• @Blossom Is A Blessing To This Community, Let Us Be A Blessing To Her
    Click Here For More Information
  • Due to excessive bot signups along with nefarious actors we are limiting forum registration. Keep checking back for the register link to appear. Please do not send emails or have someone post to the forum asking for a signup link. Until the current climate changes we do not see a change of this policy. To join the forum you must have a compelling reason. Letting us know what skills/knowledge you will bring to the community along with the intent of your stay here will help in getting you approved.

"Anti-aging Diet Would Emphasize Low Starch Consumption"

narouz

Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2012
Messages
4,429
Sorry, the subject line is a little incomplete and therefore inaccurate--
couldn't fit the quote I wanted in:

"I think the basic anti-aging diet...would emphasize...moderate or low starch consumption."

That too, you see, has a couple of ellipses, but I think it is a fair abridgement.
Here is the whole quote from Peat:

I think the basic anti-aging diet is also the best diet for prevention and treatment of diabetes, scleroderma, and the various "connective tissue diseases." This would emphasize high protein, low unsaturated fats, low iron, and high antioxidant consumption, with a moderate or low starch consumption. In practice, this means that a major part of the diet should be milk, cheese, eggs, shellfish, fruits and coconut oil, with vitamin E and salt as the safest supplements. It should be remembered that amino acids, especially in eggs, stimulate insulin secretion, and that this can cause hypoglycemia, which in turn causes cortisol secretion. Eating fruit (or other carbohydrate), coconut oil, and salt at the same meal will decrease this effect of the protein. Magnesium carbonate and epsom salts can also be useful and safe supplements, except when the synthetic material causes an allergic bowel reaction..

--Dr. Ray Peat
"Diabetes, Scleroderma, Oils and Hormones"
http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/diabetes.shtml
 

charlie

The Law & Order Admin
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
12,366
Location
USA
Very nice narouz, thank you.
 

Ray-Z

Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
321
STAAAARRRRRRRCH! [Insert zombie smiley.]

(Sorry -- I couldn't resist stealing Birdie's joke.)
 

charlie

The Law & Order Admin
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
12,366
Location
USA
Yep, no more potatoes for me. :nono
 
J

j.

Guest
Charlie said:
Yep, no more potatoes for me. :nono

Did Peat say using starch with fat makes the former less problematic? If so, I would be willing to have potatoes with a lot of butter.
 

narouz

Member
Thread starter
Joined
Jul 22, 2012
Messages
4,429
Some stray thoughts and questions on starch:

1. Peat says many good things about potatoes,
but if you've ever made the Peat potato extract/soup
with a juicer,
you see how much waste there is in the form of starch and fiber.
Peat advises,
when eating the whole potato (sans skin),
that it be cooked for at least 40 minutes.
Is that to try to render the starch--or the fiber--less harmful?
And, whichever,
would that cooking make the starch (or fiber)
completely harmless?
I mean, if you ate some potatoes cooked for 40 minutes,
could you claim to not be eating any starch at all?
I tend to doubt it
because why would Peat bother to advise Peat Potato Extract,
which is a much more aggressive technique for removing starch and fiber?
If cooking nullifies all or even most of the starch,
then why not tell people to just eat thoroughly cooked potatoes
and skip all that juicing?

In short: even if you cook potatoes for 40 minutes,
I kinda tend to doubt all the starch and fiber are, effectively, vanished.

Same with masa harina and white rice.
And same with the other root vegetables some consider Okay Peat.

2. We've had a few eruptions here lately of
"Peat is a Flaming Commie!" :shock:
I don't see it.
But, what I do suspect is that Peat thinks globally
and has sympathies for "the little guys' and "the poor and powerless" (let's say).
I could back this up some, I think, but I don't have the time right now.
Conversely, he works up a pretty good lather of hatred for certain aspects of capitalism,
prominently, of course,
his loathing of Big Pharma and Money-Influenced Authoritarian Medical Orthodoxy.
With that in mind,
I suspect he tends to try to include some diversity of foods
even if they are not optimal Peat foods.
I think he does this because he has sympathy for people who can not
afford or get access to optimal Peat foods like milk and fruit, etc.

