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

[Kemby]

That is what has been confusing me a little.

He talks about frutose toxicity when in the presence of PUFA - Even tiny amounts? At what sort of level of pufa intake does that fructose pose a problem? Is there any research on this?

Lets say for example you have 1 Quart of OJ and two eggs for breakfast. Would that 1.4gm (Roughly) of PUFA in the eggs combined with the OJ cause a problem over time? Some sort of cumulative effect liver damage?

 

[cliff]

Glucose would probably cause even more damage in the situation of high pufa. Fructose would be protective through various mechanisms, the problem lies in how the research is interpreted.

 

[Kemby]

Thanks Cliff,

I am going to go and do some more reading!

Ps, Your Co2 Factor blog is great!

May I ask how old you are also? I just wanted to get into context with how you approach this way of eating in regards to your sport and wish to build more muscle (?).

Cheers,

Martin

 

[cliff]

I'm 24 but my mom has had major success with the diet basically curing an autoimmune eye disease, she's around 45.

 

[nwo2012]

What's the basis for preferring starch over sugar?

To increase endotoxin formation springs to mind. It's called the pro-toxin diet.

 

[charlie]

What's the basis for preferring starch over sugar?

To increase endotoxin formation springs to mind. It's called the pro-toxin diet.

So, are you saying I should throw that masa harina away that I just got?

 

[nwo2012]

What's the basis for preferring starch over sugar?

To increase endotoxin formation springs to mind. It's called the pro-toxin diet.

So, are you saying I should throw that masa harina away that I just got?

Not at all. By eating masa tortillas (or cakes ) every 2nd day or so we are consuming a safe starch. We are always cooking it in butter/coconut oil. We are always consuming fructose at the same time as it. So we have minimized potential toxicity of the starch. We are still choosing sugar as our main carb source. So all is good in Peat land.

 

[narouz]

Not at all. By eating masa tortillas (or cakes ) every 2nd day or so we are consuming a safe starch. We are always cooking it in butter/coconut oil. We are always consuming fructose at the same time as it. So we have minimized potential toxicity of the starch. We are still choosing sugar as our main carb source. So all is good in Peat land.

nwo2012-

As you may know
I'm very interested in this whole consideration of the place of starches in a Peat diet.
As someone who seems to have been at the Peat Thing for some time,
who does it with some rigor,
and who is more fearless than I with Peat-oriented drugs
(that drug that turned your sweat and therefore clothes yellow--whoa! )...

...let me ask you to express your general (or specific!) thoughts on
what are sometimes regarded as the preferred Peat starches
masa harina, potatoes, white rice.

Nutritionally speaking, what do you see as
the value of those (I'll call them) Peat starches?
I would think that there is no positive value in any remaining starch content.
Nor in the fiber content.

Now with The Strange Case of Potatoes,
especially our beloved RPPPS,
(Ray Peat Protein Potato Soup, for the uninitiated :) )
almost all the starch and fiber have been removed,
and then what little starch left is cooked for a long time
further defanging the evil starch.
So what one has left is,
according to Peat,
some good protein
and some really cool keto acids
(the reason for which they are cool we won't go into here).
And I guess some good carbohydrates...?

So I do see the positive value with specially Peat-treated potatoes.

What about masa harina?
Supposedly, according to Peat and experiments his students did,
treatment of the corn with lime renders the starch...non-harmful,
I guess one might put it.
His students ate the masa harina and then looked at their blood under microscopes
and did not observe any starch grains in their blood.
But what about the fiber?
And overall, with masa harina,
even if we accept that the starch is defanged,
I would still ask:
what is the general benefit of of eating masa harina?
Some good carbs?

White rice, boiled to death in lye as Peat instructs,
same questions.

So to return to my general question--
why eat the Peat preferred starches?...

...it would seem that,
except in the case of RPPPS,
there are not wonderful nutritional benefits,
especially relative to fruits,
and still--maybe, arguably--some negatives:
remaining starch perhaps,
and also the fiber issue.

So...is the reason for eating the Peat preferred starches
mostly
aesthetic?
Or sensual?

In other words,
do you eat them primarily because they taste (sensual) beautiful (aesthetic)?

 

[nwo2012]

Short answer, probably eat them more for taste and variety. And convenience when on the go (pre-made tortillas are portable easily, no refridgeration necessary). I dont know but my interpretation of RP's writings on 'safe' starches is that they will not cause adverse effects when used/cooked correctly. Maybe it is beneficial to keep some glucose in the diet, but I really cant say with any certainty. Can anyone?

 

[debbieyoung]

Yes, all of ray's articles on sugar.

Good one Cliff and I like your surfing video too! deb

 

[gretchen]

You know, fwiw, and I realize this won't add much to the discussion, I'm pretty sure I read 15 years ago in The Zone by Barry Sears that sugar does not trigger insulin and is therefore not as bad for you as starches like potatoes, rice, and bread. I'm not sure why this fact is so hard for people to grasp.

