Starch is truly slave food

[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.

[yerrag]

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

@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.

Some articles on fructose on Ray's website speak glowingly of fructose, but that glow isn't shared by many mainly because too much fructose, when it goes past the small intestines, feeds gut microbes and cause gut issues. Some references point to studies that show fructose given to diabetics giving good results in that fructose is well absorbed and metabolized. So the good and bad of fructose leave us to settle on sucrose and honey and fruits where there is a 1:1 ratio of glucose and fructose, as we avoid too much fructose.

But I share your thinking that your difficulty with glucose has a lot to do with not fully going cold turkey PUFAs on a long enough duration.

When I went cold turkey for 4-5 years (not that I stopped it), I wasn't yet on the RPF, and there was a lot less noise around to discourage me from such a project, with its long timeline. When I joined RPF, there was a lot of talk about cutting this short with various tricks and mods. It was this spirit of bravado that made all, if not most, members of RPF fail miserably in being like Danny Roddy and more like Gyorgi (sorry Gyorgi you're great on basic research but poor in applied science).

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.

Yes, and what makes it difficult is that when you eat out, you really eat PUFA. And when you eat Chios and snacks, or commercial bread, it's made with PUFA.q

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.

If I may offer an opinion, I still think being capable of easily absorbing and metabolizing glucose as your primary substrate, with plenty of oxygen, in mitochondrial oxidation is your ticket to health. Being able to use sucrose and fruits and not being able to use glucose well is still a hallmark of not being rid of PUFA. It's a tall order, in this PUFA-filled world.

But to be able to enjoy all sugars, including starch, makes you feel less like a slave, and allows you to live like royalty. Think of the foods you can only look at, and what you would do if you can be back to being a child again, indulging in pastries, brownies, and fudge. Where once I shuddered at how much sugar it takes to make a brownie, I now brim with delight what makes that brownie pack that oomph.

[Jennifer]

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

@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.

I share a similar experience. Prior to my supplementing thyroid, starch (and meat) triggered hypoglycemia and severe indigestion to the point of waking every night choking on acid, but I had no issues metabolizing simple sugars, which is why I ended up on a fruitarian diet when my digestion was at its worst. I don’t know how valid this test is but one of my doctors, who was also an enzyme specialist, had me do a Loomis 24 hour urinalysis and it showed that I wasn’t producing the needed enzymes to break down starch. It made sense to me why I never cared much for starchy foods and often avoided having them while growing up. Now I can have all the starch I want without issue but again, I don’t care much for it, however, I think we should have the option to consume what we like and I consider it a sign of improved health that I can have starch if I ever find myself craving it.

[Androsclerozat]

I came across a documentary of Samburu Tribe
Their only diet is blood, milk, honey and meat
They all seem well developed, resilient and very attractive
Elevated cheekbones, perfect facial symmetry

Meanwhile, the Hadza tribe eats
Ugali for breakfast, based
Meat and honey
They look bloated with tooth decay some of them
Ugly, unattractive and have worse body composition

[yerrag]

@Androsclerozat

That observation was first noted and reported by Weston Price. A lot learned, but some to be unlearned from him as well. The value of eating internal organs for good nutrition was established, consistent with a meat-based lifestyle. Yet sugars were not appreciated, and a lot of the commentary on sugar was that it was processed, which robbed it of much of its nutrition and sugar was considered empty calories. But still, traditionally processed grains were not left out, as that provided for the retention of nutrients while the allergic and anti-enzyme properties of grains were deactivated.

You don't have to look far into Africa to see how the modernization of the American Indian nutritional lifestyle led to the Indians becoming malnourished. I suspect African tribes more exposed to the vagaries of Western medical education were similarly subjected to the nutritional impoverishment. They were subject to the same SAD lifestyle Uncle Sam exported.

I am not sure I would have a diet that is rich in blood as well, as the heme iron is not as safe as the non-heme iron found in liver, and even then, Ray advises to eat liver sparingly with a serving once a week.

Eating that much iron and adopting a PUFA-intoxicated lifestyle, thanks to the devious gaslighting by the AMA and the AHA, with the help of NGOs like CSPI, credulous tribes would just see their numbers fall off in a stealthy genocidal way (exaggeration intended).

[psi]

@yerrag what do you think of "evolutionary" arguments from the paleo crowd? They are confusing compared to physiology and animal models. Sure there's evidence for smaller skeletons after the beginning of grain cultivation, but it's not clear what exactly those people ate. If you look at the yield it's clear how starch is superior compared to other energy sources, so it's a noble lie. Britain was focused on increasing the human biomass, but now that the empire is not growing anymore and machines do most of the labor, I wonder if some toxins are put into the food supply deliberately. It seems like a big chunk of the ruling class is unaware of PUFA, so they're also degrading.

There is also sugar associations and lobbying. How did they lose?