When I clicked the Publish button after writing my last post, I told Chareva, “I bet this one will draw a few extra comments.” Yup. Nothing like mentioning that word starch to get people excited one way or the other. I suspect a few readers were concerned I was about to announce I’m abandoning my low-carb diet.
(I’m told one blogger has even speculated that I’m not going on the low-carb cruise this year because I want to “distance” myself from Jimmy Moore. Heh-heh-heh … I’ll be sure to post plenty of pictures when Jimmy and Christine come to stay with us for a week in July. The only way I hope to “distance” myself from Jimmy is by out-driving him during our disc golf matches. I’m skipping the cruise because I knew I was going to be swamped with a software project – which I still am, but the end is finally in sight.)
Anyway, no, I’m not abandoning my low-carb diet. I’m tweaking it. The Perfect Health Diet is a low-carb diet. It’s just not a very-low-carb, Atkins-induction-style diet. It’s also probably closer to the low-carb diet your paleo ancestors actually consumed than a starch-free diet would be, no matter what the Inuits did or didn’t eat.
According to some posts Richard Nikoley put up recently, the Inuits apparently sought out animals that contain a fair amount of glycogen in their organs. Their diets may have been up to 20% carbohydrate as a result. There’s been some debate on that, but let’s suppose for the sake of argument the Inuits really and truly lived on a carb-free diet. So what? They were still the exception in the wide, wide world of paleo people, so we can’t exactly point to them and conclude that their diet is the ideal diet for everyone. Most hunter-gatherers gathered some tubers or other starchy plants to go along with their meat and fish. Many low-carbers might be better off doing likewise. (Eating tubers, I mean, not necessarily gathering them.)
Gary Taubes once wrote a post explaining that when people cut calories to lose weight, they almost always cut carbohydrates as well. Even if all they do is eat less of the same foods, a 30% reduction in calories would mean a 30% reduction in carbohydrates. But when people go on a diet, they preferentially dump the junk food: desserts, sodas, candies, French fries, etc. So that 30% reduction in calories could end up translating to a 50% reduction in carbohydrates. The dieters attribute any weight loss to cutting calories, when in fact cutting their carb intake in half might have triggered hormonal changes that made the weight loss possible.
Fair point. But we have to apply the same logic to a low-carb diet. When we decide to drastically reduce carbohydrates, most of us immediately give up wheat and sugar – both of which (if Robert Lustig and Paul Jaminet are correct) can induce insulin or leptin resistance. Jaminet wrote this in the Perfect Health Diet book:
Wheat germ agglutinin binds to insulin receptors, triggering an insulin-like effect. It is as effective as insulin at pushing glucose into cells and stopping the release of fat from fat cells. This means eating wheat may block weight loss and promote weight gain, regardless of how many calories are eaten overall.
Almost every modern book on low-carb dieting also presents evidence to convince the reader that processed vegetable oils are garbage and should be replaced with natural saturated fats, which are beneficial. So when people go on a low-carb diet, they give up what I consider the three worst offenders in the Standard American Diet: gluten-containing grains, sugar and processed vegetable oils. Meanwhile, formerly forbidden but nutrient-dense foods like eggs go back on the low-carb dieter’s menu.
So people make the big dietary shift, they lose weight, feel great, and their health improves. We attribute that to giving up carbs. But applying Gary Taubes’ logic, what if most of the health benefits come from giving up sugar, wheat and vegetable oils and replacing them with more meats, eggs and butter — and not so much from giving up potatoes and other “safe starches” that happen to be real foods containing real nutrients?
If so, then the real question here is: are people who switch from a high-carb frankenfood diet to a low-carb paleo diet better off with or without a potato to go along with their steak and broccoli? Will they be healthier consuming no starches at all, or including small servings of “safe starches” in their diets?
That question always seems to spark a bit of dietary tribalism. When Richard Nikoley announced a few years ago that he considers potatoes a paleo food and was eating them again, some of his readers replied that they were unsubscribing from his blog and would no longer read it.
Really? Because the guy eats home fries with his eggs?
In comments on my last post, I noticed some people resist the idea that anyone might actually become healthier by re-introducing small servings of safe starches or that perhaps they’re better off eating a bit of glucose instead of manufacturing it from protein or fat. If you can’t live without potatoes, then by gosh, it means you’re sick, or carb-addicted, or giving into social pressure, or whatever.
Ugh. That’s the attitude I see (and don’t much like) among so many vegans: this works for me, so damnit, it should work for you too, and if it doesn’t, there’s something wrong with you – morally if not physically.
As I said in one of my replies, we shouldn’t label ourselves and then cling to a diet or a belief in order to continue wearing the label. This is about finding what works best for you, period. There is no diet that’s ideal for everyone – and I’d say that about the Perfect Health Diet as well. Let’s review what Chris Kresser said about safe starches:
I see a fair number of patients in my practice struggling with symptoms like hair loss, cold hands and feet, plateaued weight loss, low energy and mood imbalances after following a VLC diet for several months… In cases where there is no significant metabolic damage, when I have these folks increase their carbohydrate intake (with starch like tubers and white rice, and fruit) to closer to 150g a day, they almost always feel better. Their hair loss stops, their body temperature increases and their mood and energy improves.
Put some starch back in the diet, their health gets better. Do we really want to tell those people they’re sick or carb-addicted and should stick to a diet that’s causing them to feel lousy and lose their hair? I’m reminded of the old Vaudeville bit:
“Doctor, it hurts when I do this!”
“Then don’t do that.”
Those people need to stop doing that. They need to switch from VLC to something like a Perfect Health Diet. On the other hand, Kresser also said this:
In other cases, any increase in carbohydrate intake – in any form – will cause weight gain and other unpleasant symptoms.
Those are the people who shouldn’t adopt a Perfect Health Diet. “Safe” starches aren’t safe for them. I’ve heard from a few people (including Jimmy Moore) that consuming 100 grams or so of “safe starches” per day triggered a wild increase in their appetites and a craving for way more than those 100 grams. Those are the true carb addicts, not the people who feel better after eating a potato with dinner. And as addicts, yes, they should stay away from the foods that trigger the desire to binge.
When I decided to move my own diet towards more of a Perfect Health Diet, my reasoning boiled down to this: I don’t see a downside, and I might be better off. The “better off” part is mostly about gut health, for all the reasons I explained in my previous post. My new and improved diet is doing a better job of feeding my gut bacteria, and the rewards so far have been better digestion, deeper sleep and more energy – especially in the morning, when I’m not usually known for my peppy personality.
Back in the day, the downside would have been a glucose spike after eating a potato. But after starting a protocol of resistant starch and probiotics (and cooking and cooling potatoes before reheating them), that isn’t happening. If I eat a potato with dinner, my glucose peaks around 125 and then drops into the 90s. My fasting glucose has fallen a bit too. My appetite and weight both increased a bit when I started eating more starches, then returned to normal.
So with a possible upside and no apparent downside, why the heck wouldn’t I eat a potato?
It hasn’t been a drastic change. My diet is still high-fat and low-carb, just not as low-carb as before. On most days, I’ll have a potato or sweet potato with lunch and another with dinner. So instead of sausage and eggs, I’ll have eggs and a potato. Or sausage and a potato. I’ve had rice a few times, but frankly I don’t enjoy rice all that much. I find it rather bland and unsatisfying.
The one real treat I’ve added – mostly on weekends – is Udi’s gluten-free bread, which makes nice, crunchy toast. It’s made from tapioca and rice flour, the kind of flours Dr. Davis warns his Wheat Belly readers can seriously spike blood-sugar levels, so I checked my post-meal reaction a few times. Nope, no big deal. Up to around 120 or so, then back down to the 90s an hour later.
Meanwhile, the girls are quite happy that we’re including potatoes in more of our meals. Last weekend, I made hash browns with onions fried in macadamia oil, melted some cheddar cheese on top, then served over-easy eggs on top of the hash browns. Sara declared it the best breakfast ever and requested that I make it every Saturday.
Since there are potatoes in the house again, I also taught her to mimic the one line from an old Michael Nesmith comedy skit about learning Irish as a second language: “My, that’s a foin sack ‘o’ potaaatoes.” (You have to say it with a thick brogue.)
I don’t bother weighing or counting, but I’m probably not quite up to a Perfect Health Diet intake of starch. I still like my meats, eggs and vegetables and they’re still the biggest components of my diet. Toss in two medium potatoes, and it’s only about 60 or 70 grams of starch. I don’t feel any need or desire to go higher.
So far the results have all been positive, but I’ll let you know if that changes. Like I said, this is about finding what works, not wearing any particular dietary label.
Meanwhile, Paul Jaminet is receiving your questions and will probably have his answers ready next week.
If you enjoy my posts, please consider a small donation to the Fat Head Kids GoFundMe campaign.
Hi Tom! I really enjoyed this post. Though, I will not be incorporating white potatoes back into my diet, because I am sensitive to nightshades, I will be giving my husband potatoes again. He has lost the weight that he needed to lose, so now we will be adding some hash browns once a week and see how he does. He loves hash browns. I may add some sweet potato once in a while to my diet, because I really like them as well. I am one of those who’s hair has thinned on a very low carb diet. But when I gave up fish supplements, my hair quit thinning. It is much shinier and softer since I gave up most carbs however. Also my skin improved 100 percent. Also I am sure my age has played a role in my hair thinning since I am 57. I still feel 100 percent better on my present WOE than I ever felt eating higher carb. I was only eating 130 grams of carb on most days before I started this, so I definitely cannot go back to that level without gaining. But I accept the fact that many people can, and they will do just fine at a higher level, if they eat the correct foods. Thanks again for your posts. I have really enjoyed reading your blog. I love the farming stuff also. I grew up on a farm and we grew all of our own vegetables, beef, pork, and eggs. Also we had venison and elk. Thanks again.
Carolyn
Thanks for reading.
Would love a recipe post from Chareva about some of the starches you’ve added. Think some of the winter squashes would do well roasted on the grill kebab style?
On the grill, I don’t know. She roasts various vegetables in the oven with a little olive oil and spice, and they’re delicious.
Thank you, Tom, for putting this in terms that a non scientist can understand, and helping to explain my occasional overwhelming need for a baked potato! Every so often I just feel the need for one of those babies because I am sluggish and find it difficult to concentrate, and now I have Science to back what my body is telling me. Now if only someone could explain whether or not I can top that baby with sour cream and butter? (I’m getting differing answers to that one).
Love your work 🙂
The answer from the Jaminets in the PDH book would be yes, absolutely, cover that potato in good fats.
