Ancient Chinese Were Peatarians

[halken]

What? Ray Peat raves about white potato.

 

[Such_Saturation]

Yes, and white sugar has five times the carbohydrate content of white rice, and a lower "GI".

I love sucrose: http://beesandbutterflies.org/46094/hav ... et-over-it

But sucrose is half pure glucose, like starch. Are you suggesting that the other half of fructose in sucrose makes a difference? At least you can make a meal out of white rice. I love sucrose, but it's hard to make a meal out of it.

Oh yeah, it is almost like eating only half the amount because fructose has almost no effect. But even pure glucose has lower glycemic index than certain rices.

 

[Westside PUFAs]

I'm sorry this turn into a starch war

I think that it's fairly obvious to most people that Peat thinks that starch isn't optimal.
Westside PUFAs if you don't like that idea just ignore it and carry on eating starch.
I do when I eat untreated white flour and potatoes and decently made pizza.
Don't try to convince yourself or anyone else that's it's what Ray peat thinks.

You clearly didn't read anything I posted. You're putting your blinders on. I am diving into details, the very specific details. I used Peat's own quotes, so it is what he thinks, or thought at the time he wrote it.

 

[Such_Saturation]

Peatarians aren't quick to try to cut out most starch I counted at least three different attempts by callers to lure Ray Peat into blessing the consumption of starch and beans in the last interview. The guy even admitted "I guess I'm trying to defend the potato in my own mind to a certain degree because I really enjoy cooking them in many ways". There is a sort of learned helplessness that leads people to seek an external justification to do something that they enjoy, and to avoid changing their habits in a significant manner. But I think the starch itself has a role in that so it is a doubly difficult thing to give up.

 

[Anonymous]

I'm sorry this turn into a starch war

I think that it's fairly obvious to most people that Peat thinks that starch isn't optimal.
Westside PUFAs if you don't like that idea just ignore it and carry on eating starch.
I do when I eat untreated white flour and potatoes and decently made pizza.
Don't try to convince yourself or anyone else that's it's what Ray peat thinks.

You clearly didn't read anything I posted. You're putting your blinders on. I am diving into details, the very specific details. I used Peat's own quotes, so it is what he thinks, or thought at the time he wrote it.

Why does Josh Rubin advise his clients to completely avoid rice and to "cook the ***t out of potatoes."?

Please don't tell me he is overweight so he doesn't know what he's talking about.

 

[halken]

Peatarians aren't quick to try to cut out most starch I counted at least three different attempts by callers to lure Ray Peat into blessing the consumption of starch and beans in the last interview. The guy even admitted "I guess I'm trying to defend the potato in my own mind to a certain degree because I really enjoy cooking them in many ways". There is a sort of learned helplessness that leads people to seek an external justification to do something that they enjoy, and to avoid changing their habits in a significant manner. But I think the starch itself has a role in that so it is a doubly difficult thing to give up.

I was just reading an interview where Ray Peat said white potato's are a good source of energy.

 

[Amazoniac]

We have to agree that starches that are mostly or pure glucose and are poor in other nutrients tend to cause more problems for those who are susceptible to blood sugar dysregulation. White rice and cassava are some examples. I think that cassava is even worse in that matter because unlike white rice, it's a bit more difficult to digest, most people consume it while still very hot and also in large amounts.
I consume much more starches than fruit, and I acknowledge their weak point and try to compensate for that (including by the amount in one meal). But apart from that, if I ever find some evidence that convinces me to drop it, I'll be the first to do it without any problem at all. In my case, no strings attached to starches!

 

[pboy]

starch is meant to make wall paper paste and stiffen clothes before you iron them

it is kind of laughable though all the contradictions that people, even peat, makes about starch...on one hand he says its the lack of rapid absorbability that's the issue, they might feed bacteria, yet also talks of the rat where the corn starch disappears in 15 minutes...but that's also bad. Then the persorption thing.
Theres maaany fruits that also have portions of them that have phenolic acids that prevent sugar beign absorbed in the gut, so then the sugar feeds bacteria. Also a lot have sugar alcohols. Some starches like white rice are nearly totally absorbable, and corn masa. The topic isn't so simple. Its not about how fast something is absorbed, the faster the better, its whether or not it can be turned into glycogen or not. If yes, then its a pretty instant thing in the body...sugar comes in, nearly instant glycogen, no sugar issues. If it cant be turned into glycogen, it will linger in the blood stream, trigger insulin, and a lot of it will be turned into fat. That would happen with sugar or starch, doesn't really matter. If a food is absorbed slowly, but still cant be turned into glycogen, its no different than if it was absorbed fast, its just a longer slower stress rather than a quicker one. Most starch foods have a lot of resistant starch which produces significantly more endotoxin and gas than most fruits, but its not always the case, theres many factors determining that. Fructose isn't necessary, its like an extra booster. You can get (nearly) the same energy on pure glucose, and if you can store it as glycogen, its all fine, no problems. Fructose just adds more ..it seems like dopamine, like the sweet taste on the palate seems to boost mood and inspiration more than plain glucose. Apparently its 20-30% more thyroid activating so maybe its sllliightly a stimulant albeit in a controlled proper way. But it wont help you burn fat , its just...it ramps up metabolism a hint while its being used, for the fructose itself.

And as for persorption, the studies were done on humans also. The guy fed his students the starch and measured it in their urine a few hours later, the one I read said 'it persisted for a significant amount of time'...which might mean 8 horus, might mean a few days...I dunno. However, a lot of studies show that boiled starch doesn't get persorbed, whereas raw or dry cooked starch does. I never saw anything mention fat with the meal preventing persorption


ancient Chinese culture is fascinating...even to this day they are kind of a product of that and it still fills their whole society. There was a guy that lived to be like 197 (died in early 30's) in china, he'd live on mostly wild herbs and berries and spend his time collecting herbs to sell in the mountains, taking long strides as he walked apparently, I don't think starches were a big part of his diet, but its unclear. All I could find was basically he'd eat meat only twice a year, and mostly live in the mountains gathering wild foods.
The interesting thing, which I totally understand and relate to, is that he attributed his longevity mostly to mental factors, not diet...lifestyle factors. How he walked, slept, and maintained a peaceful heart

 

[YuraCZ]

Oh yeah, it is almost like eating only half the amount because fructose has almost no effect. But even pure glucose has lower glycemic index than certain rices.

And who eats just plain rice.. Rice with some protein and/or fats and glycemic index doesn't mean nothing. So where is a problem. Almost everybody in the fitness industry uses white rice as a main carb source and nobody has issues with high GI..

 

[Such_Saturation]

Oh yeah, it is almost like eating only half the amount because fructose has almost no effect. But even pure glucose has lower glycemic index than certain rices.

And who eats just plain rice.. Rice with some protein and/or fats and glycemic index doesn't mean nothing. So where is a problem. Almost everybody in the fitness industry uses white rice as a main carb source and nobody has issues with high GI..

It was not I who had brought up glycemic "indexes", I was merely showing him something. But again there is a defensive stance that tries to bypass each and every point in the discussion.

 

[YuraCZ]

I just don't see ANY issues with well cooked white rice with some protein and fat(butter, gelatin, coconut oil, eggs, cod, beef etc..) as a complete meal. It's 100% Peat approved food.

 

[Amazoniac]

The industry uses starches to take advantage of their long complex chains, unlike some carbohydrates in fruit. But no one eats raw starches, the problem might be undercooked starches; which will probably act like soluble fiber and some of it will ferment - not that much of a deal. In healthy individuals, this fermentation will occur in the large intestine, where most of the fat ingested along with it will be already absorbed and won't potentiate the effects of LPS. Medium-chain saturated fatty acids are the greatest promoters of this effect, but it is also a type of fat that are absorbed and metabolized the fastest.
Along with fats, there are many other ways to mitigate the effects of starch on blood sugar. They are all over the forum and have been discussed many times..

Speaking of raw starches..
http://freetheanimal.com/2015/05/eating ... proof.html
This will suit many people that follow some of Ray Peat's recommendations; and believe that is by reaching the purity of their diet regarding antinutrients that they can have the healthiest outcome..

 

[Westside PUFAs]

Starch avoidance for immortality! :)

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigu_(avoiding_grains)

Also, that link talks about the use of licorice.

Licorice is estrogenic.

 

[narouz]

Just keepin' it real.

narouz! You finally quoted me! You've been ignoring me ever since I started posting here.

Ultimately, if someone wanted to know Peat's basic view on starch, the only quote they need to read is the "even a high starch diet isn't necessarily incompatible with good health" one, and take it from there. The "starches that aren't quickly digested quote and the fact that out of 116 quotes on endotoxin only 2 mention starch shouldn't be ignored like it is by everyone who is anti-starch and tries to paint Peat as purely anti-starch himself. With the audio clips you pointed out, contradictions come into play a bit. But it's fine. Every scientist contradicts themselves. You can view his pro-starch quotes and his anti-starch ones. I think his anti ones are more from a "Peat biohacking" point of view, like someone with really impaired digestion. But then again, if someone has impaired digestion and they can't eat starch, then I don't know what they are going to eat to stay satiated long term, without eating too much fat.

