Quality Carbs -- Starches and Greens page 10

[ChocoTaco369]

I agree with you - there are few absolutes to diet. And that's why this whole restriction BS irks me. Fat, carbs, protein...it doesn't matter. Eat real food. If you want a potato, eat a potato, don't eat coconut oil from the jar to try and crush a craving for some carbohydrate. If you don't want to eat meat, you can skip a meal. You don't have to have animal protein with every single meal (even though I've never tired of meat or eggs or cheese...ever...haha). If you want a 2 lb bag of apples for dinner, that's OK. If you want a 24 oz ribeye and that's it, that's OK, too. If you can kill it, dig it up or pick it, I say eat it. It really is that simple.

[otzi]

I If you can kill it, dig it up or pick it, I say eat it. It really is that simple.

I kind of agree with you on this, but for people coming from a background of metabolic syndrome, some hardcore 'carb' restriction is probably in order.

One of the first things to get compromised with met syndrome is the liver. Years of fructose/alcohol/etc... overload causes severe hepatic insulin resistance. One way to combat this and get the liver back to it's old ways are to limit carbs of all stripe to ketogenic or near-keto levels.

Once the visceral and fatty-liver fat is gone, liver function starts returning to normal, then you can start eating the starchy/sugary things which grow upon the earth.

It may take years for liver function to return to normal, a good indicator is triglycerides and blood glucose. In cases where these are impaired to any degree, it is probably best to limit all carbs. Once metabolic markers are showing insulin sensitivity and better control, it is probably wise to add in starchy carbs first, then sugary ones after some time to ensure proper glucose control and insulin sensitivity.

I think getting stuck in a LC rut for years does no one any good and adding carbs needs to be a pre-defined criteria once metabolic syndrome is showing signs of complete reversal.

[Derpamix]

Ray Peat is only anti-starch in that his "safe starches" are stripped of most of their starch properties in preparation(young potatoes, the protein soup, oatmeal, etc) due to endotoxin formation. Starches are also inferior to fruit and sugar.

[Neckhammer]

I kind of agree with you on this, but for people coming from a background of metabolic syndrome, some hardcore 'carb' restriction is probably in order.

One of the first things to get compromised with met syndrome is the liver. Years of fructose/alcohol/etc... overload causes severe hepatic insulin resistance. One way to combat this and get the liver back to it's old ways are to limit carbs of all stripe to ketogenic or near-keto levels.

Once the visceral and fatty-liver fat is gone, liver function starts returning to normal, then you can start eating the starchy/sugary things which grow upon the earth.

It may take years for liver function to return to normal, a good indicator is triglycerides and blood glucose. In cases where these are impaired to any degree, it is probably best to limit all carbs. Once metabolic markers are showing insulin sensitivity and better control, it is probably wise to add in starchy carbs first, then sugary ones after some time to ensure proper glucose control and insulin sensitivity.

I think getting stuck in a LC rut for years does no one any good and adding carbs needs to be a pre-defined criteria once metabolic syndrome is showing signs of complete reversal.

Probably what I find most compelling about the low carb approach is its overall success as a treatment protocol for all those things you list. Clinically its so enticing. It truly is a fast and easy intervention that shows quick results in cardio, liver and other markers of metabolic syndrome.

[otzi]

Probably what I find most compelling about the low carb approach is its overall success as a treatment protocol for all those things you list. Clinically its so enticing. It truly is a fast and easy intervention that shows quick results in cardio, liver and other markers of metabolic syndrome.

It's the follow-on that's lacking. Staying VLC probably does more long-term harm than good concerning insulin sensitivity and it's related woes.

I was the King of Metabolic Syndrome 5 years ago...Triglycerides 1000+, bp 190/90, Total Cholesterol 500, Hypothyroid, Fatty Liver Disease, Gout, Sleep Apnea, heart palps...I ate more HFCS than a lab rat, rarely touched fruit or veg, lots of fried foods, fast foods, and snack foods. Drank like a fish.

Nearly all my problems disappeared within 3 months of adopting PB and low carbs. I still have problems if I eat sugar sweetened crap. A couple weeks ago, I went through a big bag of 'dark-chocolate covered coffee beans in a couple days. Started getting joint pain like gout...discovered the 'dark chocolate' was anything but--I had eaten several hundred grams of HFCS in two days.

[Gorbag]

Restricting carbs makes most sense when having much bodyfat to spare. Obese people would not be able to exercise hard enough, so low intensity work will anyway be the norm of this group, burning fat most of the time. When getting leaner it is a very good idea to incorporate more carbs, because it’s limited how much fat the body can mobilize per hour. So when ramping up the metabolism by getting leaner and more active, working out with higher intensity, enough carbs should be ingested and/or proteins. If not doing this, say goodbye to lean bodymass and get a metabolic backlash in return...

[ChocoTaco369]

I kind of agree with you on this, but for people coming from a background of metabolic syndrome, some hardcore 'carb' restriction is probably in order.

I don't like this post because the thinking is backwards.

1.) You are talking about people that have destroyed their major metabolic pathway. If you have a wrecked liver from decades of abusing it with horrible food and alcohol, it's not the fault of carbohydrate. The diet is now medicinal. It's like saying people with IBS should exercise some "hardcore fat restriction" because fatty foods tend to set them off. It's backwards thinking and you're trying to mask a symptom instead of treating the underlying cause.

2.) These people make up a very small portion of the population.

3.) Metabolic syndrome has never and will never be caused by carbohydrate. It is caused by too much polyunsaturated fat, food toxins (grain/legume lectins), all the chemical additives/preservatives/artificial sweeteners in foodlike products and chronic overconsumption of calories.

A person that wrecked their body so badly that they are now functioning better on an inferior metabolic pathway (ketosis) didn't get there by eating fruit and potatoes, and your posts insinuates they did. The fact that metabolic syndrome compromises glucose is evidence of how important glucose is. It destroys your brain's preferential fuel source.

[ChocoTaco369]

Probably what I find most compelling about the low carb approach is its overall success as a treatment protocol for all those things you list. Clinically its so enticing. It truly is a fast and easy intervention that shows quick results in cardio, liver and other markers of metabolic syndrome.

It's successful as a medicinal diet for a small percentage of the population that cannot metabolize food properly anymore. Their most efficient and robust metabolic pathway is compromised. It's successful solely because they're forcing their body to work on "Plan B." Of course a properly-functioning second rate metabolism is going to make you feel a lot better than an improperly functioning primary metabolism, but this is more evidence that maintained low carbohydrate diets aren't ideal. Your body wants a mix of fat and starch. If you are restricting one due to an unrelated medical condition it makes sense, but unless you're one of those few your body should have both.

[Derpamix]

Low carb diets are an oxymoron, in the sense that it's using a bad diet to fix a problem caused by another bad diet. To get healthy, you should focus on fixing your insulin sensitivity, not entirely cutting out carbs.

Metabolic problems like the ones mentioned are only going to get worse when you're consuming 80% of your daily calories in fat, as it's pretty hard to avoid PUFA with that diet. You'll consistently damage the mitochondria, and reduce your ability to oxidize sugar. It's a degeneration in metabolic rate and longevity.

[Drumroll]

What I'm annoyed at is the dogma that flies around here. This is supposed to be as simple as eating real food. When there is dogma, there are saints and demons, and most people consider 1/3 of the real food on Earth demons while they pile on thousands of additional calories of rendered, mostly nutritionless calories on their food (or blended in their coffee) because they think they're saints. It's a problem.

Ah, some maybe, but not all. I drink my tea and coffee straight, always have. None of this bulletproof nonsense for me. Heh.

Though, to run a slight counter argument to that however, I would argue that the nutritional profile of several fat sources is quite amazing. Coconut oil has the MTCs which really do provide, long, stable and solid energy. I know because I use it in my cooking regularly, and I can feel the energy difference when I use it as opposed to say, olive oil, or even butter. Feel much more of an energy rush from it. Although that doesn't leave butter in the dust! It has a good amount of many fat soululable vitamins that are hard to find outside of fatty meats and well... Fats and oils! Then there's the vitamin E and antioxidants in olive oil (almost on par with tea), that we can't ignore.

I TOTALLY get your point about dumping fats into coffee and tea just to sustain a "fast" or to provide emergency calories when a meal can't be had. I think it's a bit of a cop out and ridiculous too! Fasts should be natural and not propped up with oils and fats just to keep it going on a "technicality" and nor do I think these "bulletproof" beverages are appropriate as the new "meal replacement bars." I am on board with you 100% with that one.

But to call them "mostly nutritionless" also seems like a bit of a misunderstanding. They most DEFINATELY have their numerous health advantages and I think it's pointless to argue this point. What I think the REAL issue is, is that people have found a clever way to abuse their powers. They are, perhaps, SO useful that people feel they want to cram them in wherever they can. The issue is not that these fats are nutritionless. They most certainly are NOT. The issue is that people have begun to use them in ways I feel are a bit out of proportion, sensational, and even, unmerited. Cook your foods in them, bake with them, use them in salad dressings, sauces, and dips! Don't get so obsessed that you go dumping them into anything that you can think of such as "bulletproofing" everything, making "fat bombs", ect. The issue is not people shunning carbs for these fats. I think the issue is more that these fats have been elevated to their own level which may not quite be warranted. There are, as I've noticed even here, plenty of people who get their carbs regularly but still bulletproof everything in sight and talk about "fat bombs" on a regular basis.

I would like to see a post from Mark on how to appropriately use fats, oils, ect. just to get his take on this, but now you have my two cents.