Sometimes Sugar Is Better Than Starch

[Such_Saturation]

Lol as we say in Italy, trying to climb mirrors. Also, seeing as the mouth can sense nutritional value regardless of sweetness. Just what are we discussing here? Nothing. John literally said "although we may not notice the sweet taste OUR BODIES DO"

 

[paymanz]

Btw @Westside PUFAs you say some interesting things about boiling instead of frying.
But, what do you think about boiling some potatoes (for instance) and then refrigerate/freeze them? Not everyone can cook for every single meal and has to rely on leftovers... Do you think it still applies to what you've said if one reheat them or simple eat them cold chewing them very well?

That is starch vs sugar( in this case glucose).

Really If baking or frying makes starches turn into glucose why that can be a bad thing, all fruits are like that,we want the glucose , does that mechanism he/she explained in mccarbthrism site has a legit scientific base?!

BTW one reason we love toasted bread or fried potato, and prefer them is that it been turned into glucose.

 

[Mito]

We're talking about eating starch, not lactose or dextrose. Dextrose, which is made from corn, is probably similar to HFCS but not as sweet. Moreover, fructose does not require insulin, showing more flaws in Masterjohn's argument.

He said that starch is converted into sugar in the mouth by salivary amylase.

 

[Ukall]

He said "we may not notice the sweet taste but our bodies do".

As I understand it is if a person has a high production of salivary amylase, it decomposes the starch in those not sensitive sweet taste particles (sugar) and the body gets ready to receive carbohydrates smoothly and in stable way.
People who have low salivary amylase, may not decompose it that well, and when they swallow the starch it arrives almost intact in the stomach and then the body enter in a shock mode and reacts by skyrocketing their blood glucose (and I guess producing lots of insulin).

 

[Westside PUFAs]

He said that starch is converted into sugar in the mouth by salivary amylase.

He's wrong. It is not converted so quickly, which is why we produce pancreatic amylase. The process starts with salivary amylase to give the starch a coating but the rest of the process happens thereafter. Do you really think that if you are eating a bowl of rice, within the 3 seconds it takes you to chew and swallow each bite, that all of that is converted into simple sugar right then and there in your mouth? No way.

 

[Ukall]

I mean, when I eat potatoes alone, I do have some adrenal rush kind reaction, feeling restless. However, if I eat them with protein, I don't feel jittery.
So, I guess, as Chris Masterjohn says, if I have some sugar first, I will not have this reaction (of mine) since my body will be prepared to receive carbohydrates (mainly because of insulin...?).

I don't feel like testing this theory right now, but perhaps, it can work, who knows.

 

[Mito]

Lol as we say in Italy, trying to climb mirrors. Also, seeing as the mouth can sense nutritional value regardless of sweetness. Just what are we discussing here? Nothing. John literally said "although we may not notice the sweet taste OUR BODIES DO"

I think Ray has talked about this. Isn't that one reason he doesn't like artificial sweeteners as they send the body "false" signals that sugar (carbs) are coming?

 

[Mito]

As I understand it is if a person has a high production of salivary amylase, it decomposes the starch in those not sensitive sweet taste particles (sugar) and the body gets ready to receive carbohydrates smoothly and in stable way.
People who have low salivary amylase, may not decompose it that well, and when they swallow the starch it arrives almost intact in the stomach and then the body enter in a shock mode and reacts by skyrocketing their blood glucose (and I guess producing lots of insulin).

And he suggests adding sugar to starch if you have low salivary amylase to avoid that reaction.

 

[Such_Saturation]

I think Ray has talked about this. Isn't that one reason he doesn't like artificial sweeteners as they send the body "false" signals that sugar (carbs) and coming?

I don't think so because I was saying the opposite this was the article Glucose utilization rates regulate intake levels of artificial sweeteners

 

[Mito]

Do you really think that if you are eating a bowl of rice, within the 3 seconds it takes you to chew and swallow each bite, that all of that is converted into simple sugar right then and there in your mouth? No way.

No I don't think all of it is converted to simple sugar by salivary amylase. I'm sure the pancreatic amylase does the vast majority of that. But I do think it makes enough of a partial conversion for the body to sense it.

 

[Ukall]

When you eat refrigerated starch, it is going into your 97°F (36.1°C) to 99°F (37.2°C) body to get reheated again. The whole fear of resistant starch is nonsense in my view.

I was not worried about resistant starch. I was worried about what you've said "baking and frying temperatures shatter the chain, disrupting this signal." - and if refrigerating the starch would do the same, since most of the water evaporates.

Really If baking or frying makes starches turn into glucose why that can be a bad thing, all fruits are like that,we want the glucose , does that mechanism he/she explained in mccarbthrism site has a legit scientific base?!

BTW one reason we love toasted bread or fried potato, and prefer them is that it been turned into glucose.

I am not saying that I see as a good or bad thing...
I just got interested in the difference how our bodies handle boiled vs baked/fried starch, since I never read about it (wheter it's true or not).
That's why I asked about refrigerating, since some water evaporates.

 

[Such_Saturation]

I've tasted sweet just keeping bread in my mouth for a minute... just saying, even if I swallow it in 3 seconds, it won't get to the pancreas stage in one minute...

 

[Mito]

I don't think so because I was saying the opposite this was the article Glucose utilization rates regulate intake levels of artificial sweeteners

Thanks interesting article. I may have remembered what Ray said wrong.

 

[Ukall]

And he suggests adding sugar to starch if you have low salivary amylase to avoid that reaction.

Exactly! I have to test it out. Though I have already put some sucrose alone in my mouth and it gave me also some jittery feelings.
I may test eating some honey before eating starch as he said. I still think there are lots of other variables. Even how restful my sleep is, may affect the results.

Btw, when he linked the other video, I think he did it right.

This proves his point saying that when a person has low salivary amylase, the blood glucose levels will spike a lot.

 

[Peater Piper]

Cliff's Notes version. There's massive variation in the duplication of the salivary amylase gene in different populations of people. Those with many copies break down starch quickly in the mouth, allowing the body to detect the pure glucose molecules. This detection leads to a strong first phase insulin response in preparation for the glucose entering the bloodstream. So basically, the body starts pumping out insulin before the glucose even makes it to the blood stream. When the glucose does hit the blood stream, insulin is already high, which will prevent a large spike in blood glucose. In the person with low salivary amylase, the first phase insulin response will be weaker, because the body doesn't expect a large glucose load. When glucose does start hitting the blood stream, insulin levels won't be high enough to prevent a large spike. Now the body has to release another surge of insulin because it wasn't prepared and blood glucose is climbing too high. It's probably going to overcompensate in the process, causing reactive hypoglycemia.

The dextrose and potato starch test just gives you a view of how well the potato starch stimulates your first phase insulin response (via breakdown of the starch in the mouth using salivary amylase) compared to a pure glucose solution. If you get a much larger glucose spike with the potato starch, then salivary amylase is probably low, but you can hack the system a bit by stimulating the the first phase insulin response with a simple sugar solution.

I'd already learned that a bit of fruit before meals can make a big difference in my postprandial readings. I guess I wasn't blessed with many copies of the salivary amylase gene.

Here's a study supporting what he's saying.

High Endogenous Salivary Amylase Activity Is Associated with Improved Glycemic Homeostasis following Starch Ingestion in Adults

HA individuals had significantly more AMY1 gene copies within their genomes than did the LA individuals. We found that following starch ingestion, HA individuals had significantly lower postprandial blood glucose concentrations at 45, 60, and 75 min, as well as significantly lower AUC and peak blood glucose concentrations than the LA individuals. Plasma insulin concentrations in the HA group were significantly higher than baseline early in the testing session, whereas insulin concentrations in the LA group did not increase at this time. Following ingestion of the glucose solution, however, blood glucose and insulin concentrations did not differ between the groups.

So no difference in either group after swallowing the glucose solution, but the HA group had a much stronger early insulin response to the starch than did the LA group, resulting in lower postprandial glucose concentrations.

 

[Such_Saturation]

Thanks interesting article. I may have remembered what Ray said wrong.

No, he did say that. I guess there is a conscious pathway as well. Or one that's just based on sweetness. Who knows.

 

[Westside PUFAs]

This proves his point saying that when a person has low salivary amylase, the blood glucose levels will spike a lot.

Here's a study supporting what he's saying.

No, it doesn't. The study is a perfect example of researchers not understanding how to properly test these kinds of things.

From that study:

First of all, they only used 14 females and 5 males. Not a large group.

"Participants visited the laboratory for 2 separate morning sessions and had no food or beverages other than water since midnight of the previous night."

Who knows what these people ate/eat like. I highly doubt these people are living the low fat "Starch Solution" lifestyle, which is how people succeed eating starch.

"Each individual participated in the experimental condition in which they consumed 50 g (10% solution) of a corn starch hydrolysate solution (M40; Grain Processing Corporation) and the control condition, in which they ingested 50 g (10% solution) of a glucose solution (Sigma Aldrich). The 2 solutions were equal in terms of energy provided. The starch hydrolysate was used in order to have a solution that did not noticeably differ in viscosity from the glucose solution. The glucose solution was prepared 24 h in advance to allow for complete mutarotation of the glucose tautomers. Participants were instructed to drink each solution at a constant rate over the course of 20 min and their rate of intake was monitored and timed. They were also instructed to swish every sip of solution around their mouth “like they would for mouthwash” for ~5 s before swallowing in order to fully mix the solution with saliva."

?

This is not the same as a healthy person, eating the low fat boiled/steamed starched based lifestyle.

"To assess dietary intake, participants completed a computerized Block 2005 FFQ (NutritionQuest). This validated questionnaire estimates the usual intake for a wide variety of foods and provides an analysis of overall carbohydrate, protein, and fat intakes."

Yes, because questionnaires are valid science. Again, these people could've been eating fried chicken.

"Whether saliva also plays an important role in the digestion and metabolism of food is currently unknown. The presence of high concentrations of the enzyme α-amylase, however, has led to the hypothesis that saliva could be important for the digestion of complex carbohydrates"

"Nevertheless, the fundamental question of whether the enzyme contributes to overall starch digestion and metabolism remains unanswered. Because food is only in the mouth for a few seconds, oral amylolytic “predigestion” is often assumed to be of minimal importance, particularly given the presence of pancreatic amylase within the gastrointestinal tract.

In contrast, pancreatic amylase, produced by the gene AMY2, has not undergone similar genetic repetition (15) even though the vast majority of starch digestion occurs in the small intestine via pancreatic amylase (16)"

That last sentence shows that this study is useless. Salivary amylase could simply be a byproduct leftover from our evolution and it doesn't have much use now.

"Preabsorptive insulin release, also known as cephalic phase insulin release (PIR) is one such anticipatory response to eating (22). Though it is a relatively minor component of total insulin secretion"

So basically, the body starts pumping out insulin before the glucose even makes it to the blood stream. When the glucose does hit the blood stream, insulin is already high, which will prevent a large spike in blood glucose. In the person with low salivary amylase, the first phase insulin response will be weaker, because the body doesn't expect a large glucose load. When glucose does start hitting the blood stream, insulin levels won't be high enough to prevent a large spike. Now the body has to release another surge of insulin because it wasn't prepared and blood glucose is climbing too high. It's probably going to overcompensate in the process, causing reactive hypoglycemia.

All of that depends entirely on the persons current state. Their level of body fat is important and their overall daily diet and lifestyle is important. If they have insulin resistance, then of course they will have hypo/hyperglycemia. Lean, healthy people do not get hypo/hyperglycemia when eating low fat boiled/steamed starch.

 

[Peater Piper]

The study showed that those with low salivary amylase had a smaller rise in glucose in response to the dextrose compared to the starch. It was exactly the opposite for those with high salivary amylase, and the response was entirely mediated by early insulin response. It had nothing to do with insulin sensitivity or pancreatic amylase.

 

[Westside PUFAs]

The study showed that those with low salivary amylase had a smaller rise in glucose in response to the dextrose compared to the starch. It was exactly the opposite for those with high salivary amylase, and the response was entirely mediated by early insulin response. It had nothing to do with insulin sensitivity or pancreatic amylase.

See in bold:

"In the current study, we tested whether high salivary amylase concentrations altered blood glucose responses following starch ingestion. We hypothesized that because starch is cleaved into simple sugars by salivary amylase, people possessing high salivary amylase concentrations (group HA) might thus be expected to have higher postprandial blood glucose following starch ingestion relative to participants with lower salivary amylase concentrations (group LA). Instead, we found the opposite occurred: compared with LA individuals, HA individuals had significantly lower postprandial blood glucose responses following starch ingestion. This difference was apparently mediated by the increased plasma insulin concentrations in the HA group observed early in the testing session. Nevertheless, both groups had similar plasma glucose and insulin responses following glucose ingestion. Thus, it is unlikely that group differences were due to innate differences either in their ability to produce insulin or in their capacity for insulin-mediated glucose disposal."

Ingestion means swallowed.

Also, fat/sick people are known to have high fasting insulin.

 

[Peater Piper]

Exactly, there were no major differences when they consumed glucose, yet the LA had a much higher glucose response to starch. That doesn't make much sense, right? It's 50 grams of glucose in each meal, but they're responding worse to the starch, which should enter the bloodstream slower than the dextrose, giving them time to produce more insulin. The reason is their pancreas was late to respond with insulin for the starch meal, because their early detection system (salivary amylase) isn't effective.

If they were just fat and insulin resistant, they shouldn't have performed similarly to the the HA group with the pure dextrose solution in both glucose tolerance and insulin release. It was only with starch that the difference appeared, and it was dramatic, with the starch group's insulin rising significantly in the first 9 minutes of starch consumption (glucose didn't even start to rise until the 15th minute, so insulin was rising before glucose reached the bloodstream). The LA group's insulin was still at baseline levels after 9 minutes.