3. I think that some may indeed be able to be healthy while eating
some starch or, I guess, maybe even a lot of starch.
If a person is young, or very healthy, or both,
and if their metabolism is running super great,
and if they are getting an otherwise healthy Peat diet...
...well, I kinduv speculate that those people are like a roaring fire:
you can shove wet wood, green wood, shitty wood (doin' my D. Roddy riff there :D )
into the fire and...that roaring hot fire will burn it right up.
But...I also speculate that most are not like the roaring fire.
I think most of us probably are having trouble getting that fire stoked up.

4. Kinduv an extension of #3...
If you've got a roaring fire,
like I speculate our non-stop surfer/skateboarder and scientist Cliff (for example) does,
then you can probably eat starch and not get Fat.
But I tend to think that, for most of us,
starch will tend to make us fat.
Ultimately, being fat is not good, even in PeatDom.

5. Yes, different strokes for different folks.
Yes, context should be considered.
If you Want to gain weight: starch is for you.
If you Want to slow down your metabolism: starch is for you.
But I think it holds up as a generalization:
for most, it probably is not a good idea to eat a lot of starch.
 

charlie

The Law & Order Admin
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
12,366
Location
USA
j. said:
Charlie said:
Yep, no more potatoes for me. :nono

Did Peat say using starch with fat makes the former less problematic? If so, I would be willing to have potatoes with a lot of butter.

Yes, I think Ray Peat has said it could help lessen the effects.

No use even chancing it for me. I might make the potato protein soup. But the taste of potatoes are not that important to me as gaining my health.
 
J

j.

Guest
narouz said:
Some stray thoughts and questions on starch:
Conversely, he works up a pretty good lather of hatred for certain aspects of capitalism,
prominently, of course,
his loathing of Big Pharma and Money-Influenced Authoritarian Medical Orthodoxy.

That's not capitalism. Capitalism exists when the government DOES NOT intervene in the economy. Licensing laws are an intervention in the economy, because the state chooses who can and cannot produce something, in this case, medical services or advice. In capitalism, the consumers, without government intervention, decide who will produce something by voting for them with their money whenever they buy something.

Accepting that the authoritarian medical orthodoxy is helped by capitalism is not very different from saying that if the government decides who can and cannot produce software, that is capitalism. Capitalism is the exact opposite.

Regarding Big Pharma, people who call themselves capitalists disagree on the issue of patents. Many capitalists consider the existence of patents a violation of individual rights and an unjust intervention in the economy.

I think of what you're criticizing more as a part of fascism or corporatism.
 
J

j.

Guest
Charlie said:
No use even chancing it for me. I might make the potato protein soup. But the taste of potatoes are not that important to me as gaining my health.

But if it raises your temps, I think it's possible it might help your health. But don't take advice from me though.
 

charlie

The Law & Order Admin
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
12,366
Location
USA
j. said:
Charlie said:
No use even chancing it for me. I might make the potato protein soup. But the taste of potatoes are not that important to me as gaining my health.

But if it raises your temps, I think it's possible it might help your health. But don't take advice from me though.

Ok, I admit. You do have a point. :confused
 
J

j.

Guest
Charlie said:
Ok, I admit. You do have a point. :confused

My experience: I felt great after eating potatoes. Great. So I ate them for a while. Suddenly I became unable to eat them. It would give me a lot of discomfort, and I don't eat it anymore. But that was before I read Ray Peat's advice about cooking potatoes. I was eating them as raw as possible while liking the taste, because I thought that would keep the vitamins. I'm pretty sure I cooked them for less or a lot less than 40 minutes.
 

gretchen

Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2012
Messages
816
I love a well cooked potato. Glad to say goodbye to other starches like oatmeal though. There is actually a popular blog online that praises oatmeal; very popular with the over 30 crowd........ Starches, they are for every meal and a cuddly warm blanket of goodness.
 

WilltoBelieve

Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2012
Messages
34
Moderate to low starch consumption, does it also mean NO starch consumption would be even better? Beware, it's the last step that makes all the difference.

Vitamin e as a safe supplement, so 10,000 iu of vitamin e.... if 1 is good 10 are better ... ?

Great thing about modern science is it allows us to become specific. But the bad thing about science is it causes us to generalize.

Truly.... I use starch for my tuxedo shirt, but I don't eat it.

There's so much difference between actual foods that contain starch as compared to just "starch".

We are not trying to experiment on ourselves as if we were rats in a cage to be fed starch!

It could be said "well, we all know what is meant by starch. " but do we really? Does it mean white rice, oatmeal, rye bread or spaghetti, potato, sweet potato, cookies, quinoa, amaranth (yuck), etc. ?

I used to have rabbits on my farm, also, field mice made a home in the barn.

The rabbits would absolutely starve and die before they would eat wet barley. Also, the mice would prefer the dry wheat, and they would never eat the bran or wheat or barley that was wet, only the dry starch and germ. They would leave all the bran for me to sweep up after them.
As I watched the rabbits, they would chew the barley for such a long time before they swallowed it. Chewing chewing and more chewing! Ha ha ha...

The experimental data about starch is not showing the whole picture. Especially if a wet pure starch is delivered to the stomach of a captive animal.... yes it show us about what happens if you eat a lot of wet sloppy pasta and rice... but...

Jean Calment would always have a piece of baguette showing that a low to even moderate consumption of "starch" is compatible with making it to 122 years.
Also, Walter Breuning ate bread (died recently at 114 I think?--- in very good condition)... My study of him leads me to believe he was in the low to moderate starch range.
But let's take note of what form and context this starch is in: mostly bread made of wheat flour (starchy but still not "starch", eaten in a comfortable setting by people who didn't know anything about being in a rush or gulping down "starch" (am I arguing against myself.?.. hehheh heh)

I don't think any of these would consider making that final leap to the no starch realm.
Sounds almost like no starch ... low starch, but it's different.
(He did not say 'you surely will die'... sound familiar?)

Maybe someone could show me the error of my ways if I'm becoming a heretic. Hahaha.

But it could be good to keep ideas organized and keep in mind a particular practice that could be a temporary therapy, one that could be a rigorous training, and one that could be an ascetic practice, one that could provide relief from a time from an imbalance, one that could be long term ....

and finally... one that could be considered normal every day practice for when ill health and problems are mostly gone.
-----

IN conclusion :

Walter Breuning and Jean Calment ate a moderate to low starch diet and lived well over 100 years (although they did indeed age)...

One thing is sure: If all or some of us are going to make it past 75 (or even 60), "in this culture", we are going to have to be careful.
 

narouz

Member
Thread starter
Joined
Jul 22, 2012
Messages
4,429
WilltoBelieve said:
Moderate to low starch consumption, does it also mean NO starch consumption would be even better? Beware, it's the last step that makes all the difference.

Vitamin e as a safe supplement, so 10,000 iu of vitamin e.... if 1 is good 10 are better ... ?

Great thing about modern science is it allows us to become specific. But the bad thing about science is it causes us to generalize.

Truly.... I use starch for my tuxedo shirt, but I don't eat it.

There's so much difference between actual foods that contain starch as compared to just "starch".

We are not trying to experiment on ourselves as if we were rats in a cage to be fed starch!

It could be said "well, we all know what is meant by starch. " but do we really? Does it mean white rice, oatmeal, rye bread or spaghetti, potato, sweet potato, cookies, quinoa, amaranth (yuck), etc. ?

I used to have rabbits on my farm, also, field mice made a home in the barn.

The rabbits would absolutely starve and die before they would eat wet barley. Also, the mice would prefer the dry wheat, and they would never eat the bran or wheat or barley that was wet, only the dry starch and germ. They would leave all the bran for me to sweep up after them.
As I watched the rabbits, they would chew the barley for such a long time before they swallowed it. Chewing chewing and more chewing! Ha ha ha...

The experimental data about starch is not showing the whole picture. Especially if a wet pure starch is delivered to the stomach of a captive animal.... yes it show us about what happens if you eat a lot of wet sloppy pasta and rice... but...

Jean Calment would always have a piece of baguette showing that a low to even moderate consumption of "starch" is compatible with making it to 122 years.
Also, Walter Breuning ate bread (died recently at 114 I think?--- in very good condition)... My study of him leads me to believe he was in the low to moderate starch range.
But let's take note of what form and context this starch is in: mostly bread made of wheat flour (starchy but still not "starch", eaten in a comfortable setting by people who didn't know anything about being in a rush or gulping down "starch" (am I arguing against myself.?.. hehheh heh)

I don't think any of these would consider making that final leap to the no starch realm.
Sounds almost like no starch ... low starch, but it's different.
(He did not say 'you surely will die'... sound familiar?)

Maybe someone could show me the error of my ways if I'm becoming a heretic. Hahaha.

But it could be good to keep ideas organized and keep in mind a particular practice that could be a temporary therapy, one that could be a rigorous training, and one that could be an ascetic practice, one that could provide relief from a time from an imbalance, one that could be long term ....

and finally... one that could be considered normal every day practice for when ill health and problems are mostly gone.
-----

IN conclusion :

Walter Breuning and Jean Calment ate a moderate to low starch diet and lived well over 100 years (although they did indeed age)...

One thing is sure: If all or some of us are going to make it past 75 (or even 60), "in this culture", we are going to have to be careful.

In general, I guess I agree, Will2.

As I said in another post,
while I think your personal theory about DRY bread (and dry starch in general, presumably)
is interesting,
I can't say that I'm persuaded by it (I'm open, I'm open!).
Peat wouldn't seem to share it,
and in fact would seem to warn against it when he says
a healthy fat should be consumed with bread.

On the point of "low to moderate starch" not equating to "no starch," though, I agree.
However, the point remains
that you never hear Peat
recommending some level (or any level) of starch consumption for good health.
For example,
he never says things like
"everybody should try to get at least 100grams of starch per day."
Whereas he will make that sort of benchmarky, general statement
about protein and carbohydrate and other foods.

So, speaking for myself, I do tend to extrapolate Peat--logically, I think--
as suggesting that the less starch the better.
And if you're a little hell-bent on improvement like I am,
well...then I like to eat the optimal Peat foods
as far as my wallet and appetite allow.

About Jean Calment and Walter Breuning...
while they are indeed fascinating and perhaps instructive individual examples,
I hesitate to center a dietary philosophy around them.
After all, if I did I would have to take up smoking, for one.
And baguette eating.
 

narouz

Member
Thread starter
Joined
Jul 22, 2012
Messages
4,429
I'd posted this over in another thread
and wanted to "deposit" it here...

From the KMUD interview of February 15th.
KMUD: Weight Gain, Foamy Urine, Fats, Light Therapy, Dreams, -- 2-15-2013
download/file.php?id=312

The questioner is the KMUD co-host, Sarah Murray.
Go to the 48 minute mark of the interview:

SM: "I guess what you're saying is 400 calories from orange juice
is not comparative to 400 calories from potatoes or rice."

Ray Peat: "...uh, definitely not. It [the orange juice] stimulates your metabolism and suppresses
the stress hormones."

SM: "Whereas 400 calories from baked potato and rice would increase your stress hormones
and suppress your metabolism?"

RP: "Yeah. And then there's the matter of the starch particles, that if you don't have some saturated fat
with them some of the starch particles can set up a whole pattern of stress and injury by entering
the blood stream."

-------

"I think the basic anti-aging diet is also the best diet for prevention and treatment of diabetes, scleroderma, and the various "connective tissue diseases." This would emphasize high protein, low unsaturated fats, low iron, and high antioxidant consumption, with a moderate or low starch consumption. In practice, this means that a major part of the diet should be milk, cheese, eggs, shellfish, fruits and coconut oil, with vitamin E and salt as the safest supplements. It should be remembered that amino acids, especially in eggs, stimulate insulin secretion, and that this can cause hypoglycemia, which in turn causes cortisol secretion. Eating fruit (or other carbohydrate), coconut oil, and salt at the same meal will decrease this effect of the protein. Magnesium carbonate and epsom salts can also be useful and safe supplements, except when the synthetic material causes an allergic bowel reaction."

