For Those Who "crave" Starch, Are You Sure It's Not The Fiber Or The Salt?

[tara]

I should've said that caffeine diminishes starch cravings in favor of sugar.

Ah. Quite a different claim.
AIUI, the extract you posted refers to weight gain from caffeine-induced cravings for increased sugar-sweetened beverages, and doesn't mention any reduction in starch consumption.

 

[DaveFoster]

Ah. Quite a different claim.
AIUI, the extract you posted refers to weight gain from caffeine-induced cravings for increased sugar-sweetened beverages, and doesn't mention any reduction in starch consumption.

Sucrose (sugar) consumption results in greater weight gain than that from starch but improves inflammatory markers more than starch.

Here's another study that shows how CO2 increases sucrose consumption, (where we can extrapolate that one of the primary protective actions of thyroid hormone and the other protective substances lies in their generation and retention of CO2.)

"Little is known about how CO2 affects neural processing of taste. We used functional magnetic resonance imaging to investigate the effects of carbonation on brain processing of sweet stimuli, which has relevance to studies of food selection and satiety. The presence of carbonation produced an overall decrease in the neural processing of sweetness-related signals, especially from sucrose. CO2 reduced the neural processing of sucrose more than that of artificial sweeteners. These findings might be relevant to dietary interventions that include noncaloric beverages, whereas the combination of CO2 and sucrose might increase consumption of sucrose.

At the perceptual level, in keeping with our finding of reduced central neural activity, carbonation reduces the perception of sweetness10 and the differences between the sensory profiles of sucrose and As-Ac.4 Although this effect may increase intake of sucrose,"

Reference: http://www.gastrojournal.org/article/S0016-5085(13)00798-1/fulltext

I still eat starch, similar to how I live at low altitude, but I wouldn't forward either as "optimal."

 

[theLaw]

That phrase says you are describing your own thoughts, not your own personal experience. It looked like you thought something that was generally applicable, ie that applied to my experience too.

Possibly.
I suspect my liver doesn't like being overloaded with too much sugar or too much fat at once. But it doesn't seem to object to starchy foods in satisfying quantities themselves (as long as other factors are also taken into account - eg minerals, transit, etc).
This doesn't seem to be unusual. I'm not convinced that it is pathological, though maybe it sometimes reflects pathology. It might be that starchivores are normal too. I'm not aware of adequate data to definitively prove/disprove one way or the other.

In the meantime, eating what works better for us is probably a good idea.

It can be both.

You would probably need to recreate the sugar + high-quality protein of potatoes properly to give it it's day in court. Maybe gelatin + sugar + oj + salt or cheese + honey in a form that's appetizing (potatoes + fat + salt = delicious, so that's some stiff competition).

I've seen no evidence that people actually need starch, but if it works for you, more power to you.

Cutting out starch and increasing calories appear to be phobias on this forum.

 

[Arnold Grape]

If I understand you correctly, cutting out starch and increasing calories translates to drinking a lot of liquids, possibly with sugar added in. While within the context of this forum that may appear to meet certain ends, it's understandable that many people may find this diet boring. (I've done it.) It's also more difficult than it sounds, ime.

 

[theLaw]

If I understand you correctly, cutting out starch and increasing calories translates to drinking a lot of liquids, possibly with sugar added in. While within the context of this forum that may appear to meat certain ends, it's understandable that many people may find this diet boring. (I've done it.) It's also more difficult than it sounds, ime.

Not necessarily; many here use cheese instead of milk.

I agree, it's not as easy to accomplish as just eating starches for protein/carbs (our entire food economy is built around them), but I think it's useful as a tool for those who continue to have health issues. Also, many attempt it without adding more sat fat, which can tank your calories. The question is, are largely-starch meals holding some people back from better health; the same could be said for any number of foods/sups.

Ray doesn't seem to be very strict in his dietary advice, but does suggest "zero" starch for those with significant digestive issues. However, I assume that this would only be for a short time until the gut is healed, and not a hard-line rule in perpetuity.

Personally, I think there are many dietary paths to optimal health, and eliminating starch for a short time is just one of them, but not the only one. Cheers!

Also, for anyone interested, another member is doing a starch-free/low liquid diet here with success:

PROGRESS REPORT FASTEST FAT LOSS EVER THANKS TO RAYYY

 

[Peater Piper]

For what it's worth, I eat a fairly high starch diet, and my diet would probably be considered low sodium (around 1500 mg per day last I checked on chronometer). I rarely salt my food. I never used salt as a child. After reading about other people getting good results by increasing their salt intake, I did try experimenting with salting my starches and adding salt to cooked fruit. I did find it warming, but I think that may have been due to it raising my blood pressure. It also made me incredibly thirsty. Eventually I returned to salting to taste. Something else I've noticed, I enjoy coffee a lot more after a starchy or high fat meal compared to a sugary meal. The thought of coffee after a large amount of fruit actually nauseates me.

 

[RobertJM]

Right at this very moment I've just spent 10 minutes chopping and peeling eight apples and placed in the oven. I had to resist my craving for mashed potato. I always add a punnet of blueberries to enhance the sweetness. A bit of Ceylon cinnamon at the end. Goes well with a coffee! You just cook it sufficiently so it can be mashed at the end (as if you are making an apple pie).

I don't add clotted cream anymore, but wow. What a combination that is.


I've eaten cooked apple many times (mashed potato also), and I know that the cooked apple is way more warming and seems to have zero negative effects that follow (in comparison to the potato). It doesn't hold as many nutrients as the potato, but IMO doesn't hold the same negative effects that follow (in my case, most notably on blood sugar). So just eating enough of the apples is fine to satisfy in terms of calories. I can also add a quart of fruit juice on top to add more calories (which is definitely necessary for me, as calorie deficit equals definite body stress, which isn't pretty).

I don't know. Maybe cooked apple and clotted cream wouldn't equal weight gain? I just feel better on lower fat, I guess.

Other than potato there aren't that many nutritious starches really. I think people are addicted to the insulinogenic effects and that instant rise in glucose (which is akin to a drug effect almost). I'm not bashing starches. Does anyone know of any other nutrious ones? (I find rice and wheat sadly inadequate; wheat in itself has addicting 'opiod' like effects). Preferably a starch that doesn't come with other metabolic poisons like gut irritating fibres or carotenes?

Our resident Travis likens the effect on insulin to effects that are similar to serotonin, and I personally agree with that. It just doesn't feel optimal to me. But hey, civilisation as we know it has been built on starch. Entire cities have been built on people that live mostly on starch. How can I criticise it?

I think the starches are acutely warming, but what do you notice an hour or two after eating them. They always seem to lower my metabolic rate. But that's just me. We are all different I much agree.

 

[Luann]

I enjoy starch and am grateful for any solid foods at this point. So many low-pufa options are liquid or yogurty.

But I don't like it without the salt. Sometimes I put BBQ sauce on rice. So maybe I just need more barbeque sauce in my diet, haha.

 

[Luann]

I can just see amazoniac's next thread being about the importance of getting enough barbeque flavor.

 

[tara]

I've seen no evidence that people actually need starch, ...

There's 'need' and 'need', isn't there? Some people will demonstrate that strictly speaking no dietary carbohydrates are necessary.
I've seen no evidence that all people need starch, but evidence that some people do better with it. I've also seen evidence of similar caliber that some people do better without starch.

If I understand you correctly, cutting out starch and increasing calories translates to drinking a lot of liquids, possibly with sugar added in. While within the context of this forum that may appear to meet certain ends, it's understandable that many people may find this diet boring. (I've done it.) It's also more difficult than it sounds, ime.

Not necessarily. One can eat quite high density food without eating starch, and without going overboard on the fluids if not able to cope with too much. Some people here eat dates, fruit juice concentrate, honey , maple syrup , coconuts, cottage cheese, cheese cake, milk powder pancakes, chocolate, etc, along with fresh fruit and juice, etc. Depends on what agrees with your system.

Other than potato there aren't that many nutritious starches really.

Not necessarily ones to eat large quantities of everyday, but to add a bit of variety from time to time,what about: yams, taro, sweet potatoes, kumara, pumpkins.

 

[theLaw]

There's 'need' and 'need', isn't there? Some people will demonstrate that strictly speaking no dietary carbohydrates are necessary.
I've seen no evidence that all people need starch, but evidence that some people do better with it. I've also seen evidence of similar caliber that some people do better without starch.

I would say we agree..................but then you would say we don't, so I guess we'll disagree to agree.

 

[nbznj]

Not necessarily. One can eat quite high density food without eating starch, and without going overboard on the fluids if not able to cope with too much. Some people here eat dates, fruit juice concentrate, honey , maple syrup , coconuts, cottage cheese, cheese cake, milk powder pancakes, chocolate, etc, along with fresh fruit and juice, etc. Depends on what agrees with your system.


Not necessarily ones to eat large quantities of everyday, but to add a bit of variety from time to time,what about: yams, taro, sweet potatoes, kumara, pumpkins.

I'd be curious to see the triglycerides+LDL levels of someone eating this way. I agree with the second part of the quote tho (yams and sweet potatoes aren't the same?). I'd add in oats that have shown to be useful to maintain artery health

 

[tara]

I'd be curious to see the triglycerides+LDL levels of someone eating this way.

I'm not necessarily recommending eating all those things together - just that adding some of them can be a way to raise calorie density of a high liquid starch-free diet if that's necessary, and each of them are things that some people here eat some of the time. I personally couldn't eat like that - dairy and too much sugar seem to get to me.

I agree with the second part of the quote tho (yams and sweet potatoes aren't the same?).

Apparently different usage in different places.

For the vegetable sometimes called yam in the United States, see sweet potato. For the vegetable called yam in New Zealand, see Oxalis tuberosa.
...
Yam is the common name for some plant species in the genus Dioscorea (family Dioscoreaceae) that form edible tubers. Yams are perennial herbaceous vinescultivated for the consumption of their starchy tubers in many temperate and subtropical world regions. The tubers themselves are also called "yams", having numerous cultivars and related species.

The name, yam, appears to derive from Portuguese inhame or Canarian (Spain) ñame, which are probably derived from West African languages. The main derivations borrow from verbs meaning "to eat".

Yam (vegetable) - Wikipedia

I'd add in oats that have shown to be useful to maintain artery health

I thought about including that too. I eat oat porridge from time to time (and sometimes buckwheat, rice, and even wheat, though that's more about convenience and taste). I left oats out this time because of Peat's general attitude against grains, and with Travis' points about possibly immunogenic proteins in mind.

 

[Wagner83]

Right at this very moment I've just spent 10 minutes chopping and peeling eight apples and placed in the oven. I had to resist my craving for mashed potato. I always add a punnet of blueberries to enhance the sweetness. A bit of Ceylon cinnamon at the end. Goes well with a coffee! You just cook it sufficiently so it can be mashed at the end (as if you are making an apple pie).

I don't add clotted cream anymore, but wow. What a combination that is.


I've eaten cooked apple many times (mashed potato also), and I know that the cooked apple is way more warming and seems to have zero negative effects that follow (in comparison to the potato). It doesn't hold as many nutrients as the potato, but IMO doesn't hold the same negative effects that follow (in my case, most notably on blood sugar). So just eating enough of the apples is fine to satisfy in terms of calories. I can also add a quart of fruit juice on top to add more calories (which is definitely necessary for me, as calorie deficit equals definite body stress, which isn't pretty).

Did you try 30 mg of niacinamide (before the meal), adequate proteins (shrimps is an idea), coconut fat/mct oil, some fructose and walking at least one hour a day? Sleep quality and quantity are important too. You can also have less starch and more fruits or cooked apples, no need to exclude one or the other entirely imo.

 

[Cirion]

Sucrose (sugar) consumption results in greater weight gain than that from starch but improves inflammatory markers more than starch.

@DaveFoster

Where did you get this from? Doesn't RP promote the thought that starch promotes weight gain far more than sugar? Something like 50% more on a per calorie basis if I recall right?

 

[DaveFoster]

@DaveFoster

Where did you get this from? Doesn't RP promote the thought that starch promotes weight gain far more than sugar? Something like 50% more on a per calorie basis if I recall right?

I posted it on another thread, but the thread got deleted. The researchers in the following study compared starch and sugar consumption on weight gaina high-fat diet

Effects of feeding rats sucrose in a high fat diet. - PubMed - NCBI

"Rats were fed ad libitum a 40% fat diet containing either 30% sucrose or 30% starch by weight for 8-9 weeks. Insulin levels during a meal tolerance test were significantly greater in rats fed sucrose than in rats fed starch, but serum glucose levels were not affected by diet and tended to decrease as time after the meal increased. Insulin levels during an oral glucose tolerance test were significantly greater in the rats fed sucrose. Serum glucose levels were not affected by diet. Body weights and epididymal and perirenal fat pad weights were higher in rats fed sucrose than in rats fed starch. Serum triglyceride and cholesterol levels were not different. These results show that relatively low sucrose levels in a high fat diet can produce higher insulin levels than starch before and after either a glucose load or a meal. This relative insulin resistance is symptomatic of onset diabetes."

Here's a study wherein researchers measured weight gain on the addition or sugar versus addition of starch to rat chow.

Insulin sensitivity and adipose tissue weight of rats fed starch or sucrose diets ad libitum or in meals. - PubMed - NCBI

"The deposition of edidymal and perirenal fat, serum insulin levels, and insulin sensitivity of epididymal fat, expressed as the insulin-stimulated production of CO2 from glucose, were determined in Wistar rats fed diets containing either 54% starch or sucrose ad libitum or pair-fed in meals. Regardless of the pattern of feeding, sucrose-fed rats deposited more adipose tissue per 100 g body weight and exhibited less insulin sensitivity than did starch-fed rats. Significant differences in adipose tissue weights were not always accompanied by significant differences in body weights. Meal-fed rats deposited less adipose tissue and showed a greater insulin sensitivity than did ad libitum rats fed the same carbohydrate. However, when changes in feeding pattern negated the difference in adipose weights there was no difference in the insulin sensitivity of the meal-fed and ad libitum-fed rats. Rats consuming the sucrose diet generally exhibited significantly higher fasting serum insulin levels than did rats consuming the starch diet. The serum insulin values tended to be higher in the ad libitum-fpididymal tissue from the meal-fed and starch-fed rats tended to be greater than that of the sucrose-fed or ad libitum-fed rats, respectively, suggesting differences in adipocyte composition. Since obesity, insulin insensitivity, and hyperinsulinism are associated with an impairment of glucose tolerance, the observed metabolic effects of dietary sucrose are considered to be undesirable."

I can't find the study that showed lower inflammation from rats who consumed greater amounts of sugar.

 

[lvysaur]

"Rats were fed ad libitum a 40% fat diet containing either 30% sucrose or 30% starch by weight for 8-9 weeks.

Well that's why. High fat + high sucrose is notoriously good for gaining weight. I could easily believe even moreso than high fat high starch.

In a low/moderate fat diet, sucrose is more slimming than starch. Just going from personal experience.

 

[DaveFoster]

I could easily believe even moreso than high fat high starch.

Oh, nevermind. I misread your comment, my mistake.

 

[Cirion]

Well that doesn't seem to jive with RP's view on sucrose. I would be curious to see his response to that. If that's true then that's saying I should eat starch instead of sugar since I'm not one to restrict calories. I don't buy it personally, because starch definitely clearly increases my inflammation (as you stated, yourself) compared to sucrose, and ultimately inflammation promotes unhealth, and thus cortisol, and thus body fat, none of which is desirable.

His full quote in context:

Starch and glucose efficiently stimulate insulin secretion, and that accelerates the disposition of glucose, activating its conversion to glycogen and fat, as well as its oxidation. Fructose inhibits the stimulation of insulin by glucose, so this means that eating ordinary sugar, sucrose (a disaccharide, consisting of glucose and fructose), in place of starch, will reduce the tendency to store fat. Eating “complex carbohydrates,” rather than sugars, is a reasonable way to promote obesity. Eating starch, by increasing insulin and lowering the blood sugar, stimulates the appetite, causing a person to eat more, so the effect on fat production becomes much larger than when equal amounts of sugar and starch are eaten. The obesity itself then becomes an additional physiological factor; the fat cells create something analogous to an inflammatory state. There isn't anything wrong with a high carbohydrate diet, and even a high starch diet isn't necessarily incompatible with good health, but when better foods are available they should be used instead of starches. For example, fruits have many advantages over grains, besides the difference between sugar and starch. Bread and pasta consumption are strongly associated with the occurrence of diabetes, fruit consumption has a strong inverse association.

 

[charlie]

IMHO. Basically, starch craving is due to broken down sugar metabolism. The body is not efficient at assimilating sugar, so it calls for a bolus of concentrated glucose via starch to help negate the energy deficit.