1. Orange & Red Light Therapy Device - LGS1
    CLICK HERE!
    Dismiss Notice

What's Wrong With Sugar And Starch Combining

Discussion in 'Diet' started by ecstatichamster, Mar 19, 2017.

  1. ecstatichamster

    ecstatichamster Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2015
    Messages:
    3,157
    on a low fat diet why should you be cautious about consuming lots of sugar and starch? If you consume lots of sugar what's wrong with also consuming lots of starch?
     
  2. milk_lover

    milk_lover Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2015
    Messages:
    1,515
    I am so curios about this too!!! Glad you made a post about this. Where is Peat's quote regarding this?
     
  3. zooma

    zooma Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2014
    Messages:
    132
    What made you think you should be cautious?
     
  4. sele

    sele Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2014
    Messages:
    236
    Gender:
    Female
    There's a problem of endotoxin with starches.
    I think we should be cautious of starches on low fat or not.
    I don't see a problem with lots of sugar. They will make lots of CO2 with proper oxidation.
     
  5. milk_lover

    milk_lover Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2015
    Messages:
    1,515
    Agree with this.
    Proper oxidation of simple sugars can be assisted by thyroid, caffeine, b-vitamins etc.
     
  6. OP
    ecstatichamster

    ecstatichamster Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2015
    Messages:
    3,157
    In response to a question about using refined sugar when fruit quality is low:
    Ray Peat said:
    In the winter in the US, I use a lot of frozen orange juice concentrate, because good fruit is scarce. When you use refined sugar it’s important to avoid the starchy foods, emphasizing milk, cheese, eggs, fruits, and occasional liver and seafood. Cooked leafy greens and mushrooms should substitute for starchy vegetables.
     
  7. zooma

    zooma Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2014
    Messages:
    132
    He might be referring to the improved mineral balance with sugar vs starch, and so if you are using refined sugar (which has no minerals) as a main CHO source, the better mineral retention would be very important.
     
  8. milk_lover

    milk_lover Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2015
    Messages:
    1,515
    Thanks for the quote :)
     
  9. sele

    sele Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2014
    Messages:
    236
    Gender:
    Female
    Now I understand your question.
    Calling for back up.
    Maybe @haidut can help.
     
  10. Westside PUFAs

    Westside PUFAs Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2015
    Messages:
    1,730
    116 Peat quotes on endotoxin, 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.

    From other quotes not on that list:

    "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.

    Can cause endotoxin, 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 "to live on sugars" part.

    Also, a recent comment. What he says about having a "very healthy digestive system" really sums it up:



    Untitled.jpeg
     
  11. Westside PUFAs

    Westside PUFAs Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2015
    Messages:
    1,730
    It seems from that quote that he doesn't think refined sucrose mixes well with starch because of increased demand to digest both at the same time. He then says fruit is ok though so I find the quote odd.

    .
     
  12. raypeatclips

    raypeatclips Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2016
    Messages:
    1,528
    The quote is a bit confusing, it would be nice for some clarification from him on that point.
     
  13. Rock_V

    Rock_V Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2017
    Messages:
    32
    Gender:
    Male
    I don't know why people are so convinced of the starch = endotoxin connection.

    Raw starch is definitely a 100% no go. In my teens I destroyed my health in so many ways by eating pounds of raw oats everyday for months on end, after reading on some bodybuilder site that it was okay not to cook them. For a while this put me off eating starches I ended up low carbing for a while, thinking carbs were the problem.

    Resistant starch could be problematic in people with compromised digestive function, and it does seem to make people gassy, but that doesn't mean that all starch sources are unsuitable as @tyw explained.

    To me, it feels like on a lower fat kind of diet, I couldn't eat adequate carb calories unless I was absolutely hammering dried fruit, juice and honey. Even then I don't find them as satisfying or enjoyable as starches.

    Back to the original question of this thread, I think the inclusion of both is probably optimal. With regards to their compatibility, Ayurvedic medicine always say that fruit is incompatible with many other foods and that it is best eaten alone. So maybe combining the two might be a problem.
     
  14. Such_Saturation

    Such_Saturation Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2013
    Messages:
    6,837
    Probably sugar+starch is not enough minerals so he says sugar+greens or starch+greens.
     
  15. haidut

    haidut Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2013
    Messages:
    11,162
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    USA / Europe
    That would be my interpretation as well. I think he said several times that sugar increases metabolism and CO2 production, which increases the need for cofactors. It does NOT "deplete" them as some people have tried to claim but simply increases the rate of use.
     
  16. Nighteyes

    Nighteyes Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2015
    Messages:
    193
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Europe
    To be fair what is the functional difference between the two? Doesn't "depletion" simply mean lowered amount in tissues and hence simply a side effect of ramped up metabolism? Never understood why incresed usage isn't the same as depletion..
     
  17. sele

    sele Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2014
    Messages:
    236
    Gender:
    Female
    My understanding of 'depeletion' is lowered amount in tissues and it is unable to be used.
    You get nothing in return. It is wasted.
    Opposite of depletion eg: sugar gives you CO2 in return for incresed usage.
     
  18. haidut

    haidut Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2013
    Messages:
    11,162
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    USA / Europe
    Well for example alcohol inhibits thiamine absorption from the gut and increases its degradation. So, that would be depletion to me. Glycolysis used up NAD and generates NADH. But if the Krebs cycle and ETC are working properly eventually the NADH gets converted back to NAD. Higher metabolism may mean less NAD is available for tasks other than metabolism, at least temporarily. The latter to me is not depletion but rather increased demand for it in order to continue optimal functioning. So, lowering metabolism may correct the "issue" with less NAD but lowering alcohol consumption will usually not restore already depleted thiamine levels.
    Maybe it is the second example that these people meant when they said depletion, but the sense I got from their posts is that it was somehow the former. I am not aware of how eating more sugar will actually deplete zinc and manganese. I think at least in the case of zinc, excretion is very low and it is recycled in the GI tract to true depletion is probably not due to the sugar.
    Zinc metabolism

    Also, I always found it strange that the criticism is somehow aimed at consuming large amounts of sucrose. Somehow consuming large amounts of starch is not considered to be mineral depleting by these people or at least it is never discussed in that light. By that token - i.e. insulin production requirements - protein should be the most potent depletor of zinc/manganese since protein triggers even more insulin release than pure glucose. Again, that point is somehow never brought up. As you can see, any macronutrient can be said to "deplete" something because if it is necessary for its metabolism. But the reality is that there are recycling mechanisms and depletion simply means if metabolism goes up the need for this nutrient also goes up. Another example is uncoupling - if you uncouple your metabolism the need for anti-oxidants goes up to protect from the ROS produced by this high rate of metabolism. So, the general argument against high metabolism and sugar so far seems to stem from the same old "rate of living" theory - do not ramp up your cells' furnaces 'cause you'll burn them up and exhaust them by depleting nutrients. Well, if you food is good quality that should not occur. The alternative of living in semi-hybernation just to avoid using up precious zinc and whatnot is certainly not the image of health, at least not to me.
     
  19. Diokine

    Diokine Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2016
    Messages:
    328
    A question I pose - does the presence of simple saccharides (i.e. glucose) in the small intestine effect the digestion and assimilation of carbohydrate when they are eaten together? Do intestinal brush border enzymes activities change based on the presence of saccharides? Could this result in incomplete digestion or assimilation, leading to partially digested carbohydrate being introduced to the large bowel?
     
  20. DaveFoster

    DaveFoster Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2015
    Messages:
    3,734
    Gender:
    Male
    [​IMG]
     
Loading...