Interesting point of view - counter low carb

[Josh]

Hi. Alan posted this in Lex's journal. I found it interesting, so thought I'd break it out here.

Basically a blog post, and a link to a more academic letter questioning whether humans are meant for low carb diets, and proposing that carbs, in particular starches could have formed a large part of our diet.

http://donmatesz.blogspot.com/2011/05/who-said-paleo-diet-was-high-in-fat_28.html#links

I'm very interested to hear your comments and critiques of these ideas. It sounds fairly plausible but the devil is in the details. I admit I'm not strong on all the details of the theory. If I read Cordain, he has me convinced, and this seems plausible.

Even after a while on low carb, I can't deny that I don't feel half as good..maybe that can continue to change.

What are you thoughts?

[p0wer]

In my view, the key to good health (and life) is balance. Extremes are almost never good.

We're obviously omnivores so we benefit most from having both plants and animals in the diet. Furthermore it's obvious that the body prefers to use carbs as an energy source in certain cases and fat in other so it's not optimal minimizing one or the other unless you have a strong reason for that (e.g. a specific disease).

How much carbs does one need (or what should the carbs to fat ratio be)? This is largely individual, I'd start with the 100-150 grams/day for the brain, and experiment from there on adding more or less to see what works best.

Good link btw.

[p0wer]

The B12 argument is quite a bit of guessing though.

Another thing is the pro-starch argument

As well, the fact that humans produce more salivary amylase and have more copies of the AMY gene that codes for amylase production than other primates also suggests that evolutionary diets contained substantial amounts of starch.

it may be that we are a little bit more adapted for starch than primates, but uncooked starch is still quite hard for us to digest. So I wouldn't think evolutionary diets contained that substantial amounts of starch. Probably happened mainly when people started cooking food (not sure how long this is, evolutionary might be significant).

[cliff]

So I wouldn't think evolutionary diets contained that substantial amounts of starch. Probably happened mainly when people started cooking food (not sure how long this is, evolutionary might be significant).

Has evolution ever stopped? 

[p0wer]

No, probably.

[goodsamaritan]

Hi. Alan posted this in Lex's journal. I found it interesting, so thought I'd break it out here.

Basically a blog post, and a link to a more academic letter questioning whether humans are meant for low carb diets, and proposing that carbs, in particular starches could have formed a large part of our diet.

http://donmatesz.blogspot.com/2011/05/who-said-paleo-diet-was-high-in-fat_28.html#links

I'm very interested to hear your comments and critiques of these ideas. It sounds fairly plausible but the devil is in the details. I admit I'm not strong on all the details of the theory. If I read Cordain, he has me convinced, and this seems plausible.

Even after a while on low carb, I can't deny that I don't feel half as good..maybe that can continue to change.

What are you thoughts?

Many dimensions are wrong about the concept of being "low carb" and high fat:

#1 - The discussion is on cooked / steamed crap.  They make theoretical paleo thought experiments using cooked food tables.

#2 - raw fat is immensely different from cooked fat.  Cooked fat is repulsive and it's just not possible for people to eat a lot of it.

#3 - even the carb sources they are talking about are cooked carb sources...

#4 - Any paleo thought experiments have to be on RAW PALEO thought experiments.

It is high carb low fat diets that are extremely wrong and harmful and for the diabetics or undiagnosed diabetics, it is the blood sugar spikes and crashes that make them sick.  There has to be an acceptably high enough fat consumption for these blood sugar spikes and crashes to not happen.

My shortcut to this evolution speculation is HEALING.

I can heal the sick... right here... right now... hands on... with raw paleo diet and lifestyle principles... and this is harder evidence than their silly thought experiments on cooked food.

[goodsamaritan]

In addition, because of the low fat mania... people have shed their true colors that humans are FATIVORES that they seek out and hunger for FAT wherever they can find it.  And the $$$ industries are just happy to provide junk cheap profitable fats to people in:

- french fries
- mayonnaise
- pork rinds
- pasteurized milk
- cooking oil
- margarine / butter
- chips junk food etc

People have an instinct for fat and carbs.  They are just hopelessly miseducated about it.  But they have instincts for it.  And this is exploited by industries.

[goodsamaritan]

Even after a while on low carb, I can't deny that I don't feel half as good..maybe that can continue to change.

I personally do not subscribe to the idea that we have to be NAILED to a ratio of fat / protein / carb for life.  That does not make sense.  Because we have different needs at different times.

Say you got into labor work, and then you got into a desk job, or you went into a sport... your requirements change.  You are a teenager, you are a child, you are middle aged, you are a senior citizen... the requirements change.

There are times a high everything diet will do you good, there are times when a very low carb diet will do you good... be flexible.  Be in touch with your instinct... leading to instincto diet principles - GC Burger.

By now I have an ear to my internal instinct that tells me what I need... it's getting better at it.  

The times I hate the most is when I make a mistake of eating a high carb low fat diet and I get blood sugar ups and downs... absolute hate that feeling.

------

Let go of your low carb thing Josh. 
You have observed it's not doing you any good.
Try to eat quality carbs.
Raw wild honey comes to mind, make lemonade.

[Josh]

I appreciate the thoughts, but the thing is for me a bit of fruit or honey doesn't really give me the stability and brainpower, it's the starches that really help.

If I eat fruit and honey, I tend to crave a load of it and then I get crashes and don't feel much better. Or a small amount doesn't work. I'm not sure about the idea of instinct right now, as I had to force myself to adapt to fat for energy at all...so how do you know when to push and when to go with what you crave in the moment?

I'm not saying starches/heavy plant based are good, I know some of the problems, but I found this piece decently argued. Worth questioning our own ideas sometimes.

[goodsamaritan]

Oh I had my share of starch cravings and meeting those cravings made me feel real good.

These were the threads I researched on.  Ask Iguana, there's a lot of wisdom there at his age.

I posted it here

http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/omnivorous-raw-paleo/examples-your-list-of-raw-starchy-foods/

and here

http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/instinctoanopsology/question-for-iguana-instincto-carbs

and here

http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/instinctoanopsology/instincto-vegetables/

[Josh]

Thanks for those links. I had a read. Do you now think your starch experiment was worthwhile?

I don't crave starch personally exactly, it just makes me work much better at the moment.

I might buy some raw starchy veg and bananas today, it's one thing I haven't tried that much.

At the moment, I just want to make a diet work for me than what's perfectly best in theory. Better to eat an imperfect raw diet you can stick to than a perfect one that you can't.

[goodsamaritan]

Thanks for those links. I had a read. Do you now think your starch experiment was worthwhile?

I don't crave starch personally exactly, it just makes me work much better at the moment.

I might buy some raw starchy veg and bananas today, it's one thing I haven't tried that much.

At the moment, I just want to make a diet work for me than what's perfectly best in theory. Better to eat an imperfect raw diet you can stick to than a perfect one that you can't.

The starch experiment was beautiful.  Opened me to a whole new plethora of foods my body can choose from and pick out from when needed.  I gorged on a lot of a root crop called singkamas. I put it in the refrigerator cold.  Hit the spot in the hot summer.  I gorged and gorged until I was satisfied and my body stopped asking for it. http://www.marketmanila.com/archives/singkamas-jicama

Something like when I craved for oysters and ate oysters until I was satisfied and my hunger went down on it to sane levels like today.

[p0wer]

I don't crave starch personally exactly, it just makes me work much better at the moment.

I'm just interested, which foods are these more concretely? If it's raw food and it works I don't see why would it be a problem. If it's cooked then it might as well be the effect of some opioids on the brain?

[HIT_it_RAW]

Salivary amylase cannot digest raw starches. When primates are only fed raw carbs/starches they do not produce salivary amylase. ~two weeks after the introduction of cooked starches they start producing amylase. The same counts for dogs and rats. And probably most other animals. I'll see if I can find the article I read this again..

[HIT_it_RAW]

I have a book were I read this and it had various references. Unfortunately I've lent the book to my sister so I can't look them up right now.

Did a very quick search all I could find so far was this:
http://jp.physoc.org/content/119/2-3/153.full.pdf
http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/00016357209019794

This one is interesting because it shows that human that have been exposed to agriculture(and thus cooked starches) longer have adapted to produce more amylase: http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v39/n10/abs/ng2123.html

[Josh]

Salivary amylase cannot digest raw starches.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but one thing I've learned is just experiment experiment. It's too easy to get tied up in theory, and something else might come along and claim the opposite, so I'll just keep an open mind.

At the end of the day, if I do need to eat some cooked starch to keep going for now it's not the end of the world I suppose.

I'm just interested, which foods are these more concretely?

Well I cheated at the weekend and had a small amount of chips (fries) with kebab meat and some salad. Before anyone accuses me of being slack, I have been strict low carb for the last 4 months. I can survive on low carb at the moment, but don't feel on good form.

Anyway, after that it was like night and day, I've functioned all this week. I personally don't think it was opiates, I think it's brain fuel.

It's possible that I could adapt further to low carb and feel better, but 4 months is a fairly good trial. I feel like trying the carbs and seeing if it helps me function in my life for a while.

[p0wer]

I'm not saying you're wrong, but one thing I've learned is just experiment experiment. It's too easy to get tied up in theory, and something else might come along and claim the opposite, so I'll just keep an open mind.

At the end of the day, if I do need to eat some cooked starch to keep going for now it's not the end of the world I suppose.

Thumbs up. If a little cooked starch does help you feel better I would put the theory in second place. I doubt it will have much (if any) bad effects on health. As far as I know heated protein is usually the biggest trouble. Something which is high in starch but low in protein would probably be optimal for cooking.

[Haai]

I have a book were I read this and it had various references. Unfortunately I've lent the book to my sister so I can't look them up right now.

I think the book you are referring to is Enzyme Nutrition - Unlocking the Secrets of Eating Right For Health, Vitality and Longevity. By Dr Edward Howell. You recommended it to me, so now I have it. It's a very interesting book.

I think that salivary amylase can digest raw starch, it's just that, like you said, if only raw starch is eaten by an organism then that organism will produce fewer amylase enzymes in it's saliva, because the raw starch already contains adequate enzymes to digest it.

Howell mentions that "when dogs and cats eat their natural raw, carnivorous diet, there are no enzymes in the saliva. But when dogs are fed on a high carb, heat treated diet, enzymes show up in the saliva within about a week". This obeys the Law of Adaptive Secretion of Digestive Enzymes.

[HIT_it_RAW]

I think the book you are referring to is Enzyme Nutrition - Unlocking the Secrets of Eating Right For Health, Vitality and Longevity. By Dr Edward Howell. You recommended it to me, so now I have it. It's a very interesting book.

I think that salivary amylase can digest raw starch, it's just that, like you said, if only raw starch is eaten by an organism then that organism will produce fewer amylase enzymes in it's saliva, because the raw starch already contains adequate enzymes to digest it.

Howell mentions that "when dogs and cats eat their natural raw, carnivorous diet, there are no enzymes in the saliva. But when dogs are fed on a high carb, heat treated diet, enzymes show up in the saliva within about a week". This obeys the Law of Adaptive Secretion of Digestive Enzymes.

Yup thats the one.

[RawZi]

Thumbs up. If a little cooked starch does help you feel better I would put the theory in second place. I doubt it will have much (if any) bad effects on health. As far as I know heated protein is usually the biggest trouble. Something which is high in starch but low in protein would probably be optimal for cooking.

    Know from where that heated starch is better than heated protein?

Acrylamide, a toxin found in roasted/baked/fried/grilled starchy foods, but not in boiled or raw foods, has been linked to endometrial and ovarian, but not breast cancers.[90] Ingested acrylamide is metabolised to a chemically reactive epoxide, glycidamide.[91] The HEATOX(Heat Generated Food Toxins) project has published a report on acrylamide.

    Many people on the forum here consider acrylamides to be the worst.  Many also feel fine with some cooked meat, but do not tolerate any sugar or starch raw or cooked.

    Aajonus might agree with you, but only for people who are hyper____. 

    What's his name, oh, I think Dr Mercola DO Surgeon Naturopath NY Times best author may agree with you for people who have severe autoimmune disease.

    You're not trolling, right?

   

[goodsamaritan]

Josh,

I think you may be currently in the low carb quagmire where you've been low carb too long and you lose your ability to process carbohydrates they give you sugar spikes and crashes. (fruit sensitive, honey sensitive)

I experienced that and learned I could get back on track to eating carbohydrates by eating raw bitter melon fruit.  Just 1/4 of a raw bitter melon fruit a day for some 3 days should give you the nutrition and restore your ability to process carbs.

You can also juice a few vegetables like Aajonus does.

[p0wer]

Many people on the forum here consider acrylamides to be the worst.  Many also feel fine with some cooked meat, but do not tolerate any sugar or starch raw or cooked.

Good to know about acrylamide. I knew there's some relation between deep-fried potatoes and cancer, but haven't come across this. Here's a more accurate quote:

Studies with laboratory-heated foods revealed a temperature dependence of acrylamide formation. Moderate levels of acrylamide (5-50 ?g/kg) were measured in heated protein-rich foods and higher contents (150-4000 ?g/kg) in carbohydrate-rich foods, such as potato, beetroot, and also certain heated commercial potato products and crispbread. Acrylamide could not be detected in unheated control or boiled foods (<5 ?g/kg). Consumption habits indicate that the acrylamide levels in the studied heated foods could lead to a daily intake of a few tens of micrograms.

Note that it's in carbohydrate-rich foods (not exclusively starchy foods as in your original quote). E.g. 100g potatoes contain 15.4g starch/0g sugar, and 100g beetroot contain 0g starch/6.8g sugar, yet the heated beets contained twice as much acrylamide than the heated potatoes. They didn't test more foods, e.g. breads, cakes, etc. it would've been interesting to see just how much of this toxin is there in the 'standard' diet. Edit: but the FDA guys tested http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/FoodContaminantsAdulteration/ChemicalContaminants/Acrylamide/ucm053549.htm

Either way, stick to max steamed/boiled foods (if raw simply doesn't work for you), unless you like this acrylamide toxin.

[p0wer]

    You're not trolling, right?

So this seems to be trolling (wikipedia):

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory[citation needed], extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[3]

So no, that was not my primary intent, nor was my message "inflammatory[citation needed], extraneous, or off-topic" according to me at the time. Nor would I have learned about acrylamide (maybe Josh already knew about it though) if I didn't write what I knew. So relax a bit, this is what a forum is about, we discuss and we learn from each other.

[Josh]

Just 1/4 of a raw bitter melon fruit a day for some 3 days should give you the nutrition and restore your ability to process carbs.

Thanks for the suggestion. I will probably buy one today.