Paleo Diet and Paleolithic Diet Questions & Answers

Question

3

Was safe a poor choice of words? With regards to safe starch and fats what does the term safe mean to you? Was there a better term to use?

flag	asked Mar 10 2012 at 6:48 Eric 22.5k●1●17●68

3

I don't know ... starches that don't have anti-nutrients like photic acid, lectins, glutin, etc is accurate but who wants to use that ;). – Beth-WeightMaven Mar 10 2012 at 12:07

1

Phytic acid has health benefits, life isn't black and white. – conciliator Mar 11 2012 at 0:06

orust · Accepted Answer · 2012-03-10 08:06:07Z UTC

I don't like food couched in terms of danger and safety, it feels too much like orthorexia. "Safe starch" is framing the issue from a low-carber's perspective - "you can get away with this". If you're comfortable with the idea we've been eating tubers for hundreds of thousands of years they're just normal starches. Ditto normal dietary fats. If you're switching from a very low carb diet how about acceptable starch to get the ball rolling :)

Nigel Kinbrum · Answer 2 · 2012-03-10 09:10:48Z UTC

7

Paul Jaminet made it perfectly clear that the word "safe" referred to the lack of glutens that could cause problems for some people.

answered Mar 10 2012 at 9:10

Nigel Kinbrum
157●3

Thank You Nigel!!! – Eric Mar 10 2012 at 9:40

JRAC · Answer 3 · 2012-03-10 10:52:52Z UTC

4

Not a poor choice at all.

If the low carbers actually bothered to read Paul's blog they'd know perfectly what a safe starch was as opposed to relying on chronic low carbers to explain what safe means.

answered Mar 10 2012 at 10:52

JRAC
1,464●2●5

2

well when wondering about what a word means, a lot of people go to a dictionary. – gydle Mar 10 2012 at 11:44

1

Safe starch isn't used as a phrase. It's a concept. Not hard to grasp unless your brain is chronically deprived of glucose of course. – JRAC Mar 10 2012 at 12:52

nothing is safe if it increase NPY in winter.....period. – The Quilt Mar 10 2012 at 15:27

5

The Quilt is right, I once ate a carb in winter. Now I'm fat, and I have cancer. Same thing killed my sister. – conciliator Mar 11 2012 at 0:07

4

Stressing about NPY in winter is worse for your health than NPY in winter......period. – conciliator Mar 11 2012 at 0:13

show 1 more comment

gydle · Answer 4 · 2012-03-10 11:43:53Z UTC

2

I think it's a very unfortunate choice of words. The word "safe" automatically conjures up its opposite, "dangerous" in many peoples' minds. People who don't have the time or inclination to read blog posts (or don't know about the blog post to begin with) are going to be put off by a group of people who are conflicted about whether or not things like rice and sweet potatoes are dangerous.

answered Mar 10 2012 at 11:43

gydle
4,945●3●16

2

But it is pretty much a paleo principle that grains and legumes are not healthful foods owing to their anti-nutrients. – Beth-WeightMaven Mar 10 2012 at 12:04

I think it's a matter of degree, too. Gluten can indeed be dangerous for some people and is unhealthful for everyone. I suppose a word had to be used to differentiate things that are more harmful (dangerous?) like gluten and grains from things that are less harmful like sweet potatoes and potatoes. I just don't personally think "safe" was a good choice. Pushed to come up with another word, though, I'd pick something like "neutral" or "healthy". – gydle Mar 10 2012 at 14:05

But who calls grains and legumes "starches"? Nobody I know ever did. I always considered legumes just legumes (mostly protein) and grains grains (carbohydrates). I really get the feeling I'm missing something here. Occam's razor, anyone? – gydle Mar 11 2012 at 14:53

Was safe a poor choice of words when describing starch and fat?

4 Answers