 

[Rachel]

Paul Jaminet responds to Andrew Kim's "Sugar vs Starch". Well, sort of.
Go here: http://www.latestinpaleo.com/blog/2012/ ... minet.html and scroll down a bit.

 

[charlie]

Rachel, thank you!

Well, I dunno. Hope Andrew, Cliff, or some others chime in.

The fructose thing and the excess heat kinda makes me wonder:

Kim seems to think it’s a good sign that “fructose ingestion induces thermogenesis”. However, in my view thermogenesis is a bad sign. It implies the presence of an energy excess (or a toxic macronutrient) which had to be disposed of. If you were providing only what the body needed, then your body would be quite happy to take in a minimum of calories and waste nothing. This is a general observation, I think the excess calorie utilization on some diets that has been dubbed “metabolic advantage” is really a health disadvantage; and the healthiest diet is the diet that eliminates hunger with the smallest calorie intake.

This seemed odd too:

I won’t go further through his whole series, I’ll just observe that it’s easy to go astray when you focus on molecular biomarkers, hormones, or short-term responses to meals. The body is a very complex organism and every change in one molecule or place ramifies through every other molecule and organ, and generates feedback effects. It is very risky to generalize from what happens to an individual molecule at a specific time or in a specific organ.

 

[cliff]

"think of uncoupled oxidative phosphorylation in terms of "subtle thermogenesis,"....."it has become clear that the "uncoupled" mitochondrion, that "wastes oxygen and calories," is protective against free radicals, cancer, and aging. Thyroid hormone and the absence of PUFA are important factors in supporting the "wasteful" mitochondrion. " -ray peat


"healthiest diet is the diet that eliminates hunger with the smallest calorie intake"
sounds like hypothyroidism

Paul's new reason why fructose is bad is endotoxin but he neglects to point out that he bases this mostly on studies done with pure fructose and studies done with orange juice shows it has no significant endotoxin response when compared to glucose and cream.

 

[kettlebell]

If you look at our book, very rarely do we mention any of the body’s hormones or intermediate signaling molecules and base any argument on their levels. We argue from evolutionary lines of argument, or from direct links between nutrients themselves and diseases. This greatly reduces the chances of going astray. - Paul Jaminet

I don't think that's necessarily a good thing.

From reading this response it begs the question, Has Mr Jaminet actually taken the time to read Ray Peats work, look at the research Mr Peat uses to validate his points and truly understand it. I may be wrong but it doesn't look like he has.

He is trying to critique something he likely doesn't fully understand. Most people still look at a pubmed study and take the conclusion as infallible. When I say that I mean he likely hasn't yet looked at the research he uses and asked the questions:
Has this research had any bias placed on it for any reason?
Do I understand the motives of the researchers and what they WANTED to find?
Who financed this research?
Are there any political influences at play?
Does the Conclusion actually reflect what was happening and what would have continued to happen in this study?
Has the data been interpreted properly or are there other alternative explanations?

Remember that a lot of research is carried out based on incorrect premise, tons of it so its doomed from the beginning and inevitably misinterpreted. So many studies have been cut short due to the fact that the people carrying them out see that the data they are collecting will not support what they were hoping for, an unbelievable amount of research ends this way. At the other end of the scale well planned research is panned before it has even started because people don't want to know what it will find.

I ask again, has he actually read Ray Peats work and understood it? As a man popular in the area of nutrition and health he certainly should have done considering Rays expertise in this area and the 40+ years he has dedicated to subject and those surrounding it (Physiology, endocrinology, biochemistry etc). He commands respect in so many ways but all of these supposed Nutritional experts are trying their hardest to ignore him or label him goodness knows what. Why is that? Are they afraid that if they actually read and understand it they will find it makes sense and is backed up by good clean science? Maybe

I realise Mr Jaminet is critiquing Andrew Kims writing here but still his writing reminds me of something my doctor would say to me, something based on research that backs up a lot of the current dogmatism in science where they don't truly understand everything at play.

 

[j.]

I think arguing from "evolutionary lines of argument", which includes a great deal of speculation and possibly made up stories, makes it more likely to make mistakes.

 

[Rachel]

I don't think that's necessarily a good thing.

From reading this response it begs the question, Has Mr Jaminet actually taken the time to read Ray Peats work, look at the research Mr Peat uses to validate his points and truly understand it. I may be wrong but it doesn't look like he has.

I concur.

 

[charlie]

Boom! Andrew Kim for the win.


http://www.andrewkimblog.com/2013/02/re ... .html#more

 

[chris]

Boom! Andrew Kim for the win.


http://www.andrewkimblog.com/2013/02/re ... .html#more

Very smart guy.

 

[charlie]

Indeed.