--Dr. Ray Peat
"Diabetes, Scleroderma, Oils and Hormones"
http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/diabetes.shtml

-------

Ray Peat in
Diabetes, Scleroderma, Oils and Hormones
http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/diabetes.shtml


"The starch-based diet, emphasizing grains, beans, nuts, and vegetables, has been promoted with a variety of justifications. When people are urged to reduce their fat and sugar consumption, they are told to eat more starch. Starch stimulates the appetite, promotes fat synthesis by stimulating insulin secretion, and sometimes increases the growth of bacteria that produce toxins. It is often associated with allergens, and according to Gerhard Volkheimer, whole starch grains can be "persorbed" from the intestine directly into the blood stream where they may block arterioles, causing widely distributed nests of cell-death. I have heard dietitians urge the use of "complex carbohydrates" (starch) instead of sugar. In the first physiology lab I took, we fed rats a large blob of moist cornstarch with a stomach tube, and then after waiting a few minutes, were told to dissect the rat to find out "how far the starch had gone." In such a short time, we were surprised to find that not a trace of the starch could be found. The professor's purpose was to impress us with the rapidity with which starch is digested and absorbed. Various studies have demonstrated that starch (composed of pure glucose) raises blood glucose more quickly than sucrose (half fructose, half glucose) does. The sudden increase of blood glucose is sometimes thought to contribute to the development of diabetes, but if it does, it is probably mediated by fat metabolism and the hormones other than just insulin."

-------

Ray Peat wrote:
"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."

R. Peat, Glycemia, Starch, and Sugar in Context

-------

"Per calorie, sugar is less fattening than starch, partly because it stimulates less insulin, and, when it's used with a good diet, because it increases the activity of thyroid hormone.."--Ray Peat from http://www.dannyroddy.com/main/2011/12/ ... tandi.html

-------

"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”

-------

"Any carbohydrate...that is not sugar can potentially feed bacteria [in the intestines] that produce toxins and cause systemic stress."

-Dr. Ray Peat: Glycemia, Starch and SUGAR in Context!
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/eastwesthe ... in-context
(Go to approximately the 29 minute mark of the interview.)

-------

Focusing in on potatoes (around the 46 minute point)
Peat says that "potatoes are almost unique among the plant materials":

"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."

Dr. Ray Peat: Glycemia, Starch and SUGAR in Context!
by Josh & Jeanne Rubin
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/eastwesthe ... in-context

-------

from Dr. Peat:

"In an old experiment, a rat was tube-fed ten grams of corn-starch paste, and then anesthetized. Ten minutes after the massive tube feeding, the professor told the students to find how far the starch had moved along the alimentary canal. No trace of the white paste could be found, demonstrating the speed with which starch can be digested and absorbed. The very rapid rise of blood sugar stimulates massive release of insulin, and rapidly converts much of the carbohydrate into fat.

It was this sort of experiment that led to the concept of "glycemic index," that ranks foods according to their ability to raise the blood sugar. David Jenkins, in 1981, knew enough about the old studies of starch digestion to realize that the dietitians had created a dangerous cult around the “complex carbohydrates,” and he did a series of measurements that showed that starch is more “glycemic” than sucrose. But he simply used the amount of increase in blood glucose during the first two hours after ingesting the food sample, compared to that following ingestion of pure glucose, for the comparison, neglecting the physiologically complex facts, all of the processes involved in causing a certain amount of glucose to be present in the blood during a certain time. (Even the taste of sweetness, without swallowing anything, can stimulate the release of glucagon, which raises blood sugar.)"

R. Peat, Glycemia, Starch, and Sugar in Context

-------

-The interview "Sugar Part 1" with the Herb Doctors:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22195338/Kmud_S ... ritalk.mp3

Go to about the 19:00 or 20:00 mark for some fairly damning views from Peat on starches
as a source of carbohydrates/sugars.

Also, more generally, a very thorough discussion on the basics of sugars and carbohydrates, healthy and unhealthy.
 

Birdie

Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2012
Messages
4,694
Location
USA
It's so interesting, all this starch info.
I think it might have been Peat who said that 90 minutes after eating starch cravings and hunger set in.

I have always found this to be true. Years ago, when I ate a muffin with breakfast, I'd be screaming hungry within an hour. Seemed to set off cravings for the day.

