In Part 1, we began the process of distinguishing the difference between a food group and a macronutrient. Carbohydrates (Carbs) are probably the most vilified of the macronutrients. This is probably due to the ubiquitous availability of starch foods throughout human history. For the most part, oils, fats, and meats were the food of the rich. Everyone else ate beans, rice and potatoes.
If we listed the many staple foods: grains, rice, beans, squash, quinoa, potatoes and corn we see a high amount of starch. Remember, starch is simply a long chain of glucose. We all need glucose to live and our primary energy is derived from glucose and stored glycogen or fat (more later).
I want you to know that a carbohydrate need not be fattening, nor lead to diabetes. In fact, Carbohydrates can be very satiating (1) for 4-5 hours after meals. What seems to be the big diversion, where the “bad carbs” come in, is the processing (blending, frying, flouring, pasting, etc) of carbohydrate. When we break down starch too much in the food preparation process, it leads to lots of simple sugars. These are both easy to overeat and can have other deleterious health effects.
Starch digestion begins in the mouth with the amylase in the saliva. The starch begins to break down to glucose. A great way to experience this first hand is to take a unsalted cracker and just hold it in your mouth. You will begin to generate a lot of saliva and as you hold it there, begin to taste sweetness as the glucose is formed. Remember, a termite can do exactly the same thing with cellulose in wood.
From an evolutionary biology perspective, the AMY1 gene that is responsible for making amylase is so important that you have as many as 12 copies of it (2). It was extremely important to our hunter-gather predecessors. While there’s been much put forward on the “hunting” side of the equation, some of the most recent anthropology suggest that the “gathering” side dominated. Underground storage organs (USOs – tubers, bulbs, corms, and rhizomes) played a significant role in our energy management of times past.
Men like the idea of beating their chest and running through the woods hunting and they write a lot of the stories, but gathering is actually a better (less sexy) explanation of our survival. It even allows the elderly to participate productively in the group, even grandmothers would have a significant role in the earliest tribes. Anyone can dig up a potato, they aren’t very fast, and they grow in predicable places.
The naked mole rat is found with archeology of hominid population explosions and points to USOs as a gathered food source. click photo for NPR Story
Many of the early tools used to process USOs were probably made of wood and didn’t survive in the archeological records, but the early Hominid starch crystals in teeth have. Also there are also fossilized populations of mole rats that surge with every human population expansion (3). We’ll also learn that the mole rat has some FASCINATING genetics that impacts thermal loading.
I don’t want to get into the Paleolithic debate. What I want everyone to see is that starch IS an important evolutionary part of your fuel system, but at the same time recognize french fries are NOT the starch I am talking about. Your view of carbohydrate has been jaded since the beginning of diets. In the earliest of diets (Banting) it was simple breads combined with butter/sugar that caused the excess energy to creep in. Processed starch (sugars) of all kinds can lead to excess caloric intake; it’s just easy to digest and pleasurable to overeat, especially when combined with salt and fat.
For today, understand that primary complex carbohydrates: squash, legumes, onions, carrots, whole corn, whole rice, and potato are all good bases of energy. They are satiating ways to make up for caloric deficit, but don’t confuse those items, “items your great grandmother would recognize as food,” Michael Pollan might say, with the “carbs” served at school lunch.
Most importantly understand that many of these “starchy” foods also contain significant proteins with complete compliment of the essential amino acids your body will use to synthesize your own protein. These complex carbohydrates are broken down by amylase to glucose: the fuel for your brain and many cells in the body. If they aren’t consumed with excessive alternate energy sources (like excessive fat or simple sugar), your body will tap into it’s own fat reserves. If too much pre-processing is performed, then you might see increased problems managing blood sugar.
Eating carbohydrate is convenient and pleasurable, and know there is room for “carbs” in your diet if you make the correct choices.
So, when we are putting this all together and I say carbohydrate, I want you to think about these whole, starchy food items that enter YOUR kitchen/cooking reasonably resembling how they came out of the ground or off the plant. Sugar, raw, brown…whatever, is refined. I challenge you to eat the 250 lbs of sugar a year gnawing on sugarcane, however; you might be able to do it with grapes or beets.
Others have commented on fructose, a simple sugar in fruit, and I think there is merit to the issues that come from too many simple sugars, especially highly processed. This likely includes high fructose corn syrup, apple juice, sucrose, agave nectar, etc…). Fruits are not found in nature year round, but USOs are. Similarly, think about what is easily stored (beans vs beets). It’s amazing to hear people rave about “natural agave nectar” (inulin/fructose squeezed from agave) and then begin to lambast the food industry for high fructose corn syrup (fructose squeezed from corn). Yes there are some differences, but we’ll debate it in 5-10 years. It’s all simple sugar to me and best avoided.
These simple sugars are energy without the fiber or micronutrients. Others, like Robert Lustig, have covered the issue of fructose in far better detail than I will, but likely our problem as a nation is probably more related to drinking, for example, too much apple juice, rather than eating too many apples. The same is true of french fries vs potatoes. The larger group health statistics just don’t separate the issues (e.g. apples vs apple juice or fries vs potato) with enough granularity and it is all complicated with saturated fats and other compounding, synergistic concoctions we now call food.
Many energy dense foods are now available year round (like fruits or avocados) and so we must be careful with these foods. We’ll see a similar trend with fats, oils, and nuts.
Starch is a wonderful molecule and has been around for millions of years. Starch is just one bond different from wood. You are designed to eat starch, with back ups systems in place (AMY1). We can identify paleolitic starch in teeth, even knowing the plants that produced it, and so there is nothing wrong with carbohydrate as a food – it highly processing it and combining with other energy-rich processed product that causes much of the issues.
You will inevitably hear more about the amazing work anthropologist, Nathaniel Dominy is doing with starch and USOs. I personally believe the depth and thoroughness of his work will have an impact on what many, like Loren Cordain, believe to absolute. Nate has a very uncanny ability to see past the obvious. For the record, he’s a meat eater, despite what he’s uncovered in the last few years about starch in anthropology.
In terms of the thermodynamics, most natural starches come with a compliment of other micronutrients that are beneficial. These are “energy foods” and so we absolutely CAN lose weight by eliminating them from your diet. I am not suggesting diets higher in fat or protein (atkins, paleolithic, slow carb) cannot be used to lose weight – I am diet agnostic. What I can explain is on whole the overall management of energy, heat (not temperature), that is responsible for your success.
If we stop isolating these foods based on our perceived/suggested notations of macronutrient content and return to simple food, A calorie will be a calorie. Once you learn to recognize what you are consuming at every meal (and snack) you’ll see the results you’ve been after. It doesn’t even take discipline once you understand the underlying principles.
Gauging on the comments/questions, I might dig in a little more (Part 3) on carbohydrate. Eventually I will post the overall biochemistry and some have written asking me to explain the TCA cycle (that complex part in the middle of a Lustig presentation if you’ve seen one). Otherwise, I will move onto fat and catch sugars in the wrap up.
Next week is TEDMED in San Diego. It’s hard to believe a year has past. I’ll probably have at least one update on what I learn there, but will *try* to write two posts on fat before I leave so they can post next week.
(1) Carbohydrates and human appetite, Blundell, JE, et al.,Am J Clin Nutr 1994;59(suppl):728S-34S.
(2) Diet and the evolution of human amylase gene copy number variation, Perry, G.H., et al., Nature Genetics 39, 1256 – 1260 (2007)
(3) Communication/presentation with Dr Nathaniel Dominy, Dartmouth University Dept of Anthropology
**************
Do you like these blogs and want to help me? Please take a minute to scroll up on the right side of the screen consider making a monthly donation to this program. You can also make a one time donation here:
As a non-starch eater, this validates the reason I don’t eat starch. I agree with the intrinsic energy of the food, it never seems to be worth the value to me. I do like the construct of eating it in its most natural form. I would love to see people chewing on a sugar cane at Starbucks with their black coffee.
I think you are making a mistake not eating any, but I do agree that if you heavily consume saturated fat and meat, you can’t have starch in significant quantities. I would suggest that you TRY a starch based diet – not to say right or wrong, but as a self experiment to prove how your body really works (and believe me, you are not genetically different).
Once you experience the extreme fullness (it takes a 2-3 weeks for taste to come back after losing meat/fat), you’ll see the difference. I have gone back and forth now for 3 years. Again, I am diet agnostic when it come to losing weight and I have no moral objection to eating animals (sorry PETA – they are reading, btw). I do think there are certain advantages when it comes to chronic illness.
more later…
Ray
I am fully planning to keep reading. I am not sold yet on just chewing on bark or eating dry potato(e)s (shout out to Dan Quayle). I am however up for the experimentation if Protein 1, Protein 2, and Fats 1 and Fats 2 are as good as your first three on Carbs.
Remember, I’m not vilifying meat and I still eat it (occasionally). I’ve lost weight eating it too.
Please note, I never said don’t eat protein. Protein isn’t a food group 😉 What I am trying to build is a foundation for looking at foods that is based on underlying metabolic system AND a diversity of food that is convenient and enjoyable to eat. The problem that most people face is when the only tool in the toolbox is a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail. I really believe there is great science out there on diet and chronic illness. It’s buried with political agenda and entrenched cultural food-bias.
I’m going against the big movements, because there’s a lot of good data out there and conformity is overrated.
I am going to try to work hard on fats and protein. It gets more complicated and I know some people are already overwhelmed (they are writing). When we are done, we’ll move onto “what’s next?” That will set us up for returning to thermal loads, but this time with a keen eye on HOW it works. Once you see it, well, your world looks like a hammer. LOL.
Ray
Thanks for another enlightening post. When it comes to rice, is there a significant difference between brown rice and something like white long grain, basmati or jasmine rice? I guess some would argue that some rice is more processed than others, but I’m not sure that it matters as much as some say it does. What are your thoughts on various types of rice as a starch?
Yes, I think so. I love them all, but I eat them with care. If you take out meat/fat, you can be more liberal. I routinely bounce back and forth and have a tremendous success on either approach. I don’t buy the “my body just doesn’t handle carbs” argument. My friends can tell you that when I used to eat a high glycemic meal, I’d literally fall asleep before we could get the check at the restaurant. It turns out, my reaction to high carbohydrate was the SYMPTOM, not the disease. Once I attacked it with proper nutrition, I can eat anything and not have that issue.
Personally, I love the nutty flavors in wild rices, so I tend to buy the mixes. My daughter calls it “oatmeal rice” because she happens to hate oatmeal. It’s a very portable and convenient food and when combined with lots of vegetables (and LITTLE OR NO oil/fat) it is extraordinarily satiating. I find that when I have oil/fat and starch, my hunger in the next 5 hours goes completely NUTS. Either alone are ok, but together it spells an onslaught of a binge.
Will cover this more later…
Ray
Hello Ray,
I like what your doing!
The sentence that caught me this post was…
“What I can explain is on whole the overall management of energy, heat (not temperature), that is responsible for your success.”
I think I’m catching on to the “heat (not temperature)” you keep mentioning. I was wondering (certainly not know the biology/chemistry) if the Niacin “flush” effect is a similar example?
All the best,
AT
Thanks anthony,
Not really. That is just a nervous system hit on receptors of the skin. WHat I mean by “heat” is a thermodynamic unit of energy (calorie, joule, etc…). Temperature of an object rises from the energy that that object contains. The molecules are excited and that causes the perceived temperature. Temperature is proportional to the kinetic energy (energy of motion) of the molecules, vs total heat, which is energy potential/kinetic.
It seems that for survival, we have a metabolic heat tracker. When we try to change the “storage system” (lose fat) our bodies see that a deviation from “normal.” Normal is of course incrementally changed over years of gaining a smaller amount of weight. These new “set points” mean any attempt to lose short term can cause the body to want to “rebound” to the original state. When that state is fat, it causes the yo-yo struggle.
That is a tremendously over simplified and a little inaccurate explanation, but conceptually it can help you distinguish the difference.
So Temperature is a property of a material and depended on what the material is and Heat is a measurement of energy and is independent of the material.
Hope that makes sense….it’s really important and this is the root issue with the seeming paradox of caloric accounting.
Ray
As respects the “set point” theory, do you have am opinion on how to overcome this pattern or is that an issue better addressed in another post?
It’s no more than personal observation, but it may have a basis in some reality. We know many animals prepare for winter and until very recently, that was a human concern too.
I wonder if the constant cool exposure of the winter doesn’t provide for the same reset. I’ve never had it so easy to maintain my weight, any weight, as now. I gained 12 lbs in feb/mar for an April thermal loading test. Lots of slipped dates and it just stayed constant after I forcefully worked to gain. I wanted to drop 10 lbs temporarily and bam, did it in two weeks effortlessly – no exercise (not promoting that I just didn’t do it).
It may be that just a few swimming sessions a week at sub 80F/27C us all we need. Perhaps its a good brisk, chilly walk?
I’d like to sunstantiate that in time and if enough people help/join here I think it will be possible. Maybe I’m just a nut. That’s possible too. Lol!
Ray
I agree with pretty much everything you say – in a healthy metabolism. That healthy metabolism would likely stay that way if the carbs we eat are potatoes, tubers, vegetables. Go 40-50-60 years of our current 250lbs a year of sugar, and perhaps your body no longer can even take potatoes? That is metabolic syndrome and Type II diabetes.
Chemically, as you say, all the starches and sugars, simple or complex, are turned into glucose in our blood stream (except for fructose – whole different pathway and nobody describes that better than Lustig). Your body can’t tell the difference. Ingesting the sugar with fiber or a couple of vitamins doesn’t confuse the body into thinking otherwise.
I assume you will get into the fact that our bodies CAN AND DO turn protein and fat into the glucose the body needs. What the body CANNOT do is turn sugar or starch into protein or essential fatty acids the body requires.
There are no “essential” carbohydrates. On that basis alone, if something gets the “cut” from the dinner menu, the only logical items to reduce or eliminate are foods high in carbohydrate – that completely non-essential macronutrient. I agree wholeheartedly that #1 to take off the menu are processed, simple starches and sugars. But, if cutting those are insufficient to regain health, one needs to consider restricting other (unnecessary) carb-heavy foods and obtain our nutrition and calories via food sources that provide us with the protein and EFA’s our body require.
Thanks Mary
I have experimented both ways and I think the confusion comes with how you have constructed your view of this. First, there are no “essential carbs” because that term only applies to micronutrients(like amino acids) not macronutrients (energy). Since Protein contains essential amino acids that CAN be metabolized for energy (not very efficiently, hence strong correlation to positive weight loss when protein is primary fuel) they are a confusing issue for most people. We’ll clear that up.
All…all…ALL forms of energy (even alcohol) can be metabolize and eventually stored in adipose tissue when in excess. I say carbohydrates are all enzymatically broken down to simple sugars, but the rate at which that happens and the exact sugar does matter. For example, sucrose (table sugar) has on fructose (5-carbon) and one glucose (6 carbon) monosaccharide (simple sugar like glucose). You’ve obviously heard Lustig talk about the fructose/alcohol similarities and the metabolites, but starch is glucose and it simply doesn’t have the same metabolic pathway. Agave does. I probably would not take it to the dooms day level he does, but the overall message, like the video from the 80s on sucrose/sugar I pointed out in another comment, seems to result from hitting our bodies too fast and too hard with one thing at such a high level. This results from Humans, like all other species except domesticated pets, that pretty much starved until 100 years ago. We are designed to starve. I think protein and saturated fats are going to find similar fates when all the data is collected in 20 years.
Now here is the interesting part. The Rice diets (Kemper, etc…) and John McDougall’s diet – both starch based – also have positive results over and over (reversal of diabetes, juvenile/rheumatoid arthritis, atherosclerosis, etc…). Most importantly obesity is handled without portion control through satiety. They work too and wouldn’t if the carb/glycemic index story was completely accurate. I’ve had good results with a vegan diet, pescetarian, and high protein. Since you are promoting the later, read this article on Type 2 diabetes and you’ll see the other side of the coin. I’m not necessarily advocating one right now, but it’s helpful to recognize both work. That contradiction is where the exciting things lurk. Contradictions don’t exist in reality.
I think the issue remains that if you load your diet with calorically dense/nutrient poor food (oils and fats) carbohydrate will tip you over the edge. Conversely, you can take the oils and fats down to a minimum, and quantity wise, eat far more carbohydrate. And we know the other is true. Low carbohydrate allows far more fat is ok. I just wonder why, to ask your question back, you would take an ancillary macronutrient – the one of LAST resort – protein (you don’t want to naturally digest yourself) and suggest that the most healthy way to live would involve primarily metabolizing a tertiary source. We can do it, but it might not turn out to be the best health wise and no one has the complete answer yet. What I can tell you is that thermodynamically speaking, I can make low or high carb diets work. The same is true on protein.
I was there. Take a look at my response to mark. I’ve done it both ways, I am not an “advocate” of one versus the other for losing weight. That being said, you should note that cholesterol, triglycerides, blood pressure and many other “numbers” used to assess “health” all go down associated with weight loss, regardless of the method or food use. These are also tightly associated with the other protective benefits shown in caloric restriction. The question remains, how do all of these, including weight change or stabilize after 1,2 or 5 years of sustained diet.
So, be a bit more open. It is not as cut and dry as you have constructed. ultimately you can eat carbohydrate – as I have defined it – and rapidly eliminate weight.
Ray
Instead of eating a breakfast of processed stuff, such as cornflakes or oatmeal, I’ve been trying a green smoothie (usually raw cucumbers, tomatoes and a huge bunch of coriander; sometimes with 2 tablespoons of nuts). Needless to say, I’m not hungry for hours. And the craving for fried food is coming down. Probably all the fiber and the nutrient-dense food I’m eating unlike the calorie-dense nutrient-deficient stuff I ate before.
Yes. Good choice, but blending does process. For no-calorie greens, it’s probably okay, but I still mostly follow the no liquid calorie rule when trying to lose. Smoothies SEEM healthy, but most are not. They are large servings of “baby food” and are as easily absorbed as an adult as a baby.
If you reach a plateau, eat the veggies and drink the water. Blenders were a late evolutionary addition to the species. Your digestive system can handle it well. I’d never eat cornflakes or any other processed box cereal, even granolas. I do like oatmeals, but now keep it fairly plain – enjoy it even more with some raw sunflower seeds, “craisons” and almond milk (40’cal version).
Ironically my sweet tooth disappeared when I added complex carbs back to my diet. Wonder why?
Your satiety eating this way is typical once most of the fats have been reduced to a normal level and you begin to digest your internl reserve.
Ray
I’m on the edge of my seat. Defintely want a carbs part 3 post.
Ok. Deal. Should we discuss more about simple sugars? is there anything here that isn’t clear and needs more explanation? We havent hit protein yet, but can everyone see that energy + amino acid = grass-fed, meaty cows? They don’t have to eat meat. They need energy and grass protein. Oh, and ironically cow breast milk has three times the protein as human.
So let me know what more we should look at on carbs.
Ray
I would think that the issue of switching from fat metabolism to carb metabolism, at the cellular AND at the tissue level bears exploring. In addition to everything you say, there seems to be a lag time in switching from carb to fat utilization. When someone has been in fat storage mode for more than a couple of days, they’ve been running mostly on carbs, and the body seems to become somewhat resistant to switching to fat utilization. It’s as if your body would rather shut down thermogenesis and depress sympathetic nervous system output rather than switch to fat right away. That,s only my unscientific, conjectural hypothesis, perhaps you could shed some light on the issue.
Im dfinitelly gonna experiment with cutting my protein intake, increasing my intake of bcaas and carbs and seeing if i lose performance. One thing i also hope youll get into is how to get enough fat soluble vitamins (in the long term) while eating low fat. Is it possible without supplementation?
It’s probably not this easy to discuss. For example, distance runners have to rely on fat, not carbohydrate for fuel. The same is true of migratory birds and whales.
Also compounding the confusion is the issue of dietary fat vs internal fat utilization.
This gives me an idea…let me cover glycogen in part three and I can answer more of your questions…
Thanks Victor!
Ray
First, let me thank you for what you are doing here. I find it very informative.
I’ve been hitting the nightly ice packs and picked up my swimming to 2 or 3 times a week. I actually enjoy the coolness I’m inflicting on my body.
Eating wise, I’m following Slow Carb Diet and getting along well, however not much success losing weight (fat).
Interestingly, every 3rd or 4th day I get an urge for carbs. The other day I was considering adding winter squash and thought, based upon your discussions here, that I’m okay doing so. I’ll add it into my regimen with the knowledge of moderation and see what happens. (Actually, I’m seeking to get off my ‘plateau’ and get on with weight (fat) loss.
I had success too, but coming of 14 months vegan diet made transition hard. I know how and why slow carb, paleo, and Adkins work. I’m not sure that’s the way I want to eat nor am I convinced there isn’t a long term issue. Go to scholar.google.com and put animal protein acidosis in and you’ll get tons of hits. It’s not vegan alarmist trying to save chickens (although they are out there). It’s real and very uncommon in vegetarian/vegan based diets.
I just couldn’t dismiss it hands down until I tried it. I set my first goal to live that way for one year and it was 14 months later that I switched over to slow carb for another self experiment.
Honestly the most difficult part was all the oils, sugar and meat product. While everyone sees that as an impass and inconvenience, I took it as a learning experience. I thought, hmmm, I just was never really aware at exactly what I put in my body and I had always justified it by wrapping it up in a justifying bow and giving it four names: proteins, carbs, fat and calories. When I began paying attention to what I was eating it was perfectly obvious that the oversimplification was the reason I had become fat.
Didn’t hate meat. Didn’t give up the occasional crete brûlée. And despite the angry animal rights insults, very, very few died on my account.
I am with you on the “enjoy the cool” and cool water is paradoxically super invigorating and a great way to go to sleep! Both probably have their genesis with increased circulation. It really does work.
Keep us posted!!
Ray.
I’ve read that the human body mostly runs on carbohydrates, so why not eat it? I found that I feel much better not trying to stuff myself with so much protein sources but with carb sources. Not to go to food, but diet fads, like paleo diet, they are wrong in saying humans didn’t eat starchy things until the last 10,000 years, archaeologists have found evidence of processing rye, I think, up to 30,000 years ago. I bet still, that there will be evidence of a much earlier date of processing crops, it seems to happen in archaeology all the time, stuff being found that totally predates any known source. With fruit though, there is alot of fiber and nutrients in them as well. Tim ferris test was off with the fruit, because he was ingesting fruit juice and then demonizing fruit. I heard that fructose only resupplies the liver glycogen and not muscle glycogen, so once the liver is full of glycogen, what happens with the rest of the fructose? Stored as fat maybe?
This is true, with the exception of times of starvation. I’ll cover it more in Carbohydrate Part 3 (see victor’s comment above). While I think the paleolithic “wave” is both popular much of the underlying science is correct, it’s not proof carbs are bad and that is where it fails.
Carbohydrate is, indisputably, your body’s primary fuel source for many activities (like brain). As I responded to Mary, the body does not store protein for reserves; it is a last-ditch survival macronutrient. The body stores a a glucose chain, identical to starch, on the core enzyme (protein) glycogenin. This glycogen is your primary reserve for energy (above ATP). Breaking through to using fat as fuel is both important to long distance running…and, as luck may have it, the key to thermal loading.
Good stuff! I’ll write this one up as carbohydrate Part 3.
Ray
Ray, love the articles! I have been a vegan for two years and have recently switched to a very-low fat vegan diet (no oil, low avocado/nuts) per Dr. Esselstyn. Do you think you could please give a bullet point version of how one could plan a one-day menu based on what you have discussed in your carb articles thus far, for a fat-cutting diet? (I’m going to try the oatmeal recipe above tomorrow, thanks).
You’re one of THOSE? Lol! Dr Esselstyn has done some great work. I’ve not met him, but correspond with Dr(s) McDougall and Barnard. When I complete the three macronutrients description, i’ll give some examples using food. There will be meat/no meat versions. It’s quite easy to lose weight either way, but there is a bit more organization necessary as the diet gets complex.
As you’ve learned by now, the reduced fat approach is difficult when you aren’t at home. I’ve estimated as much as 800 in accounted calories in a day from something that doesn’t change enjoy ability of food that much, once the addiction is gone.
Have you noticed the extreme hunger the morning after a fatty meal? That still surprised me
Ray
I get extreme hunger after a junkish dinner loaded with fat and carbs, but no increased hunger from either a high fat low carb meal nor a high carb low fat meal
Why do you think you had extreme hunger the morning after a high fat meal, Ray? Maybe you cover this in a future article? Going through them serially, atm. 🙂
Okay I want to know what the effect of heat has on our metanutrinents.
Oatmeal for instance is it better cooked or soaked (raw)?
Obviously there are lots of food sources you can’t do this with but grains, seeds and nuts you can. I find the rawfood people overwhelmingly fanatical – which makes it hard for me to judge their points.
Carla
I don’t know.
There are many raw food advocates, but it would be uneducated speculation for me. I intend to look into it at some point. I dot over cook my food, because I hate soggy veggies and when I eat meat I prefer rare (or sushi).
I was a protein chemist for some years and they begin to break down (denature) at 41C. Egg whites (albumins) turn white for this reason. That’s part of the issue with running a high temperature. You also see protein denaturing with acids (like using lime to create ceviche). It stands to reason that If there are bioactivity compounds (proteins) that over cooking could wipe out any advantage. Afterall, killing the bad stuff with heat destroys much of the good stuff in same way.
It’s interesting. I’d like to learn more.
Ray
Hey Ray, loving your explanations!
I was just wondering, what your thoughts are about the claims of other paleo people about grains.
They say that most grains have toxic anti-nutrients that can damage your gut. So do you think they have a point about Gluten, Lectins and Phytates?
Or is it a to small amount to worry about it?
Looking forward to part 3!
Ray,
I have been on the Slow Carb Diet for seven months and have lost almost 40 pounds. I am very interested in your ideas, but when can we see the science translate into practical information that we can use?
Congratulations. That is amazing and I know how incredible it feels.
Yes, slow carb works. Ultimately when we get through macronutrients, everyone that wants to understand why, will. Many don’t, they just want a formula for transformation.
As for practical ideas, I have two goals: maximize thermal loading (working on the ebook) and to better educate on macronutrients (widely misunderstood and misrepresented). Losing weight is the easy part. It’s not gaining it BACK (with interest) that’s difficult. I like to challenge status quo and since I don’t (yet) earn enough here to do it full time, I am sort of inching it along and enjoying the research.
My plan is to create some program that help people specifically with managing food (forget proteins, carbs and fat). Unlike others that will say “this is the way,” I prefer to give people the option. Sure, I have opinions on what I currently think is the MOST healthy way to do it and that may not be the fastest way. Best, then is an individual choice.
With your incredible results, I think understanding the fundamentals of food, not diet compliance, will pay dividends long term. After all, do you really want to go through THAT again?
not me.
Ray
“Items your great grandmother would recognize as food,” I REALLY like that statement. Simple and to the point. Thank you.
That is michael Pollan… Omnivore’s Dilemma. He gets 100% credit.
Ray
[…] Carbohydrates – Part 2 On October 21, 2011, in Blog, by admin […]
If fruits weren’t available year round how are we able to grow fruits year round in places like california? Do you really think fruits don’t grow year round in the tropics?
Maybe you should do some more research before trusting lustig(who’s goal is to tax sugar), from what I saw in lustigs interview his evidence against fructose is mostly just fluff. Fructose has many benefits over glucose and groping them as the same is wrong. Here’s a pro-tip- relying on what others say will often lead you to wrong conclusions, do the research yourself.
Cliff,
Thanks for the comments.
I do a lot of primary source research and published for half of my career. “Careful” does not imply avoid, but they are energy dense foods. They are also frequently processed – removing all of the fiber and leaving only the energy package (in this case a mixture a simple sugars). That does impact the feed-forward response of the small intestine and it does have some deleterious effects on microbiome of the gut in general. THere are times when “juicing” can be beneficial in terms of nutrient dense fasting, but it certainly is not mandatory. I don’t agree with everything Lustig says either. Some of his arguments are valid and there is interesting recent he’s co-authored work with my daughter’s pediatrician, Dr. Andrew Bremer (Vanderbilt University School of Medicine), that discuss the roles of simple sugars on children. Those include fructose.
Everyone else here has been exceedingly professional and not inflammatory. I certainly welcome your comments, but feel it’s really unnecessary to attack. In the 7 million years of Human evolution, agriculture represents the last 5-6000 years, barely 4.5 feet if that 7 million years were a mile. In California, the modern agriculture, refrigeration and transportation that supports the year round growth you refer too is less than .9 inches of the mile. Evolutionary biology doesn’t work on those timescales.
Remember, the $50 wager of Horatio Jackson’s historic first automobile drive from San Francisco to New York City in 1903 took sixty-three days, twelve hours, and thirty minutes. I think there is plenty of data to suggest pause on highly-dense caloric diets, but I’m certainly not against eating fruit.
On the plus side you didn’t say protein, carbohydrate or fat, so that’s good news. Keep reading and feel free to comment. I love being wrong – it’s the only time I learn.
Ray
Hello,
The link for Nathaniel Dominy is returning a 404.
http://www.ebscohost.com/wilsoncurrentbio/cover_bios/cover_bio_04_10.htm
Thanks Ed…
added a new one. Not sure what happened to the old one.
Ray
“If they aren’t consumed with excessive alternate energy sources (like excessive fat or simple sugar)…”
Hi Ray, regarding the above quote, how do you define “excess”? Is there a limit, if exceeded, that will signal your body to metabolise the food differently (e.g. GI level signalling insulin release)?
Scientific example, or practical example would be useful. E.g. a rice based meal followed by a single 5g piece of dark chocolate (50/50 fat/sugar) is fine, but 4 pieces would not be fine.
Interesting work – will continue to check back to see how you condense these observation and discussion posts into conclusions.
Cheers
When you are glycogen depleted and near your ideal weight it’s probably not that critical so long as you don’t go over board with it.
Most people are not in that position. They are overweight and the problem is caused by the insatiable drive to eat resulting from refined dietary sugar and consumption of empty calorie, fatty foods – funnel cakes, ice cream, and sugar sweetened beverages/juices.
So, not to be wishy-washy with an answer, but it’s different for people that are far from or close to ideal weight. a diet rich in fiber and cruciferous greens is good at any level of fitness. Starches are a great source of energy.
These comments are all geared at challenging notions of macronutrients. I just wanted to demonstrate that there is a lot of inconsistent information out and begin guiding people back to more simple and correct concepts of food.
Ray.
Hi Ray! I’m new here and just starting with potatoes and rice for next 2 weeks. Coming off Paleo/Primal based eating (gained over 15 lbs on it – yuck!) has left me with a healthy appetite for potatoes and rice. I hope I won’t be the first to gain weight on this protocol! Anyway, a prior post was left unanswered and it happens to be an important question to me as well:
Bill Jorge Dias Vera-Cruz says:
October 23, 2011 at 4:09 pm
Hey Ray, loving your explanations!
I was just wondering, what your thoughts are about the claims of other paleo people about grains.
They say that most grains have toxic anti-nutrients that can damage your gut. So do you think they have a point about Gluten, Lectins and Phytates?
Or is it a to small amount to worry about it?
Thanks for this awesome site! Molly