• @Blossom Is A Blessing To This Community, Let Us Be A Blessing To Her
    Click Here For More Information
  • Due to excessive bot signups along with nefarious actors we are limiting forum registration. Keep checking back for the register link to appear. Please do not send emails or have someone post to the forum asking for a signup link. Until the current climate changes we do not see a change of this policy. To join the forum you must have a compelling reason. Letting us know what skills/knowledge you will bring to the community along with the intent of your stay here will help in getting you approved.

Paul Jaminet on Ray Peat - "Sugar vs. Starch"

cliff

Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2012
Messages
425
Age
33
Location
Los Angeles
Yes, all of ray's articles on sugar.
 

charlie

The Law & Order Admin
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
12,368
Location
USA
I was wondering when this debate would come up and here it is. :ugeek:

I am in the process of pulling together all the intellectual powerhouses in this community that I can think of to see if we can thoroughly debate this. If we get enough brain power going in this thread and form a good rebuttal, I will then invite Paul Jaminet over.
 

stevensmith

Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
37
I think when people question whether sugar is bad or not, they get caught up in whether or not it was accessible to "paleo" people. Complete BS. Nobody knows who ate what, and if one is going to use that element, it would be best to go by people in tribes actually living in the past 100 years. Inuit ate pretty much meat and fat, and they were obese. Kitivans, melanesians, polynesians, all ate at least 70% of their diet from carbs naturally. Their fruit, tubers, etc, was and still is very abundant. They were and still are very lean.

But that's not the point, and using observational research is rarely ever complete. For example, there is not really much in terms of good records of deaths, and causes. It's better to study the body's physiology, and biochemistry, and then come up with conclusions. Eating a fat-based diet with low carbs not only doesn't make any sense physiologically, it doesn't make any sense biochemically. Every process that involves glucose oxidation is going to result in more energy output and yield by the individual, and every process that involves fat oxidation is going to result in less, not to mention possible lipid peroxidation, damaging of tissues, thymus and muscle wasting from a low carb diet, leading to immunity problems.

There are a million other reasons, and if we all want to go into each one, I'm sure some of us here (including me) would be more than happy to.
 

charlie

The Law & Order Admin
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
12,368
Location
USA
Andrew Kim has released his first article in his series "Sugar vs Starch". This provides a great first step in counter arguing the information that Paul Jaminet has written about.

Thank you Andrew!

Here is the link to the article content, it's too big to be posted here:

viewtopic.php?f=49&t=367&p=1144#p1144
 

nwo2012

Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2012
Messages
1,107
Charlie said:
Andrew Kim has released his first article in his series "Sugar vs Starch". This provides a great first step in counter arguing the information that Paul Jaminet has written about.

Thank you Andrew!

Here is the link to the article content, it's too big to be posted here:

viewtopic.php?f=49&t=367&p=1144#p1144


Good article, thanks Charlie. The endotoxin section is especially interesting. Perhaps then one would be best to eat any of their starches around 1 hour after the carrot salad?
 

charlie

The Law & Order Admin
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
12,368
Location
USA
Andrew Kim has released his second article in the series. In my opinion he has formed an excellent argument.

I have invited Paul Jaminet over to the debate, and I hope he accepts the offer.

Here is Andrew Kim's article part 2 of the series. Excellent job, Andrew!

viewtopic.php?f=49&t=375
 

charlie

The Law & Order Admin
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
12,368
Location
USA
Andrew advised me he has 3 more articles coming out in this series. Stay tuned.
 

Kemby

Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2012
Messages
63
Location
UK
Hi everyone,

(New here :):)

This subject about Starch Vs Sugar especially in relation to fructose still genuinely baffles me.

I read what Andrew Kim/ Danny Roddy/ Ray peat say and I read what Chris Kresser/Paul Jaminet say - All of them I respect massively.

What is confusing is that I do feel that both camps seem (To me) to make valid arguments.

Am I missing something?
 

charlie

The Law & Order Admin
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
12,368
Location
USA
Hi Martin, welcome to the forum. :greenwave

The deeper into the rabbit hole we go, the more confusing it becomes. :lol: :confused
 

Kemby

Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2012
Messages
63
Location
UK
His answer "There isn't enough information to judge, but a fair part of the carbohydrate should be in the form of sucrose, fructose, and/or lactose. If it's well cooked, and eaten with butter, it's probably safe for many people."

Thought I would chime in again!

The above quote made me think (It is from the thread on putting all things ray peat together and apologies, I cant remember who posted it!.

In the context of the ongoing argument debate between Paul Jaminet and Danny Roddy/Andrew Kim the above could potentially be some common meeting ground -

What if after having your one quart of orange juice a day or equivalent fruit (Which I believe is an amount Paul Jaminet would not have issue with as he himself eats a relatively similar equivalent) you make up the rest of the calories with milk (If tolerated etc)

Therefore you are actually still limiting fructose and getting the majority of calories from Lactose which is still preferentially targeted by the liver.

Am I missing something with the above? Magnesium/Potassium content of OJ perhaps? (This could be made up from less "Debate volatile" foods?)

Anecdotally for a long time the recommendation of drinking more milk for people wanting to put on more muscle works well.

I am not saying the above due to any belief that Ray Peats recommendation is wrong. I say it because this subject is still a good one with no clear definitive answer (If there could ever be one, ha!)

Martin
 

Kemby

Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2012
Messages
63
Location
UK
Chris Kresser recently published this http://chriskresser.com/ask-chris-is-fr ... y-that-bad after changing his views slightly on fructose.

I do wonder if this view change has been influenced by Ray Peats work and the fact that he is starting to get noticed (And clearly cannot be ignored) in the Paleo community. Regardless of the Paleo community views Ray Peats work can contribute a lot to further investigation of good nutritional habits.

Paul Jaminet advises limiting fructose and concentrating on starch for carbohydrates. He doesn't seem to necessarily have any issue with milk consumption in higher amounts if well tolerated.

I was interested to see if there was some common ground between Perfect Health Diet and Ray Peat template eating and milk might be it.

I find this interesting as there is so little between PHD and this format. Both Agree that PUFA and grains are not good. In regards to vegetables PHD only sees them as a condiment to meals which is close. PHD emphasises the importance of nutrient dense foods like eggs, liver, seafood, bone broth and seemingly dairy if well tolerated etc

I would love to see more of a discussion between these guys as there are many people, including me who are still genuinely undecided.
 

cliff

Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2012
Messages
425
Age
33
Location
Los Angeles
His blog post totally misses the point because he has never actually read ray peat's articles.

At the end he says "Given the known risks of fructose consumption" What are the known risks?

It would be cool if jaminet or kresser would actually try to debunk ray's articles on sugar but I doubt they are capable of that.
 

Similar threads

Top