Natalie Zimmerman: "The Woefully Misguided War On Carbohydrates"

OP
Westside PUFAs
Joined
Feb 4, 2015
Messages
1,972
So she thinks we should eat all three macronutrients from a variety of nutritious foods in appropriate amounts for the individual? What a concept.

No, she doesn’t. Please watch all three of her lectures first.

“The war on sugar sounds so good on the surface that it has become politically correct to support it. But just scratch that surface and you have a tangled knot of reasoning that goes nowhere, that ignores the contribution of fat, which has never decreased in the modern diet despite claims to the contrary. The entire war on sugar and the advice that stems from it is less effective than the old advice to give up dessert for a while if you want to lose weight. And that’s the real problem; In the modern diet we have so mishandled the information on carbohydrates that we can no longer distinguish dinner from dessert”

More fallout from the paranoid war on sugar : McCarbthyism: The woefully misguided war on carbs

She's pro-sugar and she still recieving ad hominem here from some of you.

But is this really news to anyone?

Yes it is news. Have you ever heard of the following people?

Gary Taubes
Mark Sisson
William Davis (wheat belly)
Barry Sears
Sally Fallon/WAP
Andrew DiMino
Dana Carpender (hold the toast!)
Jimmy Moore
Loren Cordain
Michael and Mary Eades and the many bloggers/youtubers and especially nutritionists and dietitians who promote the same. Did you not read the quote at the top?

"A channel devoted to promoting a scientific understanding of carbohydrates and their essential role in the human diet. We don't practice McCarbthyism, the irrational fear mongering that views our natural desire to eat carbohydrates as the primary reason for the epidemic of obesity and type-2 diabetes presently spreading worldwide. McCarbthyism is our name for the cult of carbohydrate paranoia infecting the nutrition community like a plague, not because of the evidence—for there is none—but because it creates such an easy target and tells such a good story. The real story of carbohydrates, however, is much more interesting when you follow the evidence. Explore our site and follow our blog to learn about starch and how it became a dirty word and how pottery played in the mind's big bang."

Do you not realize how crazy it is to say something like that? The first thing the average person says when they want to lose weight is "I can't have starch." People who know nothing of nutrition commonly echo this sentiment and as Natalie points out, it's all a misunderstanding and propagated by those listed people above.
 

tyler

Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2015
Messages
232
I am not sure if that belief is due to the cultural conditioning or unbiased objective experimentation. One of the mechanisms in which starch could be helpful is the spike in insulin afterwords. But I am not sure if the role of insulin has been overplayed. Ray Peat seems to think so in the context of diabetes. Fructose can provide oxidative metabolism even in the presence of free fatty acids that inhibit glucose.

One of the points at which fatty acids suppress the use of glucose is at the point at which it is converted into fructose, in the process of glycolysis. When fructose is available, it can by-pass this barrier to the use of glucose, and continue to provide pyruvic acid for continuing oxidative metabolism, and if the mitochondria themselves aren't providing sufficient energy, it can leave the cell as lactate, allowing continuing glycolytic energy production. - Ray Peat

If fructose can by-pass the fatty acids' inhibition of glucose metabolism, to be oxidized when glucose can't, and if the metabolism of diabetes involves the oxidation of fatty acids instead of glucose, then we would expect there to be less than the normal amount of fructose in the serum of diabetics, although their defining trait is the presence of an increased amount of glucose. According to Osuagwu and Madumere (2008), that is the case. If a fructose deficiency exists in diabetes, then it is appropriate to supplement it in the diet. - Ray Peat

Glucose and sucrose for diabetes.

So it seems to me that if an individual doesn't respond well to glucose/starch (and I guess that's if the "bad reaction" to starch isn't endotoxin related) then they would have excessive FFA in the bloodstream.

But for someone with proper energy metabolism (well functioning liver/thyroid, adequate glycogen stores, and thus low blood FFA), using glucose as a source of fuel wouldn't be an issue because the FFA wouldn't be present to inhibit its conversion to fructose.

So maybe until an individual reached that point of health, it would bet best to prioritize fructose over glucose. Also to use FFA suppressing substances (aspirin, niacinimide, etc), if they wanted to enjoy the starchy delicacies. That way there is no hiccup in glycolysis.
 
