Every 5% Increase Of Total Calories From Saturated Fat Associated With Higher Risk Of Mortality

[Ella]

he's always been a proponent of coconut oil

Yeah, but he is looking for a hydrogenated coconut oil - fully saturated.

I think this is why people get "food coma" when eating pizza, burgers, etc. High fat and high starch simultaneously.

I just ate four slices of sourdough bread with lots of butter and its 2am and I am fully awake. No "food coma" for me. I get drowsy if I don't eat enough carbs because my energy drops. I need fat with my carbs but I don't do well with only carbs or only fats. If I had a bowl of rice or potatoes, I need lots of butter or sour cream, otherwise it not appealing to eat and I lose my appetite. My body must instinctively know that this combination is best for me. It does not want any oils and coconut oil just does not cut it for me. It seems that every time I cut my fat too low, I start carving fat. It like a rebound mechanism. I am trying to go from 15% down to 10% fat; seems a major hurdle. The weather is cold and perhaps a bit more fat is better. When I cut my fat, I have problems sleeping - getting to the bedroom is a major challenge as I am fully awake and can stay awake to the following day if I don't force myself to bed. Maybe need more exercise.

 

[Dessert_All_Day]

Whoa, different types of saturated fats? That's too complicated! Better to just lump them all into 1 group. Actually let's lump all fat into 1 group to simplify things.

way too complicated still. let's just look at calories=)

 

[James IV]

What nonsense. Self reporting studies are all but useless. The average person doesn't even know what a saturated fat is, let alone, how much they eat. Most folks think fast food and take out is saturated fats.
Saying we don't need to eat saturated fats because the body can make its own, sounds a lot like the LCHF folks saying carbs aren't essential because the body can make its own. We all know how that goes.
Eating cholesterol and saturated fats is protective, and takes the burden off the body to make its own. Not to mention trying to remove these fats from your diet removes a variety of healthy foods. Fat is important to EAT for digestion and nutrient transport.
You don't NEED to eat fat, just like you don't NEED to eat carbs. But you will be healthier with both these nutrients than without them.

Btw, the Doc that wrote this article has terrible brown spotted, paper thin, skin. Just like Dr McDougal and some of the other ultra low fat advocates. Every client I've ever had that grew up with the irrational fear of fat, has terrible skin, hair, and is wrinkly.
If you don't want to eat saturated fat, fine, but articles like this are completely unfounded, And doing more harm than good.

 

[Milena]

Peat may have contradicted on that because of this quote so I'm not sure what his full stance is. I think it's the opposite. I think the fatty acids in the bloodstream make it harder for insulin and glucose to do what it needs to do when they go into the blood at the same time. This is just from my own PE and from most people I know who eat H starch LF, they keep overall fat low for optimal blood glucose levels because they feel that the fat clogs everything up because your blood would have a large surge of sugar and fat at the same time. I can not eat breakfast, fast for a few hours, and then eat a chunk of butter and be fine, no insulin or blood glucose problems. But not with the butter and starch at the same time. I think this is why people get "food coma" when eating pizza, burgers, etc. High fat and high starch simultaneously.

.

I can't find the research now (I found it about 4 years ago) but fat in the blood (? triglyceride or FFA) interrupts the chemical signalling process for insulin to 'open the gate' into WAT for glycogen to enter. (similar research - not so detailed - indicates why being fat puts you at higher risk for diabetes Adipose-selective targeting of the : GLUT4: gene impairs insulin action in muscle and liver : Abstract : Nature)

 

[James IV]

I can't find the research now (I found it about 4 years ago) but fat in the blood (? triglyceride or FFA) interrupts the chemical signalling process for insulin to 'open the gate' into WAT for glycogen to enter. (similar research - not so detailed - indicates why being fat puts you at higher risk for diabetes Adipose-selective targeting of the : GLUT4: gene impairs insulin action in muscle and liver : Abstract : Nature)

Fat causes transient insulin resistance. In other words, it slows the uptake of glucose into the cells. This is not a bad thing. It allows you to have a gradual uptake curve, steady blood sugar, and you can go longer between meals. The lower your fat, the more often you will need to eat, and likely the smaller (calorically) your meals will need to be. Neither way is necessarily harmful, and in both situations all the energy should still be used provided adequate nutrition.
It's important to remember though, that fat is not just an energy substrate like sugar. Fat is used structurally as well. Providing energy, without providing structural materials, can be catabolic.

 

[Ella]

Fat is used structurally as well. Providing energy, without providing structural materials, can be catabolic.

But what if you already have too much fat stored in adipose tissue? It means I am already on a high- fat diet whether I like or not and if I have this much fat floating around in my system, then it is causing me issues - interfering with pancreas, liver and thyroid function. Cholesterol is different to fat. I get plenty of cholesterol and if it is not coming from the diet, cholesterol synthesis is ramped up by the liver to meet demand. My body should be able to use the fat stored in adipose tissue rather coming from the diet and if it happens to be mostly saturated then I should feel fine burning it.

 

[Milena]

Fat causes transient insulin resistance. In other words, it slows the uptake of glucose into the cells. This is not a bad thing. It allows you to have a gradual uptake curve, steady blood sugar, and you can go longer between meals. The lower your fat, the more often you will need to eat, and likely the smaller (calorically) your meals will need to be. Neither way is necessarily harmful, and in both situations all the energy should still be used provided adequate nutrition.
It's important to remember though, that fat is not just an energy substrate like sugar. Fat is used structurally as well. Providing energy, without providing structural materials, can be catabolic.

It only affects WAT cells not muscle cells, which is why fat people often don't get the same results as lean people. 'Fat' in the bloodstream prevents uptake in WAT. Brain sees a lot of 'sugar', says more insulin, please. More insulin is produced but insulin 'receptor'/signalling process for GLUT4 to accept sugar is blocked. Blood ends up with high everything.

 

[whodathunkit]

How can I eat simple white rice without anything?

milk, I find jasmine rice with just salt and a glass of OJ pretty tasty. It's got kind of an umami taste to it.

Also, jasmine rice with some nice pickled ginger (like from the Ginger people, which uses real sugar), little salt, and some seaweed flakes is almost like eating sushi. A tiny amount of coconut oil (like half a teaspoon or a teaspoon) also sets off the ginger/seaweed nicely, without incurring a "fat penalty". Maybe you could carry something like that with you to lunch and order a bottled mineral water or something. Or even OJ.

 

[James IV]

If you are fat then you need to lose fat to create better metabolic function. Many people lower bodyfat restricting carbs, not restricting fat. The dysfunction that occurs from being fat, doesn't mean dietary fat is bad for you.

 

[whodathunkit]

If you are fat then you need to lose fat to create better metabolic function. Many people lower bodyfat restricting carbs, not restricting fat. The dysfunction that occurs from being fat, doesn't mean dietary fat is bad for you.

Restricting carbs is usually very, very damaging for someone who has a poor metabolism (e.g., people who are already overweight). If I had a dollar for every personal anecdote I've heard about some poor overweight slob (including myself) who severely damaged their metabolism with a high fat/ low carb diet, and couldn't lose weight or developed more severe health problems (blood sugar problems, energy problems, etc.) after restricting carbs and eating high-fat, I could take that first-class Hawaiian vacation I've been dreaming about. This board is littered with such stories.

People without metabolic problems like body builders might find carb restriction useful to lean out, but as a weight loss strategy for overweight people it's not sustainable and causes problems in the long run. I don't think it's good for anybody.

FWIW, I say that sadly, with a sigh of regret. I love saturated fat, and for a time was ecstatic that I could possibly eat as much fat as I wanted and still lose weight. But that's not the long term reality of it. Sat fat is neither as benign nor as evil as some of us would have it. Quantity definitely matters. If you're looking to lean out, your better off going low fat and high carb. I've lived it.

 

[James IV]

If you are fat then you need to lose fat to

It only affects WAT cells not muscle cells, which is why fat people often don't get the same results as lean people. 'Fat' in the bloodstream prevents uptake in WAT. Brain sees a lot of 'sugar', says more insulin, please. More insulin is produced but insulin 'receptor'/signalling process for GLUT4 to accept sugar is blocked. Blood ends up with high everything.

Restricting carbs is usually very, very damaging for someone who has a poor metabolism (e.g., people who are already overweight). If I had a dollar for every personal anecdote I've heard about some poor overweight slob (including myself) who severely damaged their metabolism with a high fat/ low carb diet, and couldn't lose weight or developed more severe health problems (blood sugar problems, energy problems, etc.) after restricting carbs and eating high-fat, I could take that first-class Hawaiian vacation I've been dreaming about. This board is littered with such stories.

People without metabolic problems like body builders might find carb restriction useful to lean out, but as a weight loss strategy for overweight people it's not sustainable and causes problems in the long run. I don't think it's good for anybody.

FWIW, I say that sadly, with a sigh of regret. I love saturated fat, and for a time was ecstatic that I could possibly eat as much fat as I wanted and still lose weight. But that's not the long term reality of it. Sat fat is neither as benign nor as evil as some of us would have it. Quantity definitely matters. If you're looking to lean out, your better off going low fat and high carb. I've lived it.

That's just not true. I work with body builders, and many have terrible metabolic issues, especially the women. Many of them have to spend half the year being fat, to fix the damage they did during the competion season. Thousands of obese people use HFLC diets to lose weight successfully . The Atkins diet is the most popular diet of all time for a reason. The issue is most people don't understand how weight loss works, and how to adjust your diet as bodyfat levels change. You have to understand how ketones work, and energy transfer (electrolytes) as well. You can't simply restrict carbs to a certain number and expect to go from obese to lean without making changes along the way to your energy substrates.
I'm not saying HFLC is the best way to lose weight. But Eating high fat is not inherently damaging, anymore than eating low fat is always beneficial. I understand the desire to want simplification, and restricting a macronutrient for weight loss is definitely simple approach. But the title and content of the OP is that saturated fat is bad, and the more you avoid it, the healthier you will be. That's unequivocally untrue.

 

[whodathunkit]

But the title and content of the OP is that saturated fat is bad, and the more you avoid it, the healthier you will be. That's unequivocally untrue.

Oh, definitely we agree on that! :)

The Atkins diet is the most popular diet of all time for a reason. The issue is most people don't understand how weight loss works, and how to adjust your diet as bodyfat levels change.

The Atkins Diet is a basically a huge social experiment with long-term negative ramifications that are only just now coming to light. It's short-term gain for long-term harm. No amount of "understanding" how ketones and energy transfer work is going to compensate for the chronic loss of liver glycogen and decrease in liver function that will result in increasing fat and restricting carbs long term. Ketosis is an evolutionary adaptation meant to take over in case of short-term food scarcity. It's not a healthy lifestyle choice and the body and especially the brain aren't meant to use ketones for fuel in the long term. If you're young or your liver is in really good shape before you start you can skate by with it for a while. But it WILL have long term health ramifications if you carry it on too long.

For the record, I also believe that eating very low fat as a lifestyle choice isn't healthy, either. I don't do well on it for protracted periods of time. BUT...when I eat very low fat for a short time and then go back to eating normally, I always feel great and usually better than before I did very low fat. Eating high-fat and low carb for a time and then going back to eating normally produces exactly the opposite response. I always feel crappy and out of sorts for a long time after going high fat and low carb.

 

[James IV]

Oh, definitely we agree on that! :)


The Atkins Diet is a basically a huge social experiment with long-term negative ramifications that are only just now coming to light. It's short-term gain for long-term harm. No amount of "understanding" how ketones and energy transfer work is going to compensate for the chronic loss of liver glycogen and decrease in liver function that will result in increasing fat and restricting carbs long term. Ketosis is an evolutionary adaptation meant to take over in case of short-term food scarcity. It's not a healthy lifestyle choice and the body and especially the brain aren't meant to use ketones for fuel in the long term. If you're young or your liver is in really good shape before you start you can skate by with it for a while. But it WILL have long term health ramifications if you carry it on too long.

For the record, I also believe that eating very low fat as a lifestyle choice isn't healthy, either. I don't do well on it for protracted periods of time. BUT...when I eat very low fat for a short time and then go back to eating normally, I always feel great and usually better than before I did very low fat. Eating high-fat and low carb for a time and then going back to eating normally produces exactly the opposite response. I always feel crappy and out of sorts for a long time after going high fat and low carb.

Carb restriction has been used and documented for fat loss since the 1800's. Removing starch from the diet is one of the very first ways humans figured out we could control bodyfat. There is actually far more documented information on human carb restriction, than on fat restriction.
I'm sorry you had a bad experience with HFLC, but that doesn't make fat bad.
And again, I don't think a ketogenic diet is healthy in the long term (neither did Atkins actually).

But again, I'm not trying to defend a high fat diet, or imply that it's superior to other fat loss strategies. I'm addressing the original point of this thread that saturated fat is bad... it's not.

Essentially I think we have the same message. I don't think you should restrict any macronutrient to extreme levels as a long term diet strategy.

 

[sladerunner69]

Saturated Fat - Brain Booster or Brain Killer? - The Energy Blueprint

The largest study on saturated fats and total longevity showed that: “When compared with carbohydrates, every 5% increase of total calories from saturated fat was associated with an 8% higher risk of overall mortality” from causes like Alzheimer’s disease, cardiovascular disease, and cancer. [10]

"What does this mean? It means that your brain does need cholesterol and saturated fat, but it makes its own when it needs it.

Roughly 7% of your circulating cholesterol comes from your diet. Your brain is not dependent on your diet for cholesterol. Your brain makes its own cholesterol as needed and that cholesterol is made from different constituents than the cholesterol in your bloodstream.

Saturated fats are not a health food and there is no credible evidence suggesting that they will protect your brain from aging or help it work better."

Typically in modern foods saturated fats are accompanied in tandem with an equal or greater amount of unsaturated fats.

 

[snowboard111]

Don't like the smiley NYT Best Selling Author/Salesman and as usual for these sort of health website with chain articles that explained less than nothing, this one doesn't do any exception... You know when Haidut says; Bob's journal are not valid source of informations, this website is Bob.
Rather read the man in Oregon with an ice cream on his website

 

[Gl;itch.e]

But Eating high fat is not inherently damaging, anymore than eating low fat is always beneficial.

Except that the breakdown products of fats ARE more damaging than the breakdown products of carbs.

 

[Ella]

Except that the breakdown products of fats ARE more damaging than the breakdown products of carbs.

Precisely, excess consumption of carbohydrates are stored as saturated fats and when used as an energy substrate do not result in the deleterious and inflammatory responses of unsaturated FFAs.

Typically in modern foods saturated fats are accompanied in tandem with an equal or greater amount of unsaturated fats.

No matter what the fat, even saturated fats from cows and sheep which are able to saturate unsaturated fats; you will still be consuming a certain % of unsaturated fat unless we know for sure we are saturating them or consuming hydrogenated fats. Perhaps the hydrogenated fats are not as evil as they were made out to be??

No amount of "understanding" how ketones and energy transfer work is going to compensate for the chronic loss of liver glycogen and decrease in liver function that will result in increasing fat and restricting carbs long term. Ketosis is an evolutionary adaptation meant to take over in case of short-term food scarcity. It's not a healthy lifestyle choice and the body and especially the brain aren't meant to use ketones for fuel in the long term. If you're young or your liver is in really good shape before you start you can skate by with it for a while. But it WILL have long term health ramifications if you carry it on too long.

I think the problem arises when we lose this ability to switch from one energy source to the other. Perhaps, we were designed to eat in accordance to the seasonality availability of produce. Feast on sweet sun-ripened fruits and vegetables during harvest time (summer) also fattening up our animals during this abundance and then use the stored fat in adipose tissue and the saturated fats of animals during the colder winter months to prevent starvation from the lack of fruit and carbs.

For the record, I also believe that eating very low fat as a lifestyle choice isn't healthy, either. I don't do well on it for protracted periods of time. BUT...when I eat very low fat for a short time and then go back to eating normally, I always feel great and usually better than before I did very low fat. Eating high-fat and low carb for a time and then going back to eating normally produces exactly the opposite response. I always feel crappy and out of sorts for a long time after going high fat and low carb.

I think women because they have a monthly cycle are more sensitive to low-carb regimes. Women experience huge surges of hormones from day 14 to day 21. The liver needs to be extremely efficient in conjugating these hormones for rapid excretion. Glucoronidation requires glucose. Hormones are already fat-soluble so it is not like we can attach a fat molecule to get rid of them. Hormones need to be converted to water-soluble molecules for rapid excretion. The longer they hang around, the more damage they do. We can argue that perhaps post-menopausal women may do better going high-fat and restricting carbs as many are currently claiming, however, postmenopausal women and for that fact males (of all ages) need to contend with (without question their livers do); fat-soluble estrogen-mimicking molecules which are ubiquitous in our environment.

I lost massive weight by eating lots of fruit, fruit juices + sugar, milk and starchy root vegetables with zero exercise. I have only just started adding back bread, grains and pasta to slow my weight lose. I can eat lots of carbs or lots of fat or both and my weight does not change, so clearly my metabolism is in a much better state from where I started. Putting on fat at a rate of 2kg a week and I never ate junk food, I exercised religiously - though I was doing all the right things. Only now I am shocked when I look at the clothes I use to wear - how could I have put on so much weight? I have avoided sugar and kept fruit very low all my life because I thought I was sensitive to sugar. When I started, my weight did go up, especially with all the milk. Everyone laughed at me and thought I had gone mad because they saw me getting bigger, but they are not laughing anymore. I don't have to wear a kaftan to hide my bulges. Just to rub it in even more, I have been eyeing off some sexy gym wear, just to piss them off. There came a point where my metabolism switched and I started burning fat with the high increase in sugar and carbs.

The body does not like to lose weight and I think woman are healthier carrying more fat. This is why we see many women that have no insulin resistance, prediabetes, diabetes or cardiovascular disease even though they are on the heavy side by today's standards. Women get into trouble when they are convinced carrying excess weight is unhealthy for them. Yes, if it is predominantly pufas, then is cause for concern but if it is predominantly saturated then it is less problematic. This is not the case for males. Fat gain in males is more problematic. The other problem with going low-carb is that immunity drops and yes those fat soluble vitamins are important for a competent immune system. If we are eating dairy, and include a little lamb, beef, oysters and shellfish, then I think we are getting plenty of fat in the diet. I love fat on lamb and pork crackling but I am not eating these every day. I had pork for Easter which lasted a couple of meals and I might eat pork again Christmas. I am really particular about pork and wont buy from just any butcher. I buy direct from the farmer where I can visit and see what the pig eats. I can pick up if the pig has not been fed well by the smell of the meat. There is no way I can eat it, same goes for chicken. I keep my own chickens but this does not mean I eat chicken everyday even though my chickens eat exceptionally well. Lots of fruit, green veggies, meat, worms, insects and prawn heads. I grind eggshells and oyster shells which is returned to the soil and supplemented for the chooks.

If we have healthy metabolisms that can burn either fat or carbs for energy, there are no issues. Forcing the body to be either carb-adapted or fat-adapted as everyone agrees, is the issue. From an evolutionary perspective makes no sense at all. If we were relying on the land for food (no supermarkets) and we only planted potatoes and it was a bad harvest; what would happen if we lost the ability to oxidise fat for energy? What if all our animals died and we had to resort to eating wild fruits, honey, roots and tubers and we lost our ability to oxidise sugars and carbs? Humans have been blessed with the ability to adapt to a wide variety of energy substrates unlike our animals and pets. The science and art of what to eat comes into play, knowing which diet is optimal for the individual's specific circumstance and stage of life. I am grateful for all nature's bounty and pray I never have to experience famine as my parents and ancestors had to endure.

 

[sladerunner69]

Precisely, excess consumption of carbohydrates are stored as saturated fats and when used as an energy substrate do not result in the deleterious and inflammatory responses of unsaturated FFAs.



No matter what the fat, even saturated fats from cows and sheep which are able to saturate unsaturated fats; you will still be consuming a certain % of unsaturated fat unless we know for sure we are saturating them or consuming hydrogenated fats. Perhaps the hydrogenated fats are not as evil as they were made out to be??



I think the problem arises when we lose this ability to switch from one energy source to the other. Perhaps, we were designed to eat in accordance to the seasonality availability of produce. Feast on sweet sun-ripened fruits and vegetables during harvest time (summer) also fattening up our animals during this abundance and then use the stored fat in adipose tissue and the saturated fats of animals during the colder winter months to prevent starvation from the lack of fruit and carbs.



I think women because they have a monthly cycle are more sensitive to low-carb regimes. Women experience huge surges of hormones from day 14 to day 21. The liver needs to be extremely efficient in conjugating these hormones for rapid excretion. Glucoronidation requires glucose. Hormones are already fat-soluble so it is not like we can attach a fat molecule to get rid of them. Hormones need to be converted to water-soluble molecules for rapid excretion. The longer they hang around, the more damage they do. We can argue that perhaps post-menopausal women may do better going high-fat and restricting carbs as many are currently claiming, however, postmenopausal women and for that fact males (of all ages) need to contend with (without question their livers do); fat-soluble estrogen-mimicking molecules which are ubiquitous in our environment.

I lost massive weight by eating lots of fruit, fruit juices + sugar, milk and starchy root vegetables with zero exercise. I have only just started adding back bread, grains and pasta to slow my weight lose. I can eat lots of carbs or lots of fat or both and my weight does not change, so clearly my metabolism is in a much better state from where I started. Putting on fat at a rate of 2kg a week and I never ate junk food, I exercised religiously - though I was doing all the right things. Only now I am shocked when I look at the clothes I use to wear - how could I have put on so much weight? I have avoided sugar and kept fruit very low all my life because I thought I was sensitive to sugar. When I started, my weight did go up, especially with all the milk. Everyone laughed at me and thought I had gone mad because they saw me getting bigger, but they are not laughing anymore. I don't have to wear a kaftan to hide my bulges. Just to rub it in even more, I have been eyeing off some sexy gym wear, just to piss them off. There came a point where my metabolism switched and I started burning fat with the high increase in sugar and carbs.

The body does not like to lose weight and I think woman are healthier carrying more fat. This is why we see many women that have no insulin resistance, prediabetes, diabetes or cardiovascular disease even though they are on the heavy side by today's standards. Women get into trouble when they are convinced carrying excess weight is unhealthy for them. Yes, if it is predominantly pufas, then is cause for concern but if it is predominantly saturated then it is less problematic. This is not the case for males. Fat gain in males is more problematic. The other problem with going low-carb is that immunity drops and yes those fat soluble vitamins are important for a competent immune system. If we are eating dairy, and include a little lamb, beef, oysters and shellfish, then I think we are getting plenty of fat in the diet. I love fat on lamb and pork crackling but I am not eating these every day. I had pork for Easter which lasted a couple of meals and I might eat pork again Christmas. I am really particular about pork and wont buy from just any butcher. I buy direct from the farmer where I can visit and see what the pig eats. I can pick up if the pig has not been fed well by the smell of the meat. There is no way I can eat it, same goes for chicken. I keep my own chickens but this does not mean I eat chicken everyday even though my chickens eat exceptionally well. Lots of fruit, green veggies, meat, worms, insects and prawn heads. I grind eggshells and oyster shells which is returned to the soil and supplemented for the chooks.

If we have healthy metabolisms that can burn either fat or carbs for energy, there are no issues. Forcing the body to be either carb-adapted or fat-adapted as everyone agrees, is the issue. From an evolutionary perspective makes no sense at all. If we were relying on the land for food (no supermarkets) and we only planted potatoes and it was a bad harvest; what would happen if we lost the ability to oxidise fat for energy? What if all our animals died and we had to resort to eating wild fruits, honey, roots and tubers and we lost our ability to oxidise sugars and carbs? Humans have been blessed with the ability to adapt to a wide variety of energy substrates unlike our animals and pets. The science and art of what to eat comes into play, knowing which diet is optimal for the individual's specific circumstance and stage of life. I am grateful for all nature's bounty and pray I never have to experience famine as my parents and ancestors had to endure.

So then you attribute your impressive weight loss to not eating as much fat? Did you differentiate between saturated and unsaturated? Or just no fat?

 

[Westside PUFAs]

@Westside PUFAs I really appreciate your input in the forum as always. But it's truly hard for me to make that plan practical for me, especially I work around 9 hours a day and I go out for lunch with my coworkers. How can I eat simple white rice without anything? It would be tasteless. How would you advice me to apply your advice? I really mean it because I like to try new things.

If you don't have blood sugar balance problems, or other problems, then you don't need to change anything. There are many ways to flavor things.

.

 

[milk_lover]

milk, I find jasmine rice with just salt and a glass of OJ pretty tasty. It's got kind of an umami taste to it.

Also, jasmine rice with some nice pickled ginger (like from the Ginger people, which uses real sugar), little salt, and some seaweed flakes is almost like eating sushi. A tiny amount of coconut oil (like half a teaspoon or a teaspoon) also sets off the ginger/seaweed nicely, without incurring a "fat penalty". Maybe you could carry something like that with you to lunch and order a bottled mineral water or something. Or even OJ.

Thanks for the tips :)

If you don't have blood sugar balance problems, or other problems, then you don't need to change anything. There are many ways to flavor things.

.

hmm I will experiment more with starch and see how I can incorporate it more in my life in a healthy manner.