Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11

Thread: Carb blockers, 'scuse me, starch blockers revisited page

  1. #1
    OnTheBayou's Avatar
    OnTheBayou is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Sarasota, Florida, USA, Earth, Milky Way Galaxy
    Posts
    153

    1



    I've been having an interesting back channel discussion with another poster here about "carb" blockers. During the course of it, I actually, you know, READ the label on my old bottle of them. It states that it is ineffective against fruit, milk, and sugar. Hmmmm.....oh, sugars generally, fructose, lactose, glucose. This bottle is a K-Mart house brand and they correctly labeled it a Starch Blocker. Sometimes the truth is hidden in plain sight.


    Said other poster told me that the pills used definitely did SOMEthing.....induced the runs. But I looked at the particular pills on the net and it is a light duty, by mg, starch and fat "blocker" combo. So who knows how much of that experience is due to the fat perhaps moving on through?


    Another point of variability is in the use instructions. If you look at a lot of labels, you will find advice to take 15-20 minutes ahead of the starch, with the starch, and even before and after. (No harm in mopping up stray starch moleecules, I guess!)


    Yet another variation is in the amount of extract. And hence, how many pills are are a "dose". Most hover around 600-750mg, the good guys are 1000mg, yet the respected NOW brand is only 500mg.


    So, if you are still with me, you know pretty much what I know.


    I'll add that some Mayo clinic evidence says that you need 4000mg. But then, they don't say how many starch grams it blocked. Maybe that was needed for Supersized fries?


    Which opens up another unanswered question, is dosage in proportion to starch eaten, or does a certain minimal amount kill the alpha-amylase enzyme for awhile that converts starch to glucose?


  2. #2
    LabRat's Avatar
    LabRat Guest

    1



    No answer to the rest of the questions/points raised, but I'd wager you'd get the runs even with the fat-blocker removed. The reason lactose intolerance gives people the lovely experience that it does isn't because the lactose itself hurts us, but because it provides a temporary super-abundant food source to your normal gut flora. The bloating, diarrhea, and all the rest of it are the result of bacteria gorging- I imagine it would be the same with starches.


  3. #3
    OnTheBayou's Avatar
    OnTheBayou is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Sarasota, Florida, USA, Earth, Milky Way Galaxy
    Posts
    153

    1



    You are probably right, Rat. Just conjecturing out loud.


  4. #4
    OnTheBayou's Avatar
    OnTheBayou is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Sarasota, Florida, USA, Earth, Milky Way Galaxy
    Posts
    153

    1



    I guess this topic is a dud, even though fraught with possible benefit. So, in the interest of shooting this back to the top.....no, I'm adding more info:


    Here's a book you can read 95% of it online by a doctor who was peripherally involved in the development and implementation of Phase 2 blockers. http://books.google.com/books?id=oxD...ient=firefox-a Sometimes he's a bit glib and there are even some contradictions, but here's the whole history of blockers, names, dates, experiments, citations. While I could not find, even with searches, an absolute statement of how much is needed, you can learn that the blocker need is proportional to the starch load (not surprising), that they do best taken before (subject to how much before is before) the meal, and that at least about 1500mg is a safe starting point to be effective for a 400 calorie (100g) starch load. His suggested diet is flat out weird; high starch, low fat, moderate protein.


    You can also learn more about the book from the Amazon reviews: http://www.amazon.com/Starch-Blocker-Diet-Steven-Rosenblatt/product-reviews/0060559330/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1


    So, despite all the "experts" who say they don't work, here is rather empirical evidence they do. So, again, why is this topic so "persona non grata" here?


  5. #5
    ATZ's Avatar
    ATZ Guest

    1



    Because why would anyone go to the trouble of eating something just to then go take a pill to block its absorbtion? Its downright dumb.


  6. #6
    Jedi's Avatar
    Jedi is offline Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    France
    Posts
    57

    1



    Have to agree with ATZ here. the PB is all about a healthy lifsetyle, eating natural, wholesome foods. I don't see a place for something artificial which may or may not block carbs (and who knows the side effects). Why not simply not eat those carbs in the first place if it's an issue?


  7. #7
    OnTheBayou's Avatar
    OnTheBayou is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Sarasota, Florida, USA, Earth, Milky Way Galaxy
    Posts
    153

    1



    (Originally in all caps, but I've calmed down.) Maybe because some of us want to eat something other than turkey breast. No, that's NOT dumb, nor am I. I'm sorry if so many of us are not purists and either want to slash carbs to the bone, or sometimes enjoy some carbs. I'm not talking superized fries every day, I"m talking a homemade turkey-cabbage-squash soup, for instance. Other than (real) mashed potatoes infrequently, I'm not "carb addicted."


    I'm trying to lose weight and it only happens if my carbs are substantially under 50. It's really hard to do if you want something other than animal products. Last night I baked a potato for my parents to go along with the ribeye I Q'ed. I ate 3.3 oz of it after doing the blocker. Do you have any idea how much that did for my mental well being?


    I know that both Dr. Atkins and Mark question why anyone would want to eat other than what is the dogma, but I would guess 80% of us want variety. Not carb addiction, but yes, some of those foods taste nice and we've typically eaten them all our lives. The pattern is there.


    That's why I don't think blockers are dumb. Nor me.


  8. #8
    Diana Renata's Avatar
    Diana Renata is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    5,394

    1



    I think I'll just stick with regular Primal foods.


  9. #9
    ATZ's Avatar
    ATZ Guest

    1



    So in the other thread (cals in/cal out) you slate me for suggesting carbs are not the devil you make them out to be in a calorie controlled situation - especially from PB foods, then here you are asking about consuming a product to limit your carb intake from cabbage and squash!


    For god sake man (or lady) life is for living rather than obsessing about your carb intake. Nowhere have I seen Mark say one should not consume carbs, just ensure they are PB choice sources and nor refined / empty one's. Carbs may not be essential, but they can form part of a healthy nutritious diet and fuel intense exercise and recovery.


    If you cared to monitor your calories you may see some weight loss progress without necessarily worrying about your carb intake so vociferously!


  10. #10
    Jedi's Avatar
    Jedi is offline Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    France
    Posts
    57

    1

    Primal Blueprint Expert Certification


    If you can't lose weight on over 50gr of carbs daily and still want more carbs, I would sipmly indulge in them occassionally and accept your weightloss slow a tiny bit (but may not be as much as you think) rather than introduce a foreign substance into your body, which may well be less healthfull than an extra half a potatoe


Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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