Peat Is Right About Starch

[Ritchie]

That's stretching out the definition of what a nutrient is. Ray has pointed out the importance of potassium in regulating blood sugar, which potatoes are full of and rice is not, for example.

Ray's position seems pretty coherent to me. Using your own dietary habits to dismiss the fact that starches, some more than others, cause huge spikes in blood sugar isn't exactly a sound approach. It's pretty well documented starches do that..... I haven't seen any reason to believe there isn't an insulin surge proportionate to it.


Anything I eat that requires me to eat something else to negate it's negative effects is always going to be inferior.

Perhaps look up the definition of "nutrient" and "nutrition"?

I've explained why I believe Ray's position on starch to be incoherent above, feel free to address those points if you like, would be curious to hear your responses to them...

Starches when consumed in complete isolation MAY spike blood sugar, but the same can be said about sugar and fruits/fruit juice soooo....... Not sure your point. Regarding potatoes, study designs showing a spike in blood sugar in humans upon consuming rice are also shown to exhibit the same blood sugar spike from potatoes when the methodology remains the same. Potatoes actually have a higher glycemic index than white rice. But personally I'm not concerned about that at all, they are both good sources of nutrition, and if eaten as part of a well rounded diet, what makes you think you need to be concerned about a slight raise in blood sugar upon consumption? Do you have the same fear when you consume sugar?
Also regarding potassium, not sure if you ever use chronometer but whenever I plug an average day of eating into it my potassium levels are always high, even if I don't eat potatoes on that particular day.

 

[ExCarniv]

If you eat a big steak and nothing else, you'll get a spike in blood sugar too.

Context is important and as Rat says, potatoes with saturated fat is good for most people unless you are extremely sick and have several gut issues.

 

[rei]

Peat based his position on starch on a couple of rat studies done decades ago. Those rats were fed UNCOOKED starch, and subsequently the researchers found issues with the way those rats digested the starch. LOL. There are literally so many issues with extrapolating anything from those studies into the human context. 1. They were rats, who have a very different metabolism and digestive system to humans. Any knowledgable scientist understands that animal studies are right at the bottom of the evidence hierarchy regardless of the methodology. 2. They were fed uncooked starch. Something humans virtually never eat for obvious reasons. 3. These results haven't been replicated in any powerfully designed human study, and in fact almost all research in the human context on cooked starch shows the opposite: that starch consumption is healthy and safe and forms a great source of nutrition. I mean, that Peat takes such a strong stance against starch based on very weak evidence, a lot of which is anecdotal, is quite surprising. Further, his general anti-starch position contradicts with other things he advocates for, such as potatoes. The fact is that starch is a condense form of glucose, and when cooked and eaten is used very effectively for energy by humans. Considering Peat advocates for a high energy diet, it is somewhat obvious that he is quite incoherent on the subject of starch.
Bottom line is that starch, when consumed in conjunction with other high energy foods such as sweet, juicy fruits and sugars, is a very important source of nutrition and energy, and can play a crucial role if one is striving for an optimally healthy, metabolism boosting, energising and well balanced diet.

You should try reading comprehension before using such accusatory language. RP does not recommend potatoes, he recommends them over most other forms of starch. You make same mistake as almost everyone unfamiliar with someone that does not try to sell you things. When RP says something positive about some food people think he recommends it. But you need to look at the context and realize that he does not recommend potato as anything but 'probably least unhealthy form of commonly consumed starchy foods'

 

[Inaut]

Somebody mentioned it maybe earlier in this thread but Kate Deering’s book is definitely worth the purchase. She simplifies the diet and ideal food combinations very well.

I think we (myself included) have a problem of taking what Peat says and rejigging it to how we feel about something. I like starch because of the way it makes me feel but there are so many factors that can lead to issues. Cooled starches give me
Digestive problems.

