What's Your Starch? page 6

[ChocoTaco369]

Ok, first when you group over 200 hunter gatherer tribes studied prior to modern cultural obtrusion via anthropological data gathered through the Ethnographic Atlas by Dr. George P. Murdock you get an average of less than 30% of daily calories being ingested as carbohydrate and for 1/4 of those tribes you have less than 15% of daily caloric load as carbohydrate. Its my belief that HG tribes provide the best data set to mimic as they are a reasonable link as to what the paleo diet of today might actually resemble since much of the fauna and animals of the paleolithic period are no longer around.

What study? Where? I don't see a study anywhere. Is it like The Seven Countries study? You know, the one where corrupt researchers cut out all the studies that didn't fit their theory, left in only the ones that did, then marketed to the whole world that saturated fat and cholesterol is the cause of modern disease?

This is supposed to be an evolutionary diet, correct? Riddle me this:

Where did human life originate?
What foods are common to this area?

If your answers are "Equatorial Africa" and "Fruit, tubers and leaner game meats," you'd be correct.

Humans did not migrate to cold weather locations where fatty game are common until fairly recently. You almost certainly descended from people that subsisted largely on tubers, fruits and leaner meats most of the time.

Whole Health Source: Clarifications About Carbohydrate and Insulin

That is not to say that a small portion of the societies do not subsist on mainly starch, but definitely does show that humans have a definite niche as meat centric animals. Unless, you want to argue that most HG's just aren't "doing it right". We could just stop here and assume that because these tribes are healthy and without diseases of civilization that is proof enough that a low carbohydrate diet can be quite healthful.

Small portions of traditional societies subsist on low carbohydrate diets. The overwhelming majority are starch eaters. Most traditional societies in existence today you will find in the tropics and Africa. They are diets rich in starchy roots and tubers, fruits, coconut, leaner meats and nuts. Most are fairly low protein, at least what I consider low protein (<20%).

As to your assertion about traditional societies and starch pleas feel free to list your source. Are these modern societies? What type of societies are they (agricultural, hunter gatherer, pastoral....)? And how many of them have you analyzed?

Next your assertions on hypothyroid are again simply that...an assertion without factual basis. The fact is hypothyroid symptoms have a variety of causes and breaks in the pathways. Some of which are actually treated quite well with a low carbohydrate diet. Others not so much. That you blanket statement "low carb is...." does a great disservice and trivializes what is in fact going on, and the individualized treatment that is actually needed to get to the root cause of each persons hypo symptoms.

We will just start with that before bothering with your fallacies about stress hormone and the like.

What I don't actually understand is why you bother running so hot and cold on various subjects. There is plenty of evidence of people thriving on low carb....curing type II diabetes, keeping neurological disorders at bay, improving cardio markers, losing weight...ect. Is there evidence of people thriving on starch too? Sure...so why make one of the two evil just cause your no longer doing it? You have no evidence that it is detrimental and quite a lot showing it has been one of humanities diets for ages. You don't have to validate your own choice by making (albeit a poor attempt) and attempt to discredit others.

Look, absolutely nothing you say has any factual basis. You have never provided a link to anything factual in your life. Your job here is to promote your line of thought. My line of thought is remarkably different from when I first started here 2 years ago. Feel free to look at my writings when I first started. The reason why my opinions changed was because I actually researched and experimented. You, clearly, are not interested in these things.

I'm surrounded on these forums by people that felt great when they first started this lifestyle, then their energy levels fell. Their hair started falling out. They get chills when they eat. They get ill when they have too many carbohydrate or dairy. And they just can't lose those last 20 lbs. And your answer is to keep doing what they're doing, clearly. It's insanity.

I invite you to read Danny Roddy's multi-part "Your Gut From Hell" and "Becoming Stress Proof" series here:

Your Gut From Hell, Or: Why The Evolutionary Model of Intestinal Health Is Goofy; The Danny Roddy Weblog

Becoming Stress Proof: The History of Stress With Hans Selye; The Danny Roddy Weblog

I also invite you to read Chris Kresser's article on how to CURE lactose intolerance. The reason why it's such a good read is the people with starch intolerance suffer from the SAME type of problem. It's a gut flora issue and an inability to process glucose efficiently thanks to your needlessly restrictive and unnatural diet.

http://chriskresser.com/how-to-cure-lactose-intolerance

[Neckhammer]

1.) They drop the CO2 production of your mitochondria and lower your thyroid, ultimately leading to a slower metabolic rate over time and increased stress hormones. citation needed

2.) They cause insulin resistance. It's not the same type of insulin resistance you'll get from a pizza, bagels and soybean oil diet, but the more you abstain from starch, the worse your body will react to it. explanation needed

3.) They stifle your gut bacteria. citation needed

I'll do number two and three for you.

2.) is physiological resistance at the muscles which spares glucose for the brain when carbohydrate is not present in the food supply and tends to resolve immediately after reintroduction of carbohydrate to the diet. Its simply a short term adaptation. Nothing detrimental about it.

3.) you say stifles...but, again its simply an adaptation to current circumstances of your diet. It's perfectly normal. Yes you will need to introduce starch a few times to get adapted to it as a food source...but so what? Usually we are not talking about people who have created a set of problems with LC, but those curing them. So should they be informed that it may take a short adaptation period if they with to reintroduce starch? Sure. Normally, though its a non issue.

[Neckhammer]

What study? Where? I don't see a study anywhere. Is it like The Seven Countries study? You know, the one where corrupt researchers cut out all the studies that didn't fit their theory, left in only the ones that did, then marketed to the whole world that saturated fat and cholesterol is the cause of modern disease?

This is supposed to be an evolutionary diet, correct? Riddle me this:

Where did human life originate?
What foods are common to this area?

If your answers are "Equatorial Africa" and "Fruit, tubers and leaner game meats," you'd be correct.

Humans did not migrate to cold weather locations where fatty game are common until fairly recently. You almost certainly descended from people that subsisted largely on tubers, fruits and leaner meats most of the time.

Whole Health Source: Clarifications About Carbohydrate and Insulin


Small portions of traditional societies subsist on low carbohydrate diets. The overwhelming majority are starch eaters. Most traditional societies in existence today you will find in the tropics and Africa. They are diets rich in starchy roots and tubers, fruits, coconut, leaner meats and nuts. Most are fairly low protein, at least what I consider low protein (<20%).


Look, absolutely nothing you say has any factual basis. You have never provided a link to anything factual in your life. Your job here is to promote your line of thought. My line of thought is remarkably different from when I first started here 2 years ago. Feel free to look at my writings when I first started. The reason why my opinions changed was because I actually researched and experimented. You, clearly, are not interested in these things.

I'm surrounded on these forums by people that felt great when they first started this lifestyle, then their energy levels fell. Their hair started falling out. They get chills when they eat. They get ill when they have too many carbohydrate or dairy. And they just can't lose those last 20 lbs. And your answer is to keep doing what they're doing, clearly. It's insanity.

I invite you to read Danny Roddy's multi-part "Your Gut From Hell" and "Becoming Stress Proof" series here:

Your Gut From Hell, Or: Why The Evolutionary Model of Intestinal Health Is Goofy; The Danny Roddy Weblog

Becoming Stress Proof: The History of Stress With Hans Selye; The Danny Roddy Weblog

I also invite you to read Chris Kresser's article on how to CURE lactose intolerance. The reason why it's such a good read is the people with starch intolerance suffer from the SAME type of problem. It's a gut flora issue and an inability to process glucose efficiently thanks to your needlessly restrictive and unnatural diet.

How to cure lactose intolerance

OMG! Did you just make a sad attempt to call me out for fallacy appeal to authority then proceed to list THREE "authority figures" as the basis of your entire argument! All I can say is WOW. Just WOW.....

FYI I've already read all of those though. I just don't take any one of them at their word as gospel. Do you bother reading the comments to the blogs you read? Sometimes there are even better gems in there than the original post...just a hint.

If you read my post the information on HG tribes can be found here Ethnographic Atlas by Dr. George P. Murdock. This data set has been used in multiple published science articles including those by Cordain and Eaton if I recall.

[Neckhammer]

Your entire RANT was set off by your response to knifegill talking about how GREAT he feels without carbs in his diet.....so please tell me again how your just here to help people and not promote your own particular agenda.

Hey knifegill you got any of those symptoms that he's talking about? I know I don't.

[ChocoTaco369]

OMG! Did you just make a sad attempt to call me out for fallacy appeal to authority then proceed to list THREE "authority figures" as the basis of your entire argument! All I can say is WOW. Just WOW.....

Do you know what an appeal to authority actually is? Posting a link to a fact-based article with citations included is not an appeal to authority. "Because I said so" is an appeal to authority. Do you know how when I try and make an argument, I usually link to something that supports my claim? Meanwhile, your argument is just "because I said so"? I can't argue with you if you don't know what an argument actually is. Either you're lying and you didn't read them, or you seriously don't understand basic critical reasoning.

[BestBetter]

Your entire RANT was set off by your response to knifegill talking about how GREAT he feels without carbs in his diet.....so please tell me again how your just here to help people and not promote your own particular agenda.

Hey knifegill you got any of those symptoms that he's talking about? I know I don't.

I don't know if Knifegill has any of those symptoms, but I do. I began paleo/primal as a way to improve my health issues and ended up giving myself a whole bunch of brand new issues to deal with. Now that I've cut back on fat, significantly increased my starches and (real) sugar, I'm doing much, much better.

I know that high quality saturated fat is critical to good health; but now I also know that good quality starches and sugars are just as important.

[Neckhammer]

Do you know what an appeal to authority actually is? Posting a link to a fact-based article with citations included is not an appeal to authority. "Because I said so" is an appeal to authority. Do you know how when I try and make an argument, I usually link to something that supports my claim? Meanwhile, your argument is just "because I said so"? I can't argue with you if you don't know what an argument actually is. Either you're lying and you didn't read them, or you seriously don't understand basic critical reasoning.

In that case I suppose I don't understand your comment at all. I was under the assumption that an appeal to authority could also be associate with linking to some other "famous" or well known person as proof of your stance. That's why I cited a textbook that has been used in publication and scientific journals to back up my claims. If you look at Danny's citations (from your link) for instance much of it is actually Ray Peat quotes which ends up being a lot of "cause Ray says so"....hence appeal to authority. If you have an article or valid theory based on peer reviewed research that is a bit better, but unless that article itself is open to peer review you still end up with something that is just a blog post that may or may not be well laid out.

For instance, and I indicated this....for your Whole Health Source link in the comments there are several people that make the very astute observation that his representation of the null hypothesis being a starch based diet does not work....PFW wrote:

"I don't see how the null hypothesis can be said to be "starch dominated diet is optimal" - in fact, I don't see how any statement of dietary optimality could possibly be the null hypothesis. It's not a neutral default position and philosophically speaking it's question begging to assume such a thing when talking about optimal ratios.

When it comes to discovering the optimal macronutrient ratio, the null hypothesis should be "there is no optimal macronutrient ratio". And I personally think the evolutionary evidence and HG tribe evidence would actually back this null hypothesis far more strongly than any generic "optimal ratio"; you can find a tribe living healthily eating virtually anything anywhere on the planet.

That leaves both a starch-dominated diet and a fat-dominated diet with some hefty work to prove themselves optimal, which is as it should be. Neither should get a magical free pass. "

And there are several other comments that point out various issues with the article.

I really don't have a problem with you eating starch or the concept that your gut biome may take some time to adapt itself once reintroduce. I take issue with your false blanket statements about a low carb diet simply cause it didn't work out well for you and your lifestyle. Heck, even your fella Danny has admitted to thriving on low carb....its when he decided "hey if low carb is good going strict carnivore will be even better!"....that he started running into problems from my understanding.

So, if listing blogs that are well cited is not an appeal to authority then please read why ketosis is not stressful:

Lucas Tafur: Bioenergetics
The Ketogenic Diet for Health: Ketogenic Diets, Cortisol, and Stress: Part I — Gluconeogenesis

For some good science that may or may not be directly related to this peruse this site Hyperlipid

Low carb does not cause hypothyroid Low-Carb Diets and Hypothyroidism: A False Alarm « A Worldly Monk

And of course some of that is about ketosis which I don't even aim to be in. I eat meat and add in veggies....fruit or sweet potato if I feel the urge but still end up under 100g of carbs just cause its what works out best for me. I'm lean, my lifts are great and I have steady energy. Full head of hair and lead in the pencil. Been doing this for over 2 years now so I guess I'm still waiting on all these horrid side effects to come on.

My point is that if your going to point at starch eating societies and say..."look they do it and they are healthy!"....how can you turn around and ignore the vast data of healthy low carb societies? Just doesn't make any sense. If you wanna be macro agnostic go for it, but don't go off the deep end here and start drinking mexican cola and eating imported gummy bears to ramp up your metabolism or some other such nonsense.

[Forgotmylastusername]

There seems to be some questions raised by the wilcox paper you link....seems it was published years after they released their book "The Okinawan Diet Plan". Ploy for book sales and data cooking like the China Study? Possibly.

Just another blog Heretic: Beware of Okinawa Diet scam!

There actually looks to be a lot of contradiction in the literature.

I can't find the full text for the Shibata study that seems to show some interesting comparisons though.

Hmm, another low carb blog with quotes from a known charlatan Barry groves.

There was a few other surveys unrelated to the 1949 one which showed similar result a few decades beforehand. They were known for their longevity before the 1980's, although In the late 80's well after WW2 their meat intake was said to be a lot higher but still only averaged a meager 20 grams a day.

I agree. And I'm not going to bother with any argument. It's a bit annoying when people who should know better blatantly misrepresent the science though. Just more low carb is bad for you pseudoscience bull.

It's funny you can say that, at the same time posting links about the "high seafood, animal meat, milk, eggs, low carb high saturated fat" diet of the Okinawans.

[Fitness Wayne]

I just tell them fruits, vegetables and sweet potatoes.