My blogging time has been severely limited lately, leaving me mostly brief interactions here & there on social media. You’ll understand why in the near future. In the meantime, it’s probably going to be a lot of linking and quoting, so as to save my clever prose for other things.
But first, a slap.
~ One after another, diabetics—both types—try supplementing resistant starch (primarily through Potato Starch) and end up slightly hypoglycemic and have to reduce insulin dosages. Mariet Hoen of Amsterdam in The Netherlands is the latest report.
Steve its going very, very good with my RS experiment , Yesterday FBG 3.7 (67n), Today 4.8 (86) afther hypo in the night 2.7 ( 47 ). I have to reduce my insulin!!! Thanx for showing the way […]
Thank you, Richard Nikoley for being the big pusher of Resistant Starch, it was that what I needed just now. After 2 years HFLC/Ketosis, it did not work enough anymore. Again higher BS. With RS: back on track […]
Thank you!! I’m 70 now 24 year DMT2, want to be 100 #healthy. It goes the right way now, you gived me more hope through RS 🙂
~ Steve Cooksey, who, incidentally first reported about Mariet, has an update post up on his 30-day RS experiment, along with a Q&A: Resistant Starch: Why? Q & A. In the post, he states:
For me the results are no longer ‘early’ I will flat out state …
- FACT: Resistant Starch has reduced my Overnight Fasting Blood Sugars (read this post)
- FACT: Resistant Starch has reduced my Blood Sugar spike post Potato (read this post)
- FACT: Resistant Starch IS helping other diabetics. These are people I know and trust to report the results honestly and accurately. (read this post)
I mention ‘early results’ because I’m far from finished. I’ll continue to experiment with highER carb foods, exercise, etc.
~ Someone at the Human Food Project did a 10-day experiment going full LC. Here’s the before & after of his gut bug composition.
So, going from lots of meat, fat, plants and fiber to meat, fat and little fiber (ketogenic, most certainly) has a profound impact on gut bacteria, and rapidly. The question is, is this good, bad, or does it matter? The author writes:
Yes, you can shift your gut microbiome (dramatically) with diet in a very, very short period of time. Below is my microbial composition – at the phylum level – after shifting my diet. In short, while maintaining a high fat / protein diet, I simply dropped out the plants and fiber. This, in theory, resulted in less fermentation in my colon which shifted the pH to be more alkaline. Under these conditions, the genus Bacteroides within the phylum Bacteroidetes, was able to bloom, as strains of Bacteroides are pH sensitive and don’t grow as well in acidic conditions created by the productions of short chain fatty acids and organic acids during fermentation of fiber/resistant starch (and fermentation of host-derived substrates). Take home message (IMO): acidity good, blooms of Bacteroides (which is driving the spike in the phylum Bacteroidetes in right-hand side pie), not so good. I will discuss more of this in n upcoming blog post. [emphasis added]
I will hasten to add that “short chain fatty acids” are the words we use so that we don’t have to say “saturated fats;” upon which utterance, NAZIs always seem to show up, often in company with The Spanish Inquisition. SCFAs are also what butter munching low carbers, executives, and drinkers of coffee safe from bullets are always on about (I enjoy a BP coffee now & then, BTW, but you must make it right!). Butyrate is a SCFA. But unless it gets to your colon where it…
Butyrates are important as food for cells lining the mammalian colon (colonocytes). Without butyrates for energy, colon cells undergo autophagy (self digestion) and die. Short-chain fatty acids, which include butyrate, are produced by beneficial colonic bacteria (probiotics) that feed on, or ferment prebiotics, which are plant products that contain adequate amounts of dietary fiber. These short-chain fatty acids benefit the colonocyte by increasing energy production and cell proliferation and may protect against colon cancer.
…does all that good, it’s probably not much different than any other saturated fat to your stomach and small intestine and human metabolism in general. And there’s nothing that produces SFCAs right there onsite in the colon like resistant starch.
~ This was interesting news from Fred Hahn, a pretty solid low-carb proponent over many years. Anyone remember our “Potato Hack,” precursor to our resistant starch “fad?” I haven’t really revisited that, but I hear all the time through the grapevine that there are tons of people—particularly women, even in low-carb forums—that swear by it and have carried on the torch.
Fred gave it a try himself and reported his surprising results on a public Facebook post.
My experience on the all potato diet has provided some very interesting thoughts on low carb diets and fat loss.
I believe I’ve been wrong/confused/stoopid on some of the mechanisms and I am going to revamp/revise my thinking on the issue. […]
If fat loss stalls on a VLC diet, what it one to do? Eating more fat/protein will certainly NOT increase fat loss – that’s a no brainer. So what will? Answer: Eating less calories. Even if you were to eat less fat and increase carbs BUT still eat LESS overall, you’d lose.
What does this suggest? Well…
When I did my all potato/no fat diet for 5 days, I went from 173 lbs. to 169.75 with no loss of muscle as my body water readings were ~3kg HIGHER. My workouts were fine/same. No better, no worse. My pants were looser. My trainers commented that I looked ripped.
I WAS eating less total calories than when I was eating plaeo. No question. I was trying to keep cals the same, but it was hard. VERY hard. My best day was about 1500 cals. So you could say my fat loss was due to just eating less food than before. BUT it was all carbs! So if carbs make you fat, why didn’t I get fatter if carbs (potatoes!!) make you fat? […]
What this means is, the PRIMARY reason why you lose fat on a LC/HF diet is a lowered calorie intake. You lose fat because your body mobilizes stored fat to make up for the shortfall in energy requirements. It’s not just because your insulin levels drop thus allowing fat to be used for fuel, but also because you’re not taking in enough total fuel.
Go read the whole thing. Salute to Fred, in being willing to identify being wrong about something and STOP DOING THAT! rather than do what so many try to do in order to protect their fragile little egos.
I will correct Feed on one point. It’s not all carbs. There’s about 4% complete protein and a smidgen of fat in potatoes. Let’s call it 95% carbohydrate…in the form of the “nothing but a bag of glucose,” as Art De Vany once called it. In spite of that, he lost 3.24 real pounds over 5 days, and in spite of adding 6.6 pounds in glycogen binding water (2lb per day net tissue loss from baseline?). The water makes perfect sense for a long time low carber. I can recall after being faithfully LC for a long while and going on a carb binge, the most immediately noticeable thing was extreme thirst the next 24 hours.
I posted this comment, which is basically a summary of my “why calories count” post way back.
BTW, the real reason people stall 10-30 pounds from goal is that they reach equilibrium. Going LC means more satiating fat/protein (potatoes are hugely satiating, but for different reasons), less junk food engineered to make you eat more, etc. You eat fewer calories (on average, but while you lie and make it sound like that 2 lb steak is every day). You eat fewer calories, so you drop pounds and the protein helps retain lean tissue (but, if fat, 25% of the gain is lean, so you have some to spare anyway). But, as you loose weight, your energy requirements go down and one day, whether it’s 10, 20 or 30 pounds from what you think is ideal, you loose no more weight and wonder why. Calories count.
After all is said and done, there’s no escaping the fact that eating less than your body requires to maintain weight over time loses weight and eating more gains you weight.
Ok, that should about do it for this time. Enjoy.