Westside PUFAs
Member
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2015
- Messages
- 1,972
damngoodcoffee said:While starch definitely has its negatives
Eat raw oyster and run your risk of Hepatitis A. Every single foodstuff we eat in todays world has negatives. There is not one single foodstuff that does not have anything negative about it.
"Shellfish (oysters, mussels, cockles, or clams) are more likely to transmit the disease. This is because shellfish filter large amounts of water and tend to leave large quantities of bacteria and viruses behind, including the one responsible for hepatitis A.
This was the sad experience of China which had three separate hepatitis A epidemics in 1978, 1982 and 1988 - all attributed to eating raw shellfish. The largest outbreak occurred in Shanghai in 1988, affecting about 300,000 people with 45 fatalities, according to Stephen C. Hadler of the Center for Infectious Diseases Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in Atlanta, Georgia.
"The first documented .outbreak of hepatitis A due to ingestion of shellfish was reported in 1956 when 600 Swedes who had eaten oysters harvested from waters contaminated with human sewage, contracted the disease. Since that time, numerous outbreaks have been reported from Europe, the USA, Asia, and Australia. While cultivation and distribution of shellfish is often carefully regulated, the nature of the business makes policing of the laws extremely difficult. Harvests are often provided to a variety of wholesalers who, in turn, supply a number of outlets. These factors, together with the prolonged incubation period, make shellfish-associated infection difficult to investigate so that many probably go undetected," revealed Ian D. Gust in "Epidemiological Patterns of Hepatitis A in Different Parts of the World" published in the journal Vaccine."
damngoodcoffee said:Then i eat some starch and feel calm right away. Is it just that i have to eat 24/7? And put huge amounts of salt into everything? It seems really unrealistic lifestyle to be eating all the time (and still not feel optimal). At least starch with its downsides, gives me the energy to go few hours without eating and feel good.
If you feel calm after eating starch then that should be your answer as to what it does for you. You found something that works. Everyone has to eat 24/7. That’s one of the unfortunate realities of being a human being. We’re always shoving things into our mouths for energy. But sometimes its not just for energy, people get caught in whats called “The Pleasure Trap,” which is a combination of dopamine reward for finding calories evolutionarily, and a mix of modern chemicals like MSG, salt like chemicals, and other additives and flavorings where people become addicted to certain foods. They have no self control and they can’t stop themselves from eating them. I have a big head, therefore a big brain so starch has been paramount for me in providing long lasting energy throghout the day. My brain needs lots of glucose daily or else I feel foggy. Starch is the only food that can provide this for me.
A good book by the way:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Pleasure-Trap ... 1570671974
Nicholas said:S_S: 1cup of grapes=62 calories. 1cup of potatoes=116 calories.
i may have missed it, but another factor that is not brought into the discussion often with starch is that if you have a high caloric demand and eat predominately carbohydrates, some people have a new set of problems by having to get all of those carb calories from fruit. fruits can be problematic because of the often low quality and from the water content.
1 cup of potatoes is nothing. I eat up to 10 cups in one sitting. That’s over 1000 calories for one main meal. Fruit and starch are thee carbohydrate sources. Take fruit and starch away and you’re left with lactose, sucrose, and honey as your only carbohydrate sources (besides very low calorie plants like greens etc., but those do not provide sufficient energy). Lactose would have to be in skim form for a lot of people, because too much fat wouldn’t work for everyone, and honey and sucrose lack nutrition and fiber to keep the gut moving. And yes, the low quality factor is important. I don’t live in the tropics.
damngoodcoffee said:Oh man i definitely can't eat starch without butter. Did enough of that on my vegan-days. It's a real job to get it down and it doesn't feel too good in my stomach.
I now prefer to eat a big bowl of mashed potato without butter. My palate has adjusted to low fat. Sometimes I even add a little sucrose to my mashed potato. It’s fun coming up with combinations of flavors to match your mood. Sucrose, coconut sugar, maple syrup, paprika, cayenne pepper, salt, cinnamon. The possibiltles are endless. If I put butter on my potatoes every single time I ate them I would easily gain belly fat. I also get insulin resistance when eating starch with too much fat at the same time. It is absolutely laughable to me now that I can eat such a huge amount of starch in one sitting and not get one single blood sugar reaction from it, whereas before when eating moderate fat, it would put me into a blood sugar coma.
Such_Saturation said:If you are "craving starch" eat a tablespoon of coconut oil with salt on top. Mystery solved
There are two problems with this. 1. A tablespoon of coconut oil is only 130 calories. 2. There’s no carbohydrate there, thus leaving him unsatisfied and without energy. Fat is not used for ATP production, glucose is. Starch=glucose.
Amazoniac said:People tend to top starches with foods that balance them. Examples would be toast with peanut butter and jelly, pasta with tomato sauce, etc. Many people here already commented how some of them taste bland without salt..