Last edited:

Peater Piper

Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2016
Messages
817
Sounds good to me, Tyler. Plus, high levels of FFA are associated with NAFLD, and I wouldn't trust a fattened liver to process large amounts of fructose. So in addition to those substances, it could be best not to go crazy with sugar until the liver is leaned out.
 

Peater Piper

Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2016
Messages
817
There's supplements like caffeine, k2, taurine, and glycine that are supposed to help. High protein is supposed to help? Drastically cutting calories works, but I don't know if anyone here wants to do that. Going very low fat should force the liver to tap into the fatty reserves. I've seen studies showing a slightly hypocaloric, very low carb diet can lean the liver out quickly, but I don't know what happens when carbs are added back into the diet. I guess one big question is how to identify whether or not it's an issue since liver enzymes can be normal with NAFLD, and not everyone wants to get an ultrasound. There's also the question of whether the liver goes downhill when other systems are failing, or if other systems fail when liver function starts to suffer.
 

jaguar43

Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2012
Messages
1,310
So it seems to me that if an individual doesn't respond well to glucose/starch (and I guess that's if the "bad reaction" to starch isn't endotoxin related) then they would have excessive FFA in the bloodstream.

I would say it's possible that FFA could cause a bad reaction when eating starches. Though it's possible that the bad reaction could be due to the starch molecules and other characteristics of starch it self.


But for someone with proper energy metabolism (well functioning liver/thyroid, adequate glycogen stores, and thus low blood FFA), using glucose as a source of fuel wouldn't be an issue because the FFA wouldn't be present to inhibit its conversion to fructose.

Yes and no, I was strictly speaking on behalf of athletes and bodybuilders who chooses to eat starch over fruits and fructose for better performance. Any exercise is mostly like to increase FFA's into the blood stream. My argument is that using fructose may be better for performance because it can still produce oxidative metabolism even in the presence of the FFA's. I wouldn't generalize to define someone with proper energy metabolism. The degree to which one produces FFA is different for everyone. The most extreme version would be a diabetic or someone with insulin resistance. Usually, healthy people can use glucose for energy production. I just don't have a definition for what is considered a healthy person. But healthy people can still release FFA through exercise, activity, stress ect.

So maybe until an individual reached that point of health, it would bet best to prioritize fructose over glucose. Also to use FFA suppressing substances (aspirin, niacinimide, etc), if they wanted to enjoy the starchy delicacies. That way there is no hiccup in glycolysis.

Again, it would depend on the person and other variables. And it would depend on the starch itself. IF you were eating donuts that were fried in vegetable oil I would say that those substances could not help you. But if your eating potatoes, rice and other starches that Ray Peat seems to be neutral on, Then I could say that those substances can protect you from the negative side effects of starch.
 

tyler

Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2015
Messages
232
My argument is that using fructose may be better for performance because it can still produce oxidative metabolism even in the presence of the FFA's. I wouldn't generalize to define someone with proper energy metabolism. The degree to which one produces FFA is different for everyone. The most extreme version would be a diabetic or someone with insulin resistance. Usually, healthy people can use glucose for energy production. I just don't have a definition for what is considered a healthy person. But healthy people can still release FFA through exercise, activity, stress ect.
I agree with you- fructose would be the best source because of it's ability to promote oxidative metabolism even with FFA. I was using your RP quotes to back up my stance, which is simply that glucose is a good source of fuel in the absence of excessive FFA. I used "healthy" for lack of a better term. More specifically, someone who doesn't have excessive FFA in their bloodstream. Such a person would have a well functioning liver (among other capabilities), capable of storing a lot of glycogen that way the individual wouldn't have to release a bunch of FFA into the blood.
 

jaguar43

Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2012
Messages
1,310
I agree with you- fructose would be the best source because of it's ability to promote oxidative metabolism even with FFA. I was using your RP quotes to back up my stance, which is simply that glucose is a good source of fuel in the absence of excessive FFA. I used "healthy" for lack of a better term. More specifically, someone who doesn't have excessive FFA in their bloodstream. Such a person would have a well functioning liver (among other capabilities), capable of storing a lot of glycogen that way the individual wouldn't have to release a bunch of FFA into the blood.

We all had, and will have, an excess of FFA in our blood stream at some point. The question is how will our bodies react to the release of FFA. And what precautions will we take when it happens. I agree, regularly taking Aspirin, B3, and fructose will help with-stand the negative effects. A few years ago I took a powdered form of fructose in my morning coffee. I would like to try it again to see the effects.
 
