116 Comments
Close this window Jump to comment form-
terpol said... - just want to say some something about high starch diet. after general matt stone/ray peat eating for 1 and half years i noticed i lost some fat eating less fat and more potatoes. so i went all out for almost entirely potato diet with a once or twice a week fat and protein meal. i lost 30 pounds in a few months (180 > 150) eating as much potatoes as i wanted and doing no exercise, barely any walking. all of which looks like fat. i look bigger and more muscular now than i did before. anyway i'm just saying that very high starch with occasional lump of meat won't strip the muscle off you as long as its potatoes or something. and my body, haha. temp goes back forth from 97.7 to 98.7 all day. i'm warm and its low, i'm cold and its high. all my life. must have no fucking adrenals. hopefully a ton of pregnenolone will do something, nothing else has ;(
- To Terpol : just plain potatoes or you added fat and condiments (butter and salt?)
- terpol said...
- i usually ate them baked, with salt and cheese, 30-50g fat total, 400-600g starch and the potatoes gave me around 40-60g protein and some from the cheese. it doesn't exactly stick to the ribs so you will be hungry often. you want to have good potatoes and a variety is even better. just 2 here in ireland ;( i'm eating normally again, lots of coconut oil, gelatin, milk and of course still potatoes, and my weight hasn't increased. i don't think i feel any different eating each diet.
so make it display all the "firday night talk" shows, and peat should be on the about the third show of every month back to the early summer i think . maybe there are more from before, and the interviewers are great too. this is a goldmine, and there was a really illuminating discussion in one of them about the interactions between adrenalin, cortisol, and the liver's glycogen and how this relates to getting the shakes . ill try to find it again and write it here since it's so related to this post
- rosenfeltc said...
- Jannis, Let me get this straight, even though you were suffering from following Peat's recommendations and even though this study shows that sucrose's effect is the opposite of what Peat talks about, you still try to defend him?
- Jannis said...
- Hi rosenfeltc, I dont understand what exactely you mean by "defend him". What I wrote is that I don't agree with Peat's oppinion on sucrose. Not more, not less.
- rosenfeltc said...
- What I mean is that throughout Matt Stone's blog posts, you have constantly showed up to claim how sucrose is better than glucose and always had a bunch of rat studies to back your claims and of course also citing Peat's writings. However, it turns out that while you were doing so, you yourself were having your own problems while on a high sucrose diet, yet you were trying to advise everybody else that Matt's posts were wrong and that sucrose is superior to starch etc... etc... Now, in your post, you cite some research showing you that perhaps Peat is wrong about sucrose and that perhaps it's not as beneficial as Peat claims it to be, yet you still defend Peat with sayings such as "But the long term effects may be very different from that results." and "I don't think that a high sucrose diet is necessarily bad...For people with a high metabolism, sugar is probaly beneficial" I'm really just curious how you really feel about all of this? Don't you think Peat's response to your question on the research is a bit dismissive? Don't you want Peat to answer to tell you why you had such episodes of hypoglycemia even though you were avoiding PUFAs?
- Jannis said...
- rosenfeltc, I see where you going with this, but I have to disappoint you if you are expecting me to say that I was wrong all the time and that sugar is bad. Everything I have said about sugar is still true and has been confirmed in animal and human studies (which I cited several times on Matt's blog) But sugar also might have negative side effects in some cases. It is probably not even the sugar itself, since most people profit from eating it. But that is not true in every case. That's why I wrote the article. I did not know that back then, but as you know, nodbody starts knowing everything. To clarify a few things: I did not suffer from Peat's advice. Those hypoglycemic episodes never lasted longer than 15 minutes and I still felt much better than I did on a high starch diet. If you have a look at the study I cited in my article, you will see that the women on a high sucrose diet did much better than the starch group. And yes, I still think that sucrose is superior to starch. I did not write this article to confess that I suddenly discovered that sucrose is infact the devil, but to start a good discussion to improve my knowledge. I know that you think that everybody who is fond of Peat believes him to be a god who never makes any mistakes. But that is really your problem. I never said that, and that people cite and mention him so often might be due to the fact that he has the best research. About your last point: Yes, Peat's answer is indeed somewhat disappointing, especially when you consider how much he wrote about the bad effects of adrenalin.
- rosenfeltc said...
- Wow Jannis, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to strike a nerve. If anything I admired you for being flexible to the research and to your own body's response. I don't think that people who follow Peat see him as a god, my only point with Peat is that if he has some of the best research and if his goal is really to just spread the truth amongst all the lies from the government and pharmaceutical industry then he should be willing to debate and provide better explanations on why he disagrees with the research. Anytime, i've asked Peat about something that was contrary to his belief or asked for further explanation, I always got a brief response back that was just dismissive or sometimes i would get a rat study that didn't even have to do with the subject. My main point was that if he really felt that the study's failure was due to its short term than it would have been nice of him to show you why he believes that, perhaps with some long term studies that you weren't able to find. But instead, a person has to just take Peat's word with stuff and go off faith. And please don't give me the bullshit that you still believe that sucrose is better than glucose, if that were true then you're diet wouldn't be "150g of starch, 100g of lactose and 50g of sugar."
- Jannis said...
- rosenfeltc, Don't worry, you didn't strike a nerve. I'm just tired of people who dismiss a theory or a study just because it is supported by Peat. If that wasn't your intention, sorry. Again, I still think sucrose is better than pure glucose for various reasons. A lot of them can be seen in the study I cited in the article. It increases energy production, is associated with more LBM and less fat, and normally increases glycogen and thyroid. Most studies also show that frcutose and sucrose prevent hypoglycemia whereas pure glucose triggers it. That's why I can't yet understand why it causes reactive hypoglycemia in some people. Sometimes you have to be very persistent with Peat. I think that's because he gets dozens of emails every day. Except from this sugar-adrenalin thing, I always got satisfying answers from him. For instance, Peat writes in one of his article that milk contains less tryptophan than muscle meat and is therefore better than it. But newer studies show that milk contains, in fact, ´much more tryptophan. He admitted that and corrected it in one of his newer articles. I heard from many people that they do fantastic on a high sugar diet. Peat also eats more than 200g a diet. And again, a lot of studies show that fructose is very effective in preventing hypoglycemia. If Peat and a lot of his patients made this experience, and the studies also show it, than I can't blame him for preferring sucrose. If he did not believe that sugar was superior, he wouldn't recommend it. He is not that kind of guy that holds on to sth justfor ideologically reasons.
- rosenfeltc said...
- I thought that at one point Peat drank up to 50 cups of coffee a day, why would he do such a thing if coffee stimulated the adrenals? I'm really confused about everything nutrition related...
- Jannis said...
- I don't know, but most people I have spoken to said that they couldn't sleep, if they had drunk coffee. When I drink coffee I feel very alert and tense. I don't have a study to confirm this, but my experience tells me that coffee stimulates adrenalin. Then again, it might depend on the individual hormononal situation.
- rosenfeltc said...
- But that's the problem, I agree with you, but that's what bothers me, is that Peat believes the opposite on this and many other issues that i disagree with him, but i do realize that he has spent his life doing research and that's why I would like to know why exactly he feels the way he does on certain subjects, what pieces of information does he have that im missing which is making me come to the wrong conclusion. For example, every time i try to add sugar back or increase it over my starch, i get horrible acne, thrush and start gaining weight, which is like the opposite of what Peat says should happen. I just dont know what to fricken believe or do anymore
- rosenfeltc said...
- With my first Peat experiment I ate my sucrose/fructose in the form of red apples, bananas and different types of berries and it made me breakout (acne) and gave me horrible tongue thrush. I don't think i had hypoglycemia or insomnia (sleep is the same with or without fruit, meaning i still tend to wake up at 3 a.m). On my second Peat experiment I just used Haagen Dazs and orange juice and once again I got the same results as before(acne, thrush) but this time with a little weight gain around the stomach. I think I may just be one of those people that have fructose malabsorption because If I have to much fructose in one sitting, I always get the same symptoms.
john said...- rosenfeltc, Have you ever replaced sugar with starch and kept the rest somewhat similar--what were your results? Andrew, I think good skin is more common with very low carbers, as I know several vegetarians/vegans who look terrible. I would be shocked if a near-zero carb diet didn't completely eliminate skin problems. Why would tubers or fruit or milk cause problems? Does the short term increase in insulin matter that much for long term skin health? Is insulin even what's important? Art Ayers mentions acne a few times but kind of only in the context of inflammation & insulin, so again, we're just back to low carb.
- rosenfeltc said...
- John, I'm going to give you a brief summary since I don't want to bore you with all the details. Basically as a teenager, I ate like shit and had horrible acne. At the age of 15 I got tired of the acne so I went to a doctor who assured me it wasn't due to diet and put me on two different antibiotics (doxicycline and tetracycline) for a total of 2 years. I believe that those antibiotics for such a long time took a major toll on my health. After I got off of them at the age of 17, i still had horrible acne which plagued me until 19 when I decided to do my own research. I came upon candida and considering I had horrible thrush, dark under eye circles and horrible acne, I believed (still kinda do) that i have a candida overgrowth due to the antibiotics couples with a horrible diet. So I went on a candida diet, which is basically a low carb diet and after 3 weeks my acne was like 95% gone. I was ecstatic to say the least. I kept on researching and found Owsley the Bear Stanley and the zerocarb forum and I thought i had found the holy grail, all my problems were from eating "things" that werent meat. So I went on a zerocarb diet, which cleared my acne completely. However, throughout my life I had always been skinny and energetic, and my favorite things to do are playing soccer and training mixed martial arts. Unfortunately, my energy got pretty bad with zerocarb (obviously no glucose, hard to train anaerobic type sports on a ketogenic diet). But I still pushed myself and tried to do my best to still train while on a carnivorous only diet which probably just took a strain on my thyroid. After 8 months on a zerocarb diet, I felt horrible, no energy, bad sleep, lost a lot of weight (mostly muscle), could only breath out of one nostril at a time, and just felt horrible even though I had clear skin. At about this time Matt Stone was switching his ideology to a high carb/starch diet and also Stephan Guyenet was changing his mind on carbs being the cause of diseases.
- rosenfeltc said...
- So I decided to do Matt Stone's HED strategy with basically Guyenet's principles. Meaning, I ate no gluten or sugar, but I made sure to stuff myself at every meal. My meals mainly consisted of about 14 potatoes a day, 2 pounds of ground beef, and tablespoons of butter and coconut oil for more flavor. I went from being 6'2" 165 pounds during zerocarb to 6'2" 195 pounds. My energy was up, my strength increased, I was sleeping great and I only had a few pimples show back up. Problem was that I felt about 5-10 pounds heavier than what I wanted, my tongue thrush and dark under eye circles were not any better, and I still could only breath out of one nostril at a time. I stuck with it and eventually after like 6-7 months my weight dropped to about 185 with me still stuffing my face at every meal. However, I still had tongue thrush and what I felt were candida issues. At this time i was reading peat and his ideas on candida, and even though my Pufas were already low, I decided to experiment with sugar and fructose (this was the first peat experiment that i talked about in the other comment). After 3 weeks and the failure with that I went back to eating my high starch, medium protein, medium fat diet. All the way until two weeks ago, and btw I had dropped down now to 180 pounds and I could honestly look in the mirror and i had an 8 pack without even flexing. So in terms of strength and physically looking good things were great. However, I started having the sleep problems that I had after 7 months on zerocarb, meaning I would wake up every night at 2-3 a.m. sometimes i would have to go to the bathroom other times no, but i would always wake up and it took me another 15-30 minutes to go back to sleep. So after rereading Peat and other blogs, I felt that maybe my liver glycogen was empty at those times which allowed cortisol to rise and this was because starch wasn't very good at filling liver glycogen. This led me to starting my second Peat attempt a week and a half ago which led to the results that I mentioned above. So right now, I backed away on too much sugar but I'm still trying to keep a little bit of it and I'm still drinking the milk. I'm still debating on whether to go fully back to no fructose or lactose because I really want to know how to help my sleep and my breathing problem. But to be honest the introduction of sugar and lactose has only slightly helped my sleep, done nothing for my breathing, and worsened my body composition and gave me quite a bit of acne, so I'm still debating what actions to take. Do you have any advice or anything? I would appreciate any opinions
- rosenfeltc said...
- Damn, I just reread and saw that I did a horrible job at keeping that short. I apologize for that
undertow said...- I am a bit older then rosenfeltc, but our stories are almost identical. I have tried the same things with regard to starch/sucrose and gotten the same results. Two issues I still have are oily skin (causing acne), and sleep issues (waking at 3hr sleep cycle intervals). Makes me think that gut flora and carbs are somehow related...
- rosenfeltc said...
- Undertow, do you breath normally though? Cause I honestly always have one side of my nose plugged up and I don't think it's a deviated septum because the sides constantly switch. But I hardly ever have a time where I can breathe clearly from both my nostrils and this all started after like 6 months of zerocarb.
- undertow said...
- My nose is normal when standing or sitting, but one side is always blocked when I sleep. It switches back and forth depending on which side I sleep... this seems to have gotten worse after low-carbing. I should add though, that my thrush has been improving after taken the prebiotics you suggested. They make my acne worse when I am on them, but thrush is definitely getting better. Acne seems better now that I am off them... Just got another bottle and will do a another 2Xday for a month and see what happens.
- john said...
- Thanks guys--I like to hear stories like that. I had bad skin as a young teenager, which actually got better as I got older (it was worst when I was only 12) without my diet changing. My diet consisted of tons of crap, but I also ate a lot of nutritious food. It's been continuously improving since I started eating better (whatever that is), but I've never went on a long term controlled experiment to get some good personal observations. I haven't really eaten and "processed" food for months, but I eat good amounts of carbohydrate from fruit and starch (plus a little milk). I do prefer low carb, but I've never kept it going for that long. Perhaps I'll attempt to cut out fruit and eat sweet potato varieties for my carbs and check out the effects. On "zero carb," do you even eliminate things like herbs and spices? How was salt and gelatin intake--what about supplements like D3 or Mg?
- john said...
- Oh, I realize sweet potatoes have some fructose, so I guess that kind of complicates things, but I don't like regular potatoes, and I suspect [sushi] rice is inferior, although I don't have much evidence for that.
- rosenfeltc said...
- John, back in my zerocarb days the belief was that anything that wasn't meat was not good for the human body so I basically avoided all kinds of spices, herbs and supplements. I didn't concern myself with gelatin and basically just ate all the different parts of "cow and chicken"
Andrew said...- John, I think you're right about vegans, low carbers, and acne. Rosenfeltc, I have the clogged nostril thing too. I'm leaning toward thinking the skin problems (rashes, maybe acne) are from some irritating substances in foods that some people cannot process well--maybe people with suppressed metabolisms, steroid deficiencies, leaky intestines, or bacterial imbalance in the gut. A couple years ago, thinking I had a salicylate intolerance, I spent a few months eating only butter, meat, potatoes, and eggs, and my rashes/eczema and acne that I had had for a long time went away. When I got bored of such a limited diet, the rashes came back. While most of the eczema faded as my diet improved over the years, I still had some strange rashes. When I took a certain amount of thyroid, the rashes went away. When I stopped taking enough thyroid, the rashes came back. Do you feel itchy at night, like your skin is crawling?
- rosenfeltc said...
- Actually, I don't tend to feel itchy at night, do you think that would be due to some parasites crawling around the skin? After listening to the interviews with Peat, i decided to continue on with his advice for a little while longer, I'm thinking at least a month or so and see how things go. My body is feeling warmer even though my skin is kinda crappy right now. I'm just kinda scared about what Jannis posted so I hope I'm not feeling warmer because the sugar is overstressing my adrenals. But obviously Peat seems to always mention sugar as something that suppresses cortisol, adrenaline and the breakdown of tissue. Btw does anybody know how old Raymond Peat really is?
- john said...
- "...irritating substances in foods that some people cannot process well--maybe people with suppressed metabolisms, steroid deficiencies, leaky intestines, or bacterial imbalance in the gut..." Yea, I'd guess the same thing. Art Ayers of Cooling Inflammation has lots on the gut and bacteria. A summary would be to eat small amounts of a variety of raw and fermented foods, along with vitamin D and herbs and spices. He favors low carb.
- Ian said...
- rosenfeltc: when Jannis said "long term effects may be very different from that results", I thought that she was referring to the effect on the hypoglycemia - not adrenaline. And long-term effect may indeed be different, so what you are saying? That you would judge a diet as bad if ONE person has hypoglycemia for 15 minutes occasionally? I've only had classic hypoglycemia symptoms once (cold sweat, shakes) and that was after eating fat with no protein or carbs (cold pressed, unrefined macadamia nut oil, which is very low in PUFAs). I have also eaten comb honey and pure sugar by themselves without such a reaction and have never had hypoglycemia in response to a mixed meal. Also, rosenfeltc, Ray Peat doesn't say to eat all sugar and no starch in his articles. In fact, I recall one article that talked about half and half. He may eat mostly sugar, but but his articles don't suggest exact sugar/starch ratios or argue for elimination of starch (he does warn against some TYPES).
- rosenfeltc said...
- Ian/Bruce K/Crazy dude: My point was not about hypoglycemia, what I'm worried about is this part of what Jannis wrote: "According to Ray Peat, sucrose stabilizes the blood sugar, decreases stress hormones, and thus optimizes thyroid function. Therefore, I was pretty surprised to see that the sucrose group had significantly increased levels of adrenaline and noradrenaline. Additionally, lactate levels were also elevated in the sucrose group. A high lactate concentration is a sign of increased anaerobic glycolisis - the opposite of oxidative metabolism. It seems that the increased metabolic rate on a high sucrose diet is caused mainly by the activation of the adrenal system." If sugar does indeed activate the adrenal system and the stress hormones, then this is the opposite of what Peat has been claiming sugar to do which in my opinion could potentially be very harmful. Jannis inquired about this and Ray Peat replied that he thinks that the increase in adrenaline is a temporary mechanism to compensate for low thyroid function. Obviously I don't even have 1 percent of the biochemical/endocrinology knowledge that Ray Peat has so if that is what he believes then he is probably right. However, I just wish he would have gave Jannis a more explanative answer with some possible references, cause otherwise I feel like I'm taking his research on faith alone. And no, Ray Peat has always preferred sugar over starch and he has told me personally through emails that if I person has some digestive problems that he/she should completely avoid starches. In fact, he said that the best part of the potato is the juice and if one can centrifugally extract that and throw away the rest (starch and fiber)then that would be optimal.
- Anonymous said...
- Ian/Bruce, maybe it was the salicylates in the macadamia nut oil that caused temporary low blood sugar? If you do not mind, what does your current diet look like?
- Ian said...
- I don't get anxious or tense from coffee, but it sometimes keeps me awake if I drink it too late. But not always, so there must be more variables. I drink iced coffee 1-2 days a week, with cream, and some sugar. Or frozen cappuccino, chai, etc. I've never got into the habit of using coffee or other stimulant drugs as a crutch to wake up or to stay awake. Ray Peat drank lots of coffee in the past, but he quit it when he started taking thyroid and hormones, I think.
- Ian said...
- rosenfeltc: Crazy is Majority Rule. Crazy is Keeping Up w/ the Joneses. Crazy is stigmatizing people due to non-conformity and unusual beliefs, rather than having tolerance, love, and acceptance for them. Bruce K is dead, like Dick Laurent. I agree with Ray that any raise in adrenaline is temporary because in my experience, Nathan's, and other people on Matt's blog, sugar makes us calm and relaxed with dead calm energy. I am actually feeling more peaceful than ever since September and continually improving. I think it's absurd to extrapolate from refined sugar to "cold packed honey" or 100% fruit juice or cane juice or maple syrup. I've seen at least one study that said honey is more like starch in its effects on blood lipids, anti-oxidant values, etc. than a mix of refined glucose and fructose in the same ratio. It is wrong to say that honey is just like high fructose corn syrup. All foods are unique, IMO. Studies are fundamentally unreliable. If Ray told you that people with a digestive problem should avoid all starches, that does not mean he is telling all people to avoid starch completely. He's not the first one to say that people with digestive problems should avoid starches. Go check out Elaine Gottschall's book Breaking The Vicious Cycle.
- Ian said...
- Anonymous, I don't know if there is salicylate in macadamia oil, but I have eaten it with other foods with no problem. I once ate extra virgin coconut oil by itself. I didn't get cold sweats and shakes, but I felt kind of sick and tired. I've heard there are salicylates in the extra virgin coconut oil. My current diet is basically food: meat, milk, eggs, fish (some raw). grains (mostly refined unbleached unenriched bagels, freshly ground whole grain bread, sprouted wheat bagels, organic white rice). potatoes, beans, legumes, peas. fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds. spices, herbs, occasional coffee, good ice cream, butter keks, dark chocolate, cheesecake, tiramisu, macaroons, cream puffs).
- Anonymous said...
- Ian, you're not worried about the PUFA's in nuts and seeds?
- Ian said...
- I worry about oil roasted nuts and seeds, as well as rancid vegetable oils, overheated and re-used oils, etc. Why worry about fat from nuts and seeds? Limiting PUFAs may have short-term benefits, but why avoid natural foods in the long-term? We may need them. Limiting PUFAs made me stop dreaming, or I wasn't able to remember them most of the time. Now I have vivid dreams regularly. I'm not eating tons of nuts, but I am tired of the diet dogma. I said two years ago be more flexible and forget about diets. But it took me that long to let go of Ray Peatism and other dogma. We should balance Ray Peat with Brian Peskin & other researchers with an opposite view. Forget About Diets. Unlearn.
- Andrew said...
- I somehow just ran into this blog http://freeideasblog.blogspot.com/search/label/Cytomel I haven't read through much of it yet, but I've seen some really great thyroid-related posts. There's one on how taking thyroid affected her handwriting, and another about careers, fatigue, and work as related to hypothyroidism. I see constant changes in the way I relate to others, myself, my work, and it's nice to see some of these written somewhere else too. It's also good to have some reading material for the frustrating moments when you're energy is sapped from just your daily routine. And I was going to say I doubt Ian's crazy, and Jannis is a guy.
- Andrew said...
- I think Peat is 74. I was going to link you to a comment from his friend who mentions his age and that he looks 63(?) (http://www.westonaprice.org/dvdmedia-reviews/thumbs-down/1848-interview-with-dr-ray-peat.html), but I think they took away the comments--they all pointed out how silly the 'review' was.
- Miles said...
- The most noticeable affect I've had from increasing the sugar is my diet is a massive reduction in craving for alcohol. Anyone else noticed this?
- rosenfeltc said...
- I sent Peat an email asking this: Do you think there is an optimal starch to fruit ratio? If so, where do you think it lies? He answered back: Probably about zero. So I followed it up with: Oh wow, that definitely goes against the grain. So do you follow a close to zero ratio of starch to fruit? Cause I thought you also ate white rice and cooked potatoes. and Peat replied back with: The safest starch is in nixtamalized corn (alkali processed, it partly breaks down the starch), the safest way to prepare potato is to remove the starch in a centrifugal juicer; the cooked juice tastes like mashed potato, but it's mainly protein. Once in a while I'll have a boiled turnip, with lots of butter. So Ian, you were wrong about what you think Peat's carbohydrate suggestions are.
- terpol said...
- if i'm not mistaken Peat still takes thyroid. if he didn't i don't think he would be doing so well on his all suger no starch diet. the fiber and resistant starch in potatoes etc break down to short chain fatty acids in the gut which i think is a big plus, among other things. i have no problem with sugar or starch but the few times i have tried only sugar i felt fine but was craving a big floury potato after a day. and unrelated but i really disagree with his calcium/magnesium ratio. 1 quart of orange juice and 1-2 quarts of milk and whatever else. thats a calcium magnesium ratio of at least 10:1. Peat can argue that humans evolved eating sweet fruit but they certainly weren't chugging down milk. i wonder what the idea amount of calcium is assuming plenty of magnesium and vit d.
Ian said...- Rosenfeltc: I was discussing Peat's articles and more specifically the claims that can be backed with science or even strong anecdotal evidence. His claims about starch persorption causing all kinds of pathologes in rats are not credible imo. Humans eat starch and don't have the rampant pathologies he is so afraid of. Peat never says to eliminate starch in the posts that I've seen, but I haven't read all, esp his most recent batch. I have read most of his posts on fats and oils, vitamin e, carrageenan, alzheimer's, aging eyes, altitude, etc. You said that Peat advised persons with digestive problems to avoid starch, and that is not general advice. I understand that Peat may eat very little starch and he may tell others to do that who are blindly following him like some guru. I have also heard second-hand on WAPF groups and others that many ignore this or see no benefits. Anyway, I don't see him saying this in his articles which are (mostly) based on science. he needs to revise his articles if they diverge from his current views and/or credible data from humans.
- rosenfeltc said...
- lol whatever Ian, I can tell you have selective reading disorder, so I'm done wasting my time talking to you
- Jannis said...
- I think some of Peat's arguments against starch are a bit faulty. For example, he very often mentions this lab experiment where they fed rats the equivalent of what would be 500g of starch for a human. The rats digested it completely in less than an hour. That's why he says that starch is absorbed more rapidly than sucrose. But in reality is very different for humans. Starch is digested much longer in the intestine than sucrose. And especially liquid sucrose is digested very quickly.
- rosenfeltc said...
- I agree with you Jannis, but that is why I'm confused that you still think sucrose is better than starch. What reasons am i missing?
- Colldén said...
- Where did you read about the high-sucrose group losing fat and gaining muscle? The first study you cited doesn't describe any changes in body composition from what I can see.
- Colldén said...
- Nevermind, found it. http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v21/n10/pdf/0800494a.pdf
- Jannis said...
- collden, You are right, that's actually the wrong part of the study that shows only the hormonal levels. Here is the part that shows changes in fat mass an lean body mass. http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v21/n10/pdf/0800494a.pdf I will replace it in the article, too. rosenfeltc, Various reasons. More energy, better sleep, better body compositin etc. I found out that my reactive hypoglycemia was actually caused by something else. I think I will write more about that in a new post in the next few days.
- rosenfeltc said...
- Jannis: That's interesting because my best body composition has been when I ate a high starch diet and cut out all fruit and dairy and basically ate lots of potatoes, ground beef and butter. In fact, if it hadnt been for the sleep problems in the last two weeks of it, i wouldnt have tried adding sugar and dairy.
- john said...
- I think the hormone changes are more significant than the body comp changes although neither seems much so. Measuring about 1lb gained or lost over a 14 day span is really tough to interpret. I suppose we can say the same about the changes in adrenaline, but that's just my hunch. Also, the diets themselves have a lot of foods that I don't eat. I think it's important to note that cultures eat high starch even with high fruit availability (I think--am I making this up?).
- rosenfeltc said...
- john: No, you're not making that up. In fact the kitavans ate between a 3:1 to 4:1 starch to fruit ratio even with an abundance of fruit. That's another reason why I can't seem to think that sugar is better to starch, i'm open minded about the fact that sugar or fructose could have a beneficial effect on health but that it should be the predominant carb? I'm just not so sure about that
- Lillea said...
- I really like that blog, Andrew. Wow, thanks for posting the link. I didn't see the comments about handwriting changing. Do you have a link to show me where that's mentioned? I have been perplexed about why my printing/script has turned almost scratchy in the last 2 years. I used to be praised for my printing, and now, I'm almost apalled. It has confused me. Rationally, the only thing I could come up with is that I'm out of practice, thanks to typing more than printing for a long time, but I can't quite convince myself of that. I was typing a LOT before 2 years ago and printing less, so why the change in recent times? Now I notice I write a lot faster, which makes for messiness, but the point is, why am I going faster now? I have to consciously slow myself down when I write a note, and it's almost painful to do so. That is really weird. And sometimes I will write more nicely, independent of speed.
- Lillea said...
- I found the link about her experience with thyroid and handwriting: http://freeideasblog.blogspot.com/2009/06/becoming-euthryoid-not-hypothyroid.html
- Jannis said...
- John, you are right. Two weeks is certainly not enough to draw any serious conclusions from it. But this study is still far better than most other studies about sugar. That the kitava don't eat much sugar doesn't necessarily mean that starch is better than sugar. the food consumption of a society is always determined by culture and traditions, to a certain extent. And they kitava don't have perfect health, either. Besides, they hardly eat any PUFA at all. I think their high ratio of sat to unsat fat is much more important. I think understanding the hormonal and physiological effects of foods and one's own experiences are far more important than observing the kitava's or the pima indian's diet. By the way, Peat is 74 years old.
- Comment deleted
- This post has been removed by the author.
- rosenfeltc said...
- Jannis: I guess that is where we are going to have to agree to disagree. I think there is a lot that could be learned from different tribes/cultures, specially the Kitavans who didn't suffer from food shortages or (at the time) contact with western civilization. So I tend to believe (maybe erroneously) that their food traditions were based on experience and maybe some instinctual nature. If they ate a 3:1 ratio of starch to fruit, instead of for example a 3:1 ratio of fruit to starch, then I believe that there is probably a good reason for this. Since it obviously wasn't because they got pamphlets from the USDA Food guide pyramid or even had any nutritional knowledge about the caloric differences between protein/fat/carbs then I believe they ate the way they did because through trial and error of several generations they found the best way to live off of their environment. The fact that their environment had plenty of fruits as well as tubers puts them in my mind on an equal ground to be chosen and it seems that the Kitavans did so in a 3:1-4:1 starch to fruit ratio. And in my opinion, these type of studies can provide a whole lot more knowledge than dividing rats into different groups and giving the rats different proportions of pure glucose and sucrose and fructose etc... and then just taking some basic measures like bodyweight etc... For many reasons, 1 of those reasons is that I don't know how well the study done on the rats transposes into humans (as you mentioned before, starch digestion is differently in humans compared to rats) and 2 even if the rats were leaner I have no clue on how they felt or how their mood was affected. I.e. What's the point of eating a certain way to be skinny if makes me angry or depressed? Anyways these are just my thoughts and I'm not stating this as being fact.
- Jannis said...
- I don't think that recommendations should be based on rat studies, either. Rats are different from humans. For example, sucrose causes insulin resistance in most rat studies, but that is not true for humans. Rats also have a higher need for tryptophan and so on...But there are enough human studies examining the effects of scurose, starch etc. And those indicate that sucrose is superior in many aspects. There is not nearly enough data on how we evolved and what we are designed to eat. So, I will interprete the studies myself and count on my own experience rather than following someone's interpretations or other people's diet.
- john said...
- Yea, my first thought was the Kitavans (or what about the Yanomamo--bananas but lack of starch...), but I wasn't sure about fruit availability. I think I lean towards rosenfeltc though in that we can learn a lot from how a culture refines its diet over thousands of years. I'd suspect that cultural practices and diet develop together, but the fact that it has been thousands of years implies that their diet is mostly based on health, which would [should] take priority in the long term. Jannis, It's just so much easier to control them and see long term changes. Mice and rats are a little different. What would happen to a Kitavan who switched to a traditional Inuit diet and vice versa?
- Andrew said...
- Do the Kitavans have access to enough animal protein? If they don't, maybe they like to eat so many potatoes because of their high quality protein.
- john said...
- According to Lindeberg, protein is only 9%. I'm not sure if this natural, or too little due to lack of food, or misreported/miscalculated.
- Comment deleted
- This post has been removed by the author.
- Comment deleted
- This post has been removed by the author.
- rosenfeltc said...
- Lmao, Ian you're fat, bald and have mental problems, so Shut the Fuck Up. You are in no position to be giving nutritional advice, especially after you're major breakdown as bruce k.
- Andrew said...
- Ian has good information to add to the discussion, but I don't want to read all his bullshit. Personal appearance shouldn't factor much into the discussion unless someone's been eating a certain way for a long time.
Ian said...- You're full of shit, Andrew and rosenfelt. I am not bald. I cut my hair short like Matt, and have been doing it for years. I feel healthy and have healthy markers - blood sugar, a1c, blood pressure, etc. I feel btter tha when those tests were taken. I had slightly elevated cholesterol 6 months ago - 280 - which doesn't worry me in the least, because I'm not eating SAD like most people. So you shutup and don't worry about me o judge me. You're afraid of eating anything, rosenfelt, and criticize my health? Lol. My blow-up as Bruce K is in the past. I'm not that way now, so why don't you stop dwelling on iit? Or are you just a prejudiced person who looks down on people who are "crazy" or different?
- Ian said...
- You two are spewing bs. What "mental problems" do I have that invalidate my views rosenfelt? Bipolar or manic depressive? I haven't been depressed in like 6 months. What is wrong with you? Millions of people have bipolar, ad/hd, depression, schizophrenia, ocd, asperger's, and other problems. Doesn't mean they have no credibility, esp if they are stable and feeling better without toxic drugs. Gabriel on Matt's blog is probably asperger or autistic or something, but you and Brock love to act like the big tough guy and put him down for not conforming to your expected rules of conduct norms. Clean your windows. Matt looked a lot fatter than me in his Mattsquatch photo covering his abs with a frisbee. We have the same BMI roughly, but I'm 4" taller. So why don't you stop reading his blog? He's an overweight carb addict wth a puffy face to quote Charles Washington, Richard Nikoley, Mark Sisson, Martin Berkhan, Anthony Colpo, or their readers. I don't care what you think about me and never have and never will. I'm immune to praise and criticism. I don't care wht happened two years ago as Bruce K while sleeping every other day and having manic psychosis. Thatwas then and this is now. Do I have a six-pack? No. Never claimed to. Matt is certainly not showing off one as the Mattsquatch. I don't care. Why? Because I prefer Matt's attitude to people like Richard, Martin, Anthony, Charles, and Mark's readers. I'd rather hang with Aajonus than any of those stuck-up arrogant prigs. They're vain, pompous, self obsessed, shallow narcissists. I will take a guy like Matt over them even if he weighs a half ton. Weight is a number. How you feel and treat people is what counts. By that criteria, some of the most lean people are worthless, imo. I'd rather feel healthy and be patient and happy, not count calories and carbs or whatever and be a cold, unhapy, hungry, apngry, insecure jerk like many on those blogs and forums. Michael Eades looks pretty big, and so does Cordain, look at their beach photos on Eades's blog from a while back. But so what? I'd rather read Eades than the calorie-counters and ab obsessed miserable paleotards.
- rosenfeltc said...
- lmao, I didn't even waste my time reading what you wrote because I TRULY don't care what you have to say. Yet, you say you don't care and then write a whole book about how it offends you or whatever. Continue to act crazy and pretend you're the savior that has to save everybody from diets...
Forget About Diets said...- John: "Yea, my first thought was the Kitavans (or what about the Yanomamo--bananas but lack of starch...), but I wasn't sure about fruit availability." Have you read this article on the Yanomamo tribe from the old Plant Poisons & Rotten Stuff blog? It's hard to know what factor to blame for their violence and aggression: a protein deficient diet with 90% bananas and plantains or the mind altering drugs taken. "Even mice become aggressive and kill and eat each other when fed a diet of nothing but fruit." Bananas are a deficient food, usu. picked green and full of defensive toxins. http://autoimmunethyroid.wordpress.com/2006/09/24/gone-bananas/
- Jannis said...
- Bananas are very high in serotonin. That might explain that phenomena. rosenfeltc and andrew, I suggest you calm down a bit. If you find Ian's ideas so unbelievable stupid, why don't you just ignore him?
- rosenfeltc said...
- Jannis: I do ignore his ideas, it's just too much fun to get him all riled up lol but I'll stop
- Comment deleted
- This post has been removed by the author.
- Jannis said...
- Yeah, having a little fun or ridiculing somebody's argument is one thing, but personally attacking somebody because of his ideas is just weak, dude
- john said...
- Damn, what did Ian's comment say to get everyone fired up?? Ian, Yes, her post was the first time I had heard of the Yanomamo, but I looked into them further, and her 90% claim is arguable. I found a good site (long time ago so don't have the link) that had detailed diet and dental health info, and I remember it being different from her description.
Forget About Diets said...- I'm not acting like any savior, rosenfeltc. Where in the hell did you come up with that? I'm not bald, which would be obvious if you looked close at the picture. I have a high forehead and shave my hair monthly. But don't bother admitting you were wrong about that and dismissing me for "mental illness" based on comments made two years ago while sleeping every other day for several weeks and only half-serious. Just go on making arrogant and false statements. Stck your head in the sand. Hope that works out for you.
- Comment deleted
- This post has been removed by the author.
- rosenfeltc said...
- wow
- rosenfeltc said...
- tell me how you really feel Ian/Bruce K/ Crazy dude?
- Luming said...
- jeoeou
- Social Savior said...
- 1. Ian is not "arrogant" or "insecure" at all. 2. Arrogant/insecure people do not exist as much as we think. We create them within our minds. We often judge people to be arrogant/insecure when they are not. 3. I respect Jannis for supporting Ian. Thank you for reading.
- Social Savior said...
- 1. Ian is not "arrogant" or "insecure" at all. 2. Arrogant/insecure people do not exist as much as we think. We create them within our minds. We often judge people to be arrogant/insecure when they are not. 3. I respect Jannis for supporting Ian. Thank you for reading.
- Social Savior said...
- 1. Ian is not "arrogant" or "insecure" at all. 2. Arrogant/insecure people do not exist as much as we think. We create them within our minds. We often judge people to be arrogant/insecure when they are not. 3. I respect Jannis for supporting Ian. Thank you for reading.
- Social Savior said...
- 4. It is offensive to call someone a "parrot." It is more offensive to call someone a "bullshitter." Yet, it is even more offensive to call someone a "crazy dude" the minute you met him. 5. Fighting is not a good way to resolve conflicts. Thank you for reading again. Best wishes to all.
- Mercury said...
- I did act crazy. See Matt Stone's blog, Plower vs. Force Revisited. However, I was only sleeping 6-8 hours every other day for a few weeks & also deliberately trying to sound crazy, by typing faster and changing my mental attitude. I did experiences what I describe, like being in limbo, and having a near-death type experiences, my whole life flashed before me, instantly believed in God. I don't entirely dismiss these things as delusions or a waking dream, because it seemed totally real. For weeks, I felt like I was in heaven. Even a hospital was like heaven. I saw everyone as beautiful and radiant. Even mundane things were beautiful. http://180degreehealth.blogspot.com/2009/04/plower-vs-force-revisited.html I liked these Anonymous comments: Bruce you need to go something even more extreme. Like eat something nobody has ever eaten before. ... I'm afraid Bruce is going to eat AV, that's how obsessed he is with him. A diet guru eating another diet guru, that's the next step in dietary evolution! Ian/Bruce
- Presumptuous Jerk said...
- If someone tells you to "shut the fuck up", then you have to "shut the fuck you." If you do not shut the fuck up after someone tells to, then it is considered to be "harassment." Legally, you will be charged with a Class-B misdemeanor could be imprisoned for a maximum of two years. Hey, do not blame me-that's the law. Oh, right, I am rationalizing my revenge against you...
- Presumptuous Jerk said...
- If someone tells you to "shut the fuck up", then you have to shut the fuck up. If you do not shut the fuck up after someone tells to, then it is considered to be "harassment." Legally, you will be charged with a Class-B misdemeanor and could be sentenced to a maximum of two years. Hey, do not blame me-that's the law. Oh, right, I am rationalizing my revenge against you...
- Anonymous said...
- guys about suagr read this and then tell me what u think LOL http://www.healthywithhart.com/mind/learn/mg/sf/qa/wg/How_is_sugar_making_us_fat_and_unhealthy i am trying t find the bets diet to cure my acne i am 18 years old when i eat lots of sugar my heart beat gets too high
- Anonymous said...
- guys about suagr read this and then tell me what u think LOL http://www.healthywithhart.com/mind/learn/mg/sf/qa/wg/How_is_sugar_making_us_fat_and_unhealthy i am trying t find the bets diet to cure my acne i am 18 years old when i eat lots of sugar my heart beat gets too high and have bad side effects
- Jannis said...
- What do you mean by gets to high? The article is bullshit. All the points are copied from Dr. Mercola, who is a retarded crackpot
- Mercury said...
- Mercola is also bald and underweight if that matters to you. Jannis, why do you go from favoring unrefined starches, to eating lots of refined sugar, then back off sugar, now add even more? Don't you think that's a huge gamble, as Matt and Brock would say? What about evidence of cultures being ruined when they ate too much sugar? T. L. CLeave noted the rule of 20 years and defined 50g of sugar a day (40# a year) as the threshold where diseases of civilization would appear, if I'm not mistaken. Or are you talking sugar from whole foods? thanks
- Anonymous said...
- i get like side effects and also get constipation of that i am sure pease give me a solution if possible and some diet guidelines i know peat guidelines but i get constipated i am not willing to take medication at 18 years old plus i live in italy LOL Thanks for your time
- Anonymous said...
- maybe is because i eat too much sugar LOL
- Comment deleted
- This post has been removed by the author.
- Anonymous said...
- is it true that three is a 50 grams fructose per day limit and the rest will be than stored as fat?? is there any evidence that it is not like this??
- john said...
- ...Yes, exactly 50g! No evidence as it's a fact.
- Jannis said...
- :D
- rosenfeltc said...
- Alright, let's get back on track. Which one is better sugar vs starch and why? Round 2, Jannis start us off please
- rosenfeltc said...
- Jannis, how has your experimenting with starch been going? Can you give us any insights?
- Anonymous said...
- If one follows a diet like ray peat says what the best thyroid medication and supplements to take??? to increase metabolic rate oxidative metabolism ecc
- Daisy said...
- "Which one is better sugar vs starch and why?" I think some of you are looking for a black or white answer when perhaps there is none. But FWIW, this is my experience (copied from 180DH comments): "I agree with Lisa E when she says: "It's very interesting though cause since I cut out sugar 10 years ago, my health didn't get one bit better. You'd think that if sugar was so evil, I'd have experienced a huge health improvement from it. But I never did." "I can also say that cutting out all sugar and following a strict candida diet does NOT cure candida. Not one bit. Three years of no fruits, sugar, dairy sugar, grains etc did not one good thing for my body." This has also been my experience. Since eating less starch & more sugar, my skin looks beautiful, I have way more energy and stable blood sugar. I even eat a bit of refined sugar, though I'm not eating quarts of ice cream or anything (not every day anyway :P ) I'm also following other Peaty guidelines to a degree, like eating more protein & taking collagen supplements."
- Anonymous said...
- So anyone know Ray's opinion on living on the west coast (US.) after all that's happened in the past weeks. I was thinking of moving there really soon...for better weather and so forth. Now I'm not sure.
- Andrew said...
- Anon, Peat's going to be talking about the radiation in 20 min on wmrw.org. "This Wednesday (March 30th) on WMRW (95.1 fm and streaming at http://wmrw.org )on 'Politics and Science' from 5:00 PM to 6:00 PM I'll be interviewing:" I was thinking of moving out there soon too
- Anonymous said...
- Andrew, completely missed it! If you can share what happened, the jist of it, that would be great! Kudos on interviewing!
- Jenny said...
- My son and I have been working with a nutritionist that uses Ray Peat's recommendations. We have both lost weight and kept it off and a cup of coffee before bed will HELP us sleep. A sip of watery green tea used to keep me WIRED for half the night. Making sure we get enough potassium has made a night and day difference in our bodies' response to sucrose. Potatoes and OJ are balanced, but added sugar is supplemented with cream of tartar.
