Sometimes Sugar Is Better Than Starch

bdawg

Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2016
Messages
292
Location
Sydney, Australia
He may or may not show my comment but I'll just post it here:

"Chris,

You forgot about pancreatic amylase. It seems odd that the body would rely only on saliva for eating such large amounts of boiled/steamed starch as billions have/do. I think a real amylase problem is very rare and there are other things that are causing the blood glucose and insulin problems.

If one had “dry mouth” (no saliva) but still ate starch and drank a little water, they would still produce pancreatic amylase, if they did not have any kind of enzyme or pancreatic disorder. If one thinks they may have a deficiency of an enzyme or something else to where they can’t produce any or enough amylase, both pancreatic and salivary, then they should get the correct blood and other tests to see if they truly do.

But there are other things to look at before assuming one is amylase deficient. The first is how much adipose tissue they have. The more adipose tissue, the more likely they will have too much free fatty acids or the “spill over effect” causing glucose and insulin problems. And if one has too much adipose tissue, that shows that they haven’t been eating/living healthfully for at least 6 months but usually much longer. Which is one reason why your purposed experiment is not objective.

The second is their fat intake. I will get to that below when I talk about your purposed experiment.

I think you contradicted yourself a bit by saying that ones blood sugar will still rise rapidly after eating starch if they are a non or low salivary amylase producer and since you didn't mention pancreatic amylase, by that measure one would conclude that their blood sugar would never rise at all after eating the starch because they don't have or produce enough amylase to convert the starch into glucose in the first place. If that were the case, then the person will just be eating a bunch of fiber-like amylopectin and amylose and they wouldn't convert it into sugar.

As far as your experiment, it is as poor experiment because for option 1 of your experiment, a simple potato starch vs dextrose is not objective due to lack of cofactors, something that you once placed prime importance on. A powered potato starch and a dextrose solution likely do not have/or enough of the glucose contributing cofactors like potassium which acts similar to insulin. I know this is why you then purposed option 2, which is the better way to do it but the problems of option one should be noted. But even though option two is better, a persons fat intake is something that is very important when talking about “carbs.”

Many of the people thriving on high starch diets do so in a low fat setting. Not no fat (though no overt fats work for many), but low fat. It seems that high fat, included saturated, mixed in with starch is precisely what causes the energy crashes and blood sugar problems you speak of.

I’m not a vegan as I eat lean animal protein. For me, the two most “insulinogenic” things-starch and protein, are the exact things that cured my blood sugar problems. It was my high fat intake that was causing blood glucose problems. It’s called lipemia - too much fat in the blood.

Fruits are great but fructose does not require insulin and although many fruits do have sucrose, it is boiled/steamed starch with the occasional cultural variant of a tradition flour product (i.e. Ugali, etc) that provide starch in the traditional form. It is likely that even the traditional flour products depend on exactly what they are and how they are prepared. There is also a difference in satiation from fruit vs. satiation from starch which is why people fail on the "Nutritarian" Joel Fuhrman concept, and also fail on raw fruitarian diets. The starch provides much needed glucose from the starch itself and not from non starchy vegetables and fruits. It's the missing link in those diets, of course animal protein may be a factor as well.

When looking at starch from an evolutionary perspective, one has to consider the importance of boiled/steamed starch vs baked and fried starch. I encourage you to read these:

Boiled-vs-Baked-Starch

The-Fourth-Macronutrient

”It’s a contradiction to talk about instincts with respect to nutrition and then ignore that there are times when our hunger for carbohydrates varies from the desire for something sweet to the need for something starchy, satisfying, and soothing.

Starches are chains of glucose sugars that also provide glucose to cells, but the distinct and irreplaceable job of starch is to make muscle cells more responsive to insulin, and thus pull more glucose out of the blood, more so than would be possible if sugars alone were sources of glucose. Insulin is the hormone that controls the entrance of glucose into cells, particularly muscle cells. Since most of what muscle cells do with the glucose they draw from blood is to make glycogen, and since glycogen is the storage form of glucose that muscles tap into for explosive and sustaining movement, starch is critical to energy and endurance. Try to find a successful athlete who doesn’t rely on starch for stamina. Try to find a civilization that does not rely on starch as a staple. It’s only when the climate is severe and farming is impossible that humans are forced to abandon this critical food. So why haven’t we heard this before?

Whenever you hear a discussion of starch and what starch is and where you find starch, the discussion is always in regards to starch in the plant. But starch in the plant is useless unless it’s cooked. We don’t efficiently digest raw starch. Starchy foods must be cooked in water to reach the gelatinization point, usually a temperature slightly below the boiling point of water. It’s here where starch granules absorb water and burst into the soft and fluffy texture that our digestive system can handle. This is starch on the plate (or in the bowl) where it has its effect. However, drive off the water with the high temperatures and dry conditions of baking or frying, and starch loses its unique function. Baked and fried starches are effectively sugars in that they supply glucose to blood but fail to enhance the response of muscle cells to insulin. The reason is simple. Starch-digesting enzymes work only from the end of the starch chain, disassembling the chain in packman-like fashion, signaling the muscles to absorb more glucose from the blood in response to insulin. Baking and frying temperatures shatter the chain, disrupting this signal. Glucose is still provided but without the direction to increase its utilization by muscles. So in reality, the fourth macronutrient is the one we as a species created and adapted to--boiled starch. Only in this form can starch perform its critical function.” - Natalie Zimmerman of McCarbthyism

Although the context here is starch and amylase, I think it’s important to remember these things about glucose:

Glucose is the only fuel used by red blood cells because they lack mitochondria. Without glucose, red blood cells could not survive. Red blood cells carry oxygen from the lungs to the tissues. Without red blood cells, most of the tissues of the body would suffer from a lack of energy because they require oxygen to completely convert their fuels to carbon dioxide and water.

Glycolysis exists. The human body have 10 specific enzymes specifically evolutionary adapted to break down glucose and another additional 8 specific enzymes to convert glucose to ATP in the Citric Acid Cycle. And of course, glycogen.

How you get your glucose is up to you. I prefer boiled starch over most flour products, most fruit outside of craving sweet, most lactose, and it’s probably best to minimize pure sugars like cane/maple, and minimize the conversion of your muscle tissue to glucose.

Hey @Westside PUFAs could you summarise in bullet points why you believe starch is as/or better than sugar for beginners to peat? your viewpoints sound legit, I always feel better on starch over pure sucrose/fructose
 

Ideonaut

Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2015
Messages
499
Location
Seattle
I think it's purpose is to give a pre coat. But it could be that we are in an in between stage of losing SA completely so eventually it will be gone and PA takes over for good.



I don't say avoid it. I say that I don't add fat to my starch because it doesn't mix well for me. It causes blood sugar and fat gain problems. I only have fat by itself and after plenty of time before and after a starch/protein meal. I think the fat is best used when it has a chance to go in by itself and do its thing. I don't like to mix it up. If you do well with mixing fat with your starch then thats great. Even when eating starch with no fat added, there is evidence that our bacteria synthesize saturated fat from the starch and fibers itself, so I find that interesting. It's like a natural butter, butyrate.
I see (said the blind man, as he picked up his hammer and saw), thnx. Peat said people digest better when they ingest all 3 macronutrients at the same time, but you must be an exception.
 
OP
Mito

Mito

Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2016
Messages
2,554
But it could be that we are in an in between stage of losing SA completely so eventually it will be gone and PA takes over for good.
If that is the case, then why was the SA gene derived from the PA gene?

https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/67917/10.1177?sequence=2
Analysis of the structures of the human amylase genes has demonstrated that this multigene family contains at least five tandem gene copies, closely related in sequence but with distinct tissue specific expression. The structures of the genes demonstrate that the human salivary amylase gene was derived from a preexisting pancreatic amylase gene. Insertion of a retrovirus upstream of the amylase gene is responsible for the alteration in tissue specificity. A parotid specific enhancer has been identified within the retrovirus by expression studies in transgenic mice. The independent origin of salivary amylase in rodents and primates suggests that there has been strong evolutionary selection for amylase in saliva. The amylase genes demonstrate a novel mechanism for evolution of new patterns of tissue specific gene expression.
 

schultz

Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2014
Messages
2,653

Glucose
[gloo-kohs]
noun, Biochemistry.
1. a sugar, C 6 H 12 O 6, having several optically different forms, the common dextrorotatory form (dextroglucose, or glucose) occurring in many fruits, animal tissue and fluids, etc., and having a sweetness about one half that of ordinary sugar...

Rice is not glucose, it is starch. Glucose is a mono-saccharide. Starch is a poly-saccharide consisting of a bunch of glucose units joined together by glycosidic bonds. Whether rice can be broken down in the mouth by salivary amylase to become sweet is irrelevant to me. The fact remains that glucose is sweet.

Here is the definition of starch, notice it is different than the glucose definition.

[stahrch]
1. a white, tasteless, solid carbohydrate, (C 6 H 1 0 O 5), occurring in the form of minute granules in the seeds, tubers and other parts of plants, and forming an important constituent of rice, corn, wheat, beans, potatoes, and many other vegetable foods.
 

Peater Piper

Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2016
Messages
817
I don't think that is a valuable tool and I explained in detail why. We can keep going in circles on this.
You ignored every one of my points and questions.

How do you explain insulin levels rising before glucose from the starch meal started to enter the bloodstream, if glucose traveling over beta cells is the only thing that triggers insulin release?

How do you explain poor early insulin secretion to a test meal in subjects that receive a vagotomy, when this would do nothing to change glucose traveling across the pancreas? According to you, the latter is all that matters when it comes to the pancreas releasing insulin in response to a meal.

How do you explain the LA group having an insulin response to the pure glucose almost immediately, yet no insulin response before 9 minutes to the starch meal, whereas the HA group had an immediate insulin response to both meals?

How do you blame the LA group for having a pre-diabetic pancreas when they measured comparably to the HA group in both insulin secretion and glucose control when tested with the glucose solution? If they have a pre-diabetic pancreas, surely it would show up with any high glucose meal.

How do you blame the LA group for being fat and eating a bad diet when they had a similar BMI, fasting glucose, and fasting insulin level compared to the HA group?

Okay, you got me there - I didn't even consider lactose. How come starchy foods don't taste sweet, then? Do they only taste sweet once the glucose chains are broken down by amylase? I haven't had starch in a long time so I've not tested this...
Dextrose is nothing more than starch that's been broken down into its individual glucose molecules. You can buy it as a sweetener at most stores. It's quite sweet, as the chart Mito posted shows. You're correct that starch only tastes sweet once some of the glucose molecules have been cleaved with salivary amylase. It's similar to why milk treated with lactase also tastes sweeter than untreated milk, because the lactose, which isn't very sweet at all, is broken down into galactose and glucose molecules, which are both much sweeter than lactose.
 

InChristAlone

Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
5,955
Location
USA
I am a reactive hypoglycemic and when insulin sensitivity is greatest in the morning is when I get immediate symptoms... baked potatoes are the worst, but I've also had a spike after sweet potato casserole. I do okay with sugary foods like bananas, and grape juice, but Ive had issues with OJ. Boiled starch by far is the best for stabilizing blood glucose. Pasta is great and I rarely get adrenaline after that. Cheerios can give me an instant adrenaline rush. Lol of course it's like eating pure glucose!!!

I liked what Chris said but in my experience it has nothing to do with amylase, my issues seem closely tied to the GI index unfortunately.
 

Peater Piper

Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2016
Messages
817
I am a reactive hypoglycemic and when insulin sensitivity is greatest in the morning is when I get immediate symptoms.
Have you confirmed this with some glucose tests? There's a lot of mixed information online. Some sources state insulin sensitivity is highest in the morning, which makes some sense, since the liver is low on glycogen. On the other hand, cortisol is usually highest in the morning, which opposes insulin action. I read recently about a doctor that used continuous glucose monitoring, and found that for lunch and beyond, glucose load could be doubled compared to breakfast and blood glucose levels wouldn't surpass the breakfast postprandial levels. I can't find the freaking link, though, but here's another one that used 50 grams of glucose at each meal, with breakfast causing the highest spike, and lunch the lowest.

Continuous Glucose Profiles in Healthy Subjects under Everyday Life Conditions and after Different Meals

"The mean 24-hour interstitial glucose concentration under everyday life conditions was 89.3 ± 6.2 mg/dl (mean ± SD, n = 21), and mean interstitial glucose concentrations at daytime and during the night were 93.0 ± 7.0 and 81.8 ± 6.3 mg/dl, respectively. The highest postprandial glucose concentrations were observed after breakfast: 132.3 ± 16.7 mg/dl (range 101–168 mg/dl); peak concentrations after lunch and dinner were 118.2 ± 13.4 and 123.0 ± 16.9 mg/dl, respectively. Mean time to peak glucose concentration was between 46 and 50 minutes. After ingestion of standardized meals with fast absorption characteristics, peak interstitial glucose concentrations were 133.2 ± 14.4 and 137.2 ± 21.1 mg/dl, respectively. Meals with a higher fiber, protein, and fat content induced a smaller increase and a slower decrease of postprandial glucose concentrations with peak values of 99.2 ± 10.5 and 122.1 ± 20.4 mg/dl, respectively."

I find this mirrors my experience, but I'm sure there's exceptions, so you really have to test to be sure. I can have a pretty big spike at 45 minutes and be back at almost baseline at the hour mark, so timing of the testing is important too. I've found sweet potatoes, even boiled, which supposedly have a low glycemic index, to spike my blood sugar quite a bit as well, whereas pasta has very little effect.
 

InChristAlone

Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
5,955
Location
USA
Have you confirmed this with some glucose tests? There's a lot of mixed information online. Some sources state insulin sensitivity is highest in the morning, which makes some sense, since the liver is low on glycogen. On the other hand, cortisol is usually highest in the morning, which opposes insulin action. I read recently about a doctor that used continuous glucose monitoring, and found that for lunch and beyond, glucose load could be doubled compared to breakfast and blood glucose levels wouldn't surpass the breakfast postprandial levels. I can't find the freaking link, though, but here's another one that used 50 grams of glucose at each meal, with breakfast causing the highest spike, and lunch the lowest.

Continuous Glucose Profiles in Healthy Subjects under Everyday Life Conditions and after Different Meals

"The mean 24-hour interstitial glucose concentration under everyday life conditions was 89.3 ± 6.2 mg/dl (mean ± SD, n = 21), and mean interstitial glucose concentrations at daytime and during the night were 93.0 ± 7.0 and 81.8 ± 6.3 mg/dl, respectively. The highest postprandial glucose concentrations were observed after breakfast: 132.3 ± 16.7 mg/dl (range 101–168 mg/dl); peak concentrations after lunch and dinner were 118.2 ± 13.4 and 123.0 ± 16.9 mg/dl, respectively. Mean time to peak glucose concentration was between 46 and 50 minutes. After ingestion of standardized meals with fast absorption characteristics, peak interstitial glucose concentrations were 133.2 ± 14.4 and 137.2 ± 21.1 mg/dl, respectively. Meals with a higher fiber, protein, and fat content induced a smaller increase and a slower decrease of postprandial glucose concentrations with peak values of 99.2 ± 10.5 and 122.1 ± 20.4 mg/dl, respectively."

I find this mirrors my experience, but I'm sure there's exceptions, so you really have to test to be sure. I can have a pretty big spike at 45 minutes and be back at almost baseline at the hour mark, so timing of the testing is important too. I've found sweet potatoes, even boiled, which supposedly have a low glycemic index, to spike my blood sugar quite a bit as well, whereas pasta has very little effect.
Thanks for your response, I will have to check it out when I have more time. Yeah I have caught the falling the blood glucose, I ate a banana, within 15 mins the BG dropped 30 points back to baseline. So no its not true hypoglycemia but for some reason my body hates it when it falls really fast and sends off a stress signal, this happens when stress is high to begin with like in the morning.
 

tara

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
10,368
You can't taste sweet where there is no fructose.
As Mito attached, this is not true.
Specifically, glucose tastes sweet. Chewing starch for a long time with saliva breaks some of it down to glucose, enough to be able to detect a bit of sweet, if one is looking for it. I have experience of eating a high-starch very-low-sugar diet for part of my life, and can confirm from experience that chewing on rice for a while, I could taste sweet. It seems plausible to me that very low production of salivary amylase could mess with that.

does that mechanism he/she explained in mccarbthrism site has a legit scientific base?!
I would like to know this too. It intuitively fits with my sense of satiation from eating wet-cooked starches compared with most other foods, but I'd be interested in knowing whether Zimmerman's hypotheses about gelatinised starch being important for insulin-signalling are verified by good experiment.

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.
I think Masterjohn is right about this bit. It starts to break down in the mouth. Sure, the process is not completed in the mouth (no-one is saying it is), and there is still a need for more break-down in the stomach. Just starting to produce some glucose in the mouth is enough to provide a sweet signal. Unless you bolt your food. Traditional advice is to not bolt your food, but to chew it properly before swallowing.

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.
I don't think refrigeration normally dehydrates so much, unless you are freeze-drying.

Lean, healthy people do not get hypo/hyperglycemia when eating low fat boiled/steamed starch.
So your theory only applies to the subset of the population who are already lean and healthy? I guess the rest of us (lean unhealthy, fat healthy, fat unhealthy) can go attend to something else then.

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.
Good case for the traditional hor's d'ouvres/ entree/ crudites/ apperitif, etc. Maybe an other important part of traditional French intelligence about food?
I also had a period where I had intermittent trouble swallowing starchy foods like rice when I was really hungry (literally couldn't swallow - food got stuck in my throat). In retrospect, I think I might have been able to improve this if I'd allowed myself a little fruit or honey or or other sweet to start with, or maybe just taking more time to chew (which I would normally do if I wasn't desperately hungry).

Maybe there's even some sublingual absorption of simple sugars, in small amounts, that can stimulate the pancreas through the bloodstream prior to glucose absorption from the intestine.
This seems plausible. I've heard that someone in a hypoglycemic coma can sometimes be assisted by sugar/honey/glucose powder in the mouth, even if they are not able to swallow.
 
Joined
Nov 26, 2013
Messages
7,370
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.

Look at the graph, High Amylase group has an initial higher insulin response, which then becomes lower. And in turn the glucose level is kept lower. This is what Chris was saying.
 

Owen B

Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2016
Messages
310
I can see the point of those who want to get their sugar from starch. And I like the post about keeping starch wet.

What I'm doing now is trying to get build up my sugar stores and trying to get over my lingering bias against "carbs".

But I buy RP's belief that starch should be taken with a little saturated fat. That's the persorption issue.

I've never eaten that much sugar in my life and was intrigued by all the positive talk about fructose, especially. So I'm taking my coffee with fructose.

But I can't yet get to the place where I'd rely just on the efficient digestion of starch.

Maybe that's the right thing for me. I have very high levels of cortisol and it shows in my weight: sarcopenia.

One question? Where do vegetables fit into this? What kind of carbs are they and how should they be cooked?

Very helpful thread.
 

redlight

Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2016
Messages
424
Christ masterjohn is starting to develop MPB... might be all that PUFA he eats
 

Owen B

Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2016
Messages
310
He may or may not show my comment but I'll just post it here:

"Chris,

You forgot about pancreatic amylase. It seems odd that the body would rely only on saliva for eating such large amounts of boiled/steamed starch as billions have/do. I think a real amylase problem is very rare and there are other things that are causing the blood glucose and insulin problems.

If one had “dry mouth” (no saliva) but still ate starch and drank a little water, they would still produce pancreatic amylase, if they did not have any kind of enzyme or pancreatic disorder. If one thinks they may have a deficiency of an enzyme or something else to where they can’t produce any or enough amylase, both pancreatic and salivary, then they should get the correct blood and other tests to see if they truly do.

But there are other things to look at before assuming one is amylase deficient. The first is how much adipose tissue they have. The more adipose tissue, the more likely they will have too much free fatty acids or the “spill over effect” causing glucose and insulin problems. And if one has too much adipose tissue, that shows that they haven’t been eating/living healthfully for at least 6 months but usually much longer. Which is one reason why your purposed experiment is not objective.

The second is their fat intake. I will get to that below when I talk about your purposed experiment.

I think you contradicted yourself a bit by saying that ones blood sugar will still rise rapidly after eating starch if they are a non or low salivary amylase producer and since you didn't mention pancreatic amylase, by that measure one would conclude that their blood sugar would never rise at all after eating the starch because they don't have or produce enough amylase to convert the starch into glucose in the first place. If that were the case, then the person will just be eating a bunch of fiber-like amylopectin and amylose and they wouldn't convert it into sugar.

As far as your experiment, it is as poor experiment because for option 1 of your experiment, a simple potato starch vs dextrose is not objective due to lack of cofactors, something that you once placed prime importance on. A powered potato starch and a dextrose solution likely do not have/or enough of the glucose contributing cofactors like potassium which acts similar to insulin. I know this is why you then purposed option 2, which is the better way to do it but the problems of option one should be noted. But even though option two is better, a persons fat intake is something that is very important when talking about “carbs.”

Many of the people thriving on high starch diets do so in a low fat setting. Not no fat (though no overt fats work for many), but low fat. It seems that high fat, included saturated, mixed in with starch is precisely what causes the energy crashes and blood sugar problems you speak of.

I’m not a vegan as I eat lean animal protein. For me, the two most “insulinogenic” things-starch and protein, are the exact things that cured my blood sugar problems. It was my high fat intake that was causing blood glucose problems. It’s called lipemia - too much fat in the blood.

Fruits are great but fructose does not require insulin and although many fruits do have sucrose, it is boiled/steamed starch with the occasional cultural variant of a tradition flour product (i.e. Ugali, etc) that provide starch in the traditional form. It is likely that even the traditional flour products depend on exactly what they are and how they are prepared. There is also a difference in satiation from fruit vs. satiation from starch which is why people fail on the "Nutritarian" Joel Fuhrman concept, and also fail on raw fruitarian diets. The starch provides much needed glucose from the starch itself and not from non starchy vegetables and fruits. It's the missing link in those diets, of course animal protein may be a factor as well.

When looking at starch from an evolutionary perspective, one has to consider the importance of boiled/steamed starch vs baked and fried starch. I encourage you to read these:

Boiled-vs-Baked-Starch

http://www.mccarbthyism.com/The-Fourth-Macronutrient.html

”It’s a contradiction to talk about instincts with respect to nutrition and then ignore that there are times when our hunger for carbohydrates varies from the desire for something sweet to the need for something starchy, satisfying, and soothing.

Starches are chains of glucose sugars that also provide glucose to cells, but the distinct and irreplaceable job of starch is to make muscle cells more responsive to insulin, and thus pull more glucose out of the blood, more so than would be possible if sugars alone were sources of glucose. Insulin is the hormone that controls the entrance of glucose into cells, particularly muscle cells. Since most of what muscle cells do with the glucose they draw from blood is to make glycogen, and since glycogen is the storage form of glucose that muscles tap into for explosive and sustaining movement, starch is critical to energy and endurance. Try to find a successful athlete who doesn’t rely on starch for stamina. Try to find a civilization that does not rely on starch as a staple. It’s only when the climate is severe and farming is impossible that humans are forced to abandon this critical food. So why haven’t we heard this before?

Whenever you hear a discussion of starch and what starch is and where you find starch, the discussion is always in regards to starch in the plant. But starch in the plant is useless unless it’s cooked. We don’t efficiently digest raw starch. Starchy foods must be cooked in water to reach the gelatinization point, usually a temperature slightly below the boiling point of water. It’s here where starch granules absorb water and burst into the soft and fluffy texture that our digestive system can handle. This is starch on the plate (or in the bowl) where it has its effect. However, drive off the water with the high temperatures and dry conditions of baking or frying, and starch loses its unique function. Baked and fried starches are effectively sugars in that they supply glucose to blood but fail to enhance the response of muscle cells to insulin. The reason is simple. Starch-digesting enzymes work only from the end of the starch chain, disassembling the chain in packman-like fashion, signaling the muscles to absorb more glucose from the blood in response to insulin. Baking and frying temperatures shatter the chain, disrupting this signal. Glucose is still provided but without the direction to increase its utilization by muscles. So in reality, the fourth macronutrient is the one we as a species created and adapted to--boiled starch. Only in this form can starch perform its critical function.” - Natalie Zimmerman of McCarbthyism

Although the context here is starch and amylase, I think it’s important to remember these things about glucose:

Glucose is the only fuel used by red blood cells because they lack mitochondria. Without glucose, red blood cells could not survive. Red blood cells carry oxygen from the lungs to the tissues. Without red blood cells, most of the tissues of the body would suffer from a lack of energy because they require oxygen to completely convert their fuels to carbon dioxide and water.

Glycolysis exists. The human body have 10 specific enzymes specifically evolutionary adapted to break down glucose and another additional 8 specific enzymes to convert glucose to ATP in the Citric Acid Cycle. And of course, glycogen.

How you get your glucose is up to you. I prefer boiled starch over most flour products, most fruit outside of craving sweet, most lactose, and it’s probably best to minimize pure sugars like cane/maple, and minimize the conversion of your muscle tissue to glucose.
 

stargazer1111

Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2017
Messages
425
I am a reactive hypoglycemic and when insulin sensitivity is greatest in the morning is when I get immediate symptoms... baked potatoes are the worst, but I've also had a spike after sweet potato casserole. I do okay with sugary foods like bananas, and grape juice, but Ive had issues with OJ. Boiled starch by far is the best for stabilizing blood glucose. Pasta is great and I rarely get adrenaline after that. Cheerios can give me an instant adrenaline rush. Lol of course it's like eating pure glucose!!!

I liked what Chris said but in my experience it has nothing to do with amylase, my issues seem closely tied to the GI index unfortunately.

I have similar issues. Severe reactive hypoglycemia in the morning and moderate RH after lunch. Never have it after dinner, though.

It also depends on what I eat. If I eat only sucrose or glucose powder, I get no reactive hypo and my blood sugar spikes much less. If I eat potatoes or rice, my glucose shoots up much higher and crashes within the hour down into the low 40's.

I'm done with starch. Only glucose or sucrose for me from now on. I never have blood sugar problems when I only eat sugar.
 

Similar threads

P
Replies
10
Views
4K
Polo Saad
P
Back
Top Bottom