Is Anything But RP's Ideal Diet Sustainable?

[YuraCZ]

post 106971 The difference in response is just glucose clearance. In the first case your insulin receptors are taking in the glucose rapidly. In the second case, the fatty acids in your blood stream are causing the insulin receptors to delay, so the glucose is staying in your bloodstream for longer. The reason you feel better is just because your high blood sugar is prolonged. The "peak" refers to the highest postprandial glucose reading within 2 hours of eating, it's unrelated to whether you "feel" it. Protein glycation and all other negative effects of a blood glucose peak will happen regardless of what it feels like to you.

The takeaway: whether you eat the carbs with protein and fat and don't "feel it", or eat the carbs and get a crash, your postprandial glucose peak will be EXACTLY the same, causing EXACTLY the same amount of glycation, just at different times. Your choice of aftereffect is hypoglycemia (first case) or prolonged raised glucose (second case). I'm not saying do one or the other, but biochemically, neither reduces how much your blood sugar gets raised.

No.. In the second case is jasmine rice digested and released to the bloodstream slowly. That's why I don't have crash and hypo. Because I don't have all that glucose in the bloodstream at once. It is really that hard understand? Same with casein for example. That's why you have amino acids in the bloodstream for longer period of the time after you ingest casein protein. Because it's digested and released to the bloodstream slowly than very easy to digest hydrolyzed whey protein for example.

 

[welshwing]

post 106977 if you are sedentary,yes

to be clear, stress is the only side effect of not getting enough calories? not getting too few vitamins and minerals?

also I exercise, I guess I just take out what I burn in calories. If I am releasing stress hormone, I honestly don't feel it.

 

[Emstar1892]

YuraCZ i appreciate your responses, but I don't like debates. Like I said, I just tried to post what I thought was relevant, before you attacked me. Again, like I said, if you buy a glucose meter reader, you will most likely find that your claim is not really true about what's going on. But that's up to you. Happy halloween!

 

[YuraCZ]

post 106981 YuraCZ i appreciate your responses, but I don't like debates. Like I said, I just tried to post what I thought was relevant, before you attacked me. Again, like I said, if you buy a glucose meter reader, you will most likely find that your claim is not really true about what's going on. But that's up to you. Happy halloween!

What is not true? That rice with protein powder is digested much faster than rice with fiber, fat and protein? Are you kidding me?

 

[Greg says]

Is there anything ELSE out there? I like RP's diet tips but can't comply with getting most calories from fruit carbs.

My cousin is 14 and he eats nothing but dairy, he hates everything else. but sometimes he eats all sorts of junk food, and he's in perfect health, better health than most kids his age actually. In all our family we've had a cavity and he's had none. He's athletic, tall, and good with girls.

The Masai from Africa drink blood and milk and eat raw meat. They're in more robust health than most people.

The Hawaii natives 300 years ago were eating large amounts of sweet potatoes, there are people here who won't even eat a real potato because of the starch. They were in excellent physical condition, the starch didn't age them prematurely or destroy their health.

No fruits in any of their diets.

I would eat Ray Peat's diet but I don't want to eat "mostly carbs from fruits", too specific. Maybe Peat thinks this is optimal, then what's the 2nd best alternative?

viewtopic.php?p=30

 

[Emstar1892]

Please stop attacking me! Buy a glucose meter reader! Then you don't have to read any of my posts, as they won't matter! Goodbye!

 

[Westside PUFAs]

Is there anything else? There's not much to choose from no matter what: fruits and starches, meats, mammalian excretions (dairy/eggs) and fiber. Fruits are all fruits, starches are dense tubers, meats are all animal meats including fin fish (because some people don't consider fish "meat" but it is), and fiber is all low calorie but high fiber plant foods. That's it besides nuts, seeds, and insects.

Take away fruit and you’re left with starchy tubers, winter squashes, and certain grains like white rice as starch carb sources. Then there is low fat/skim lactose. Everything else is too low in nutrients to be the majority. Conversely, leafy greens and other low calorie high fiber plant foods are low in carb energy but high in nutrients. Sucrose cane sugar, maple syrup and honey can add a little boost for carb energy but do not provide enough nutrition to be the staple. If you don’t like fruit, can’t get good fruit, or can’t afford it then just do non-flour starch as your carb source. Peat’s view on starch in the “optimal” Peat template sense would be little to no starch and if starch is consumed it should always be with butter or coconut oil. There is also a paradox with that though because Peat has also mentioned the fattening effect of too much butter so if one was to get daily calories from starch with added butter it would be too much fat calories overtime if one is not physically active. The only starch Peat personally eats is the occasional nixtamalized corn and baby turnips when he’s in Mexico. But I personally eat high starch with no butter added.

post 106947 The Hawaii natives 300 years ago were eating large amounts of sweet potatoes, there are people here who won't even eat a real potato because of the starch. They were in excellent physical condition, the starch didn't age them prematurely or destroy their health.

Yes and the Polynesians who became the Native Hawaiians also brought Taro to the islands as well. Later Cassava was there too.

Historical paintings from the British of the Native Hawaiians and Tahitians show that none of them were fat. Unlike today where those paintings are completely ignored and they like to say "we're naturally big people."

“Approximately 70 distinct varieties of sweet potatoes having Hawaiian names are known to the native growers, and fully 200 others are either unnamed or bear English names.4 “

“It can not be definitely determined when the sweet potato (Ipomcea batatas) was first cultivated in Hawaii, but it is thougt that the crop has been under cultivation on the island since about 500 A. D. because the taro, which is a companion crop of the sweet potato, has, from the earliest days, constituted the staple food crop of the natives. Captain Cook records the finding in 1778 of specimens of taro of large size, and sweet potatoes, weighing 12 to 14 pounds, in the Hawaiian Islands, then known as the Sandwich Islands.“

http://www.ctahr.hawaii.edu/oc/freepubs/pdf/B-50.pdf

post 106954 first, the excess carbohydrate turns quickly to fat.

Peat never said that. His concern is digestion and in the case of non-potato starch, mineral balance, i.e., white rice is safe but provides little minerals and nutrition but is basically the starch version of sugar cane. He also said that sugars that aren't quickly digested can also be a problem. I can show you 100 starch eaters that aren't fat and don't do crazy exercise so to say that "the excess carbohydrate turns quickly to fat" isn't true.

 

[Emstar1892]

"The very rapid rise of blood sugar stimulates massive release of insulin, and rapidly converts much of the carbohydrate into fat. "

From the same page. Direct quotation.

 

[Emstar1892]

"Eating “complex carbohydrates,” rather than sugars, is a reasonable way to promote obesity."

Also from the same page. Direct quotation.

 

[Westside PUFAs]

post 106994 "Eating “complex carbohydrates,” rather than sugars, is a reasonable way to promote obesity."

Also from the same page. Direct quotation.

"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."

Full quote.

Peat was talking about an anesthetized rat in an experiment setting with a "massive" feeding. I know from his other quotes on starch and obtaining carbohydrate calories that he wouldn't necessarily think that the same is true for humans. For bread and pasta, probably. But for natural starch, no.

 

[Westside PUFAs]

post 106994 "Eating “complex carbohydrates,” rather than sugars, is a reasonable way to promote obesity."

Also from the same page. Direct quotation.

"so the effect on fat production becomes much larger than when equal amounts of sugar and starch are eaten."

"Although pure fructose and sucrose produce less glycemia than glucose and starch do, the different effects of fruits and grains on the health can't be reduced to their effects on blood sugar."

 

[Westside PUFAs]

post 106994 "Eating “complex carbohydrates,” rather than sugars, is a reasonable way to promote obesity."

Yes, in the context of eating a high fat diet. High PUFA fat and even high SAFA fat, i.e. Peat's quotes on too much butter causing fat gain from the podcasts.

 

[Emstar1892]

Okay, so the point of his paragraph is to let everyone know how dangerous starch is for rats, then. Phew. For a moment I thought he might have written it because it could be relevant to humans!

I joined this forum a few weeks ago, thinking that unlike the hardcore paleo forums/hardcore vegan forums, one based on endocrinology and scepticism towards restrictive dieting would be friendly, welcoming and open-minded. I've been attacked by so many people on this forum, to the point that I am being attacked for listing quotations from the very person who represents this website's ideals! If you are all thriving on peat's ideas, then that's great and i'm happy for you. I came here to learn more from you and gain insight. But it worries me that perhaps it's just a forum for people sitting at home claiming to be happy about diets they're frantically and angrily posting about all day long at the weekend. I just don't think it's for me. Not convinced. But thanks for all of your responses guys.

 

[Westside PUFAs]

post 106998 Okay, so the point of his paragraph is to let everyone know how dangerous starch is for rats, then. Phew. For a moment I thought he might have written it because it could be relevant to humans!

I joined this forum a few weeks ago, thinking that unlike the hardcore paleo forums/hardcore vegan forums, one based on endocrinology and scepticism towards restrictive dieting would be friendly, welcoming and open-minded. I've been attacked by so many people on this forum, to the point that I am being attacked for listing quotations from the very person who represents this website's ideals! If you are all thriving on peat's ideas, then that's great and i'm happy for you. I came here to learn more from you and gain insight. But it worries me that perhaps it's just a forum for people sitting at home claiming to be happy about diets they're frantically and angrily posting about all day long at the weekend. I just don't think it's for me. Not convinced. But thanks for all of your responses guys.

Relax. No one's attacking you. We're just having a discussion. That is the point of a forum. To talk about ideas.

Yes, you did post Peat quotes but I also post other ones where he seems to be contradicting himself a bit, i.e., "potatoes are a perfect food", "a high starch diet can be okay for health," "glucose is anti-stress," white rice with butter is safe" etc.

Many scientists do this and it's fine. When you research and are as smart as someone like Peat, your brain is filled with lots of information.

It's all in the details. Yes, starch can do this and that, and fat from butter or canola oil can also do this or that. Embrace all angles.

