Starch: Peat Speaks, 2 Days Ago!

Discussion in 'Starches, Fiber, Legumes' started by narouz, Feb 17, 2013.

Tags:
  1. narouz

    narouz Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2012
    Messages:
    4,429
    Yes, hot off the presses, Peat's latest pronouncements on everyone's favorite topic: Starch!
    From the KMUD interview of February 15th.
    KMUD: Weight Gain, Foamy Urine, Fats, Light Therapy, Dreams, -- 2-15-2013
    http://www.raypeatforum.com/forum/download/file.php?id=312

    The questioner is the KMUD co-host, Sarah Murray.
    Go to the 48 minute mark of the interview:

    SM: "I guess what you're saying is 400 calories from orange juice
    is not comparative to 400 calories from potatoes or rice."

    Ray Peat: "...uh, definitely not. It [the orange juice] stimulates your metabolism and suppresses
    the stress hormones."

    SM: "Whereas 400 calories from baked potato and rice would increase your stress hormones
    and suppress your metabolism?"

    RP: "Yeah. And then there's the matter of the starch particles, that if you don't have some saturated fat
    with them some of the starch particles can set up a whole pattern of stress and injury by entering
    the blood stream."
     
  2. Dean

    Dean Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2013
    Messages:
    529
    Yes, I think the ambiguity here around starch consumption has been born more out of wishful thinking and parsed reading than anything. I don't have any trouble with people choosing to eat starches and calling themselves a "Peater" or whatever. If someone is doing well enough for themselves and consuming starches, good for them. Or, if someone holds on to starches as their only alternative to keeping themselves off the PUFA's and gluten then eating the so-called Peat safe starches is better than the alternative. I do think though that saying or giving the impression that well-cooked potatoes and white rice or lime-treated corn tortillas are a pillar of Peating is a disservice to Dr. Peat and to people coming here to learn the essentials of Peating.

    Given also how weight gain seems to be an issue for so many who are Peating, the fact that so much fat has to be taken in with starches as a countermeasure really should be a red flag for people. Given also how broken the metabolisms of many who come to Peating are, how much quality protein, calcium, gelatin, sugar, fructose is that extra fat and bulky starch displacing from your day/week/month's diet?
     
  3. OP
    narouz

    narouz Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2012
    Messages:
    4,429
    So well put on so many key points.
    When you wisely note,
    "Given also how weight gain seems to be an issue for so many who are Peating, the fact that so much fat has to be taken in with starches as a countermeasure really should be a red flag for people,"
    I would emphasize that it is not just the mandatory accompaniment of fat
    that constitutes the weight-gain threat.
    Peat says that starch itself promotes obesity.

    And the displacement angle you note is, I think, often overlooked or glossed over.
    If one is filling up on rice and potatoes and other "Peat safe" starches
    the obvious result will be that the optimal Peat foods will get displaced.
    Poor quality food will supplant the high quality.
    Well...or you cram it all in somehow...but then you get fat. ;)
     
  4. j.

    j. Guest

    A good amount of Peaters who complain that they cannot lose weight and claim that Peat doesn't know and doesn't care about weight loss are unwilling to try his advise about not eating starch.
     
  5. OP
    narouz

    narouz Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2012
    Messages:
    4,429
    Many "Peatians"--and some very smart and experienced ones, I would add--argue adamently that:

    1. There is no Peat diet.
    2. There is a Peat diet but each individual can create their own
    and those individual variants will be so radically different
    that any attempt to generalize is precluded.
    3. Peat says nothing about good and bad foods--he only advocates raising the metabolism.
    4. There is a Peat diet, but Peat says that language and communication are unreliable
    so there's no use trying to understand what a Peat diet is.

    With those kinds of foundation notions about a Peat diet pervading our board,
    is it surprising that many assert that starches are fine Peat foods?! :lol:
     
  6. jaketthomas

    jaketthomas Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2013
    Messages:
    110
    I've come to realize in a very short time, that the less starch I have in my diet, the better I feel. In a pinch, if I'm out and need fuel, I'll get white rice or potatoes, but I make sure to butter them up. If not, I notice I have inflammation in my gut. Sugar is where it's at. My go to meal lately when I'm out or on the run is cheese & grapes, like the french eat. Not until Peat, have I even entertained the idea, but they digest flawlessly every time.
     
  7. pboy

    pboy Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2013
    Messages:
    1,681
    if you consider starch from an ayurvedic or Chinese perspective...most are heavy/cooling which implies that they slow metabolism and kind of relax/sedate
    the mind so you can rest and burn less energy to conserve as you sleep. Potatoes are neutral -> heating, as well as millet, treated corn, buckwheat, and rye.
    However, because of the high fiber/glutinous compounds, any more than a little of even those starches considered heating would become too 'heavy' and therefore dampening, or
    cooling. Corn Masa is probably the best because it is heating and a good portion of the insoluble is removed (the coats), and potatoes because they are relatively lower in fiber, have a lot of metabolic supporting nutrients, and a really good protein profile.

