Blog

2

How many have tried a low fructose but moderate carb diet for weight loss? I think it was Travis Culp who mentioned this was working for him for weightloss. Many paleo eaters are against much fructose but OK with potato as long as a person's blood sugar is healthy. Will this work for weight loss too? Or do those with unhealthy weight gain already have damaged metabolisms (even if no obvious blood sugar probs) such that this will not work for them? How many have tried it? Do we really need to cut back on carbs in general to lose weight or is it really mostly the fructose that is the problem?

flag

7 Answers

4

My contention is simply that fructose is subject to the glycogen saturation point of the liver, whereas glucose can be partitioned into the glycogen stores of the muscles as well, or simply consumed by any of the cells in the body. I'd love to have a glycogenmeter that told me the % full like my laptop battery, but as it is, we have something of a black box where we need to estimate saturation. I've read that most people have a capacity for glycogen storage in their liver of about 85-100g, and probably 3-4X that for muscle glycogen. As such, as soon as you top off your liver, that extra fructose molecule is going to be stored as fat, even if your muscles are severely depleted of glycogen.

So, while it's obviously possible to saturate all glycogen system-wide and store excess starch consumed as fat, it's far less likely than if you were consuming fructose. The amount of glucose that we can store as glycogen depends on the amount of muscle we have but also on our activity level. I think it's important to have a sliding scale for starch consumption that might start at something like 50g as a safe minimum and go up as high as we are active. I think an athlete could easily consume 300g without storing a gram of it as fat. Most of us aren't that active, or if we are, it's not day after day.

I think we just need to experiment with it to find the correct amount for a given day's activity, and adjust the amount as our activity ebbs or flows. I also have a gut feeling that the pace at which you consume starch affects the likelihood of it being stored as fat. This is to say that 50g of mashed potato carbs consumed rapidly, even in the presence of a nice 50g slot empty in glycogen could still be partially stored as fat if we overload our insulin response's ability to store it as glycogen and create a situation where it either gets stored as glycogen or the hyperglycemia damages our cells. I have no proof of this, but I suspect that the glycogen partitioning process bottlenecks quickly and necessitates lipogenesis. I play it safe and consume whatever amount of starch I decide on for the day over the whole course of the day instead of, say, in a single meal. More chance of being below the saturation point of both glycogen and insulin.

link|flag
2 
 "...as soon as you top off your liver, that extra fructose molecule is going to be stored as fat..." This not quite correct. Excess fructose or glucose can be converted into fat. However that fat will only be stored if you are overconsuming total calories, if not it will be used for energy like any other fat in your body. – Matt Feb 19 2011 at 12:37
All adipocytes are constantly in a depletion/repletion flux; I do not dispute this. – Travis Culp♦ Feb 19 2011 at 18:53
Not sure if it makes that much difference. If your muscles are glycogen depleted, then they pull more glucose and the liver responds by releasing glycose. So seems to me, you should not ever get a state where liver is full of glycogen but muscles are depleted. It's a less direct process, though, with fructose than with glucose. And surely there is much we still don't understand. – Eva Feb 20 2011 at 4:24
As for glycogen reload, I actually think there is plenty of evidence for your bottleneck theory cuz no matter how ideal the diet or how much carbs are ingested, the body apparently cannot replace deeply depleted glycogen faster than about 22 hours in a perfect situation. Basically, there is a point where the body can go no faster and more carbs do not realize any faster gains. So there is your bottleneck right there. The body can only convert to glycogen at a certain rate. Interesting info here: thesportjournal.org/article/… – Eva Feb 20 2011 at 4:26
Much of the fat stored is from ingested fat. High blood sugar forces it into storage. Hence avoid eating a lot of carbs when eating a fatty diet. – thhq Dec 22 2011 at 2:39
show 4 more comments
2

A key point that these questions are overlooking is the power of isocaloric diets.

If you eat 2000 calories of potatoes vs 2000 calories of fruit vs 2000 calories of beef, and have the same level of physical output, the weight difference between groups would be much smaller than you'd think. And that is a very extreme example.

There are quite a few old school bomb calorimeter studies that show just how austerely a calorie is a calorie. Good Calories Bad Calories is a bit different in that different nutrients have different effects on appetite, physical activity, and nutrient partioning. For many of us, overeating because of a few grams of a certain macronutrient is not as big of a problem as for the general populace...

BECAUSE IT'S HARD TO OVEREAT ON STRICTLY PALEO FOODS!

Which to me is one of the best parts of paleo. If I eat as much meat/veg/tuber as I want, a piece of fruit or two is quite enough to satiate me for the day. That may differ between people, as some are fruit-a-holics, but the general message still stands. I've regulated my diet very carefully in the distant past with daily calorie intakes for bulking and cutting cycles, and the weight is almost spot on when measured at the same time of day, accounting for water weight and a small amount of random error.

link|flag
More directly on the starch question-- take a look see at the potato industry guy who ate only potatos for however many months and lost weight. The starch vs fructose question is moreso one of association with disease development, not weight gain in controlled diets. – Kamal♦ Feb 19 2011 at 3:14
I think the potato guy probably lost weight because almost any severely restrictive diet causes weight loss. After eating a few tons of any single food, you get sick of it. As for calories in, calories out, I absolutely did not overlook that calories count, but IMO, the big drivers of caloric intake are appetite and metabolism which fructose and perhaps carb intake do influence strongly. I am simply moving directly to the heart of the problem. Caloric intake is determined mostly by appetite. Also, you may not be influenced by just a few fruits a day but I am and so are many others. – Eva Feb 19 2011 at 3:33
1 
 I would also like to add that if I ate paleo with plenty of fresh fruit and potato each day, I would gain weight again. I've already experimented with this. Paleo is good for general health but the only really successful diets I have ever been on for weight loss have been low carb or lower carb. Paleo is not enough by itself unless it is a lower carb version of paleo. So my question now is if it's all carbs that are a prob or just fructose. In recent months all my carbs came from fruit and veggie, so I have already played the no starch version. – Eva Feb 19 2011 at 3:38
1 
 The prob with potato man is we don't know what he ate before the taters. Taters may well be an improvement over general SAD eating. And I don't think calorie control in the long run has much to do with skills. Sure you can fight cravings for months or even years, but most will fall off the wagon eventually. The more realiable method to controlling intake is to control cravings and the only way I know of to do that, short of drugs, is some kind of paleo and/or lowcarb plan. But paleo alone doesn't do it for everyone. – Eva Feb 19 2011 at 5:36
1 
 If your strict paleo I believe eating fruit is fine when it is in season. As for starch I am not a buyer. I think occasionally it is fine....for others just not me. I also shun yams and sweet potatoes as well. It has to be taken in context. If your fit with a good metabolism you can eat it...........but if your trying to age well.........you should avoid these things as much as possible – The Quilt Feb 19 2011 at 5:46
show 12 more comments
1

Everyone is different.You just have to play around and find the level you can deal with.I can eat some white rice and lose weight,but white potatoes will cause my pants to be unbutton-able in a matter of hours,as will bananas.

link|flag
LMAO! SOmehow you made it sound funny! – Eva Feb 19 2011 at 5:37
Walking around with an extender on my waistband because I ate 6 french fries IS pretty damn funny. – bittykitty Feb 19 2011 at 13:35
Me too! I just cannot eat potatoes without looking 4 months pregnant within hours! – Carly Feb 19 2011 at 16:47
Wow, I thought you were exagerating but apparently not. Hmm, well 6 french fries obviously can't cause much weight gain by themselves. Seems to me it might be some kind of water retention side effect or somesuch. Of course, I am not sure how much actual tater is in many of those fries. A lot of them are only a little bit tater and a lot of other weird crap. – Eva Feb 20 2011 at 3:31
I'm corn intolerant(most fries have dextrose added for coloring)so I either made my own,or bought the organic kind with no additives.Still same result.No real way to explain it,but at least I'm not crazy :) – bittykitty Feb 20 2011 at 12:37
1

starch isn't great but its needed if you do hardcore training. it's also good if you eat a little at least each day, but i wouldn't advise high starch for no particular reason. needless to say, starch >>> fructose

link|flag
starch >>> fructose is a ridiculous comment cause nobody chooses between a sweet potato and powdered fructose, they choose between whole foods, and all fruit are a mix of glucose/sucrose/fructose. – conciliator Dec 22 2011 at 3:37
not today's hybridized/gene-altered fruit thats bred to have extra sugar. its low on nutrients, high on the shuga – DH Dec 22 2011 at 21:54
0

Get a glucose meter. You can find them cheap at CVS and Walgreens now. (Might want to ask around at some diabetes message boards to make sure they're accurate enough.) Test your blood sugar an hour after you finish eating a meal with potato in it.

If you've gone over 140 mg/dl, quit eating potatoes.

Starch works fine for healthy people, especially when backed with a decent amount of fat, which modulates the blood sugar response. Plus, whatever minerals are in the starchy food are better assimilated with fat accompanying them. (Of course, none of this applies to the glutenous grains. They're pretty much bad news for everybody, although some traditional people have figured out how to minimize the health damage they cause.) But once your metabolism's damaged, you're going to have trouble. All digestible carbs turn into sugar in the body, and most overweight/obese people have trouble metabolizing sugar.

It sucks, because potatoes are yummy and cheap, but I think you want your pancreas more than your potatoes.

link|flag
I already have a glucometer. I originally got it to test my dog when he became diabetic but also have used myself as the guinea pig. If I eat a ton starch or sugar, I can spike my blood glucose up to 130 for a short while but it goes back down quickly. I have no obvious blood sugar problems no matter what kind of crap I eat. Who can say for sure about my insulin levels though. That requires a diff kind of testing and I could be where the problem lies. But my pancreas islet cells seems to have no problem keeping up with their job so far, even when called on to work unfairly hard. – Eva Feb 19 2011 at 5:43
I also want to point out that many overweight people have normal blood sugar readings. I suspect there must be other types of metabolic damage like insulin resistance etc that are coming in to play. Some people have very robust islet cells that will never get overwelmed no matter what. – Eva Feb 19 2011 at 5:46
@eva my blood glucose was 200 fasting when I was obese. I got it down to normal levels within 2 weeks by severely restricting high glycemic carbs (starches and sugars). But I was still obese. Until I lost weight eating high glycemics triggered very high blood glucose spikes. – thhq Dec 22 2011 at 4:39
0

I'm having good results with starch on my blood sugar... An hour after a meal of legumes (I think they're starchy right?) and my blood sugar is only up to 105. If I eat a lot of sugar I can get my blood sugar up to 220, so that's really good. The best part is that for some reason, starch doesn't cause me to get a candida outbreak, even if my blood sugar does go up from it. Usually, if I eat sugars (sometimes even fruit) I get a candida outbreak on my mouth, a yeast infection, acne, and a heavy feeling in my stomach, and then I fall asleep no matter where I am and what I'm doing. But with starch, this never happens. Starch doesn't let my candida diet off mind you, but it does not cause outbreaks. I am really starting to think that it was the fructose that was really bothering me and causing blood sugar mania, and binge eating. Since eating a diet of starch, vegetables and some meat here and there, It's IMPOSSIBLE to binge eat, I eat one meal a day and I'm good. Before this, I would eat ALL day and obsess about food all day. Now I have the time to get to other parts of my life, like exercise, because mindless eating isn't enjoyable unless it contains fructose.

Is fructose the thing that makes food taste sweet? What is the thing responsible for a sweet taste? Because I find that with the exception of grains, the sweet taste is what gets my candida and blood sugar in chaos. I even feel a little off after just eating sweet peas.

So starch seems to work for me :) EXCEPT all grains, they aggravate me the most for some reason...

link|flag
Fructose is a much stronger sweetener than glucose (regular corn syrup) or lactose. – thhq Dec 22 2011 at 4:28
0

My thinking on this question is evolving. Reading articles and reactions by many of ancestral eating's heavy hitters on the "safe starch" debate, I noticed that pretty much all of them recommended between 50 and 150g of carbs per day. They didn't agree on the best sources of the carbs but they all seemed to recommend what would be "low carb" compared to SAD.

My own 60-100g is divided pretty much 50/50 between non-starchy vegetables and fruits; since I eat salads, volume of plant matter is greater than volume of fruit. The occasional starches I prefer are rutabagas and bananas.

Anyhow, I'm now nearly convinced that if I am eating a low to moderate amount of carbs it probably doesn't matter which sources I choose on a given day as long as I avoid wheat. There's no evidence at all of GI, liver or kidney stress as long as my total intake is moderate.

I decided to respond to your question because I can't seem to lose weight if I eat either white or sweet potatoes even if I cut back on my other carbs. The problem carbs may vary from person to person, since others say they can't lose when eating fruit--you really need to experiment by eating then not-eating your favorite carbs to see how your weight loss efforts are affected.

link|flag

Your Answer

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.