100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1
11

Any thoughts on Kurt Harris' taxonomy of carbohydrate?

by (18671)
Updated about 17 hours ago
Created February 02, 2011 at 3:42 PM

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

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

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

100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1
18671 · September 02, 2011 at 2:12 PM

Thanks !

B0fe7b5a9a197cd293978150cbd9055f
8933 · September 02, 2011 at 1:47 PM

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

034c678bff434ab3781e3f1771018af9
279 · February 05, 2011 at 4:11 PM

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

Ba686a7b91a9c04f18170dd4ac762968
764 · February 04, 2011 at 5:47 AM

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

034c678bff434ab3781e3f1771018af9
279 · February 04, 2011 at 3:27 AM

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

4b97e3bb2ee4a9588783f5d56d687da1
22913 · February 03, 2011 at 2:32 PM

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

4b97e3bb2ee4a9588783f5d56d687da1
22913 · February 02, 2011 at 9:18 PM

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

21fd060d0796fdb8a4a990441e08eae7
24523 · February 02, 2011 at 5:22 PM

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

6fa48935d439390e223b9a053a62c981
1676 · February 02, 2011 at 5:08 PM

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

  • Total Views
    1.4K
  • Recent Activity
    Medium avatar
  • Last Activity
    96D AGO
  • Followers
    0

Get Free Paleo Recipes Instantly

5 Answers

Medium avatar
4
39841 · February 03, 2011 at 2:00 AM

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

5edbf85deaf83e13b176df023abb154d
4
1293 · February 02, 2011 at 4:10 PM

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

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

6fa48935d439390e223b9a053a62c981
1676 · February 02, 2011 at 5:08 PM

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

21fd060d0796fdb8a4a990441e08eae7
24523 · February 02, 2011 at 5:22 PM

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

D67e7b481854b02110d5a5b21d6789b1
3
4086 · February 02, 2011 at 9:31 PM

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

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

4cf0cfd9bcd0029cd690048305373169
0
10 · February 03, 2011 at 12:51 PM

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

034c678bff434ab3781e3f1771018af9
0
279 · February 03, 2011 at 2:35 AM

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

034c678bff434ab3781e3f1771018af9
279 · February 04, 2011 at 3:27 AM

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

Ba686a7b91a9c04f18170dd4ac762968
764 · February 04, 2011 at 5:47 AM

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

4b97e3bb2ee4a9588783f5d56d687da1
22913 · February 03, 2011 at 2:32 PM

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

034c678bff434ab3781e3f1771018af9
279 · February 05, 2011 at 4:11 PM

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

Answer Question

Login to Your PaleoHacks Account

Get Free Paleo Recipes