Why do starchy carbs like sweet potato, potato, squash make me ill? page 2

[Dirlot]

I could be wrong but sweet potatoes are a higher GI food than squash ...

[Dirlot]

And WTF our preferred fuel source? Erm OK.

+1

[ChocoTaco369]

I had forgotten about you and you thinking that everyone needs a ton of carbs.
I can't eat too many without feeling sick and tired too. So remember Choco, every one is different. Don't tell this person its not possible, when it is.

I don't think you need a "ton of carbs." I also don't think you need a "ton of fat." Eat real food and you'll naturally get enough of each. It's when you start exclusionary dieting - like ketosis or low carb BS out of macronutrient fear - that you run into problems.

Yes, I said preferred fuel source. Your body burns glucose preferrentially over fatty acids, it's not directly stored as body fat whereas fatty acids are, it is a more efficient fuel (your mitochondria will have a higher CO2 output on a diet with ample starch and fruit vs a low carbohydrate diet), it reduces levels of corsitol and adrenaline vs low carbohydrate diets, if you undereat glucose too regularly your body will break down lean muscle tissue into glucose to fuel your brain...I strongly recommend a diet where carbohydrate is ample.

Factor in that the overwhelming majority of traditional societies consume more starch than fat...well, it's pretty clear we produce amylase in our saliva for a reason. Starch was probably the most integral fuel source for our evolution as a species, especially considering for the overwhelming majority of our existence we survived in equatorial regions where fruit and starch is plentiful and animals are lean. Exactly how long have we been consuming very fatty game? Not very long considering we only recently migrated to cold temperature climates. You probably descended from people that ate a lot of carbohydrate. The difference is they ate fruits, tubers and roots, not grains and refined isolated sugars.

Obviously, YMMV, but I think a good rule of thumb is to consume 1-2g of carbohydrate for every gram of protein you consume to counteract the gulcagon response in a heavy fat/protein diet and keep yourself out of a chronic state of gluconeogenesis (which is stressful and catabolic). It's helped me a lot.

[Ayla2010]

And if it is everyones preferred fuel source, why is it, at under 10% carbs, every day I am full of energy and feel amazing?
Shouldn't I be tired, and lethargic following your theory?

[Ayla2010]

What ever you say Chaco.
Remember EVERYONE is different. What works for you, doesn't always work for the next person.

I already said, but if I have that many carbs to keep up with the protein, I would not, and have not felt very good. Ive been there done that. What has made ME feel the best is HFLC. You can't say that its right for everyone.

You are wrong about it being our preferred fuel source, but hey I know you will never change your thoughts on that so moving on.

This place is starting to be somewhere I am not enjoying, due to all these so called primal people going on about things that are so far off what primal is all about, and know I know what made me leave last year

[ChocoTaco369]

And WTF our preferred fuel source? Erm OK.

I tend to side with Stephan Guyenet and Danny Roddy's take on the issue. Two things that you may want to read:

Whole Health Source: Healthy Skeptic Podcast and Reader Questions
Whole Health Source: Clarifications About Carbohydrate and Insulin

Carbohydrate gets a bad rap because of the type of carbohydrate inherent to the typical American diet - grains and refined sugars. Today's carbohydrate is ultra-palatable - flour fried in rancid polyunsaturated fat, topped with salt and sugar. The food reward is too high and it's literally toxic. Try overeating a boiled potato. See how fat you get. Hell, a boiled potato is more nutritious per calorie than the average piece of muscle meat.

If you had success going low carbohydrate, it's likely because you:

a.) Removed toxic grains from your diet
b.) Made your food less palatable so you are eating less. It's a lot harder to overeat steak and potatoes separately than when together.

Stephen sums it up well here:

I am not suggesting that low-fat diets are the ultimate path to health, but I do think they can be compatible with health in most people, if carefully composed. In addition, they may have benefits in certain situations, for example if you want to reduce food reward. Reducing carbohydrate is another way to do that, and the effectiveness of each method may depend on individual differences...

...Humans are adapted to eating starch. Hunter-gatherers show genetic evidence for selection for starch tolerance relative to other primates, and agricultural populations show even more. The vast majority of people who are reading this descend from agricultural populations that ate high-starch diets for thousands of years. Although there's still some controversy, it appears that modern Europeans descend mostly from agricultural populations that immigrated from the Middle East and replaced European hunter-gatherers, and needless to say European hunter-gatherers didn't contribute much to the genetic makeup of people of more recent African origin, or native Americans...

...Since the ancestors of most people reading this have probably been eating more starch than fat for a very long time, at a minimum thousands of years, but probably closer to a million (because African game meat tends to be pretty lean, and most peoples' ancestors never passed through far Northern latitudes where fat calories predominate), I think the "null hypothesis" should be that humans are best adapted to diets where starch predominates over fat. In other words, that should be the default hypothesis that requires evidence to disprove. The fact that there are so may healthy high-starch cultures, far more than there are high-fat cultures, adds to the weight of the evidence.

What do you think?

What ever you say Chaco.
Remember EVERYONE is different. What works for you, doesn't always work for the next person.

Everyone is different in the sense that we like different colors, prefer different genres of music and like certain foods more than others. Physiologically, we're all pretty much identical. What works for me will likely work for you. If it isn't, it's probably because of some stubborn belief you're not willing to let go of. We're stubborn creatures by nature.

You are wrong about it being our preferred fuel source, but hey I know you will never change your thoughts on that so moving on.

No. I used to believe what you currently believe - until I dropped my preconceived notions, did actual research outside of paleo blogs and experimented on myself. Shortterm carbohydrate restriction can have benefits. Longterm carbohydrate restriction leads to a myriad of health issues. The Inuit is often used as an example here - which is ironic because they're vastly outnumbered by high carb societies. They are also one of the most haggard traditional societies on record known for aging very quickly.

[Paleobird]

Also a possibility - but your issue would be solely related to white potatoes since sweet potatoes are mentioned in the title. If you have issues with sweet potatoes, squash or bananas, it's not a nightshade issue unless you're combining them with white potatoes.

For your sake, I hope it's not a nightshade issue. If I couldn't have my tomatoes, peppers and white potatoes...oh man. I'd cry for weeks.

He did say "especially" the white potatoes in the OP. Warmbear? Have you tried sweet potatoes or yams against the white spuds to compare?

[Paleobird]

Oh, sorry for trying to actually talk about the OP's concern instead of having round 54,887 of the carb wars.

[Ayla2010]

I tend to side with Stephan Guyenet and Danny Roddy's take on the issue. Two things that you may want to read:

Whole Health Source: Healthy Skeptic Podcast and Reader Questions
Whole Health Source: Clarifications About Carbohydrate and Insulin

Carbohydrate gets a bad rap because of the type of carbohydrate inherent to the typical American diet - grains and refined sugars. Today's carbohydrate is ultra-palatable - flour fried in rancid polyunsaturated fat, topped with salt and sugar. The food reward is too high and it's literally toxic. Try overeating a boiled potato. See how fat you get. Hell, a boiled potato is more nutritious per calorie than the average piece of muscle meat.

If you had success going low carbohydrate, it's likely because you:

a.) Removed toxic grains from your diet

What do you think?

Nope to this, because this I did first, way back over a year ago. When fully primal, but lower fat than now, and slightly more carbs, I still felt good, but often tired. It wasn't until 3 weeks ago that I went to 70% fat I felt like I had woken up from a coma and was just buzzing. I cannot possibly explain exactly how amazing I feel right now. Not to mention the fact that I can go to a party with a table full of chips and crap processed food now, and not touch anything is a huge huge thing for me, who used to binge often for 12 years.

As for your other point. Yes I guess I probably am eating less calorie wise, but the fat is keeping me satisfied for much longer, so can not possibly eat anymore than I am. I am in no way starving though. Plus my digestion is now perfect, where I have had problems often in the past.

I don't believe that about being adapted for starch. Again why would it make me so tired and feeling gross if that were the case?

[Ayla2010]

Oh, sorry for trying to actually talk about the OP's concern instead of having round 54,887 of the carb wars.

Yes PB sorry, you are so right. Im just sick of reading this BS. I just need to stay away from other threads.
Bowing out.