10

votes

What did you think about this roundtable email questionaire that jimmy moore compiled on safe starches?

Answered on September 12, 2014
Created October 07, 2011 at 3:39 AM

http://livinlavidalowcarb.com/blog/is-there-any-such-thing-as-safe-starches-on-a-low-carb-diet/11809

What say you paleohacks?

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on September 07, 2013
at 01:28 AM

Ketosis might be useful in order to starve cancer which usually, but not always, has mitochondrial disorder so it can't burn ketones. It was also shown that fasting, calorie restriction and hypoglicemia help starve cancer cells. Is it enough to heal... no in general case, but it will slow down oncogenesis.

863fbe3ea7cacba9a77b19a09bf445cf

on August 14, 2012
at 04:45 PM

That's an interesting poster. It's worth noting, though, that the author is presenting a hypothesis only, not results.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on August 13, 2012
at 11:51 PM

Yes, right here at AHS 2012. http://www.cavemandoctor.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Ancestral-Health_2012_Poster_Colin_Champ.gif

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on August 13, 2012
at 11:49 PM

http://www.cavemandoctor.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Ancestral-Health_2012_Poster_Colin_Champ.gif

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on August 13, 2012
at 11:48 PM

From AHS 2012 a poster done by paleo oncologist:http://www.cavemandoctor.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Ancestral-Health_2012_Poster_Colin_Champ.gif

2bdc990a200584a385650cf68475f095

on November 15, 2011
at 09:20 PM

Cordain is dead to me. GI, seriously ?

8949bf87b0e0aefcad10f29975e4fa2b

(8989)

on October 17, 2011
at 04:10 AM

grammer and spelling only matter when you have nothing substantial to say. We should all be smart enough to wade through typos and grammar issues.

100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1

(18706)

on October 13, 2011
at 06:47 PM

Starch is not made of fructose, but what does that have to do with it? Starch is glucose molecules bonded together. It is digested into glucose. What's so safe about glucose? Most tumours can grow on either glucose or fructose, but can't use ketones.

3c6b4eed18dc57f746755b698426e7c8

(5152)

on October 12, 2011
at 09:46 PM

Ur missing why they're called safe starches: the absence of fructose.

3c6b4eed18dc57f746755b698426e7c8

(5152)

on October 12, 2011
at 09:45 PM

If you're not aware of dairy's involvement in cancer, you've completely missed IGF1's role in tumor genesis, plus cow sex hormones. Get in the loop/

C471216c9fb4fcf886b7ac84a4046b49

(1371)

on October 10, 2011
at 05:35 PM

LIKEY............. kurt = reliable straight forward real

5b77a74fc8aa82591c79400bef45ff94

(28)

on October 09, 2011
at 11:16 PM

Jimmy cannot accept the fact safe starches can be good for you. But, atkins shakes, bars, pork skins are really good for you.

5b77a74fc8aa82591c79400bef45ff94

(28)

on October 09, 2011
at 11:13 PM

Tom Naughton an expert? youre kidding right?

C803c65555a42f13bf60f873c2923715

(40)

on October 09, 2011
at 09:19 PM

I was also shocked that anyone in the field of nutritional research or health or medicine hadn't heard of the word "dysbiosis." I do think those who keep their heads down researching one specific area are vulnerable to no knowing what else is going on in even related fields. Still, they may make valuable contributions in their own research, but I wouldn't go to them for general advice.

C803c65555a42f13bf60f873c2923715

(40)

on October 09, 2011
at 09:15 PM

I don't get it. Although I'm only halfway through the long blogpost, and haven't got to the comments yet at all, I find it fascinating to read the input of so many distinguished researchers, practitioners and others in one place on one question. I read most of the book (The Perfect Diet) and found it very useful to get input of so many on the ideas in it. Yes, the responses don't all agree by any means, but some of them are very instructive.

4b8bf8683630d2acfb13303e5f311e71

on October 09, 2011
at 05:57 PM

Wow some of the comments here are really inconsiderate. Regardless of Jimmy's rightness or wrongness, he has good intentions and is looking at this thing scientifically. He's showing at least some effort to be skeptical of his LLVLC approach -- what more can you ask for? Not one of us here is perfect, and a lot of emotion goes into these things. I just hope this is a case of the loudest voices (e.g. Carbsane) being heard and this attitude is not representative of the movement.

24df4e0d0e7ce98963d4641fae1a60e5

on October 09, 2011
at 12:06 PM

@ben61820: Jimmy is co-opting paleo to save his business. To be fair, even a year or so ago, "paleo" was rather synonymous with low carb. There've been quite a few comings out, changes of heart, and rising stars who aren't LC in the past year but Jimmy's ignoring that.

24df4e0d0e7ce98963d4641fae1a60e5

on October 09, 2011
at 12:01 PM

Hi DaveS. Do I know you from somewhere else? Are you the Dave from LLVLC forum using the alien avatar perhaps? Just curious. Thanks for the kind words.

24df4e0d0e7ce98963d4641fae1a60e5

on October 09, 2011
at 11:59 AM

BeingVenus: When a Doctor is giving "expert opinion" I think grammar and spelling matter. As does capitalizing proper names. I also said that internet writings are frequently imperfect including many of my own by the nature of the medium. Still, this was an email intended for publication on someone else's blog.

Db3de4f1795091edc487e09640e34566

(0)

on October 09, 2011
at 05:03 AM

"I think, just like us, paleo movement will evolve as long as we keep in open mind and do not make this a religion. Being critical is what got the movement started." Very well stated. When we get dogmatic and reject anything that conflicts with our current paradigm...well...it will all go downhill.

Db3de4f1795091edc487e09640e34566

(0)

on October 09, 2011
at 05:01 AM

I have yet to come across any oncologists that recommend a low carb diet for their patients, nor have I heard much in mainstream. Granted, I have only known a few, and they were treating family members. However, I did notice on the occasions that I accompanied my family members to their radiation treatments...there were ALWAYS cookies in the waiting room. When I questioned the doc on this, they told me that they want their patients eating ANYTHING, it doesn't matter what. And then they told my mother-in-law to get my father-in-law (the one in treatment) a milkshake on the way home!!!

Db3de4f1795091edc487e09640e34566

(0)

on October 09, 2011
at 04:53 AM

Yeah Beth, I agree as well. The cancer debate was distracting and would count as the exception instead of the rule. It is obviously relevant, but perhaps more so in a separate post/debate.

Db3de4f1795091edc487e09640e34566

(0)

on October 09, 2011
at 04:50 AM

I have to agree with CarbSane, Jimmy's definition of "expert" is rather loose...Some of those people I have a hard time taking seriously as scientific experts able to read, analyze and disseminate data.

0242b468fe1c97997749db416c92e7ed

(4528)

on October 09, 2011
at 02:19 AM

Would you have preferred that Jimmy censor their responses..?

7d64d3988de1b0e493aacf37843c5596

(2861)

on October 08, 2011
at 11:45 PM

Since Kruse chose to question KGH's professional abilities I think it is fair to question Kruse's. I think it is pretty crazy to say that Jaminet's and KGH's views about safe starches is purely in the context of cancer patients. I think some nutjobs revealed themselves, but it was not Jaminet or KGH. KGH >>>>>Kruse

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on October 08, 2011
at 09:43 PM

cliff I guess you missed all the dietary data JK showed us.....often he ate a lot more than 150 gms of carbs and did not see any problem with it until he got labs.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on October 08, 2011
at 08:27 PM

Oh Ambi, why do you always have to say everything I want...

4ae65e9a9abceabe4d2f6e2ccd810122

(50)

on October 08, 2011
at 08:25 PM

I've noticed that fat people are angry and tend to blame others for their failure to achieve their goals.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on October 08, 2011
at 08:18 PM

Dairy free for cancer is FAIL. Butter is rich in K2. Vitamin C + K3 is approach used with **terminal** patients in Riordan clinick in Spain. K3 is similar to K2. Insulin spike may mean nothing to cancer as one of the defining characteristics of cancer is that it doesn't listen body hormones. It will overexpress GLUT transporters insluin or not. The cancer cell is the one reverted to ancient genome, when cells all cells were living like in the wild west. It doesn't care for your body as it is the body that created conditions for its rise.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on October 08, 2011
at 08:14 PM

Safe starches ARE SUGAR. It becomes sugar even while in the mouth, after salivary amylase finish it work. If you swallow food without chewing you will have lower glucose spike because of this reason.

1da74185531d6d4c7182fb9ee417f97f

(10904)

on October 08, 2011
at 07:14 PM

I'm all for good debates but is this really the place to be sitting around criticizing someone's grammar? I could see complaining if it was making it hard for you to understand what the person is saying but this just sounds petty and childish. I know some people on here don't agree with Dr. Kruse's conclusions but debate/criticize his conclusions, not some stupid arbitrary detail. It's not constructive and extremely tedious to read. Plenty of people here make all sorts of grammatical/spelling errors including myself and don't get this kind of disrespect. Grow up.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on October 08, 2011
at 05:48 PM

jack kronk has never eaten over 150g carbs, thats low carb imo.

100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1

(18706)

on October 08, 2011
at 03:44 PM

But Namby, starch is just a bunch of glucose bonded together. It turns into sugar pretty quickly, some of it before it even exits your mouth.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on October 08, 2011
at 02:21 PM

Carb sane you are advocating that if you believe that....you really have a very different perspective but i like reading how you think. I dont agree with you here and there but you make me get out of my comfort zone and that causes me to expanding my thinking net.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on October 08, 2011
at 02:19 PM

Ambi people who are fat burners....ie leptin sensitive can turn protein into glucose in amazing fashion. This is why ketosis works. Problem is to get their requires a non leaky gut and good functioning adrenal. Most of the people who struggle with phd and kurts opinions are people who have that problem. Our very own jack kronk is a perfect example. There is no perfect health diet foreveryone. The title is an oxymoron and paleo 2.0 is a starting point not the destination. Everything has to be placed in context. Carbs and high igf1 signaling are not good in cancer. Many articles say it

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on October 08, 2011
at 01:02 PM

good point Dave. Jimmy's site (and name) are unabashedly LC-oriented and thus at odds with starch as a major constituent of a diet. This does reinforce an issue I have with his podcasts over the past six months or so - He repeatedly says things like *those of us in the paleo lowcarb community*

24df4e0d0e7ce98963d4641fae1a60e5

on October 08, 2011
at 11:48 AM

Well said! Jimmy's web page is so cluttered and the post was so long I initially missed some of the comments -- including Bernstein's closing salvo -- by the "dignitaries". Ultimately, Jimmy is responsible for publishing that, however.

24df4e0d0e7ce98963d4641fae1a60e5

on October 08, 2011
at 11:45 AM

WOW! If Taubes is now saying that dietary causes of IR cause cancer, he's really gone overboard. Nothing elicits IR in the diet like fat! (No, I'm not suggesting that fat causes cancer)

3c6b4eed18dc57f746755b698426e7c8

(5152)

on October 08, 2011
at 12:51 AM

If I had cancer, first, I would be dairy-free. Then I would be sugar-free. If I had diabetes, it makes sense to be ketogenic. But in a healthy person, the confounding factor is normal insulin deployment vs. chronic insulin elevation due to IR. The two are different.

3c6b4eed18dc57f746755b698426e7c8

(5152)

on October 08, 2011
at 12:44 AM

Here's what Gary says: "If it’s sugar that causes insulin resistance ... then the conclusion is hard to avoid that sugar causes cancer — some cancers, at least — radical as this may seem and despite the fact that this suggestion has rarely if ever been voiced before publicly." Gary is smart enough to know that safe starches (or even tropical fruits) do not cause IR or diabetes. You need either sugar/fructose or white flour (gluten), typically embellished w/sugar. High IGF-1 is associated w/dairy, not safe starch consumption.

3c6b4eed18dc57f746755b698426e7c8

(5152)

on October 08, 2011
at 12:20 AM

Now, Gary Taubes has been specifically focusing on sugar as the driver of tumor growth. If so, why would safe starches (yams, yuca, sweet potatoes) be similarly implicated when they have either zero nor minimal sugar? Look up the nutrition underlying any of the safe starches and you'll see minimal sugars; that's why they're called "starches". The issue again seems to be lumping together good carbs w/bad carbs. Transitory insulin elevation doesn't seem to be the culprit. It's probably what bad carbs (processed, sugar/fructose) do that hurts us metabolically & drives tumor growth.

3c6b4eed18dc57f746755b698426e7c8

(5152)

on October 08, 2011
at 12:16 AM

For a cancer patient w/insulin resistance, I agree that a ketogenic diet may be helpful. High insulin and IGF-1 levels are associated with tumor growth, so minimize by just freezing out insulin. Avoid carbs and you'll keep insulin at bay. Now, in a healthy person w/cancer, would that be necessary? Insulin deployment is transitory. And these peopel are very sensitive to insulin. Does eating a safe starch meal elevate insulin to such a degree that tumor cells grow exponentially? Especially when you're only doing 150-200g carbs as in PHD?

