29

votes

Why do people believe white rice is safe/paleo/benign starch?

Commented on March 06, 2016
Created June 22, 2011 at 1:02 PM

White rice is touted to be basically pure starch by Paul Jaminet on the basis that asain people eat it so it must be healthy right?

But it's not pure starch, it is a refined grain that most asain people haven't been eating that long.

Blockquote

Hakumai, polished rice came into use in the Genreku period at the end of the 17th century and the period at the beginning of the 18th century. It was the staple food prized by the emperors, nobles, warriors and wealthy merchants. Genmai, unpolished brown rice became the food of the poor.

Blockquote -http://www.hawaii.hawaii.edu/nursing/tradjapan2.htm

White rice still has phytic acid:

FOOD-Brown rice- MIN=0.84 MAX=0.99 FOOD-Polished rice- MIN=0.14 MAX=0.60

-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phytic_acid#cite_ref-16

One phytic acid molecule has the ability to lock up many nutrients.

White rice is a poor source of all nutrients and phytic acid in white rice binds up lots of important nutrients like minerals, vitamins, and protein.

So why would anyone eat white rice over potatoes or other underground storage organs which are legitimately paleo and don't contain phytic acid?

1c67bc28f4e44bbb8770b86df0463df3

(6719)

on May 13, 2013
at 05:43 PM

This is absurd - the idea that you are going to get your 'nutrients' from a carb source. There are not any dense carbs that have a great nutrition profile. That is what other foods are for. duh

5aa057aabe02e83299e1e2137eab05e2

(108)

on February 26, 2012
at 10:31 PM

I lived in Japan for awhile both as a student and beyond college. I lived with families, then friends. They were incredibly thin- as in, 125 lbs for a short man, maybe 140 for a 5'9 man ( so, ok, they are not so tall). But white rice 3x a day was pretty standard, and some form of soy at least once, maybe even 2 or 3x per day. Most vegetables, unless served in a nabe ( cooking pot) are in the form of pickles. Maybe a few radish sprouts delicately rolled in ham slices. Explain that.

5aa057aabe02e83299e1e2137eab05e2

(108)

on February 26, 2012
at 10:23 PM

Japanese always rinse the rice " until the water runs clear". And I think thiamine was discovered by studying POWs in Japanese camps. The ones who ate brown rice were better, the ones who ate white rice had Beri-Beri. What you fail to mention was that they were fed nothing else at all, except for the larvae that lived in the spoiled rice. White rice didn't " cause" a thiamine deficiency.

8508fec4bae4a580d1e1b807058fee8e

(6259)

on January 15, 2012
at 01:22 AM

Great post Paul - and safe starches worked well for the hubby and I. We don't eat huge amounts but the carbs amounts you recommended have worked for us. I think rotating through cassava, yams, potatoes, white rice, plantains, etc. (unless issues with any of them) for variety, nutrition, and taste is fine.

8508fec4bae4a580d1e1b807058fee8e

(6259)

on January 15, 2012
at 01:20 AM

I like rotating through the safe starches - white rice, plantain, squashes/pumpkin, potatoes, yams, throughout the week. I find variety tastes good and you obtain different nutrients form different foods.

6371f0ae0c075ded1b8cd30aafd4bf16

on October 05, 2011
at 02:01 PM

Paul and Chris also recommend soaking it in water or whey overnight before cooking to reduce phytic acid load.

3c6b4eed18dc57f746755b698426e7c8

(5152)

on October 05, 2011
at 03:19 AM

In other words, ketosis seems to be a temporary adaptation designed to be hormetic, just like intermittent fasting. As humans, we're metabolically flexible. But being flexible doesn't mean one should become ketogenic indefinitely. Intermittently, yes, in times of famine. But all the time when you have tubers abound? I mean, why kill yourself corralling a boar when you have a tuber already dug up with your walking stick?

3c6b4eed18dc57f746755b698426e7c8

(5152)

on October 05, 2011
at 03:15 AM

Quilt, isn't the argument not whether carbs are essential but that carbs are preferred as glucose rather than via gluconeogenesis? The latter is more stressful on the body and is "hormetic". There are far more starchy-based diets than ketogenic diets. So which form of metabolism are humans adapted to? Both, probably. But which is it more suited based on sheer exposure by many more tribes than the Masais and Inuits?

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on October 05, 2011
at 02:46 AM

The brain needs no glucose.....it can run on ketones indefinitely. I can show you many cases in our ICU's on ketogenic diets for months overcoming brain injuries who walk out of the hopsital intact neurologically. The notion that our brain needs glucose is 1960's nonsense.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on October 05, 2011
at 02:44 AM

Fiona,Vanderbilt University did a meta analysis about 5 yrs ago with a supercomputer on the optimal diet.....the results revealed the top fifty foods one could live on were all devoid of carbs......So your point is well taken. Our bodies dont need carbs at all. Our livers can make the carbs we need. People think they need carbs therefore they become essential to their own biases. Their perception becomes their reality. We are omnivores so we can use carbs if they exist. In paleo times carbs were plentiful in summer months in the northern and southern hemispheres and yr round at equator

6ec8d30130a6fb274871314533b5536b

(581)

on September 14, 2011
at 04:01 AM

Well, I also think one's metabolic response also depends on their own individual health. For example, I'm pre-diabetic and suffer from insulin resistance. So, for myself anyway, my body would definitely freak out from sugar, and any excess would not be properly dealt with. So for myself, anyway, I pretty much have to stay away until my metabolic health problems are dealt with. :)

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on August 19, 2011
at 07:30 PM

Why would the body freak out from the sugar? We are designed to consume and digest all macronutrients. Excess (in amount and frequency) carbohydrate is the problem (metabolic stressor). Moderate consumption is not an issue. A bowl or cup of rice now and then lies more on the moderation side of things.

6ec8d30130a6fb274871314533b5536b

(581)

on August 12, 2011
at 03:17 AM

Oops, I meant "the impact would probably be..."

6ec8d30130a6fb274871314533b5536b

(581)

on August 12, 2011
at 03:16 AM

Well, phytic acid aside, there's still the glycemic impact, and the fact that the body will probably freak out from the sugar, lol. But I dunno... I guess in combination with proteins, the impact wouldn't probably be significantly less. I mean, hopefully nobody's going to eat a bowl of rice by itself.

6ec8d30130a6fb274871314533b5536b

(581)

on August 12, 2011
at 03:15 AM

Oh my gosh, can I relate. I seriously used to LOVE potatoes... in every and all forms. Lol. I loved all of the variations of cooking them... but they always made me feel weird. I didn't understand why until I did more research & found out about nightshades & Paleo, etc. It totally explains my aversion to eggplant, too. Bummer though, since I love taters...

6ec8d30130a6fb274871314533b5536b

(581)

on August 12, 2011
at 03:06 AM

Yeah, I tried to explain the whole "rice isn't healthy" idea to my Korean mom... backed with all the research I've done, not to mention the fact that I've lost almost 30 pounds by cutting it out of my diet... and she pretty much hates me now. Lol. I still try to convince her, but she's unconvinced and upset, since rice is SUCH a staple and symbol of Korean life and culture, and a big part of their meals. I wouldn't necessarily compare rice to wheat, though. I'm gluten-intolerant... and while rice might not be completely optimal for my body, if I HAD to choose one, I'd choose rice.

Cc93847bfa820f0f2da654060b401fa5

(746)

on July 13, 2011
at 09:10 AM

@cliff there are published studies on phytates in potatoes. Just google it. How to you prepare you potatoes? What about the acrylamide levels in them? This is a "six in one, half dozen in the other" debate.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on July 12, 2011
at 06:09 PM

All plant foods probably have small amounts of phytate, we don't the exact amount for mature potatoes but I assume its pretty damn low. White rice comes with virtually no nutrition though when compared to potatoes which makes it far inferior.

76f3ead3aa977d876bcf3331d35a36e9

(4620)

on July 12, 2011
at 12:40 PM

Fair enough. I can attest to eating half a jar of almond butter in the first days coming off my SAD diet a few years ago.

Cc93847bfa820f0f2da654060b401fa5

(746)

on July 12, 2011
at 02:36 AM

P.S. Answer wasn't about carbs either. Just a little rant about why people binge on junk in there.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on July 12, 2011
at 02:14 AM

every food you eat is a neolithic food for the most part unless you eat 100% wild

Cc93847bfa820f0f2da654060b401fa5

(746)

on July 12, 2011
at 02:08 AM

I know cliff's not a carb phobe & I'm glad ;) @cliff, They do contain phytates roughly as much as white rice before the soaking ;) - @phoenix, Statement wasn't necessarily targeted at hacks community. More of a "open your eyes." Especially newbies. Will admit to seeing consumption coming down in the past year. Phytate levels still much higher even if the consumption of nuts is much lower. Dry weights. I do read many of them. Not interested in replying. @ben not a contrarian. You're probably my fav commenter BTW. See recipe/gourmet, cravers, newbies, low-carbers. Seen years of meal tweets.

C2502365891cbcc8af2d1cf1d7b0e9fc

(2437)

on July 12, 2011
at 01:26 AM

potatoes are absolutely a neolithic food

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on July 11, 2011
at 11:24 PM

Well I think poor Grok is just expressing a basic contrarian feeling. I been there. Not a big deal. I agree that many on hacks here aren't gobbling nuts. I'm sure some people somewhere are so I suppose he can say that.

76f3ead3aa977d876bcf3331d35a36e9

(4620)

on July 11, 2011
at 11:19 PM

"they'll wolf down nuts and nut butters like crazy". Not really. Most posts I've seen around here talk about limiting nuts. Where do you get your information about the "paleo crowd"? Also, consider portion size. Majority of paleos are not going to eat 100g of nuts in a meal. Probably an ounce (28g). Whereas small, densely packed grains like oats and brown rice are easy to consume in amounts over 100g. Also, if you actually read some of the posts on "deathhacks" and not just the ones that are antagonistic to your opinion, you'll see that a very large chunk of us are carb friendly.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on July 11, 2011
at 10:52 PM

I think you have a point in regards to a lot of paleo people but I think you missed this part of my post "So why would anyone eat white rice over potatoes or other underground storage organs which are legitimately paleo and don't contain phytic acid?". As Wavehunter stated I eat over 500 grams of carb a day so I'm definitely not carb phobic.

36b7a2776d028dc8d5743e2e56ece34d

(812)

on July 11, 2011
at 10:49 PM

I think the bigger issue is nutrient density of white rice. Cliff never said anything about avoiding carbs. In other posts cliff says he eats 500+grams of carbs per day.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on June 24, 2011
at 05:26 PM

Plus the RDA for magnesium is pretty damn low at 400mg. So even if you hit RDA are you optimal paleo? probably not.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on June 24, 2011
at 05:25 PM

Thanks for the clarification paul. I think you missed the point though, I wasn't totally concerned with phytic acid. My main concern is that eating rice will displace nutrient dense carbs from the diet which provide nutrients that liver, eggs and even most vegetables won't be able to provide in significant amounts such as magnesium and potassium. Most people assume they are getting all nutrients most don't actually check, this mindset combined with white rice can lead to sub-optimal nutrient intake.

Af1d286f0fd5c3949f59b4edf4d892f5

(18472)

on June 24, 2011
at 04:30 PM

hi Paul - I was just returning to this thread to post your article. I see you beat me to it! I love how this got your attention.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on June 24, 2011
at 02:35 AM

Nice post. Very cool of you to take time out to discuss our little forum here. Cheers.

21fd060d0796fdb8a4a990441e08eae7

(24543)

on June 24, 2011
at 02:15 AM

"Shou-Ching is so nice, when she gets mad at me she goes out and sleeps on the sofa!" Funny!

1f8384be58052b6b96f476e475abdc74

(2231)

on June 23, 2011
at 03:05 PM

i think a lot has to do with your gut health

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on June 23, 2011
at 02:42 PM

No kidding. If my neighborhood gets another Thai joint I may have to move:) whenever we go out to one of them it's white rice for me.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on June 23, 2011
at 02:41 PM

Word. Makes sense. Back in the day I prolly put that amount back, too. Thanks for the info. I did the exact same gain: 26 lbs since last November. At 22 you shouldn't have any issues.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on June 23, 2011
at 02:39 PM

I suppose back when Atkins was popluar the potato got demonized across the board and so people prolly associated it with not much nutrition. And the whole "don't eat white things" is indeed out there. But I think in the last ten or so years especially the goodly amount of vitamin C in white potatoes has gotten wide attention. And more generally are you perhaps over-valueing Jaminet's work? I certainly don't think his offering should be one of the initial info-sources for newbs. His stuff I've always considered on the periphery at best.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on June 23, 2011
at 02:36 PM

Drawing from what an answer above said, I'd agree with animalcule here. Things like coconut oil are devoid of nutrients yet we perhaps overeat them with no issues. If the bulk of food is good stuff, supplying good nutrition across the board, then other items tha have less ideal nutrient-composition aren't a problem

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on June 23, 2011
at 02:33 PM

Hey that is a great point about coconut oil, well done. In our rejection of SAD many of us have an unhealthy tendency to glom onto fats, etc in a contrarian reaction without fully realizing what we are doing. Fats, while healthy and satiating and essential, are indeed not needed in the amounts espoused by many paleo folk. Nothing wrong with a lot of fat but for certain people with specific goals fats are low priority beyond the amounts needed to function.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on June 23, 2011
at 02:14 PM

I think this is because fats in general are a poor source of nutrition unless you eat whole plant fats. I personally don't think eating 100s of calories from coconut oil is the best option over something like butter or animal fat which have more nutrients.

26b7615ef542394102785a67a2786867

(7967)

on June 23, 2011
at 02:12 PM

Why do you think everything needs to be 'nutrient dense'? If the needs of your body are being well-met and you have no nutrient deficiencies, there is no drawback to consuming foods without many nutrients.

Af1d286f0fd5c3949f59b4edf4d892f5

(18472)

on June 23, 2011
at 02:00 PM

nutrient poor - agreed. but deleterious? i don't really think so.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on June 23, 2011
at 12:03 PM

@animalcue its risky because you displace a nutrient dense food you could have eaten with a nutrient poor food. I don't think rice is dangerous, I just think it's dumb to put it in the same category as other better safe starches. I also see no point in displacing nutrient rich carbs with nutrient poor ones, unless you are making some specific culinary item(sushi for example).

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on June 23, 2011
at 11:58 AM

I think most people who have been doing paleo for a while would realize that but the random newbs and what not will see potatoes and rice listed as a safe starch and figure they are similar nutrition wise. In my experience a lot of people think potatoes are nutritionally devoid, probably because they happen to be white lol

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on June 23, 2011
at 11:55 AM

I'm 22 175 6'2", I do a ton of exercise ala john berardi's gflux method and I'm trying to gain an additional 20-25 pounds so that's mainly why my carbs are so high.

26b7615ef542394102785a67a2786867

(7967)

on June 23, 2011
at 11:55 AM

cliff, if you are eating a nutritious diet and are not deficient in anything, it *doesn't matter* if you eat some things that are nutrient-poor. There is no need for everything we eat to be as packed full of nutrition as possible, if all our needs are being met.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on June 23, 2011
at 11:52 AM

nice one. i like the point of sometimes eating something as purely a source of energy (read: glucose) as opposed to nutrition. Never thought about that way but that is indeed how i view some of my strategic over-feeding. Thanks

2507b557331c8a674bc81197531e609a

(4994)

on June 23, 2011
at 10:37 AM

This yes!! If I eat white potatoes I look like I'm 5 months pregnant, almost instantly!

B0454de6d4f4cdd9ca2e59021dc105bf

(606)

on June 23, 2011
at 06:39 AM

I was trying to be droll about the wife thing. So take it with a grain of salt (pun intended)!

8a4ce6a9e1ab27616920b828df08b259

(354)

on June 23, 2011
at 05:52 AM

Rice is just more fun to eat than potatoes sometimes. And keeps longer.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on June 23, 2011
at 04:06 AM

I never thought I'd be arguing with a potato DEFENDER. LOL, I'm glad the paleo community is shaken up.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on June 23, 2011
at 03:02 AM

If I can have potatoes I do, but often rice is the only option

26b7615ef542394102785a67a2786867

(7967)

on June 23, 2011
at 02:48 AM

I don't see anywhere in my post that I imply I 'need it'. I'm saying I can see no sound reason not to eat it. I get plenty of nutrients, and I don't agree that potatoes are 'safe' where white rice isn't. And I also eat white sugar. I'm just not a purist - it's fine if you are, but it's a bit silly to me that you seem to think white rice is *dangerous*.

26b7615ef542394102785a67a2786867

(7967)

on June 23, 2011
at 02:45 AM

Sweet potatoes give me heartburn and yogurt gives me pimples. I do eat a lot of white potatoes as I grow many bushels per year in my garden, but I have seen no evidence that it's more risky for me to be eating white rice than nightshades, and I like white rice. I also eat corn tortillas, Haagan Dazs and milk chocolate, the horror.

26b7615ef542394102785a67a2786867

(7967)

on June 23, 2011
at 02:42 AM

I like rice. And sweet potatoes give me heartburn.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on June 23, 2011
at 02:39 AM

I don't see why this is such an issue from the get go. Firstly, jaminet has a lot of dubious stuff on his site. Anyway, him included, I've never read any paleo person advocate white rice as a staple. It's a grain! Paleo is about not eating grains. The talk of whte rice is merely as another option in an otherwise grain-free quality diet.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on June 23, 2011
at 02:36 AM

Cliff, what makes you think and say that people don't realize that rice and potatoes don't have the same nutrient density? What people? Paleo? SAD folks? In either case I'd think most people understand that plain old whte potatoes have more vitamins etc than white rice.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on June 23, 2011
at 02:32 AM

Wow I thought I was high carb at 250 per day. 500? Powerhouse. What's your height, weight , and age? Just curious. I'm 31, 5'11", 175 lbs.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on June 23, 2011
at 02:31 AM

I'd have to go with cliff on this one. I daily consume between 2700 and 2900, occasionally more than 3k. None of this is rice. Sweet potatoes, white potatoes, carrots, yogurt are all I need to easily get there. I'm not saying don't eat rice ever, but just that with 3k as a caloric goal you can not claim to need rice. No way.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on June 23, 2011
at 01:25 AM

the biggest problem with white rice (in the absence of problems like phytic acid or lectins) is that it displaces more nutrient dense foods. YES!

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on June 23, 2011
at 01:23 AM

@Melissa That's what I'm saying who knows, with refined rice your taking a unnecessary risk towards optimal health. Potatoes are filling and nutrient dense. Rice is filling and nutrient poor. Unless you need rice for a specific culinary experience or have a legit allergy potatoes win hands down. Most people need more nutrient dense food, most people aren't tracking their nutrition. I could eat white rice and still get all my vitamins and minerals but I just eat more potatoes and get more nutrition. I don't assume my food is as nutrient dense as the USDA says.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on June 23, 2011
at 01:16 AM

@Melissa So why not just eat potatoes instead of rice and improve your nutrition without any extra effort? I know HG eat pure starch from many different sources but you and I are not HG and do not have the nutrient density of their diets. We rely on agriculture. If we were HG white rice would be fine. Agriculture foods aren't as nutrient dense as wild foods.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on June 23, 2011
at 01:12 AM

@pfw it's not about getting a deficiency it is about getting enough nutrition. Eating potatoes believe it or not improves a paleo diet, eating rice doesn't!

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on June 23, 2011
at 01:08 AM

guyenet eats processed brown rice and thinks white rice is nutrient poor and therefore not a good item to eat in our nutrient deprived civilization

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on June 23, 2011
at 01:06 AM

@ROB haha... make sure you use a lot of salt without enough salt potatoes are hard to eat, too much salt they taste like crap though ... Use butter or whatever(but not too much so the fat doesn't fill you up too much) and different spices if you want... eat them at every meal before you eat your protein so you don't become satiated from the protein... also you gotta be hungry from exercise(walking,weights,sports,etc) or you probably won't be able to eat enough volume of carbs

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on June 23, 2011
at 12:43 AM

At 2500-3000 calories you don't need rice unless you literally are allergic to every other whole food paleo carb source. I eat 4000 calories a day and have no problem eating 500+ grams from potatoes. It is just as easy to eat rice as it is potatoes. Potatoes are a nutrient dense "safe starch", rice is a nutrient poor "safe starch". Why would you eat rice over potatoes? If not purely for culinary satisfaction.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on June 23, 2011
at 12:41 AM

oh, but it brings up a question with the wikipedia data...were they measuring cooked or uncooked white rice?

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on June 23, 2011
at 12:40 AM

Fufu is freakin delicious. I need to learn how to make it.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on June 23, 2011
at 12:40 AM

sweeeeet I was wrong, here is some awesome data! http://www.fao.org/docrep/t0207e/T0207E09.htm

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on June 23, 2011
at 12:39 AM

I'm not scared of carbs I'd just rather eat nutrient dense carbs like potatoes over nutrient poor carbs like rice. People don't realize rice and potatoes don't have the same nutrient density.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on June 23, 2011
at 12:38 AM

And I don't have data on many hunter-gather foods post-processing. Maybe someday.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on June 23, 2011
at 12:37 AM

For me it's something filling to eat if there is nothing else available and it's an option for eating out and feeding the BF if he complains I didn't make enough steak. IMHO a lot of roots are garbage too. I stopped eating cassava when I looked at the nutritiondata. It's really just plain starch. Sago palm starch, relied on by hunter-gatherers, is similar.

742ff8ba4ff55e84593ede14ac1c3cab

(3536)

on June 22, 2011
at 11:48 PM

Cliff, you are my hero bro. I want to eat 500 grams worth of carbs as potatoes but I can't. How do you do it?

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on June 22, 2011
at 08:49 PM

lol! chris voigt doesn't have enough animal nutrition. His diet is a lot better then 20 servings of rice a day :)

4145b36f1488224964edac6258b75aff

(7821)

on June 22, 2011
at 08:49 PM

I've never seen a paleo writer advocate white rice as a staple food. I've only ever seen it in the context of basically a "starch supplement" for people who need to perform athletically or otherwise need more carbs for some reason. Virtually all paleo takes emphasize animal foods (meat and organs) as the way to get most nutrients, with plants as side dishes, and starches as needed. So I'm not sure what Paleo flavor advocates eating enough white rice to worry about beriberi or any deficiency.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on June 22, 2011
at 08:16 PM

People assume just because they eat paleo they are getting all nutrients. It is total bologna. And I would bet that a MOST people would benefit from eating less white rice and more whole food starches like potatoes. Or at least the white rice Gurus should give a explanation about how white rice is totally devoid of nutrition so you should make sure you're getting all nutrients and not assume paleo owns any diet in nutrition density. Or I guess we can supplement like all the gurus because hey they can't eat potatoes to get enough copper and magnesium.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on June 22, 2011
at 08:13 PM

"The USOs that hunter-gatherers use are usually toxic enough to require days of processing. Chemical toxicity doesn't make a food "paleo" or not." Is there any paleo food that traditional people eat that has phytic acid after processing? Since most paleo plants are poisonous unless processed I figured that the processing would get rid of the phytic acid. My whole post isn't about phytic acid, it is mainly about putting white rice and potatoes in the same category, which is very misleading to the average person(who does no research and doesn't input their food to see their nutrient density).

Af1d286f0fd5c3949f59b4edf4d892f5

(18472)

on June 22, 2011
at 08:11 PM

is you real name Chris Voigt?

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on June 22, 2011
at 07:47 PM

No i'm talking about grams of actual carbs 500g of carbs from potatos is around 2200g of potato flesh which is a little less than the amount I eat daily. A whole plate of pasta(however much that is?), some pizza and a couple beers isn't that much food...

Af1d286f0fd5c3949f59b4edf4d892f5

(18472)

on June 22, 2011
at 07:34 PM

i could eat a giant plate of pasta with bread for lunch, have 3 pieces of pizza and a couple beers for dinner, and still not even approach 500 carbs.

Af1d286f0fd5c3949f59b4edf4d892f5

(18472)

on June 22, 2011
at 07:32 PM

that's a lot of carbs cliff. do you mean 500 calories? which would be about 125 grams of carbs?

776bb678d88f7194b0fa0e5146df14f0

(1069)

on June 22, 2011
at 07:10 PM

No one is saying that white rice will be ok for everyone. That's not true of ANY paleo food - some people have allergies to beef of all things. Everyone is different - as has been said above, some people have problems with nightshades. As much as N=1 experimentation benefits us all, it can't be used to knock down a food completely. Paleo is a guideline, and everyone needs to see what works for them personally. I can eat rice with no problem at all, and pairing it with stews makes me happier - so I'll deal with the nutrient displacement by eating other foods too.

Fe29f6658ce67c1ecc4a22e960be7498

(2997)

on June 22, 2011
at 07:10 PM

ironic isn't it, that 'status symbols' - in excess - are so bad for one! Almost better to call them 'status diseases.'

776bb678d88f7194b0fa0e5146df14f0

(1069)

on June 22, 2011
at 07:00 PM

I wish that I preferred tubers to white rice all the time! As it stands I"m just starting to get used to more tubers... better than wheat though. "That Paleo Guy" recently had an interesting post where we went to an island and saw that rice was displacing tubers as a starch for people that moved away from their villages to the main city... it was seen as kind of a status symbol. http://thatpaleoguy.blogspot.com/2011/06/diet-and-lifestyle-of-people-of-vanuatu.html

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on June 22, 2011
at 06:36 PM

How can you not eat enough sweet potato to refill glycogen stores? I can easily ingest 500 grams of carbs via tubers

7d0c3ea9bf8be00b93e6433d8f125ac3

(7540)

on June 22, 2011
at 06:01 PM

+1 there's phytic acid and other antinutrients in so many foods. For most of us, trying to avoid them 100% will only lead to pointless obsessing about food.

Fe29f6658ce67c1ecc4a22e960be7498

(2997)

on June 22, 2011
at 05:29 PM

Also, their idea of "variation" at a party was several huge vats of white rice, each with different food coloring. So there would be a pot of red rice, blue rice, green rice and so on. Nothing like variety, eh?

776bb678d88f7194b0fa0e5146df14f0

(1069)

on June 22, 2011
at 05:09 PM

Good observation - the biggest problem with white rice (in the absence of problems like phytic acid or lectins) is that it displaces more nutrient dense foods.

D5cde8031564f905260ce9aa7a1f5e2c

(1170)

on June 22, 2011
at 04:30 PM

Nicely said, Namby Pamby. All these wife theories as of late make me a little uneasy.

3c6b4eed18dc57f746755b698426e7c8

(5152)

on June 22, 2011
at 04:12 PM

Well, Chris Kresser is also an advocate of white rice and he's not married to a Chinese woman. I think this "wife is leading us to do untoward Paleo thang" theory leaves much to be desired! Don's wife made him turn Ornish. Now Paul's wife has turned him into a white rice fiend? Paul's also into potatoes, yams, sweet potatoes, and yuca!

332d9f75d1077abafff6887681f6b130

(1081)

on June 22, 2011
at 04:08 PM

As far as "why would you do any grain over tubers" I'd say "because they taste good and don't kill you." Not everyone is 100% strict, nor does everyone have to be. Hell, Robb Wolf isn't 100% strict to his own version of the diet.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on June 22, 2011
at 03:04 PM

BTW the USOs that HGs rely on are usually so toxic that they require DAYS of processing to render edible.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on June 22, 2011
at 03:03 PM

Ipomoea, for example, contains oxalates and trypsin inhibitors. I did SO much worse physically and mentally when I was eating ipomoea. Chris, my boyfriend, gets sick from them too.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on June 22, 2011
at 03:00 PM

List the antinutrients in USOs and why they are benign. I don't think you seem to know much about it. They aren't well studied either, so that's expected. LOL has anyone you know gotten beriberi recently????

Fa9f340eddbad9a544184c688fa4dcdd

(6433)

on June 22, 2011
at 02:27 PM

Most plant matter contains some phytic acid, ranging from lowish amounts (tomatoes, okra e.t.c), moderate amounts (cocounts) and high amounts (cocoa, tea and leafy greens like spinach and kale).

3aea514b680d01bfd7573d74517946a7

(11996)

on June 22, 2011
at 02:23 PM

I would think beriberi would give anyone pause before declaring white rice a "safe" starch. In small amounts it might not be deadly, but I don't see that it's much safer than wheat flour, which, as far as I know, has never been behind an epidemic of thiamine deficiency (other long-term, chronic problems, yes, but beriberi is devastating and fast).

A15af22bd729ec030e8f47d1189b6eaf

(774)

on June 22, 2011
at 02:05 PM

Awesome picture! Yeah, phytic acid seems to be a real beast ...

B0454de6d4f4cdd9ca2e59021dc105bf

(606)

on June 22, 2011
at 01:47 PM

My theory on Jaminet's apparent love of white rice is his Chinese wife. My own wife is Chinese (well, Taiwanese). When I explain that maybe white rice is not so good for optimal health, I get the speech about Chinese people eating rice for thousands of years, blah blah blah. Bottom line: you try telling a Chinese person that rice is anything less than good for you and you happen to be that person's husband, well, basically you'll be sleeping on the sofa for a week.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on June 22, 2011
at 01:45 PM

What paleo foods? Nuts/seeds/grains(which real paleos processed with leaching in streams, roasting and what not)? I'm not obsessing about anything read my post above I'll eat a McDonalds tomorrow. Don't care about Paleo Nazism just pointing out that white rice is not comparable to other true safe starches and white rice should be treated like other grains(used minimally at most). Paul Jaminet makes it seem like if I ate a paleo diet plus rice I equal paleo diet plus potatoes, which is total BS check out the nutrient profile yourself.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on June 22, 2011
at 01:36 PM

"The dose makes the poison." True but I could argue that even small amounts of phytic acid is not good for someone avoiding dairy(calcium) and carbs(magnesium) like classic RobbWolf paleo. Then someone decides to eat some safe starch and hey white rice and potatoes are in the same category I love rice! *facepalm* Most people aren't looking at nutrient content of foods so they depend on these recommendations from so called experts.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on June 22, 2011
at 01:32 PM

All I'm saying is why would you do any grain over tubers which have way more nutrients and the nutrients are way more bioavailable. If you gonna start doing stuff because it taste good might as well start eating cookies or ice cream. I'm not a paleo nazi I'll eat rice, gluten, whatever don't really care. But it's misleading to put white rice in the same category as tubers. And it is misleading to call white rice a pure starch, why can't white flour be called pure starch because it ain't.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on June 22, 2011
at 01:31 PM

Great question cliff.......cause im not a buyer of Paul's theory either.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on June 22, 2011
at 01:28 PM

What else besides seeds/nuts/grains contains phytic acid? The anti nutrients in USOs are pretty benign compared to phytic acid. I don't see traditional cultures processing USOs unless they contain severely toxic compounds. But they all process seeds/nuts/grains right?

1ec4e7ca085b7f8d5821529653e1e35a

(5506)

on June 22, 2011
at 01:19 PM

What happens when you go too far back into the territory of "tolerate less than optimal" and you have to go back to super clean? There's a fine line and do you find yourself swinging back and forth?

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on June 22, 2011
at 01:15 PM

lol LOTS of "paleo" foods contain phytic acid. The dose makes the poison. USOs have their own antinutrients.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on June 22, 2011
at 01:10 PM

TL;DR. nice pic though:)

  • E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

    asked by

    (12857)
  • Views
    21.8K
  • Last Activity
    866D AGO
Frontpage book

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

21 Answers

best answer

19
A968087cc1dd66d480749c02e4619ef4

(20436)

on June 22, 2011
at 02:15 PM

Well, white rice is gluten/fructose/n6 free, so there's that. Suboptimal? Yes. Pure evilz? No.

Potatoes, even white ones, have a way better nutrition profile. But some people will do better on rice. I would say read, think, test and optimize yourself - there is no other way.

1f8384be58052b6b96f476e475abdc74

(2231)

on June 23, 2011
at 03:05 PM

i think a lot has to do with your gut health

8508fec4bae4a580d1e1b807058fee8e

(6259)

on January 15, 2012
at 01:20 AM

I like rotating through the safe starches - white rice, plantain, squashes/pumpkin, potatoes, yams, throughout the week. I find variety tastes good and you obtain different nutrients form different foods.

22
Af1d286f0fd5c3949f59b4edf4d892f5

(18472)

on June 22, 2011
at 05:15 PM

I'm sorry but I have to play on the side that there are greater things to worry about than the small amount of phytic acid in white rice. We avoid so much phytic acid eating Paleo as it is. Most people get far higher levels with all their whole grain consumption. White rice contains far less phytic acid than brown rice since the outside shell is removed. I pretty much see white rice as a starch filler. It doesn't really contain nutrients, but then again, that's not the point of rice. Sure, tubers have more nutrients, and I think tuber starch is better overall than white rice But in the context of a nutrient rich, whole foods diet, there is no way you are going to be gorging on enough white rice to be concerned about whatever little the phytic acid the rice has. It's not going to block the nutrition density in your other whole foods.

kresser, guyenet, harris, jaminets - they all eat some rice.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on June 23, 2011
at 01:08 AM

guyenet eats processed brown rice and thinks white rice is nutrient poor and therefore not a good item to eat in our nutrient deprived civilization

7d0c3ea9bf8be00b93e6433d8f125ac3

(7540)

on June 22, 2011
at 06:01 PM

+1 there's phytic acid and other antinutrients in so many foods. For most of us, trying to avoid them 100% will only lead to pointless obsessing about food.

Af1d286f0fd5c3949f59b4edf4d892f5

(18472)

on June 23, 2011
at 02:00 PM

nutrient poor - agreed. but deleterious? i don't really think so.

16
9e20abb05f3f6e3cc4bb107f8980aecd

on June 24, 2011
at 01:56 AM

Hi all,

I enjoyed this thread enough, I had to do a post about it: "Is Shou-Ching to blame for our rice habit?," http://perfecthealthdiet.com/?p=3855.

Best, Paul

21fd060d0796fdb8a4a990441e08eae7

(24543)

on June 24, 2011
at 02:15 AM

"Shou-Ching is so nice, when she gets mad at me she goes out and sleeps on the sofa!" Funny!

Af1d286f0fd5c3949f59b4edf4d892f5

(18472)

on June 24, 2011
at 04:30 PM

hi Paul - I was just returning to this thread to post your article. I see you beat me to it! I love how this got your attention.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on June 24, 2011
at 05:25 PM

Thanks for the clarification paul. I think you missed the point though, I wasn't totally concerned with phytic acid. My main concern is that eating rice will displace nutrient dense carbs from the diet which provide nutrients that liver, eggs and even most vegetables won't be able to provide in significant amounts such as magnesium and potassium. Most people assume they are getting all nutrients most don't actually check, this mindset combined with white rice can lead to sub-optimal nutrient intake.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on June 24, 2011
at 05:26 PM

Plus the RDA for magnesium is pretty damn low at 400mg. So even if you hit RDA are you optimal paleo? probably not.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on June 24, 2011
at 02:35 AM

Nice post. Very cool of you to take time out to discuss our little forum here. Cheers.

8508fec4bae4a580d1e1b807058fee8e

(6259)

on January 15, 2012
at 01:22 AM

Great post Paul - and safe starches worked well for the hubby and I. We don't eat huge amounts but the carbs amounts you recommended have worked for us. I think rotating through cassava, yams, potatoes, white rice, plantains, etc. (unless issues with any of them) for variety, nutrition, and taste is fine.

13
Fe29f6658ce67c1ecc4a22e960be7498

(2997)

on June 22, 2011
at 03:18 PM

Years I ago I spent some time in Micronesia - Truk mostly, and once took the "field trip ship" (a junker which could have been in a Humphrey Bogart movie). This rust bucket took a circuit around the "outer islands" every few weeks, mostly delivering people, cigarettes and bushels of white rice. And picking up people and sacks of copra (dried coconut - the locals never touched the stuff).

They had gotten into the white rice habit because of long-time occupation by the Japanese, and later after WWII they qualified for USDA money thus the bags of white rice (and Jane Fonda movies shown in grass huts - but that's another story).

You can totally predict what happened to them: a normally healthy and robust people suddenly encountered the "Western Diet" and lo! and behold they gain weight, get diabetes, need dentists - all the so-called "modern" diseases.

This wasn't solely caused directly by white rice of course. But because of that free rice dropped off on their beaches every month or so they weren't eating their traditional foods. Fewer fish because why bother with the canoes (and now chickens were everywhere)? The coconut groves and taro plants not tended, and so on. The cigarettes didn't help either.

So maybe white rice in small amounts is fine - but as a staple? I don't think so.

776bb678d88f7194b0fa0e5146df14f0

(1069)

on June 22, 2011
at 07:00 PM

I wish that I preferred tubers to white rice all the time! As it stands I"m just starting to get used to more tubers... better than wheat though. "That Paleo Guy" recently had an interesting post where we went to an island and saw that rice was displacing tubers as a starch for people that moved away from their villages to the main city... it was seen as kind of a status symbol. http://thatpaleoguy.blogspot.com/2011/06/diet-and-lifestyle-of-people-of-vanuatu.html

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on June 23, 2011
at 01:25 AM

the biggest problem with white rice (in the absence of problems like phytic acid or lectins) is that it displaces more nutrient dense foods. YES!

776bb678d88f7194b0fa0e5146df14f0

(1069)

on June 22, 2011
at 05:09 PM

Good observation - the biggest problem with white rice (in the absence of problems like phytic acid or lectins) is that it displaces more nutrient dense foods.

Fe29f6658ce67c1ecc4a22e960be7498

(2997)

on June 22, 2011
at 05:29 PM

Also, their idea of "variation" at a party was several huge vats of white rice, each with different food coloring. So there would be a pot of red rice, blue rice, green rice and so on. Nothing like variety, eh?

Fe29f6658ce67c1ecc4a22e960be7498

(2997)

on June 22, 2011
at 07:10 PM

ironic isn't it, that 'status symbols' - in excess - are so bad for one! Almost better to call them 'status diseases.'

5aa057aabe02e83299e1e2137eab05e2

(108)

on February 26, 2012
at 10:31 PM

I lived in Japan for awhile both as a student and beyond college. I lived with families, then friends. They were incredibly thin- as in, 125 lbs for a short man, maybe 140 for a 5'9 man ( so, ok, they are not so tall). But white rice 3x a day was pretty standard, and some form of soy at least once, maybe even 2 or 3x per day. Most vegetables, unless served in a nabe ( cooking pot) are in the form of pickles. Maybe a few radish sprouts delicately rolled in ham slices. Explain that.

12
Cc93847bfa820f0f2da654060b401fa5

(746)

on July 11, 2011
at 10:44 PM

I love how paleo crowd is worried sick about phytic acid in stuff like rice (easily soaked out in preparation of cooking mind you), but they'll wolf down nuts and nut butters like crazy which contain much higher levels (chart http://bit.ly/o1kV5W). This is a perfect example of brainwashing within the community.

Hey, we've all been there. Add on the widely excepted 80/20 rule (eating crap) or binge eating (more crap) because they're so carb starved trying to avoid these "anti-nutrients" and "sugar/carbs." Add it all up and it's probably bouncing off the amount of phytic acid in an industrial diet.

Ease up. It's not killing the asians and it's whole hell of a lot better than what you're consuming in your nuts and "20" time.

76f3ead3aa977d876bcf3331d35a36e9

(4620)

on July 11, 2011
at 11:19 PM

"they'll wolf down nuts and nut butters like crazy". Not really. Most posts I've seen around here talk about limiting nuts. Where do you get your information about the "paleo crowd"? Also, consider portion size. Majority of paleos are not going to eat 100g of nuts in a meal. Probably an ounce (28g). Whereas small, densely packed grains like oats and brown rice are easy to consume in amounts over 100g. Also, if you actually read some of the posts on "deathhacks" and not just the ones that are antagonistic to your opinion, you'll see that a very large chunk of us are carb friendly.

36b7a2776d028dc8d5743e2e56ece34d

(812)

on July 11, 2011
at 10:49 PM

I think the bigger issue is nutrient density of white rice. Cliff never said anything about avoiding carbs. In other posts cliff says he eats 500+grams of carbs per day.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on July 11, 2011
at 11:24 PM

Well I think poor Grok is just expressing a basic contrarian feeling. I been there. Not a big deal. I agree that many on hacks here aren't gobbling nuts. I'm sure some people somewhere are so I suppose he can say that.

Cc93847bfa820f0f2da654060b401fa5

(746)

on July 12, 2011
at 02:08 AM

I know cliff's not a carb phobe & I'm glad ;) @cliff, They do contain phytates roughly as much as white rice before the soaking ;) - @phoenix, Statement wasn't necessarily targeted at hacks community. More of a "open your eyes." Especially newbies. Will admit to seeing consumption coming down in the past year. Phytate levels still much higher even if the consumption of nuts is much lower. Dry weights. I do read many of them. Not interested in replying. @ben not a contrarian. You're probably my fav commenter BTW. See recipe/gourmet, cravers, newbies, low-carbers. Seen years of meal tweets.

76f3ead3aa977d876bcf3331d35a36e9

(4620)

on July 12, 2011
at 12:40 PM

Fair enough. I can attest to eating half a jar of almond butter in the first days coming off my SAD diet a few years ago.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on July 11, 2011
at 10:52 PM

I think you have a point in regards to a lot of paleo people but I think you missed this part of my post "So why would anyone eat white rice over potatoes or other underground storage organs which are legitimately paleo and don't contain phytic acid?". As Wavehunter stated I eat over 500 grams of carb a day so I'm definitely not carb phobic.

Cc93847bfa820f0f2da654060b401fa5

(746)

on July 12, 2011
at 02:36 AM

P.S. Answer wasn't about carbs either. Just a little rant about why people binge on junk in there.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on July 12, 2011
at 06:09 PM

All plant foods probably have small amounts of phytate, we don't the exact amount for mature potatoes but I assume its pretty damn low. White rice comes with virtually no nutrition though when compared to potatoes which makes it far inferior.

Cc93847bfa820f0f2da654060b401fa5

(746)

on July 13, 2011
at 09:10 AM

@cliff there are published studies on phytates in potatoes. Just google it. How to you prepare you potatoes? What about the acrylamide levels in them? This is a "six in one, half dozen in the other" debate.

11
E7a462d6e99fec7e8f0ddda11b34a770

(1638)

on June 22, 2011
at 04:18 PM

Don't forget that some of us with arthritis/autoimmune issues do better without nightshades - and that includes potatoes. So, a little bit of white rice in my sushi or a half a cup on my plate once in a while (WITH a liberal dose of good butter - yum) is NOT something I'm gonna stress about.

2507b557331c8a674bc81197531e609a

(4994)

on June 23, 2011
at 10:37 AM

This yes!! If I eat white potatoes I look like I'm 5 months pregnant, almost instantly!

6ec8d30130a6fb274871314533b5536b

(581)

on August 12, 2011
at 03:15 AM

Oh my gosh, can I relate. I seriously used to LOVE potatoes... in every and all forms. Lol. I loved all of the variations of cooking them... but they always made me feel weird. I didn't understand why until I did more research & found out about nightshades & Paleo, etc. It totally explains my aversion to eggplant, too. Bummer though, since I love taters...

10
9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on June 22, 2011
at 03:24 PM

I fixed Wikipedia. As you can see from the table now, taro and cassava have phytic acid too. I'll continue adding values from that paper later in the day. I seriously doubt any of you are in danger of beriberi. The USOs that hunter-gatherers use are usually toxic enough to require days of processing. Chemical toxicity doesn't make a food "paleo" or not.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on June 23, 2011
at 12:40 AM

Fufu is freakin delicious. I need to learn how to make it.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on June 22, 2011
at 08:13 PM

"The USOs that hunter-gatherers use are usually toxic enough to require days of processing. Chemical toxicity doesn't make a food "paleo" or not." Is there any paleo food that traditional people eat that has phytic acid after processing? Since most paleo plants are poisonous unless processed I figured that the processing would get rid of the phytic acid. My whole post isn't about phytic acid, it is mainly about putting white rice and potatoes in the same category, which is very misleading to the average person(who does no research and doesn't input their food to see their nutrient density).

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on June 23, 2011
at 12:41 AM

oh, but it brings up a question with the wikipedia data...were they measuring cooked or uncooked white rice?

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on June 23, 2011
at 01:16 AM

@Melissa So why not just eat potatoes instead of rice and improve your nutrition without any extra effort? I know HG eat pure starch from many different sources but you and I are not HG and do not have the nutrient density of their diets. We rely on agriculture. If we were HG white rice would be fine. Agriculture foods aren't as nutrient dense as wild foods.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on June 23, 2011
at 01:12 AM

@pfw it's not about getting a deficiency it is about getting enough nutrition. Eating potatoes believe it or not improves a paleo diet, eating rice doesn't!

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on June 23, 2011
at 02:39 AM

I don't see why this is such an issue from the get go. Firstly, jaminet has a lot of dubious stuff on his site. Anyway, him included, I've never read any paleo person advocate white rice as a staple. It's a grain! Paleo is about not eating grains. The talk of whte rice is merely as another option in an otherwise grain-free quality diet.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on June 23, 2011
at 01:23 AM

@Melissa That's what I'm saying who knows, with refined rice your taking a unnecessary risk towards optimal health. Potatoes are filling and nutrient dense. Rice is filling and nutrient poor. Unless you need rice for a specific culinary experience or have a legit allergy potatoes win hands down. Most people need more nutrient dense food, most people aren't tracking their nutrition. I could eat white rice and still get all my vitamins and minerals but I just eat more potatoes and get more nutrition. I don't assume my food is as nutrient dense as the USDA says.

4145b36f1488224964edac6258b75aff

(7821)

on June 22, 2011
at 08:49 PM

I've never seen a paleo writer advocate white rice as a staple food. I've only ever seen it in the context of basically a "starch supplement" for people who need to perform athletically or otherwise need more carbs for some reason. Virtually all paleo takes emphasize animal foods (meat and organs) as the way to get most nutrients, with plants as side dishes, and starches as needed. So I'm not sure what Paleo flavor advocates eating enough white rice to worry about beriberi or any deficiency.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on June 22, 2011
at 08:16 PM

People assume just because they eat paleo they are getting all nutrients. It is total bologna. And I would bet that a MOST people would benefit from eating less white rice and more whole food starches like potatoes. Or at least the white rice Gurus should give a explanation about how white rice is totally devoid of nutrition so you should make sure you're getting all nutrients and not assume paleo owns any diet in nutrition density. Or I guess we can supplement like all the gurus because hey they can't eat potatoes to get enough copper and magnesium.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on June 23, 2011
at 12:38 AM

And I don't have data on many hunter-gather foods post-processing. Maybe someday.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on June 23, 2011
at 03:02 AM

If I can have potatoes I do, but often rice is the only option

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on June 23, 2011
at 02:42 PM

No kidding. If my neighborhood gets another Thai joint I may have to move:) whenever we go out to one of them it's white rice for me.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on June 23, 2011
at 12:40 AM

sweeeeet I was wrong, here is some awesome data! http://www.fao.org/docrep/t0207e/T0207E09.htm

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on June 23, 2011
at 12:37 AM

For me it's something filling to eat if there is nothing else available and it's an option for eating out and feeding the BF if he complains I didn't make enough steak. IMHO a lot of roots are garbage too. I stopped eating cassava when I looked at the nutritiondata. It's really just plain starch. Sago palm starch, relied on by hunter-gatherers, is similar.

6
32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on June 22, 2011
at 01:41 PM

Lots of paleo foods also have low levels of phytic acid. White rice is as low in phytic acid as some paleo foods, so why not use it in your diet? Obsessing over low levels of anti-nutrients is likely more unhealthy than the anti-nutrients themselves.

Fa9f340eddbad9a544184c688fa4dcdd

(6433)

on June 22, 2011
at 02:27 PM

Most plant matter contains some phytic acid, ranging from lowish amounts (tomatoes, okra e.t.c), moderate amounts (cocounts) and high amounts (cocoa, tea and leafy greens like spinach and kale).

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on June 22, 2011
at 01:45 PM

What paleo foods? Nuts/seeds/grains(which real paleos processed with leaching in streams, roasting and what not)? I'm not obsessing about anything read my post above I'll eat a McDonalds tomorrow. Don't care about Paleo Nazism just pointing out that white rice is not comparable to other true safe starches and white rice should be treated like other grains(used minimally at most). Paul Jaminet makes it seem like if I ate a paleo diet plus rice I equal paleo diet plus potatoes, which is total BS check out the nutrient profile yourself.

6ec8d30130a6fb274871314533b5536b

(581)

on August 12, 2011
at 03:17 AM

Oops, I meant "the impact would probably be..."

6ec8d30130a6fb274871314533b5536b

(581)

on August 12, 2011
at 03:16 AM

Well, phytic acid aside, there's still the glycemic impact, and the fact that the body will probably freak out from the sugar, lol. But I dunno... I guess in combination with proteins, the impact wouldn't probably be significantly less. I mean, hopefully nobody's going to eat a bowl of rice by itself.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on August 19, 2011
at 07:30 PM

Why would the body freak out from the sugar? We are designed to consume and digest all macronutrients. Excess (in amount and frequency) carbohydrate is the problem (metabolic stressor). Moderate consumption is not an issue. A bowl or cup of rice now and then lies more on the moderation side of things.

6ec8d30130a6fb274871314533b5536b

(581)

on September 14, 2011
at 04:01 AM

Well, I also think one's metabolic response also depends on their own individual health. For example, I'm pre-diabetic and suffer from insulin resistance. So, for myself anyway, my body would definitely freak out from sugar, and any excess would not be properly dealt with. So for myself, anyway, I pretty much have to stay away until my metabolic health problems are dealt with. :)

5
C0cf19329f850011e66d1ccfa7d10896

(268)

on October 05, 2011
at 12:25 AM

Paul Jaminet's blog post 'Can there be a carbohydrate deficiency?' Dr. Rosedale's response.

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=201273169942000

i.e. Paul Jaminet's blog post 'Can there be a carbohydrate deficiency?' i.e. Is there a need for carbs?;

Paul Jaminet answers his question affirmatively by stating, "The brain is the biggest determinant of glucose needs. While other primates need only about 7% of energy as glucose or ketones, humans need about 20%. Compared to other primates, humans have a 12% smaller liver. This means we can???t manufacture as much glucose from protein as animals can. Humans also have a 40% smaller gut. This means we can???t manufacture many short-chain fatty acids, which supply ketones or glucogenic substrates, from plant fiber. So, while animals can meet their tiny glucose needs (5% of calories) in their big livers, humans may not be able to meet our big glucose needs (20-30% of calories) from our small livers. So any carbohydrate deficiency disease will strike humans only, not animals." Though good thoughts, I must disagree with Paul conceptually and factually. The brain needing 20% glucose is only under conditions of insufficient adaptation to burning ketones. Basic metabolic textbooks talk about adaptation to carbohydrate "starvation" when the brain starts deriving the vast majority of its energy needs from ketones derived from fat metabolism. After several weeks of adaptation the brain can derive at least 80% of its energy needs from ketones. After a longer period of time it can derive more. Regardless, the remainder of the brain's energy needs can be met from gluconeogenesis using glycerol derived from the breakdown of triglycerides as substrate such that gluconeogenesis derived from amino acids is minimal to nonexistent, sparing lean mass. In fact, my patients who strictly adhered to my very low carbohydrate dietary recommendations generally increased lean mass without increasing exercise.

The size of the human liver has little to nothing to do with its metabolic abilities. Rather, it's adaptation to available nutrients and even more importantly its control by, and indeed its sensitivity to metabolic hormones such as insulin and leptin are much more important to its function. Eating 100 g of glucose forming carbohydrates daily is enough to sufficiently raise insulin to shut down ketone production by the liver resulting in the necessity to use glucose as fuel by the brain. As such, what Jaminet is recommending is a self-fulfilling prophecy; requiring the consumption of glucose forming carbohydrates such as potatoes and rice increases blood glucose and insulin enough to greatly reduce ketone production, necessitating the use of glucose by the brain. This is not good. I have talked decades about the change in brain function when it converts from glucose to primarily ketone use; it becomes much healthier. Studies are now pouring in on the connection between glucose and chronic brain diseases. Jaminet rightly mentions the benefit of increasing ketone use in epilepsy. Epilepsy is an extreme of an over excitable brain. Is it possible that a brain primarily burning ketones as its primary fuel may function better all of the time? I believe strongly that the answer to this is yes.

Further counterpoints to the need for carbs;

I have never seen a list of essential nutrients that included a single carbohydrate. This means, that as far as current science knows, a human being does not have to take a single gram of carbohydrate their entire life to maintain health. This is because it is well known that although there is a certain need for carbohydrates and sugars, the body can make what it needs from other sources, either triglycerides or proteins. If the body is using fat as its primary fuel, then it needs (much) less glucose. The glucose that is necessary (more for anaerobic red blood cells than the brain) can either come from glycerol from the breakdown of triglycerides or from glucogenic amino acids that would be much less desirable. Deriving glucose from amino acids from protein requires either the consumption of excess protein???not good (I have written much about this previously) or the breakdown of lean mass???obviously not good, but no choice if one can't eat i.e. while sleeping. So the real question becomes, not whether carbohydrates are needed, but what other sources will the body use as substrates to make the glucose that it needs while not necessitating oral consumption. By far, the best substrate for glucose manufacture is glycerol, but this is largely only available if one is oxidizing fatty acids from triglycerides, and this is not possible when one consumes glucose forming foods such as rice and potatoes thus raising insulin and leptin and shutting off fatty acid oxidation.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on March 06, 2016
at 01:45 AM

Thank you Ms dietary zealot. Let us now eat our Holy Foods grass-fed buffalo and denigrate the poor people who must eat rice to survive. This kind of logic used to be associated with Nazi genetic exceptionalism and other racisms. Oh, and there's the quilt....

3c6b4eed18dc57f746755b698426e7c8

(5152)

on October 05, 2011
at 03:15 AM

Quilt, isn't the argument not whether carbs are essential but that carbs are preferred as glucose rather than via gluconeogenesis? The latter is more stressful on the body and is "hormetic". There are far more starchy-based diets than ketogenic diets. So which form of metabolism are humans adapted to? Both, probably. But which is it more suited based on sheer exposure by many more tribes than the Masais and Inuits?

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on October 05, 2011
at 02:44 AM

Fiona,Vanderbilt University did a meta analysis about 5 yrs ago with a supercomputer on the optimal diet.....the results revealed the top fifty foods one could live on were all devoid of carbs......So your point is well taken. Our bodies dont need carbs at all. Our livers can make the carbs we need. People think they need carbs therefore they become essential to their own biases. Their perception becomes their reality. We are omnivores so we can use carbs if they exist. In paleo times carbs were plentiful in summer months in the northern and southern hemispheres and yr round at equator

3c6b4eed18dc57f746755b698426e7c8

(5152)

on October 05, 2011
at 03:19 AM

In other words, ketosis seems to be a temporary adaptation designed to be hormetic, just like intermittent fasting. As humans, we're metabolically flexible. But being flexible doesn't mean one should become ketogenic indefinitely. Intermittently, yes, in times of famine. But all the time when you have tubers abound? I mean, why kill yourself corralling a boar when you have a tuber already dug up with your walking stick?

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on October 05, 2011
at 02:46 AM

The brain needs no glucose.....it can run on ketones indefinitely. I can show you many cases in our ICU's on ketogenic diets for months overcoming brain injuries who walk out of the hopsital intact neurologically. The notion that our brain needs glucose is 1960's nonsense.

5
07c86972a3bea0b0dc17752e9d2f5642

on June 23, 2011
at 02:08 PM

I eat white rice (about 1 serving of rice for every two or three servings of potatoes) because I like it and it's loaded with starch.

I don't understand the controversy. Coconut oil has absolutely no nutrients in it at all. Tons of people here advocate eating hundreds of calories of it by the spoonful and no one calls them out on it. Fat in general is extremely poor in nutrients compared to other things. But fat is essential for health and body functions just like starch (plant fat!).

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on June 23, 2011
at 02:14 PM

I think this is because fats in general are a poor source of nutrition unless you eat whole plant fats. I personally don't think eating 100s of calories from coconut oil is the best option over something like butter or animal fat which have more nutrients.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on June 23, 2011
at 02:33 PM

Hey that is a great point about coconut oil, well done. In our rejection of SAD many of us have an unhealthy tendency to glom onto fats, etc in a contrarian reaction without fully realizing what we are doing. Fats, while healthy and satiating and essential, are indeed not needed in the amounts espoused by many paleo folk. Nothing wrong with a lot of fat but for certain people with specific goals fats are low priority beyond the amounts needed to function.

5
667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on June 22, 2011
at 01:15 PM

TL;DR. nice pic though:)

I jest. Because it tastes good, prolly. Its just another not-too-bad food option. There are people on these boards that have been doing the paleo thing for quite some time (years) and I suppose after a while the mind will wander. I do sprouted corn tortillas pretty regularly, too.

Also, the healthier one gets from a good clean, basic paleo template (there you go, Chris, used template for you!) practiced for a long time, the more you can tolerate, and run pretty darn well off of, less-than-optimal options.

1ec4e7ca085b7f8d5821529653e1e35a

(5506)

on June 22, 2011
at 01:19 PM

What happens when you go too far back into the territory of "tolerate less than optimal" and you have to go back to super clean? There's a fine line and do you find yourself swinging back and forth?

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on June 22, 2011
at 01:32 PM

All I'm saying is why would you do any grain over tubers which have way more nutrients and the nutrients are way more bioavailable. If you gonna start doing stuff because it taste good might as well start eating cookies or ice cream. I'm not a paleo nazi I'll eat rice, gluten, whatever don't really care. But it's misleading to put white rice in the same category as tubers. And it is misleading to call white rice a pure starch, why can't white flour be called pure starch because it ain't.

332d9f75d1077abafff6887681f6b130

(1081)

on June 22, 2011
at 04:08 PM

As far as "why would you do any grain over tubers" I'd say "because they taste good and don't kill you." Not everyone is 100% strict, nor does everyone have to be. Hell, Robb Wolf isn't 100% strict to his own version of the diet.

8a4ce6a9e1ab27616920b828df08b259

(354)

on June 23, 2011
at 05:52 AM

Rice is just more fun to eat than potatoes sometimes. And keeps longer.

3
B9cc28905ec54389c47cde031d709703

on June 23, 2011
at 10:08 AM

I eat a bowl of white rice often. But I don't eat it as a source of nutrition I eat it as a source of pure energy, much like I do when I eat extra butter/cream, or coconut oil. My strategy has been to meet my daily requirements (e.g. basal/resting metabolic rate) with a balanced paleo diet, meat and it's included fat, roots, and fruit. Any calories spent over my basic needs I feed with white rice. I experimented with regular potatoes and sweet potatoes at first as a post workout meals but I found the results to be satisfactory and white rice to be superior. So for me it seems my body is able to assimilate the white rice faster. So typically I'll eat 5 raw egg yolks and a cup of rice after a workout.

I think the only time things like rice become a problem is when you allow them to invade the nutritious part of your diet i.e. take away from the overall quality of the nutrients your eating to meet your basic needs.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on June 23, 2011
at 11:52 AM

nice one. i like the point of sometimes eating something as purely a source of energy (read: glucose) as opposed to nutrition. Never thought about that way but that is indeed how i view some of my strategic over-feeding. Thanks

3
Medium avatar

on June 22, 2011
at 05:37 PM

I can't eat enough sweet potato to replete my glycogen stores, so I have to supplement with rice. If I did no resistance training I would skip it for sure. I tend to eat it at times of low dietary mineral density, so I doubt that the phytic acid content makes much of a difference. Problems would occur if it comprised a large portion of your diet as a whole and were eaten all day long.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on June 22, 2011
at 06:36 PM

How can you not eat enough sweet potato to refill glycogen stores? I can easily ingest 500 grams of carbs via tubers

Af1d286f0fd5c3949f59b4edf4d892f5

(18472)

on June 22, 2011
at 08:11 PM

is you real name Chris Voigt?

Af1d286f0fd5c3949f59b4edf4d892f5

(18472)

on June 22, 2011
at 07:34 PM

i could eat a giant plate of pasta with bread for lunch, have 3 pieces of pizza and a couple beers for dinner, and still not even approach 500 carbs.

742ff8ba4ff55e84593ede14ac1c3cab

(3536)

on June 22, 2011
at 11:48 PM

Cliff, you are my hero bro. I want to eat 500 grams worth of carbs as potatoes but I can't. How do you do it?

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on June 22, 2011
at 08:49 PM

lol! chris voigt doesn't have enough animal nutrition. His diet is a lot better then 20 servings of rice a day :)

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on June 23, 2011
at 02:32 AM

Wow I thought I was high carb at 250 per day. 500? Powerhouse. What's your height, weight , and age? Just curious. I'm 31, 5'11", 175 lbs.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on June 23, 2011
at 11:55 AM

I'm 22 175 6'2", I do a ton of exercise ala john berardi's gflux method and I'm trying to gain an additional 20-25 pounds so that's mainly why my carbs are so high.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on June 22, 2011
at 07:47 PM

No i'm talking about grams of actual carbs 500g of carbs from potatos is around 2200g of potato flesh which is a little less than the amount I eat daily. A whole plate of pasta(however much that is?), some pizza and a couple beers isn't that much food...

Af1d286f0fd5c3949f59b4edf4d892f5

(18472)

on June 22, 2011
at 07:32 PM

that's a lot of carbs cliff. do you mean 500 calories? which would be about 125 grams of carbs?

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on June 23, 2011
at 01:06 AM

@ROB haha... make sure you use a lot of salt without enough salt potatoes are hard to eat, too much salt they taste like crap though ... Use butter or whatever(but not too much so the fat doesn't fill you up too much) and different spices if you want... eat them at every meal before you eat your protein so you don't become satiated from the protein... also you gotta be hungry from exercise(walking,weights,sports,etc) or you probably won't be able to eat enough volume of carbs

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on June 23, 2011
at 02:41 PM

Word. Makes sense. Back in the day I prolly put that amount back, too. Thanks for the info. I did the exact same gain: 26 lbs since last November. At 22 you shouldn't have any issues.

3
8c5533ffe71bd4262fedc7e898ead1ba

on June 22, 2011
at 02:53 PM

Yea, I think white rice go in because it is gluten-free. And white is better than brown. But I don't know if I have read anyone saying white rice over potatoes. Usually the folks that say white rice is okay are also saying potatoes are okay.

Each to his own. Neither work for me, but that's fine.

2
26b7615ef542394102785a67a2786867

on June 22, 2011
at 10:11 PM

We believe it's benign because it's pretty dang benign, compared to many other starch sources.

I have to eat upward of 2500-3000 cals per day just to maintain my weight and activity level (I'm still too thin). 100g or so of white rice most days is a drop in the bucket and the negligible amount of anti-nutrients aren't going to hurt me, nor is 370 kcals from rice going to replace more nutrient-dense foods. I'm way over my RDA on most nutrients already.

I have food sensitivities so if it doesn't hurt me, I will eat it. White rice treats me well, I enjoy it, and I'm no paleo purist, but it doesn't have a bad anti-nutrient profile at all. Being controlling and/or anxious about your food is less healthy IMO than eating some 'Neolithic' or un-nutritious foods.

26b7615ef542394102785a67a2786867

(7967)

on June 23, 2011
at 02:42 AM

I like rice. And sweet potatoes give me heartburn.

26b7615ef542394102785a67a2786867

(7967)

on June 23, 2011
at 02:45 AM

Sweet potatoes give me heartburn and yogurt gives me pimples. I do eat a lot of white potatoes as I grow many bushels per year in my garden, but I have seen no evidence that it's more risky for me to be eating white rice than nightshades, and I like white rice. I also eat corn tortillas, Haagan Dazs and milk chocolate, the horror.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on June 23, 2011
at 04:06 AM

I never thought I'd be arguing with a potato DEFENDER. LOL, I'm glad the paleo community is shaken up.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on June 23, 2011
at 12:43 AM

At 2500-3000 calories you don't need rice unless you literally are allergic to every other whole food paleo carb source. I eat 4000 calories a day and have no problem eating 500+ grams from potatoes. It is just as easy to eat rice as it is potatoes. Potatoes are a nutrient dense "safe starch", rice is a nutrient poor "safe starch". Why would you eat rice over potatoes? If not purely for culinary satisfaction.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on June 23, 2011
at 02:36 PM

Drawing from what an answer above said, I'd agree with animalcule here. Things like coconut oil are devoid of nutrients yet we perhaps overeat them with no issues. If the bulk of food is good stuff, supplying good nutrition across the board, then other items tha have less ideal nutrient-composition aren't a problem

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on June 23, 2011
at 02:31 AM

I'd have to go with cliff on this one. I daily consume between 2700 and 2900, occasionally more than 3k. None of this is rice. Sweet potatoes, white potatoes, carrots, yogurt are all I need to easily get there. I'm not saying don't eat rice ever, but just that with 3k as a caloric goal you can not claim to need rice. No way.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on June 23, 2011
at 12:03 PM

@animalcue its risky because you displace a nutrient dense food you could have eaten with a nutrient poor food. I don't think rice is dangerous, I just think it's dumb to put it in the same category as other better safe starches. I also see no point in displacing nutrient rich carbs with nutrient poor ones, unless you are making some specific culinary item(sushi for example).

26b7615ef542394102785a67a2786867

(7967)

on June 23, 2011
at 02:48 AM

I don't see anywhere in my post that I imply I 'need it'. I'm saying I can see no sound reason not to eat it. I get plenty of nutrients, and I don't agree that potatoes are 'safe' where white rice isn't. And I also eat white sugar. I'm just not a purist - it's fine if you are, but it's a bit silly to me that you seem to think white rice is *dangerous*.

26b7615ef542394102785a67a2786867

(7967)

on June 23, 2011
at 02:12 PM

Why do you think everything needs to be 'nutrient dense'? If the needs of your body are being well-met and you have no nutrient deficiencies, there is no drawback to consuming foods without many nutrients.

1c67bc28f4e44bbb8770b86df0463df3

(6719)

on May 13, 2013
at 05:43 PM

This is absurd - the idea that you are going to get your 'nutrients' from a carb source. There are not any dense carbs that have a great nutrition profile. That is what other foods are for. duh

1
D3dafb602c2ef9c6c7a8733696326482

(110)

on March 04, 2016
at 12:21 PM

A major problem with grains, especially refined grains, is that they are highly bacteriogenic; they promote bacteria in mouth (leading to cavities), in stomach (leading to H Pylori infection), in the small intestine (leading to SIBO) etc. This is a major change since paleolithic times, it is a result of the agricultural revolution. More recently the introduction of sucrose in large quantities have made problems worse.

The problem is that bacteria feed on the "bond" between the glucose molecules in the starch and the bond between fructose and glucose in sucrose. Fruits, especially ripe fruits, and honey provide very little sucrose, only the monosaccharides. Tubers/potatoes have some strong anti-microbial properties to protect themselves against the yeasts/molds and bacteria in the wet soil. These substances to some extent survives cooking. Additionally the structure is different ("cellular carbs" as mentioned by Ian Spreadbury), making it in general harder for microbes to utilize it as food. So paleo carbs; fruits, root vegetables and small amounts of honey, won´t cause much issues in terms of bacteria (and yeast overgrowth), hence cavities was never a problem.

Ironically, while whole grains or brown rice have more toxins, they also have more anti-microbial properties, so for some people they are actually better than refined grains. A "toxin" like phytic acid is also a strong anti-antioxidant, which actually protects to some extent against the harmful effect of too much polyunsaturated fats in the western diet.

Yeasts, on the other hand, feed on monosaccharides. It has been shown that while sucrose feed cavities, honey, especially manuka honey, prevents cavities.

Analysis of long fermented milk suggest that the bacteria has broken down almost all the lactose into galactose and glucose, while the absolute amount of carbohydrates is unchanged. The bacteria also produced lactic acid which is anti-yeast. Fermented milk may protect against yeasts but make things like small intestinal bacteria overgrowth worse, and perhaps lead to more cavities.

 

Now, we should think of the average western diet and the result of this would be excess bacteria and even yeasts, as those in some extent are also increased as a result of increased bacteria. Other microbes may also proliferate as the body´s ability to deal with microbes in general is diminished.

So a person on this unhealthy western diet should get the bacteria and yeast count down. If the person removes the grains, he may instead get an increase in yeast infections, which was previously kept to some extent in check by the bacteria. So it is important to do things slowly and by following some strict principles.

In my opinion the best solution would be to go for a diet with lean meat, some fruits (but only the more acidic ones like apple, strawberries, kiwi fruit etc, not banana), some potatoes. Add in some raw carrot with every meal (kills both yeasts and bacteria). This will get the bacteria and yeast count down dramatically. It may only take a few days or weeks to see significant results. Lots of people mix things up and think the candida is the problem when it may be SIBO or H Pylori or other bacteria infections.


Thereafter smaller amount of undesirable foods may be added. I think the average american diet may at least to some extent be tolerated if the person regularly ingest various anti-microbial herbs and substances, such as garlic, italian herbs (i.e. oregano), add some cinnamon (which is a bark) and ginger to teas and cappucino, some raw carrot, very small amounts of fermented foods like max 1/2 cup yogurt per day, extra virgin olive oil and vinegar, some dairy fats (rich in short chain fatty acids), a bit of coconut oil. Replacing some of the refined grains with whole grains may offer some advantages due to their anti-microbial properties.

Any traditional diet that includes a lot of grains, be it refined or whole grains, would have ample amounts of such anti-microbial substances. Then it may not cause much harm and white rice may be fine. Just study the typical italian diet, it is abundantly rich in anti-microbials.


As regards the point of glucose vs brain related diseases, I think this is predictable due to the bacteria many glucose foods (like grains and sucrose) promote and the link between cavities and brain diseases. It´s infection of the brain that comes from oral microbes, essentially, whether we´re talking about epilepsy or alzheimer´s disease. The amyloid plaque in alzheimer´s disease seems to be a type of anti-microbial substance.

1
215d3126214343a5760316f195a06b97

on June 22, 2011
at 10:50 PM

I actually never liked rice. But when I am craving an english muffin or toast I will buy those gluten free breads made from rice flower hides
Y'know, once in awhile, I'm not perfect :D

1
C074eec3b3c0325ef3018a128111823a

(1012)

on June 22, 2011
at 09:59 PM

There is also the convenience factor, especially when eating out. Unless you're avoiding carbs completely for ketosis or heavy-duty weight loss, knowing that you don't have to be "scared of" a little rice now and then means that many more potential meals and snacks don't have to be excluded.

So, potentially, eating rice may lower cotisol levels :)

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on June 23, 2011
at 12:39 AM

I'm not scared of carbs I'd just rather eat nutrient dense carbs like potatoes over nutrient poor carbs like rice. People don't realize rice and potatoes don't have the same nutrient density.

26b7615ef542394102785a67a2786867

(7967)

on June 23, 2011
at 11:55 AM

cliff, if you are eating a nutritious diet and are not deficient in anything, it *doesn't matter* if you eat some things that are nutrient-poor. There is no need for everything we eat to be as packed full of nutrition as possible, if all our needs are being met.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on June 23, 2011
at 11:58 AM

I think most people who have been doing paleo for a while would realize that but the random newbs and what not will see potatoes and rice listed as a safe starch and figure they are similar nutrition wise. In my experience a lot of people think potatoes are nutritionally devoid, probably because they happen to be white lol

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on June 23, 2011
at 02:39 PM

I suppose back when Atkins was popluar the potato got demonized across the board and so people prolly associated it with not much nutrition. And the whole "don't eat white things" is indeed out there. But I think in the last ten or so years especially the goodly amount of vitamin C in white potatoes has gotten wide attention. And more generally are you perhaps over-valueing Jaminet's work? I certainly don't think his offering should be one of the initial info-sources for newbs. His stuff I've always considered on the periphery at best.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on June 23, 2011
at 02:36 AM

Cliff, what makes you think and say that people don't realize that rice and potatoes don't have the same nutrient density? What people? Paleo? SAD folks? In either case I'd think most people understand that plain old whte potatoes have more vitamins etc than white rice.

0
Medium avatar

(10611)

on March 06, 2016
at 01:42 AM

It's interesting to see what we were arguing about here 5 years ago. And how few of the arguers still participate in Paleohacks.

These old debates make Paleo look like a self-righteous theology for the rich.

Maybe people started to realize that questions like this don't benefit anyone, and make them look like total assholes.

It's not like they're going to convince people living in east asia that they should starve rather than eat rice.

0
Dd885473a79a3f8d9311759e8a91b36d

on January 03, 2013
at 03:47 PM

To Fiona: no need of carbohydrates?

Ok, you can use ketosis, but if you use it is stressing or (after some time) even harmful to your body in a strong way - your kidneys and liver will be overused if you use proteins/lipids as the main source of energy for your brain.

It is not that body is not capable of using other source but it have its cost. It is a waste of energy to develop glucose from non-carbohydrate source. Also there are lot of toxins during process and also you will become more acidic which is no good... I do not say you have to eat tuns of carbohydrates but to state that we don´t need them at all is risky...

0
74f5d2ff6567edd456d31dfb9b92af61

(5227)

on June 22, 2011
at 05:48 PM

I'm glad you brought this up. I, for one, cannot digest white rice. It sits like a rock in my stomach for days.

However, I can eat tubers just fine. :)

If white rice is so "safe", though, why can't I eat it? I'm genuinely curious, since I'm a bit miffed that I cannot eat sushi without knowing full well that I'll be sequestered in my house all the following day. What is it about tubers that delights my stomach, but rice (and to be fair, all grains and pseudocereals), which bloats and binds me up?

776bb678d88f7194b0fa0e5146df14f0

(1069)

on June 22, 2011
at 07:10 PM

No one is saying that white rice will be ok for everyone. That's not true of ANY paleo food - some people have allergies to beef of all things. Everyone is different - as has been said above, some people have problems with nightshades. As much as N=1 experimentation benefits us all, it can't be used to knock down a food completely. Paleo is a guideline, and everyone needs to see what works for them personally. I can eat rice with no problem at all, and pairing it with stews makes me happier - so I'll deal with the nutrient displacement by eating other foods too.

Answer Question


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