Testing My Understanding Of Starches

yerrag

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
10,883
Location
Manila
I've read many articles from Ray Peat, and gone through many threads from searching the site, and I'm pretty sure I'm missing an article or thread or two, as I can't seem to get a satisfactory resolution to these questions:

1. When starch is digested and assimilated thru the small intestine, is it always in the form of glucose (assuming digestion is working well that no undigested particles go thru)?
2. When we speak of sugar in our parlance here, is it understood to be glucose or does it refer to cane sugar, which is sucrose? Or does it simply refer to "simple sugars, be it glucose, fructose, or sucrose?" I'm confused as sugar can mean many things. Or do we just have to read between the lines for context, or ask to test our understanding?
3. Can being able to ace the glucose tolerance test a sign of great health? By acing it, I mean the blood sugar level doesn't rise up or fall much over the 5-hour test period, and stayed within a normal range of say between 80-100. I'm asking as I'm given to think that it is an important measure, given that it signifies that the body is able to metabolize the glucose, and quickly convert it to glycogen, and to fat stores, without the glucose being able to stay in the blood stream enough to cause the blood sugar to spike and cause insulin to be produced. It also means there are no fatty acids impeding the metabolism or conversion of glucose. But there has to be some gotcha's or qualifiers to it.
4. In theoretical terms (not in terms of cultural or taste preferential terms) along the line of Ray Peat's thinking, how are the following starches to be ranked, in terms of being able to provide energy with least physiological baggage coming with it (assuming all to be refined, to simplify and besides the less fiber the better for quick digestion, assimilation, and transit times): wheat being A, rice being B, potatoes being C, oats being D? And please state why.

Appreciate your help making my head clearer as I attempt to internalize Ray Peat's thoughts.
 
OP
yerrag

yerrag

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
10,883
Location
Manila
Answering my own questions:

1. Yes
2. Read between the lines for contextual clues
3. Yes. If you can take glucose directly and your body can assimilate it quickly for energy, it means your energy is derived from oxidative metabolism, and not from glycolysis. You are efficiently using glucose and your end product is carbon dioxide, and not much lactic acid. With enough carbon dioxide in the body, good thing happen (haha, I need to go back to Peat's articles).
4. C, B, D, A. Potato isn't a seed and doesn't need to be sprouted to remove anti-nutrients and have a good amino acid profile that is not much different from eggs. White rice has less fiber than oats. And wheat has gluten, which is difficult to digest and is an irritant and a source of inflammation (I think).

So, that is my half-baked answer. I need some more half-baked answers to make it whole :)
 

tara

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
10,368
I more or less agree with your own answers. Here's my half-baked version.
1. When starch is digested and assimilated thru the small intestine, is it always in the form of glucose (assuming digestion is working well that no undigested particles go thru)?
Pure starch, if broken down fully, converts to glucose. Actual starchy foods generally contain a bit other things too - protein, minerals, fibre, sometimes some fructose too, depending on the food.
2. When we speak of sugar in our parlance here, is it understood to be glucose or does it refer to cane sugar, which is sucrose? Or does it simply refer to "simple sugars, be it glucose, fructose, or sucrose?" I'm confused as sugar can mean many things. Or do we just have to read between the lines for context, or ask to test our understanding?
This. I think it gets used in lots of different ways, depending on context.
3. Can being able to ace the glucose tolerance test a sign of great health? By acing it, I mean the blood sugar level doesn't rise up or fall much over the 5-hour test period, and stayed within a normal range of say between 80-100. I'm asking as I'm given to think that it is an important measure, given that it signifies that the body is able to metabolize the glucose, and quickly convert it to glycogen, and to fat stores, without the glucose being able to stay in the blood stream enough to cause the blood sugar to spike and cause insulin to be produced. It also means there are no fatty acids impeding the metabolism or conversion of glucose. But there has to be some gotcha's or qualifiers to it.
I'm not sure of the answer to this, but I was under the impression that it is normal for blood glucose to rise significantly after a glucose feeding - it would be normal for it to go above 100, and then drop back into that range again within a couple of hours. Gotchas: potentially destructive testing if you don't have great glucose handling? I had a horrible experience when I did a 3hr glucose tolerance test many years ago. But the numbers all came back 'normal'.
4. In theoretical terms (not in terms of cultural or taste preferential terms) along the line of Ray Peat's thinking, how are the following starches to be ranked, in terms of being able to provide energy with least physiological baggage coming with it (assuming all to be refined, to simplify and besides the less fiber the better for quick digestion, assimilation, and transit times): wheat being A, rice being B, potatoes being C, oats being D? And please state why.
If my memory serves me:
potatoes - contain significant other nutrition - good quality protein, minerals.
white rice - relatively easy to digest, lowish fibre and anti-nutrients
oats - better than wheat because of absence of gluten
wheat (preferably long-leavened bread).
 
OP
yerrag

yerrag

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
10,883
Location
Manila
Thanks for helping me sort this out Tara. It really helps.

Ray Peat's articles don't come to us in syllabus form, as part of a coursework where we go through some prerequisites so deeper subject matter can be understood at a later progression. I would be feigning understanding for the most part initially, and ending up not internalizing the concepts in the articles. I had to shift to low gear, and when I came across some terms that are above my grade, I had to stop and google, usually ending up in wikipedia (not all the time when the subject is "mainstreamed" by wikipedia editors), and if I still don't understand it, I would go into Khan Academy for a lecture. At the rate I'm going though, I feel I would have earned a PhD by the time I'm done reading all his articles. If I find anything worth saving, I'd use a Chrome browser extension called "Notes Anywhere" and do a cut and paste into a note, which I can go back to later to review as a collection, together with other notes. Still, it helps to do a little diagnostics on my understanding of all these once in a while.

I'm not sure of the answer to this, but I was under the impression that it is normal for blood glucose to rise significantly after a glucose feeding - it would be normal for it to go above 100, and then drop back into that range again within a couple of hours. Gotchas: potentially destructive testing if you don't have great glucose handling? I had a horrible experience when I did a 3hr glucose tolerance test many years ago. But the numbers all came back 'normal'.
Do you have the results with you still? Could you chart it to see the curve? The test I had was interpreted by my primary physician, whom I pleaded to allow me to take the test (insurance you know), and he also said my blood sugar was normal. It was a misdiagnosis, I was to find out after charting the results, and this is typical for the medical profession. I was reading a book about hypoglycemia, and true enough, my experience confirmed the book's contention that physicians under-report thru misdiagnosis (they hardly use the glucose tolerance test, and if they do, they misinterpret the results) the cases of hypoglycemia with their patients. All along, what made me very sickly was my hypoglycemic condition. As with anything involving solving a problem, identifying the problem correctly is halfway to its solution.

Anyway, I confirmed my conclusion with a naturopathic doctor, and I eventually got better, over the years, as I underwent treatment on various causes leading to my hypoglycemic condition.

I wonder if your physician (if he's a conventional doctor) gave you a false negative then.
 
Last edited:

tara

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
10,368
Do you have the results with you still?
No, it was more than 2 decades ago, and I never got a copy of the results myself, just had the dr show me the numbers. I thought I was hypoglycemic, and the numbers said I wasn't. But I was literally a quivering wreck after 3 hrs, and would certainly not have been safe to drive my care without (human) fuel, though I did somehow manage to walk myself back to it in a haze and eat the snack I'd brought with me.

As with anything involving solving a problem, identifying the problem correctly is halfway to its solution.
Yeah.

I wonder if your physician (if he's a conventional doctor) gave you a false negative then.
Yes a conventional dr. I've speculated that either:
a. though the BG was not low, it didn't give me the energy I needed, or that
b. BG levels can change fast and I'd reached my lowest BG level, and stress hormones had started t bring it up again by the time the last test was taken, but by then there was some other chain of stress effects that was messing me up.
But I don't really know how that works - maybe you do.
I knew I had a problem even if the dr didn't have an explanation. At the time, the only other advice I had was to eliminate refined sugar and high sugar foods like juice, and eat regular balanced (starch not sugar) meals. In retrospect I think restricting sugars so much was a mistake.
 
OP
yerrag

yerrag

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
10,883
Location
Manila
I thought I was hypoglycemic, and the numbers said I wasn't. But I was literally a quivering wreck after 3 hrs, and would certainly not have been safe to drive my care without (human) fuel, though I did somehow manage to walk myself back to it in a haze and eat the snack I'd brought with me.
It used to be that I'd wonder why I would quiver on long drives. It turns out my blood sugar would be low 3 hours after a meal, and I'd end up with a cold or a fever the day after if I didn't eat then. I'm guaranteed a day off especially if I eat a piece of candy to satisfy my hunger. I finally learned that it's not only hunger that would be a dead giveaway, also feeling sleepy or down on energy, and quivering on long drives.

I've speculated that either:
a. though the BG was not low, it didn't give me the energy I needed, or that
b. BG levels can change fast and I'd reached my lowest BG level, and stress hormones had started t bring it up again by the time the last test was taken, but by then there was some other chain of stress effects that was messing me up.
I think it's b). I'll show you my 5hr GTT results, taken 16 years ago, along with the chart I made, on my next post. My cellphone ran out of juice so I had to recharge before I snap pics.

At the time, the only other advice I had was to eliminate refined sugar and high sugar foods like juice, and eat regular balanced (starch not sugar) meals. In retrospect I think restricting sugars so much was a mistake.
I think at that time (even now) that was the general understanding. I was doing that as well. I didn't take much sugar anymore, and I shifted to brown rice, which helped a lot over white rice. But that wasn't enough. So that I won't have energy lows, and could be on full battery charge in between meal times, I had to take enough protein with brown rice. Somehow, protein and brown rice was my ticket - until I chanced upon Ray Peat articles. Then I started the process of denial before gradually opening my mind to his thoughts (not totally though).

I'm starting to get a clearer picture now of Ray Peat's ideas. I have no problem with drinking fruit juices, as the sugar is fructose. Same with honey and coco sugar. Even without any protein accompaniment. Because the body can easily assimilate fructose (according to Ray, even diabetics can) even if there are many fatty acids in the blood stream).

But I can't take in a meal that solely ends up as glucose being assimilated into my blood stream, as maybe I have plenty of fatty acids interfering with glucose uptake by my body's cells. My blood sugar will spike up and trigger the release of insulin, which is always in excess such that it results in a low blood sugar. I can't just eat pastry, or bread, or white rice - that is all starch - as I will feel the effects of low blood sugar shortly. These are all glucose. Even if I accompanied these starch with plenty of protein, I will be hungry after 3 hours, though it won't knock me down. I would actually feel better if I just skipped a meal, as my blood sugar will stay steady at a comfortable level.

Which is why when Ray advocates potatoes or white rice over brown rice, I still shudder at the thought. Not that I disagree with him. It's just that I feel that my body isn't ready for that. I still need to get my body to a point where fatty acids no longer interfere with glucose uptake by my cells. I don't really know how at this point. So, I still eat brown rice over white, making sure I have enough protein with it, and I'll be fine. To me, the fiber in brown rice is what helps me, as it meters the digestion and assimilation of glucose to my bloodstream over a longer period of time, helping to avoid a sudden surge of glucose into my blood stream, making it unnecessary for insulin to step in.

I may be paying the price of allowing more endotoxins to fester in my colon, even though I feel fine right now - not given to farting, no loose stools, no fever or flu for 16 years (from 1-2x/yr prior), but not perfect (my bp being 180/120).

But I'd like to be eating as Ray recommends eventually, and that would need my body to be able to take in glucose with ease, as that would mean my body is producing energy at a very efficient clip, relying on oxidative metabolism over glycolysis, and producing plenty of carbon dioxide and very little lactic acid.
 

tara

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
10,368
Somehow, protein and brown rice was my ticket - until I chanced upon Ray Peat articles. T
Yeah, I ate a lot of brown rice too, with protein. Complex carbs and protein (and fat) ~6 times a day.

Now I'm feeling as though a combination of both sweet and starchy foods is serving me better than either extreme. I'm happily eating some white rice now. And eating enough helps a lot too. I've finally, in the last couple of years, managed to get much more consistent about avoiding hunger stress. So much easier now that I allow myself more sugar for snacks. But I haven't had any BG testing in that time, so I don't know what's been going on on that front.
 

beta pandemic

Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2016
Messages
153
Location
Melbourne
wholemeal/wholegrain wheat causes me severe inflammation. white yeast free bread and white pasta doesnt give me any problem no matter how much i eat. if i have any whole wheah bread/whole wheat pasta my whole abdomene will be inflamed and have a raw feeling which lasts about 2 days.
 
OP
yerrag

yerrag

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
10,883
Location
Manila
IMG_20160805_164038342.jpg
Above you will see my GTT plotted. It was 16 years ago. I just didn't realize how high my blood glucose was then, at 105. Now, my blood glucose is around 85, which is a significant improvement. I considered myself pre-diabetic then.

The BG level initially went up to 110 after 1 hour (as Tara said), and for the next two hours, it went down to 65 before going up to 88 at the end of the test. I couldn't for the life of me figure out why my physician would say I'm fine. Perhaps, he meant that I'm inside the bell curve of the US population. If so, that says a lot about the health of the population at large.
 
OP
yerrag

yerrag

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
10,883
Location
Manila
wholemeal/wholegrain wheat causes me severe inflammation. white yeast free bread and white pasta doesnt give me any problem no matter how much i eat. if i have any whole wheat bread/whole wheat pasta my whole abdomene will be inflamed and have a raw feeling which lasts about 2 days.
A friend of mine had a similar experience with brown rice. I couldn't figure out why then. I didn't keep insisting brown rice was better, and I'm glad I didn't. It just left an impression on me. It makes sense now.
 

tara

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
10,368
I just didn't realize how high my blood glucose was then, at 105
Was that 105 an hour after taking in a significant dose of refined glucose? In which case it was not high at all? Are you comparing with similar conditions now, or fasting?

With measurements at hourly intervals, who knows where the real BG minimum was? Could have dipped down below 65 either before or after that measurement.
 
OP
yerrag

yerrag

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
10,883
Location
Manila
Was that 105 an hour after taking in a significant dose of refined glucose? In which case it was not high at all? Are you comparing with similar conditions now, or fasting?

With measurements at hourly intervals, who knows where the real BG minimum was? Could have dipped down below 65 either before or after that measurement.
105 was the start. 110 was an hour after. It was high. My current blood sugar level is at 85 (fasting). Yup, the hourly intervals don't capture the highs and lows accurately.

Still, it gave me a good idea how poorly my blood sugar was holding up with the surge of glucose in my system. And that was enough for me, as I would know that I was hypoglemic.
 
OP
yerrag

yerrag

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
10,883
Location
Manila
The BG level initially went up to 110 after 1 hour (as Tara said), and for the next two hours, it went down to 65 before going up to 88 at the end of the test. I couldn't for the life of me figure out why my physician would say I'm fine. Perhaps, he meant that I'm inside the bell curve of the US population. If so, that says a lot about the health of the population at large.
This link confirms my suspicion about the bell curve at work to our detriment:
http://www.goodlifehealthcenter.com...e-limitations-of-laboratory-reference-ranges/
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom