch. How could so many thrive if persorption was such an issue? Some quote rat studies where they ate raw starch. Rats don't know how to cook starch. They also don't produce as much amylase as humans. The gut is designed to keep things out. It is extremely efficient at this. Drug smugglers swallow all kinds of things including plastics and other things that they then poop out. They don't die from plastic particles "leaking" through the gut. Babies also swallow many foreign non-food things and its the same. Starch is broken down into sugar in the gut and this starts in the month with salvia and the pancreas also produces amylase. The other fiber that was in that starch food is then moved through the gut like any other fiber. The starch part of it is converted into sugar which is glucose for the bloodstream, the rest is not"leaked" through. High-starch eating cultures are a clear example of it working. The claim that starch particles can be persorbed applies to someone with an extremely impaired intestine. This kind of person will have trouble eating anything. Do you think protein powder is not “persorbed?” Supplement particles? Particles that are in food naturally? We can handle some of it. We wouldn’t have survived if we couldn’t.

Persorption debunked here:

"I researched this awhile back and thought I would share my notes, in case this actually were to concern anybody…

Volkheimer used 200g of potato starch to cause embolisms in his subjects. Think about that for a moment. That’s an enormous dose of starch granules. Even people who eat raw potato starch—for the resistant starch—rarely consume more than 40-50g per day. And it would be a challenge to eat more than 8-12g of starch granules in a day from food.

Volkheimer believed that persorption was some kind of flaw in the gut that allowed starch granules to leak through. And if starch granules that were larger than a red blood cell (6-8 microns in diameter) could get stuck in the blood vessels and cause blockages and embolisms. This was theorized because some blood vessels are so tiny that the red blood cells must travel single-file to pass through. However, it’s highly unlikely that the lymph and blood vessels are not prepared to handle such intrusions. If not, I doubt our species would have been able to tolerate Underground Storage Organs (USOs). Furthermore, it’s well recognized that the liver is specifically designed to filter such particles from the blood.

If we are going to worry about starch granules—which are often larger than the diameter of a red blood cell—then we must also worry about anything else that fits this criteria:

Activated charcoal, has a particle size range of 1-150 microns, and seems to have the ability to detoxify the blood. These are surely persorbed as Volkheimer specifically mentions “charcoal” being persorbed in his subjects.

As pointed out, above, carrots have a starch granule size of 4-26 microns, and should therefore cause embolisms according to Volkheimer.

Raw unfiltered honey, contains pollen that range from 2.5 to 1,000 microns! Most honey producers will filter the pollen out their honey with sieves that range from 50 microns (heavily filtered) to 600 microns (lightly filtered). But, as we know, Hunter Gatherer populations tend to eat a lot of honey and they didn’t filter their honey with modern sieves. So, I can imagine lots of large and small pollen getting persorbed by Hunter Gatherers every day.

It would seem that persorption probably isn’t some kind of design flaw in our bodies. Combine that with the practice of geophagy (eating dirts and clays) and you get the picture that these particles are probably supposed to temporarily roam through our blood vessels. Persorption appears to be an intentional mechanism with a purpose.

Obligate carnivores consume raw meat, which is rich in glycans (glycolipids, glycoproteins, etc.), which is what we know of as animal fiber. Animal fiber is persorbed as well, and likely has a very wide range. Some of these glycans are probably used throughout the body. In fact, any fiber particle that is eaten from any food will surely become persorbed in the same manner.

Glycosaminoglycans (GAGs) from blueberries literally get transported to your blood vessels and play a role in maintaining their health. Without persorption, there would be no way for GAGs to contribute to the health of blood vessels...."

that’s a comment from a blog linked here, scroll down my answer here to see more studies and evidence:

https://raypeatforum.com/forums/thr...asily-digested-starch.9010/page-2#post-116640

Well Westside your messages are really interesting but what do you think now about the ability of these fibers to feed the gram negative bacteria so leading to endotoxins?
I also remember that Ray said that anything that is difficult to digest (and he was talking about starches) will produce a lot of serotonin...

I would like to be able to eat starch, it would really easier socially and in my everyday life but honestly I can't wathever do, I will get a flu, runny nose, short breath, a lot of crusty dandruff and crusty skin on my fingers around the nails (and I have these problems since early chilhood, the crusty thing appeared at puberty and the only way to keep that in check is no starches and not too much water). I can eat fruits without pectin and meat without problems, dairy is slightly allergenic but I still can have it (planning to replace it though, at least for milk and still eating a bit of cheese). Gelatin can also make me very sick, I don't know if isolated amino acid powder like glycin would work better so I'm going to try it...
Too much raw carrot can be a problem as well and now I'm testing mushrooms but it seems that it is a bit too heavy as well even if well cooked (but maybe I have been eating a bit too much like 200 grams of it in a row).
By the way, there is also evidence of moderate to high consumption of PUFA in some society (at least more than 3-5g/day) and they still thrived so it doesn't mean that PUFA are healthy... http://180degreehealth.com/ray-peat-pufa/ (read the comments).

 

[tara]

There's no such thing as "dry cooked" starch because they are either cooked by water (steamed/boiled) or by oil (fried).

I think the absence of water is relevant. Starch cooked with fat but no water likely still has it's persorbably physical shape, even if the fat mitigates somewhat.

The gelatinization of starch is the natural way we've done it since evolving in the African Congo.