Recently, last year, I tried adding some masa to eggs, milk, sugar and vanilla to make pancakes or crepes for Sunday breakfast. Horrible reaction of hunger and cravings lasting for many hours. But it was so delicious. I tried it several times.

But, if I make the same recipe leaving out the masa, it works fine. No cravings.
 

jyb

Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2012
Messages
2,780
Location
UK
Birdie said:
It's so interesting, all this starch info.
I think it might have been Peat who said that 90 minutes after eating starch cravings and hunger set in.

I have always found this to be true. Years ago, when I ate a muffin with breakfast, I'd be screaming hungry within an hour. Seemed to set off cravings for the day.

Recently, last year, I tried adding some masa to eggs, milk, sugar and vanilla to make pancakes or crepes for Sunday breakfast. Horrible reaction of hunger and cravings lasting for many hours. But it was so delicious. I tried it several times.

But, if I make the same recipe leaving out the masa, it works fine. No cravings.

That's not just Peat but almost everyone writing against starch. It's also my biggest problem with it, on a theoretical basis. When you eat starch, like a meal with a baked potato, you get a lot of glucose at once. I think its way more than is useful, the excess is stressful and the body does what it can with insulin - and does it without problem if you're healthy. However this is not the same as a little bit of glucose when you drink a few cups of milk or even teaspoons of sucrose here and then. Those quantities seem more physiological and in my experience, provide more than enough glucose to avoid any hypoglycaemia whatsoever. (And in addition, the fructose part of fruit doesn't contribute to direct blood glucose load.) Of course if you're low fat then that's a bit different because you need a lot more carbs so it has to come from somewhere.
 

Peata

Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2013
Messages
3,402
Birdie said:
It's so interesting, all this starch info.
I think it might have been Peat who said that 90 minutes after eating starch cravings and hunger set in.

I have always found this to be true. Years ago, when I ate a muffin with breakfast, I'd be screaming hungry within an hour. Seemed to set off cravings for the day.

Recently, last year, I tried adding some masa to eggs, milk, sugar and vanilla to make pancakes or crepes for Sunday breakfast. Horrible reaction of hunger and cravings lasting for many hours. But it was so delicious. I tried it several times.

But, if I make the same recipe leaving out the masa, it works fine. No cravings.

Same for me as well. Yesterday I made potato soup and was hungry again soon after eating it. The same when I had steel cut oats a couple weeks ago. I never get full on popcorn.

I can eat some starch as long as I have other things with it (steak, baked potato, etc.) But by itself, it does not work out for me.
 

Birdie

Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2012
Messages
4,694
Location
USA
Yeah, true, a lot of people describe the hypoglycemic, craving effect. But Peat's observations do clarify a lot for me. Always a new little twist, something he's observed, some ignored research, that hits the spot and makes me happy.

Not sure I agree with people who say healthy people can handle unhealthy things. They may not notice a bad response, but that doesn't mean it's a neutral.

My husband, who I observe constantly, doesn't have any noticeable reaction to starch. But, he may just not notice and still have a response. And even if he has no glucose response with hunger/cravings, other responses are going on. Extra aging, inflammation....
 

Birdie

Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2012
Messages
4,694
Location
USA
Peata said:
Birdie said:
It's so interesting, all this starch info.
I think it might have been Peat who said that 90 minutes after eating starch cravings and hunger set in.

I have always found this to be true. Years ago, when I ate a muffin with breakfast, I'd be screaming hungry within an hour. Seemed to set off cravings for the day.

Recently, last year, I tried adding some masa to eggs, milk, sugar and vanilla to make pancakes or crepes for Sunday breakfast. Horrible reaction of hunger and cravings lasting for many hours. But it was so delicious. I tried it several times.

But, if I make the same recipe leaving out the masa, it works fine. No cravings.

Same for me as well. Yesterday I made potato soup and was hungry again soon after eating it. The same when I had steel cut oats a couple weeks ago. I never get full on popcorn.

I can eat some starch as long as I have other things with it (steak, baked potato, etc.) But by itself, it does not work out for me.

I can't even eat it with other things. But, maybe if I could eat potatoes, I'd not have the hunger response if I had them with other things like you.
Peata, I try every few years but no nightshades for me. :)
 

Similar threads

Top