Anyone Else Feel A Bit Guilty And Indulgent For Eating This Way

[Runenight201]

I disagree about starch. When I eat no starch at all, I feel better and have more energy and feel stronger than when I do eat starch. This wasn't the case a year ago, but it seems like simple syrup( free glucose+free fructose instead of sucrose) completely eliminated any need for starch that I had.

If you eat enough sugar, your body will NOT run on protein. Actually, fructose is more effective at maintaining nitrogen balance than glucose is, so replacing starch with sugar will actually produce less ammonia. Also, sugar is much better for the bones than starch is. People on the carnivore diet notice tremendous benefits when they ditch plant fibers and starches. Ray himself has eliminated starch from his diet long time ago.

In my experience, starch is the most clogging food there is. So the only way to eat starch is to not eat starch then :)

Well, one can have energy and be strong, the way to do that is eating plenty of sugar syrup and lots of animal protein( plant protein is generally NOT good for humans). Of course, this is one way to do it. If what you're doing is working for you, then, by all means, keep doing it. :)

Unrefined starch + veggies creates a very non-clogging meal. I just noticed how easily white rice and potatoes bulk, but quinoa, onions, mushrooms, and spinach with salt was very satisfying and digested very well. I was able to eat a very large portion of this food and actually feel full for once.

If a starch free diet provided for better physical performance, wouldn’t every explosive athlete be on board?

 

[Rafael Lao Wai]

starvation food (potatoes, beans, rice, etc) are in no way shape or form the reason why the poor are fat and have diabetes. Poor people don’t have the time to cook, so they are always eating chips, fries, fast food pufa, for the calories. You could live a pretty healthy life if you ate the real poverty food. So don’t feel guilty, feel angry at the big corporations for reducing the price of pufas so much that they’re in everything. look at a mcdonald’s big mac ingredients. should be bread, meat, cheese, lettuce, etc. but no, it’s like 100 different things with all the fillers and soybean oil and crap.

It's true that those foods don't cause diabetes, but that doesn't mean they don 't have many negative negative effects on the human body. Aside from the diseases that I mentioned in my other post, those foods lack many nutrients that can only be found in animal foods, so making them a big part of your diet, and you will have to if you're using them as a source of calories, since they are so calorically poor, will certainly lead to frailty and mental problems.

Also, when you say "real poverty food", are you including offal, which is usually much cheaper than stakes? If so, then yes, I agree that some poverty foods are indeed very healthy.

 

[redsun]

There is no way i can ever tell someone that i start my day with energy drink , milk and thyroid hormone, and end it with antibiotics and 1 liter of coke and milk, and fruit. It's fantastic ! What else there is ?? Oatmeal, broccoli, vegetable oils, rice, chicken ??? F*ck that.

1 Liter of coke and 1 liter milk at once...?

 

[Rafael Lao Wai]

Unrefined starch + veggies creates a very non-clogging meal. I just noticed how easily white rice and potatoes bulk, but quinoa, onions, mushrooms, and spinach with salt was very satisfying and digested very well. I was able to eat a very large portion of this food and actually feel full for once.

If a starch free diet provided for better physical performance, wouldn’t every explosive athlete be on board?

It's non-clogging because all of that fiber is useless for the body and the intestines just flush them out. Fiber gets in the way of nutrient absorption, so that isn't a good solution, as I see it. Feeling full doesn't mean that the food you ate is nutritious or healthy, it just means your stomach has been filled. Also, quinoa is full of saponins and lectins, which are terrible for your gut lining, and spinach is one of the foods most rich in oxalates, which also don't do any favours to the digestive system. Seeds are literally the plant's babies, so they put a bunch of anti-nutrients in them to prevent animals from consuming them.

Athletes normally don't know much about nutrition, they do what their trainers tell them to do. Usain Bolt consumed a bunch of PUFA before competitions, it doesn't mean it's a god idea to do that. People on the carnivore diet do better than people on a vegan diet. Vegans, especially whole food vegans, have very bad performances and, unless they use steroids, they have very little mucle mass and strength. The argument that "someone who is in a certain area of expertise should know what's best" is flawed, because the system is rigid, if people were allowed to make mistakes and experiment, then they would find out for themselves what is best and what is not.

 

[Rafael Lao Wai]

Our human brain could not have evolved without cooked food in the diet. It was the extra energy freed up through cooking that allowed for our brain to expand the way it did. Our body doesn’t lie to us, we lie to ourselves, and come up with all sorts of psychological mind games to justify whatever it is we think may be correct.

It’s difficult to ascertain what the correct way of eating is, without truly being observant over all physical and mental states. I think I’m just going disagree that temps and hr are the be all of good health, as there are many, many more signs of faltering or vibrant health.

I agree with you when you say that cooking helped the human brain get even more complex. Raw meat is perfectly digestible, but I digest it even better when I cook it, and I feel better after eating cooked meat.

I believe you're talking about cooking starch, though, and if that's the case, then, I disagree on that part, since there are humans who didn't have access to much starch at all and developed big brains.

 

[Rafael Lao Wai]

1 Liter of coke and 1 liter milk at once...?

That's a big stomach

 

[Dobbler]

1 Liter of coke and 1 liter milk at once...?

Yeah it sounds bad but it's not if you don't drink any water at all

 

[Runenight201]

It's non-clogging because all of that fiber is useless for the body and the intestines just flush them out. Fiber gets in the way of nutrient absorption, so that isn't a good solution, as I see it. Feeling full doesn't mean that the food you ate is nutritious or healthy, it just means your stomach has been filled. Also, quinoa is full of saponins and lectins, which are terrible for your gut lining, and spinach is one of the foods most rich in oxalates, which also don't do any favours to the digestive system. Seeds are literally the plant's babies, so they put a bunch of anti-nutrients in them to prevent animals from consuming them.

Athletes normally don't know much about nutrition, they do what their trainers tell them to do. Usain Bolt consumed a bunch of PUFA before competitions, it doesn't mean it's a god idea to do that. People on the carnivore diet do better than people on a vegan diet. Vegans, especially whole food vegans, have very bad performances and, unless they use steroids, they have very little mucle mass and strength. The argument that "someone who is in a certain area of expertise should know what's best" is flawed, because the system is rigid, if people were allowed to make mistakes and experiment, then they would find out for themselves what is best and what is not.

Yes that flushing out of the intestines is very useful for keeping the gut clean and keeping food matter from clogging up and causing all sorts of bloat and inflammation.

I get the impression that you think Im supporting a vegan way of eating in contrast to eating animals, which is very false. I think meat and milk are great additions to a diet, but eating a meat milk and sugar diet left me unoptimal.

Im referring to soccer and basketball players, who have a very strict diet during the season, as these sports are highly demanding and require peak physical conditioning to perform well, not an event like sprinting, which is purely anaeróbically fed and could be supported with just a protein heavy diet through gluconeogenesis.

 

[redsun]

Unrefined starch + veggies creates a very non-clogging meal. I just noticed how easily white rice and potatoes bulk, but quinoa, onions, mushrooms, and spinach with salt was very satisfying and digested very well. I was able to eat a very large portion of this food and actually feel full for once.

If a starch free diet provided for better physical performance, wouldn’t every explosive athlete be on board?

Some starches are pretty tame if one has the digestion for it but I literally dont see a point in eating leaves and quinoa, because they are largely indigestible and the nutrient availability is incredibly low. Make no mistake, veganism is a great way to be lean because it involves eating very little protein and indigestible plants but that's not exactly the ideal way to do it. There's a reason the peat stereotype is lots of milk and OJ, and not lots of fibrous foods. Though liquid calories can have their own problems of course.

It's non-clogging because all of that fiber is useless for the body and the intestines just flush them out. Fiber gets in the way of nutrient absorption, so that isn't a good solution, as I see it. Feeling full doesn't mean that the food you ate is nutritious or healthy, it just means your stomach has been filled. Also, quinoa is full of saponins and lectins, which are terrible for your gut lining, and spinach is one of the foods most rich in oxalates, which also don't do any favours to the digestive system. Seeds are literally the plant's babies, so they put a bunch of anti-nutrients in them to prevent animals from consuming them.

Athletes normally don't know much about nutrition, they do what their trainers tell them to do. Usain Bolt consumed a bunch of PUFA before competitions, it doesn't mean it's a god idea to do that. People on the carnivore diet do better than people on a vegan diet. Vegans, especially whole food vegans, have very bad performances and, unless they use steroids, they have very little mucle mass and strength. The argument that "someone who is in a certain area of expertise should know what's best" is flawed, because the system is rigid, if people were allowed to make mistakes and experiment, then they would find out for themselves what is best and what is not.

Say what you will about Bolt's PUFA diet(like every other athlete's diet) but I heard the day before a race he was watching TV eating mcnuggets. He wasnt eating brown rice and a salad, he was eating easily digestible calories(nuggets), which are high in protein and calories. It is common theme in humans you could say... easily digested, tasty, high calorie foods. This is why fast food is so popular, because we evolved for "fast food" aka low fiber, high in protein and sugar with some fats as well.

I challenge anyone to eat a near zero fiber diet, and watch magically how empty your abdomen starts to feel over a week's time, even after eating a wallop of calories from fatty meat, honey, milk, juice, low fiber fruits. Its nonsensical to go upwards of 15g or even 30g of fibers a day, especially when its from starches and vegetables. Fruit fiber seems to not fill the abdomen nearly as much as starch fibers. That is a personal observation, I am sure certain fruits that are higher in fiber may act different, but in general I avoid those.

 

[Rafael Lao Wai]

Yes that flushing out of the intestines is very useful for keeping the gut clean and keeping food matter from clogging up and causing all sorts of bloat and inflammation.

I get the impression that you think Im supporting a vegan way of eating in contrast to eating animals, which is very false. I think meat and milk are great additions to a diet, but eating a meat milk and sugar diet left me unoptimal.

Im referring to soccer and basketball players, who have a very strict diet during the season, as these sports are highly demanding and require peak physical conditioning to perform well, not an event like sprinting, which is purely anaeróbically fed and could be supported with just a protein heavy diet through gluconeogenesis.

As far as I know, sprinting is much more aerobic than running. That's one of the reasons why Peat is okay with sprinting, but not with running. When people sprint they use mostly their muscle glycogen storages, and much less lactic acid is generated, so not much anaerobicity in there.

I disagree about the bowel flushing. It has been proven that a low fiber diet actually makes people poop more regularly with less gut distress. Eating a lot of fiber will not free you from "all sorts of bloat and inflammation", it will actually cause it. People on the carnivore diet notice the exact opposite of what you described, they are less constipated and have little to no bloating. The whole "meat rots in your gut" thing is completely unproven, and it stems from J.H Kellogg, who was very religious and wanted people to eat fiber to make them uninterested in sex. He has some useful ideas, but mostly it's just religious motives behind his recommendations.

You're not advocating a vegan diet, but you are advocating a lot of plant foods that clearly have a ton of side-effects on most people, and if you want to see the extreme of that, just look into how vegans fare after a year or two, most, if not all of them, have very disturbing symptoms. I understand that you're not saying that animal foods are bad, and if you feel optimal eating starch, then it's fine, it's just that many people, here on the forum, and people that I know in real life, feel much better when they minimize or eliminate starch and fibers from their diet.

Soccer and basketball are pretty much endurance sports, so that means that, by nature, they are stressful. It also means that the rate at which the athletes burn fat will be much higher than normal. So a higher fat diet would be more useful than a starch diet, and also, it has been proven that glucose by itself cannot maintain liver glycogen well after a few hours, they absolutely plummet, but glucose mixed with fructose or galactose can, and also, sucrose is slightly more effective at replenishing MUSCLE glycogen than glucose is, and also, in a study with bikers, sucrose increases carbohydrate oxidation by 50 percent, so what's the reason why athletes aren't encouraged to eat a lot of sugar? Well, because their trainers were taught that sugar causes diabetes, even though there is NO evidence to prove that, and there is evidence that proves the opposite, that sugar heals diabetes.

 

[Cirion]

Eating a lot of fiber will not free you from "all sorts of bloat and inflammation", it will actually cause it.

Yup. I found this out myself a few months ago. I started to get misled by various forum members saying starch is better than sugar, so I went pure starch, and I started gaining weight on less calories than ever before, and my metabolism crashed even harder. Ray peat is right about sugar vs. starch. I get it, people love starch and don't wanna accept it, but he's right. Period. Now, if you still want to eat starch in spite of that, that's your choice, but Ray is right. Heck I still am eating some starch myself in denial, partly because potatoes do have some good nutrition, but I'm definitely like half the intake I used to do.

I again go back to Peat: "For those with suboptimal digestion, Starch should be zero". Even nutritious ones like potato. Which means I'm probably gonna ditch them soon so I can really make weight loss progress.

 

[Rafael Lao Wai]

Some starches are pretty tame if one has the digestion for it but I literally dont see a point in eating leaves and quinoa, because they are largely indigestible and the nutrient availability is incredibly low. Make no mistake, veganism is a great way to be lean because it involves eating very little protein and indigestible plants but that's not exactly the ideal way to do it. There's a reason the peat stereotype is lots of milk and OJ, and not lots of fibrous foods. Though liquid calories can have their own problems of course.



Say what you will about Bolt's PUFA diet(like every other athlete's diet) but I heard the day before a race he was watching TV eating mcnuggets. He wasnt eating brown rice and a salad, he was eating easily digestible calories(nuggets), which are high in protein and calories. It is common theme in humans you could say... easily digested, tasty, high calorie foods. This is why fast food is so popular, because we evolved for "fast food" aka low fiber, high in protein and sugar with some fats as well.

I challenge anyone to eat a near zero fiber diet, and watch magically how empty your abdomen starts to feel over a week's time, even after eating a wallop of calories from fatty meat, honey, milk, juice, low fiber fruits. Its nonsensical to go upwards of 15g or even 30g of fibers a day, especially when its from starches and vegetables. Fruit fiber seems to not fill the abdomen nearly as much as starch fibers. That is a personal observation, I am sure certain fruits that are higher in fiber may act different, but in general I avoid those.

I agree, we're not gorillas, whose large intestines are huge. They adapted to eating leaves and stalks, which have very little nutritional bioavailability, so much so that they actually eat their own poop for a second pass through their digestive system, because the plant matter is so hard to digest.

Although I think Bolt could have eaten something better, it's probably still more useful to eat PUFA-laden foods that are easily digestible than to eat a bunch of fiber and grains that will only bloat you up and give you zero energy.

Sugar is also "less satisfying" than starch, but this is something forum member VisionofStrength said a while ago: the satisfying feeling from starch may actually be irritation, and the fact that animal products and honey/ white sugar don't cause bloating or irritation would explain why people may feel less "satiated" or full compared with starch, but I don't see that as a bad thing at all.

 

[Cirion]

Sugar is also "less satisfying" than starch, but this is something forum member VisionofStrength said a while ago: the satisfying feeling from starch may actually be irritation, and the fact that animal products and honey/ white sugar don't cause bloating or irritation would explain why people may feel less "satiated" or full compared with starch, but I don't see that as a bad thing at all.

^^ This. I have found that the feeling of "fullness" I get from starch is quickly accompanied by high serotonin/endotoxic responses -- brain fog, lethargy, laziness, lack of motivation, etc etc. And, of course, bloating. "Being Full" is, oftentimes, actually your metabolism being slowed.

 

[Runenight201]

As far as I know, sprinting is much more aerobic than running. That's one of the reasons why Peat is okay with sprinting, but not with running. When people sprint they use mostly their muscle glycogen storages, and much less lactic acid is generated, so not much anaerobicity in there.

I disagree about the bowel flushing. It has been proven that a low fiber diet actually makes people poop more regularly with less gut distress. Eating a lot of fiber will not free you from "all sorts of bloat and inflammation", it will actually cause it. People on the carnivore diet notice the exact opposite of what you described, they are less constipated and have little to no bloating. The whole "meat rots in your gut" thing is completely unproven, and it stems from J.H Kellogg, who was very religious and wanted people to eat fiber to make them uninterested in sex. He has some useful ideas, but mostly it's just religious motives behind his recommendations.

You're not advocating a vegan diet, but you are advocating a lot of plant foods that clearly have a ton of side-effects on most people, and if you want to see the extreme of that, just look into how vegans fare after a year or two, most, if not all of them, have very disturbing symptoms. I understand that you're not saying that animal foods are bad, and if you feel optimal eating starch, then it's fine, it's just that many people, here on the forum, and people that I know in real life, feel much better when they minimize or eliminate starch and fibers from their diet.

Soccer and basketball are pretty much endurance sports, so that means that, by nature, they are stressful. It also means that the rate at which the athletes burn fat will be much higher than normal. So a higher fat diet would be more useful than a starch diet, and also, it has been proven that glucose by itself cannot maintain liver glycogen well after a few hours, they absolutely plummet, but glucose mixed with fructose or galactose can, and also, sucrose is slightly more effective at replenishing MUSCLE glycogen than glucose is, and also, in a study with bikers, sucrose increases carbohydrate oxidation by 50 percent, so what's the reason why athletes aren't encouraged to eat a lot of sugar? Well, because their trainers were taught that sugar causes diabetes, even though there is not evidence to prove that, and there is evidence that proves the opposite, that sugar heals diabetes.

Max effort sprinting is anaerobic in nature. It’s why lactic acid builds up and one feels sore afterwards. Aerobic would be running below the lactic acid threshold, which I think is around 70%-80% of maximum effort

Im confused why you keep bringing up the carnivore/vegan dichotomy? Both are clearly unoptimal diets and we should know better than to follow either of them. The Inuits aged rapidly, which peat talks about in his news article, and the Masai aren’t truly carnivores, as they include ample milk in their diets.

I was making a comment specifically in relation to OP’s concern, in which he includes zero starch in his diet and complains of getting fatigued easily, which I also noted when I had a zero starch diet. I could not compete at high levels of performance in my sports before getting tired and overly stressed. With starch, I can push myself hard, to a very high heart rate, but feel no stress. In fact, it’s a pleasurable sensation. And I’ve felt stress from over exertion in athletics, in fact most of my life that’s what I did, as I had an incorrect mind over matter mentality.

I bring up soccer and basketball, because those are both endurance sports but require explosive movements, which can only properly be accomplished with ample carbohydrates. Fighting would be similar, in that it requires lots of explosive movements as well as endurance. You won’t see a starch free athlete in any of these sports, because it’s critical for optimal performance and not fatiguing rapidly. Most of these athletes would benefit from some sugar in their diet on top of the starch they eat, but I guarantee you their performance would suffer hard with just sugar and no starch.

 

[redsun]

Max effort sprinting is anaerobic in nature. It’s why lactic acid builds up and one feels sore afterwards. Aerobic would be running below the lactic acid threshold, which I think is around 70%-80% of maximum effort

Im confused why you keep bringing up the carnivore/vegan dichotomy? Both are clearly unoptimal diets and we should know better than to follow either of them. The Inuits aged rapidly, which peat talks about in his news article, and the Masai aren’t truly carnivores, as they include ample milk in their diets.

I was making a comment specifically in relation to OP’s concern, in which he includes zero starch in his diet and complains of getting fatigued easily, which I also noted when I had a zero starch diet. I could not compete at high levels of performance in my sports before getting tired and overly stressed. With starch, I can push myself hard, to a very high heart rate, but feel no stress. In fact, it’s a pleasurable sensation. And I’ve felt stress from over exertion in athletics, in fact most of my life that’s what I did, as I had an incorrect mind over matter mentality.

I bring up soccer and basketball, because those are both endurance sports but require explosive movements, which can only properly be accomplished with ample carbohydrates. Fighting would be similar, in that it requires lots of explosive movements as well as endurance. You won’t see a starch free athlete in any of these sports, because it’s critical for optimal performance and not fatiguing rapidly. Most of these athletes would benefit from some sugar in their diet on top of the starch they eat, but I guarantee you their performance would suffer hard with just sugar and no starch.

He's comparing the fiber contents of the two extremes that's why he keeps mentioning it. And "carnivore" means to eat only from the animal kingdom. These means milk and honey or anything derived from animals are considered carnivore.

 

[Rafael Lao Wai]

Max effort sprinting is anaerobic in nature. It’s why lactic acid builds up and one feels sore afterwards. Aerobic would be running below the lactic acid threshold, which I think is around 70%-80% of maximum effort

Im confused why you keep bringing up the carnivore/vegan dichotomy? Both are clearly unoptimal diets and we should know better than to follow either of them. The Inuits aged rapidly, which peat talks about in his news article, and the Masai aren’t truly carnivores, as they include ample milk in their diets.

I was making a comment specifically in relation to OP’s concern, in which he includes zero starch in his diet and complains of getting fatigued easily, which I also noted when I had a zero starch diet. I could not compete at high levels of performance in my sports before getting tired and overly stressed. With starch, I can push myself hard, to a very high heart rate, but feel no stress. In fact, it’s a pleasurable sensation. And I’ve felt stress from over exertion in athletics, in fact most of my life that’s what I did, as I had an incorrect mind over matter mentality.

I bring up soccer and basketball, because those are both endurance sports but require explosive movements, which can only properly be accomplished with ample carbohydrates. Fighting would be similar, in that it requires lots of explosive movements as well as endurance. You won’t see a starch free athlete in any of these sports, because it’s critical for optimal performance and not fatiguing rapidly. Most of these athletes would benefit from some sugar in their diet on top of the starch they eat, but I guarantee you their performance would suffer hard with just sugar and no starch.

So why lifting a very heavy eight won't cause a lactic acid build up when lifting a much lighter weight many times in a row will? Also, I didn't say max effort sprinting, I was talking about sprinting in general.

There is no confusion, I already explained why I did that: vegan diets commonly include massive quantities of fibrous plant foods, which is similar to the meal you mentioned in your other comment, and they are one of the main reasons why vegans have so many problems in long run; carnivore diets have no fiber at all and people heal from many kinds of gut problems on such a diet. I agree that veganism is bad, but carnivore diets are close to being optimal. The main reason why carnivore diets aren't optimal is because they often lack carbohydrate. I'm not advocating following them blindly, I'm saying there is definitely something we can learn from indigenous people around the world and their diets and lifestyle.

Also, the reason why the inuit aged rapidly isn't because they ate a lot of animal products, it's because they ate a lot of PUFA, which is something I already mentioned in my other comment.

OP is also not eating very much red meat, so I would argue that if he ate more land meat in general, he would notice improvement in fatigue, since milk doesn't have creatine, but meat does.

My experience is similar to yours, but instead of starch, I experience that with sugar, I had no energy when I was eating just starch( rice, potatoes, etc.) and had tons of energy when I added a ton of sugar to my diet. And I agree, doing stressful exertions very often is NOT a demonstration of willpower, it's just ignoring your own physiology.

Explosiveness is much easier to reach when you have lots of carbs, I agree, but there is no scientifc proof that I have seen showing that starch is better than sucrose, in fact, there is evidence of the opposite, as the bikers' study showed. The reason why you won't see starch avoidance in these sports is because, as I said, people are afraid of sugar, that's the reason.

Also, if you feel fatigued with sugar instead of starch, that points to an inability to burn carbohydrate well, since sugar inhibits fatty acid oxidation more than starch, making you rely more on carbs than fat for energy. If you can't burn carbs well, then you will feel suboptimal, but that doesn't mean starch is better, it just means that you should correct your metabolism to burn carbs efficiently. When that happens, performance will be better with sucrose.

 

[Runenight201]

So why lifting a very heavy eight won't cause a lactic acid build up when lifting a much lighter weight many times in a row will? Also, I didn't say max effort sprinting, I was talking about sprinting in general.

There is no confusion, I already explained why I did that: vegan diets commonly include massive quantities of fibrous plant foods, which is similar to the meal you mentioned in your other comment, and they are one of the main reasons why vegans have so many problems in long run; carnivore diets have no fiber at all and people heal from many kinds of gut problems on such a diet. I agree that veganism is bad, but carnivore diets are close to being optimal. The main reason why carnivore diets aren't optimal is because they often lack carbohydrate. I'm not advocating following them blindly, I'm saying there is definitely something we can learn from indigenous people around the world and their diets and lifestyle.

Also, the reason why the inuit aged rapidly isn't because they ate a lot of animal products, it's because they ate a lot of PUFA, which is something I already mentioned in my other comment.

OP is also not eating very much red meat, so I would argue that if he ate more land meat in general, he would notice improvement in fatigue, since milk doesn't have creatine, but meat does.

My experience is similar to yours, but instead of starch, I experience that with sugar, I had no energy when I was eating just starch( rice, potatoes, etc.) and had tons of energy when I added a ton of sugar to my diet. And I agree, doing stressful exertions very often is NOT a demonstration of willpower, it's just ignoring your own physiology.

Explosiveness is much easier to reach when you have lots of carbs, I agree, but there is no scientifc proof that I have seen showing that starch is better than sucrose, in fact, there is evidence of the opposite, as the bikers' study showed. The reason why you won't see starch avoidance in these sports is because, as I said, people are afraid of sugar, that's the reason.

Also, if you feel fatigued with sugar instead of starch, that points to an inability to burn carbohydrate well, since sugar inhibits fatty acid oxidation more than starch, making you rely more on carbs than fat for energy. If you can't burn carbs well, then you will feel suboptimal, but that doesn't mean starch is better, it just means that you should correct your metabolism to burn carbs efficiently. When that happens, performance will be better with sucrose.

Sugar doesn’t fatigue. It energizes for sure. It’s just not consistent energy. It doesn’t last. Sugar + starch, that’s how you get lasting energy.

I think most people need to learn how to cook properly. White rice, or plain potatoes, provides waaaay different energy and digests much different compared to rice with cooked mushrooms, onions, tomato, lemon, spinach, etc... these foods certainly cause problems raw, but when cooked and prepared properly, are very rewarding and taste delicious. Even peat recommends the cooked mushrooms!

 

[TheSir]

Good and balanced discussion going on in this thread. Following intently.

 

[gaze]

It's true that those foods don't cause diabetes, but that doesn't mean they don 't have many negative negative effects on the human body. Aside from the diseases that I mentioned in my other post, those foods lack many nutrients that can only be found in animal foods, so making them a big part of your diet, and you will have to if you're using them as a source of calories, since they are so calorically poor, will certainly lead to frailty and mental problems.

Also, when you say "real poverty food", are you including offal, which is usually much cheaper than stakes? If so, then yes, I agree that some poverty foods are indeed very healthy.

Well some of the longest living populations in the world ate 70% or more of their calories from starch. it may not be ideal, as in sugar may be better calorie for calorie, but humans can live a long life on almost any real food. this has been proved. PUFA, added iron, soy, the millions of environmental toxins, and plastics are the reasons why people are so sick today. the sugar vs starch debate is only a debate if one is trying to determine what’s 100% most optimal, but 99% of humans don’t really care about that, and are just trying to survive. And without “real poverty food” like rice beans potatoes and grains, most of the world would die from starvation. but the ultimate point is one should never feel guilty for what they eat, rather they should recognize the greed and financial profit through government subsidies which allows monsanto and pufa oil companies to destroy our food and vote/donate to companies which oppose these (such as organic food companies, etc.)

 

[Peater]

Anyone Else Feel A Bit Guilty And Indulgent For Eating This Way

No, I work bloody hard and owe nothing to anyone, I will eat whatever I can afford.