Without doubt non-grain starches are preferable.
Toast and pasta are flour products. Not a problem if used in context I’ve found, but 99% of bread is made with PUFA oil and noxious additives. Everything tastes bland without salt. Meat is bland without salt. Meat is marinated with plenty of salt. Roasted and salted nuts. Salted olives in brine. Bacon is cured with salt. Fruit is the only non-condiment food besides maybe some vegetables like raw carrot or raw cucumber, but one is not getting sufficient carbohydrate calories from raw carrot or cucumber.
Zachs said:The majority of my calories is full fat dairy from milk, cheese, butter, yogurt, ice cream. Those are easy enough to consume without starch. Then some form of meat and or eggs daily and a bit of well cooked veg cooked in butter.
jyb said:I dropped all starches at once a few years ago, except for occasional experiments with extra cooked potatoes, first replacing by a lot of OJ or sucrose, then by fat and stayed on it as it worked a whole lot better. However I think good quality whole milk goes a long way already, it gives flexibility for the rest.
So it seems you guys are doing a Peat style diet high fat style. Peat recommends being a “sugar burner” versus being a “fat burner.” It it works for you then great. I couldn’t consume that much fat personally.
"I have heard from several people that they think I recommend drinking whole milk, which I don't, because the amount of fat in whole milk is very likely to be fattening when a person is using it to get the needed protein and calcium. When a person wants to lose excess fat, limiting the diet to low fat milk, eggs, orange juice, and a daily carrot or two, will provide the essential nutrients without excess calories" - Ray Peat
Zachs said:Yes I think sucrose is better than a potato.
Peat said that potato has a higher quality protein content than eggs. That’s pretty impressive for the potato, considering how Peat talks about the low quality protein content of beans, but the higher than an egg, a food he likes, quality content of the potato. It's all about context right? Well we can't just lump beans in the same category as potato. Thats like lumping oranges in the same category as figs. Potato also provides much more nutrition than sucrose. In fact, Peat has said:
"Refined granulated sugar is extremely pure, but it lacks all of the essential nutrients, so it should be considered as a temporary therapeutic material, or as an occasional substitute when good fruit isn't available, or when available honey is allergenic." - Raymond Peat, PhD
Yes, I know of his quotes of the starch component of the potato and the keto acids and juicing it. But at the same time, he has said:
“Two pounds of well-cooked mashed potato has the protein value similar to a liter of milk, about 33 grams of protein. A person would be able to live for a long time on two or three liters of either milk or 4-6 pounds of potatoes per day. The milk drinker would eventually need to supplement iron, the potato eaters would need to supplement vitamin A, possibly B12, but both of them are nearly perfect foods.” - Ray Peat
So we have a "nearly perfect food" versus a "temporary therapeutic material."
We can play the back and forth game about the starch particles and juicing the potato but I just posted a quote where he didn’t say anything about juicing it or the starch. We can look at it from both points of view. Now, as far as the exact science on how much of the higher quality than egg protein that one is absorbing when eating the whole potato, and not the juice, no one knows. Someone should do some clinical research on that. But, if I weren’t absorbing any of that high quality potato protein then I would be malnourished by now, because I have been consuming them almost daily in whole form, not juice, since October and I feel great. I’m pretty sure I’m getting some of that potato protein. The juiced potato seems more like a fun nutrition nerd experiment or supplement. It’s not a practical way to enjoy a satisfying meal like a eating the whole potato is.
mt_dreams said:my anus gets itchy (usually at night), so there is definately something bacteria related that is taking place within my body. This might be b/c as you wrote, they 'resist quick digestion', which might lead to fuel being available deeper into the colon than sugar would allow for. but this is a wild guess on my part.
That’s pretty bizarre (the anus thing). I didn’t say they resist quick digestion, Peat said that ones that do can cause problems. They digest quickly for me, thus its the opposite for me, no problems. I think he’s talking about breads and crackers that resist digestion because they are made with PUFA oils and usually consumed with other problematic foods at the same time. No one eats just bread, or just crackers, and even if they did, they are still made with oils. Not to mentioned that they are flour products, something highly milled though a milling machine.
mt_dreams said:Yes blue zone inhibitants live a nice long life on massive amounts of starch. Most of these communities (at least the people used in the studies) are living an old way of life, with lots of time spend outdoors, clean air, moving, spending most of the day with friends & family, eating local, high sbo's, and so on. It's tough to determine just how someone who's being rung through the daily grinder, not sleeping enough, being bombared with competeing emf signatures, staring into a screen for a large part of the day, living in a concrete jungle, etc, would react. It would be nice to see some studies on some early baby boomers who have been eating like this, while going through the school/work system for 65 years, while living with the pollution caused by a major city.
pboy said:yea its like that...what mt said. Most of those cultures...have a much more natural lifestyle, clean air, no toxins, and are in a consistent 24 hour pattern and live with natural light, no alarm clock or news, ect...if you took them and gave them a peat diet they'd live probably just as long or longer...
when I was vegan there was a period where id eat like half starch half fruit and I was doing really well, so its very possible to still develop the pancreas to efficiently utilize fresh cooked starch (I ate everything fresh which helps a lot). I still have to give the edge to if you can manage no starch, its better
Shredder2 said:Those healthier-than-westerners starch eating cultures are/were inadvertently practising calorie restriction. The Okinawans ate less than 2000 calories a day. CRON is partially based on these starch eating cultures.