    The best part of the interview that I liked was when Peat said that eating a ton of the right foods, a 'wastefully high amount', actually was better for you overall and that was
    why children age 12-15 were the healthiest (Super fast metabolism). I love it, because it completely flies in the face of everyone else out there promoting rigid theories like 'fat is bad' 'sugar is bad', 'eat more fiber to feel full so you cant eat any more', 'eat less calories', 'excersize more', 'the less you eat the longer you live', 'eat mostly fish, lean chicken and vegetables'...ect ect. None of that is true or pleasant...those people are just not able to understand things in a little more complex dynamic matter like Peat lays out, which correlates with our intuition, and it much more fun and enjoyable

    An ayurvedic perspective also is that your 'Agni' which loosely correlates to metabolic / immune / digestive strength, your 'Fire' element, is your most prized treasure, and that maintaining a strong agni is good for health, immunity, sexual vigor, and a long life
     
  8. OP
    narouz

    narouz Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2012
    Messages:
    4,429
    Yeah, that was fascinating to me too.
    But I would note that, while Peat said that was a very desirable state,
    it's not the kind of state one can necessarily dictate simply by cramming in more food--right?

    I mean, it seemed to me what he was getting at was
    that those "wasteful" kids had terrifically high metabolism.
    Having that, they were able to consume vast amounts of calories
    (I have to assume they were halfway good, Peatian calories,
    or else I think those high metabolisms would begin to slow)
    and to burn them.

    Now...if someone has a challenged metabolism,
    I don't thinking shoving in volumes of indiscriminate calories would dictate
    a shift to high metabolism.

    I think an analogy might be a campfire.
    If you've got some good, dry wood,
    and you get the fire roaring pretty strongly,
    then you can throw in a lot of wet, green wood
    and it still keeps roaring and even growing more intense.
    But if you have a struggling campfire
    and you try to throw that wet, green wood on...
    that's not gonna force the fire to roar.

    Now...Peat's general advise on weight-loss almost always seems to focus first
    on getting the metabolism cranked.
    He hardly ever says to withhold sugars and protein, within reason.
    I think that is because he thinks those foods are helpful in cranking up the metabolism.
    They, in the analogy, are the dry woods that burn intensely.

    To try to get back toward that healthily "wasteful" energy production of those kids
    I guess the thing to do--given that many of us have low-burning fires--
    is to stoke the metabolism by giving it as much great fuel as it can burn
    and avoid throwing water (PUFA, anti-metabolic foods) and green wet wood on there.
     
  9. charlie

    charlie The Law & Order Admin

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    11,413
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    USA
    pboy, Good post, thank you for the insights from Ayurvedic and Chinese medicine.
     
  10. Dean

    Dean Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2013
    Messages:
    529
    Yes, narouz...I would agree that I didn't take what Dr. Peat was saying there to mean that an adult with a sluggish or broken metabolism could return it to it's youthful vigor by force feeding copious calories. At least that is not the way I understood it either.

    What he said there, however, has further encouraged me to try really cutting way down on the fat, even saturated. Not because it is inherently bad; but because of how poor my metabolism has been for so long and how badly my digestion and gut are performing/feeling these days. I need to make room for more protein, gelatin, calcium, potassium, magnesium, sucrose, fructose, etc. without exasperating my gut discomfort with quantity overload.
     
  11. pboy

    pboy Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2013
    Messages:
    1,681
    Yea Narouz and Dean I definatly agree...i like the analogies...that seems to be the case based on my experience expirimenting as well...balanced ratios and good timing are necessary.
    Its good to know though that the state to aspire to is the one that would seemingly be the most enjoyable
     
  12. Asimov

    Asimov Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2013
    Messages:
    162
    In my experience (lean person, naturally fast metabolism) I've seen starch as a non-issue. Does anyone really consume potatoes or rice with saturated fat? For crying out loud, I douse mine in butter, honey, and salt. I probably get a bigger load of salt/fat from potatoes or rice than I do from any other average meal in my day. They're actually a pretty good delivery vehicle for good stuff.
     
  13. OP
    narouz

    narouz Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2012
    Messages:
    4,429
    Asimov,
    You may be an example of a person with the kind of high metabolism
    like the 15 year-old kids Peat discusses in the recent KMUD interview.

    Now...why do you have such a seemingly good metabolism?
    Is it because of your diet?
    Despite your diet?
    I don't know.

    The kids Peat referred to--we also don't know why they had those strong metabolisms.
    Maybe largely because they were kids--young and undamaged.
    Peat did not give information explaining why those kids had great "wasteful" metabolisms--
    only that they had them,
    and that one way to measure the healthiness of their metabolisms
    was that they were "wasteful" (in the particular sense Peat meant in that context).

    So...you do like fat on your potatoes too, yes? Lots of butter...?
     
  14. gretchen

    gretchen Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    816
    I ate very little starch the first few months, and still eat very little; 1-2 potatoes a week at most. Personally, I have reservations about the dairy.
     
  15. Asimov

    Asimov Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2013
    Messages:
    162
    Yes, that's the point I was making. Everyone eats butter and salt with their potatoes. They're disgusting otherwise. The pro-metabolic effects of the salt and sat fat very likely offset the anti-metabolic effects of the mounds of starch. This is in my experience and the experience of many people I've worked with.

    They're not weight loss food, as they're basically just neutral on your metabolism, but not many people have problems with neutral white starches with loaded with salt and butter.
     
  16. OP
    narouz

    narouz Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2012
    Messages:
    4,429
    A while back, Danny Roddy did a nice, Peat-oriented analysis of how exactly starches aren't too great
    for metabolism:
    http://www.dannyroddy.com/2012/5/21/carbon-dioxide-the-real-reason-safe-starches-are-a-joke.html

    "When deciding whether to obtain carbohydrate from "safe starches," low-calorie vegetable matter, or fruit, consider that sugar (especially fructose) is supportive of CO2 production:

    Moreover, when glucose oxidation is inhibited (diabetes, Randle cycle), fructose provides pyruvic acid for oxidative energy:

    The larger context for that analysis is
    a comparison of different forms of energy production in the body:
    glycolysis vs. oxidative metabolism.
    Peat says that oxidative metabolism is the desirable form of human energy production,
    and that making energy through glycolysis--while better than no energy :) --
    has a lot of negative health impacts.
    One concerns lactic acid:

    (from the same article:)

    "Much of Peat's attention is given to the role of carbon dioxide in health. While the beneficial mechanisms of carbon dioxide are multifaceted, one of its key features is its ability to release oxygen into the tissues. In other words, you can't use oxygen efficiently without carbon dioxide:

    '
     
  17. OP
    narouz

    narouz Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2012
    Messages:
    4,429
    Saturated fat and salt as a weight-control strategy.
    Over-riding the "obesity-promoting" effects of starch.
    Well...I guess it's possible.
    But I don't think Peat would say so. :roll:
     
  18. Asimov

    Asimov Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2013
    Messages:
    162
    Do you need a lesson in reading comprehension as well as biology?

    I'm not going to sit here and debate strawmen. It's absurd that I have to take this many tries at clarifying my position to you. This will be the last time on this subject, and then I'll just start referring you to prior posts.

    I never claimed potatoes are weight loss food. And I never claimed that the butter is independent of the benefits of consumption of potatoes.

    I said that potatoes as typically consumed by 99% of average people (ie: heavily salted and buttered) are relatively benign on health and metabolism. Heat breaks down the starch granules, degrading the amylum irreversibly into glucose. Butter blunts the absorption of glucose into the portal hepatic vein (allowing for normalized intestinal uptake) and salt up-regulates thyroid hormone to allow the body to metabolize the glucose rather than convert it to triglycerides and store it as fat.

    Potatoes aren't that bad. It's good to have some relative perspective when talking food. There's about 28,000 different food items one could consume on any given day. Trying to shoe horn everything into one of two categories (Peat Approved and Not Peat Approved) is an absurd exercise in rhetoric. You have people going around eating 3K calories worth of haribo gummy bears, ice cream, coca de mexicana, and liver because nothing else is "approved". Some things are great for you, some are horrible for you, and most lie somewhere in the middle.

    Well....mashed potatoes cooked with salt and butter are somewhere in the middle. The End.
     
  19. OP
    narouz

    narouz Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2012
    Messages:
    4,429
    Thank you Mr. Asimov, Sir. May I have another!? :eek: :lol:

    Sorry to distess you.
    It just seemed to me that
    if you were saying that even though starch is anti-metabolic,
    if you add butter and salt--
    because they are so pro-metabolic--
    it will amount to a stand-off.

    It seemed reasonable then to ask:
    Well, if you remove the anti-metabolic starch,
    wouldn't one--in your view--be left with a very pro-metabolic combo in butter and salt?
    (Not a ridiculous thought, by the way.)

    I did note that you were not saying potatoes & butter & salt were a weight loss dish.
    But...it seemed to me your logic would lead to the view that butter & salt would be.

    And then I guess I had in mind that you said you had a very high metabolism,
    and very much enjoyed potatoes, butter, salt, (and was it honey? yuk!)...
    It seemed to me that you were making a tacit argument that such a diet
    contributed to your high metabolism.

    That's all. Didn't mean to offend.
     
Loading...