Printable View
[QUOTE=Drumroll;1071189]Sounds like the PHD's whole reason for advocating that much starch is pretty much based SOLEY on the resistant starch thing and gut health. [/QUOTE]
And the fact that glucose is a nutrient.
And that optimum blood glucose levels are around 90-100 mg/dl, which are imbalanced by too much or too few carbs.
And because glucose scarcity suppresses T3 thyroid hormone.
So really nothing to do with resistant starches at all.
Yeah, really his whole premise is based on an evaluation of "needs" from his three evolutionary models.....breast milk, catabolism during fasting, and mammalian diet.....throws in a bit of food reward....
Ends up with a model of 65f/20c/15p based on his analysis. Then he purposes that our comparably small hind gut disallows fermentation of sufficient fats, and our smaller liver does the same for carbs....so compared to other animals humans are rather fragile creatures that need to eat close to those ratios to live optimally.
I haven't read the new book, but I have the old version. He places a good deal of emphasis on a low insulin diet also in that version, hence the relatively low protein recs.
[QUOTE=Neckhammer;1060976]^ I think your right on paleomom. Supplementation in isolation can be downright dangerous. I would much rather look at utilizing supplemental foods as Mark points out in this post:
[url=http://www.marksdailyapple.com/are-you-eating-these-important-supplemental-foods/#axzz2Hu5jTV6Q]14 Important Nutrient-Dense Supplemental Foods | Mark's Daily Apple[/url]
On days I don't make an egg dish I shoot 3 raw egg yolks. Eat liver 1x/week. Make and drink bone broth a few days a week. Ferment my own veggies and make yogurt. Get grass fed butter and cheeses. Plenty of shellfish.
One thing I've compromised on is fermented cod liver oil for my kids. Its a "food" in my view. They take it since they don't eat fish and liver like I do.[/QUOTE]
What a great list. I'd not see that before, but love that it has all those superfoods in one place. I don't eat eggs, dairy, or nuts though so I guess I'm missing out on some nutrients!
[QUOTE=magicmerl;1071195]And the fact that glucose is a nutrient.
And that optimum blood glucose levels are around 90-100 mg/dl, which are imbalanced by too much or too few carbs.
And because glucose scarcity suppresses T3 thyroid hormone.
So really nothing to do with resistant starches at all.[/QUOTE]
The suppression of T3 is, in my opinion not necessarily harmful. It is a natural adaptation to the consumption of less glucose. You need the elevated T3 to assist in glucose metabolism, but not as much if your levels are lower. Now, if something lowered your T3 WHILE you were consuming copious starches (such as chronic long-term calorie restriction) then you might have a serious issue.
I'm also skeptical about the whole "optimal blood glucose level" science. Oh sure, there's definitely points where it can get too high or too low, but that still leaves a wide range in between where little or no problems should occur. I'd love to see how this "optimum level" was determined.
I'm not telling people not to eat their "safe starches" if they want to. It's all fine and dandy with me. :) I'm just not sure I agree with his conclusions based on the evidence and science that I've read on the subjects.
Even if he's completely 100% right about these things, I fail to see how you need a whole pound of starch a day to maintain these effects. I bet for most people, considerably less would still work just fine.
[QUOTE=Drumroll;1071223]
I'm not telling people not to eat their "safe starches" if they want to. It's all fine and dandy with me. :) I'm just not sure I agree with his conclusions based on the evidence and science that I've read on the subjects.
Even if he's completely 100% right about these things, I fail to see how you need a whole pound of starch a day to maintain these effects. I bet for most people, considerably less would still work just fine.[/QUOTE]
A pound a day is the UPPER limit. Most should do well with 1/2 to 1 pound, according to the book. Actually, though, 1 pound isn't that much. A pound of potatoes is 470 cal w/87g carbs. A pound of white rice is 585 calories w/126g carbs. They also like to include some sugary fruit and veggies, so the carb content for most people ends up being in the 80-200g range.
But like we said earlier, this isn't a 'diet' you follow, just a discussion of proper amounts people could eat and be healthy.
I was reading last night how they came up with their 'safe starch' recommendation, and I'm going to write this from memory, but they said they like using starchy plant food for glucose since it's converted directly to glucose whereas fruit with sugar must first be converted out of it's sucrose/fructose state. They recommend fructose to be less than 25g/day for most people I believe.
I'm telling you guys, though, my N=1 for eating a pound a day of potatoes (and/or rice, plantains, sweet potatoes) coming off of 2 years of zero starch is like night and day. I sleep like a baby through the night and wake up 5-10 minutes before my alarm goes off with a serious case of the mornin' wood, like it's supposed to be. For most of the last 2 years, I'd wake up about 2-3am, look at the clock, wonder WTF? Why did I wake up at 3am, then go back to sleep. I put it off to the 'bi-phasic' sleep they talked about, so now I'm wondering if that just wasn't some BS LC'ers made up to explain bad sleep.
I'm not sure why some people think a pound is a lot of anything. A pound of potatoes or apples or oranges or cooked rice is mostly water, not pure starch or sugar. A pound of pure starch/sugar is a lot, yes, but not with water and proteins intact.
1 lb = 2 apples or 2 potatoes or 1/2 cup dry rice before absorbing water
[i]80-200 g carb content...sweet potatoes[/i]
80g with sweet potatoes IS primal. Sounds like PHD is just Primal + a half potato. Eh, not too bad as long as you're already adjusted to being a mostly-fat burner. I don't see a problem with swapping out some sugary fruit for a little rice, but I'm not giving up antioxidant vegetables. And I'd rather not decrease the protein.
[QUOTE=j3nn;1071766]I'm not sure why some people think a pound is a lot of anything. A pound of potatoes or apples or oranges or cooked rice is mostly water, not pure starch or sugar. A pound of pure starch/sugar is a lot, yes, but not with water and proteins intact.
1 lb = 2 apples or 2 potatoes or 1/2 cup dry rice before absorbing water[/QUOTE]
Yeah, think about those stupid pink dumbbells at the gym - THOSE are a pound and
they're infinitesimal.
Well I got halfway through the book and then I returned it.
Too much freaking science as to whyyyyyyy theiiiiiir diet is the Perfect One.
It annoyed me. I got it, I'VE GOT IT ALREADY ALREADY clam it!
Also, the stupid jackass constant references to f*cking breastmilk. Seriously?
I understand what they were trying to say and all, but come ON already. God.
Breast milk is for BABIES, who gives a shit what the molecular makeup of it is unless
you're going to be drinking the stuff into adulthood? BABIES who can't digest ANYTHING
ELSE need breast milk, with their brand new teeny little tummies, shut up already.
Okay, totally over it! Tra la la la la!
Julie
[QUOTE=otzi;1071727].
I'm telling you guys, though, my N=1 for eating a pound a day of potatoes (and/or rice, plantains, sweet potatoes) coming off of 2 years of zero starch is like night and day. I sleep like a baby through the night and wake up 5-10 minutes before my alarm goes off with a serious case of the mornin' wood, like it's supposed to be. For most of the last 2 years, I'd wake up about 2-3am, look at the clock, wonder WTF? Why did I wake up at 3am, then go back to sleep. I put it off to the 'bi-phasic' sleep they talked about, so now I'm wondering if that just wasn't some BS LC'ers made up to explain bad sleep.[/QUOTE]
Haha Otzi, that made my evening!
I'm similar to you, VLC for a while and now thriving on potatoes added in. Can confirm the better sleep (already very good on primal before) and yes, the morning wood! :)
I find it very easy to eat a pound of potatoes a day and in fact I should probably start weighing and tracking my food a bit as I may be eating too much now (VLC better for suppressing hunger, I must admit). Still losing fat though and getting close to target weight.
So yeah, apart from the corny name (title), the PHD is well worth a read and is a good tool to have. It is less accessible and more "geeky" so I'd still recommend the Primal Blueprint for newcomers.
Not sure what the fuss is about, really. A pound of cooked rice has 96 g carbs. A pound of raw potato has 82 g carbs. If you are otherwise VLC and just add a pound of either, you are still at the low end of the primal blueprint weight maintenance zone and conceivably in the high end of the steady weight loss. So there is more concurrence than contradiction between phd and PB from the perspective of acceptable amount of carbs.