Except if you’re on their weight loss program. They say in Chapter 43 that calorie restriction to the point of hunger is unnecessary, and that one of the key steps for weight loss is to “eat normal PHD amounts of carbohydrates and protein; restrict fat.” A little later in the same chapter they give two examples:
“Instead of using 2 to 4 tablespoons of fat or oil in cooking and causes, use at most 1 tablespoon per day. Instead of a large dollop of butter or sour cream on a baked potato, flavor it with a small pat of butter plus vinegar and salt.”
“Replace fatty meats with somewhat leaner meats. When you have ribeye steak, instead of eating attached fat, trim excess fat.”
Same idea as in “The Art and Science of Low-Carbohydrate Living.” Protein stays the same, dietary fat intake goes down to lose weight — replacing dietary fat with body fat to maintain about the same energy proportions.
Tom, have you considered using white rice as a breakfast cereal substitute? Cook it, cool it…add in cream, 1/2 & 1/2 or almond milk, vanilla extract, sweeten it any way you like.
I didn’t find Udi’s bread but I picked up a loaf of EN-R-G’s rice/tapioca bread. It’s pretty good toasted w/butter but cold it falls apart.
Chareva tried some other brand that also fell apart. The Udi’s holds together nicely.
To the white rice add rose water and cinnamon and even raisins. And there is no such thing as almond milk.
I cannot tolerate regular milk, so I’ll use almond “milk”.
Hi Tom! I really enjoyed this post. Though, I will not be incorporating white potatoes back into my diet, because I am sensitive to nightshades, I will be giving my husband potatoes again. He has lost the weight that he needed to lose, so now we will be adding some hash browns once a week and see how he does. He loves hash browns. I may add some sweet potato once in a while to my diet, because I really like them as well. I am one of those who’s hair has thinned on a very low carb diet. But when I gave up fish supplements, my hair quit thinning. It is much shinier and softer since I gave up most carbs however. Also my skin improved 100 percent. Also I am sure my age has played a role in my hair thinning since I am 57. I still feel 100 percent better on my present WOE than I ever felt eating higher carb. I was only eating 130 grams of carb on most days before I started this, so I definitely cannot go back to that level without gaining. But I accept the fact that many people can, and they will do just fine at a higher level, if they eat the correct foods. Thanks again for your posts. I have really enjoyed reading your blog. I love the farming stuff also. I grew up on a farm and we grew all of our own vegetables, beef, pork, and eggs. Also we had venison and elk. Thanks again.
Carolyn
Thanks for reading.
For Lent my husband gave up grains to include rice, corn, wheat, oats and any others. In those 40 days he lost 10 lbs. this is rather unfortunate because it dropped him below a healthy weight and is now at 135 lbs. He has a very challenging time gaining weight, only successfully doing so when on anti-depressant medication, where in a month he gained 20 lbs. So, for all the light weights out there, how do they gain weight in a healthy manner? My husband is lactose intollerant and strongly dislikes the flavor of dairy, but will use butter. He is also allergic to sweeteners and is not interested in sweet foods.
Lots of whey protein and some weight-training if he’s up for it.
Are there any brands of whey protein recommended. My husband won’t do sweet stuff or any with sweeteners added.
Not sure on that. The one we use is vanilla-flavored, so he probably wouldn’t like it.
‘Natural Factors’ brand, ‘Whey Factors’ type, ‘unflavored’ option. It is probably the best quality undenatured whey protein on the market and without the minor crappy ingredients nearly everything else has. The unflavored is truly unflavored, I’ve been using it in a supp shake for some time. It’s a little more expensive than most proteins but I think if one can afford it, it’s worth it.
Thank you, Tom, for putting this in terms that a non scientist can understand, and helping to explain my occasional overwhelming need for a baked potato! Every so often I just feel the need for one of those babies because I am sluggish and find it difficult to concentrate, and now I have Science to back what my body is telling me. Now if only someone could explain whether or not I can top that baby with sour cream and butter? (I’m getting differing answers to that one).
Love your work 🙂
The answer from the Jaminets in the PDH book would be yes, absolutely, cover that potato in good fats.
Except if you’re on their weight loss program. They say in Chapter 43 that calorie restriction to the point of hunger is unnecessary, and that one of the key steps for weight loss is to “eat normal PHD amounts of carbohydrates and protein; restrict fat.” A little later in the same chapter they give two examples:
“Instead of using 2 to 4 tablespoons of fat or oil in cooking and causes, use at most 1 tablespoon per day. Instead of a large dollop of butter or sour cream on a baked potato, flavor it with a small pat of butter plus vinegar and salt.”
“Replace fatty meats with somewhat leaner meats. When you have ribeye steak, instead of eating attached fat, trim excess fat.”
Same idea as in “The Art and Science of Low-Carbohydrate Living.” Protein stays the same, dietary fat intake goes down to lose weight — replacing dietary fat with body fat to maintain about the same energy proportions.
In “The Art and Science of Low Carb Performance”, they say, “When in doubt, lower carb intake or INCREASE fat intake.” I’m guessing that applies to someone who is a LCHF marathon runner.
I have a tough time with leaner cuts of beef. They’re much drier when they cook, and they don’t fill me up. That’s a big reason why I don’t eat a lot of fish.
Probably why I don’t like fish either, unless it’s slathered in something fatty.
For Lent my husband gave up grains to include rice, corn, wheat, oats and any others. In those 40 days he lost 10 lbs. this is rather unfortunate because it dropped him below a healthy weight and is now at 135 lbs. He has a very challenging time gaining weight, only successfully doing so when on anti-depressant medication, where in a month he gained 20 lbs. So, for all the light weights out there, how do they gain weight in a healthy manner? My husband is lactose intollerant and strongly dislikes the flavor of dairy, but will use butter. He is also allergic to sweeteners and is not interested in sweet foods.
Lots of whey protein and some weight-training if he’s up for it.
Are there any brands of whey protein recommended. My husband won’t do sweet stuff or any with sweeteners added.
Not sure on that. The one we use is vanilla-flavored, so he probably wouldn’t like it.
‘Natural Factors’ brand, ‘Whey Factors’ type, ‘unflavored’ option. It is probably the best quality undenatured whey protein on the market and without the minor crappy ingredients nearly everything else has. The unflavored is truly unflavored, I’ve been using it in a supp shake for some time. It’s a little more expensive than most proteins but I think if one can afford it, it’s worth it.
Tom, You’re a Traitor! Or should a say tator? ;~) just kidding.
You say you do not like rice but have you tried day old cold with a pat (or two) of melted butter mixed in? It’s pretty convenient and quite tasty…
Also you mention that you gained weight at first when adding potatoes to your intake but then normalized back to your original weight. Would you attribute this to water retention from the carbs? Did you pants fit differently?
The reason i ask is because I’ve added Bob’s potato starch 1-2 TBS a day to my intake along with occasional cold rice with butter to my diet and immediately gained weight. I included a probiotic (not soil based) as well but still had gas. I stopped the consumption of both the BPS and rice in fear of where i was headed.
Your thoughts?
Could have been water weight, could have been an increase in gut flora. We have something like five pounds’ worth of those, from what I’ve read. The weight snapped back, so I didn’t worry about it.
“As I said in one of my replies, we shouldn’t label ourselves and then cling to a diet or a belief in order to continue wearing the label.”
Here are some labels for various tribes of food wonks:
Zealots:
Dietary principles rule, period. Principles trump the consequences, even if the consequences are the exact opposite of the original intent. Adverse outcomes thus have to be due to factors other than the principles.
Philosophicals:
Dietary principles also trump the consequences, but these people are at least willing to consider that their principles may have some adverse consequences that they’ll just have to deal with. Many meat avoiders fall into this category, due to legitimate dismay with CAFO meats.
Hypotheticals:
Authority=fact. These folks tend to get myopic about some authority opinion of what an ideal human diet is, perhaps supported by scattered papers that may or may not be flawed by confounding factors. These folks are resistant to being mistaken (which they may confuse with being “wrong”).
Empiricals:
Fact=authority. These folks go with the actual outcomes, and stay aware for indications of emerging issues. These folks experiment and measure, and are always willing to be mistaken.
The one thing we’re really certain about in human nutrition at the moment is that the USDA’s “MyPlate of Metabolic Syndrome” is a disaster, for anyone, even though parroted in some degree by other “authorities” like National Diabetes Promotion and Maintenance Associations.
Beyond that, we’re pretty much on our own, and there’s a huge amount to learn. Some developments will be false leads. We’re apt to end up at genotype-specific diets, and perhaps even a choice within that depending on the outcome blend desired (health, longevity, vitality and perhaps even convenience and cost).
Good definitions. I try to be an Empirical.
Tom, You’re a Traitor! Or should a say tator? ;~) just kidding.
You say you do not like rice but have you tried day old cold with a pat (or two) of melted butter mixed in? It’s pretty convenient and quite tasty…
Also you mention that you gained weight at first when adding potatoes to your intake but then normalized back to your original weight. Would you attribute this to water retention from the carbs? Did you pants fit differently?
The reason i ask is because I’ve added Bob’s potato starch 1-2 TBS a day to my intake along with occasional cold rice with butter to my diet and immediately gained weight. I included a probiotic (not soil based) as well but still had gas. I stopped the consumption of both the BPS and rice in fear of where i was headed.
Your thoughts?
Could have been water weight, could have been an increase in gut flora. We have something like five pounds’ worth of those, from what I’ve read. The weight snapped back, so I didn’t worry about it.
“As I said in one of my replies, we shouldn’t label ourselves and then cling to a diet or a belief in order to continue wearing the label.”
Here are some labels for various tribes of food wonks:
Zealots:
Dietary principles rule, period. Principles trump the consequences, even if the consequences are the exact opposite of the original intent. Adverse outcomes thus have to be due to factors other than the principles.
Philosophicals:
Dietary principles also trump the consequences, but these people are at least willing to consider that their principles may have some adverse consequences that they’ll just have to deal with. Many meat avoiders fall into this category, due to legitimate dismay with CAFO meats.
Hypotheticals:
Authority=fact. These folks tend to get myopic about some authority opinion of what an ideal human diet is, perhaps supported by scattered papers that may or may not be flawed by confounding factors. These folks are resistant to being mistaken (which they may confuse with being “wrong”).
Empiricals:
Fact=authority. These folks go with the actual outcomes, and stay aware for indications of emerging issues. These folks experiment and measure, and are always willing to be mistaken.
The one thing we’re really certain about in human nutrition at the moment is that the USDA’s “MyPlate of Metabolic Syndrome” is a disaster, for anyone, even though parroted in some degree by other “authorities” like National Diabetes Promotion and Maintenance Associations.
Beyond that, we’re pretty much on our own, and there’s a huge amount to learn. Some developments will be false leads. We’re apt to end up at genotype-specific diets, and perhaps even a choice within that depending on the outcome blend desired (health, longevity, vitality and perhaps even convenience and cost).
Good definitions. I try to be an Empirical.
It’s a puzzle.
1. Pretty sure humans/carnivores and omnivores were not evolved to spike blood sugar on a consistent basis.
2. Our ancestors ate plant food that was high in fiber. Back in those days I am betting there was little digestible carbohydrate in the plants (other than seasonal fruit, which most likely fattened them up for winters lean times), so chances are good it was primarily fiber, and perhaps gut feeding resistant fibers.
3. The bulk of their energy came from fat.
I am not sold so much on the safe starches, but I am on the resistant starches, or fibers to feed gut bugs as I see this as an unfortunate and important missing component to LCHF.
Regardless, I am very dubious about having a lot of blood sugar (glucose) in the system.
If you are doing an N=1, you may want to consider one variable at a time.
From what I’ve read, there’s evidence that humans began eating tubers a long, long time ago … as in hundreds of thousands of years. But I agree we didn’t evolve to spike blood sugar on a consistent basis, and meat and fish were prized foods. According to the Jaminets in their Perfect Health Diet, the diets of hunter-gatherers were typically 15% to 40% carbohydrate, depending on the region. If we’re talking 20% of a 3000-calorie diet, that would work out to 150 carbs per day. Still on the low side.
I like the idea that those early humans were very active. I would not be surprised if they needed quite a few carbs for all that activity but not 60% carbs (or whatever the USDA has been telling us non-active, sedentary folks to eat).
Do they mention in Perfect Health Diet anything regarding what kinds of activities early humans may have practiced just on a day-to-day basis? For example, persistence hunting? Or is that before hunter-gatherers came along?
It’s a puzzle.
1. Pretty sure humans/carnivores and omnivores were not evolved to spike blood sugar on a consistent basis.
2. Our ancestors ate plant food that was high in fiber. Back in those days I am betting there was little digestible carbohydrate in the plants (other than seasonal fruit, which most likely fattened them up for winters lean times), so chances are good it was primarily fiber, and perhaps gut feeding resistant fibers.
3. The bulk of their energy came from fat.
I am not sold so much on the safe starches, but I am on the resistant starches, or fibers to feed gut bugs as I see this as an unfortunate and important missing component to LCHF.
Regardless, I am very dubious about having a lot of blood sugar (glucose) in the system.
If you are doing an N=1, you may want to consider one variable at a time.
From what I’ve read, there’s evidence that humans began eating tubers a long, long time ago … as in hundreds of thousands of years. But I agree we didn’t evolve to spike blood sugar on a consistent basis, and meat and fish were prized foods. According to the Jaminets in their Perfect Health Diet, the diets of hunter-gatherers were typically 15% to 40% carbohydrate, depending on the region. If we’re talking 20% of a 3000-calorie diet, that would work out to 150 carbs per day. Still on the low side.
I like the idea that those early humans were very active. I would not be surprised if they needed quite a few carbs for all that activity but not 60% carbs (or whatever the USDA has been telling us non-active, sedentary folks to eat).
Do they mention in Perfect Health Diet anything regarding what kinds of activities early humans may have practiced just on a day-to-day basis? For example, persistence hunting? Or is that before hunter-gatherers came along?
The book didn’t get into what Paleo Man’s daily activities were. The Jaminets also state that fat should be our primary fuel, but we do need some glucose for the brain, red blood cells, and other tissues.
You mention the blandness of rice. The way to make rice taste good is to fry the grains for a few minutes before boiling it. Butter or meat drippings, whatever is on hand, get things off to a good start, and then when adding liquid to boil it, use meat broth or leftover liquid from pot roast or a roast chicken or the like. Or save the liquid from glazing a skillet after frying meat to boil the rice. Some water can be added if there aren’t enough meat juices. Then make sure it cooks long enough to form a light crust on the bottom. This procedure makes rice quite delicious. Not that we have to add rice to the diet, but all these meaty additions turn rice into something very tasty indeed if one has a desire for it.
“I’ve heard from a few people (including Jimmy Moore) that consuming 100 grams or so of “safe starches” per day triggered a wild increase in their appetites and a craving for way more than those 100 grams”
Doesn’t that sound a bit like the ‘bad’ craving vegans and some vegetarians can often have for animal proteins? Accordingly, seeing as how pretty much all known humans have had diets with at least 14th of their calories coming from carbs, maybe the glucose craving is a sign of a deficiency of sorts? Say what you will about your Irish ancestors, their oats, apples, berries, raw dairy and seaweed were fine sources of glucose, so they were hardly ketogenic.
Perhaps, but the vegans who give in to the urge to eat meat don’t end up eating 10 pounds per day of the stuff for the next month. But carb addicts will end up eating entire bags of potato chips or cookies, and I don’t think it’s to satisfy the need for missing nutrients at that point. It’s more akin to alcoholics who can’t stop drinking after a beer or two.
I think few if any paleo people lived on diets that put them constantly in ketosis. Probably more like nipping around the edges of ketosis much of the time. Even with the addition of a potato or two to my diet, my morning ketone reading (when I check) is usually around 0.5, the low end of “nutritional” ketosis.
When Richard Nikoley pointed out that the Inuit weren’t in ketosis according to three different studies, it immediately sparked a debate about how accurately ketones could be measure back when those studies were conducted. They were probably in ketosis, but the inferior urine strips didn’t detect it, etc., etc. I’m not buying that explanation, because the researchers were certainly capable of measuring protein intake, which they pegged at an average of 240 grams per day. Since pretty much everyone who tries a n=1 ketosis experiment ends up having to restrict protein (as instructed in the Volek and Phinney book), I’d say it’s unlikely people consuming 240 grams per day were in ketosis. By the time I restricted protein enough to get my ketones over the 1.0 mark, I didn’t much like the diet and gave up the experiment.
I’ll throw in another hot potato: honey.
Apparently honey contains, apart from sugary stuff, scFOS (short chained fructooligosaccharides) which make it to the colon and feed friendly bacteria and has similar effect on blood sugar as RS. A couple of ancestral tribes (Hadza, Otjhima) live off honey, sometimes as much as 70% of their total energy intake comes from honey. Their very varied and apparently healthy gut flora is the subject of study, of course.
I learned all this from Heisenbug’s blog and also the human food project. Very interesting. I will now search for a complete chemical profile of maple syrup and agave syrup.
> I’ll throw in another hot potato: honey.
Even if it’s real honey, there’s much more downside than up. And the odds that it’s real honey are very low and getting lower every day. I go into more detail at:
Wheat Free Forum > Food Elements > Honey
http://wheatfreeforum.com/index.php/topic,895.0.html
> … maple syrup …
Just discussed by Kris Gunnars this week at:
http://authoritynutrition.com/maple-syrup/
> … and agave syrup.
This junk should really be called “Extra High Fructose Agave Root Syrup”. It’s not extracted from the above-ground part of the plant (and the plant is destroyed, tequila fans). It’s made by the same process as HFCS and may be as high as 90% free fructose. I discovered it was perfect for making a margarita about 10 days before learning what it really was, and the hazards of fructose :(. Fortunately, stevia works just as well.
Correct, neither agave nor maple syrup make the cut wrt oligosaccharides. Too bad. My kids really like maple syrup.
And yes, you do have to look for *real* honey. Maybe get yourself a beehive of two? 🙂
And of course, the very carb sensitive probably do better avoiding honey all together.
However, the young ones in my family will from now on get more honey and less of other sweet stuff.
I use a little local raw honey especially after the holidays and into the spring to help control seasonal allergies. Seems to help quite a bit. It isn’t hard to find real honey if you stick to local producers.
I had not heard of the possibility of honey being beneficial to the gut. I’ll have to check that out.
You mention the blandness of rice. The way to make rice taste good is to fry the grains for a few minutes before boiling it. Butter or meat drippings, whatever is on hand, get things off to a good start, and then when adding liquid to boil it, use meat broth or leftover liquid from pot roast or a roast chicken or the like. Or save the liquid from glazing a skillet after frying meat to boil the rice. Some water can be added if there aren’t enough meat juices. Then make sure it cooks long enough to form a light crust on the bottom. This procedure makes rice quite delicious. Not that we have to add rice to the diet, but all these meaty additions turn rice into something very tasty indeed if one has a desire for it.
“I’ve heard from a few people (including Jimmy Moore) that consuming 100 grams or so of “safe starches” per day triggered a wild increase in their appetites and a craving for way more than those 100 grams”
Doesn’t that sound a bit like the ‘bad’ craving vegans and some vegetarians can often have for animal proteins? Accordingly, seeing as how pretty much all known humans have had diets with at least 1\4th of their calories coming from carbs, maybe the glucose craving is a sign of a deficiency of sorts? Say what you will about your Irish ancestors, their oats, apples, berries, raw dairy and seaweed were fine sources of glucose, so they were hardly ketogenic.
Perhaps, but the vegans who give in to the urge to eat meat don’t end up eating 10 pounds per day of the stuff for the next month. But carb addicts will end up eating entire bags of potato chips or cookies, and I don’t think it’s to satisfy the need for missing nutrients at that point. It’s more akin to alcoholics who can’t stop drinking after a beer or two.
I think few if any paleo people lived on diets that put them constantly in ketosis. Probably more like nipping around the edges of ketosis much of the time. Even with the addition of a potato or two to my diet, my morning ketone reading (when I check) is usually around 0.5, the low end of “nutritional” ketosis.
When Richard Nikoley pointed out that the Inuit weren’t in ketosis according to three different studies, it immediately sparked a debate about how accurately ketones could be measure back when those studies were conducted. They were probably in ketosis, but the inferior urine strips didn’t detect it, etc., etc. I’m not buying that explanation, because the researchers were certainly capable of measuring protein intake, which they pegged at an average of 240 grams per day. Since pretty much everyone who tries a n=1 ketosis experiment ends up having to restrict protein (as instructed in the Volek and Phinney book), I’d say it’s unlikely people consuming 240 grams per day were in ketosis. By the time I restricted protein enough to get my ketones over the 1.0 mark, I didn’t much like the diet and gave up the experiment.
If anything, Nikoley’s work does show that long-term ketosis is not the natural state of any known Human population. That being said, it’s odd that one could have an addiction to carbs in a whole-foods context. Cookies, beer, and GMO potatoes (fried in seed oils and MSG) are one thing; organic fruit, veggies, honey, dairy, and tubers are another. It’s like finding someone who lives off of a vegan diet because of a compulsion to overeat animal proteins; while not impossible, given that these foods have been a part of our history for so long, it’s weird to see such a response in anyone
It would be weird if we didn’t live a culture where people can seriously screw themselves up with Coca-cola and Little Debbie Snack Cakes. I doubt you’ll find a Kitavan who can’t stop stuffing himself with sweet potatoes, but I can certainly see where a former potato chip addict, to name one possibility, would be taking a risk eating potatoes. Some alcoholics can’t swish with mouthwash that contains alcohol without triggering a craving.
That must be the issue Denise Minger mentioned about ‘metabolic brokenness’. If it is the case that Jimmy Moore’s early life was loaded with refined, nutrient-poor, sugar-loaded garbage, than that does make some sense
Unfortunately, that’s the case. Jimmy used to drink 12 Cokes per day and eat entire boxes of Little Debbie Snack Cakes. Let’s just say he’ll never have the metabolism of a Kitavan.
Yikes! Point taken
I’ll throw in another hot potato: honey.
Apparently honey contains, apart from sugary stuff, scFOS (short chained fructooligosaccharides) which make it to the colon and feed friendly bacteria and has similar effect on blood sugar as RS. A couple of ancestral tribes (Hadza, Otjhima) live off honey, sometimes as much as 70% of their total energy intake comes from honey. Their very varied and apparently healthy gut flora is the subject of study, of course.
I learned all this from Heisenbug’s blog and also the human food project. Very interesting. I will now search for a complete chemical profile of maple syrup and agave syrup.
> I’ll throw in another hot potato: honey.
Even if it’s real honey, there’s much more downside than up. And the odds that it’s real honey are very low and getting lower every day. I go into more detail at:
Wheat Free Forum > Food Elements > Honey
http://wheatfreeforum.com/index.php/topic,895.0.html
> … maple syrup …
Just discussed by Kris Gunnars this week at:
http://authoritynutrition.com/maple-syrup/
> … and agave syrup.
This junk should really be called “Extra High Fructose Agave Root Syrup”. It’s not extracted from the above-ground part of the plant (and the plant is destroyed, tequila fans). It’s made by the same process as HFCS and may be as high as 90% free fructose. I discovered it was perfect for making a margarita about 10 days before learning what it really was, and the hazards of fructose :(. Fortunately, stevia works just as well.
Correct, neither agave nor maple syrup make the cut wrt oligosaccharides. Too bad. My kids really like maple syrup.
And yes, you do have to look for *real* honey. Maybe get yourself a beehive of two? 🙂
And of course, the very carb sensitive probably do better avoiding honey all together.
However, the young ones in my family will from now on get more honey and less of other sweet stuff.
I use a little local raw honey especially after the holidays and into the spring to help control seasonal allergies. Seems to help quite a bit. It isn’t hard to find real honey if you stick to local producers.
I had not heard of the possibility of honey being beneficial to the gut. I’ll have to check that out.
Sorry if you’ve answered this already, Tom: You’re baking, cooling, then reheating your potatoes–are you then consuming the skin, or not?
No, I peel the skin first.
So, I noticed the other day when I was feeling particularly wiped out and groggy, (a not uncommon feeling I must admit, after being on a VLC diet for a year or so now) I had a meal that included a small portion of funeral potatoes. We were waiting for family members to arrive and as a result the potato dish was allowed to cool to near room temperature before I consumed them. A couple of hours after that meal, I felt great! My bias towards VLC diets led me initially to attribute the improvements to the grilled Salmon that was also a part of the meal. But, after reading this series of posts, I am convinced that it was actually the potatoes.
As I have noticed a general lack of energy and trouble sleeping the last few months, I am intrigued by the idea that RS may be the solution. With that in mind and after I mention that I absolutely love potatoes, I have a (somewhat wacky) question:
Are 5 Guys french fries high in Resistant Starch? If we are saying that cooking the potatoes and then cooling them and reheating them, causes an increase in RS, then I think 5 Guys process of taking fresh potatoes, grown locally (at least here in Utah, a stones throw from Idaho), blanched, cooled and fried again, should be the perfect recipe for high amounts of RS as it is described here. Combine them with a good fat/protien source like a bacon cheeseburger (without the bun, of course) and we are pretty close to paleo-like meal. They are still fried in Peanut oil, which I am aware is not exactly ideal. But, other than that, does anyone think that I am totally off my rocker here?
(I am aware that I am looking for an excuse to eat 5 Guys french fries. But, they are delicious. Can you blame me?)
They probably would have some RS in them. And they might be the tastiest fries on the planet. (We have a Five Guys here in Franklin too.)
Thank you for posting so much about this. I have felt the paralyzing confusion that comes with too much knowledge and at 31 have struggled so much knowing what to eat. You manage to put things into perspective without the typical “don’t believe thoooose people over there!!” approach that causes lingering doubts.
I very much appreciate your efforts and making this incredibly complicated topic much easier to approach and understand.
So, I noticed the other day when I was feeling particularly wiped out and groggy, (a not uncommon feeling I must admit, after being on a VLC diet for a year or so now) I had a meal that included a small portion of funeral potatoes. We were waiting for family members to arrive and as a result the potato dish was allowed to cool to near room temperature before I consumed them. A couple of hours after that meal, I felt great! My bias towards VLC diets led me initially to attribute the improvements to the grilled Salmon that was also a part of the meal. But, after reading this series of posts, I am convinced that it was actually the potatoes.
As I have noticed a general lack of energy and trouble sleeping the last few months, I am intrigued by the idea that RS may be the solution. With that in mind and after I mention that I absolutely love potatoes, I have a (somewhat wacky) question:
Are 5 Guys french fries high in Resistant Starch? If we are saying that cooking the potatoes and then cooling them and reheating them, causes an increase in RS, then I think 5 Guys process of taking fresh potatoes, grown locally (at least here in Utah, a stones throw from Idaho), blanched, cooled and fried again, should be the perfect recipe for high amounts of RS as it is described here. Combine them with a good fat/protien source like a bacon cheeseburger (without the bun, of course) and we are pretty close to paleo-like meal. They are still fried in Peanut oil, which I am aware is not exactly ideal. But, other than that, does anyone think that I am totally off my rocker here?
(I am aware that I am looking for an excuse to eat 5 Guys french fries. But, they are delicious. Can you blame me?)
They probably would have some RS in them. And they might be the tastiest fries on the planet. (We have a Five Guys here in Franklin too.)
Thank you for posting so much about this. I have felt the paralyzing confusion that comes with too much knowledge and at 31 have struggled so much knowing what to eat. You manage to put things into perspective without the typical “don’t believe thoooose people over there!!” approach that causes lingering doubts.
I very much appreciate your efforts and making this incredibly complicated topic much easier to approach and understand.
WebMD has a corporate contract with my company and therefore inflicts their bad science reporting on me through helpful emails to my business account. Usually I wrinkle my nose reading the titles and hit the delete key.
I was surprised this morning by this title: “How You Digest Carbs May Influence Weight Gain, Study Says”. Well as usual the article didn’t provide much real information but I did find an article that was more helpful. It seems like a reasonable study and does indeed link the number of copies of a specific gene, AMY1 with propensity for obesity. More possible evidence that we all must find our correct level of carb intake in order to be healthy.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140330151318.htm
Yup, I saw that one and plan to write a post on that very subject.
WebMD has a corporate contract with my company and therefore inflicts their bad science reporting on me through helpful emails to my business account. Usually I wrinkle my nose reading the titles and hit the delete key.
I was surprised this morning by this title: “How You Digest Carbs May Influence Weight Gain, Study Says”. Well as usual the article didn’t provide much real information but I did find an article that was more helpful. It seems like a reasonable study and does indeed link the number of copies of a specific gene, AMY1 with propensity for obesity. More possible evidence that we all must find our correct level of carb intake in order to be healthy.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140330151318.htm
Yup, I saw that one and plan to write a post on that very subject.
If you want to decrease the amount of starch in rice wash it thoroughly before cooking until the water runs clear. Do the same process of washing it over and over again after cooking it.
If you want to decrease the amount of starch in rice wash it thoroughly before cooking until the water runs clear. Do the same process of washing it over and over again after cooking it.
I think this about sums it up.
“If you’re on the weight loss phase of a ketogenic diet, than a couple tablespoons of potato starch won’t hinder your progress, and it’ll probably help your bowels. If you’re weight stable with low & variable ketones, and your goal is deep ketosis, then exercise caution.”
http://caloriesproper.com/?p=4121#comment-1177000769
I think this about sums it up.
“If you’re on the weight loss phase of a ketogenic diet, than a couple tablespoons of potato starch won’t hinder your progress, and it’ll probably help your bowels. If you’re weight stable with low & variable ketones, and your goal is deep ketosis, then exercise caution.”
http://caloriesproper.com/?p=4121#comment-1177000769
A great way to eat white rice ( I use Jasmine rice) is to cook it in homemade bone broth. Full of good fats and gelatins and very tasty! Broths are super simple to make: save the bones and all the trimmings, fat and organs you didn’t eat from the meat you just ate, throw them in water and cook covered from 4-8 hours on low heat.
A great way to eat white rice ( I use Jasmine rice) is to cook it in homemade bone broth. Full of good fats and gelatins and very tasty! Broths are super simple to make: save the bones and all the trimmings, fat and organs you didn’t eat from the meat you just ate, throw them in water and cook covered from 4-8 hours on low heat.
I think the reduction of problem foods is why many diets get immediate success and religious converts. My first transformational diet was the zone diet – THAT *magic* ratio!. What is took out was all the grains, sugars and processed foods. I thought it was the magic ratio, until it didn’t work so well (adding back the occasional slice of wheat bread) Then I discovered paleo magic – same ratio of food – just minus the grains – gluten was the key for me – no more joint inflammation.
Many other diets achieve the same – raw vegan for example – I wrote a post about this – here is the link: http://paleozonenutrition.com/2012/11/11/raw-vegan-blood-type-o-and-the-paleo-diet-what-do-they-have-in-common/
I agree totally. When people go low-carb, they not only cut grains and sugar, most switch from processed vegetable oils back to natural fats. And so they remove the three worst foods from their diets.
I think the reduction of problem foods is why many diets get immediate success and religious converts. My first transformational diet was the zone diet – THAT *magic* ratio!. What is took out was all the grains, sugars and processed foods. I thought it was the magic ratio, until it didn’t work so well (adding back the occasional slice of wheat bread) Then I discovered paleo magic – same ratio of food – just minus the grains – gluten was the key for me – no more joint inflammation.
Many other diets achieve the same – raw vegan for example – I wrote a post about this – here is the link: http://paleozonenutrition.com/2012/11/11/raw-vegan-blood-type-o-and-the-paleo-diet-what-do-they-have-in-common/
I agree totally. When people go low-carb, they not only cut grains and sugar, most switch from processed vegetable oils back to natural fats. And so they remove the three worst foods from their diets.
Sorry if you’ve answered this already, Tom: You’re baking, cooling, then reheating your potatoes–are you then consuming the skin, or not?
No, I peel the skin first.