Paleo Diet and Paleolithic Diet Questions & Answers

Question

6

I read "Primal Body, Primal Mind", and among many valid points, the one that stuck out to me was the authors strict insistence on avoiding the consumption of fat in the presence of carbs. Healthy fats are great but you shouldn't pair them with carbs because that will cause weight gain. Soooooo..... should I not be coating my sweet potato in butter or olive oil when baking?? Should I avoid sauteeing my veggies in CO? I'm confused!

flag	asked Mar 2 2012 at 0:10 PaleoGal 897●6●17

1

They could cause weight gain because obviously you would be consuming more calories than if you just ate the starch by itself or the fat by itself. You could easily consume a huge amount of calories. – ROB Mar 2 2012 at 0:50

7

or it could just be woo – Evolutionarypsy Mar 2 2012 at 1:12

4

I thought it was a law that I could only consume sweet potatoes in the presence of butter? Oh, sorry, that's a preference. Never mind. – Nance Mar 2 2012 at 1:16

4

That recommendation of her's is ridiculous. 99% of the people on this planet eat those macros together at the same time all the time. That combining fat and carbohydrate would magically lead to weight gain is as silly as saying that only calories matter, rather than the holistic view of hormones, calories, macronutrients etc. – ben61820 Mar 2 2012 at 2:17

2

If it is "woo" then Stephan Guyenet is into "woo" too. Go back through the FR series and look at his recommendations. Dry potatoes, boys and girls. If you must eat fat, then eat it SEPARATE from the potato. No, not a bite of potato and then a bite of butter. Separate. Eating fat+ starchy carbs especially is big woooo hooooo food reward. And there is, of course, merit to this, no matter how you frame it. It would be a very rare person who would overconsume dry potatoes. So, go Nora and go Stephan. – Atkins-witha-loincloth Mar 2 2012 at 2:50

show 5 more comments

Nora Gedgaudas · Answer 1 · 2012-03-02 19:07:13Z UTC

Dear Nance--

“The deleterious effects of fat have been measured in the presence of high carbohydrate.

A high fat diet in the presence of high carbohydrate is different than a high fat diet in the presence of low carbohydrate.” ~Richard Feinman, PhD

When we speak of "high carbohydrate" in this context, we mean sugar and starch, not fibrous veggies (which are fine--even great combined with fat). Fat is less likely to be used as a primary fuel if sugars are present and is more likely to be stored undesirably. With respect to your sweet potato, if you have a weight problem or metabolic dysregulation this is more likely to be an issue. Sweet potatoes are far more fibrous and less "glycemic" than white potatoes, so they are a "better" choice, but I would personally (not telling you what to do) keep that portion to a minimum (especially if functioning in ketosis is your goal) and definitely under 100 grams. My two bits. ~Nora

Rogue Nutritionist · Answer 2 · 2012-03-02 01:22:52Z UTC

Well, Nora Gedgaudas is a very low carb promoter. She really doesn't advocate eating root veggies at all, and isn't that into fruit. She does, however, advocate eating fat to satiety with lots of low sugar vegetables and small amounts of meat/eggs. People like Paul Jaminet talk about the importance of adding plenty of fat to your starch to slow down the effect on your blood sugar handling system. I find that with plenty of fat, I feel god including some starchy veggies in my diet. Sans fat, starch is not my friend. Perhaps this is one of those areas where we are all unique, and need to practice self experimentation to determine what works for our own body.

Kamal · Answer 3 · 2012-03-02 21:49:47Z UTC

For the bodybuilder wannabe's out there, you might remember this debate from Dr. John Berardi's recommendation on "T-Mag" back in the day. He ends up backing a little away from this recommendation, I believe. Note how one of the roundtable members brings up the word "grok" in the Robert Heinlein context, not in the paleo context :)

If I remember correctly, I did a quick look at pubmed reviews with the exposure being "carb+fat" bolus compared to either alone, and did not find compelling evidence. This was around ten years ago though. Note that this is in isocaloric comparisons.

As mem points out above, this is important for food reward though. Potato alone is very sucky compared to potato+butter+bacon.

Also, large doses of carbohydrate and fat together do have an impact on acute indices of liver health, especially in those with developing NAFLD, NASH, etc.

peter · Answer 4 · 2012-03-02 01:15:41Z UTC

4

Sounds like insulin paranoia. I wouldn't worry about it.

answered Mar 2 2012 at 1:15

peter
6,340●2●6●29

1

Actually the paring would greatly lower an insulin spike so I don't know what its about. – JayJay Mar 2 2012 at 1:26

Indeed, I totally agree. However, Taubes theory is that increased insulin makes you store fat, therefore carbs + fat = insulin induced fat storage. – peter Mar 2 2012 at 1:30

3

I like T.S. Wiley's description of fat as a condom to protect us from the impact of carbs. – Happy Now Mar 2 2012 at 9:38

Evelyn aka CarbSane · Answer 5 · 2012-03-02 01:20:53Z UTC

3

So long as your calories are in check -- yes those still count -- there's nothing about separating carbs or fats that means a thing.

I recently outlined my own reasons for separating the two but this is from a strategy point of view because I'm not keen on calorie counting. For me, if I eat carbs with minimal fat, or fat with minimal carbs, I'm pretty much OK eating ad libitum. High fat+carb for any extended period will get me in trouble w/o some sort of conscientious control. http://carbsanity.blogspot.com/2012/02/separating-carbs-fats-my-rationale.html

answered Mar 2 2012 at 1:20

Evelyn aka CarbSane
7,916●8●31

	The nutty ideas people come up with, then turn around and bark about food engineering. I prefer engineering food to taste good not bad. Nothing here convicts me enough to stop sauteeing the broccoli rabe with the sausage or the Brussels sprouts with the bacon. – thhq Mar 2 2012 at 4:48
	Great post, Evelyn. Thanks for linking. – gydle Mar 2 2012 at 6:29
	Thanks gydle! @thhq: I'm not sure how to take your comment. I'm not trying to say not to do those things you mention -- I don't consider that mixing carb and fat anyway. I do think that for those who find veggies fattening it ain't the veggies themselves responsible! – Evelyn aka CarbSane Mar 2 2012 at 14:02
	@evelyn, I was careful not to mention starches, which raises other issues. Both of those cole vegetables release digestible carbs, and no doubt some VLCers will lump them with the starches for separate cooking. That's what I thought was overengineering it. – thhq Mar 2 2012 at 23:15

DFH · Answer 6 · 2012-03-02 01:03:54Z UTC

0

If you are doing this to lose some weight, the carbs at some point slow that down. If your weight is fine, don't worry about it.

answered Mar 2 2012 at 1:03

DFH
1

	How do the carbs slow it down? – Anonymous Chump Mar 2 2012 at 1:09
	@Anonymous Chump, if you add the carbs without adjusting your protein or fat you may shift from energy deficit to equilibrium or surplus. I've done it both ways. – Nance Mar 2 2012 at 1:17
	Got ya, Nance. I didn't perceive that he was talking about calories-in, calories-out. And LOL at this silly name I have. Seeing it in your response looks pretty funny! – Anonymous Chump Mar 2 2012 at 1:22
	Why just the carbs? They both contain weight loss slowing calories. It seems like the path of least danger for me is steaming some of that somewhat lean smoked NY strip sitting in the freezer with some of those Brussels sprouts for dinner....hey thanks for the idea! – thhq Mar 2 2012 at 4:55
	The whole point of lowering carbs to lose weight is to adapt your body more to burning fat for fuel, and leave your sugar burning (different internal process) dormant. This approach says that any carbs activate your sugar burning which is what you did low carb to avoid. There is some trail an error involved and lots of things like hormonal health. – DFH Mar 2 2012 at 5:33

No fat in the presence of carbs?

6 Answers