 

[Ritchie]

You should try reading comprehension before using such accusatory language. RP does not recommend potatoes, he recommends them over most other forms of starch. You make same mistake as almost everyone unfamiliar with someone that does not try to sell you things. When RP says something positive about some food people think he recommends it. But you need to look at the context and realize that he does not recommend potato as anything but 'probably least unhealthy form of commonly consumed starchy foods'

Yeah and my point is that Peat's position on starch is unfounded and incoherent. Unfounded in that it is based on some very dated rat studies with floored methodology which simply cannot be extrapolated into the human context. His main objection is based on this and the concern of presorption, for which there is really no solid evidence for. Incoherent in that starch is a dense source of energy (glucose) and Ray is constantly reinforcing the notion that eating enough energy dense foods is crucial to optimal metabolism, which makes complete sense and I completely agree with. Now before you start down the blood sugar spiking, high glycemic index evils of glucose without fructose, I am talking about consuming starch within the context of many other foods throughout the day (including fruits and sugars, fats, proteins) that completely neutralise any of those concerns, rendering starch as a very safe and energy dense food source. Now I agree with many things Peat says, it's just that his position on starch is a very weak one.
Further, you are wrong about Peat not recommending potatoes, he often does recommend them in the positive sense, not only for the energy they provide but he often talks about how they contain one of the most perfectly balanced amino acid profile proteins out of all foods.

 

[thomas00]

Perhaps look up the definition of "nutrient" and "nutrition"?

I've explained why I believe Ray's position on starch to be incoherent above, feel free to address those points if you like, would be curious to hear your responses to them...

Starches when consumed in complete isolation MAY spike blood sugar, but the same can be said about sugar and fruits/fruit juice soooo....... Not sure your point.
Regarding potatoes, study designs showing a spike in blood sugar in humans upon consuming rice are also shown to exhibit the same blood sugar spike from potatoes when the methodology remains the same. Potatoes actually have a higher glycemic index than white rice. But personally I'm not concerned about that at all, they are both good sources of nutrition, and if eaten as part of a well rounded diet, what makes you think you need to be concerned about a slight raise in blood sugar upon consumption? Do you have the same fear when you consume sugar?
Also regarding potassium, not sure if you ever use chronometer but whenever I plug an average day of eating into it my potassium levels are always high, even if I don't eat potatoes on that particular day.

I don't put sugar and starch in the same category so no, I don't really worry about it.

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

As far potatoes versus rice, if the studies revolve around the glycemic index then they are misleading.

No evidence for persportion? that's clearly flat out incorrect.

 

[ExCarniv]

Somebody mentioned it maybe earlier in this thread but Kate Deering’s book is definitely worth the purchase. She simplifies the diet and ideal food combinations very well.

I think we (myself included) have a problem of taking what Peat says and rejigging it to how we feel about something. I like starch because of the way it makes me feel but there are so many factors that can lead to issues. Cooled starches give me
Digestive problems.

Kate d

I don't put sugar and starch in the same category so no, I don't really worry about it.



As far potatoes versus rice, if the studies revolve around the glycemic index then they are misleading.

No evidence for persportion? that's clearly flat out incorrect.

So, when you eat starch, is recommended to pair it with fruit/juice?

 

[Ritchie]

I don't put sugar and starch in the same category so no, I don't really worry about it.



As far potatoes versus rice, if the studies revolve around the glycemic index then they are misleading.

No evidence for persportion? that's clearly flat out incorrect.

The studies show the same level of blood sugar elevation, irrespective of glycemic index. Have you looked into this blood sugar concern of yours at all? In terms of the actual science done on humans? As far as that quote from Peat, as I have said numerous times to you already, if you are consuming starch in the context of a well balanced and rounded diet that also contains fruits and sugars, proteins and fats then this will neutralise this concern of yours (and Peats from this quote) of issues with blood sugar spikes. Hope you can recognise the point.

Yeah, what's the evidence you've seen for presorption of cooked starch in humans? Do you mind posting some of it in response to this? I'd love to see it....

 

[Tenacity]

I find that is hard to reach high caloric demands without starch.

Every time I try a zero starch, I end eating less that I need as an active person.

How do you reach 2800-3000 calories without starch? Pretty hard without gorging on fat which is not ideal for me. (More than 60g of fat per day alongside high sugar is no bueno)

To reach that many calories without starch, you're either eating more fat than may be desirable, pounding liquids all day or eating a ton of white sugar or dried fruit. None of those seem very ideal to me.

 

[CLASH]

Any starches that arent boiled would be a persorption concern. boiled starch doesnt persorb:
Persorption of vegetable food particles

"Boiled starch granules lose their persorbability."

The main issue with starches is the feeding of pathogens in the colon in someone with a dysbiosis. Also, if not using tubers than starches are often much poorer in nutritional quality than fruits and juice. Grains and beans are a pitiful source of nutrition in comparison to fruit and tubers. Lastly, sucrose or glucose and fructose conbinations maintain blood sugar higher for longer without a large spike, this is a decided advantage over starch. This is due to fructose being converted to glucose by the liver slowly, keeping the blood sugar levels slightly elevated. When taken in by fruit, with fiber, nutrients and polyphenols, there is an overwhelming benefit. In the context of a meal with fat and protein, this is somewhat less important.

If not eating starch, fat is definetly needed. The fat phobia on this forum is ridiculous tho, borderline ideology rather than based on any actual objective information under the guise of the holy "randle cycle". If someone has a gut issue, a fruit juice, fruit and saturated fat based diet will do much more for them than a starch based diet, especially one consisting of harder to digest starches like most tubers. Fruit juice and certain fruits are much easier to digest overall. In reality humans are ape descendants that evolved to eat meat/ fats, tubers and in some cultures dairy.

 

[ExCarniv]

To reach that many calories without starch, you're either eating more fat than may be desirable, pounding liquids all day or eating a ton of white sugar or dried fruit. None of those seem very ideal to me.

This is true at least for me, with the addition of carrot salad and gelatin, my gut is very good handle starches now, I'm looking for nutritious/metabolic foods that warm me up and help me to get better sleep, potatoes is one of them, I don't follow dogmas.

 

[Zpol]

When I think about a zero starch diet, I think about Dr. Sydney Haas and Elaine Gottschall. Ray Peat comes to mind only as an afterthought because from what I have researched the aforementioned two have more supporting information and experience implementing a zero starch diet. Ray Peat has additional supporting information on the topic which is helpful and may be just what some people need to be confident enough to self test the approach. Dr. Haas (a NY based pediatrician) could be considered the pioneer of the starch free diet as he started prescribing the diet in 1951 and since has treated over 600 children with Celiac, UC, and Crohn's. He called it the 'banana diet' at the time since he observed that bananas made a good replacement for other typical starchy foods. He also thought the high fruit sugar content of bananas was valuable and even healing for the children he was treating since they often came to him emaciated, malnourished, and in need of lots of calories from sugar. He specified that the bananas must, absolutely must, be extremely ripe. The rest of the diet he prescribed was in line with RP suggestions as well; it was a low fat, high carb, easy to digest diet that consisted of albumin milk, pot cheese, bananas, oranges, vegetables, gelatin, and meat.

He was disheartened when the research into Celiac shifted to indicate gluten as the main inflammatory constituent of wheat and continued to insist it is the starch component that is the problem. He considered research into gluten a "disservice." Dr. Haas treated over 600 children during his practice and worked into his 90's. Much of his research was published in a book called 'Management of Celiac Disease' which he co-authored with his son (not sure how much of it is peer reviewed since can't get hold of it). Elaine Gottschall took the starch free diet to another level, in some ways good and some ways bad. She did make a list of legal and illegal foods and emphasized strict avoidance of additives including thickeners and flow agents (carrageenan, gums, etc). But unfortunately added in some things that aren't so great like nut butters for example and lessened the emphasis on high fruit carb consumption. Her diet is less strict than Dr. Haas but is more inclusive of hard to digest things like vegetables and even some beans. But it's still effective for many people due to it being zero starch.
Link to research can be found here.

Personally, zero starch has saved my life. I have Celiac and I was degenerating fast, my organs weren't functioning, my mind was waning, I thought I would not survive and was too sick to even care. At the time I was following Peat principles as much as possible but avoiding foods that were allergenic to me specifically and could barely keep food down (I was strict GF already for years). Oddly, well cooked starches seemed to be good for me at the time, my temps would go up and my stomach would not hurt any worse than normal when I ate a bowl of well cooked potatoes or rice slathered in butter. I was very mislead by this. I had reduced this meal to evenings only so to maximize high protein and OJ in the daytime meals, but even this small amount of starch per day was keeping me in the state of inflammation and high endotoxin. After I cut that out my health reversed and now I'm getting better every day. A couple days after I quit starch I had a drastic decline in the stomach pain I experienced everyday for years. About a week in, that pain came back with a vengeance and I collapsed on my kitchen floor. My boyfriend said that maybe it's a 'healing crisis' or 'Herximer reaction' and I decided wait till morning and then decide if I should go to urgent care. The next day, better! And continually better since that day. That was about 7 months ago and now I'm back working my normal shift at work and hanging with family and friends.

 

[Cirion]

Very cool! Can you expand on your overall diet nowadays? How much sugar a day?

 

[Ritchie]

Any starches that arent boiled would be a persorption concern. boiled starch doesnt persorb:
Persorption of vegetable food particles

"Boiled starch granules lose their persorbability."

This study doesn't count as evidence of presorption of starch in humans. It is an animal study, quoted from the study you linked :"rats, rabbits, chickens, guinea-pigs, dogs and pigs were fed starch suspensions, or the latter were given by gastric or rectal tube." We are non of these animals, have a very different digestive system and metabolism, and have evolved very differently than all of them. And, in case it isn't obvious, we don't consume starch via a gastric tube, or a rectal tube lol.. Consumption of starch in humans is a highly evolved and well conducted process, beginning with our saliva with a specifically evolved enzyme called amylase that breaks down the starch into sugar from the very moment it comes into contact with our mouth.
It baffles me that so many people on this forum take animal studies like this and completely extrapolate them to the human context to the point that they feel comfortable making solid conclusions from them. Animal studies are at the absolute bottom of any scientific evidence hierarchy, they can point to some interesting things to explore further in humans, but they don't tell us anything at all conclusively about humans. It has been shown ad infinitum in science that things discovered through animal studies bare no resemblance to the human context, and often are shown to have the complete opposite or completely different results when studied in humans. Hence why animal studies are considered so low on the evidence chain in science. Particularly when it comes to something as nuanced as human digestion. To show evidence of presorption of starch in humans, it needs to be a study showing presorption of starch in humans lol. Not in rats, rabbits, chickens, guinea pigs, dogs and pigs.. and not via rectal tubes.

 

[ExCarniv]

This study doesn't count as evidence of presorption of starch in humans. It is an animal study, quoted from the study you linked :"rats, rabbits, chickens, guinea-pigs, dogs and pigs were fed starch suspensions, or the latter were given by gastric or rectal tube." We are non of these animals, have a very different digestive system and metabolism, and have evolved very differently than all of them. And, in case it isn't obvious, we don't consume starch via a gastric tube, or a rectal tube lol.. Consumption of starch in humans is a highly evolved and well conducted process, beginning with our saliva with a specifically evolved enzyme called amylase that breaks down the starch into sugar from the very moment it comes into contact with our mouth.
It baffles me that so many people on this forum take animal studies like this and completely extrapolate them to the human context to the point that they feel comfortable making solid conclusions from them. Animal studies are at the absolute bottom of any scientific evidence hierarchy, they can point to some interesting things to explore further in humans, but they don't tell us anything at all conclusively about humans. It has been shown ad infinitum in science that things discovered through animal studies bare no resemblance to the human context, and often are shown to have the complete opposite or completely different results when studied in humans. Hence why animal studies are considered so low on the evidence chain in science. Particularly when it comes to something as nuanced as human digestion. To show evidence of presorption of starch in humans, it needs to be a study showing presorption of starch in humans lol. Not in rats, rabbits, chickens, guinea pigs, dogs and pigs.. and not via rectal tubes.

There's are some Peat influenced people out there like Christopher Walker or Stan Efferding,while follow lots of Peat ideas, all share that starch like potatoes and white rice are safe for most people unless a serious disease involved.

We evolved to eat starches, and what wrecked us up was clearly oxidized PUFAs, fried foods, iron overload due to food fortification, and whole non sprouted non fermented grains.

 

[CLASH]

@Ritchie

Haha they most certainly do count.

-Half of those animals are more "evolved" to digest starch than we are.

-Our GI tracts are most similar to pigs overall, we are not "very different".

-the article's author is volkheimer who if I recall correctly has found persorption in humans.

I wont even go into the argument of the value of animal studies. However, considering this context, the fact that boiling prevented starch persorption in these animals, I would assume it would also prevent it in humans so I have no idea why you went to such length to discuss the lack of value of animal studies.

 

[Ritchie]

Haha they most certainly do count.

Perhaps look up the scientific evidence hierarchy and take a look at the rationale behind why animal studies are so low on the scale of what good evidence is within the human context.. this is well established within the scientific discipline mate. Animal studies can show interesting areas to explore within humans however cannot be drawn on as conclusive evidence for humans.

-Half of those animals are more "evolved" to digest starch than we are.

Lol ok. Point is we are very different in many ways, so to establish that humans should be concerned at all about presorption of cooked starch (boiled, baked or other), one would have to establish that as evidence in humans.

Our GI tracts are most similar to pigs overall, we are not "very different".

No mate, we are different and if we want to draw any definitive conclusions for nuances and particulars within human digestion, then humans is what we need to study and find evidence for. The study you posted bases it's conclusions on not only pigs but rats, rabbits, chickens, guinea-pigs and dogs. The point is that there are crucial differences throughout the whole digestive process that without researching it in the human context can make all the difference to any conclusions the scientists are attempting to make from this study within the human context. Besides, they drew their conclusions by inserting starch into the rectum of these animals via tubes lol how is that at all relevant to the normal eating/consumption of starch in humans. Maybe that's how you consume your potatoes?

-the article's author is volkheimer who if I recall correctly has found persorption in humans.

Ok, well please present it, that's quite important to this discussion haha... If there is evidence in humans then don't you think that would be better to show than this study?

I wont even go into the argument of the value of animal studies. However, considering this context, the fact that boiling prevented starch persorption in these animals, I would assume it would also prevent it in humans so I have no idea why you went to such length to discuss the lack of value of animal studies.

Haha they inserted boiled and or dry cooked starch suspensions into the animals' rectal tubes. I mean the ridiculousness of this as a means of drawing any conclusions. Can you imagine the scientists standing there pushing starch particles up a dog's arse or a pig's arse or a chicken's arse and then checking their blood a bit later and finding traces of those starch particles, and then concluding based on that, that presorption of starch is a concern humans should have lol you seriously consider that good evidence for the conclusions you are attempting to draw? If so good luck to you.

 

[thomas00]

I'm not at all swayed by the argument that those studies are invalid because they are in animals. Even nixtamalized corn fails to gelatinize which seems to be a prerequisite for persorption, contrary to what Ray says.

Anyway:

[Safe use of microcrystalline cellulose in low-calorie foods].
[Article in German]
Seidemann J.
Abstract
The problems arising in using microcrystalline cellulose in the food industry are outlined. Like starch granules, microcrystalline cellulose is also persorbed by the human and animal organism. As long as the problem persists whether persorption is a normal, everyday process or a process which is detrimental in the long run, the statement that the use of greater amounts of microcrystalline cellulose for foods and pharmaceutical products is absolutely safe should be carefully examined.


[Safe use of microcrystalline cellulose in low-calorie foods]. - PubMed - NCBI



Kitasato Arch Exp Med. 1990 Apr;63(1):1-6.
[The Herbst-Volkheimer effect].
[Article in German]
Prokop O1.
Author information

Abstract
More than 150 years ago the foundations were laid for the so-called HERBST effect which was subsequently forgotten. In the sixties the phenomenon was rediscovered by VOLKHEIMER at the Charité Hospital in Berlin and then reviewed through many experiments and publications. What is meant by the HERBST effect? If an experimental animal or even human being is given a larger amount of maize starch or also biscuits or some other products containing starch, starch bodies can be detected rapidly in venous blood already after minutes or half an hour later and in the urine after one hour and later. The term "persorption" has been coined for this interesting phenomenon. It is indeed surprising that it has met with so little attention. As a matter of fact, it constitutes the basis for our understanding of peroral immunization and of allergies. In the same way, feeding of carbon particles results in their appearance and detection in blood, kidney and urine. The same result is obtained by the intake of diatoms and what is even more important with meat fibres. I hope you are aware of the implications. When Professor NAGAI stayed in Berlin, we tried to receive the phenomenon. Since only a few cell nuclei are necessary for "genetic fingerprinting" we thought that after intake of 200 or 400 g of raw meat the type of food eaten could be determined from the urinary sediment by means of the fingerprint method which would be of forensic significance. Therefore, we eat meat and raw liver and examined the urinary sediment.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS).

[The Herbst-Volkheimer effect]. - PubMed - NCBI

 

[Ritchie]

I'm not at all swayed by the argument that those studies are invalid because they are in animals. Even nixtamalized corn fails to gelatinize which seems to be a prerequisite for persorption, contrary to what Ray says.

Anyway:

[Safe use of microcrystalline cellulose in low-calorie foods].
[Article in German]
Seidemann J.
Abstract
The problems arising in using microcrystalline cellulose in the food industry are outlined. Like starch granules, microcrystalline cellulose is also persorbed by the human and animal organism. As long as the problem persists whether persorption is a normal, everyday process or a process which is detrimental in the long run, the statement that the use of greater amounts of microcrystalline cellulose for foods and pharmaceutical products is absolutely safe should be carefully examined.


[Safe use of microcrystalline cellulose in low-calorie foods]. - PubMed - NCBI



Kitasato Arch Exp Med. 1990 Apr;63(1):1-6.
[The Herbst-Volkheimer effect].
[Article in German]
Prokop O1.
Author information

Abstract
More than 150 years ago the foundations were laid for the so-called HERBST effect which was subsequently forgotten. In the sixties the phenomenon was rediscovered by VOLKHEIMER at the Charité Hospital in Berlin and then reviewed through many experiments and publications. What is meant by the HERBST effect? If an experimental animal or even human being is given a larger amount of maize starch or also biscuits or some other products containing starch, starch bodies can be detected rapidly in venous blood already after minutes or half an hour later and in the urine after one hour and later. The term "persorption" has been coined for this interesting phenomenon. It is indeed surprising that it has met with so little attention. As a matter of fact, it constitutes the basis for our understanding of peroral immunization and of allergies. In the same way, feeding of carbon particles results in their appearance and detection in blood, kidney and urine. The same result is obtained by the intake of diatoms and what is even more important with meat fibres. I hope you are aware of the implications. When Professor NAGAI stayed in Berlin, we tried to receive the phenomenon. Since only a few cell nuclei are necessary for "genetic fingerprinting" we thought that after intake of 200 or 400 g of raw meat the type of food eaten could be determined from the urinary sediment by means of the fingerprint method which would be of forensic significance. Therefore, we eat meat and raw liver and examined the urinary sediment.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS).

[The Herbst-Volkheimer effect]. - PubMed - NCBI

Why would you link a study about "microcrystalline cellulose" when the discussion is about starch?
The author in the abstract just asserting that starch is presorbed in reference to a series of very floored animal studies done in the sixties doesn't make it the case in humans. Let's see the actual study showing it to be the case in humans, I'd like to see it along with the study design and methodology.. But let me guess, it's proving pretty difficult to find a study showing evidence of cooked starch presorption when consumed by humans isn't it...
Further, this Herbst-Volkheimer study seems to be looking at presorption of meat, not starch.

 

[thomas00]

If one material can be persorbed I see no good reason to believe other materials are so unique that they can't be. That isn't demonstrated in the animal studies.


I can't read German and don't have access to the full texts so it's true I'm putting some degree of trust in them. I don't think it is misplaced though.