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).
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.Westside PUFAs said: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.
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.
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.Westside PUFAs said: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.
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.
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.Westside PUFAs said: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.
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.Westside PUFAs said: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.
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.
Last edited by a moderator: