No announcement yet.

180degree health? Starch beats fat?

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 180degree health? Starch beats fat?

    Anyone delved into 180degree health?

    I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. Its not far way from primal, and I am hardcore primal, but its got some key topics to debate with strong evidence to back it up.

    An interesting one was the idea that starch dominated diet (root veg, potatoes etc not sugars) do a better job of raising body metabolism and building lean mass over fat than a fat dominated diet.

    His main philosophy:
    and a bit of his evidence:

    Please don;t just throw in an opnion here, Im looking for hte people who have delved deep into technicalities and understand it inside out.

    In always open to new ways of thinkin as is Mark

    No more diets. No more stress. Health made easy. Living made incredible.

  • #2
    This Free the Animal blog post pretty much covers it.


    • #3
      Originally posted by rockstareddy View Post
      Please don;t just throw in an opnion here, Im looking for hte people who have delved deep into technicalities and understand it inside out.
      There are maybe two or three people in the entire forum who meet your criteria. Gonna be a quiet thread.
      You lousy kids! Get off my savannah!


      • #4
        OK, I won't throw in an opinion about the guy's theories. I like his style though. He has a sense of humor and is not rigid. My personal experience is that most grains, especially wheat, cause lots of problems for me. As I have mentioned before, I do eat rice, potatoes and corn in moderation. This has not prevented me from having much improved health.

        Edit: The above was based entirely on the link Rockstar posted. I see that there is another side to Stone. But I stand by my statement.
        Last edited by Hedonist; 10-06-2010, 02:30 PM.
        Ancestral Health Info

        I design websites and blogs for a living. If you would like a blog or website designed by someone who understands Primal, see my web page.

        Primal Blueprint Explorer My blog for people who are not into the Grok thing. Since starting the blog, I have moved close to being Archevore instead of Primal. But Mark's Daily Apple is still the best source of information about living an ancestral lifestyle.


        • #5
          I was on a similar diet for a year (T Factor). I stayed thin, ran many miles, had cravings for fat the entire time and started feeling older rapidly. When I went off it, and back to SAD, I felt years younger. I think the high carb, low fat diet was slowly killing me.


          • #6
            I was low-carb primal for about 6 months, when I read Stone's work. My body temperature was low-ish at the time (96 f), so I did RRARF for a little over a month. Overfeeding, with an emphasis on carbs will can certainly raise body temperature. I gained about 0.9-1.2 f in body temperature during that time (and put on about 5 lbs of weight).

            I felt like I had better recovery after RRARF, although that was fairly subjective. I also think I'm more resistant to getting cold, I was outside walking with my lowish carb paleo buddy yesterday and he said, "Brr, it's getting really cold out!" and was shivering a little bit. I hadn't really noticed the cool temperatures. Again, a pretty subjective measurement.

            So how does starch stack up versus fat as a fuel source:

            * Starch is cheaper and convenient. It's cheap and easy to cook up a bunch of potatoes.

            * High-starch diet is easier to make a low omega-6 diet. A problem I had with low-carb primal was that it didn't always have the time and funds for good, large primal meals. My fallback food was frequently nuts, which I think was problematic in that I was getting in too much omega-6 in the diet.

            * There are populations eating high-starch diets with very good health. Is it optimal health? Debatable for sure, but they have good health, and far superior to the health of someone on a SAD diet. Quechua, Kitavan, Yuzurlhara, Pima all had good health on high starch. There is definitely a strong case to say that starch from vegetables is superior to refined carbohydrates, sugar or starch from whole grains.

            * Starch is good for mass gain. I'm currently trying to build muscle and eat lots of calories, so starch works well for this goal.

            There is the theory that the insulin released from a carbohydrate meal isn't the problem, but rather the insulin resistance which keeps insulin levels elevated far longer than they should be.

            Peronsally, I've done intermittent fasting on low-carb, and done it on high-starch, and didn't notice a difference in terms of hunger levels. When I was on a SAD diet, there was no way I would have been able to do IF, it would have been miserable. So I put weight behind the theory that you don't need to be low-carb in order to be a fat burner when you haven't eaten a meal in a long time.

            Robb Wolf was asked about low-body temperature (a dude had 96.3 f), and he said unless you had symptoms of hypothyroidism (low energy, dry skin, etc.), then he didn't see a problem with it ("put on a sweater"). He cited the fact that low metabolism has a lower body temperature, and so lower oxidative damage and stress on the body. In micro-organisms with a lowered metabolism, they live quite a bit longer. In mice, it's not so cut and dried, some studies show longer life, others put this into question. Of course, in humans, that's the big question!

            The counter-argument for a higher body temperature, despite the greater oxidative stress, is that this correlates with greater mitochondrail activity. This in theory means a greater ability for your body to deal with toxins (expelling mercury from a diet high in wild salmon for example) - I haven't seen anything that attempts to measure this ability though, so it's speculative as to whether this is an important promoter of health or a negligible variable. White blood cell count also correlates with metabolism, the greater the white blood cells, the greater the ability to ward off pathogens. In starvation experiments, white blood cell count was reduced by 35%. I haven't seen numbers on white blood cell counts where body temperature is only slightly reduced (1 or 2 f) though. If there is a measurable difference, the ability to keep pathogens in check within the digestive system would make a case for starch being a promoter of health.

            On Stone vs Nikoley: Stone was a dick in many of his accusations and probably way over-the-top with a lot of that stuff. Whatever, I'm not going to let a cat fight between some nutritional bloggers sway my own dietary decisions.

            In defense of fat: Stone, nor the high-metabolism advocates, have anything bad to say about fat (other than high omega-6) other than it's not as effective at raising metabolism during a period of rest and overfeeding. Fat is pretty wonderful stuff. I like lots of coconut oil or butter with my starch

            Bottom line: I think there are large variations in people's response to starch. Just like people gave primal or paleo a 30 day shot, and at the end of the time said, "Wow, I feel great! I can't believe I ever doubted the advice to avoid grains and eat saturated fat." I think it's worth giving a RRARF-type high-starch diet a 30 day shot. I found that I was happier overall on a higher starch content (so far, it's only been four months of higher starch ... I reserve the right to change my fat/carb ratios in the future :P).


            • #7
              I was caught up with his bullshit for a little while. Thankfully I gained some sense and left. He tends to borrow good ideas from the paleo sphere and mix it up with silly ideas.
              A steak a day keeps the doctor away


              • #8
                Originally posted by Alan M View Post
                This Free the Animal blog post pretty much covers it.
                Thanks for this really interesting.

                And Buffalo thankyou for that well thought out response, I appreciate your feedback of your experience. I'm staying primal but might add in a few more yams here and there. Atm Mark still covers far more issues and offers a more compelte picture of what optimal health should be. However 180degree is stil miles ahead of anyone on SAD

                thanks peeps

                No more diets. No more stress. Health made easy. Living made incredible.


                • #9
                  I've had blood sugar issues all my life, and I've become more sensitive to carbs as I've gotten older, especially starch. If Matt's system works for some folks, that's fine. But, it would be idiocy for me to believe that eating lots of starch is going to somehow fix what has always been broken. Hell, eating lots of starch for years is what made me fat and lethargic as I hit my late 30s. For me, Matt's system would be going back to the same starch-laden diet but expecting a different result, and I'm not stupid enough or insane enough to try it. Eating a low-starch, lowish carb diet has been working great for six years. Why change it?


                  • #10
                    I think pics on FTA say a lot.
                    Heather and the hounds - Make a Fast Friend, Adopt a Greyhound!


                    • #11
                      Not my own opinion, but something I heard Robb Wolf say in a podcast with regard to Matt Stone's plan:

                      A high body temperature is not necessarily optimal. A higher body temperature causes our natural biochemical reactions to occur more frequently. This will most likely cause the body to age faster.

                      I realize this has nothing to do with carbs and fat, but I still thought it might be helpful data.


                      • #12
                        I can only speak from personal experience but my daily temperature while training 5-6x a week is a solid 98.8. My daily temperature when I drop down to < 3x a week is 98.1 without fail. While my carbohydrate consumption is directly proportionate to the number of workouts I get in, I am not inclined to associate my consumption of carbs / starch with my temperature. It is likely the afterburn that keeps my temperature at 98.8.

                        And Stone's assertion that peoples who subsist on starchy carbs have optimal health fails to address the fact that these people have been eating these foods for hundreds of years. If you took away they yams and gave them a high fat / high protein diet, I'm certain you'd see increased pathology.


                        • #13
                          I followed Matt's blog for a short while and still read some of it. When I say followed, I only mean as far as reading or commenting, I don't mean following the program. I visit many places gathering info as I seek my own path. As for his suggestions, when I looked closer at his method I found that I was eating (pretty much) that way already. I ate nothing refined and no sugar at all *although I think he recommends sugar(?)* but I ate lots of rice, beans and potatoes, quinoa, rolled oats etc. Actually I was eating about a cup to cup and a half of quinoa plus 1/2 cup of beans with lunch and 2-3 cups of rice plus 3/4 - 1 cup beans with dinner, plus a little more at night, every day. I wasn't gaining weight and to be honest I was losing. But I was also working out and not cutting back as he suggests.

                          But my temp stayed low. Basal temp (upon waking) was 97.3. Now, after 1 month low carb, higher fat, my weight is the same, no weight gain or loss, but my waist dropped an inch and I have less fat. My body temp is still low. I prefer eating low carb for ease of eating due to less prep and cooking. I used to soak all my grains and beans as well as my oats. Now things are easier especially without having to cook rice and boil beans and all that. But as someone else mentioned as far as cost goes, it is cheaper to buy grains and potatoes than it is to buy meat and animal products (milk, yogurt...). Eating low carb costs me more and I too revert to nuts-which I try to limit- when meat/fats/proteins get low . On top of that I buy only pastured meats and eggs etc and that stuff costs a lot and is less convenient to purchase, travel time etc. So, good points and bad on both sides. I tolerate grains/potatoes/beans and all that pretty well so that isn't an issue. I've never had a weight problem either so that isn't an issue. I'm just looking at long term and as I get older and carbs becoming sugars and all that stuff. Long term health and cardiac care. For that I cut the grains.
                          Something Dr Eades said : “The amount of blood sugar in your bloodstream, if you have normal blood sugar, is a little less than one teaspoon. Three hundred grams of carbohydrates [The FDA's suggested daily intake] converts to a cup and a half of sugar.”
                          really hit home.

                          As far as Matt's blog, him and his ideas. I found the blog to be interesting since I like to see all sides and take info from everything. I also found him accepting of many people and opinions. People seemed helpful enough and friendly. Like any other blog I've seen it is full of success stories and examples/science to back it up. I find that amusing because as an outsider looking in at all this diet stuff, it would seem that everything works!!

                          Everyone has stories of cleared up pimples, less fatigue, better sleep, nicer hair, smoother skin, and all kinds of wonders.

                          For me, low carb or high, I feel the same. I had tons of energy high carb and I have tons of energy low carb. Everything feels the same so it's all good. I think the best thing for me as far as low carb is my higher HDL.
                          Last edited by Tommy7; 11-01-2010, 12:43 PM.


                          • #14
                            he thinks martin brekhans program is the answer for weight management and health, i saw him comment on it on facebook.... regarding his site, it is all over the place. he wont give clear cut recommendations he just brings up very contrasting observations, opinions and experimentations. he has lost weight and gained weight and he knows how ***HIS**** body funtions and works best. i DO NOT THINK he has any idea how other people's body's are going to function best.

                            if your drawn to the craving-starch induced blog he is doing right now then i say flippin try it. if youll be wonderous and curious until you do the damned thing, then do it like you got nothing to lose. no one is stopping you and no one knows your body but YOU.

                            i personally feel 100% healthy and happy with a high fat diet, there is nothing curious or drawing me to a starchy diet, at all so i have no interest in this high everything crap. i do read his blog though as i find him entertaining, but as an advocate for a healthy diet? no way.

                            you can read blogs all day mentally internalizing every bit of info you come across only to find it refuted in 10 other places. nutrition is the same way because NOT everything works for EVERYONE.

                            EVERYONE, primal or not, just needs to make a mental vow, pact, with themselves to eat and find what makes THEM(YOU) to function optimally, happy and without regard to your next meal time, macros, food incertainties, burning off of food and all the related crap. when you find yoruself living LIFE and not living diet, you have it made. your temp will fall where it may, your body weight will fall where it may, your moods/personality/skin/hormones.... youll know when your in a homeostatic state, youll know when your clear, genuine, happy and have a passion for what life offers!
                            Get on my Level


                            • #15
                              Wait, hold up.

                              I have never read "Livin' la vida low-carb" before, mostly because the name is beyond stupid, but the link that Matt Stone posts ( about the author (Jimmy Moore) of Livin' la vida low carb eating only eggs butter and cheese to lose weight sounds flat-out ridiculous.

                              I love eggs, and eating a dozen eggs a day seems like child-play to me, but eating nothing but eggs?!

                              These are his rules, for himself:

                              1. Must eat eggs as the primary source of fat and protein.
                              2. 1 tablespoon of butter (or other fat source) used per egg consumed.
                              3. I must eat an egg no later than 30 minutes after waking.
                              4. The egg meals ideally should be eaten every 3 hours, but not more than every 5 hours.
                              5. I will follow this schedule even if I’m not hungry (I’ll have 1 egg when that happens).
                              6. Cheese will be permitted up to one ounce per egg.
                              7. A minimum of a half-dozen eggs must be consumed daily.
                              8. The eggs will be local pastured eggs loaded with healthy omega-3 fats and Vitamin D.
                              9. Egg consumption will cease three hours before bedtime.
                              10. Diet soda will be allowed up to 3 cans daily with a goal of 1 or less.

                              I'm going to assume LLVLC isn't a paleo blog right? why would anybody want to follow the advice of Jimmy Moore when he seems to like crash diets? Certainly eggs provide a ton of nutrition, and even I've had days where most of my calories come from eggs, but this still seems pretty ridiculous to me. Also, diet soda? child please.

                              I don't read 180 degree health, but I'd probably rag on Jimmy Moore too. Apparently he at one point was at or over 400 pounds, and at the time of that article being written he was almost back at 300, but not binging on carbs? sounds odd. I think if he's drinking diet sodas there's got to be other garbage in his diet.

                              If any of his readers could give me the low down I'd appreciate it, his site has so much advertising it hurts to look at.
                              I used to seriously post here, now I prefer to troll.