Sugars From Fruit And Milk Vs. Starches

[Westside PUFAs]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpyD8DxcwG4

 

[brandonk]

"i Think It’s Best To Get As Much Sugar And Starch In Your Diet.."

".... preferably sugars from fruit and milk." is how the phrase finishes. But yes, starch if you don't have access to fruit and milk.

[Edit] Westy, I just happened to see your sig that says "Starch is sugar. Sugar is glucose." This is of course true for sugar from starch, but sugar from fruit could be fructose and glucose, and sugar from milk could be lactose, which is glucose and galactose (as I assume you know).

 

[Westside PUFAs]

[Edit] Westy, I just happened to see your sig that says "Starch is sugar. Sugar is glucose." This is of course true for sugar from starch, but sugar from fruit could be fructose and glucose, and sugar from milk could be lactose, which is glucose and galactose (as I assume you know).

Wow, I didn't know that. What an amazing discovery. Thanks. :p

The only animal carbohydrates are lactose, the various sugars in honey, and something called "chitin," which is an indigestible fiber. It and its derivative "chitosan" are in the shells of crustaceans.

There's also glycogen from very fresh meat but post-mortem, it naturally converts to lactic acid which means the meat becomes more acidic and less prone to browning.

So you have animals and plants. Once in the plant world, it's a whole new world. There are many types of sugars in the plant world that science has barely begun to study.

 

[Nighteyes]

So you have animals and plants. Once in the plant world, it's a whole new world. There are many types of sugars in the plant world that science has barely begun to study.

Indeed. Dr. Peat has mentioned the sugars from mushrooms in his september newsletter issue. Trehalose I believe it was called.

By the way, he mentions in the video above that hydrogenated coconut oil is preferential to regular coconut oil due to zero pufa content. Still he recommends eating eggs as a part of one's diet. Wouldn't even one single egg provide more pufa than you would ever get from any type of coconut oil (in a day) and thus make the hydrogenated coconut oil kind of a moot point?

 

[Westside PUFAs]

Indeed. Dr. Peat has mentioned the sugars from mushrooms in his september newsletter issue. Trehalose I believe it was called.

Yea. People need to realize there is so much we don't know. Most phytochemicals haven't been studied and most of the fungi in the Amazon have hardly been touched. Animals are basically lumps of protein and nothing else, unless its a naturally fat animal like a seal. Protein and fat. But it's plants and fungi that have chemicals that animals do not have. The only exception may be some insects but they seem to have more toxic chemicals. People who are anti-plant foods will exclaim "plant toxins" but will ignore the fact that we deactivate a lot of these by cooking and other methods and while some plants do have toxins, others don't. It is plants that give you naringenin from citrus and apigenin from guava.

By the way, he mentions in the video above that hydrogenated coconut oil is preferential to regular coconut oil due to zero pufa content. Still he recommends eating eggs as a part of one's diet. Wouldn't even one single egg provide more pufa than you would ever get from any type of coconut oil (in a day) and thus make the hydrogenated coconut oil kind of a moot point?

It's a good question. Shrimp, oysters, squid, and sole/cod also have a decent amount of pufa. Peat eats those as well. This is what I call the "pufa depletion myth."

 

[ballomar]

Yea. People need to realize there is so much we don't know. Most phytochemicals haven't been studied and most of the fungi in the Amazon have hardly been touched. Animals are basically lumps of protein and nothing else, unless its a naturally fat animal like a seal. Protein and fat. But it's plants and fungi that have chemicals that animals do not have. The only exception may be some insects but they seem to have more toxic chemicals. People who are anti-plant foods will exclaim "plant toxins" but will ignore the fact that we deactivate a lot of these by cooking and other methods and while some plants do have toxins, others don't. It is plants that give you naringenin from citrus and apigenin from guava."

In your advocacy of a high starch diet you are are now crossing over into the realm of the ridiculous.

Animals have protein, but they also have fat and many, many minerals. This is true to such an extent to make them an essential part of diet.