Also, In my personal opinion, observation and experience, starch+animal food is a bad food combination, yet is the most common food pairing. I believe that lowering animal food consumption may be beneficial if you only ever eat animal foods paired with starch.
You guys aren’t addressing the central theme though. Go back to this thread and scroll down to the part where I show all 10 of the starch eating cultures:
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=5859&hilit=ari&start=60
Those people got most of their calories from starch. They were not adding butter to the starch either. They also consumed other foods but they ate tons of starch. But look at this logically: If people say that starch isn’t optimal but I just provided you with 10 examples of optimal starch eaters, how does that make sense? When you guys talk about modern stress, natural lifestyle, EMF’s etc, I can same the same thing for the Inuit or the Masai. So for example, like you guys think starch is best limited, I personally think fat, no matter if its polyunsaturated, saturated, or monounsaturated is best limited in the diet. Pro-fat people will often point out the Inuit or Massai as “high fat” cultures. (It’s a little weird that those are the only two high fat cultures versus my high starch 10 cultures but ok.) If I state my view on fat, but then say “well, the Inuit and Masai can only eat that much fat because..” and I list all of the things you guys just listed, without addressing the actual high fat part of the conversation, then I am doing exactly what you guys are doing.
Now, for me to actually address the high fat claim of those 2 cultures, I’m working on it, but as far as I can tell, the Inuit were not healthy people, and the Masai only drank milk seasonally. I’ll get back to you on it though.
Peat's_Girl said:I found that if I eat lots of fat and sugar (especially from dairy) I have no cravings for starch.
I've been doing this lately and I can bypass the bread isle without hesitation, which is HUGE for someone like me (who loves to snack, especially on chips, tortilla chips, gluten free snacks, etc.).
Those are flour products. Bread is made with PUFA oil and other noxious additives. I recently read something about chips that was talking about how many chip companies actually use potato flour as the base of the chip, which is crazy. Thats not even a real chip. Thats nothing like a fresh potato fried in coconut oil. It's the same for tortilla chips as well, as in corn flour. But all of those flour products that get blamed for being fattening are 1. Inherintly cooked in fat, usually PUFA oil, and 2. almost always consumed with things that may make the overall effect fattening such as cheese (nachos) and sandwiches. People spreading margarine or butter on their bread and blaming just strictly the bread/starch for their fat gain is not objective. I'm not saying that the margarine or butter absolutely did cause their fat gain, I'm just saying that people blame "carbs" when in reality they're not just eating "carbs" they are eating refined high fat flour products that are high in polyunsaturaed oil and then consumed with high amounts of saturated fat. Thats a very big difference from fruit "carbs" and potato and rice "carbs." People should objectively acknowledge that point.
Nicholas said:i don't crave grains at all. i crave roots sometimes more noticeably than others and eat them regularly but it's not the same feeling as the feeling i would have in the past when i craved "starch" (i.e. grains). i think my craving for roots is largely based on some quality in the fiber. Like i sometimes have strong cravings for roots and zucchini (totally apart from cravings for fruit). I get plenty of potassium and other nutrients in my diet and eat fruit with every meal - so i think there must be something specific about the fiber of squash type foods and roots that my gut really desires right now. Also, i could bake a potato and eat it right out of the oven and feel really tired. If i were to roast a parsnip or turnip and eat it right out of the oven i don't get that reaction at all. even further - i don't get the tired reaction from potatoes if they cool overnight.
Who actually eats "grains" though? Well, white rice is a grain, so Asians, oats for oatmeal, corn (but usually corn flour not whole corn, and usually consumed with fat) and the only other one that comes to mind is Teff, which is consumed in Ethiopia. The whole anti-grains thing is really weird because I don't know people who eat grains besides rice. When the whole Paleo thing exploded a few years ago, I thought is was weird that they focused so much on something that nobody eats. If by grains they mean flour products, then yes, those are highly refined, can cause blood sugar problems, often cooked in fat inherently and always consumed with many others foods at the same time (deli meats, cheese, mayonaise, etc.) But If they mean things like:
Amaranth
Barley
Buckwheat
Farro / Emmer
Kamut
Millet
Muesli
Quinoa
Rye
Sorghum
Spelt
Teff
Triticale
then I don't know what all the fuss is about because no one eats those things. So one of their central thesis' is that modern disease in caused by something people don't even eat? Ok.