"Thyroid hormone increases digestive activity, including stomach acid and peristalsis, and both thyroid and progesterone increase the ability of the intestine to absorb sugars quickly; their deficiency can permit bacteria to live on sugars as well as starches.” - RP

"Besides avoiding foods containing fermentable fibers and starches that resist quick digestion, eating fibrous foods that contain antibacterial chemicals, such as bamboo shoots or raw carrots, helps to reduce endotoxin and serotonin.” - RP

“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.” - RP - of course fruit is the best. I'm sure he get's some good stone fruit and other fruits in Oregon in the summer. But thats just summer, the rest of the time he's got OJ. It works for him. Bread and pasta are different than rice and potatoes, and it's usually the stuff people eat with the bread and pasta that causes problems. Bread is made with a good amount of oil too. The fact that most people can't get quality fruit daily as a main source of calories makes starch very appealing.

"In the Peat cult , many often misrepresent Peat’s writings and suggest that Peat is “anti starch.” In actuality, this claim is unsupported by the facts. In Peat’s writing, he does suggest in several cases that he believes that sugar is preferable to starch for several reasons. For one thing, he claims that starch creates a larger insulin response than sugar, and therefore starch is more likely to be stored as fat instead of being metabolized directly. However, Peat also acknowledges that starch can be a part of a healthy diet. This is a fact that is borne out by the longstanding cultures that rely upon starch (rice, potato, wheat, corn, etc.) as an essential part of their diet. And while many Peatarians are quick to try to cut out most starch, they overlook the fact that Peat himself speaks highly of potatoes and is on the record as stating that masa (traditionally-prepared corn), white rice, and oats are potentially valuable parts of a diet. So the starch phobia that is rampant among many in the Peat cult is unfounded. The bottom line is that Peat advocates for eating sugar and/ or starch. In the absence of adequate carbohydrates, thyroid and liver function becomes suppressed, among other potential complications (such as insulin resistance). These are often the outcomes of low carbohydrate diets, so Peat’s view on this matter isn’t actually farfetched."

Lott, Joey (2014-05-07). The Ray Peat Survival Guide: Understanding, Using, and Realistically Applying the Dietary Ideas of Dr. Ray Peat (Kindle Locations 118-120). Archangel Ink. Kindle Edition.

On a separate note from Peat's views, what are your thought on my post from this thread:

viewtopic.php?t=5859

How do you explain peoples eating starchy tubers and thriving? Of course that's not all they ate, but they sure ate a F ton of it. Ari Whitten has references in his book. There is a difference between saying "the French eat lots of butter and cheese" which is a very vague broad statement, as though you can know what every person in a modern country eats daily, there is a difference between that, and Ari Whittens references to diets from those peoples.

Westside-
I'm sorry; I didn't mean to leave you out!

But as to your fervent desire to eat starch
while at the same time enjoying the belief that that is a good Peat food,
I would recommend a time-tested, extremely popular tactic.
Here's what you do.
It is very simple.

1. You simply declare, "There is no Peat diet!"
2. You eat as much starch as you like.
3. If anybody challenges you, simply repeat, "There is no Peat diet!"

It's a great way to have your cake and eat it too!

Now, if that tactic begins to crumble or lose effectiveness,
you can switch it up by using this one instead:
"Eat to increase metabolism rather than any specific foods!"
This will serve well to keep things so fuzzed up and blurry
that you can eat all the starch you want while knowing you are fabulously Peatian!

Finally, if either of the aforementioned tactics begin to lose their mojo,
simply go to this ole chestnut:
"Context is Everything."
Then simply walk away with your head held high
and your bag of pretzels carried proudly.

Those tricks should work for at least a year of righteously Peatian starch consumption.
If they begin to falter,
get back to me.
I have about 20 more great options.
I collect them! :)

 

[sugar daddy]

I'm sorry Westside PUFAs but I think it's a bit rich to say I'm blinkered but whatever!

I think if you look at the original link it's simply an idea from an ancient culture which is quite peaty, it wasn't a serious attack on starch eating.

Whatever you'd like to think, Ray Peat thinks that starches can cause some serious issues and recommends rather fastidious cooking methods.

You seem to have a bit of an issue with the idea of starch avoidance and are pretty dogmatic about it.

 

[narouz]

I just don't see ANY issues with well cooked white rice with some protein and fat(butter, gelatin, coconut oil, eggs, cod, beef etc..) as a complete meal. It's 100% Peat approved food.

"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."
--Ray Peat, "Glycemia, Starch, and Sugar in Context”

 

[narouz]

What? Ray Peat raves about white potato.

"The liquid part of the potato, in between the starch grains...
has the equivalent of amino acids, besides some proteins.
These are the keto acids, which can be used by the brain and heart
as a substitute for sugar or fatty acids and are really an ideal
anti-stress fuel and can instantly turn into amino acids as needed.
And so, apart from the starch, the potato is an amazing food."

an excerpted Peat quote from a radio show
Glycemia, Starch and SUGAR in Context!
hosted by Josh & Jeanne Rubin
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/eastwesthe ... in-context

 

[YuraCZ]

I just don't see ANY issues with well cooked white rice with some protein and fat(butter, gelatin, coconut oil, eggs, cod, beef etc..) as a complete meal. It's 100% Peat approved food.

"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."
--Ray Peat, "Glycemia, Starch, and Sugar in Context”

Myself with rice and rice cakes as the main source of carbs for about 8 years.. It's about overall calorie intake. You can be fat as **** eating just oranges..

 

[Amazoniac]

So, in conclusion, white rice makes you tense up?
Edit: and by the way, I agree with what you stated as long as you are getting adequate nutrition..

 

[narouz]

starch is meant to make wall paper paste and stiffen clothes before you iron them

it is kind of laughable though all the contradictions that people, even peat, makes about starch...on one hand he says its the lack of rapid absorbability that's the issue, they might feed bacteria, yet also talks of the rat where the corn starch disappears in 15 minutes...but that's also bad. Then the persorption thing.
Theres maaany fruits that also have portions of them that have phenolic acids that prevent sugar beign absorbed in the gut, so then the sugar feeds bacteria. Also a lot have sugar alcohols. Some starches like white rice are nearly totally absorbable, and corn masa. The topic isn't so simple. Its not about how fast something is absorbed, the faster the better, its whether or not it can be turned into glycogen or not. If yes, then its a pretty instant thing in the body...sugar comes in, nearly instant glycogen, no sugar issues. If it cant be turned into glycogen, it will linger in the blood stream, trigger insulin, and a lot of it will be turned into fat. That would happen with sugar or starch, doesn't really matter. If a food is absorbed slowly, but still cant be turned into glycogen, its no different than if it was absorbed fast, its just a longer slower stress rather than a quicker one. Most starch foods have a lot of resistant starch which produces significantly more endotoxin and gas than most fruits, but its not always the case, theres many factors determining that. Fructose isn't necessary, its like an extra booster. You can get (nearly) the same energy on pure glucose, and if you can store it as glycogen, its all fine, no problems. Fructose just adds more ..it seems like dopamine, like the sweet taste on the palate seems to boost mood and inspiration more than plain glucose. Apparently its 20-30% more thyroid activating so maybe its sllliightly a stimulant albeit in a controlled proper way. But it wont help you burn fat , its just...it ramps up metabolism a hint while its being used, for the fructose itself.

And as for persorption, the studies were done on humans also. The guy fed his students the starch and measured it in their urine a few hours later, the one I read said 'it persisted for a significant amount of time'...which might mean 8 horus, might mean a few days...I dunno. However, a lot of studies show that boiled starch doesn't get persorbed, whereas raw or dry cooked starch does. I never saw anything mention fat with the meal preventing persorption


ancient Chinese culture is fascinating...even to this day they are kind of a product of that and it still fills their whole society. There was a guy that lived to be like 197 (died in early 30's) in china, he'd live on mostly wild herbs and berries and spend his time collecting herbs to sell in the mountains, taking long strides as he walked apparently, I don't think starches were a big part of his diet, but its unclear. All I could find was basically he'd eat meat only twice a year, and mostly live in the mountains gathering wild foods.
The interesting thing, which I totally understand and relate to, is that he attributed his longevity mostly to mental factors, not diet...lifestyle factors. How he walked, slept, and maintained a peaceful heart

Many interesting points here, pboy!
Some of them challenge the general Peat thinking,
which--I hasten to note--is fine by me.
It is good to be able to challenge an idea.
But general Peat ideas can't be challenged
unless they are acknowledged to be general Peat ideas in the first place.

This is one reason I am for laying out as clearly as possible
what constitutes an optimal Peat diet.
It is by no means that I wish to force everyone to eat such a diet.
It is, rather, that we can't have meaningful discussions/explorations/evaluations
without first describing, generally, what a good Peat diet is.