Blog

16

3

Paul Jaminet responds to Ron Rosedale's rebuttal. Good debate going on here. Thoughts?

flag
6 
 My first thought is "Look! Gentlemen having a real debate! Nice!" My second thought is "Wow! Here are some real big hitters hashing out a topic that has many perplexed." – none Nov 2 2011 at 19:49
2 
 Rosedale response will be epic. That response is a target rich enviroment for Ron. Right in his wheelhouse – The Quilt Nov 2 2011 at 21:05
3 
 I want to read this very carefully before I comment, but my first impression is that it is a bit nitpicky. Anything that draws Rosedale out for comment is nice. – The Loon Nov 2 2011 at 22:22
2 
 @namby the black swan is that several groups of people with high starch diets live as long, and longer than others. so what i'm getting at is this: these groups eat high starch diets. these groups live longer than us. people in the low carb camp, some who are extremely smart people who i respect, trip all over themselves trying to explain it away. that's what i'm focused on. the actual BG levels don't concern me because these people live to be old with them being whatever they are. i want to focus on that. – luckybastard♦ Nov 3 2011 at 19:42
3 
 "If you examine the charts Stephan put up on his blog, you'll note that a certain portion of the Khitavans do become insulin resistant after a certain age" Where are these charts? – cliff Nov 4 2011 at 0:07
show 13 more comments

10 Answers

18

I think irrespective of your opinion about PHD, how can you not respect Paul Jaminet for the way he conducts himself? With class, with science, with humility, with acknowledgement of the unknowns and "best guesses".

I do not agree with the notion of optimal macronutrient ratios as specified in PHD, but I definitely accept the notion of safe starches - I better since I am eating 50+% carbs

Ron Rosedale notes in the comments on the PHD blog that there are a lot of things to correct and Paul graciously said he would welcome a guest post to respond. This kind of healthy debate is awesome! Looking forward to it!!!

link|flag
1 
 How can you NOT appreciate the two of them? Keeping to the issues. I really need to re-read it STAT now that my baby is napping! – none Nov 2 2011 at 19:53
2 
 I am not familiar enough Rosedale's work or posts to comment. But I know enough to know he is a big hitter too. – Aravind Nov 2 2011 at 19:55
Dr Rosedale posted an extensive rebuttal here:livinlavidalowcarb.com/blog/… – AdrianaG Nov 2 2011 at 20:20
Actually this is Jaminet's rebuttal to Rosedale's rebuttal. – Paleo2.0 Nov 2 2011 at 20:30
1 
 I had the pleasure of seeing a Paul Jaminet presentation and asking him a couple dumb questions. He can explain anything to anybody! Dummies, smarties, low-carbers, high-carbers. His wife was also very sweet and appears to be a quiet genius. In summary, I will always be a fan of the Perfect Health Penguin. – Kamal♦ Nov 3 2011 at 14:21
show 3 more comments
17

Just FYI: here are the posts under debate in order (edit if new ones come along)

link|flag
1 
 M, you should be an editor for a mag – ben61820 Nov 3 2011 at 13:28
3 
 So pleased when a debate is more about getting correct information figured out than it is about "winning." Getting the best information out means that everyone wins. – Anonymous Chump Nov 3 2011 at 23:14
12

The thing that I am most curious about is the thyroid issue. Dr. Rosedale recommends a lower thyroid function for longer lifespan while the Jaminets question whether this sacrifices short term health. I have read other people who recommend a higher thyroid function for optimal health. Healthy thyroid ensures proper protein synthesis, bone formation and immune health - I think.

PHD is very balanced in my opinion. It's a middle road and I find that refreshing. Also Paul is pretty awesome.

But then again I think Dr. Rosedale is awesome too.

So much to think about.

link|flag
5 
 It is however always risky aiming for longevity effect in your elderly years. It would be a bit of a downer if you lived you whole life maximizing longevity, potentially at the cost of living as well today, and then get run over by a bus when your 65. – Matt Nov 2 2011 at 21:00
2 
 I don't think people who believe there is no level of starch consumption that is "safe" are very balanced... – Bread-Eating Beelzebub Nov 2 2011 at 22:05
7 
 Maybe Dr Rosedale was mauled by a potato as a child? j/k – Matt Nov 2 2011 at 22:20
5 
 Oh dear that was a bad joke. – Matt Nov 2 2011 at 22:57
3 
 No, not at all Matthew. It's just that you are foreign and your jokes don't translate. Good thing I am Scottish by heritage. My epigenetics allow me to laugh at your jokes. :) – none Nov 2 2011 at 23:07
show 7 more comments
8

I would like to see more discussion about optimum fasting blood glucose. I had always heard that 70-80 was "optimal," but Jaminet is leaning higher than this.

link|flag
i saw that too, p2o. the ironic thing is it's usually the low-carbers who have fbc in the 100 range. – luckybastard♦ Nov 2 2011 at 20:24
I think this is because of what the prospective study Rosedale himself cited showed. Lowest mortality rates closer to 100 for FBG. – Evelyn aka CarbSane Nov 2 2011 at 22:13
1 
 It's certainly not evidence that lower blood glucose is better as Carbsane showed so well, but I also can't buy that higher glucose is the best. Like Namby said, it denotes insulin resistance. That is a sign that something is wrong, there is no reason for it to be that high when fasting other than that clearance is impaired. Like I mentioned on Carbsane's blog, low blood glucose could be indicative of a problem in some situations but not others. Could those in the study with low glucose be secreting large amounts of insulin and have constant hyperinsulinemia? Then they would be in trouble – Stabby Nov 3 2011 at 5:26
2 
 Beta cell loss has much to do with lipotoxicity, one of the things that causes insulin resistance, so beta cell loss from diabetes could be largely from that and not so much the insulin. – Stabby Nov 3 2011 at 5:30
2 
 Also inflammation, remember how type 1 diabetes gets started. It is hard to see regular consumption of a moderate amount of carbohydrate to be the big bad guy here. – Stabby Nov 3 2011 at 5:31
show 3 more comments
6

Major points to Mr. Jaminet for presenting the technical info so clearly. This is exactly what I'm (selfishly) looking for as often as possible. I especially appreciate it because he's under no obligation to communicate in such detail with non-scientists such as myself. This dialogue seems to be right on the cutting edge of what we should all be trying to learn, whether we are older and wishing to avoid prediabetes or younger and trying to maximize the length of our vigorous adult life.

link|flag
1 
 and it's free. heh. – luckybastard♦ Nov 2 2011 at 20:15
4

Yes...THAT'S WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT...this feels like a team straight out of "The Longest Yard"...we have spent a lot of time hashing out personalities and views that are not so far apart. Now we are all pulling together with a stronger sense of focus and purpose. As all the different players and supporters line up together, aiming in the same direction (with a few minor disagreements...ok) we can refocus on the real opponents. Big Pharma, The ADA, Big Agri Business, Big Governmental Policy, The FDA...the Media (the parts that are bought off)...big games are ahead but it is starting to feel like a team...let's keep our eye on the ball now...(here is where the theme music comes in and we see a collage of all that has gotten us here and we rise up off the locker benches and head out into the sun and stadium...) the public cheers although they don't know why yet...

link|flag
4

this is what i think about the safe starch subject

alt text

link|flag
I don't get it :) – ROB Nov 3 2011 at 22:57
Lolo, is that just some random picture with no real point? If so, I support the spirit of your post and vote it up! – Anonymous Chump Nov 3 2011 at 23:16
Head up a$$, perhaps? – Dave S. Nov 8 2011 at 19:08
3

I think both Rosedale and Jaminet (and the others involved in this massive "safe starch" debate) make excellent points. And I think to some degree, they are both correct.

So what can we make of this? I think the "safeness factor" is different for different peeps.

Por ejemplo: My sdLDL, VLDL, trigs all went to the moon when I introduced a significant amount of safe starch into my LC diet. Those familiar with my situation know that there is much more to my circumstance than the re-introcution of safe starches, but nonetheless, the fact the my lipid numbers went nasty on me as soon as I added tubers and white rice is a true statement and I am still smack dab in the middle of fleshing out what changes I need to make.

But then we've got other Paleo folks who eat loads of safe starches who are fit, claim to feel very healthy, and have lab numbers that most believe are very nice, with low trigs, solid HDL, and primarily pattern A large LDL (which is still basically believed to be the more healthy LDL particle type).

This is where individual dietary tweaking comes into play. For me.. what if I eliminate safe starches altogether and my lipid numbers "improve" and I feel better and am thrilled about life? Would any amount of scientific mish mash "proving" otherwise have any affect on my stance? Highly unlikely.

It is pretty clear that examples of good health lie on both sides of this equation. There will always be die hard low carbers with N=1 testimonies as their backbone of conviction. And there are also plenty of safe starchers that are seeing excellent results and will stand their ground based upon their experience.

So it seems to me that trying to choose one side over the other so fiercely just might be a lost cause. Rather... I continue to read and soak up this stuff like a spounge for the pearls of knowledge and to gain a balanced perspective. The debate iteself is critically important and immensely helpful because there are many people in each camp.

link|flag
Jack, I don't know if you saw my recent reply to Namby about this TG elevation: You might also see a change like this if your overall diet has a particular TG output that remains constant but your activity level or the way in which you are active changes. This is where the carbs come in. It's not that you are eating more carbs per se, it's that your mitochondria are oxidizing fewer lipids if you are not sufficiently active in the fasting/pre-carb state. – Travis Culp♦ Nov 3 2011 at 19:54
1 
 This is my current working hypothesis about elevated TGs in general. The TG generation is likely the same on a VLC diet or that diet plus carbs, but what changes is the lipid oxidation amount, i.e. the amount of those TGs that are being utilized for energy, specifically by cardiac and skeletal muscle. This doesn't mean that you are better off without starch, it means that your VLC diet "hid" your TG synthesis level and that in order to keep it below 50, let's say, you just need to be doing more fasted low intensity activity, which is healthy anyway. – Travis Culp♦ Nov 3 2011 at 19:56
One could also do the same amount of activity, but do it all in the fasted/pre-carb state and probably reduce their TGs. We have to accept that VLDL-TG is not a poison circulating through your bloodstream (that's PFOA's job) it's simply an innocent lipoprotein transporting energy. If you put a bunch of trucks on the road but never unload their cargo, you can't complain about the traffic. It just so happens that eating carbs makes you preferentially unload cargo from trains instead of trucks. Sometimes I wonder about my analogies.... – Travis Culp♦ Nov 3 2011 at 19:59
Travis - Nope. I haven't seen that reply. I will look for it though. I wonder if adding a short "cardio-centric" workout in a fasted state would be good. Currently I just do weights, but on my non weight days, I might do well to have some focused activity that is specifically low intensity. Haven't tried this yet. The only low intensity activity I get is fast paced walking basically daily. – Jack Kronk Nov 3 2011 at 21:02
1 
 Jack, well said. Speaking as a die hard LCer with an N=1 testimony, I have no doubt that many people can eat starches -- hell, many people can eat candy -- and not show any sign of health problems (I'm married to one of those). When I have tried to add "safe" starches back in, I regained pounds and symptoms like joint pain. The response to that among safe-starchers is always to lower fat intake, lower calories, and increase exercise -- in other words, standard CICO, which failed so many of us for so long. Physiology debates are fascinating, but real life trumps the theories for me. – Rose Nov 3 2011 at 21:03
show 1 more comment
1

Someone needs to take Ron Rosedale's shovel away from him. :-)

link|flag
4 
 Anyone can that is smarter than him...I haven't met them yet..is that you? – Andre Chimene Nov 4 2011 at 10:39
0

Dr. Rosedale trumps PHD? His response to Jaminet's response:

http://drrosedale.com/blog/2011/11/22/is-the-term-safe-starches-an-oxymoron/

link|flag
1 
 "And what about Dr. Kempner at the Rice House at Duke University? For decades, he put diabetics on a diet of rice and fruit to correct their diabetic condition, and he often got them off medication. How did that happen? Well, they dropped so much weight, and I mean fat-weight, that their insulin resistance went away, and so did their diabetes." 1to1vitamins.com/dr-cinques-blog.html – cliff Dec 13 2011 at 15:17
Dr. Kempner's diet places heavy emphasis on brown rice, which doesn't spike BG/insulin levels as much white rice (one of Jaminet's "safe starches"). Back to Rosedale's latest response, though; I read the entirety of this exhaustive rebuttal and looks to me like he created some serious holes in the Safe Starch argument. – mmartian Dec 13 2011 at 15:44
FYI there is already discussion going on over here paleohacks.com/questions/79075/… – Bread-Eating Beelzebub Dec 13 2011 at 16:40
kempner is a low calorie diet... 800 cals, 1200, rice and fruit, limited food, exercise was required by him...his results would be the same if they ate 800 cals a day in twinkies and exercised – Mallory Dec 13 2011 at 17:47

Your Answer

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