11

votes

Any thoughts on Kurt Harris' taxonomy of carbohydrate?

Answered on August 19, 2014
Created February 02, 2011 at 3:42 PM

http://www.paleonu.com/panu-weblog/2011/2/1/no-such-thing-as-a-macronutrient-part-ii-carbohydrates.html

Rather than talking about diets as low or high carb, he proposes talking about diets in terms of the kinds of carbohydrate consumed: glucose and starch, fructose, inulin, or cellulose.

I like the idea. I would add though, to meaningfully talk about the source of carb in a diet, it is also important to know what comes in the food along with the carbohydrate type. Thus we can differentiate between high starch from grain, and that from tubers, for example. Just as he did in his fat taxonomy, after classifying and ranking fats, he classifies sources.

100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1

(18676)

on September 02, 2011
at 02:12 PM

Thanks !

B0fe7b5a9a197cd293978150cbd9055f

(8938)

on September 02, 2011
at 01:47 PM

The link is now http://www.archevore.com/panu-weblog/2011/2/5/no-such-thing-as-a-macronutrient-part-ii-carbohydrates-revis.html for people that are interested

034c678bff434ab3781e3f1771018af9

(279)

on February 05, 2011
at 04:11 PM

Sure, there are negatives, but that doesn't mean that any amount of glycation is damaging. I mean, city air has carcinogens in it, but that doesn't meant hat it needs to be avoided entirely in order to live well; it also doesn't mean that breathing /any/ amount of it is meaningfully damaging. By "agenda" I meant you had determined a view about nutrition, and it seemed to be informing your view on just how bad glycation is, even as you lack further evidence on its effects at various doses.

Ba686a7b91a9c04f18170dd4ac762968

on February 04, 2011
at 05:47 AM

Are you aware of what "glycation" means? The pathologic alteration of structural and functional molecules in the body. There is nothing controversial about glycation being negative - cataracts, autonomic dysfunction, diabetic neuropathy, loss of tissue elasticity, microvascular disease, kidney failure - do you see some possible upside to these effects? Ask a blind diabetic on dialysis with two below the knee amputations if I am exaggerating the negative consequences of glycation. What do you suspect my "agenda" be exactly.? Unfairly maligning a pathologic process?

034c678bff434ab3781e3f1771018af9

(279)

on February 04, 2011
at 03:27 AM

"Link" is the operative word. How much does it take to generate an effect? How bad is the effect? Etc.

4b97e3bb2ee4a9588783f5d56d687da1

(22923)

on February 03, 2011
at 02:32 PM

Glycation has tons of studies showing it's link to almost all the negative signs of aging.

4b97e3bb2ee4a9588783f5d56d687da1

(22923)

on February 02, 2011
at 09:18 PM

as most of Dr. Harris' stuff, its spot on. as Kamal says below: Chemistry into Context.

21fd060d0796fdb8a4a990441e08eae7

(24543)

on February 02, 2011
at 05:22 PM

To be fair, much of the content is chemistry/biochem textbook stuff, not pubmed article type stuff. It's just that he puts the chemistry into context.

6fa48935d439390e223b9a053a62c981

(1676)

on February 02, 2011
at 05:08 PM

I, too, would like to see a few more citations...

  • 100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1

    asked by

    (18676)
  • Views
    1.8K
  • Last Activity
    650D AGO
Frontpage book

Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!

5 Answers

4
Medium avatar

on February 03, 2011
at 02:00 AM

I completely agree; I think that fructose should be thought of as being essentially a deleterious lipogenic hormone instead of a carbohydrate. Additionally, I eat as much potato as I like without fear of the carb boogie man coming to get me. A low fructose diet is the most important step toward losing fat. It is far more important than "low carb."

4
5edbf85deaf83e13b176df023abb154d

on February 02, 2011
at 04:10 PM

I'm very interested in how this entire series he's doing will play out. Part I, which was on fats, was brilliant as far as I'm concerned.

I do wish he provided citations for some of the things he writes.

6fa48935d439390e223b9a053a62c981

(1676)

on February 02, 2011
at 05:08 PM

I, too, would like to see a few more citations...

21fd060d0796fdb8a4a990441e08eae7

(24543)

on February 02, 2011
at 05:22 PM

To be fair, much of the content is chemistry/biochem textbook stuff, not pubmed article type stuff. It's just that he puts the chemistry into context.

3
D67e7b481854b02110d5a5b21d6789b1

on February 02, 2011
at 09:31 PM

I love the "taxonomy". Especially in regard to explaining your "weird" diet to SAD coworkers and friends. It makes so much more sense to say, "I eat a lot of Grass Fed Saturated Fat/Protein" when they question how you can feel safe eating such high amounts of saturated fat. The differentiation does the job of emphasizing the quality of fat or carbs over the quantity very nicely. An added bonus is that explaining GRAF/zero FF (for example) means no more explaining how the diet is not the traditional LC diet they have heard about for years.

It is a lot of fun and I gain valuable knowledge discussing ratios, nutrients, calories etc on sites like this, but in the end it is really just splitting hairs. For me, paleo is about the quality of real food. Period. And the PaNu acronyms are a great way to do that succinctly.

0
4cf0cfd9bcd0029cd690048305373169

on February 03, 2011
at 12:51 PM

He is coming on Robb Wolf's show soon, fyi

0
034c678bff434ab3781e3f1771018af9

(279)

on February 03, 2011
at 02:35 AM

I wish he would say more about his opposition to glycation (i.e., post cites on effects). I mean, sure, it's bad, but do we /really/ know just how harmful it is? This is one of those cases where I feel like the agenda is driving the scientific interpretation and he's wandering into too strong of claims territory.

034c678bff434ab3781e3f1771018af9

(279)

on February 04, 2011
at 03:27 AM

"Link" is the operative word. How much does it take to generate an effect? How bad is the effect? Etc.

Ba686a7b91a9c04f18170dd4ac762968

on February 04, 2011
at 05:47 AM

Are you aware of what "glycation" means? The pathologic alteration of structural and functional molecules in the body. There is nothing controversial about glycation being negative - cataracts, autonomic dysfunction, diabetic neuropathy, loss of tissue elasticity, microvascular disease, kidney failure - do you see some possible upside to these effects? Ask a blind diabetic on dialysis with two below the knee amputations if I am exaggerating the negative consequences of glycation. What do you suspect my "agenda" be exactly.? Unfairly maligning a pathologic process?

4b97e3bb2ee4a9588783f5d56d687da1

(22923)

on February 03, 2011
at 02:32 PM

Glycation has tons of studies showing it's link to almost all the negative signs of aging.

034c678bff434ab3781e3f1771018af9

(279)

on February 05, 2011
at 04:11 PM

Sure, there are negatives, but that doesn't mean that any amount of glycation is damaging. I mean, city air has carcinogens in it, but that doesn't meant hat it needs to be avoided entirely in order to live well; it also doesn't mean that breathing /any/ amount of it is meaningfully damaging. By "agenda" I meant you had determined a view about nutrition, and it seemed to be informing your view on just how bad glycation is, even as you lack further evidence on its effects at various doses.

Answer Question


Get FREE instant access to our
Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!