Yes. I guess there's good reason for that.

If by dry starch you mean things like crackers, those are flour products cooked in fat.

There have been good reasons to do this too - biscuits and crackers cooked with saturated fat but no water can be stored for much longer without detetiorating - this can have survival value in some contexts too. But may be harder on the digestion for some people than wet-cooked starches.

The baking of flour in bread still involves water.

Yes.

 

[cantstoppeating]

Starch is a poor mans food and of last resort when quality fruit is unavoidable.

 

[tara]

Starch is a poor mans food and of last resort when quality fruit is unavoidable.

Assuming you mean unavailable, that applies to most people in temperate climes, and probably most people in tropical climes too. If you can get 500g of sugar from good quality fresh ripe fruit every day without breaking your budget, and ensure your family all get similar, you are probably in the wealthy minority. Lucky you.
There are a lot of things worse than well-prepared starches for many of us - hardly last resort.

 

[cantstoppeating]

Assuming you mean unavailable, that applies to most people in temperate climes, and probably most people in tropical climes too. If you can get 500g of sugar from good quality fresh ripe fruit every day without breaking your budget, and ensure your family all get similar, you are probably in the wealthy minority. Lucky you.
There are a lot of things worse than well-prepared starches for many of us - hardly last resort.

Yes, unavailable.

You seem offended. If you can't afford enough fruit for yourself and your family, then a solution is to figure out a way to earn more and/or move to a country where you income goes further. Peat moved to mexico. Luck has nothing to do with it.

It is the last resort as your next best alternative is grain. Once you're in the land of grains, you're no longer in the realm of Peat.

 

[Brian]

Yes, unavailable.

You seem offended. If you can't afford enough fruit for yourself and your family, then a solution is to figure out a way to earn more and/or move to a country where you income goes further. Peat moved to mexico. Luck has nothing to do with it.

It is the last resort as your next best alternative is grain. Once you're in the land of grains, you're no longer in the realm of Peat.

Or you could just lift weights a few times a week and actually benefit from starch and not base your whole life around fruit. Starch can become your best friend if you just simply prime your body to be hungry for some muscle glycogen.

 

[Zachs]

CSP,

Billions of people would laugh at your statement. Don't kid yourself to think that you are superior to the majority of the world in this regard.

The majority of the world centers their diet around starch and are or were free of the big three killers, diabetes, cvd and obesity.

Every blue zone culture eats mainly starch. Showing that you can live healthfully to a ripe old age eating starch.

Doctors, mainly vegan doctors but not all have been treating the big three diseases with starch based diets for the last 100 years. Showing that not only does a starch based diet not cause diabetes, cvd or obesity but it can actually reverse them in SAD eaters.

Sorry but persorption of starch might have to be put into the category of wrong Peat theories. At least for people without severely damaged digestive tracts.

Imo, Peat has done what many diet creators do and researched himself into a corner where only a very small percent of foods are considered edible. This might be fine for regaining health, but maintaining health is possible without eating only Peat approved foods, or any Peat approved foods at all... maybe it's our fault for obsessing over every detail of this mans research and even going so far as to mimic his personal diet (Danny Roddy). Personally I find his work fascinating but a strict "Peat diet" did not fix my health. His work certainly opened my eyes to dangers such as iron, pufa, raw vegetables, and for that I am very grateful.

 

[cantstoppeating]

Or you could just lift weights a few times a week and actually benefit from starch and not base your whole life around fruit. Starch can become your best friend if you just simply prime your body to be hungry for some muscle glycogen.

CSP,

Billions of people would laugh at your statement. Don't kid yourself to think that you are superior to the majority of the world in this regard.

The majority of the world centers their diet around starch and are or were free of the big three killers, diabetes, cvd and obesity.

Every blue zone culture eats mainly starch. Showing that you can live healthfully to a ripe old age eating starch.

Doctors, mainly vegan doctors but not all have been treating the big three diseases with starch based diets for the last 100 years. Showing that not only does a starch based diet not cause diabetes, cvd or obesity but it can actually reverse them in SAD eaters.

Sorry but persorption of starch might have to be put into the category of wrong Peat theories. At least for people without severely damaged digestive tracts.

Imo, Peat has done what many diet creators do and researched himself into a corner where only a very small percent of foods are considered edible. This might be fine for regaining health, but maintaining health is possible without eating only Peat approved foods, or any Peat approved foods at all... maybe it's our fault for obsessing over every detail of this mans research and even going so far as to mimic his personal diet (Danny Roddy). Personally I find his work fascinating but a strict "Peat diet" did not fix my health. His work certainly opened my eyes to dangers such as iron, pufa, raw vegetables, and for that I am very grateful.

I'm not interested in what groups of people have eaten, or do eat, and their level of health.

I'm interested in understanding how the body works and maximising its function and where necessary, modifying it to suit myself. This is what Peat looks at and why he suggests things like keeping the gut as sterile as possible and avoiding starch.

I'm interested in living to 200 years or longer, while feeling like I'm 18, while you're all wasting time looking at populations eating x and y hoping to replicate a disease free ride to the grave.

 

[Zachs]

Uh huh. Yep. Mmmhmm.

 

[Such_Saturation]

I'm digging this new csp

 

[narouz]

I'm digging this new csp

He's always bringin' The Truth.
Like The Donald.
And of course like...