 

[Westside PUFAs]

Emstar,

Here is a good example. Peat is pro-saturated fat right? Well, what about this quote:

"Just about everything that goes wrong involves FFA increase. If they are totally saturated fatty acids, such as from coconut oil and butter, those are less harmful, but they still tend to shift the mitochondrial cellular metabolism away from using glucose and fructose and turning on various stress related things; By lowering the carbon dioxide production I think is the main mechanism." - Ray Peat (from Q+A with East/West podcast)

Welcome to Peatland. Here, you have to think for yourself.

 

[tara]

post 106960
I believe there is no "Ray Peat Diet", he gives general dietary advices based on scientific sources.
It is a very flexible guideline. If starch does not cause any problem for you and you feel
better eating starch than eating fruits, then there is no reason for you to eat something
that makes you feel worse.

:1

post 106972 . I think the only side effect would be lowered metabolism or something that's not serious.

?! A good many of us here consider lowered metabolism to be critically important, and are trying very hard to reverse it. Peat's central diet advice is to eat for a high metabolism.

post 106973 One of the things that happens with low carb is protein catabolism. This will raise stress hormones.

:1
And undermine organs, energy, immunity, reproductive health, ...

post 106976 I guess not eating PUFA's and getting near 200 grams of carbs and 80 grams of protein is enough.

If this is all you are eating, that would be less than 1200 cals. You cannot get enough good nutrition on this amount. Anorexia. Starvation. Catabolism of organs and reduced life-expectancy. Two or three times that much would be more in line with normal calorie needs. I'm not sure whether it would be best to increase suddenly or gradually, but I am pretty sure you need more.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=4028

 

[tara]

post 106998 listing quotations from the very person who represents this website's ideals!

I like it that you quote Peat. I think you are smart and I don't want you to go away. :)

 

[Westside PUFAs]

Emstar,

Also from that article:

"When sugar (or starch) is turned into fat, the fats will be either saturated, or in the series derived from omega -9 monounsaturated fatty acids. When sugar isn't available in the diet, stored glycogen will provide some glucose (usually for a few hours, up to a day), but as that is depleted, protein will be metabolized to provide sugar. If protein is eaten without carbohydrate, it will stimulate insulin secretion, lowering blood sugar and activating the stress response, leading to the secretion of adrenalin, cortisol, growth hormone, prolactin, and other hormones. The adrenalin will mobilize glycogen from the liver, and (along with other hormones) will mobilize fatty acids, mainly from fat cells. Cortisol will activate the conversion of protein to amino acids, and then to fat and sugar, for use as energy. (If the diet doesn't contain enough protein to maintain the essential organs, especially the heart, lungs, and brain, they are supplied with protein from the skeletal muscles. Because of the amino acid composition of the muscle proteins, their destruction stimulates the formation of additional cortisol, to accelerate the movement of amino acids from the less important tissues to the essential ones.)"

So Peat takes an even more contrarian view here from the typical Gary Taubes "starch spikes insulin!" etc., view and talks about the insulinogenic effect of protein. So in the context of what you were saying before about starch and insulin, it's probably important to remember proteins role with insulin in this context.

also from that article:

"The age-specific incidence of most cancers is increasing, too, and there is evidence that starch, such as pasta, contributes to breast cancer, and possibly other types of cancer."

I think Peat would agree that there is a difference between pasta and bread flour products and traditional tubers and squashes, nutritionally and epidemiologically speaking, with the combination of high PUFA intake. Although I would argue about pasta consumption in Italy because the wheat they use is probably better.

 

[Westside PUFAs]

post 107004

post 106998 listing quotations from the very person who represents this website's ideals!

I like it that you quote Peat. I think you are smart and I don't want you to go away. :)

I know where she is coming from because I've been through that as well! Such as my Peat low fat milk quotes and getting attacked by people who love their whole milk!

 

[Westside PUFAs]

post 106959 This is true only if you eat JUST starch. Who eats only rice? Who eats only pasta? Who eats only potatoes? If you add protein, fiber and especially fat= balanced meal. Glycemic index = absorption to the bloodstream much slower, much slower then sucrose (glucose and fructose) alone.. People like you don't have even basic knowledge about food and nutrition. Just posting Peat quotes and thinking, that I know something.. It's sad.

Text in red, flag for forum rule breaking: Putting someone down. Giraffe, here's your first chance for a lashing!

"put someone down (slang) = humiliate, shame, crush, show up, reject, dismiss, condemn, slight, flame (informal), criticize, snub, have a go at (informal), deflate, denigrate, belittle, disparage, deprecate, mortify, diss (slang, mainly US)" - http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictio ... meone-down

EDIT:

Actually, upon reviewing the updated forum rules, it appears that "putting down" has been taken out. I remember it was there before. Now, forum rule 2. b. just says "Harassment of other users, name calling, etc."

So I guess Yura, you're off the hook.

EDIT #2:

Actually, upon further review, Yura, you actually do break forum rule 1. a. "Be polite and respectful."

Welp,