Ron Rosedale just posted his latest response to the "safe starch" debate. Can anybody find the common ground so we can get back to crushing the real opposition...ADA, Big Pharma, School Lunch programs, Big Agra, FDA etc...? http://drrosedale.com/blog/2011/11/22/is-the-term-safe-starches-an-oxymoron/
Andre, i think the common ground is real, whole food. That's the common ground for everyone. It gets dicey once you move past that because after that point one may need to restrict certain foods- yes, even safe starches- depending on the damage that has been incurred whether epigenetically or the decades on a modern, wheat, sugar and seed oil-based diet. this may also require supplementation for some.
The problem with only looking at common ground is that pretty soon you will have homeopathy and liver cleanses at the AHS. If you give pseudoscience a free pass, it takes on a life of its own.
How many people on PH seriously talk about Leptin Resets like it is something other than some guy’s wild speculation? How many people have filled the various forums saying we should give Dr. Davis’s Wheat Belly a free pass on the science just because he shares some common ground (though Denise Minger could probably massacre it just as bad as “The China Study” is she were so inclined)?
I do think common ground is important, but I think it is even more important to be highly skeptical of suspect claims and to try and weed out bad thinking.
This reminds me of playground conversations, where one kid is talking about his favorite color and the other kid is talking about his stuffed animal toy.
2 million years of evolution.
2 million years of climate change and environmental change.
Countless micro and macroenvironmental variables.
Why would anyone expect Homo sapiens to be singularly capable or incapable of tolerating any one kind of food? The species is robust and varied. We're wired for survival in any one of a number of environments. Which is not to say that I, for one, am similarly adaptable.
Population recommendations at the expense of the individual...anyone getting a USDA Food Pyramid vibe when the "leaders" of the "movement" start being overly prescriptive?
I think at its core we have a major issue, which is that this debate is between transhumanism and ancestral health.
As Paul Jaminet says "Dr. Rosedale rejects evolutionary selection as a helpful criterion, since evolution did not necessarily select for longevity."
Dr. Rosedale rejects the Kitavans as anything to live up to because he believes his diet can do better.
Dr. Rosedale's regimen is more similar to CRON (calorie restriction with optimal nutrition) than paleo/paleo 2.0/ancestral health. They are both based on transcending human biological limitations. They want to do BETTER than our ancestors. Nothing wrong with that, but that was never what paleo was about. And unfortunately some of these regimens are speculatively based on animal/in vitro studies.
I dabbled in CRON before I was into paleo and ultimately rejected it (and a lot of transhumanism), because I learned about more advanced evolutionary theories, like the idea that evolution DID select for longevity (the grandmothering hypothesis). And I'd be THRILLED to have the health of a Kitavan. Let's not get ahead of ourselves if we can't even do better than societies without pubmed.
I don't really get the "big tent" people who say that there is something insecure about not wanting to include every single author out there who writes about low-carb in our paleo/ancestral health tent.
I think debating Rosedale's ideas is interesting and useful, but ultimately the idea that he is derailing the goals of the ancestral health movement is sad because he was never part of it.
I don't feel that it is so extreme to recommend against eating concentrated carbs such as rice and potatoes, especially when decades of science has shown robust evidence of the detriment of spiking blood glucose. I also do say that people can have all the vegetables that they want, except for the overly sugary ones. The debate is about optimal or perfect diet. If one wants to deviate from that and have a few more likely subclinical ramifications such as glycated molecules, or resistant receptors, to enjoy a bowl of rice, that is up to them. I just do not want that person to think it is healthy to do so. It should be looked upon as we view a piece of chocolate cream pie; unhealthy, but we want it now anyway; not that we are biologically better off for having eaten it. The point is that there is no such thing as a glucose deficiency or a healthy need to eat starches. If one wants to endure a bit of tolerable biological harm for some momentary pleasure, that's great, but the person should know what he/she is doing. I drive occasionally without a seatbelt, but I do not want anyone telling me that this is safe. If there is some unbelievably great bread at a restaurant, I might have a small bit, and savor it, not because I am deluded into thinking it is healthy, but because I am willing to take the risk.
In other words, I find it far preferable and more accurate to say, "follow the Rosedale Diet, but it is OK if you are healthy to cheat a little now and then", than to say it is healthy to do so.
How can there be common ground with someone who vilifies a whole macro-nutrient and thinks his experimental diet is the most scientifically advanced diet in the world?
Maybe we can come to a common ground once rosendale realizes carbohydrates aren't the dietary devil he makes them out to be based mostly on anecdotes and flawed studies from what I can gather.
The common ground at this point seems to be that their diet approaches are very different and so are individual humans.
The Rosedale stance, and diet, seems pretty extreme and therefore offers a pretty small window for overlap with Jaminet's Perfect Health Diet. The Rosedale protein recommendation of 50-75 grams or 2-3 ounces is VERY low. His permanent ban of so many fruits and sweet potatoes, etc., would be unlivable for me but people with severe diabetes reportedly respond well and I'm sure they're ready to do whatever it takes to improve their health.
I think Rosedale's strongest point is that many of us with damaged metabolisms are now very reactive to carbs. He's certainly right in my case, but the solution is much easier than never eating any--I simply eat protein and fat first and then a reasonable carb allowance has little to no effect on my BG.
Jaminet's Perfect Health Diet is pretty close to what I'm already eating. I think it's more realistic for everyday living. But perhaps not optimal for those with full-fledged diabetes?
He makes some good assertions in response the response to the response.... errr to the response? What do you want? They both have an interest in their own diets soundness. I really don't see it as an issue. Its a quite interesting question being debated by the two people who understand their own recommendations best.
Much better than some slightly better informed person of one camp trying to pick and chose responses to demonize either the low carb approach or the high carb of another posters.
And lets face it we are talking the difference between low carb and lower when compared to most recommendations. For me I eat fruit and like honey in my coffee if I have any "extra" carbs. So starches just aren't my bag anyhow. But, let them have their fun either way.
What's your favorite "safe" starch? 17 Answers
Where do you stand on safe starches? 13 Answers