It is true that plants have many chemicals. A decent book on this, such as Medicial Plants by van Wyk and Wink will go into as much science on this as possible. Many of these chemicals are multifaceted and many are toxic or can have damaging effects at high dosage. Many of them can also be medicial. Often there is a fine line between the medicial and the toxic effects.

This is not an argument for a plant-based diet. It's an argument to approach the plant world with care and respect.

For example, you mention citrus. Citrus, as you, mention contains naringenin. Citrus also containes limonene, which is a terpenoid that can cross the brain-blood barrier. It partly acts as an antimicrobial and an antispasmodic, but it also has a narcotic effect. I find this effect really unpleasant, so much so, that I believe in high doses it may cause more harm than merely being unpleasant. It is, at the moment, not well understood apart from possibly being an agonist for adenosine A(2A) receptors http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21134357.

Take care.

 

[ecstatichamster]

In your advocacy of a high starch diet you are are now crossing over into the realm of the ridiculous.

Animals have protein, but they also have fat and many, many minerals. This is true to such an extent to make them an essential part of diet.

It is true that plants have many chemicals. A decent book on this, such as Medicial Plants by van Wyk and Wink will go into as much science on this as possible. Many of these chemicals are multifaceted and many are toxic or can have damaging effects at high dosage. Many of them can also be medicial. Often there is a fine line between the medicial and the toxic effects.

This is not an argument for a plant-based diet. It's an argument to approach the plant world with care and respect.

For example, you mention citrus. Citrus, as you, mention contains naringenin. Citrus also containes limonene, which is a terpenoid that can cross the brain-blood barrier. It partly acts as an antimicrobial and an antispasmodic, but it also has a narcotic effect. I find this effect really unpleasant, so much so, that I believe in high doses it may cause more harm than merely being unpleasant. It is, at the moment, not well understood apart from possibly being an agonist for adenosine A(2A) receptors http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21134357.

Take care.

What is unpleasant? How can you ingest enough to feel anything?

 

[ballomar]

What is unpleasant? How can you ingest enough to feel anything?

Do you mean how can you ingest enough limonene to feel anything, or how can you ingest enough of anything to feel anything?

 

[ecstatichamster]

Do you mean how can you ingest enough limonene to feel anything, or how can you ingest enough of anything to feel anything?

Limonene

 

[ballomar]

Limonene

A tincture. Most commonly, limoncello.

 

[cantstoppeating]

"I think it's best to get as much sugars and starch in your diet preferably sugars from milk and fruit..."

Oh look, another instance of Westside taking quotes out of context to spread misinformation about Peat.

 

[Agent207]

He could also have said: "I think it's best to get as much sugars from fruit and milk in your diet..." instead, but he didn't.

I don't think the preferability for fruit sugars over starches makes a big deal; the same as the preferability for hydrogenated coconut oil over unrefined.

 

[milk_lover]

I don't think it's wise to try to force Peat's ideas to fit your template and ideology of epitome health. You can learn from him and incorporate the things that work for you and find compromises (I shouldn't call them comprises if they are working for you) with things that are not very peaty. Nobody here is anti-plant, we eat them, no big deal. We slaughter the animals (oh how graphic and terrifying that is!) and eat them too. Variety you know.

 

[cantstoppeating]

He could also have said: "I think it's best to get as much sugars from fruit and milk in your diet..." instead, but he didn't.

I don't think the preferability for fruit sugars over starches makes a big deal; the same as the preferability for hydrogenated coconut oil over unrefined.

Instead he devoted two articles on his website talking about the issues of starch and has said many, many times that milk and fruit are the preferred sources of sugar with starch as an inferior but nutritious alternative.

It's really as simple as this but Westside seems to be on a personal tirade to distort this to justify his intake of starch, presumably because he struggled with a particular type of milk (and probably hasn't tried thyroid supplementation).

 

[milk_lover]

He could also have said: "I think it's best to get as much sugars from fruit and milk in your diet..." instead, but he didn't.

I don't think the preferability for fruit sugars over starches makes a big deal; the same as the preferability for hydrogenated coconut oil over unrefined.

Not when you consider how he thinks starch can increase endotoxin, can increase insulin and thus increase cortisol, and how starch, especially from grains, can cause problems to the digestive linings like gluten for example.

 

[Agent207]

Not all starches increases insulin that much, look at oats or lentils for example. Or adding a bit of fiber from veggies or carrot, or healthy fats like coconut or cheese to potatoes or rice also attenuate insulin spike. Neither of these cited examples contains gluten.

You don't have to take the worst offender to justify your argument. Im NOT saying "go and eat a ton of starches, wheat, flours.. etc". Just that I think its no such a big deal going one way 100% all over the other.

As for the insulin, I'd guess for the most people nowadays, if we had a look at average HbA1c for population, the mayor problem will come from too high baseline sugar levels -poor insulin sensitivity- rather than low levels from insulin spiking.

 

[ecstatichamster]

I don't think starches increase blood sugar faster than sugar does, if you eat them with fat and protein.

But I do think that it is easier for many people to binge and get fat on starches than on sugar. I'm not sure why this is so, but it is so for me. Maybe because so many starches have antinutrients in them, not wanting to be eaten and all. I seem to do poorly controlling my portions on most starch, and I seem to gain weight easily. Ray writes a number of times that starches are a ticket to obesity for some.

Obviously, we see people (Okinawans for instance) thriving on starch, but perhaps they don't have the forms we have, not as pure as we have, not as easily consumable, many other things that are present in THEIR starches that are not in ours, and so ours, for whatever reason, are very fattening. This is the chief argument for me against starch. I don't feel that sugar is as easy to get fat on.

 

[milk_lover]

Just that I think its no such a big deal going one way 100% all over the other.

The next quotes come directly from Ray Peat website (http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/glycemia.shtml). The bold statements are done by the man himself. I just italicized and underlined some phrases to emphasize my points. Sugars seem superior to starch according to Rey Peat. So for those following the teachings of Ray Peat, I think it is kind of a big deal going starch 100% all over sugars.


"Although the dietetic association now feebly acknowledges that sugars don't raise the blood sugar more quickly than starches do, they can't get away from their absurd old recommendations, which were never scientifically justified: “Eat more starches, such as bread, cereal, and starchy vegetables--6 servings a day or more."

"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."

"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"

"Rather than the sustained hyperglycemia which is measured for determining the glycemic index, I think the “diabetogenic” or “carcinogenic” action of starch has to do with the stress reaction that follows the intense stimulation of insulin release."

 

[Such_Saturation]

I like how both sides say milk or starch is fine if your health is good. Well a healthy food should create good health, not require it in the first place.

 

[XPlus]

I don't think starches increase blood sugar faster than sugar does, if you eat them with fat and protein.

The glucose from starch stimulates insulin secretion more than sucrose. The protein and starch combo could require more insulin to process depending on the amino acid profile. Fat helps with digestion but I don't think it reduces the amount of insulin required to process the glucose and protein in the blood. Fructose could do this.

But I do think that it is easier for many people to binge and get fat on starches than on sugar. I'm not sure why this is so, but it is so for me. Maybe because so many starches have antinutrients in them, not wanting to be eaten and all. I seem to do poorly controlling my portions on most starch, and I seem to gain weight easily. Ray writes a number of times that starches are a ticket to obesity for some.

Part of it is the lowered blood sugar from insulin clearing glucose from the blood stream and making you feel hungry too soon after a meal. The other two reasons I can think of are endotoxins and inflammation from poorly digested starch.

Obviously, we see people (Okinawans for instance) thriving on starch, but perhaps they don't have the forms we have, not as pure as we have, not as easily consumable, many other things that are present in THEIR starches that are not in ours, and so ours, for whatever reason, are very fattening. This is the chief argument for me against starch. I don't feel that sugar is as easy to get fat on.

Since the starch is ideally combined with some fat to slow its digestion, it seems like it's fattening either way.

I like how both sides say milk or starch is fine if your health is good. Well a healthy food should establish uour good health, not require it in the first place.

Good argument there such but I do feel that sometimes we need to build up health to certain level to enjoy the health benefits of some foods
The potato is a super food but those with SIBO can't eat much of it without getting into some internal monkey businessing.