15

votes

Safe Starches Debate Continued. What? You thought it was over?

Answered on August 19, 2014
Created November 02, 2011 at 7:33 PM

Paul Jaminet responds to Ron Rosedale's rebuttal. Good debate going on here. Thoughts?

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on September 07, 2013
at 01:28 AM

"If you examine the charts Stephan put up on his blog, you'll note that a certain portion of the Khitavans do become insulin resistant after a certain age" Where are these charts?

1f8384be58052b6b96f476e475abdc74

(2231)

on December 13, 2011
at 05:47 PM

kempner is a low calorie diet... 800 cals, 1200, rice and fruit, limited food, exercise was required by him...his results would be the same if they ate 800 cals a day in twinkies and exercised

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on December 13, 2011
at 04:40 PM

FYI there is already discussion going on over here http://paleohacks.com/questions/79075/can-someone-find-common-ground-on-the-newest-safe-starch-response#axzz1gQukLm2S

D2936f57e5478aa96837a3fdb4691f57

(28)

on December 13, 2011
at 03:44 PM

Dr. Kempner's diet places heavy emphasis on brown rice, which doesn't spike BG/insulin levels as much white rice (one of Jaminet's "safe starches"). Back to Rosedale's latest response, though; I read the entirety of this exhaustive rebuttal and looks to me like he created some serious holes in the Safe Starch argument.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on December 13, 2011
at 03:17 PM

"And what about Dr. Kempner at the Rice House at Duke University? For decades, he put diabetics on a diet of rice and fruit to correct their diabetic condition, and he often got them off medication. How did that happen? Well, they dropped so much weight, and I mean fat-weight, that their insulin resistance went away, and so did their diabetes." http://www.1to1vitamins.com/dr-cinques-blog.html

A968087cc1dd66d480749c02e4619ef4

(20436)

on November 08, 2011
at 07:08 PM

Head up a$$, perhaps?

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on November 04, 2011
at 09:33 PM

I don't see any studies where they even measured blood glucose in kitavans

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on November 04, 2011
at 09:32 PM

"serum insulin decreased with age in Kitava, while it increased in Sweden in subjects over 50 years of age...The low serum insulin that decreases with age in Kitavans adds to the evidence that a Western lifestyle is a primary cause of insulin resistance" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10535381?ordinalpos=2&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

149af6e19a06675614dfbb6838a7d7c0

(3202)

on November 04, 2011
at 10:39 AM

Anyone can that is smarter than him...I haven't met them yet..is that you?

Medium avatar

(39831)

on November 03, 2011
at 11:16 PM

I dunno Rose, CW CICO never tells you to eat tons of red meat. You'd be hard-pressed to find many mainstream doctors, nutritionists, dieticians etc. who would say that's a good plan, unless they had a lot of bodybuilder clients or something.

Da3d4a6835c0f5256b2ef829b3ba3393

on November 03, 2011
at 11:16 PM

Lolo, is that just some random picture with no real point? If so, I support the spirit of your post and vote it up!

Da3d4a6835c0f5256b2ef829b3ba3393

on November 03, 2011
at 11:14 PM

So pleased when a debate is more about getting correct information figured out than it is about "winning." Getting the best information out means that everyone wins.

742ff8ba4ff55e84593ede14ac1c3cab

(3536)

on November 03, 2011
at 10:57 PM

I don't get it :)

3c6b4eed18dc57f746755b698426e7c8

(5147)

on November 03, 2011
at 09:59 PM

Over 100 is not losing BG control, we all realize that. The issue is your limited supply of pancreatic beta cells. These are not known to regenerate. If they turn off, we don't know how turn them back on. Given that, the Rosedale argument is to keep them alive as long as possible, if you wanna ward off IR.

3aea514b680d01bfd7573d74517946a7

(11996)

on November 03, 2011
at 09:03 PM

Jack, well said. Speaking as a die hard LCer with an N=1 testimony, I have no doubt that many people can eat starches -- hell, many people can eat *candy* -- and not show any sign of health problems (I'm married to one of those). When I have tried to add "safe" starches back in, I regained pounds and symptoms like joint pain. The response to that among safe-starchers is always to lower fat intake, lower calories, and increase exercise -- in other words, standard CICO, which failed so many of us for so long. Physiology debates are fascinating, but real life trumps the theories for me.

Af1d286f0fd5c3949f59b4edf4d892f5

(18452)

on November 03, 2011
at 09:02 PM

Travis - Nope. I haven't seen that reply. I will look for it though. I wonder if adding a short "cardio-centric" workout in a fasted state would be good. Currently I just do weights, but on my non weight days, I might do well to have some focused activity that is specifically low intensity. Haven't tried this yet. The only low intensity activity I get is fast paced walking basically daily.

Medium avatar

(39831)

on November 03, 2011
at 07:59 PM

One could also do the same amount of activity, but do it all in the fasted/pre-carb state and probably reduce their TGs. We have to accept that VLDL-TG is not a poison circulating through your bloodstream (that's PFOA's job) it's simply an innocent lipoprotein transporting energy. If you put a bunch of trucks on the road but never unload their cargo, you can't complain about the traffic. It just so happens that eating carbs makes you preferentially unload cargo from trains instead of trucks. Sometimes I wonder about my analogies....

Medium avatar

(39831)

on November 03, 2011
at 07:56 PM

This is my current working hypothesis about elevated TGs in general. The TG generation is likely the same on a VLC diet or that diet plus carbs, but what changes is the lipid oxidation amount, i.e. the amount of those TGs that are being utilized for energy, specifically by cardiac and skeletal muscle. This doesn't mean that you are better off without starch, it means that your VLC diet "hid" your TG synthesis level and that in order to keep it below 50, let's say, you just need to be doing more fasted low intensity activity, which is healthy anyway.

Medium avatar

(39831)

on November 03, 2011
at 07:54 PM

Jack, I don't know if you saw my recent reply to Namby about this TG elevation: You might also see a change like this if your overall diet has a particular TG output that remains constant but your activity level or the way in which you are active changes. This is where the carbs come in. It's not that you are eating more carbs per se, it's that your mitochondria are oxidizing fewer lipids if you are not sufficiently active in the fasting/pre-carb state.

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on November 03, 2011
at 07:42 PM

@namby the black swan is that several groups of people with high starch diets live as long, and longer than others. so what i'm getting at is this: these groups eat high starch diets. these groups live longer than us. people in the low carb camp, some who are extremely smart people who i respect, trip all over themselves trying to explain it away. that's what i'm focused on. the actual BG levels don't concern me because these people live to be old with them being whatever they are. i want to focus on that.

24df4e0d0e7ce98963d4641fae1a60e5

on November 03, 2011
at 07:06 PM

Should specify pp glucose over 150, not fasting.

24df4e0d0e7ce98963d4641fae1a60e5

on November 03, 2011
at 07:05 PM

@Namby, lucky & Quilt: It's not just studies, it's observation. The human race has not been VLC, quite the opposite. Yet until the obesity epidemic, diabetes was relatively rare. It still is in the scheme of things. Rosedale's basic premise is that carbs spike leptin causes leptin resistance. Only one problem with that: Carbs nor anything "spikes" leptin. Over 110 is NOT "losing BG control". Over 150 even is not.

3c6b4eed18dc57f746755b698426e7c8

(5147)

on November 03, 2011
at 02:38 PM

But whose BG doesn't go above 110? Just about everyone's, including those eating Paleo, VLC, ketogenic, etc. Paul points out that those who do VLC have higher FBGs. The study he cites includes those who're eating pasta, whole grains, in other words, processed carbs. BG control is generally superior if you do VLC and avoid processed carbs than when you do moderate-high carb Paleo and avoid processed carbs. The insulin sensitivity you gain when you start consuming more whole-food carbs is offset by higher post-prandials.

21fd060d0796fdb8a4a990441e08eae7

(24543)

on November 03, 2011
at 02:21 PM

I had the pleasure of seeing a Paul Jaminet presentation and asking him a couple dumb questions. He can explain anything to anybody! Dummies, smarties, low-carbers, high-carbers. His wife was also very sweet and appears to be a quiet genius. In summary, I will always be a fan of the Perfect Health Penguin.

3c6b4eed18dc57f746755b698426e7c8

(5147)

on November 03, 2011
at 02:20 PM

The answer is that the Khitavans do lose BG control as their BG levels creep up above 110 frequently. Member, their FBGs are low; however, their short-term (1h) postprandials are high, while their longer-term (2h and beyond) postprandials are at the FBG. That ~1h BG elevation does seem to affect beta cell functionality; at least that's the thinking, unless it's shown that the loss of BG creeps up through other mechanisms.

