Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 45

Thread: Why Asian Rice Diets Do Not Cause Degenerative Diseases?

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    142

    Why Asian Rice Diets Do Not Cause Degenerative Diseases?

    One of the nutritional assumptions of most Paleo promoters appears to be that grains that came out of the agricultural revolution promote large carbohydrate overload. Wheat, corn, rice, oats, etc all seem to become glucose very rapidly in the gut. This stimulates large insulin responses. The sugar gets converted to the worst kind of VLDL fat. Heart disease, diabetes, weight gain, and maybe cancer all seem to correlate with these kinds of diets.

    My question is why do Asian cultures that eat primarily rice based grain diets not seem to suffer from degenerative Western diseases? Assuming the general nutritional theory behind Paleo is correct, then is maybe rice somehow different than other grains? Are there other factors that can explain away why Japanese who eat rice and fish largely avoid heart disease?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    2,026
    Quote Originally Posted by westes View Post
    My question is why do Asian cultures that eat primarily rice based grain diets not seem to suffer from degenerative Western diseases?
    That's begging the question.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    142
    Quote Originally Posted by js290 View Post
    That's begging the question.
    I don't understand your point.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    2,026
    Quote Originally Posted by westes View Post
    I don't understand your point.
    Excuse me, not begging the question, denying the antecedent. Which degenerative western diseases are you referring to? Diabetes, metabolic syndrome, alzheimers, parkinsons, etc? They have it all. Your contraposition of "not seem to suffer from degenerative Western diseases" is simply not true.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    3,203
    I think that this really comes down to the health differences between eating wheat vs eating rice.

    Wheat is the worst cereal by a significant margin because of the other bad things it has going on, not purely because it is a carbohydrate. Wheatbelly is a blog devoted to the evils of just wheat, and I recommend you preuse it. The main problem is gluten (specifically, the gliadin) that does all sorts of bad things. It stimulates appetite, punches holes in your intestines and has a generally inflammatory effect that your body does not enjoy.

    Rice on the other hand is just carbohydrates. Which are fine, as long as you don't eat them to excess (i.e. in balance with the meat and veggies, not as the major part of your meal).

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    142
    Quote Originally Posted by magicmerl View Post
    I think that this really comes down to the health differences between eating wheat vs eating rice.

    Wheat is the worst cereal by a significant margin because of the other bad things it has going on, not purely because it is a carbohydrate. Wheatbelly is a blog devoted to the evils of just wheat, and I recommend you preuse it. The main problem is gluten (specifically, the gliadin) that does all sorts of bad things. It stimulates appetite, punches holes in your intestines and has a generally inflammatory effect that your body does not enjoy.

    Rice on the other hand is just carbohydrates. Which are fine, as long as you don't eat them to excess (i.e. in balance with the meat and veggies, not as the major part of your meal).
    MagicMerl, I accept that wheat is inflammatory and has autoimmune issues. But I also thought that a major part of Paleo was a low carbohydrate diet, because of the damage caused by high glucose and insulin. The Asian result seems to contradict that.

    Does anyone have statistics on what percentage of calories comes from carbohydrates (of all kinds) in a traditional Asian diet that avoids Western processed foods?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    2,353
    Quote Originally Posted by westes View Post
    MagicMerl, I accept that wheat is inflammatory and has autoimmune issues. But I also thought that a major part of Paleo was a low carbohydrate diet, because of the damage caused by high glucose and insulin. The Asian result seems to contradict that.

    Does anyone have statistics on what percentage of calories comes from carbohydrates (of all kinds) in a traditional Asian diet that avoids Western processed foods?
    It was. I think most primal/paleo/whatevers, especially the young and healthy, are evolving towards macronutrient neutrality.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    142
    Apex, what does macronutrient neutrality mean? If the science is that glucose creates high insulin and high VLDL levels, which in turn promotes heart disease, it shouldn't matter which carbo you take. Sugar is sugar. Some sugar (i.e., wheat) is toxic for additional reasons. But any carbo in excess would be toxic if it promotes high glucose and high VLDL?

    Maybe the real issue here is that Asian diets keep total carbohydrates as a percentage of calories consumed at a lower percentage than a Western processed foods diet?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    3,203
    Quote Originally Posted by westes View Post
    MagicMerl, I accept that wheat is inflammatory and has autoimmune issues. But I also thought that a major part of Paleo was a low carbohydrate diet, because of the damage caused by high glucose and insulin. The Asian result seems to contradict that.

    Does anyone have statistics on what percentage of calories comes from carbohydrates (of all kinds) in a traditional Asian diet that avoids Western processed foods?
    I thought that paleo was low carb too when I first got into it. But I've since realised that for me at least it's really not. It's about eating your three macronutrient groups in approximate balance with each other (1/3 fat, 1/3 protein, 1/3 carbs) rather than eating a diet dominated by carbs (i.e. a conventional diet). Insulin isn't the evil enemy. Too much insulin is. You want your insulin to be hormonally balanced by glucagon, not swamping your system with so much insulin you head down the road to diabetes-ville (and all of the other attendant health issues associated with too much insulin).

    I recommend you read Denise Minger's most excellent rebuttal of the china study. It takes a while to read it all, but it's worth it. It doesn't explain the 'Why' that you are after in your OP. But I think it provides reasonably good (observational) evidence that rice isn't correlated with increased mortality.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    6,919
    Gee. I don't know.









    They are usually glycogen depleted before they eat it? And all the junk they aren't eating. Remember that rice is one of the better grains. Way better than GMO Round-Up ready hybrid dwarf wheat.
    Steak, eggs, potatoes - fruits, nuts, berries and forage. Coconut milk and potent herbs and spices. Tea instead of coffee now and teeny amounts of kelp daily. Let's see how this does! Not really had dairy much, and gut seems better for it.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •