Matt Stone On Peat

Discussion in 'Matt Stone' started by Kris, Dec 17, 2012.

  1. Kris

    Kris Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    62
  2. Icecreambear

    Icecreambear Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2012
    Messages:
    6
    I'm following Matt's blog regularly. My personal opinion: I think he's right.

    While I definitely think that Ray Peat "is onto something" ( Matt's words :D ) - well, otherwise I wouldn't be here - in regard to starch i'm not convinced of his ideas.
    And the references, studies and examples given in "Glycemia, starch, and sugar in context" ( I think Matt was referring to this article ) also don't. Just my two cents.
     
  3. OP
    Kris

    Kris Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    62
    I guess I am just surprised that Peat made such errors in his articles...
     
  4. Combie

    Combie Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2012
    Messages:
    293
    Location:
    UK
    I heard on a podcast (for the life of me cant remember which one, one of the herb docs on i think) Ray talking about this and basically saying that as long as you keep a max ratio of 3:1 or maybe it was 4:1 glucose to fructose, you still get the blood sugar benefits of the fructose. Of course your starch needs to be tolerable and toxin free. I eat white rice and sweet potatoes and have no blood sugar issues, and no gut issues as long as they are very well cooked.

    Most root vegetables and bananas, plantains seem to have at least some fructose, and fruit is generally a part of the diet of most tropical races/socities/whatever, which in an evolutionary sense, we should take more of our clues from than northerners.
     
  5. OP
    Kris

    Kris Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    62
    I am referring for to these comments for Matt Stone:

    “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. Eating “complex carbohydrates,” rather than sugars, is a reasonable way to promote obesity. Eating starch, by increasing insulin and lowering the blood sugar, stimulates the appetite, causing a person to eat more, so the effect on fat production becomes much larger than when equal amounts of sugar and starch are eaten. The obesity itself then becomes an additional physiological factor; the fat cells create something analogous to an inflammatory state. 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. For example, fruits have many advantages over grains, besides the difference between sugar and starch. Bread and pasta consumption are strongly associated with the occurrence of diabetes, fruit consumption has a strong inverse association.” Ray Peat

    "I have no idea what planet Peat was on when he wrote this paragraph. It makes absolutely no sense and is totally incongruent with reality. The meal that produces the most postprandial insulin is a high-starch, low-fat meal. Interestingly, a high-starch, low-fat diet, during overfeeding, has been shown to be the least fattening – corresponding with the higher insulin levels. http://www.ajcn.org/content/62/1/19.full.pdf+html At the same calorie levels, the subjects with the lowest insulin levels (because they were eating more calories as fat and thus not spiking insulin as high) stored more fat, had less of an increase in thermogenesis (heat production), and less of an increase in lean body mass.

    A rise in insulin causing more fat storage? This just doesn’t make sense. It should cause more muscle storage and less fat storage, as insulin, if anything, is the primary anabolic muscle storage hormone. Insulin does not cause carbohydrates to be converted to fat, and the little bit of carbohydrate that may be converted to fat is a very inefficient process compared to storing fat that you ingest as fat that is already pre-packaged and ready to find its home in adipose tissue.

    Increasing insulin makes a person eat more? This really pisses me off. That’s like saying that stapling someone’s stomach makes them eat more, as both stapling your stomach and insulin are known to have an anti-hunger effect. Sure, inject insulin into someone without carbohydrate being ingested along with it, and they will get super hungry from blood glucose dropping to dangerous levels – appetite is stimulated because it’s a better option for the body than dying. But the normal rise and fall of insulin and blood sugar levels to baseline (not below baseline as is commonly seen in hypoglycemia after sugar ingestion) in response to eating is not something that should be construed as appetite-promoting.

    Of course, this is only a glimpse of the frustration I have with this myopic view of one isolated and rather insignificant variable. It ignores the more complex science of satiety, which doesn’t have much to do with how much insulin you produce after eating a meal, and a lot more to do with the palatability of the food, water content, fiber content, chewing time, particle size, and countless other factors that affect the dopaminergic system and beyond – including even lighting, social setting, food texture, salt content, packaging, and so on. One biggie that Peat doesn’t account for is the appetite stimulation caused by sweetness, which fructose has the most of in the carbohydrate realm. Starch is not sweet. What, are we gonna call ***t fattening if we find out it triggers a greater rise in insulin upon ingestion vs. an isocaloric amount of apple pie a la mode?"
     
  6. Combie

    Combie Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2012
    Messages:
    293
    Location:
    UK
    I dont know, im not sure that theres anything wrong with what Ray is saying there. If you eat a ton of bread, you will experience reactive hypoglycemia if its too much for you to handle. Its not insulin per se that causes the hunger, its OVER stimulation of insulin in response to excess glucose, shuttling of glucose into adipose instead of the cells that will actually use it and then the activation of glucagon etc that cause the desire to eat again. If you add grain starch to pufa and exitotoxic flavour enhancers etc you have THE recipe for obesity. Which is plain to see.

    Matt Stone is well known for backtracking, are these his current thoughts i wonder?
     
  7. j.

    j. Guest

    I'm with Peat, just because in my own experience consuming non-starchy carbs instead of starchy ones reduced my weight.
     
  8. cliff

    cliff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2012
    Messages:
    420
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    matt stone doesn't understand peats article and is just creating a straw man. Ray doesn't think starch will make you obese, he's just demonstrating how starch is more fattening than fructose. ray's articles have to be read in context, starch is obviously fine with low pufa.
     
  9. Combie

    Combie Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2012
    Messages:
    293
    Location:
    UK
    If you ate ALL starch and no fruit, you might well get fat. Starches are a vehicle for fat too, as they are so bland most of them. Thats a factor.
     
  10. OP
    Kris

    Kris Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    62
    Cliff, it sounds right. And what you think about the criticism of Matt regarding what Peat wrote about effect of glucose on insulin and insulin on getting fat?

    “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.” Ray Peat

    "Insulin converting carbohydrate into fat? That’s not how insulin works at all. In fact, a solid debunking took place a couple months back at http://www.carbsanity.blogspot.com/ in which it was shown that the body is in negative fat balance (burning more fat than storing) during postprandial insulin spikes – like the kind you get after having some good old corn starch. On top of that, the easiest carbohydrate to convert to fat has been shown time and time and time and time and time again to be the one that travels to the liver and is digested most slowly. It’s called fructose. Not only does the presence of fat make fat storage easier, if fructose is converted to fat in the liver (which it can be under certain circumstances) it increases insulin resistance, which can lead to increased fat storage (insulin lowers appetite and increases metabolic rate, so becoming unresponsive to the hormone has a tendency to increase appetite and reduce metabolic rate)." Matt Stone

    "
     
  11. gretchen

    gretchen Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    816
    I agree with Cliff & J. Also, we don't do the amount of exercise that would help to burn off starches, so for most, they are going to have negative consequences weight & health wise.

    Matt can argue all he wants that you can eat starches and still be healthy, but I'll never believe it.
     
  12. nwo2012

    nwo2012 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2012
    Messages:
    1,107
    I can say Stone is talking crap on the insulin issue. Injecting insulin causes fat to accumulate at the site as well as a noticeable whole body increase in fat accumulation over time. I have plenty of personal experience of this as a former bodybuilder who used insulin on a regular basis. And I see this all over the hospitals in 'diabetics' that use insulin. Basically, excess insulin makes you fat. No debate.
     
  13. kettlebell

    kettlebell Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2012
    Messages:
    417
    Location:
    UK
    Welcome back nwo2012! you have been missed the last few weeks!
     
  14. Combie

    Combie Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2012
    Messages:
    293
    Location:
    UK
    I think it's telling, and also amusing, that not a single soul is able to "debunk" Ray, and most people don't even try. Hmm wonder why that is? :lol:

    People seem to think that insulin makes you fat is equivalent to carbs make you fat. I've known toy dolls with more between their ears.
     
  15. kiran

    kiran Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2012
    Messages:
    1,054
    Gender:
    Male
    The answer is that he doesn't have a big enough following for him to be worth debunking.
    Usually, people hit that one bit of info that they disagree with, and then dismiss him without thinking about it.

    People tend to be especially skeptical about sugar, serotonin, fats, and so on.
     
  16. nwo2012

    nwo2012 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2012
    Messages:
    1,107
    Thanks. Been very busy, still am but trying to get a bit of time in here when I can.
     
  17. nwo2012

    nwo2012 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2012
    Messages:
    1,107

    The big enough following is very debateable. You would be surpirsed.
     
  18. nwo2012

    nwo2012 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2012
    Messages:
    1,107
    Could not agree more on both points.
     
  19. kiran

    kiran Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2012
    Messages:
    1,054
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm sure it's bigger than I think. But it says something that this place and peatatarian both started recently. Even FunctionalPS website only started in late 2010.

    I'm guessing there was no organized movement before that? Although people made references to Peat on various boards and mailing lists ...
     
  20. narouz

    narouz Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2012
    Messages:
    4,429
    I checked out Stone's website a few years ago
    and while I was intriqued
    overall I felt he was a bit of a blowhard.
    I'm talking mostly about style or tone:
    he seemed a strong self-promoter
    and someone who took greater interest
    in making startling, iconoclastic, and entertaining claims
    and calling a lot of things stupid,
    than in calmly and reasonably advancing an argument.
     
Loading...