Starch: The Great Mystery

[Ritchie]

1. Endotoxin is from microbes feeding on the starch in the gut, and then dying and leaving endotoxin hanging around to get absorbed from the gut into the circulation. (Maybe excessive endotoxin can also stimulate serotonin production in the gut itself? - not sure about this.) (Endotoxin issues can also apply to other foods that we don't digest fully and leave to the microbes.)
2. Persorption of starch grains is a different issue - they can, according to Peat, get into the circulation themselves, and block tiny capillaries in the cardiovascular system. (Particle persorption issues can also apply to other small insoluble particles, including the excipients in some supplements, and maybe activated charcoal powder.)

Point is that these assertions are quite unfounded, apart from a few rat studies with raw, uncooked starch (i think it was uncooked rice or maybe corn they fed the rats).. We as humans, in general, digest cooked starch such as rice, potatoes, tubers, corn, etc extremely well with quickness and efficiently, converting it almost immediately to glucose for the body to use. I mean we are so adapted to eating starchy foods that the digestion process literally starts in our saliva with a specific enzyme called amylase, present in all human saliva, which acts to immediately and specifically convert starch into sugars (glucose) for the body to use. This continues from the initial mouth saliva through the rest of the digestive process. When it comes to worrying about things fermenting in the gut and causing endotoxin, it seems starch would be the least of the concerns. I have heard Peat specifically stating that he has observed and was amazed at how quickly and efficiently starch is absorbed and converted into glucose for energy in the digestive system. So much so that he is concerned about the insulin spiking effect starch may have due to its rapid absorption.
If you don't mind me asking, what are you basing these concerns that you have listed above on? Apart from the afore mentioned rat studies Peat refers to.

I think the persorption issue may conceivably also apply to dry-cooked starch - that is, starchy foods that are not cooked with water, and therefore not gelatinised. Eg. think shortbread or other dry biscuits or crackers, and maybe potato crisps. (Cooking them like this means they can be stored much longer, and plenty of people eat them.) There is something significantly different about gelatinised starch. Peat does make a point of saying that starchy foods like potatoes and oats, if eaten, should be boiled for a long time.

What evidence have you come across that causes you to make these assertions and conclusions?

I think that might be where individual microbiomes etc come into play. Some people - as reported here (and I think Peat may be among them) - really do seem empirically to have digestive trouble or other noticable symptoms with starch - for them, there is real reason to assume otherwise, and perhaps to be cautious about starch when other suitable options are available.

Well there may be a myriad of other factors at play, it would be a mistake to base broad sweeping conclusions off anecdotal claims from people on the internet that you don't know and have no firm understanding of the context these issues may be arising in. I mean how do you know these microbiomes that you are saying are causing the problems these people experience aren't feeding on fermenting meat in the gut, or cheese, or fermenting milk particles, or some other fibre unrelated to starch?

Considering food, rather than just isolated molecules, maybe:
Fruit and starchy tubers?
Sweet and starchy foods?
(or if you want to focus on the molecules, sugar/fructose/sucrose and starch?)

I mean simply starch (glucose) and sugar (sucrose, or glucose+fructose) (i'm using the word sugar here for ease of communication, as I did with the word fruit above). So rice, potatoes, tubers, corn and so forth for starch. Fruit, maple syrup, honey, fruit juice, white sugar etc for sugar.
Starch is an excellent form of carbohydrate and thus energy, not to mention that most starchy foods are constituted with a very good quality protein. And as Peat constantly and explicitly reiterates, energy is the most critical factor: Getting enough carbohydrates to support healthy metabolism and all the body's energetic requirements is crucial. Cutting it out is cutting out a dense and easily accessible, easily utilised source of energy. Fruit and other sugars are also excellent forms of carbohydrates, and it is my belief that a mixture of both is ideal. The research does tend to support this, and studies done on people such as the Okinawans show that a combination of starchy foods such as tubers and rice, combined with fruit, seems to be ideal for health.

 

[Runenight201]

Point is that these assertions are quite unfounded, apart from a few rat studies with raw, uncooked starch (i think it was uncooked rice or maybe corn they fed the rats).. We as humans, in general, digest cooked starch such as rice, potatoes, tubers, corn, etc extremely well with quickness and efficiently, converting it almost immediately to glucose for the body to use. I mean we are so adapted to eating starchy foods that the digestion process literally starts in our saliva with a specific enzyme called amylase, present in all human saliva, which acts to immediately and specifically convert starch into sugars (glucose) for the body to use. This continues from the initial mouth saliva through the rest of the digestive process. When it comes to worrying about things fermenting in the gut and causing endotoxin, it seems starch would be the least of the concerns. I have heard Peat specifically stating that he has observed and was amazed at how quickly and efficiently starch is absorbed and converted into glucose for energy in the digestive system. So much so that he is concerned about the insulin spiking effect starch may have due to its rapid absorption.
If you don't mind me asking, what are you basing these concerns that you have listed above on? Apart from the afore mentioned rat studies Peat refers to.



What evidence have you come across that causes you to make these assertions and conclusions?


