Sugar Or Starch? Perfect Health Diet Confusion?

Diddleum

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2015
Messages
203
Hello,

I came across this article by Paul Jaminet (Im sure we all have). http://perfecthealthdiet.com/category/diets/ray-peat-diet/.

Im looking for a reasoned response to Paul's quoted studies that show dramatic increase in adrenaline when over feedin with Sugar, but not Starch or Fat.

peat-adrenaline.jpg


I interpret this as the sugar over filling the liver, causing stress. Is this the case?
What happens to all the fructose if the liver is full?
What happens to Glucose when the muscle stores are full?
If the adrenaline response is to somehow dispose of the excess sugar then what happens to it? Is it burnt off for heat? Is it turned into FFA??

I have been peating a short while and eating lots of sugar, and feel quite pleased with my self when I get my pulse up to 85, but it does feel a bit stressy? I think I might be confusing adrenaline response with peats idea of improved metabolism...?

This morning I woke up and have drank a 1 litre of juice and 250grams odd of gummy bears probably totaling around 300grams sugar. Am I doing this wrong, do I need to spread it out more?
 
OP
D

Diddleum

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2015
Messages
203
I did look on the forum and the only response to this was a link to a article by Andew Kim. I cant find any of his work online so havent been able to read the response.

Hello,

I came across this article by Paul Jaminet (Im sure we all have). http://perfecthealthdiet.com/category/diets/ray-peat-diet/.

Im looking for a reasoned response to Paul's quoted studies that show dramatic increase in adrenaline when over feedin with Sugar, but not Starch or Fat.

peat-adrenaline.jpg


I interpret this as the sugar over filling the liver, causing stress. Is this the case?
What happens to all the fructose if the liver is full?
What happens to Glucose when the muscle stores are full?
If the adrenaline response is to somehow dispose of the excess sugar then what happens to it? Is it burnt off for heat? Is it turned into FFA??

I have been peating a short while and eating lots of sugar, and feel quite pleased with my self when I get my pulse up to 85, but it does feel a bit stressy? I think I might be confusing adrenaline response with peats idea of improved metabolism...?

This morning I woke up and have drank a 1 litre of juice and 250grams odd of gummy bears probably totaling around 300grams sugar. Am I doing this wrong, do I need to spread it out more?
 

EIRE24

Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2015
Messages
1,792
In my opinion I think Pauls recommendations are fairly sound. I myself follow a similar diet and do rather starch over sugar (still put a decent amount of sugar in my coffee). You need to figure out what works best for you.
 
OP
D

Diddleum

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2015
Messages
203
In my opinion I think Pauls recommendations are fairly sound. I myself follow a similar diet and do rather starch over sugar (still put a decent amount of sugar in my coffee). You need to figure out what works best for you.

Thanks, and I agree "context is everthing". I would just like to hear if there is any informed response to this article and my questions. Listening to your experience and others will give me a good starting point to figuring out what works so thanks :):
 

nikolabeacon

Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2015
Messages
326
I agree "context is everthing".

Yeah I have seen many such claims about context and ''there is no peat dieat'' but if One only listen to Peat he will see that Peat really doesnt believe that there is many variations in diet. He believes and He even clearly said in one of the Politics and Science interviews that there is only one perfect diet for all humans.

context can be implied only in situations when there is severe meatbolic dissfunction...

I also believe that there is only one perfect diet for all humans from pure physiological point of view --- but only in same or similar environmental factors such as light, climate and weather, way of living and so on)

And one thing about all diets and all those diet gurus and Ph.D's is that they look at humans as we are Monkeys, Poultry or Piggs..
 
Joined
Nov 21, 2015
Messages
10,501
Peat's argument is starch causes endotoxins. And starch is high in glucose but more mixed sugars are better with fructose and glucose. There are some good studies that bear this out.
 
Joined
Feb 4, 2015
Messages
1,972
Peat's argument is starch causes endotoxins.

Can cause, not always cause. And simple sugar can also cause endotoxin. It has to do with digestion.

"Thyroid hormone increases digestive activity, including stomach acid and peristalsis, and both thyroid and progesterone increase the ability of the intestine to absorb sugars quickly; their deficiency can permit bacteria to live on sugars as well as starches.” - RP

Note the "sugars" part.