3c6b4eed18dc57f746755b698426e7c8

(5152)

on October 08, 2011
at 12:02 AM

Well, that's how metabolic typing was born, through the Kelly method. I'm sure some of you have heard of it. If you're intersted, read the book on Kelly by Dr. Gonzalez, who's carrying on the work of pig pancreatic enzyme therapy devised by Kelly. Is it ketogenic? No, but one of the 10 diets that Kelly devised is, I think: it all depends on your type, but they're all Paleo-like wholefoods diet combined with pancreatic enzymes.

24df4e0d0e7ce98963d4641fae1a60e5

on October 07, 2011
at 09:00 PM

*"Are you saying that all the PhDs in that compilation have everything right?"* Most certainly not! I'm not one to rely on letters after one's name, per se (but I note there are few with relevant PhD's there). Tom Naughton has a proven capacity for logic? Familiarity with [ALL] the relevant science? OK ... if you say so.

100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1

(18706)

on October 07, 2011
at 08:24 PM

Nowhere in the definition of expert is there a requirement of infallibility. Are you saying that all the PhDs in that compilation have everything right? Seeing as how they contradict each other, that seems unlikely. What I'm objecting to is the reliance on credentials for determining who is credible. I'd rather rely on proven capacity for logic, and familiarity with the relevant science.

24df4e0d0e7ce98963d4641fae1a60e5

on October 07, 2011
at 07:46 PM

BTW Jack, can you list for me what stimulates IGF? Thanks.

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19245)

on October 07, 2011
at 07:43 PM

*"I see Quilt found the shift key >:)"* See there is always hope.

24df4e0d0e7ce98963d4641fae1a60e5

on October 07, 2011
at 07:40 PM

I see Quilt found the shift key >:)

24df4e0d0e7ce98963d4641fae1a60e5

on October 07, 2011
at 07:31 PM

Thanks NP, i should of checked. <-intentional. ;-) In the area of cancer, it is quite possible that different diets are more or less helpful/harmful for different types. Cancer is about as monolithic a disease as obesity is a condition.

24df4e0d0e7ce98963d4641fae1a60e5

on October 07, 2011
at 07:26 PM

@Ambimorph: I must be missing where Tom has shared the extent if his reading and understanding. His Big Fat Fiasco DVD contains much misinformation. The whole "you're as fat as you need to be" stuff comes from where?

100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1

(18706)

on October 07, 2011
at 06:53 PM

"Authority"? I'm not sure what you mean by that word, but "expert" I would say he is. He's read, understood, and even taught (in his own fashion) much of the current knowledge in the field. What further does being an expert mean? Precisely the contrast that I think patrick is making is between people who have doctorates and can't see beyond the one isolated piece they work on, and people who aren't scientists by trade but understand the scientific process and can synthesize the existing work from a broader perspective and communicate it.

100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1

(18706)

on October 07, 2011
at 06:40 PM

Sorry to hear it, Melissa. It's just beyond infuriating, because the cost can never be reversed.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on October 07, 2011
at 06:32 PM

Yes, my mother's friend had inoperable brain tumors and I suggested keto. She was going to DIE anyways and the doctor was unsupportive. She died a few months later.

100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1

(18706)

on October 07, 2011
at 06:29 PM

And yes, he's in remission since starting a few months ago, including the nearly immediate resolution of such serious migraines that patient was wishing for it to be over.

100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1

(18706)

on October 07, 2011
at 06:27 PM

I wish that first line were true, Quilt. I'm willing to bet it's the opposite. In fact, my husband has a friend, a bright young man in his 20s, who has terminal brain cancer. They tried some things and failed, and his doctor told him there was nothing else to be done, he would die soon. So my husband suggested he try a ketogenic diet. The doctor said ok, but not to associate it with him in any way, not even the permission to try it, because he could lose his ability to practice. This is *brain* cancer. The one we have the most evidence for keto therapy for. That's the climate we're in.

3c6b4eed18dc57f746755b698426e7c8

(5152)

on October 07, 2011
at 06:19 PM

"Upfront" or "up-front", not "up front" (sic).

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on October 07, 2011
at 06:05 PM

My opinion on carbs is this.....once you are LS you can eat whatever you like and calories and macro dont matter. That is clear in the MDA thread and in my Leptin FAQ blog. I have zero problem with carbs......unless you are leptin resistant.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on October 07, 2011
at 06:04 PM

I was just referring to cancer....my answer is clear. This is why i showed it to our oncologists who just shook their heads. As a surgeon who treats many cancers i also have a big problem with people making recs who dont. I was not alone in that criticism.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on October 07, 2011
at 06:02 PM

Plus one........

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on October 07, 2011
at 06:01 PM

To tell a cancer patient to eat carbs in todays climate gets you sued. There is no support for this at all. If you read what i wrote my beef with both of them is on cancer and IGF1 signaling. I did not call paul out on his book. I called him out on his cancer hypothesis and carb feedings and made the point this is why i dont like when authors get tripped up by their books recs. Clinical medicine is not a one diet fits all proposition. You accused me of being a LC and i told you i was not. Do i think carbs are bad for some folks.....yep. CONTEXT is what i have said here and on my site

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19245)

on October 07, 2011
at 04:10 PM

carbowhore would make a great blog title.

Af1d286f0fd5c3949f59b4edf4d892f5

(18472)

on October 07, 2011
at 03:36 PM

@Melissa +1 for the Scooby Doo reference.

A968087cc1dd66d480749c02e4619ef4

(20436)

on October 07, 2011
at 02:42 PM

Well, Jimmy site is LLvLC (note the Low Carb part). So it should not be surprising that it is full of kneejerk carbophobes. At least it presents a teaching moment for people not familiar with ideas about NADs, etc. And for many on that site (MetSyn, T2) any amount of starch could be toxic. I have to watch it myself because small amounts make me hyperphagic and then everything goes to hell. OMG! I just upvoted Carbsane! (I love that you are here, by the way. We are not as far apart as we think, sometimes.)

24df4e0d0e7ce98963d4641fae1a60e5

on October 07, 2011
at 02:34 PM

I also wish he had left out his preamble and just asked the question and had it answered.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on October 07, 2011
at 01:39 PM

@carb, I like that someone has finally questioned that Naughton has become some sort of knowledge-source. Ridiculous. His movie was fun in its backlash to the mainstream but he is not an authority on anything science, or diet, related.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on October 07, 2011
at 01:16 PM

She is definitely not in spot that they need to read the book. Its not about book, its about are there any safe starches. That could be researched without PHD. The valuable critics are usually mildly critical or even positive, so I don't see a problem really.

24df4e0d0e7ce98963d4641fae1a60e5

on October 07, 2011
at 12:05 PM

*"some of these experts seem totally ignorant about (and surprised to hear about) theories that differ in the slightest from their own area of expertise"* The term expert is used VERY loosely by Jimmy. Dana Carpender? Tom Naughton?

24df4e0d0e7ce98963d4641fae1a60e5

on October 07, 2011
at 11:25 AM

I agree with the criticism that many of the criticisms seem to be kneejerk anti-starch without even familiarizing themselves with either the Jaminets or the rationale behind what makes a starch "safe". Melissa is spot on in her comment above that one need not read any of these books to critique them. Much is available free on blogs and even Google book preview. If one is addressing the concepts that "read the book" cry rings hollow. But goose, gander and all that jazz! Many of these folks have no clue and say so. They should have declined comment rather than pile on their dogma.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on October 07, 2011
at 07:58 AM

I agree, let the people take the path. We need more guinea pigs.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on October 07, 2011
at 07:56 AM

I do think that Pauls Vitamin C deficiency problem is ridiculous as it is well established that LC HP diet improves absorption. You can eat red paprika to get a lot or that synthetic powder. Mucus problem might manifest as dry eys or rigid joints but not in the stomach which has some sugar (although it also has microbiota which hijack sugar). Cancer can't really be starved, but at least it doesn't have to bath in energy (it overexpresses GLUT transporters). Enough Vitamin C is probably the most important thing to prevent it, and Lysine & Proline amino acids.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on October 07, 2011
at 07:51 AM

Colette Heimowitz sucked so bad, she doesn't know shit about physiology. Her 'speach' is embarrassing. DR. LARRY and Adele Hite answeres were really great and DR. Fred was very funny with that yelling.

47a42b6be94caf700fce9509e38bb6a4

(9647)

on October 07, 2011
at 07:24 AM

Some of the responses on there are quite harsh. .... On an unrelated note: I like that Dr. BG (we know her on here as "Grace") is always referring to Paleohacks.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on October 07, 2011
at 05:22 AM

Actually my best guess is cooking with seal oil. Oxidized PUFAs makes the most sense.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on October 07, 2011
at 05:15 AM

And yes, while Cordains is great for some things, he is just too married to whatever it is he wrote way back when, heh. Hey maybe the Inuit had poor LDL clearance due to glucose deficiency! http://perfecthealthdiet.com/?p=4457 See if Paul was Cordain he would be using the Inuit mummies to argue for that.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on October 07, 2011
at 05:13 AM

He has some stuff about ketofasting and regular fasting in there, it isn't all just CARBS NOM NOM NOM, but he thinks that the pros of a little less glucose hanging around don't outweigh the cons of potential insufficiency, because he doesn't think that gluconeogenesis is enough for optimal usage, and that cancers can actually manipulate other cells to get lactate. If cancer improves on a ketogenic diet, can we really know if it was the ketosis or mitigation of inflammation and metabolic syndrome? Melissa, perhaps it is unreasonable to expect them to read it, but many just don't have a clue.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on October 07, 2011
at 05:07 AM

I won't forget Cordain's misuse of an Inuit mummy in order to critique VLC, which was totally ridiculous considering the context of those mummies.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on October 07, 2011
at 05:05 AM

It's ridiculous to expect busy people to read books that are essentially compilations on blogs in order to be able to critique the thesis at hand. I don't begrudge the non-readers on the roundtable, though it seems like some of them didn't even bother to read the blogs and they don't address Pauls' thesis. I know everyone thinks I'm a carbowhore, but I'm skeptical of some of his claims too, as I think VLC can be done without starch if you really go nose-to-tail sea to shore.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on October 07, 2011
at 04:59 AM

My main issue with paul is over cancer and sugar. He has no support in the literature. None.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on October 07, 2011
at 04:45 AM

Actually not FUBAR, because they get better. Hrmf.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on October 07, 2011
at 04:44 AM

At the end of the day I respect your view, and perhaps we're wrong and the cons of a bit of starch really do outweigh the pros for some people. It just seems implausible, like that's not a whole lot of carbs. But like you said, I'm seeing this through my lense and the research lense, rather than that guy-who-could-lose-his-arm lense.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on October 07, 2011
at 04:41 AM

being addressed. Paleo diet studies have shown a big improvement in diabetic symptoms without going low carb, and there is of course a lot more to it than dietary carbs, can't moderate amounts starch be consumed by diabetics in a fashion that doesn't F them up?

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on October 07, 2011
at 04:38 AM

At least Melissa knew what Dr. Davis was talking about. I don't feel like many of the responders really understood the topic at hand and furthermore I don't think that the right questions were posed, there is a lot more to his rationale then what Jimmy posed to them. But I'll just wait for Paul's response and comment after that. Then there was your comment, which tackled a pertinent issue which is the people you help who are FUBAR. Paul's recs are certainly fine for people who are metabolically healthy. I just wonder if having starch at dinner with other food is so bad if everything else is...

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on October 07, 2011
at 04:28 AM

I was being sarcastic. For the record, all the info in Wheat Belly is available on Davis' blog...for free. Yes, I've read it.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on October 07, 2011
at 03:59 AM

Kinda like you and whet belly huh? Pot meet kettle.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on October 07, 2011
at 03:50 AM

ruh oh, they are talking about a book most of them have never read!

  • Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

    asked by

    (25472)
  • Views
    4.7K
  • Last Activity
    1410D AGO
Frontpage book

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

10 Answers

12
98bf2ca7f8778c79cd3f6c962011cfdc

on October 08, 2011
at 03:15 AM

I thought it was a train wreck. Or trainwreck. Or train-wreck. Or...a disgusting display of ignorance, poor form, and not-so-hidden agenda. I can only hope Jimmy Moore realizes how clearly he missed the mark on this one and I surely hope some of our "dignitaries" are ashamed of themselves today because they damn well should be.

24df4e0d0e7ce98963d4641fae1a60e5

on October 08, 2011
at 11:48 AM

Well said! Jimmy's web page is so cluttered and the post was so long I initially missed some of the comments -- including Bernstein's closing salvo -- by the "dignitaries". Ultimately, Jimmy is responsible for publishing that, however.

0242b468fe1c97997749db416c92e7ed

(4528)

on October 09, 2011
at 02:19 AM

Would you have preferred that Jimmy censor their responses..?

C803c65555a42f13bf60f873c2923715

(40)

on October 09, 2011
at 09:15 PM

I don't get it. Although I'm only halfway through the long blogpost, and haven't got to the comments yet at all, I find it fascinating to read the input of so many distinguished researchers, practitioners and others in one place on one question. I read most of the book (The Perfect Diet) and found it very useful to get input of so many on the ideas in it. Yes, the responses don't all agree by any means, but some of them are very instructive.

12
100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1

(18706)

on October 07, 2011
at 06:10 PM

Since I recently did a question related to this, you know my view. There is an answer in that compilation to please everyone, I think, but the quote that particularly resonated with me was:

Chris Masterjohn:

The body can make glucose from protein, so the physiological need for glucose does not mean there is a dietary need for glucose. That said, some people might be better at making glucose from protein than others, and some adverse circumstances may compromise an individual???s ability to make glucose from protein.

This is somewhat consistent with my view that only special disease states would warrant the need for dietary glucose. However, I consider it a band-aid solution, though it may be the best alternative we currently have in some circumstances.

As for the cancer situation, I'm really quite alarmed that anyone would recommend eating any glucose at all under that condition. If my life were on the line, I wouldn't be taking any such risk. I know that research on ketogenic therapy for cancer is in its infancy, but what little we have is promising and the theoretical basis is sound.

3c6b4eed18dc57f746755b698426e7c8

(5152)

on October 08, 2011
at 12:16 AM

For a cancer patient w/insulin resistance, I agree that a ketogenic diet may be helpful. High insulin and IGF-1 levels are associated with tumor growth, so minimize by just freezing out insulin. Avoid carbs and you'll keep insulin at bay. Now, in a healthy person w/cancer, would that be necessary? Insulin deployment is transitory. And these peopel are very sensitive to insulin. Does eating a safe starch meal elevate insulin to such a degree that tumor cells grow exponentially? Especially when you're only doing 150-200g carbs as in PHD?

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on October 08, 2011
at 09:43 PM

cliff I guess you missed all the dietary data JK showed us.....often he ate a lot more than 150 gms of carbs and did not see any problem with it until he got labs.

24df4e0d0e7ce98963d4641fae1a60e5

on October 08, 2011
at 11:45 AM

WOW! If Taubes is now saying that dietary causes of IR cause cancer, he's really gone overboard. Nothing elicits IR in the diet like fat! (No, I'm not suggesting that fat causes cancer)

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on October 08, 2011
at 08:14 PM

Safe starches ARE SUGAR. It becomes sugar even while in the mouth, after salivary amylase finish it work. If you swallow food without chewing you will have lower glucose spike because of this reason.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on October 08, 2011
at 05:48 PM

jack kronk has never eaten over 150g carbs, thats low carb imo.

3c6b4eed18dc57f746755b698426e7c8

(5152)

on October 08, 2011
at 12:44 AM

Here's what Gary says: "If it’s sugar that causes insulin resistance ... then the conclusion is hard to avoid that sugar causes cancer — some cancers, at least — radical as this may seem and despite the fact that this suggestion has rarely if ever been voiced before publicly." Gary is smart enough to know that safe starches (or even tropical fruits) do not cause IR or diabetes. You need either sugar/fructose or white flour (gluten), typically embellished w/sugar. High IGF-1 is associated w/dairy, not safe starch consumption.

3c6b4eed18dc57f746755b698426e7c8

(5152)

on October 08, 2011
at 12:51 AM

If I had cancer, first, I would be dairy-free. Then I would be sugar-free. If I had diabetes, it makes sense to be ketogenic. But in a healthy person, the confounding factor is normal insulin deployment vs. chronic insulin elevation due to IR. The two are different.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on September 07, 2013
at 01:28 AM

Ketosis might be useful in order to starve cancer which usually, but not always, has mitochondrial disorder so it can't burn ketones. It was also shown that fasting, calorie restriction and hypoglicemia help starve cancer cells. Is it enough to heal... no in general case, but it will slow down oncogenesis.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on October 08, 2011
at 02:21 PM

Carb sane you are advocating that if you believe that....you really have a very different perspective but i like reading how you think. I dont agree with you here and there but you make me get out of my comfort zone and that causes me to expanding my thinking net.

3c6b4eed18dc57f746755b698426e7c8

(5152)

on October 08, 2011
at 12:20 AM

Now, Gary Taubes has been specifically focusing on sugar as the driver of tumor growth. If so, why would safe starches (yams, yuca, sweet potatoes) be similarly implicated when they have either zero nor minimal sugar? Look up the nutrition underlying any of the safe starches and you'll see minimal sugars; that's why they're called "starches". The issue again seems to be lumping together good carbs w/bad carbs. Transitory insulin elevation doesn't seem to be the culprit. It's probably what bad carbs (processed, sugar/fructose) do that hurts us metabolically & drives tumor growth.

100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1

(18706)

on October 08, 2011
at 03:44 PM

But Namby, starch is just a bunch of glucose bonded together. It turns into sugar pretty quickly, some of it before it even exits your mouth.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on October 08, 2011
at 02:19 PM

Ambi people who are fat burners....ie leptin sensitive can turn protein into glucose in amazing fashion. This is why ketosis works. Problem is to get their requires a non leaky gut and good functioning adrenal. Most of the people who struggle with phd and kurts opinions are people who have that problem. Our very own jack kronk is a perfect example. There is no perfect health diet foreveryone. The title is an oxymoron and paleo 2.0 is a starting point not the destination. Everything has to be placed in context. Carbs and high igf1 signaling are not good in cancer. Many articles say it

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on October 08, 2011
at 08:18 PM

Dairy free for cancer is FAIL. Butter is rich in K2. Vitamin C + K3 is approach used with **terminal** patients in Riordan clinick in Spain. K3 is similar to K2. Insulin spike may mean nothing to cancer as one of the defining characteristics of cancer is that it doesn't listen body hormones. It will overexpress GLUT transporters insluin or not. The cancer cell is the one reverted to ancient genome, when cells all cells were living like in the wild west. It doesn't care for your body as it is the body that created conditions for its rise.

3c6b4eed18dc57f746755b698426e7c8

(5152)

on October 12, 2011
at 09:45 PM

If you're not aware of dairy's involvement in cancer, you've completely missed IGF1's role in tumor genesis, plus cow sex hormones. Get in the loop/

3c6b4eed18dc57f746755b698426e7c8

(5152)

on October 12, 2011
at 09:46 PM

Ur missing why they're called safe starches: the absence of fructose.

100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1

(18706)

on October 13, 2011
at 06:47 PM

Starch is not made of fructose, but what does that have to do with it? Starch is glucose molecules bonded together. It is digested into glucose. What's so safe about glucose? Most tumours can grow on either glucose or fructose, but can't use ketones.

10
C6c2511c805bb5477a3846d93670d4b2

(116)

on October 08, 2011
at 05:33 PM

What do I think about it? This might seem harsh, but it is my top opinion that springs to mind upon completion of reading it all:

Kurt Harris > Jack Kruse

Sorry, but I'm not singling this Kruse character out, but he has always struck me as an unreliable source; as a person who is quick to spout off crackpot thoughts, theories and criticisms, yet he gets a pass because he has an "MD" beside his name.

I'm sorry if this post isn't a good one or within suggesting posting guidelines here...... I legitimately believe that the light needs to be shined on the crackpots. My immediate thought upon reading that link is that the light was very brightly shined on one there.

C471216c9fb4fcf886b7ac84a4046b49

(1371)

on October 10, 2011
at 05:35 PM

LIKEY............. kurt = reliable straight forward real

7d64d3988de1b0e493aacf37843c5596

(2861)

on October 08, 2011
at 11:45 PM

Since Kruse chose to question KGH's professional abilities I think it is fair to question Kruse's. I think it is pretty crazy to say that Jaminet's and KGH's views about safe starches is purely in the context of cancer patients. I think some nutjobs revealed themselves, but it was not Jaminet or KGH. KGH >>>>>Kruse

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on August 13, 2012
at 11:49 PM

http://www.cavemandoctor.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Ancestral-Health_2012_Poster_Colin_Champ.gif

5
7dc950fc76a046048e683d2a27dced37

on October 07, 2011
at 01:40 PM

I wish Jimmy had stuck to just asking the question re safe starches and leaving cancer out of it for this go-round.

24df4e0d0e7ce98963d4641fae1a60e5

on October 07, 2011
at 02:34 PM

I also wish he had left out his preamble and just asked the question and had it answered.

Db3de4f1795091edc487e09640e34566

(0)

on October 09, 2011
at 04:53 AM

Yeah Beth, I agree as well. The cancer debate was distracting and would count as the exception instead of the rule. It is obviously relevant, but perhaps more so in a separate post/debate.

5b77a74fc8aa82591c79400bef45ff94

(28)

on October 09, 2011
at 11:16 PM

Jimmy cannot accept the fact safe starches can be good for you. But, atkins shakes, bars, pork skins are really good for you.

5
88905cfc5bb098ad3830671a1af373a8

on October 07, 2011
at 05:57 AM

It is indeed incredible the gap in general knowledge between those of us who read a fair amount about nutrition and those who actually do research and/or write books on the topic.

Maybe because of the amount of time and concentration it takes to do research or just to keep up with the science on an in-depth level, some of these experts seem totally ignorant about (and surprised to hear about) theories that differ in the slightest from their own area of expertise.

Those of us without the scientific grounding but merely a passion for putting into practice the best diet take for granted the notion that white rice, for example, is "safer" because it's lower in anti-nutrients/phytates. Doesn't mean we all agree, but we've read about it dozens or hundreds of times. Yet Loren Cordain gives no indication of ever having heard that. (Guess he doesn't listen to the podcast of his protege Robb Wolf.) Instead, he actually claims to believe that "anyone who advocates eating white rice and potatoes obviously is unaware of the concept of either glycemic index or glycemic load." Yeah, right! No one in 2011 remotely interested in nutrition is unaware of that concept.

And a low-carb researcher (Dr. William Yancy) who has never heard the word 'dysbiosis'??? LMFAO. Maybe he's all about weight loss and has never had a digestive problem that required more than five minutes of googling - because that's how long it takes to come across that term. Wow.

Kudos to Jimmy for exposing the variety of opinions on this topic and i look forward to his part 2.

24df4e0d0e7ce98963d4641fae1a60e5

on October 07, 2011
at 12:05 PM

*"some of these experts seem totally ignorant about (and surprised to hear about) theories that differ in the slightest from their own area of expertise"* The term expert is used VERY loosely by Jimmy. Dana Carpender? Tom Naughton?

100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1

(18706)

on October 07, 2011
at 08:24 PM

Nowhere in the definition of expert is there a requirement of infallibility. Are you saying that all the PhDs in that compilation have everything right? Seeing as how they contradict each other, that seems unlikely. What I'm objecting to is the reliance on credentials for determining who is credible. I'd rather rely on proven capacity for logic, and familiarity with the relevant science.

24df4e0d0e7ce98963d4641fae1a60e5

on October 07, 2011
at 07:26 PM

@Ambimorph: I must be missing where Tom has shared the extent if his reading and understanding. His Big Fat Fiasco DVD contains much misinformation. The whole "you're as fat as you need to be" stuff comes from where?

24df4e0d0e7ce98963d4641fae1a60e5

on October 07, 2011
at 09:00 PM

*"Are you saying that all the PhDs in that compilation have everything right?"* Most certainly not! I'm not one to rely on letters after one's name, per se (but I note there are few with relevant PhD's there). Tom Naughton has a proven capacity for logic? Familiarity with [ALL] the relevant science? OK ... if you say so.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on October 07, 2011
at 01:39 PM

@carb, I like that someone has finally questioned that Naughton has become some sort of knowledge-source. Ridiculous. His movie was fun in its backlash to the mainstream but he is not an authority on anything science, or diet, related.

100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1

(18706)

on October 07, 2011
at 06:53 PM

"Authority"? I'm not sure what you mean by that word, but "expert" I would say he is. He's read, understood, and even taught (in his own fashion) much of the current knowledge in the field. What further does being an expert mean? Precisely the contrast that I think patrick is making is between people who have doctorates and can't see beyond the one isolated piece they work on, and people who aren't scientists by trade but understand the scientific process and can synthesize the existing work from a broader perspective and communicate it.

Db3de4f1795091edc487e09640e34566

(0)

on October 09, 2011
at 04:50 AM

I have to agree with CarbSane, Jimmy's definition of "expert" is rather loose...Some of those people I have a hard time taking seriously as scientific experts able to read, analyze and disseminate data.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on October 08, 2011
at 08:27 PM

Oh Ambi, why do you always have to say everything I want...

C803c65555a42f13bf60f873c2923715

(40)

on October 09, 2011
at 09:19 PM

I was also shocked that anyone in the field of nutritional research or health or medicine hadn't heard of the word "dysbiosis." I do think those who keep their heads down researching one specific area are vulnerable to no knowing what else is going on in even related fields. Still, they may make valuable contributions in their own research, but I wouldn't go to them for general advice.

5b77a74fc8aa82591c79400bef45ff94

(28)

on October 09, 2011
at 11:13 PM

Tom Naughton an expert? youre kidding right?

2bdc990a200584a385650cf68475f095

on November 15, 2011
at 09:20 PM

Cordain is dead to me. GI, seriously ?

5
64433a05384cd9717c1aa6bf7e98b661

(15236)

on October 07, 2011
at 05:14 AM

First, I'm impressed by the sheer volume of Jimmy Mooer's blog post.

I think this goes along the same lines as my question from the other day

http://paleohacks.com/questions/68873/should-writers-researchers-have-such-narrow-focus/#axzz1a4MhaUZe

Does the term "paleo" need to have a rigid set of guidelines? For the general SAD public not to get confused, the answer is probably yes. Within the community, I would think it's pretty much assumed and agreed upon that people who have serious metabolic derangement need to avoid rice and potatoes, while someone who is a muscular cross-fitter or naturally skinny researcher can get away with more carbs.

And then there's differences between metabolically sound men and women.... An iron deficient woman should probably steer as far away from phytic acid as possible, but for us men who eat a pound of meat a day and have gradually elevating ferratin levels maybe some phytic acid in our diets would do us some good. I was actually considering supplementing with it (IP6) though I'm sticking with the blood donation route for now.

A one size fits all mentality of course doesn't work. But could the ambiguity/subtleties hinder the spreading of the "paleo" way of eating?

I think "no grains, no legumes, no dairy" is probably the easiest in an elevator pitch but then we have the subtleties of butter to deal with, so I dunno...

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on October 07, 2011
at 06:02 PM

Plus one........

3
2c2349bc7af0fedb59a5fe99dac9fae2

(2707)

on October 07, 2011
at 03:29 PM

I think this is great. I think paleo diet is more of a base template, and it should be strict in the sense of exact numbers. Different people can apply the template differently with differences. Paleo should support low to moderate carb levels (maybe even high).

The key is who is the subject and in what context. Healthy/Diabetic/Althelete/Pregnant/Parkinsons/Weight Loss/Strength Training etc. There is not one fits all solution, but there is a great base to start from. For me that is what paleo is.. guideline and a base to work with and start tinkering from.

Starting your base as low carb, to me, is a bad idea, people will tend to focus on that, and when they are out shopping see a low carb food product and go oh that is not so bad.

I think, just like us, paleo movement will evolve as long as we keep in open mind and do not make this a religion. Being critical is what got the movement started.

Db3de4f1795091edc487e09640e34566

(0)

on October 09, 2011
at 05:03 AM

"I think, just like us, paleo movement will evolve as long as we keep in open mind and do not make this a religion. Being critical is what got the movement started." Very well stated. When we get dogmatic and reject anything that conflicts with our current paradigm...well...it will all go downhill.

3
77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on October 07, 2011
at 08:03 AM

Colette Heimowitz sucked so bad, she doesn't know shit about physiology. Her 'speach' is embarrassing. DR. LARRY and Adele Hite answeres were really great and DR. Fred was very funny with that yelling. Jimmis N=1 experiments really suck because he is not adapted to HC input, and unless he is using somebody else as proxy it means nothing to people not on LC.

I do think that Pauls Vitamin C deficiency problem is ridiculous as it is well established that LC HP diet improves absorption and that HC diets diminish both absorption and utilization. You can eat red paprika to get a lot or that synthetic powder. Mucus problem might manifest as dry eys or rigid joints but not in the stomach which has some sugar (although it also has microbiota which hijack sugar). Cancer can't really be starved, but at least it doesn't have to bath in energy (it overexpresses GLUT transporters). Enough Vitamin C is probably the most important thing to prevent it (improves all types of unnatural conditions that may lead to reverting of normal cells back to their ancient selfish metazoian origin, and Lysine & Proline amino acids to prevent spreading (because of collagen cross linking).

I think improvements in personalized genetics will put stop on this once and for all. Once you know how well are you carb/fat/protein efficient in source code, you will not have to keep any XXXXL strategy. For instance, part of the CHO process would be to see your copy number variation of amylase gene, expression of your GLUT transporters, etc.... For now everybody will have to use their sense to guess it.

2
61a27a8b7ec2264b1821923b271eaf54

(3175)

on October 07, 2011
at 05:13 AM

Quilt - Were your comments about 'safe starches' only aimed at cancer patients or does this apply to everyone who is trying to optimize through diet? I'm still not clear on your opinion of carbs for LS people. Do you think long-term keto diets are OK for most?

Dr. Jack Kruse says: "I read Kurt and Jaminet???s take. I think these recommendations are madness based upon the totality of the data we have today. I think avoiding anything that stimulates the IGF1 pathway is ???smart??? based upon current knowledge and i think using a ketogenic diet is also prudent. While i like both of these guys, neither one has any clinical experience treating cancer patients. They read literature. When kurt was a practicing doc he spent time in a dark room with films not patients. I showed our oncologist these comments and they both shook their head. I spent four years getting these guys to come over to evolutionary biology based upon science and now these two primal insiders decide damn be the science?

I think the science is far from worked out but nothing i have read critically reviewed support jaminet???s claims. My personal opinion is this??????..the best way to show someone they are wrong is allow them to go down the path they choose and let them learn for themselves. Some people may do the same but when they see their clinicians and the news is not good??????.then there testimony will shine sunlight on who???s interpretation of science is correct.

If you remember our podcast??????i told you i am wary of authors with books to sell on diets. Here is a perfect example of someone trying to fit their theory into everything. Id rather use evolutionary biology to give us a custom health care plan instead. I wrote a blog on what to do for a new cancer diagnosis???and its completely opposite these recommendations. I guess the new cancer patient will have to choose who is more correct.

This is a sad state of affairs in my opinion."

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on October 07, 2011
at 07:58 AM

I agree, let the people take the path. We need more guinea pigs.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on October 07, 2011
at 06:04 PM

I was just referring to cancer....my answer is clear. This is why i showed it to our oncologists who just shook their heads. As a surgeon who treats many cancers i also have a big problem with people making recs who dont. I was not alone in that criticism.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on October 07, 2011
at 06:05 PM

My opinion on carbs is this.....once you are LS you can eat whatever you like and calories and macro dont matter. That is clear in the MDA thread and in my Leptin FAQ blog. I have zero problem with carbs......unless you are leptin resistant.

Db3de4f1795091edc487e09640e34566

(0)

on October 09, 2011
at 05:01 AM

I have yet to come across any oncologists that recommend a low carb diet for their patients, nor have I heard much in mainstream. Granted, I have only known a few, and they were treating family members. However, I did notice on the occasions that I accompanied my family members to their radiation treatments...there were ALWAYS cookies in the waiting room. When I questioned the doc on this, they told me that they want their patients eating ANYTHING, it doesn't matter what. And then they told my mother-in-law to get my father-in-law (the one in treatment) a milkshake on the way home!!!

4ae65e9a9abceabe4d2f6e2ccd810122

(50)

on October 08, 2011
at 08:25 PM

I've noticed that fat people are angry and tend to blame others for their failure to achieve their goals.

863fbe3ea7cacba9a77b19a09bf445cf

on August 14, 2012
at 04:45 PM

That's an interesting poster. It's worth noting, though, that the author is presenting a hypothesis only, not results.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on August 13, 2012
at 11:51 PM

Yes, right here at AHS 2012. http://www.cavemandoctor.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Ancestral-Health_2012_Poster_Colin_Champ.gif

1
24df4e0d0e7ce98963d4641fae1a60e5

on October 07, 2011
at 04:33 PM

I think the science is far from worked out but nothing i have read critically reviewed support jaminet???s claims. My personal opinion is this??????..the best way to show someone they are wrong is allow them to go down the path they choose and let them learn for themselves. Some people may do the same but when they see their clinicians and the news is not good??????.then there testimony will shine sunlight on who???s interpretation of science is correct.

I think Dr. Jack Kruse Neurosurgeon needs to find the shift key on his keyboard. Not capitalizing "i" is one thing speaking of himself, but to not capitalize Jaminet (and Kurt elsewhere) is poor form. Oh ... and a grammar checker might be of some help. When blogging and editing chunks it is easy to mismatch tenses and leave in fragments of former phrases. I understand that, and I'm sure there are numerous transgressions to be found on my blog. But the regularity with which this occurs in Kruse's writings is something he needs to address, especially as I'm not the first person to bring this to his attention. It is "nothing ... support s", "the ir testimony", and "who se interpretation".

I think avoiding anything that stimulates the IGF1 pathway is ???smart??? based upon current knowledge

I think Kruse/Quilt needs to look a bit more into what stimulates IGF-1.

To lump Paul in with other diet book authors is low class. One need not agree with what Paul writes, but he didn't start out with a premise and cherry pick from data to formulate his plan. He's very up front about the origins of his book. No gimmicks, supplements to sell or anything of the sort.

3c6b4eed18dc57f746755b698426e7c8

(5152)

on October 07, 2011
at 06:19 PM

"Upfront" or "up-front", not "up front" (sic).

24df4e0d0e7ce98963d4641fae1a60e5

on October 07, 2011
at 07:40 PM

I see Quilt found the shift key >:)

100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1

(18706)

on October 07, 2011
at 06:27 PM

I wish that first line were true, Quilt. I'm willing to bet it's the opposite. In fact, my husband has a friend, a bright young man in his 20s, who has terminal brain cancer. They tried some things and failed, and his doctor told him there was nothing else to be done, he would die soon. So my husband suggested he try a ketogenic diet. The doctor said ok, but not to associate it with him in any way, not even the permission to try it, because he could lose his ability to practice. This is *brain* cancer. The one we have the most evidence for keto therapy for. That's the climate we're in.

100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1

(18706)

on October 07, 2011
at 06:40 PM

Sorry to hear it, Melissa. It's just beyond infuriating, because the cost can never be reversed.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on October 07, 2011
at 06:32 PM

Yes, my mother's friend had inoperable brain tumors and I suggested keto. She was going to DIE anyways and the doctor was unsupportive. She died a few months later.

3c6b4eed18dc57f746755b698426e7c8

(5152)

on October 08, 2011
at 12:02 AM

Well, that's how metabolic typing was born, through the Kelly method. I'm sure some of you have heard of it. If you're intersted, read the book on Kelly by Dr. Gonzalez, who's carrying on the work of pig pancreatic enzyme therapy devised by Kelly. Is it ketogenic? No, but one of the 10 diets that Kelly devised is, I think: it all depends on your type, but they're all Paleo-like wholefoods diet combined with pancreatic enzymes.

100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1

(18706)

on October 07, 2011
at 06:29 PM

And yes, he's in remission since starting a few months ago, including the nearly immediate resolution of such serious migraines that patient was wishing for it to be over.

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19245)

on October 07, 2011
at 07:43 PM

*"I see Quilt found the shift key >:)"* See there is always hope.

24df4e0d0e7ce98963d4641fae1a60e5

on October 07, 2011
at 07:31 PM

Thanks NP, i should of checked. <-intentional. ;-) In the area of cancer, it is quite possible that different diets are more or less helpful/harmful for different types. Cancer is about as monolithic a disease as obesity is a condition.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on October 07, 2011
at 06:01 PM

To tell a cancer patient to eat carbs in todays climate gets you sued. There is no support for this at all. If you read what i wrote my beef with both of them is on cancer and IGF1 signaling. I did not call paul out on his book. I called him out on his cancer hypothesis and carb feedings and made the point this is why i dont like when authors get tripped up by their books recs. Clinical medicine is not a one diet fits all proposition. You accused me of being a LC and i told you i was not. Do i think carbs are bad for some folks.....yep. CONTEXT is what i have said here and on my site

24df4e0d0e7ce98963d4641fae1a60e5

on October 07, 2011
at 07:46 PM

BTW Jack, can you list for me what stimulates IGF? Thanks.

24df4e0d0e7ce98963d4641fae1a60e5

on October 09, 2011
at 11:59 AM

BeingVenus: When a Doctor is giving "expert opinion" I think grammar and spelling matter. As does capitalizing proper names. I also said that internet writings are frequently imperfect including many of my own by the nature of the medium. Still, this was an email intended for publication on someone else's blog.

1da74185531d6d4c7182fb9ee417f97f

(10904)

on October 08, 2011
at 07:14 PM

I'm all for good debates but is this really the place to be sitting around criticizing someone's grammar? I could see complaining if it was making it hard for you to understand what the person is saying but this just sounds petty and childish. I know some people on here don't agree with Dr. Kruse's conclusions but debate/criticize his conclusions, not some stupid arbitrary detail. It's not constructive and extremely tedious to read. Plenty of people here make all sorts of grammatical/spelling errors including myself and don't get this kind of disrespect. Grow up.

8949bf87b0e0aefcad10f29975e4fa2b

(8989)

on October 17, 2011
at 04:10 AM

grammer and spelling only matter when you have nothing substantial to say. We should all be smart enough to wade through typos and grammar issues.

Answer Question


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