Well there may be a myriad of other factors at play, it would be a mistake to base broad sweeping conclusions off anecdotal claims from people on the internet that you don't know and have no firm understanding of the context these issues may be arising in. I mean how do you know these microbiomes that you are saying are causing the problems these people experience aren't feeding on fermenting meat in the gut, or cheese, or fermenting milk particles, or some other fibre unrelated to starch?


I mean simply starch (glucose) and sugar (sucrose, or glucose+fructose) (i'm using the word sugar here for ease of communication, as I did with the word fruit above). So rice, potatoes, tubers, corn and so forth for starch. Fruit, maple syrup, honey, fruit juice, white sugar etc for sugar.
Starch is an excellent form of carbohydrate and thus energy, not to mention that most starchy foods are constituted with a very good quality protein. And as Peat constantly and explicitly reiterates, energy is the most critical factor: Getting enough carbohydrates to support healthy metabolism and all the body's energetic requirements is crucial. Cutting it out is cutting out a dense and easily accessible, easily utilised source of energy. Fruit and other sugars are also excellent forms of carbohydrates, and it is my belief that a mixture of both is ideal. The research does tend to support this, and studies done on people such as the Okinawans show that a combination of starchy foods such as tubers and rice, combined with fruit, seems to be ideal for health.

Judging by my solely one day experience so far with no starch, coffee, Vitamins E+D+K, raw carrot salad with coconut oil, and salty bone broth, I've had quite an intense what feels like "cleansing" of my gut in that I am much less bloated than when I was consuming starch. Caveat, I was consuming all types of starches as well as complex carbohydrates , including beans, veggies, brown rice, oats, wheat, and potatoes. I'm coming to the conclusion that good health lies in high metabolic functioning, efficient glucose oxidation, and minimization of endotoxins. I think for those coming into this with the usual diagnose of metabolic syndrome/hypothyroidism there is probably a high degree of endotoxins occurring and thus the complete elimination of fiber (as best as possible) and aiding frequent bowel movements in conjunction with a high micronutrient environment with ready to use energy with minimal insulin response may be best. As health, digestion, sleep, and energy improves, the body may be able to better deal with different types of foods, and thus it takes personal experimentation, introducing one food at a time and seeing how you react with bloating, digestion, energy, and temps.

There definitely is a place for starch in the human diet, or else we wouldn't have the capability to digest it. Centenarian societies have been consuming starch for centuries, even in the presence of abundant fruit. However, since birth, those in centenarian societies haven't been plagued with a consistent insult of PUFA and the corresponding issues that it brings in conjunction with complete inactivity and stress that so many people have in western societies. Thus, they are able to consistently handle starch and the corresponding insulin release that occurs, while those with varying degrees of insulin resistance will obviously have issues with a high pure glucose meal that some starches provide. Once more optimal levels of health are achieved, the corresponding benefits of some starches such as potatoes with their micronutrient and amino acid profile can safely be incorporated and provide another quality energy source. In a positive feedback loop, the better the digestion and metabolism, the more foods are tolerated, which provide additional energy and micronutrient profiles, which further improve health, which allow for incorporation of more foods and diet liberation. This may take some time to achieve in those with heavy metabolic issues, but in my opinion should be a goal that we should all strive for.

 

[Vinero]

In a positive feedback loop, the better the digestion and metabolism, the more foods are tolerated, which provide additional energy and micronutrient profiles, which further improve health, which allow for incorporation of more foods and diet liberation. This may take some time to achieve in those with heavy metabolic issues, but in my opinion should be a goal that we should all strive for.

Why not include starch in this positive feedback loop? A healthy digestive system has no trouble digesting starches and fibers. I agree it's bad to eat large amounts of fiber and starch if you have endotoxin problems, but once those are overcome starch is a great source of highly available glucose.

 

[Runenight201]

Why not include starch in this positive feedback loop? A healthy digestive system has no trouble digesting starches and fibers. I agree it's bad to eat large amounts of fiber and starch if you have endotoxin problems, but once those are overcome starch is a great source of highly available glucose.

I believe certain starches should be in that positive feedback loop, assuming your metabolic functioning and digestion is healthy enough to handle it. Initially those with severe metabolic syndrome cannot and so starch should not be in the initial conditions.

 

[Westside PUFAs]

I believe certain starches should be in that positive feedback loop, assuming your metabolic functioning and digestion is healthy enough to handle it. Initially those with severe metabolic syndrome cannot and so starch should not be in the initial conditions.

Notice how almost no one answered your original questions..

 

[Runenight201]

Notice how almost no one answered your original questions..

They were addressed. People gave their opinions on starch. I got to see multiple different sides of the argument. I'm satisfied.

 

[G Forrest]

2)Does it bother anyone that practically every civilization has used starch as the base of their diet? If starch was so bad, wouldn't we see many cases of obesity, cardiovascular disease, and diabeties in traditional societies? The fact that this wasn't the case until the modern era makes me skeptical of Starch's role in metabolic syndrome.

I think Peat is saying that starch isn't ideal in the context of someone with a compromised digestive system, which may not be caused by the starch itself, but exacerbated by it once damaged. It's important to consider that when looking at "blue zones" such as Okinawa, there are other possible factors contributing to the longevity: clean air and water, a sense of community, general sense of well-being/contentment, avoidance of commercial foods with foods with fillers and excess PUFA. So the Okinawans could use the sweet potato as a staple and would be fine if overall health is good especially the gut. It remains to be seen however, if today's Okinawan's will continue to keep up the longevity averages with the prevalence of modern commercial foods and other modern post-war systems into the culture. So from Peat's perspective, if you are living in the modern world and have consumed poor quality food, have dealt with many stressors, and have digestive issues, you might want to consider experimenting with low to no starch as a healing function.

As far as Peat himself, I don't think he has ever flat out said to follow exactly what he eats, in fact as others have pointed out, he has stated some starch should be fine if the gut is in good health. Someone will ask him point blank what he eats in a day and he'll respond, and then suddenly it's on the "Ray Peat food chart" - this is where the messaging can be problematic for some people who always need to have a rigid guideline to follow rather than observing their own reactions to foods in context to suggestions made.

 

[theLaw]

There definitely is a place for starch in the human diet, or else we wouldn't have the capability to digest it.

By this logic, carrots should have no place in the human diet.

 

[Vinero]

1)How on earth do you eat sustenance calories on fruit and milk? It's an insane amount of liquid

To answer question no.1:
The ray peat diet includes fruit and milk, but does not consist solely off those foods.
For example, I can eat whatever food I like (except high PUFA, high iron foods), but when I get thirsty drink milk and fruit juice.
I do not drink when I'm not thirsty, as that raises prolactin as Ray Peat has pointed out.

 

[Runenight201]

By this logic, carrots should have no place in the human diet.

I guess I should state starch as a significant energy source.

 

[theLaw]

I guess I should state starch as a significant energy source.

You'll need to qualify it with a term like "healthy" as well, or you would have to include pufa.

Keep in mind that there are people who eat tons of pufa with very few (if any) major health issues, so you might just be looking at the beginning of the evolutionary adaptation.

 

[alywest]

This video clip seems to cover a lot of the bases of what Ray has to say about starches. He mentions that eating starch is like eating a large amount of glucose at once, has a high glycemic index, which causes you to produce insulin. If you get too much glucose at once, whether in the form of sugar or starch that is easily converted, you'll store it as fat. As well he mentions the danger of eating a protein only meal, because it will drastically lower blood sugar and force you to produce cortisol, which means you'll store fat in the abdomen.

 

[Runenight201]

You'll need to qualify it with a term like "healthy" as well, or you would have to include pufa.

Lol very thorough indeed.

Keep in mind that there are people who eat tons of pufa with very few (if any) major health issues, so you might just be looking at the beginning of the evolutionary adaptation.

What lucky people. Looks like the rest of us are to be bred out of existence eventually

Has there been any research into the physiological mechanisms going on here? ​

 

[Vinero]

What lucky people. Looks like the rest of us are to be bred out of existence eventually

No we won't. We will keep improving our health everyday.
In twenty years those "lucky" people bodies will be soaked in PUFA, they will probably be fat and low-thyroid.

 

[theLaw]

No we won't. We will keep improving our health everyday.
In twenty years those "lucky" people bodies will be soaked in PUFA, they will probably be fat and low-thyroid.

Most likely it will end badly for them, but we might disappear as well.

I'm trying my best to breed my way out, but I'm only one man.

 

[Runenight201]

Ah I thought theLaw was suggesting that these people's physiologies were immune to the negative effects of PUFA.

I tend to think positively so I do believe that the dangers of all PUFA will become mainstream science. I would say we're already halfway there with omega-6, the only controversial unsaturated fat is omega-3. Although.......

There are epidemiological studies which show that PUFA's either are not associated or decrease risk of total cause mortality and CHD
Circulating omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids and total and cause-specific mortality: the Cardiovascular Health Study. - PubMed - NCBI

Circulating and dietary omega-3 and omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids and incidence of CVD in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis. - PubMed - NCBI

Protective effects of dietary PUFA against chronic disease: evidence from epidemiological studies and intervention trials. - PubMed - NCBI

Can anyone explain what's going on? I have a friend who's in medical school and I've argued with him before about the dangers of PUFA, and he just shows me these studies and others like it which show that substituting saturated fat with PUFA consistently decreases total mortality and CHD.....

 

[Runenight201]

remove

?

Is this implying that the post I made is out of context for this thread and I should start a new thread?

 

[lollipop]

?

Is this implying that the post I made is out of context for this thread and I should start a new thread?

It usually means someone changed their mind about what they posted or double posted etc. this platform does not let you delete a post.

Hope this his helps!

 

[mayweatherking]

honestly who cares if you eat starch or not, if your blood work is still really good, you have high testosterone and low estrogen and low prolactin and you eat starch, then it doesn't matter and it's not effecting you, if it is effecting you then don't eat it

 

[Braveheart]

honestly who cares if you eat starch or not, if your blood work is still really good, you have high testosterone and low estrogen and low prolactin and you eat starch, then it doesn't matter and it's not effecting you, if it is effecting you then don't eat it