3c6b4eed18dc57f746755b698426e7c8

(5147)

on November 03, 2011
at 02:18 PM

The Kitavans are not a black swan. The Khitavans actually demonstrate that the loss of BG control is part of the aging process, just like atherosclerosis is in many ways. Some people are not ready to accept that. If you examine the charts Stephan put up on his blog, you'll note that a certain portion of the Khitavans do become insulin resistant after a certain age; it's a much smaller portion than any Western society's growing diabetic segment, but they do become insulin resistant and enter the diabetic realm. What does this prove? How did they become so?

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on November 03, 2011
at 01:28 PM

M, you should be an editor for a mag

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19235)

on November 03, 2011
at 01:08 PM

Meredith, I thought you were the foreigner :)

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on November 03, 2011
at 12:54 PM

I agree. Nutrigenomics FTW, but... everybody is still new to this. Also, its not like Ron is practicing that, right ? If he forces out one macronutrient, then its about macros to him.

7d64d3988de1b0e493aacf37843c5596

(2861)

on November 03, 2011
at 12:47 PM

Lipotoxicity -> insulin resistance makes more sense to me than "burning out" your pancreas

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on November 03, 2011
at 12:33 PM

Studies dont equal clinical experience and ron has a ton of it in this area. I read the response of paul closely and i think ron is going to have a field day when he comes around to replying. Its not about macros but the brains response to those macros.

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on November 03, 2011
at 11:44 AM

@namby pamby. i'm not a scientist but i still can't get away from the fact that there are cultures out there and individuals out there who get along fine- short term and long-term- with a high starch diet. these black swans will continue to dog rosedale, imo. i think rosedale is right on almost everything but just seems alarmist when it comes to trying to explain why everyone should be as low-carb as he recommends.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on November 03, 2011
at 10:06 AM

Discussion is cool, although I feel there is a lot of cherry picking and inconclusive studies with small N.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on November 03, 2011
at 05:31 AM

Also inflammation, remember how type 1 diabetes gets started. It is hard to see regular consumption of a moderate amount of carbohydrate to be the big bad guy here.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on November 03, 2011
at 05:30 AM

Beta cell loss has much to do with lipotoxicity, one of the things that causes insulin resistance, so beta cell loss from diabetes could be largely from that and not so much the insulin.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on November 03, 2011
at 05:26 AM

It's certainly not evidence that lower blood glucose is better as Carbsane showed so well, but I also can't buy that higher glucose is the best. Like Namby said, it denotes insulin resistance. That is a sign that something is wrong, there is no reason for it to be that high when fasting other than that clearance is impaired. Like I mentioned on Carbsane's blog, low blood glucose could be indicative of a problem in some situations but not others. Could those in the study with low glucose be secreting large amounts of insulin and have constant hyperinsulinemia? Then they would be in trouble

3c6b4eed18dc57f746755b698426e7c8

(5147)

on November 03, 2011
at 04:11 AM

Quilt, much maligned u are these days, but I'm w/you on this one. I think Paul entered a territory that's not familar. Diabetes is a degenerative disease and Ron is right that we're to a degree all diabetics. The mistake is in equating BG w/mortality; mortality is an indirect result of unhealthy BG levels. The direct result of BG elevation is beta cell destruction (or functionality loss) as manifest in IR. Ron, being an endo, will be just too well-armed to show that healthy FBG levels are sub-90, around 80-85.

3c6b4eed18dc57f746755b698426e7c8

(5147)

on November 03, 2011
at 03:37 AM

The big argument that Ron has is that diabetes is a degenerative disease and we're born with a limited supply of beta cells. When we reach IR as defined by diabetes (FBG~125; A1c - 6.5), we've already lost the majority of our beta cells with functionality. Prior studies showed that even at 110, beta cells lose their functions. If so, Ron might be right. Preserve your beta cells at all cost. This is borne out by the fact that 1/3 of senior citizens are diabetics; many of them become T2 diabetics well after they turn 65.

3c6b4eed18dc57f746755b698426e7c8

(5147)

on November 03, 2011
at 03:32 AM

I tend to think Paul may be misguided in this one. The 100 FBG # denotes impaired IR relative to FBG around mid 80s. The association with mortality may be similar to the misguided deduction we're making regarding TC and mortality; the curves do not really fit and what ur seeing is noise, not signal. My hunch is that Ron might be correct on this but I haven't yet read Ron's original response nor his rejoinder, nor the original articles cited by Paul.

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19235)

on November 02, 2011
at 11:19 PM

haha...........

0dbd7154d909b97fe774d1655754f195

(16131)

on November 02, 2011
at 11:07 PM

No, not at all Matthew. It's just that you are foreign and your jokes don't translate. Good thing I am Scottish by heritage. My epigenetics allow me to laugh at your jokes. :)

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19235)

on November 02, 2011
at 10:57 PM

Oh dear that was a bad joke.

8949bf87b0e0aefcad10f29975e4fa2b

(8989)

on November 02, 2011
at 10:22 PM

I want to read this very carefully before I comment, but my first impression is that it is a bit nitpicky. Anything that draws Rosedale out for comment is nice.

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19235)

on November 02, 2011
at 10:20 PM

Maybe Dr Rosedale was mauled by a potato as a child? j/k

8949bf87b0e0aefcad10f29975e4fa2b

(8989)

on November 02, 2011
at 10:17 PM

I'm afraid its a two-nap post.

24df4e0d0e7ce98963d4641fae1a60e5

on November 02, 2011
at 10:13 PM

I think this is because of what the prospective study Rosedale himself cited showed. Lowest mortality rates closer to 100 for FBG.

0dbd7154d909b97fe774d1655754f195

(16131)

on November 02, 2011
at 10:10 PM

I meant that Paul's approach was very balanced. I just didn't add in a line break.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on November 02, 2011
at 10:05 PM

I don't think people who believe there is no level of starch consumption that is "safe" are very balanced...

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19235)

on November 02, 2011
at 09:47 PM

I agree Nance, though it may not be a choice of one or the other, they are still interesting questions to ask.

96bf58d8c6bd492dc5b8ae46203fe247

(37227)

on November 02, 2011
at 09:42 PM

I agree, Matthew, and I teasingly call myself an ancient crone. I still want to know my options/consequences when making food choices and I'm freshly interested in BG--just because I accidentally made it to 64 without major problems and I'd like to keep that going.

96bf58d8c6bd492dc5b8ae46203fe247

(37227)

on November 02, 2011
at 09:41 PM

I agree, Matthew, and I teasingly cause myself an ancient crone. I still want to know my options/consequences when making food choices and I'm freshly interested in BG--just because I accidentally made it to 64 without major problems and I'd like to keep that going.

0dbd7154d909b97fe774d1655754f195

(16131)

on November 02, 2011
at 09:12 PM

Matthew I want to give you plus 1s.................... but I' fresh out! I agree about aiming for longevity at all costs - since there is a very real possibility that I will be gored by a buffalo someday! Or taken in an avalanche.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on November 02, 2011
at 09:05 PM

Totally agree with this. Paul is a great guy and a great resource to paleo.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on November 02, 2011
at 09:05 PM

Rosedale response will be epic. That response is a target rich enviroment for Ron. Right in his wheelhouse

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19235)

on November 02, 2011
at 09:00 PM

It is however always risky aiming for longevity effect in your elderly years. It would be a bit of a downer if you lived you whole life maximizing longevity, potentially at the cost of living as well today, and then get run over by a bus when your 65.

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19235)

on November 02, 2011
at 08:56 PM

I am also interested in this idea. Regardless of the science though, living in cold, damp country, I like having my metabolism running keeping me warm.

0dbd7154d909b97fe774d1655754f195

(16131)

on November 02, 2011
at 08:40 PM

Jaminet's link is the rebuttal to this rebuttal. PHD's post was yesterday. The Jimmy Moore post was last week I think.

7d64d3988de1b0e493aacf37843c5596

(2861)

on November 02, 2011
at 08:30 PM

Actually this is Jaminet's rebuttal to Rosedale's rebuttal.

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on November 02, 2011
at 08:24 PM

i saw that too, p2o. the ironic thing is it's usually the low-carbers who have fbc in the 100 range.

2b2c2e4aa87e9aa4c99cae48e980f70d

(1059)

on November 02, 2011
at 08:20 PM

Dr Rosedale posted an extensive rebuttal here:http://livinlavidalowcarb.com/blog/more-safe-starches-stuff-and-why-ive-decided-not-to-test-them-on-myself/12068

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on November 02, 2011
at 08:15 PM

and it's free. heh.

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on November 02, 2011
at 07:55 PM

I am not familiar enough Rosedale's work or posts to comment. But I know enough to know he is a big hitter too.

0dbd7154d909b97fe774d1655754f195

(16131)

on November 02, 2011
at 07:53 PM

How can you NOT appreciate the two of them? Keeping to the issues. I really need to re-read it STAT now that my baby is napping!

0dbd7154d909b97fe774d1655754f195

(16131)

on November 02, 2011
at 07:49 PM

My first thought is "Look! Gentlemen having a real debate! Nice!" My second thought is "Wow! Here are some real big hitters hashing out a topic that has many perplexed."

Frontpage book

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

10 Answers

19
D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on November 02, 2011
at 07:48 PM

I think irrespective of your opinion about PHD, how can you not respect Paul Jaminet for the way he conducts himself? With class, with science, with humility, with acknowledgement of the unknowns and "best guesses".

I do not agree with the notion of optimal macronutrient ratios as specified in PHD, but I definitely accept the notion of safe starches - I better since I am eating 50+% carbs

Ron Rosedale notes in the comments on the PHD blog that there are a lot of things to correct and Paul graciously said he would welcome a guest post to respond. This kind of healthy debate is awesome! Looking forward to it!!!

2b2c2e4aa87e9aa4c99cae48e980f70d

(1059)

on November 02, 2011
at 08:20 PM

Dr Rosedale posted an extensive rebuttal here:http://livinlavidalowcarb.com/blog/more-safe-starches-stuff-and-why-ive-decided-not-to-test-them-on-myself/12068

0dbd7154d909b97fe774d1655754f195

(16131)

on November 02, 2011
at 07:53 PM

How can you NOT appreciate the two of them? Keeping to the issues. I really need to re-read it STAT now that my baby is napping!

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on November 02, 2011
at 09:05 PM

Totally agree with this. Paul is a great guy and a great resource to paleo.

7d64d3988de1b0e493aacf37843c5596

(2861)

on November 02, 2011
at 08:30 PM

Actually this is Jaminet's rebuttal to Rosedale's rebuttal.

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on November 02, 2011
at 07:55 PM

I am not familiar enough Rosedale's work or posts to comment. But I know enough to know he is a big hitter too.

0dbd7154d909b97fe774d1655754f195

(16131)

on November 02, 2011
at 08:40 PM

Jaminet's link is the rebuttal to this rebuttal. PHD's post was yesterday. The Jimmy Moore post was last week I think.

8949bf87b0e0aefcad10f29975e4fa2b

(8989)

on November 02, 2011
at 10:17 PM

I'm afraid its a two-nap post.

21fd060d0796fdb8a4a990441e08eae7

(24543)

on November 03, 2011
at 02:21 PM

I had the pleasure of seeing a Paul Jaminet presentation and asking him a couple dumb questions. He can explain anything to anybody! Dummies, smarties, low-carbers, high-carbers. His wife was also very sweet and appears to be a quiet genius. In summary, I will always be a fan of the Perfect Health Penguin.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on November 03, 2011
at 01:28 PM

M, you should be an editor for a mag

Da3d4a6835c0f5256b2ef829b3ba3393

on November 03, 2011
at 11:14 PM

So pleased when a debate is more about getting correct information figured out than it is about "winning." Getting the best information out means that everyone wins.

12
0dbd7154d909b97fe774d1655754f195

(16131)

on November 02, 2011
at 08:51 PM

The thing that I am most curious about is the thyroid issue. Dr. Rosedale recommends a lower thyroid function for longer lifespan while the Jaminets question whether this sacrifices short term health. I have read other people who recommend a higher thyroid function for optimal health. Healthy thyroid ensures proper protein synthesis, bone formation and immune health - I think.

PHD is very balanced in my opinion. It's a middle road and I find that refreshing. Also Paul is pretty awesome.

But then again I think Dr. Rosedale is awesome too.

So much to think about.

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19235)

on November 02, 2011
at 08:56 PM

I am also interested in this idea. Regardless of the science though, living in cold, damp country, I like having my metabolism running keeping me warm.

96bf58d8c6bd492dc5b8ae46203fe247

(37227)

on November 02, 2011
at 09:41 PM

I agree, Matthew, and I teasingly cause myself an ancient crone. I still want to know my options/consequences when making food choices and I'm freshly interested in BG--just because I accidentally made it to 64 without major problems and I'd like to keep that going.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on November 02, 2011
at 10:05 PM

I don't think people who believe there is no level of starch consumption that is "safe" are very balanced...

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19235)

on November 02, 2011
at 10:20 PM

Maybe Dr Rosedale was mauled by a potato as a child? j/k

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19235)

on November 02, 2011
at 09:47 PM

I agree Nance, though it may not be a choice of one or the other, they are still interesting questions to ask.

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19235)

on November 02, 2011
at 11:19 PM

haha...........

96bf58d8c6bd492dc5b8ae46203fe247

(37227)

on November 02, 2011
at 09:42 PM

I agree, Matthew, and I teasingly call myself an ancient crone. I still want to know my options/consequences when making food choices and I'm freshly interested in BG--just because I accidentally made it to 64 without major problems and I'd like to keep that going.

0dbd7154d909b97fe774d1655754f195

(16131)

on November 02, 2011
at 09:12 PM

Matthew I want to give you plus 1s.................... but I' fresh out! I agree about aiming for longevity at all costs - since there is a very real possibility that I will be gored by a buffalo someday! Or taken in an avalanche.

0dbd7154d909b97fe774d1655754f195

(16131)

on November 02, 2011
at 10:10 PM

I meant that Paul's approach was very balanced. I just didn't add in a line break.

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19235)

on November 02, 2011
at 09:00 PM

It is however always risky aiming for longevity effect in your elderly years. It would be a bit of a downer if you lived you whole life maximizing longevity, potentially at the cost of living as well today, and then get run over by a bus when your 65.

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19235)

on November 02, 2011
at 10:57 PM

Oh dear that was a bad joke.

0dbd7154d909b97fe774d1655754f195

(16131)

on November 02, 2011
at 11:07 PM

No, not at all Matthew. It's just that you are foreign and your jokes don't translate. Good thing I am Scottish by heritage. My epigenetics allow me to laugh at your jokes. :)

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19235)

on November 03, 2011
at 01:08 PM

Meredith, I thought you were the foreigner :)

8
7d64d3988de1b0e493aacf37843c5596

(2861)

on November 02, 2011
at 08:22 PM

I would like to see more discussion about optimum fasting blood glucose. I had always heard that 70-80 was "optimal," but Jaminet is leaning higher than this.

7d64d3988de1b0e493aacf37843c5596

(2861)

on November 03, 2011
at 12:47 PM

Lipotoxicity -> insulin resistance makes more sense to me than "burning out" your pancreas

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on November 02, 2011
at 08:24 PM

i saw that too, p2o. the ironic thing is it's usually the low-carbers who have fbc in the 100 range.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on November 03, 2011
at 05:31 AM

Also inflammation, remember how type 1 diabetes gets started. It is hard to see regular consumption of a moderate amount of carbohydrate to be the big bad guy here.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on November 03, 2011
at 05:26 AM

It's certainly not evidence that lower blood glucose is better as Carbsane showed so well, but I also can't buy that higher glucose is the best. Like Namby said, it denotes insulin resistance. That is a sign that something is wrong, there is no reason for it to be that high when fasting other than that clearance is impaired. Like I mentioned on Carbsane's blog, low blood glucose could be indicative of a problem in some situations but not others. Could those in the study with low glucose be secreting large amounts of insulin and have constant hyperinsulinemia? Then they would be in trouble

3c6b4eed18dc57f746755b698426e7c8

(5147)

on November 03, 2011
at 03:37 AM

The big argument that Ron has is that diabetes is a degenerative disease and we're born with a limited supply of beta cells. When we reach IR as defined by diabetes (FBG~125; A1c - 6.5), we've already lost the majority of our beta cells with functionality. Prior studies showed that even at 110, beta cells lose their functions. If so, Ron might be right. Preserve your beta cells at all cost. This is borne out by the fact that 1/3 of senior citizens are diabetics; many of them become T2 diabetics well after they turn 65.

24df4e0d0e7ce98963d4641fae1a60e5

on November 02, 2011
at 10:13 PM

I think this is because of what the prospective study Rosedale himself cited showed. Lowest mortality rates closer to 100 for FBG.

3c6b4eed18dc57f746755b698426e7c8

(5147)

on November 03, 2011
at 03:32 AM

I tend to think Paul may be misguided in this one. The 100 FBG # denotes impaired IR relative to FBG around mid 80s. The association with mortality may be similar to the misguided deduction we're making regarding TC and mortality; the curves do not really fit and what ur seeing is noise, not signal. My hunch is that Ron might be correct on this but I haven't yet read Ron's original response nor his rejoinder, nor the original articles cited by Paul.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on November 03, 2011
at 05:30 AM

Beta cell loss has much to do with lipotoxicity, one of the things that causes insulin resistance, so beta cell loss from diabetes could be largely from that and not so much the insulin.

6
96bf58d8c6bd492dc5b8ae46203fe247

(37227)

on November 02, 2011
at 07:56 PM

Major points to Mr. Jaminet for presenting the technical info so clearly. This is exactly what I'm (selfishly) looking for as often as possible. I especially appreciate it because he's under no obligation to communicate in such detail with non-scientists such as myself. This dialogue seems to be right on the cutting edge of what we should all be trying to learn, whether we are older and wishing to avoid prediabetes or younger and trying to maximize the length of our vigorous adult life.

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on November 02, 2011
at 08:15 PM

and it's free. heh.

4
592d3411ac84aa8f08a33545433b6f8a

(50)

on November 03, 2011
at 10:53 PM

this is what i think about the safe starch subject

safe-starches-debate-continued.-what?-you-thought-it-was-over?

Da3d4a6835c0f5256b2ef829b3ba3393

on November 03, 2011
at 11:16 PM

Lolo, is that just some random picture with no real point? If so, I support the spirit of your post and vote it up!

742ff8ba4ff55e84593ede14ac1c3cab

(3536)

on November 03, 2011
at 10:57 PM

I don't get it :)

A968087cc1dd66d480749c02e4619ef4

(20436)

on November 08, 2011
at 07:08 PM

Head up a$$, perhaps?

4
149af6e19a06675614dfbb6838a7d7c0

on November 03, 2011
at 05:15 AM

Yes...THAT'S WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT...this feels like a team straight out of "The Longest Yard"...we have spent a lot of time hashing out personalities and views that are not so far apart. Now we are all pulling together with a stronger sense of focus and purpose. As all the different players and supporters line up together, aiming in the same direction (with a few minor disagreements...ok) we can refocus on the real opponents. Big Pharma, The ADA, Big Agri Business, Big Governmental Policy, The FDA...the Media (the parts that are bought off)...big games are ahead but it is starting to feel like a team...let's keep our eye on the ball now...(here is where the theme music comes in and we see a collage of all that has gotten us here and we rise up off the locker benches and head out into the sun and stadium...) the public cheers although they don't know why yet...

3
Af1d286f0fd5c3949f59b4edf4d892f5

(18452)

on November 03, 2011
at 07:03 PM

I think both Rosedale and Jaminet (and the others involved in this massive "safe starch" debate) make excellent points. And I think to some degree, they are both correct.

So what can we make of this? I think the "safeness factor" is different for different peeps.

Por ejemplo: My sdLDL, VLDL, trigs all went to the moon when I introduced a significant amount of safe starch into my LC diet. Those familiar with my situation know that there is much more to my circumstance than the re-introcution of safe starches, but nonetheless, the fact the my lipid numbers went nasty on me as soon as I added tubers and white rice is a true statement and I am still smack dab in the middle of fleshing out what changes I need to make.

But then we've got other Paleo folks who eat loads of safe starches who are fit, claim to feel very healthy, and have lab numbers that most believe are very nice, with low trigs, solid HDL, and primarily pattern A large LDL (which is still basically believed to be the more healthy LDL particle type).

This is where individual dietary tweaking comes into play. For me.. what if I eliminate safe starches altogether and my lipid numbers "improve" and I feel better and am thrilled about life? Would any amount of scientific mish mash "proving" otherwise have any affect on my stance? Highly unlikely.

It is pretty clear that examples of good health lie on both sides of this equation. There will always be die hard low carbers with N=1 testimonies as their backbone of conviction. And there are also plenty of safe starchers that are seeing excellent results and will stand their ground based upon their experience.

So it seems to me that trying to choose one side over the other so fiercely just might be a lost cause. Rather... I continue to read and soak up this stuff like a spounge for the pearls of knowledge and to gain a balanced perspective. The debate iteself is critically important and immensely helpful because there are many people in each camp.

3aea514b680d01bfd7573d74517946a7

(11996)

on November 03, 2011
at 09:03 PM

Jack, well said. Speaking as a die hard LCer with an N=1 testimony, I have no doubt that many people can eat starches -- hell, many people can eat *candy* -- and not show any sign of health problems (I'm married to one of those). When I have tried to add "safe" starches back in, I regained pounds and symptoms like joint pain. The response to that among safe-starchers is always to lower fat intake, lower calories, and increase exercise -- in other words, standard CICO, which failed so many of us for so long. Physiology debates are fascinating, but real life trumps the theories for me.

Medium avatar

(39831)

on November 03, 2011
at 07:54 PM

Jack, I don't know if you saw my recent reply to Namby about this TG elevation: You might also see a change like this if your overall diet has a particular TG output that remains constant but your activity level or the way in which you are active changes. This is where the carbs come in. It's not that you are eating more carbs per se, it's that your mitochondria are oxidizing fewer lipids if you are not sufficiently active in the fasting/pre-carb state.

Medium avatar

(39831)

on November 03, 2011
at 07:59 PM

One could also do the same amount of activity, but do it all in the fasted/pre-carb state and probably reduce their TGs. We have to accept that VLDL-TG is not a poison circulating through your bloodstream (that's PFOA's job) it's simply an innocent lipoprotein transporting energy. If you put a bunch of trucks on the road but never unload their cargo, you can't complain about the traffic. It just so happens that eating carbs makes you preferentially unload cargo from trains instead of trucks. Sometimes I wonder about my analogies....

Medium avatar

(39831)

on November 03, 2011
at 07:56 PM

This is my current working hypothesis about elevated TGs in general. The TG generation is likely the same on a VLC diet or that diet plus carbs, but what changes is the lipid oxidation amount, i.e. the amount of those TGs that are being utilized for energy, specifically by cardiac and skeletal muscle. This doesn't mean that you are better off without starch, it means that your VLC diet "hid" your TG synthesis level and that in order to keep it below 50, let's say, you just need to be doing more fasted low intensity activity, which is healthy anyway.

Af1d286f0fd5c3949f59b4edf4d892f5

(18452)

on November 03, 2011
at 09:02 PM

Travis - Nope. I haven't seen that reply. I will look for it though. I wonder if adding a short "cardio-centric" workout in a fasted state would be good. Currently I just do weights, but on my non weight days, I might do well to have some focused activity that is specifically low intensity. Haven't tried this yet. The only low intensity activity I get is fast paced walking basically daily.

Medium avatar

(39831)

on November 03, 2011
at 11:16 PM

I dunno Rose, CW CICO never tells you to eat tons of red meat. You'd be hard-pressed to find many mainstream doctors, nutritionists, dieticians etc. who would say that's a good plan, unless they had a lot of bodybuilder clients or something.

1
24df4e0d0e7ce98963d4641fae1a60e5

on November 03, 2011
at 07:07 PM

Someone needs to take Ron Rosedale's shovel away from him. :-)

149af6e19a06675614dfbb6838a7d7c0

(3202)

on November 04, 2011
at 10:39 AM

Anyone can that is smarter than him...I haven't met them yet..is that you?

0
D2936f57e5478aa96837a3fdb4691f57

on December 13, 2011
at 03:15 PM

Dr. Rosedale trumps PHD? His response to Jaminet's response:

http://drrosedale.com/blog/2011/11/22/is-the-term-safe-starches-an-oxymoron/

1f8384be58052b6b96f476e475abdc74

(2231)

on December 13, 2011
at 05:47 PM

kempner is a low calorie diet... 800 cals, 1200, rice and fruit, limited food, exercise was required by him...his results would be the same if they ate 800 cals a day in twinkies and exercised

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on December 13, 2011
at 03:17 PM

"And what about Dr. Kempner at the Rice House at Duke University? For decades, he put diabetics on a diet of rice and fruit to correct their diabetic condition, and he often got them off medication. How did that happen? Well, they dropped so much weight, and I mean fat-weight, that their insulin resistance went away, and so did their diabetes." http://www.1to1vitamins.com/dr-cinques-blog.html

D2936f57e5478aa96837a3fdb4691f57

(28)

on December 13, 2011
at 03:44 PM

Dr. Kempner's diet places heavy emphasis on brown rice, which doesn't spike BG/insulin levels as much white rice (one of Jaminet's "safe starches"). Back to Rosedale's latest response, though; I read the entirety of this exhaustive rebuttal and looks to me like he created some serious holes in the Safe Starch argument.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on December 13, 2011
at 04:40 PM

FYI there is already discussion going on over here http://paleohacks.com/questions/79075/can-someone-find-common-ground-on-the-newest-safe-starch-response#axzz1gQukLm2S

Answer Question


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