Persorption Of Starch?

[Such_Saturation]

He's always bringin' The Truth.
Like The Donald.
And of course like...

He tried no-starch. But will you is the question...

 

[Westside PUFAs]

Starch is a poor mans food and of last resort when quality fruit is unavoidable.

This is just your elitist/western/"biohack" aka pro-ketone lifestyle view, it doesn't actually refute the statements about starch and human health. You will then say "calling me elitist doesn't change the fact that fruit is better than starch" but I still disagree. Even if I lived in the tropics and had access to good fruit I would still consume tropical tubers like taro, cassava etc.. Starch offers greater satiety than fruit and provides longer lasting energy, and a steady supply of glucose. Fruit is burned off much quicker. Tubers, squashes,and grains may also provide undiscovered/unstudied nutrients like ecdysteroids:

http://www.ergo-log.com/quinoa.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11368638

and offer things that fruit may not.

Yes, unavailable.

You seem offended. If you can't afford enough fruit for yourself and your family, then a solution is to figure out a way to earn more and/or move to a country where you income goes further. Peat moved to mexico. Luck has nothing to do with it.

It is the last resort as your next best alternative is grain. Once you're in the land of grains, you're no longer in the realm of Peat.

Peat visits Mexico, he doesn't live there. Relocating just to eat fruit is not necessary when one can simply eat starch. Yes, because it is so easy to find ripe, fresh, sweet, quality, organic corossol, lychee, longan, guaba, papaya, pawpaw, sapota, guanoabana. Totally easy. Those are all available 24/7/365 in all American grocery stores. And of course they are cheap. And of course they never ever have mold or rotting holes in them because they're stressed from being shipped (Peat mentioned that). I'm being sarcastic. Watch high carb vegans who go to Thailand on YouTube. Even they have trouble finding ripe quality fruit in the tropics. They are there and it's still hard to get and it takes a lot of time and effort to learn the tricks of the trade of fruit bartering. A lot of money will be wasted on bad fruit. I would do it because I eat high carb low fat but most wouldn't. It is stupid to sit around and magically hope that one day someone who lives in the west will all of sudden have a magical tropical fruit orchard at their disposal when they have quality starch available right now. But like I said above, it's not just an access/money thing. That is one factor but it's not the main one in the context of starch and human health. The Polynesians brought taro, a starchy tuber, to Hawaii for a reason and they were in the tropics. They understood just like all of the others, what starch offered them. I think the availability of ripe fruit in nature shown as often hard to get even in the tropics, is evidence of starch being the better/more important carbohydrate for humans. Fruit has it's role but sweet potato also has fructose.

As far as the realm of Peat, this thread is made up of excerpts from other threads and was originally in a non-Peat section. But it seems the structure of the threads is always changing as they figure out how they want to do it.

I'm not interested in what groups of people have eaten, or do eat, and their level of health.

I'm interested in understanding how the body works and maximising its function and where necessary, modifying it to suit myself. This is what Peat looks at and why he suggests things like keeping the gut as sterile as possible and avoiding starch.

I'm interested in living to 200 years or longer, while feeling like I'm 18, while you're all wasting time looking at populations eating x and y hoping to replicate a disease free ride to the grave.

You will not live to 200. Not even close to it. More likely to be around 75-85. Don't hold your breath. The Peat gut-sterile thing you said ignores the nuance, like many people do. Peat has said that if the starch is well cooked, and of course it is because only a moron would eat uncooked starch, and consumed with a little fat then it is "safe." He's also said that it's the whole phenomena of low thyroid which then causes the whole system, especially the digestive system to slow down by not producing enough enzymes and everything else. It's not just "starch" that can cause problems when digestion is poor, everything can and will cause problems in that state.

I'm digging this new csp

New? This is the same argument we've had many a time before. This whole thing is getting boring but I still feel the need to respond. You chime in with your one liners but you, like many others, never actually refute anything of the topic discussed.

 

[Such_Saturation]

New? This is the same argument we've had many a time before. This whole thing is getting boring but I still feel the need to respond. You chime in with your one liners but you, like many others, never actually refute anything of the topic discussed.

I dunno I just only remember ad hominems from that user, I thought it was refreshing... I'm bored as well, by the way.

 

[cantstoppeating]

This is just your elitist/western/"biohack" aka pro-ketone lifestyle view, it doesn't actually refute the statements about starch and human health. You will then say "calling me elitist doesn't change the fact that fruit is better than starch" but I still disagree. Even if I lived in the tropics and had access to good fruit I would still consume tropical tubers like taro, cassava etc.. Starch offers greater satiety than fruit and provides longer lasting energy, and a steady supply of glucose. Fruit is burned off much quicker. Tubers, squashes,and grains may also provide undiscovered/unstudied nutrients like ecdysteroids:

http://www.ergo-log.com/quinoa.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11368638

and offer things that fruit may not.



Peat visits Mexico, he doesn't live there. Relocating just to eat fruit is not necessary when one can simply eat starch. Yes, because it is so easy to find ripe, fresh, sweet, quality, organic corossol, lychee, longan, guaba, papaya, pawpaw, sapota, guanoabana. Totally easy. Those are all available 24/7/365 in all American grocery stores. And of course they are cheap. And of course they never ever have mold or rotting holes in them because they're stressed from being shipped (Peat mentioned that). I'm being sarcastic. Watch high carb vegans who go to Thailand on YouTube. Even they have trouble finding ripe quality fruit in the tropics. They are there and it's still hard to get and it takes a lot of time and effort to learn the tricks of the trade of fruit bartering. A lot of money will be wasted on bad fruit. I would do it because I eat high carb low fat but most wouldn't. It is stupid to sit around and magically hope that one day someone who lives in the west will all of sudden have a magical tropical fruit orchard at their disposal when they have quality starch available right now. But like I said above, it's not just an access/money thing. That is one factor but it's not the main one in the context of starch and human health. The Polynesians brought taro, a starchy tuber, to Hawaii for a reason and they were in the tropics. They understood just like all of the others, what starch offered them. I think the availability of ripe fruit in nature shown as often hard to get even in the tropics, is evidence of starch being the better/more important carbohydrate for humans. Fruit has it's role but sweet potato also has fructose.

As far as the realm of Peat, this thread is made up of excerpts from other threads and was originally in a non-Peat section. But it seems the structure of the threads is always changing as they figure out how they want to do it.



You will not live to 200. Not even close to it. More likely to be around 75-85. Don't hold your breath. The Peat gut-sterile thing you said ignores the nuance, like many people do. Peat has said that if the starch is well cooked, and of course it is because only a moron would eat uncooked starch, and consumed with a little fat then it is "safe." He's also said that it's the whole phenomena of low thyroid which then causes the whole system, especially the digestive system to slow down by not producing enough enzymes and everything else. It's not just "starch" that can cause problems when digestion is poor, everything can and will cause problems in that state.



New? This is the same argument we've had many a time before. This whole thing is getting boring but I still feel the need to respond. You chime in with your one liners but you, like many others, never actually refute anything of the topic discussed.

I'm not bothered in the slightest about the economic realities of consuming fruit as one's sugar source. My statement still holds: starch is a poor mans sugar when ripe fruit isn't available.

 

[Westside PUFAs]

I'm not bothered in the slightest about the economic realities of consuming fruit as one's sugar source. My statement still holds: starch is a poor mans sugar when ripe fruit isn't available.

I knew you would say that which is why I provided scientific examples that have nothing to do with economics/availability. You still have not refuted those specifc topics. Your statement is your statement, it doesn't actually refute anything I've posted in this thread about starch and human health and the studies above. You can not see the difference between fruit and starch as it relates to the functioning of the body in a weird way as if one chose not to see the difference between cow muscle and fish muscle or the different cuts of meats from different parts of the animal, both are protein but they are different. Nuance nutrition.

 

[cantstoppeating]

I knew you would say that which is why I provided scientific examples that have nothing to do with economics/availability. You still have not refuted those specifc topics. Your statement is your statement, it doesn't actually refute anything I've posted in this thread about starch and human health and the studies above. You can not see the difference between fruit and starch as it relates to the functioning of the body in a weird way as if one chose not to see the difference between cow muscle and fish muscle or the different cuts of meats from different parts of the animal, both are protein but they are different. Nuance nutrition.

Have you thought about being a fortune teller?

 

[cantstoppeating]

I knew you would say that which is why I provided scientific examples that have nothing to do with economics/availability. You still have not refuted those specifc topics. Your statement is your statement, it doesn't actually refute anything I've posted in this thread about starch and human health and the studies above. You can not see the difference between fruit and starch as it relates to the functioning of the body in a weird way as if one chose not to see the difference between cow muscle and fish muscle or the different cuts of meats from different parts of the animal, both are protein but they are different. Nuance nutrition.

And btw, if you're still struggling with satiety and Peating try full-fat non-homogenised milk with fruit. My stint of experimenting with potatoes was largely driven by my lack of satiety while consuming OJ and low-fat milk and it seems others hold similar experiences.

Lower overall calories if you're trying to lose weight while keeping a 20/30/50 split (fat, protein and carb, respectively) which is easy to do with full-fat non-homogenised milk, fruit and gelatin.

 

[Westside PUFAs]

Full fat milk is not "Peating." When you drink full fat milk, you're no longer in the realm of Peat. And I don't wanna do that anyway because I don't want high blood glucose, the chest fat version of gyno, and the elusive male whole milk gut. Sally Fallon drinks whole milk and look at her...ad hominem, I know.

 

[cantstoppeating]

Full fat milk is not "Peating." When you drink full fat milk, you're no longer in the realm of Peat.

I forgot; you're unable to do something unless there's a Peat quote (that you can take out of context) instructing you. Cmon, don't be myopic.Try it for 2 weeks and get back to us.

When you drink full fat milk, you're no longer in the realm of Peat. And I don't wanna do that anyway because I don't want high blood glucose, the chest fat version of gyno, and the elusive male whole milk gut. Sally Fallon drinks whole milk and look at her...ad hominem, I know.

OK, let me speak your language.

There's a tribe of people called the Masai, who drink milk straight from the udder of cows. Here's a picture of them. As you can see, one such individual is so buoyant after drinking full-fat non-homogenised milk he felt the the need to expend his jubilance by jumping into the air. You too can be as lean and buoyant as these people if you drank full-fat non-homogenised milk.

 

[narouz]

He tried no-starch. But will you is the question...

I did the no-starch thing for a long good while.
I was doing well healthwise on it until...I wasn't.

Well...it perhaps is not that clear-cut.
I had drifted into a phase of making coconut oil french fries almost every evening.
Drinking a lot of Cokes.
And eating a small commercial steak every other evening or so.

Something went south with my gut and health.
Don't know what exactly.

But even before that turn for the bad
and during my no-starching era,
I had a coated tongue most of the time
and not-so-great poops.

About 3 or 4 years ago, about the time I started Peating,
I had an appendectomy.
So I don't have an appendix.
And I've dabbled with antibiotics ala Peat.

I've come back about half way to good health
and it seems the central thing responsible is my consumption of certain probiotics.
I also started eating some starches--along Peat guidelines for "safety."
S. boulardii and Nystatin have been the key supps.
Both kill yeast/fungus.
I can't seem to escape the conclusion that yeast/fungi is the underlying culprit.

So I entirely agree that Peat is indeed clearly down on starches
when it comes to an optimal health diet.
And I did try it pretty strictly and thoroughly.
Did it lead to my troubles?
I can't honestly say I know.
But it is an open question for me.

It could be that those without appendixes might not do well on a strict Peat diet.
Because there is no back-up reservoir of replenishing gut goodguy critters.
And then if one takes antibiotics in that situation...

So my experience might just be a specific area--a problem for strict Peaters without an appendix.
Or, it could be that Peat has oversimplified the idea of the healthy microbiome--
that we should always be aiming for the least bacteria the better.

Seems to me there's a possibility he could be wrong about that.
He himself has said that a healthy gut depends upon an evolved balance amongst bacteria.
But he doesn't seem to seriously and carefully trace out the implications of that basic notion.
If a balance is necessary, then can we play an active role in that balancing through diet and supplements?
Might foods containing certain starches (FOS, etc) helpfully feed and cultivate desirable bacteria?
Peat doesn't seem open-minded or interested in his own enunciated premise (balance is necessary).
He seems to just think that gut bacteria are there to be killed or starved.
Maybe he's right.
I don't know.

 

[Such_Saturation]

Well narouz I'm not saying no-starch will do anything to the tongue or stool, but also chips and CAFO steaks aren't exactly a minor detail if we wish to give this no-starch thing some dignity.

 

[cantstoppeating]

You (Such_Saturation) chime in with your one liners but you, like many others, never actually refute anything of the topic discussed.

A slight degression:

Owners and promoters of nightclubs have an interesting strategy when striving to have a profitable night. Promoters mentally put all the people coming to the club into two groups. Group one is full of the "VIPs" and otherwise wealthy people who contribute the most financial value to the club. They buy bottle service and tables. Group two are the "fillers", these are the people who fill in the gaps left by the people in Group one. They don't buy bottle service or tables, they buy single drinks and don't contribute much other than to the general atmosphere in the club.

The strategy for a successful club is remarkably similar to the strategy of a successful forum. Guess which group Such_Saturation belongs to.

 

[Such_Saturation]

A slight degression:

Owners and promoters of nightclubs have an interesting strategy when striving to have a profitable night. Promoters mentally put all the people coming to the club into two groups. Group one is full of the "VIPs" and otherwise wealthy people who contribute the most financial value to the club. They buy bottle service and tables. Group two are the "fillers", these are the people who fill in the gaps left by the people in Group one. They don't buy bottle service or tables, they buy single drinks and don't contribute much other than to the general atmosphere in the club.

The strategy for a successful club is remarkably similar to the strategy of a successful forum. Guess which group Such_Saturation belongs to.

I never thought about that. They're just there to make the club look full? Keep in mind that not everyone can be rich and VIP or "important" would lose meaning. So I must be here looking for answers, so to speak.

 

[tca300]

I forgot; you're unable to do something unless there's a Peat quote (that you can take out of context) instructing you. Cmon, don't be myopic.Try it for 2 weeks and get back to us.



OK, let me speak your language.

There's a tribe of people called the Masai, who drink milk straight from the udder of cows. Here's a picture of them. As you can see, one such individual is so buoyant after drinking full-fat non-homogenised milk he felt the the need to expend his jubilance by jumping into the air. You too can be as lean and buoyant as these people if you drank full-fat non-homogenised milk.
View attachment 2007

The milk they drink is much higher in fat compared to American cows milk as well.

 

[bobbybobbob]

When you drink full fat milk, you're no longer in the realm of Peat.

He puts cream in his coffee, and he drinks a lot of coffee...

 

[tca300]

This is a recent email from Ray when I asked about how much Fat to have in the diet

"Sometimes a person’s digestion is better with a little more fat, but if a person is getting enough of the fat soluble vitamins (A,D,E,K) 8% is probably enough. If the fat is saturated, I think a much higher percentage of the diet would be o.k., and can be compatible with weight control. When I ate a lot of coconut oil, as well as a moderate amount of butterfat, my total fat intake was about 50% of my calories, but I didn’t gain any weight."

 

[Westside PUFAs]

I forgot; you're unable to do something unless there's a Peat quote (that you can take out of context) instructing you. Cmon, don't be myopic.Try it for 2 weeks and get back to us.

How is a caller asking a direct question to Dr. Peat and him then answering taking him out of context? The context is clear. It's right there. The person asked and Peat answered:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8o8GvyGRYc

It's also contradictory of you to say that because while you do not "quote" Peat like I do, you simply claim that what you're doing is "Peating."

OK, let me speak your language.

There's a tribe of people called the Masai, who drink milk straight from the udder of cows. Here's a picture of them. As you can see, one such individual is so buoyant after drinking full-fat non-homogenised milk he felt the the need to expend his jubilance by jumping into the air. You too can be as lean and buoyant as these people if you drank full-fat non-homogenised milk.

Masai debunked here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnXF4qgrg5Q&list=PLsUgZnrBSuaoCJ9_m4w2QCPUk92cupt_h&index=4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWW92sgse6s&list=PLsUgZnrBSuaoCJ9_m4w2QCPUk92cupt_h&index=5

He puts cream in his coffee, and he drinks a lot of coffee...

Do I really have to keep posting the same low fat milk quotes and the infamous "A lot of people think I recommend whole milk, which I don't" quote? The answer is clearly yes, as many high fat lovers choose to ignore those quotes or they simply haven't read/listened to enough material.

"I’ve mentioned at times I’ve averaged over the years probably a gallon of milk a day but that’s always been 1% milk because even at 2 quarts of milk, a person doesn’t want to have whole milk at 3 or 4% fat." - RP

Josh Rubin then says: "What’s interesting is when you say those things, I don’t think you realize the repercussions. You have all these people walking around trying to drink gallons of milk but they’re drinking whole milk and their like “Why am I gaining so much weight…(Peat and Josh laughing) listen here: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=7204&p=89863#p89863

"For people who aren't very active, low fat milk and cheese are better, because the extra fat calories aren't needed." - RP

"The fats in meat and cheese can be minimized by choosing low fat types, and skimmed or 1% milk can be used." - RP

"but the first thing should be to make sure her calcium to phosphorus ratio is good, by having two quarts of low fat milk per day, or the equivalent in low fat cheese, with no grains, legumes, nuts, or muscle meats, and with some well cooked greens regularly." - RP

"For people who don't do hard physical labor, low-fat milk is appropriate." - RP

“I have heard from several people that they think I recommend drinking whole milk, which I don't, because the amount of fat in whole milk is very likely to be fattening when a person is using it to get the needed protein and calcium. When a person wants to lose excess fat, limiting the diet to low fat milk, eggs, orange juice, and a daily carrot or two, will provide the essential nutrients without excess calories.” - RP

 

[Westside PUFAs]

"Sometimes a person’s digestion is better with a little more fat, but if a person is getting enough of the fat soluble vitamins (A,D,E,K) 8% is probably enough. If the fat is saturated, I think a much higher percentage of the diet would be o.k., and can be compatible with weight control. When I ate a lot of coconut oil, as well as a moderate amount of butterfat, my total fat intake was about 50% of my calories, but I didn’t gain any weight."

I doubt he said "much" in much higher in that sentence. Even still, he's been taking thyroid since 1972. Most people would not be able to burn that fat off as energy instead of storing it without taking thyroid. Do you mind forwarding that email to me?

 

[cantstoppeating]

...

"For people who aren't very active, low fat milk and cheese are better, because the extra fat calories aren't needed." - RP

"The fats in meat and cheese can be minimized by choosing low fat types, and skimmed or 1% milk can be used." - RP

"but the first thing should be to make sure her calcium to phosphorus ratio is good, by having two quarts of low fat milk per day, or the equivalent in low fat cheese, with no grains, legumes, nuts, or muscle meats, and with some well cooked greens regularly." - RP

"For people who don't do hard physical labor, low-fat milk is appropriate." - RP

“I have heard from several people that they think I recommend drinking whole milk, which I don't, because the amount of fat in whole milk is very likely to be fattening when a person is using it to get the needed protein and calcium. When a person wants to lose excess fat, limiting the diet to low fat milk, eggs, orange juice, and a daily carrot or two, will provide the essential nutrients without excess calories.” - RP

Do you realise that this statement from Peat does not mean he recommends to avoid whole milk? Surely you know better than that to claim such a thing.

What Peat is saying is this:

If you're trying to lose fat, you need to reduce your calorie consumption while getting enough protein and calcium. If milk is your source of protein and calcium, then you will need to use low fat milk because the amount of milk needed to get your protein and calcium is going to take you over your calorie limit if you drink whole milk.

This does not mean that "Peat recommends to not drink whole milk" like you've been pasting all over this forum. Similarly, when he said to reduce the fat in your diet, he's saying that if you don't need the extra calories, then reducing fat intake is recommended. But again, this does not mean that "Peat recommends to not eat fat".

 

[mt_dreams]

It`s just like us to turn a thread relating to starch persorption, into a fruit sugar/starch debate, then into a fat intake debate.

There's not a lot of context with some of these replies, be it the bluezone info believing starch is the main player with regards to their longevity, or the fact that there's no difference b/w masai drinking fresh milk, compared to the estrogen rich homogenized milk offered to most people in 1st world NA. Anyone else notice the sunlight, movement, & fresh air in the masai pic? I'm sure those bluezones are the same. We know what makes us healthy, we're just not prepared to live a life under those circumstances, so here we are debating the best macro %.

If you're estrogen levelis in check & your calories are stabilized, you will not gain weight taking in milk fat. If you're digestion is functioning properly you will not have a problem with starch, and if you believe fruit sugar is better than starch, then we've got lots of threads debating the pros & cons. We can all be winners.