116 Peat quotes on endotoxin:

Ray Peat, PhD on Endotoxin – Functional Performance Systems (FPS)

Out of 116 quotes only 2 mention starch.

“Bacteria thrive on starches that aren’t quickly digested, and the bacteria convert the energy into bulk, and stimulate the intestine. (But at the same time, they are making the toxins that affect the hormones.)” - RP

Note the "aren’t quickly digested" part.

"Besides avoiding foods containing fermentable fibers and starches that resist quick digestion, eating fibrous foods that contain antibacterial chemicals, such as bamboo shoots or raw carrots, helps to reduce endotoxin and serotonin.” - RP

Note the "resist quick digestion" part.

Untitled.jpeg


 

nikolabeacon

Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2015
Messages
326
Yeah I have seen many such claims about context and ''there is no peat dieat'' but if One only listen to Peat he will see that Peat really doesnt believe that there is many variations in diet. He believes and He even clearly said in one of the Politics and Science interviews that there is only one perfect diet for all humans.

context can be implied only in situations when there is severe meatbolic dissfunction...

I also believe that there is only one perfect diet for all humans from pure physiological point of view --- but only in same or similar environmental factors such as light, climate and weather, way of living and so on)

And one thing about all diets and all those diet gurus and Ph.D's is that they look at humans as we are Monkeys, Poultry or Piggs..

Animals have insticts and in natural healthy environment they eat what they should eat beacuse of their insticts....They do not ''think'' about the food and they remain healthy during their life without effort ....

And when you as a human being say to yourself ---''I am going to eat this or that or that is going maybe to damage me in the long run or one Ph. D said this, another dr. said that or if you are going to look millions of conflicting studies on rats, mice, humans and so on or if you look those charts and precisely judge what food is perfect and what food is not and nutritionaly full ....that moment you are starting to stress yourself in a huge manner.

People always try to be 100 % sure and psyhologicaly convinced that they understand complete mechanism and that they are doing right things. If deep in you exist even a slight hesitation or doubt than every such effort will be a huge stress for body and you can not have even slight improvements. Even a placebo improvements are not possible in such a state.

Many are driven euphoricaly with only some of the convincing conclusions about mechanisms and they are 100% sure that ''this is it'' and can endure sometimes very long periods of time but often that does not last very long.

Interesting to recognise is that many, even when they start to realise and see that it is not working anymore they simply can not admit themselves that there was mistake somewhere and that mechanism is not functoning as they thought it is.

Vegetarians are one of the examples of this story because they after being brainwashed with some convincing stories later start to find millions of different claims and sudies that match with their philosophy even if they are having serioous health problems from that kind of diet.

This is why every single diet guru or Ph.D always try to convince people with many different approved studies or experiments that match with their recommendations ...... So that can sell their books and complete their mission on the Planet Earth ..

This is probably a good reason why even Peat did not want to make 100 % recommendations and guidelines because he also changed many things during his exploring of organism.......other people are those who were violently through some of the direct questions done that....


+++

***Strange here is that Peat also said that we have insticts and that we should be led by them.... and then he said ''but many people lost that sense because of some bad habits and metabolic disfunctions and are now unable to detect some of the signals'' ....so following that route we should never had an instict or a need to drink cow's or other ruminants milks as an mature adults........and we should understand that and ''to learn'' what are are real needs in order to evolve :D.... By saying that and many other sentences about what is in nature designed for what and how we evolved and where ----he is trying aslo to do similar things as many other diet gurus.

But then talk that unless we have '' more definite knowledge about the mechanisms in body'' we should not make 100% conclusions and recommendations.

I suspect that even Peat made many conclusions in order to match with some of his philosophical ( which is more closer to truth in my opinion thna only looking in millions of conflicting studies) or artistic Blakeish image, or whole image of how thing can function in some idealised scenario and some imagined evolutionary picture..
 

Tenacity

Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2016
Messages
844
I find it strange that there are people who claim to much prefer starchy food over sugary food - there seems to be camps on both sides. I prefer sugar, but my girlfriend prefers starch. This leads me to believe, despite Peat's writings and the beliefs of some here, that starch may simply be more suitable for some than others. I do very well on a starch-less diet, but I know several people who don't.
 

Wagner83

Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2016
Messages
3,295
***Strange here is that Peat also said that we have insticts and that we should be led by them.... and then he said ''but many people lost that sense because of some bad habits and metabolic disfunctions and are now unable to detect some of the signals'' ....so following that route we should never had an instict or a need to drink cow's or other ruminants milks as an mature adults........and we should understand that and ''to learn'' what are are real needs in order to evolve :D.... By saying that and many other sentences about what is in nature designed for what and how we evolved and where ----he is trying aslo to do similar things as many other diet gurus.
I don't see at all how you came to this conclusion from the preceding quote. Also there is a difference between being a diet guru and spending decades researching and experimenting on one's self as well as hundreds of people. As you said we don't know the whole mechanism of how food interact with the body but there are significant points that have arisen , digestion is central to health, endotoxin should be limited, thyroid health is important and generally speaking, your environment as well as what you eat has a clear effect on energy, brain function, and mood. It is up to everyone to not follow one man blindly, Ray has his own convictions and some seem to not do well if they follow them (commercial milk, low or no starch etc..).

I find it strange that there are people who claim to much prefer starchy food over sugary food - there seems to be camps on both sides. I prefer sugar, but my girlfriend prefers starch. This leads me to believe, despite Peat's writings and the beliefs of some here, that starch may simply be more suitable for some than others. I do very well on a starch-less diet, but I know several people who don't.
Same here and besides, what is the difference between sugar and rice or pasta? They are just calories, so unless someone has a good reason to be afraid of fructose I don't see one as superior to the other. If one tolerates them potatoes would be a different story.
 
Last edited:

nikolabeacon

Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2015
Messages
326
I don't see at all how you came to this conclusion. Also there is a difference between being a diet guru and spending decades researching and experimenting on one's self as well as hundreds of people. As you said we don't know the whole mechanism of how food interact with the body but there are significant points that have arisen , digestion is central to health, endotoxin should be limited, thyroid health is important and generally speaking, your environment as well as what you eat has a clear effect on energy, brain function, and mood.

I explained everything what i think in my post .

There are many such stories of Ph. D and doctors helping hundreds of people... but i simply doesnt take them seriously. And there are also many who spent their whole life in stubborn trying to prove something which in first place was having very weak Base and starting hypothesis.

And for me those stories that he spent decades of researcsh on one's self (and then blame some of his experiments for his health problems he experienced over the years)-that only means that he is still experimenting in my opinion )) and found what works simply doesnt have any proof nor in his look (i point on antiaging) nor in many people who have many problems following his perfect diet for humans ( which needs dozens od powders to maybe function for a short period of time).
 

Wagner83

Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2016
Messages
3,295
Ok so you think his research on serotonin, histamine, NO, estrogens, endotoxin, thyroid and digestion is built on a weak base and hypothesis and therefore worthless? After all if I can agree that his diet is not perfect for all, far from it, but his work goes beyond that which is why I don't see him as a "guru". People can turn him into a guru by their behaviour towards his research and advice.
 

EIRE24

Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2015
Messages
1,792
I find it strange that there are people who claim to much prefer starchy food over sugary food - there seems to be camps on both sides. I prefer sugar, but my girlfriend prefers starch. This leads me to believe, despite Peat's writings and the beliefs of some here, that starch may simply be more suitable for some than others. I do very well on a starch-less diet, but I know several people who don't.
You are right. I am one of the people who do better on starch and without it I am a wreck
 
OP
D

Diddleum

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2015
Messages
203
Soooooo.... Anyone care to take a stab at my original questions?! :): Particulary why is there a stress response with to much sugar?
 

Dobbler

Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2016
Messages
680
Is that sucrose aka table sugar? Isnt it completely different to eat fruit or OJ?
 

encerent

Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2014
Messages
609
I have to have some sugar and some starch. When I eat a lot of one kind of carb, I get tired of it and crave the other. At this point I am eating 350g sugar, 200g starch a day.
 
T

tca300

Guest
" Just for everyone who didn’t read the study, every group except for sucrose PO/C lost fat at the expense of lean mass. Sucrose C gained lean mass while losing fat mass and sucrose PO slightly gained fat mass(which is due to there higher fat intake compared to the other groups) but gained the most lean mass. The sucrose groups also had the highest metabolism and were able to eat the most amount of calories without gaining fat.

Now on to the adrenaline issue, its pretty obvious paul doesn’t understand the issue 100%(honestly I don’t either).

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0031938483900148
“Food deprivation and dietary sucrose supplementation have been shown to alter norepinephrine (NE) turnover in specific sympathetic target tissues. Our data indicate that these changes in turnover are not reflected by changes in plasma NE. Therefore, NE turnover rates and plasma NE concentration may not be equivalent indices of sympathetic activity.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0026049581900925
“In contrast to the effects on thermogenesis, protein and fat intake did not alter sympathetic nervous system (SNS) activity, as estimated by plasma norepinephrine (NE) levels, whereas glucose intake significantly increased NE levels. ”

In this study glucose raises NE significantly compared to pro/fat.

“Adrenalectomy (ADX) changes CRF and NE activity in brain, increases ACTH secretion and sympathetic outflow and reduces food intake and weight gain; all of these effects are corrected by administration of adrenal steroids. Unexpectedly, we recently found that ADX rats drinking sucrose, but not saccharin, also have normal caloric intake, metabolism, and ACTH. Here, we show that ADX (but not sham-ADX) rats prefer to consume significantly more sucrose than saccharin.”

Sucrose normalizes ADX rats i.e. they normalize NE
sympathoadrenal activity is linked to smaller waist, lower BMI and lower BP – Does sympathoadrenal activity predict changes in body fat? An 18-y follow-up study). " ~ Cliff

In reference to Paul's sugar adrenaline study

" Cortisol, the main stress hormone, is reduced by sucrose, and high cortisol tends to lower adrenaline. Failing to measure cortisol makes it, I think, fairly meaningless. " ~ Ray Peat


Question to Ray - If you don't mind me asking a question. A lot of people seem to be under the impression that you think starches are OK or even beneficial to eat, even when Fruit is available. Some are saying that super cooked starch to the point of it being wet and somewhat soggy, has beneficial effects that surpass sucrose. What is your current opinion? Thank you!

Ray Peat's Answer - " When a non-starchy fruit is available I think it’s always preferable to starch. Alkali-processed corn is the only kind that I’m willing to eat, and seldom that (e.g., corundas made with wood ashes)."
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Wagner83

Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2016
Messages
3,295
Question to Ray - If you don't mind me asking a question. A lot of people seem to be under the impression that you think starches are OK or even beneficial to eat, even when Fruit is available. Some are saying that super cooked starch to the point of it being wet and somewhat soggy, has beneficial effects that surpass sucrose. What is your current opinion? Thank you!

Ray Peat's Answer - " When a non-starchy fruit is available I think it’s always preferable to starch. Alkali-processed corn is the only kind that I’m willing to eat, and seldom that (e.g., corundas made with wood ashes)."
I wonder if Peat avoids starches because of his belief in the persorption issue, the high phosphate/calcium ratio of most starch sources or if he actually gets serotonin/endotoxin symptoms from it (mood, energy, brain function etc...) . After all he supplements with thyroid and should have a well working metabolism so he should be able to digest potatoes and rice fairly well.
 

nikolabeacon

Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2015
Messages
326
Ok so you think his research on serotonin, histamine, NO, estrogens, endotoxin, thyroid and digestion is built on a weak base and hypothesis and therefore worthless?
And what he found in ''his research'' about them especially in case of humans in a long run. Well I already mentioned once that Growth and maturing of a young organism should be clearly distinguished from Anti - aging , homeostasis or accumulation of errors in cells. And he based his reasearch on anti-aging.
After all if I can agree that his diet is not perfect for all
Than that is a clear proof that he was wrong in thinkig that there is only one perfect diet for all humans. ( maybe that is true if you neglect everything and just look a world through a Biochemistry glasses) and that also shows that mechanisms are not as simple as he thought


Broda Barnes also thought that pushing thyroid and playing with hormones is everything for prevention of disease
 
Last edited:

nikolabeacon

Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2015
Messages
326
After all he supplements with thyroid and should have a well working metabolism so he should be able to digest potatoes and rice fairly well.
Yes but if you you first strongly convince yourself through ''research'' and various studies that something will cause serious harm and endotoxin than nothing will help you to digest that food. And you will surely have some symptoms.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom