Starch is truly slave food

Androsclerozat

@GreekDemiGod
If combining starches with drugs that increase intestinal permeability, such as caffeine, increases inflammation till of the point becoming delusional ego-driven, and meanwhile with sugar it doesn't happen
Then starches are not optimal
Even with perfect digestion, some starch particles will still enter the bloodstream

When I was alcoholic, the most rage and delusion I had after starches
If we live in a suboptimal environment, and gut is the most affected, then shouldn't we focus on easily digestible foods?

Sitaruim

I get 0 symptoms from starch and I enjoy it thoroughly, you don't have to go on a tirade just because you don't tolerate it

Androsclerozat

@Sitaruim said in Starch is truly slave food:

I get 0 symptoms from starch and I enjoy it thoroughly, you don't have to go on a tirade just because you don't tolerate it

I exaggerated a bit
I have good digestion on it
But it feels different not eating it, mentally
Have you tried without it?

One friend tried to explain me how it feels to eat kilos of toroco oranges
It was hard to believe that you can get euphoria out of it and he always used the phrase "You don't know until you know"

Milk Destroyer

@Androsclerozat I understand what you mean. Even when I am experimenting and feel like I am doing comparatively well eating starches, it feels like some aspect of my conciousness is missing. Probably not a part that's necessary for day to day wagie life but I like having it there none the less.

Sitaruim

@Androsclerozat I have tried going starchless but haven't noticed much change. I feel like a lot of people decide a priori that some aspect of their diet is at fault, then they change it and claim quickly thereafter to have made a breakthrough.
In orthorexic people, or in those who are always changing their diet, I claim that their so-called improvement is nothing more than a short burst of euphoria, or a heightened placebo effect, since they were obviously biased toward the new diet before adopting it.
Of course, a lot of people discover food intolerances this way, which is perfectly fine, I'm just referring to those people who conclude that X food is poison every three months

banquos-ghost

When suffering from chronic digestive issues, I've found that well-cooked starches, like white rice, potatoes, and oats, are better tolerated than simple sugars—and by well-cooked I do mean boiled for thirty minutes and mushy, but that's what digests easiest. I've never had a single issue with eating white rice boiled in bone broth; no matter my state of health, I can always digest it just fine.

Also, while I have tried eating only fruit for my carb source, I've found that it causes some lower-bowel discomfort and never fully satiates.

But the true slave diet, since we're on this topic, is one where you daily ingest chemically-contaminated, highly-processed, PUFA-laden, poison-laced food, with neither the will nor the knowledge to eat something that actually promotes, and not destroys, your health. Moreover, it's the lack of courage to comply with that health-promoting diet, especially when others may view it as unorthodox.

And, I should emphasize, to blindly follow any diet, be it one based on Ray Peat's work or another doctor's, without regular reflection and adjustment based on your body and health, is itself a form of slavishness!

Ecstatic_Hamster

starch is far, far better for us, than sugar. Most of us will get fat and have blood sugar problems on sugar, but well cooked starch, WITH a little fat, works very well.

That is how most of the not-fat world eats. We can augment and improve with dairy.

Starch is not slave food. It is very healthy and how virtually everyone who lives a long time eats. WITH dairy.

LucH

@Ecstatic_Hamster said in Starch is truly slave food:

starch is far, far better for us, than sugar. Most of us will get fat and have blood sugar problems on sugar, but well cooked starch, WITH a little fat, works very well.

Everyone won't agree on this subject.
RP found both OK as long as the quality is present and you listen to your body. I can develop this last point if desired.
Shortly said: starch is good as long you go easily to stools twice a day, to avoid stagnation in the second part of the colon. otherwise, dysbiosis will come soon.
Of course you manage well with counter-arguments: oxalates or arsenic in some cases.
Yes, dress your carbs and it will be fine, provided you have no problem with digestive enzymes.
For fruits, you avoid most of the time seeds and vary (...).
For vegetables, you have to manage well legumes (anti-proteinase) and you take into account the specifities: like sulfur for kale or other cruciferous, or oxalates / lectines.

Vary and adapt oneself to the situation / to the tolerances.

And don't tell me you have problem with insulin if you drink OJ or eat yoghurt, whenever you do it in the wrong way. I don't drink 20 cl OJ after a pancake with syrup or 200 gr Greek yogurt with a tsp sugar and 2 slices of bread.
Have you ever heard of Jessie Inaupsché? => Dress your carbs! And eat by listening to your body sensations. If you're still / if your liver is still recoverable.

yerrag

@Ecstatic_Hamster said in Starch is truly slave food:

starch is far, far better for us, than sugar. Most of us will get fat and have blood sugar problems on sugar, but well cooked starch, WITH a little fat, works very well.

That is how most of the not-fat world eats. We can augment and improve with dairy.

Starch is not slave food. It is very healthy and how virtually everyone who lives a long time eats. WITH dairy.

I knew it. Someone would talk sense.

People that don't do well on high glycemic carbs would have no choice but to go with starch that is less processed and have fiber to make these starches lower in the glycemic index. Or if they simply reject starch for no good reason, they would have no choice but turn to keto or carnivore, which would not produce better health outcomes in the long term.

When I had poor sugar metabolism, I found eating brown rice and sweet potatoes helped me manage my blood sugar to such extent that my blood sugar became stable and my health improved. After I improved my sugar metabolism to optimal, I went back to eating white rice and white bread (and my meals became more enjoyable) and I came to enjoy sugar, both white and muscovado, as I use them liberally. I came back to drinking and enjoying the satisfying yet guilt-free taste of original Coke.

Life is good when you can make it better by taking advantage of the good properties of starch as you heal and improve your sugar metabolism towards the pinnacle of optimal metabolic health where you can enjoy what you eat what was previously restricted and enjoy it and become more healthy as well.

This is what I consider having your cake and eating it too. Isn't life good?

Milk Destroyer

@yerrag I appreciate your personal wisdom on these topics as always yerrag, but I must ask you: what of those of us who are able to consume sucrose without issue but experience blood sugar fluctuations from glucose alone? Here you are saying that consuming the fibrous glucose sources helps with consuming the simple non-fibrous types and also sucrose sources like Cola but what if you handle something like Cola completely fine and it is the glucose sources fibrous or non-fibrous that are afflicting oneself? What is your opinion on such a matter?

Milk Destroyer

@yerrag said in Starch is truly slave food:

Or if they simply reject starch for no good reason, they would have no choice but turn to keto or carnivore, which would not produce better health outcomes in the long term.

Also, why is this your conclusion? There are many people that eat no starch but consume plenty of fructose and sucrose. There is no need to go to dangerous diets like carnivore or keto just from the lack of starch alone.

yerrag

@Milk-Destroyer said in Starch is truly slave food:

@yerrag I appreciate your personal wisdom on these topics as always yerrag, but I must ask you: what of those of us who are able to consume sucrose without issue but experience blood sugar fluctuations from glucose alone? Here you are saying that consuming the fibrous glucose sources helps with consuming the simple non-fibrous types and also sucrose sources like Cola but what if you handle something like Cola completely fine and it is the glucose sources fibrous or non-fibrous that are afflicting oneself? What is your opinion on such a matter?

Ray Peat has written in the past about fructose being much more easily absorbed and metabolize, so it would follow that sucrose, being half fructose and half glucose, would still be better than glucose in terms of being more easily metabolized. But it isn't that cut out, as individual responses vary. In my case, I couldn't take a teaspoon of white cane sugar without my blood sugar turning low and causing an adrenaline response. But that was then, and I've improved my sugar metabolism long ago.

That you can drink Coke easily without feeling bad from it may simply be that your body happens to handle a fifty-fifty combo of fructose and glucose better, where each helps in the absorption and metabolism of the other.

But with glucose, your body doesn't behave well, and there are not really that many root causes to that. It is a matter of identifying the root cause or causes, and eliminating these root causes. After going past the false narrative that it is genetic or part of your phenotype. But to list all the causes is too long, but just focusing on one cause is enough to fix it for most people, which is the presence of PUFA in our diet and in our fat stores. To eliminate this cause takes time. I did the 4 years of going cold turkey on PUFA conscientiously- something many people have no patience for.

Four years is a long time, and while waiting it out, what one can do is to manage his poor blood sugar control. This is by not continuing to test his inability to handle glucose sources that is equivalent to a heavy storm on a dry desert riverbed that cannot absorb water. These are white sugar, white bread, and white rice, to name a few. One has to try his best to eat 3 meals a day with carbs in the meal that would take much longer to digest, such that there won't be a deluge of sugar, but rather a slow trickle of it, going into the blood stream, which would take a much lo ger time to be exhausted. If this slow trickle lasts towards the next meal, then there won't be any chance for blood sugar to go low. You thus are able to achieve stable blood sugar levels in between meals throughout the day.

You do this for the next 4 years, and when the 4 years is up, you can test your ability to eat white rice and white bread and white sugar, doing it piecemeal, and gradually work towards replacing the carbs in your meals all with white rice or bread, or potato. And drink sugary drinks.

yerrag

@Milk-Destroyer said in Starch is truly slave food:

@yerrag said in Starch is truly slave food:

Or if they simply reject starch for no good reason, they would have no choice but turn to keto or carnivore, which would not produce better health outcomes in the long term.

Also, why is this your conclusion? There are many people that eat no starch but consume plenty of fructose and sucrose. There is no need to go to dangerous diets like carnivore or keto just from the lack of starch alone.

Are you one of these people? Are these people only able to consume fructose and sucrose well but cannot consume glucose well? If there are such people, I would have to include them instead of exclude them.

I just want to be clear that these people can not handle glucose well but only can handle fructose and sucrose well. As that is what you are saying.

But maybe these people just chose to eat fruits and drink Coke, but prefer not to eat starch-based carbs, which all turn into glucose. Simply because they hate the idea starch, for whatever reason they have. In this case, I would have to stand by what I said earlier.

Otoh, going sucrose and fructose is a valid choice, whether or not not taking glucose is a preference or an inability. I suppose there are those who prefer eating fruits and fruits contain more nutrition than starch.

psi

Pure glucose should be fine, but there aren't any scalable sources of that. Both acid and enzymatic processes to create glucose from starch leave too much contamination. Plus, the biggest issue with starch is not glucose, but its polymer particle size and shape allowing persobtion and creating endotoxin. Some also suggest mycotoxins in flour.

Fructose source is only honey, which is a lot more expensive than sucrose.

GreekDemiGod

I think the best compromise is to work on gut health and microbiome so that one can decently handle some starch without much negative effects, and eat a 50% fruits, honey and 50% starch diet.
White rice and well cooked boiled white potatoes seem to be the safest starch choices, and are good at filling up muscle glycogen.
Maybe a no starch diet can work in warm/ tropical climates, but for us continental europeans, don’t think so.

Is the below true?

“
10) NOT ALL CARBS ARE EQUAL

Yes, some carbs will enable you to build more muscle while others will cause you to store more fat and build less muscle

Fructose: found in fruit and table sugar is processed by the liver and can only be stored as liver glycogen or fat. Beyond ~30-50g you aren't really helping yourself.

Complex carbs like potatoes are ideal with simple carbs like white rice being more suited to preworkout energy and post workout glycogen refilling purposes.
“

https://x.com/bowtiedum/status/1824948213490532373?s=46&t=a8gKZoLMKC0o1r60b5az-g

Note: The forum editor should really have a quote functionality and also ability to embed tweets.

psi

@GreekDemiGod Ray said that healthy people should have sterile gut except for the colon. He was sedentary, so no input about muscle building.

Ray disagreed with the sugar rationing saying that liver will produce hormones to turn off appetite for sugar. And glycogen depletes very quickly. He also brought up the anti sugar cult sponsored by the insulin industry. Personally I don't gain any weight eating 1 lbs to 600g of sugar a day.

Listen to KMUD episodes on the subject.

Milk Destroyer

@yerrag I haven't tested with dextrose alone, but yes. All starchy foods have a tendency for me to cause blood sugar swings. I do not experience this with non-starchy sugar sources.

I think you could be right about it being stored PUFA as most of my time spent 'Peating' I've still maintained quite a high fat input in my diet. All mostly saturated, of course. But I imagine the small percentage of PUFA still builds up and/or prevents adequate depletion of my already stored PUFA.

I am a fan of your personal story of you overcoming your blood sugar problems with hard work and perseverance. I have tried multiple times to intergrate starchy food into my diet because I do believe they can be a good energy source if your body assimilates it properly but no matter my experiments I always end up going back to avoiding starch.

psi

@Milk-Destroyer what is high fat? Haidut says potatoes and rice fried in butter or coconut oil are fine. Ray suggested using calcium carbonate for corn. No reason to risk it with sugar being so cheap given its low yield per hectare compared to grain and potatoes. I miss sandwiches though.

LucH

@Milk-Destroyer said in Starch is truly slave food:

All starchy foods have a tendency for me to cause blood sugar swings. I do not experience this with non-starchy sugar sources.

Starch causes higher insulin spikes than sucrose (di-saccharide).
=> Dress your carbs when eating potatoes.
How to deal with sugars, before stating which kind you can manage:
We should have taken into account the presence or not, of fibbers, the percentage of fructose to glucose, and the way the sugars are dressed / accompanied, etc.
Ray PEAT (RP) has mentioned
If the stored fats happen to be polyunsaturated, they damage the blood vessels and the mitochondria, suppress thyroid function, and cause “glycation” of proteins. They also damage the pancreas, and impair insulin secretion.
A repeated small stress, or overstimulation of insulin secretion, gradually tends to become amplified by the effects of [an excess of] tryptophan and the polyunsaturated fatty acids, with these fats increasing the formation of serotonin, and serotonin increasing the liberation of the fats.

Lowering free fatty acids can restore glucose oxidation

Source:
Glycemia, starch, and sugar in context Ray Peat
http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/glycemia.shtml

LucH

Shifting from FFA oxidation to glucose oxidation
RP has mentioned (same source):
Sugar and thyroid hormone (T3, triiodothyronine) correct many parts of the problem. The conversion of T4 into the active T3 requires glucose, and in diabetes, cells are deprived of glucose. Logically, all diabetics would be functionally hypothyroid. Providing T3 and sugar tends to shift energy metabolism away from the oxidation of fats, back to the oxidation of sugar.
Niacinamide, used in moderate doses, can safely help to restrain the excessive production of free fatty acids, and also helps to limit the wasteful conversion of glucose into fat. There is evidence that diabetics are chronically deficient in niacin. Excess fatty acids in the blood probably divert tryptophan from niacin synthesis into serotonin synthesis.
Note LucH: Niacinamide, not niacin. Moderate dose = maxi 20 - 25 mg B3.
Sodium, which is lost in hypothyroidism and diabetes, increases cellular energy. Diuretics, that cause loss of sodium, can cause apparent diabetes, with increased glucose and fats in the blood. Thyroid, sodium, and glucose work very closely together to maintain cellular energy and stability.