OP
Westside PUFAs
Joined
Feb 4, 2015
Messages
1,972
Pretty sure Westside PUFA just fell in love

:shame:

I did. Especially after reading her responses to noobs on youtube:

"This comment is scientifically meaningless. There are no civilizations that live 100% without carbohydrates. The entire video was about the dangers of making fat one's primary source of calories which is exactly what would happen on a diet devoid of carbohydrates since protein cannot be a primary source of calories. You didn't watch the video, and you give no evidence for your assertions. This isn't a serious comment even worth discussing."

"You can't give nutritional advice without having a scientific basis for it, so I'm not sure what you mean by unprofessional. There is nothing radical about the nutritional advice in this video. It would certainly fit within the guidelines set by the ADA. There's nothing groundbreaking about the role of a high-fat diet in driving insulin resistance. I think it's professional and safe to recommend that people don't follow a high-fat diet and eat more boiled rather than baked or fried starches."

"The other significant increase in kcals is from flours and cereal products: 1970=429, 2010=596. What do you make with flour and fat? Gary Taubes in his books condemns ALL carbohydrates as addictive and suggests minimizing any fruit or vegetable with significant carbohydrates. He then asserts that fat can't make you fat and that fat calories don't matter, all of which is fantasy. "

"Check the USDA data: 14% of the kcals in the US diet come from added sweeteners of all kinds, down from 16% in 1970 (pre epidemic of obesity). In terms of per capita kcals: added sweeteners, 1970=332.5, 1999=421.8, 2010=367.2. Compare added fats and oils, including dairy fats: 1970=346.3, 1980=372.2, 1990=409.6, 2000=545.4, 2010=588.0. This does not include fats from meats and nuts. Total kcal increase during the same time: 1970=2,076, 2010=2,534. The American Diet has NEVER been low in fat."

"Not exactly, our position is that diets low boiled starch cause insulin resistance, low muscle glycogen storage, and thus increased appetite, craving for sugar and fat. Any diet that is low in boiled starch is of necessity rich in fat. It may also be high in sugar. In either case, fats become the primary source of fuel, which your body interprets as starvation. The natural response is for muscle cells to reject the influence of insulin to pull in glucose. This reserves glucose for the brain."

"The problem with raw-food veganism is that it exaggerates the importance of it signature feature—raw food—so much so that it demonizes cooking. Raw food is great. Who doesn’t appreciate the value of raw fruits and vegetables? Raw foods are rich in micronutrients and phytochemicals. However, there is absolutely no logical reason that promoting raw food should be linked to the demonization of cooking. Even if one wishes to follow a vegan diet, rejecting cooked food on the basis that it’s unnatural demonstrates highly flawed reasoning and will promote a deficient diet. Without cooked (boiled and steamed) starches—grains, beans, and potatoes, muscle glycogen storage will be severely compromised. Raw foodists no doubt observe the weakness in their diet, which is why many, if not most raw foodists use an escape clause, allowing some cooked food, up to 25% of the diet. They may also “allow” cooking at very low temperatures, providing at least some gelatinized starch, for example like low temperature heating of sprouted grains or beans. Cooking actually predates our species by hundreds of thousands of years. Homo erectus and Neanderthal both cooked food but neither boiled starch. Homo sapiens are the only species to have ever boiled starches."
 

tyw

Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2015
Messages
407
Location
Cairns, Australia
Your insight on this forum has been so valuable to me- thanks for all the effort you put into your posts dude.
Had a question regarding rice types and amylopectin/amylose content. Do you know what types of rice have the highest amylopectin content and the lowest amylose? I've always sought out to find rice with the least amount of fiber (jasmine) as I figured it was the easiest to digest. But I take that fiber content and amylose/amylopectin amount are noncorrelative.

Thanks :droid:

As for rice, anything which isn't pure white rice basically has components that aren't as easy to digest. Whatever it is, brown rice, black rice, red rice, semi-hulled rice, etc ... all will have harder-to-digest components. Whether or not a person can digest them well is a different story. Experimentation be needed.

White jasmine rice likely doesn't have too much fiber.

As for amylopectin vs amylose content, the general rule of thumb is that the Longer the grain, the more amylose (and therefore the shorter the grain, the more amylopectin).

eg:
- short grain sushi rice has more amylopectin (hence the sticky texture to allow grains to cling to each other in the presence of water)
- long grain basmati rice has much more amylose (hence the loose and fluffy texture)
- arborio rice has more amylopectin (hence the starchy consistency of risotto)
- sticky / glutinous rice is almost 100% amylopectin (this is the only exception -- there are long grain varieties of sticky rice, but usually these are only found in the South East Asian region, so the general rule of thumb almost always holds true)


I would say it's possible that FFA could cause a bad reaction when eating starches. Though it's possible that the bad reaction could be due to the starch molecules and other characteristics of starch it self.

Yes and no, I was strictly speaking on behalf of athletes and bodybuilders who chooses to eat starch over fruits and fructose for better performance. Any exercise is mostly like to increase FFA's into the blood stream. My argument is that using fructose may be better for performance because it can still produce oxidative metabolism even in the presence of the FFA's. I wouldn't generalize to define someone with proper energy metabolism. The degree to which one produces FFA is different for everyone. The most extreme version would be a diabetic or someone with insulin resistance. Usually, healthy people can use glucose for energy production. I just don't have a definition for what is considered a healthy person. But healthy people can still release FFA through exercise, activity, stress ect.


Again, it would depend on the person and other variables. And it would depend on the starch itself. IF you were eating donuts that were fried in vegetable oil I would say that those substances could not help you. But if your eating potatoes, rice and other starches that Ray Peat seems to be neutral on, Then I could say that those substances can protect you from the negative side effects of starch.

Correct, on a higher level basis, you generally have fatty acids inhibiting carbohydrate metabolism in most places in the body (see mechanism in the 'Fatty Acdis Rule' section of the article) -- The Randle cycle revisited: a new head for an old hat

One exception may be the liver, where a higher glucose concentration tends to inhibit fatty acid oxidation (also described in the article)

However, I will disagree slightly on a mitochondrial basis. Petro @ Hyperlipid did a great post about how "Carbosis" might work at the low level -- Hyperlipid: Protons (38) and ultra low fat once more

This is the combined Fructose (activation of mtG3Pdh) + Saturated Fat (with its specific FADH2:NADH ratio):

carbosis%2B9.png


Massive reverse electron flow and high amounts of superoxide being generated. Insulin signalling is also killed and insulin resistance ensues.

NOTE: "insulin resistance ensues" for as long as the signal lasts. 20g of fat with a high fructose meal gets disposed of within hours at the very most.

Chronically blunting Insulin signalling through superoxide signalling and blunting of membrane potential is what you get when you chronically have high levels of FFA floating around and being oxidised in mitochondria. This is "Physiologic Insulin Resistance", and is perfectly normal and healthy when you have to go low carb (like our ancestors likely would have had to do at times of food scarcity).

You could say that by mitochondrial and hepatic mechanics, Fructose is more "Ketogenic-Diet-friendly" :bag:

Glucose + Saturated Fat metabolism is a little bit different. You still get the above diagram at huge times of glucose oversupply, but there are a bunch of other control mechanisms before you hit the mitochondrial stage (a simple one being that glucose -> muscle glycogen conversion is much much more efficient compared to fructose).

Fructose's "privileged status" of by-passing a great deal of insulin signalling also makes it is harder to control in a sense, and you get a higher possibility of the "mitochondrial overload condition" shown above.

Personally, I have explained in previous posts that I am cautious of fructose. "Just enough" (say 10% of carbohydrates as fructose) vs "as much as possible".

....
 

tyler

Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2015
Messages
232
Thanks :droid:

As for rice, anything which isn't pure white rice basically has components that aren't as easy to digest. Whatever it is, brown rice, black rice, red rice, semi-hulled rice, etc ... all will have harder-to-digest components. Whether or not a person can digest them well is a different story. Experimentation be needed.

White jasmine rice likely doesn't have too much fiber.

As for amylopectin vs amylose content, the general rule of thumb is that the Longer the grain, the more amylose (and therefore the shorter the grain, the more amylopectin).

eg:
- short grain sushi rice has more amylopectin (hence the sticky texture to allow grains to cling to each other in the presence of water)
- long grain basmati rice has much more amylose (hence the loose and fluffy texture)
- arborio rice has more amylopectin (hence the starchy consistency of risotto)
- sticky / glutinous rice is almost 100% amylopectin (this is the only exception -- there are long grain varieties of sticky rice, but usually these are only found in the South East Asian region, so the general rule of thumb almost always holds true)




Correct, on a higher level basis, you generally have fatty acids inhibiting carbohydrate metabolism in most places in the body (see mechanism in the 'Fatty Acdis Rule' section of the article) -- The Randle cycle revisited: a new head for an old hat

One exception may be the liver, where a higher glucose concentration tends to inhibit fatty acid oxidation (also described in the article)

However, I will disagree slightly on a mitochondrial basis. Petro @ Hyperlipid did a great post about how "Carbosis" might work at the low level -- Hyperlipid: Protons (38) and ultra low fat once more

This is the combined Fructose (activation of mtG3Pdh) + Saturated Fat (with its specific FADH2:NADH ratio):

carbosis%2B9.png


Massive reverse electron flow and high amounts of superoxide being generated. Insulin signalling is also killed and insulin resistance ensues.

NOTE: "insulin resistance ensues" for as long as the signal lasts. 20g of fat with a high fructose meal gets disposed of within hours at the very most.

Chronically blunting Insulin signalling through superoxide signalling and blunting of membrane potential is what you get when you chronically have high levels of FFA floating around and being oxidised in mitochondria. This is "Physiologic Insulin Resistance", and is perfectly normal and healthy when you have to go low carb (like our ancestors likely would have had to do at times of food scarcity).

You could say that by mitochondrial and hepatic mechanics, Fructose is more "Ketogenic-Diet-friendly" :bag:

Glucose + Saturated Fat metabolism is a little bit different. You still get the above diagram at huge times of glucose oversupply, but there are a bunch of other control mechanisms before you hit the mitochondrial stage (a simple one being that glucose -> muscle glycogen conversion is much much more efficient compared to fructose).

Fructose's "privileged status" of by-passing a great deal of insulin signalling also makes it is harder to control in a sense, and you get a higher possibility of the "mitochondrial overload condition" shown above.

Personally, I have explained in previous posts that I am cautious of fructose. "Just enough" (say 10% of carbohydrates as fructose) vs "as much as possible".

....
Thanks for the responses, I appreciate the rice breakdown.
So for optimal function, you see a 10% fructose and 90% glucose as an optimal carbohydrate ratio? That way we avoid the possible "mitochondrial overload"?
 

tyw

Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2015
Messages
407
Location
Cairns, Australia
Thanks for the responses, I appreciate the rice breakdown.
So for optimal function, you see a 10% fructose and 90% glucose as an optimal carbohydrate ratio? That way we avoid the possible "mitochondrial overload"?

Nope, "optimal" is not the right word to describe this. ;)

I am personally conservative with trying to push boundaries with fructose consumption. The logic is straightforward:

- Given that there are some plausible issues with high fructose consumption (enumerated in some of the my other posts, as well as my post above)
- Given that there is good metabolic benefit of consuming fructose
- What is the consumption level whereby harm is minimised to "acceptable levels"? (and then I will take whatever benefit that comes with that acceptable minimum)

My bias should be clear -- I am all about minimising harm.

This is necessarily context specific. My example:
- Generally eating very low fat and by now definitely pretty PUFA depleted
- Highly insulin sensitive (example: if I eat 300g of sticky rice, blood glucose normalises to baseline within 3-4 hours)

Do I care for the extra 8% CO2 production from fructose vs glucose? (Ref: Whole body and splanchnic oxygen consumption and blood flow after oral ingestion of fructose or glucose | Endocrinology and Metabolism)

In my case, given the ability to metabolise glucose efficiently, the benefit is marginal. For someone who is eating much less total carbohydrate to begin with, perhaps the harm/benefit ratio changes.

The "10% fructose, 90% glucose" ratio then came from a couple of studies I cited before (and I think I got from Andrew Kim's blog) about how that was the level where there was significant acceleration of glucose metabolism due to the aforementioned ratio of fructose consumption. That's like 50-60g fructose in my case -- completely manageable by the liver.

This is something which you will need to figure out for yourself.

-----

Fructose and Liver fatty acids Sidenote: one of the things which is acknowledged, is that serum Triglycerides were raised disproportionately higher after fructose consumption.

This increase in serum Trigs is likely not De novo lipogenesis (DNL) of fructose, since the magnitude of increased Trigs is too great compared to the measly amount of DNL usually seen. The only explanation then is that liver fatty acids are displaced from the liver somehow.

Is this a good thing? If your liver is full of PUFA, probably it is, but there would probably be some acute side effects of the displaced PUFA.

What happens to the displaced fatty acids? Will they re-esterify in the liver? If so, then you hope that the space is filled with re-esterified saturated fat.

In any case, we can discuss mechanics for a long time. The point isn't to discuss mechanics, it is to experiment and find a good ratio of fructose to glucose consumption. I just happen to lean more toward the glucose side.

....
 

m_arch

Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2016
Messages
483
Location
Perth, Australia
Smart-Fuel-Pyramid~~element55.jpg


her recommendations for those more visually inclined... she recommends certain anti-thyroid veggies and some PUFA but aside from that it seems pretty peaty.
 

Ideonaut

Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2015
Messages
499
Location
Seattle
"However, the combination of some fat and high amylopectin foods also reduces both insulin spikes and total insulin release. Sticky rice with coconut oil, Waxy potatoes with butter, etc .... are all "safer starch" and lower insulin food items."

Okay, I assume "sticky rice" means Japanese style calrose or sweet mochi rice (fine with me--I love mochi). But what are "waxy" potatoes--a special variety?
 

tyw

Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2015
Messages
407
Location
Cairns, Australia
Okay, I assume "sticky rice" means Japanese style calrose or sweet mochi rice (fine with me--I love mochi). But what are "waxy" potatoes--a special variety?

Yes, Mochi rice is basically 100% amylopectin. Japanese short grain rice (eg: Koshihikari) is pretty close, but not exactly the same. I can still tolerate either ;)

You can literally just search "waxy potato ${YOUR_COUNTRY_NAME}" and see a bunch of the varieties.

This is relevant to the texture of the potato, so there's information out there. eg: Colibans and King Edward potatoes here in Australia are "roasting potatoes" because of their fluory texture (high amylose). These are also used for baked potatoes are french fries. Some people like Russets in their "fluffy mash", again, because Russets are high amylose potatoes.

The "boiling potatoes" or "salad potatoes" are usually the waxy varieties. Just search online for whatever options are available in your area.


Well said man. I'm not up on all your stuff but your reasonablilitudeness speaks loudly for you.

And again, with respect to the potato varieties I listed above, I'm not saying which one is most suitable for a particular person :cigar:. I happen to do best with "waxy" anything, be it rice or potatoes or sweet potatoes (eg: the small yellow-flesh purple-skin japanese sweet potatoes).

All I write is information that shows functional differences between different types of "starch", and that your experience with these starches will likely vary along the functional parameters I've listed. (and there are likely more parameters I did not mention ;))

....
 
T

tca300

Guest
Why not just eat fruit? You don't have to cut it, cook it, or season it to make it consumable.
 

Pointless

Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2016
Messages
945
A large portion "Paleo" community is not really low carb anymore, they like potatoes/white rice and a few others for the resistant starch. Paul Jaminet was a big part of this but it's been trending that way for a while.

The other thing is 90%+ of the meat people eat is not paleo. If it's not fresh and rich with glycogen + probiotic glycans it's not paleo in the slightest. And how often do "paleo" people eat fresh innards laced with bacteria? Basically never.

Not to mention meat based diets are almost never using protein in any large quantity for fuel. I'm curious where she gets this idea of protein toxicity unless you're force feeding ridiculous amounts of protein. Carbs are important for different reasons ( myeloperoxidase immune function, glyogen during stress, various systems use glucose or lactate for fuel ( glucose and lactate can be converted back and forth ), et cetera. Overall she makes some good points relevant to prolonged low carb dieting.

The reference to high protein diets is probably a "rabbit starvation" thing, a popular trope in Paleo circles.

As for boiled starches, I have always preferred my pasta and rice MUSHY, never al dente, so I can't disagree with her. I feel it is easier to digest.

She sounds very much like Paul Jaminet, a writer I have a lot of respect for.
 
J

James IV

Guest
No, she doesn’t. Please watch all three of her lectures first.

I see nothing anywhere of her saying anyone should completely eliminate any macro. So, my statement stands.

Yes it is news. Have you ever heard of the following people?

Gary Taubes
Mark Sisson
William Davis (wheat belly)
Barry Sears
Sally Fallon/WAP
Andrew DiMino
Dana Carpender (hold the toast!)
Jimmy Moore
Loren Cordain
Michael and Mary Eades and the many bloggers/youtubers and especially nutritionists and dietitians who promote the same. Did you not read the quote at the top?

I have and I did. Not sure how that's relevant to my statement about bodybuilders.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom