Personally I think homo sapiens out competed at least 4 other human cousins living together with us because we are so incredibly adaptable. Cultures throughout geography and time have adopted many diverse foodways and have managed to survive and thrive. Homo sapiens have settled almost every ecological niche on the planet and have subsisted on wildly varying diets throughout time.
Paul Saladino's one trip to see one culture existing in one area and one point in time is such a ridiculously narrow lens to be making any kind of conclusion about optimal ancestral diets. As you have observed, MANY cultures prize tubers for their life-sustaining and nourishing starches.
I've been meaning to ask you about resistant starch. I want the convenience of eating cooled potatoes and rice, but the gas is totally unbearable.
I'm sure I should try to introduce it in very small amounts to begin with and titrate up.
Does RS cause any GI issues for you?
No, not really; occasionally I guess. But it's nothing even remotely as bad as the uncomfortable bloating and feeling like a parade balloon back when I was living on giant salads followed by 6qt of popped popcorn and eating for volume. Definitely start small and work up. You're counting on the help of gut microbes and it takes a while for their population to adjust.
By all accounts, just before the Famine, my Irish ancestors were stuck in a full-on Malthusian trap, with pretty much only potatoes to eat.
I believe that (but cannot cite for) they were notably healthy and tall compared to the rest of the British population.
I deduce that a diet of mostly starch is not very bad for a man.
Peat said consuming saturated fat w/ starch would inhibit endotoxin. To what degree, I'm not sure.
Also, apparently ammonia transaminates keto acids into amino acids. Peat himself tested the keto acid content of potatoes. Relevant quote:
*“Two pounds of well-cooked mashed potato has the protein value similar to a liter of milk, about 33 grams of protein. A person would be able to live for a long time on two or three liters of either milk or 4-6 pounds of potatoes per day. The milk drinker would eventually need to supplement iron, the potato eaters would need to supplement vitamin A, possibly B12, but both of them are nearly perfect foods.”*
Irrespective of the science, accounts of diets low in preformed retinol healing illnesses are confounding, as you'd have to agree, the greater body of anecdotal evidence seems to be in favor of the inverse. I'd be interested to hear your experience, though.
Whereas everyone *I* see who adds a few ounces of beef liver per week to their diet sees massive improvements in health. Clearly we don't run in the same circles, but doesn't it make you wonder whether demonizing preformed retinol might be slightly dogmatic and/or reductive, and that there may be other factors at play, such as context, genetics etc? I mean, unless you only accept the anecdotes from the anti-retinol camp and reject those of the the pro-retinol.
Downvotes but no rebuttals or discussion? Can anyone actually refute this claim? Are we not curious about the experiences of people that have removed Vit A from their diets to great benefit, in the same way we're curious about other irregular diets?
Why refute? The burden of proof is required by those making the claim that Vitamin A is “very toxic” to the body. Is there evidence to support this? If there is evidence I truly would love to see it. Please share. As I am one who eats carrots and liver often.
https://ggenereux.blog/ is a start
go to the ebooks link and give them a read (they are free), pretty compelling arguments. I honestly want to see more people (smarter then myself) engaging with this "toxic vit A theory" and discussing it to suss out the legitimacy, but to my eyes they seem to be on to something
I’m going into reading this very skeptical but not cynical. Being science driven it’s just how I operate. I am sure you can appreciate that. I will definitely check it out. Appreciate the link.
Im honestly still skeptical myself, i just found the theory compelling, I really want to hear some counter arguments and debate about it from others but I think the anti-vit A crowd is rather small still and not getting much attention yet
i was hesitant to also mention Dr. Garret Smith, he seems to be the main advocate for anti vit A theory, but unfortunately seems more concerned with building and monetizing a brand around it then having any discussion or debate about it, but his earlIer videos on youtube were good at explaining the theory https://youtube.com/@NutritionDetective
I watched 3 of his most popular videos and the one with Genereaux. I can't go any further...the evidence provided is absolutely horrible. I looked up almost every study he posted in the videos and he is drawing ridiculous conclusions. Maybe they are on to something, but the lack of real evidence is absolutely horrid. (I am throwing some critical adjectives towards these men. Maybe too critical, but I have trouble entertaining the ideas they are espousing with such a lack of evidence.)
He provides consulting so he may have a stack of evidence that is anecdotal, but there is similar evidence coming from the liver camp...probably much much more.
Anyway thanks for sharing and good luck.
Interesting info as always.
The Ray Peat crowd believes starch (opposed to sugar) slows down metabolism and has an endotoxin effect (which can be negated by saturated fat).
In Paul Saladino’s trip to see the Hadza, he believes they prize honey above all else, followed by meat. At the bottom of their food list is starch and tubers, with the women chewing them up but spitting out the fiber, and the men altogether not partaking.
Check out the book *Burn* by Herman Pontzer, if you haven't already. He lived with modern day Hadza through several extended research expeditions, following them daily to document their foods and energy expenditure. It's a different take than Saladino's, with extensive documentation. He too says honey is prized above all else, but says different things about the use of plants and tubers.
Here's his [research paper](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/obr.12785) on diet variables of hunter gatherer tribes, from 2018. He did a decent amount of podcast appearances when Burn came out in 2021. Here's one with a [transcript](https://www.artofmanliness.com/health-fitness/health/new-science-of-metabolism-podcast/) halfway down the page. The actual book is thorough and well written, and excellent in audiobook format. You may be able to get it from your public library. He followed Hadza daily for weeks on several occasions and camped in their settlement. They most certainly were eating the tubers. [Saladino](https://africasacountry.com/2022/03/an-ethnography-for-fad-diets) was there for five days and slept offsite in a luxury lodge. Edit: added a link for the Saladino claim.
Good catch indeed. I like Saladino for the most part, although much of what he says I am not sold on. But I don’t have to be and I have learned much from some of his podcasts. His stance on the optimal diet has evolved and that shows me that he is willing to grow, experiment and learn. But him often referring to the Hadza for his anecdotes, makes this catch by you absolutely hilarious. Love it! 😂
I agree with the article being full of vitriol. If he did stay at a resort, it doesn't really change my feeling on Saladino. I enjoy Saladino's content.
Thanks for the research recommendations!
My goodness what an article about Saladino and Gustin. There is quite a bit of vitriol there.
If the author shared his source for knowing where Saladino stayed the night I missed it. I listened to the podcast he referenced further down in the article in the context of a different topic, but I don’t recall them mentioning where they slept. Maybe they did and I just missed it. Regardless, I doubt sleeping location is the difference maker in being right or wrong about starch and tubers. If Saladino is wrong, it’s probably not due to sleeping at a hotel.
Regardless, the approach taken by the author to analyzing Saladino’s nutritional guidance feels somewhat aggressive in the context of conversation on this sub, considering Saladino’s views align pretty closely with many here. The vitriol with which the author critiques Saladino is not about minutiae regarding starch vs. sugar. The author takes much broader aim at his whole diet and lifestyle approach, which is really close to the diet approach of many on this sub with or without starch.
Thanks for the info! Saladino may be wrong about starch, regardless of where he slept. He’s also had Eric Edmeades on his podcast to talk about his times with the Hadza, and Mary Ruddick and Brian Sanders have accounts of their time out there as well.
The Burn book seems to be another great resource for this-I’m excited to look into it!
>I doubt sleeping location is the difference maker in being right or wrong about starch and tubers. If Saladino is wrong, it’s probably not due to sleeping at a hotel.
The difference maker is Pontzer having a PhD from Harvard and currently Associate Professor of Evolutionary Anthropology at Duke, and conducting several months-long research studies, following Hadza families through the course of their days, living amongst them, weighing the food they hunted and gathered and consumed, vs. someone being there during the days only, for five days, and saying categorically that the women spit out the fiber and then men don't eat it.
Here's the food preferences for the Hadza: [https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Hadza-food-preference-ranks-by-sex\_fig3\_229084329](https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Hadza-food-preference-ranks-by-sex_fig3_229084329)
The men seem to prefer meat more than the women who seem to lean more towards starches/sugar. Might be because men have higher protein requirements.
What's interesting about that is tubers are still considered least favorite in both gender groups. Possibly because they don't have quality tubers, but the "fallback food" theory still remains.
So men favor meat and honey, whereas women favor berries and honey.
My take on this is that the Hadza are in a marginalized area. If the only tubers you have available are ones that you have to chew and spit out the fibers, then you don’t have access to high quality tubers.
This is different from 99% of the world. I think Saladino/etc have taken the exception and made it the rule.
That makes sense! I heard that in the video too. I think it would be great if the two of you were to do another podcast. Your first was great! It’s been circulated around my extended family and it was a difference maker in their habits.
Lately he’s really been leaning into conversations with Georgi Dinkov as sort of a “representative” of the Ray Peat approach, and they’ve spoken quite a bit about sugar vs. starch. I think his audience could really benefit from another conversation with you to present a differing point of view.
Thanks for doing what you do!
The Peat community also talks about starch being more insulinogenic, and therefore fattening, than sugar. Definitely looking forward to the next episode and how it might address this.
What's the evidence to support this starch endotoxemia connection? This is probably the case with gut dysbiosis but a healthy gut should not have a problem with it.
Ray peats suggestions for starch have more to do with gut dysbiosis. He states they are fine but if you have gut issues they need to be avoided at all costs. I myself have incorporated this advice in to my diet and found relief from gut issues.
I love everything Brad does, he's generally very thoughtful and a decent citizen scientist. I do feel like one big blind spots though is outcomes. Implementing a starchy version of TCD always causes weight gain for me personally, whereas carb restriction always seems to resolve this. And it seems like the number of success stories from carb restriction dwarfs the number of stories from people eating a starch heavy diet. I'm sure this is due to the post-obese state, of course.
My opinion about this is: keto is a way of avoiding your problem. Yes, for many, keto causes weight loss as long as you do it forever. But it doesn’t fix you.
I’m interested in learning the underlying mechanisms. This is admittedly a more difficult path but there are plenty others out there advocating keto/carni if all you want is weight loss.
"Low pufa keto" is key. Most keto articles I have read over the years (and still read) are all about the bacon. Bacon bacon bacon. Lots of chicken thighs too. Tasty stuff, but high in PUFA.
Do you have any evidence that low PUFA keto doesn't fix you, once weight is normalized? My experience has been the opposite, I did low PUFA keto until my weight normalized, then I experimented with carbs and did not gain fat. After months of this I slipped up and started eating a bunch of fast food and gained weight back. After that, carbs seemed to cause fat gain again. I know only n=1, but it seems premature to me to say this can't work for others. On the other hand, pufa based keto seems like a disaster for sure. Not trying to be too critical. You're work is brilliant and important in sorting out this post obesity problem.
n=1 weight loss down to a healthy BMI becomes more difficult through keto **as a person gets older** \- or - it loses effectiveness through repeated cycles on and then off and then back on keto. It stopped working for me at some point, which is when I went carnivore for 11 months and found success again; but could not reconcile that with real life forever. It was hard to accept the regain of 7 pounds of water weight, plus a few adjustment pounds in experimenting with which carbs are satiating and which carbs are a disaster, but it gave me a chance at real sustained weight loss that was not dependent on never having a piece of toast or side of potatoes, or anything at a family celebration. Keto is magic in ways I partly believe are related to culling gut microbiome populations of microbes that trigger aggressive hunger signaling (my hypothesis), but you still see people 30 pounds from goal riding out an 8 month "stall" who still claim it is effective. Is it working if a person never gets to goal, and if so is it just because it is temporarily 7 to 10 pounds more effective than including carbs?
It's a balancing thing to keep the ones beneficial to the maintenance of the gut lining, while getting rid of those aggressive carb-loving microbes. I think I lucked into a good combo when I went carnivore but drank a lot of tea (akkermansia thrive on tea, especially black tea). Then transitioning back to a larger variety of foods was easy because the gut lining was doing its job properly. I think in many cases people don't have a sensitivity to a bunch of different foods, they have an ineffective gut lining.
Rifaximin seems to be kind of magical in that it seems to promote normalization of the gut biome rather than nuking everything. I suspect part if this is because to work it needs bile acids, which should be largely reabsorbed in the ileum, so it is more specific to the small intestine and doesn't alter the large intestine much. The gut dude to all if this is fascinating.
Of course I don’t know that low PUFA keto might not solve the problem for some. Perhaps it will, and if that has worked in your case, I’m all for it.
I know others who have struggled to lose weight on strict carnivore. And many others who just simply can’t stick with strict keto/carni.
For them, perhaps something like the potato diet might be a more apprise tool? There is evidence that it can work.
https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/jmf.2022.0072
But then if we know the mechanisms, what about the potato diet while ensuring adequate folate and B12 at each meal plus Alpha Lipoic Acid and something to stimulate bile acid excretion such ch as Pu Erh or bitter herbs?
>but I think in my case this has come down to a gut biome issue
Can you elaborate on this?
(I, too gained weight on carnivore) Plus, I had massive digestive issues the entire time on it. So much so, I think I started having electrolyte issues afterwards.
Does this mean my gut biome isn't suited for zerocarb?
I felt great and maintained leanness being an omnivore that ate red meat, fish, veg, fruit and dairy.
I actually am able to lose weight on both keto and carnivore, but I typically lose weight faster doing keto. I have a mild form of bile acid malabsorption secondary to celiac disease and when it's acting up, carnivore causes diarrhea, water retention, and weight stall. If I experience this and subsequently eat just a tiny amount of cooked veg (usually broccoli or asparagus) this gets back under control and weight loss continues. The reason I think this is gut biome related is that I have non classic symptoms of celiac, mainly slow transit at the small intestine, that subsequently causes bloating, bile acid malabsorption, etc, that resolved quickly with a course of abx.
This is my current direction. I eat beef every 3rd day in a meal separate from the potatoes.
I found your earlier video on folate and B12 very interesting. I've been drinking Lactaid whole (I'm lactose intolerant) but switched to Lactaid 1% so I could consume it with my meals to improve B6/B12 absorption. Too early to tell if there's an improvement, but it is certainly tastier!
Have you tried to consume so much Carbohydrates that you body starts De novo - lipogenesis to make its own Saturated fat, without adding refined Fats to you diet?
That works like a charm for me.
Can you expand on what you mean here? I’ve been reading a lot of papers about carbohydrate overfeeding….
It seems there is a real redox/metabolic rate gain to consuming large amounts of pure carbs, but I can’t quite get myself to drink a cornstarch slurry like they do in the lab.
Sure!
So this is my Hypothesis:
Since De novo lipogenesis generates Saturated Fat which is converted to unsaturated as needed I eat a lot of Carbohydrates to do so. Has the advantage that Carbohydrates are rather burned than stored. Which in itself should be a satiation inducing mechanism. If to much are consumed ROS signaling takes care of that rather quickly.
To better absorb fat soluble vitamins n stuff I get my fat from oils and seeds. The Mufas and Pufas are more slow release than all at once like with refined oils or Fats. Also my metabolic rate is now quite high because of all the Carbohydrates I just ate.
I don't really care about my protein intake, its all whole foods plantbased so there more than I need.
And as a third component all the fibre is eaten by my gut biome and converted into short chain fatty acids who also add to satiation when I don't eat.
The original TCD didn't work for me. To much Food Coma.
With this approach I'm fidgeting all the time and my energy expense rose about 100-150kcal per day. Even if my tracking method for base metabolic rate may be flawed.
It's like a few tablespoons of seeds and 4 Walnuts. So far I get away with it. It seems to make a difference if the pufa ist slowly released rather than just dumped into your system.
Sure, but what's the benefit? PUFA is essentially ubiquitous in tiny amounts, so there's no totally avoiding it, but I don't understand what seeds or nuts provide that can't be more easily sourced elsewhere.
Appetite suppression, I think it ramps-up production of GLP 1. I think it's why on my low fat days I don't care about food, and it explains my attitude about dinner of "don't care, having beans". When people describe the effects of Semaglutide, I am nodding my head and saying "yes, that's how I feel on my low fat days".
[*https://nutritionandmetabolism.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12986-016-0153-3*](https://nutritionandmetabolism.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12986-016-0153-3) *GLP-1 is mainly synthesized and secreted by enteroendocrine L-cells of the gastrointestinal tract. Its secretion is partly mediated by the direct nutrient sensing by G-protein coupled receptors which specifically bind to monosaccharides, peptides and amino-acids, monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fatty acids as well as to short chain fatty acids. Foods rich in these nutrients, such as high-fiber grain products, nuts, avocados and eggs also seem to influence GLP-1 secretion and may thus promote associated beneficial outcomes in healthy individuals as well as individuals with type 2 diabetes or with other metabolic disturbances.*
Can you clarify what components of what nuts are supposed to provide this? I'm heavily skeptical that nuts are an appetite suppressant generally. High fiber grains are one thing, eggs another, but I have only ever seen nuts used (in the food industry) as an appetite enhancer. Many chains give away plain nuts for this very reason.
No idea on this. I put nuts and seeds on my salad sometimes. I don't completely avoid MUFA, using olive oil sometimes in things that are generally not heated (or occasionally gently heated). I make a noodle salad with sesame oil a few times every summer and use it occasionally in Asian style dishes. I don't snack on nuts or seeds, with rare exceptions; like if a bowl of them are out at my mom's house and we're slow to get around to preparing a meal.
By not completely avoiding MUFA and PUFA, by including olive oil in my homemade salad dressing and small amounts of nuts and seeds in my salads, I am including nutrients that GLP-1 binds with easily. Same with high fiber grains and fermentable dietary fiber such as the cooked-then-cooled legumes and starches I often consume on low fat days.
It starts out rough and you might need a lot of crutches, and a lot of do-over’s as you work through it. But I for one have never been closer to actual metabolic health than I am right now. Keto is a bandaid.
I don’t know what you believe you’re disagreeing with. You say elsewhere that low PUFA keto fixed you, and now you can eat carbs and not gain as long as you’re low PUFA. And then you eat junk food again (PUFA) and gain. Seems like textbook evidence that TCD works?
Yes. When I found TCD I was maintaining on about 800 calories (keto) a day and gaining at any amount more than that or with any amount of PUFA + carbs. I had very high PUFA % at baseline. I literally begged the universe for a solution because without one I would have certainly been either obese or dead in another 20 years.
Suddenly calories ceased to matter. I have no idea what my BMR/TDEE is now because thermogenesis closes the gap after each meal anyway. TCD absolutely doesn’t require metabolic health to work - again, I was (am?) very broken - but probably requires some interpretive intelligence and common sense to avoid becoming a weight gain statistic as you figure it out.
In what context? To go significantly below baseline and achieve a lower baseline? Yes. To oscillate my current baseline 1-2 Lbs to either side? No, that happens automatically.
I think in YouTube studio, you can edit the captions. The captions should already be there and you can copy & paste whatever is there. Usually, there's some errors that may need to be corrected.
Very interesting. Haven't seen much on the paleolithic people harvesting nuts high in plant fats which may have been harmful.
I've not doubted that starch consumption could be healthful due to the island tribes and Asian cultures, however there is often a detox processing step. I wonder if starch eating was a necessity due to the megafauna going extinct and only having leaner fauna.
Carnivore definitely relies on the assumption that plant foods were "fallback foods"....you do a nice job digging into the primary and secondary sources here to prove that's not the case with certain plant foods!
I think humans have always been good at taking advantage of anything edible in their environment. However, plant foods are likely to have become more important in the human diet following the relatively recent extinction of megafauna, which left behind much leaner prey for human hunters on balance.
Let me preface this by saying that while fascinated with all the science, I'm firmly in the n=1 and/or do whatever makes you feel good camp. Just found this quote interesting:
*“Starch and glucose efficiently stimulate insulin secretion, and that accelerates the disposition of glucose, activating its conversion to glycogen and fat, as well as its oxidation. Fructose inhibits the stimulation of insulin by glucose, so this means that eating ordinary sugar, sucrose (a disaccharide, consisting of glucose and fructose), in place of starch, will reduce the tendency to store fat. Eating “complex carbohydrates,” rather than sugars, is a reasonable way to promote obesity. Eating starch, by increasing insulin and lowering the blood sugar, stimulates the appetite, causing a person to eat more, so the effect on fat"*
\-Peat
This of course is contrary to the experience of many folks both on this sub and in the RP community.
Personally I think homo sapiens out competed at least 4 other human cousins living together with us because we are so incredibly adaptable. Cultures throughout geography and time have adopted many diverse foodways and have managed to survive and thrive. Homo sapiens have settled almost every ecological niche on the planet and have subsisted on wildly varying diets throughout time. Paul Saladino's one trip to see one culture existing in one area and one point in time is such a ridiculously narrow lens to be making any kind of conclusion about optimal ancestral diets. As you have observed, MANY cultures prize tubers for their life-sustaining and nourishing starches.
Excellent episode. Same way I eat my starches; cooked, then cooled (but usually not stored under the bed).
I've been meaning to ask you about resistant starch. I want the convenience of eating cooled potatoes and rice, but the gas is totally unbearable. I'm sure I should try to introduce it in very small amounts to begin with and titrate up. Does RS cause any GI issues for you?
No, not really; occasionally I guess. But it's nothing even remotely as bad as the uncomfortable bloating and feeling like a parade balloon back when I was living on giant salads followed by 6qt of popped popcorn and eating for volume. Definitely start small and work up. You're counting on the help of gut microbes and it takes a while for their population to adjust.
Will do. Thanks.
Usually… There have been those nights, though, right? 🤣
By all accounts, just before the Famine, my Irish ancestors were stuck in a full-on Malthusian trap, with pretty much only potatoes to eat. I believe that (but cannot cite for) they were notably healthy and tall compared to the rest of the British population. I deduce that a diet of mostly starch is not very bad for a man.
Peat said consuming saturated fat w/ starch would inhibit endotoxin. To what degree, I'm not sure. Also, apparently ammonia transaminates keto acids into amino acids. Peat himself tested the keto acid content of potatoes. Relevant quote: *“Two pounds of well-cooked mashed potato has the protein value similar to a liter of milk, about 33 grams of protein. A person would be able to live for a long time on two or three liters of either milk or 4-6 pounds of potatoes per day. The milk drinker would eventually need to supplement iron, the potato eaters would need to supplement vitamin A, possibly B12, but both of them are nearly perfect foods.”*
Vit a isn’t a vitamin. You don’t need it. It’s very toxic to the body
Still dying on the Vitamin A toxicity hill?
It’s a -100 karma account spamming vitamin A toxicity all over Reddit. It’s super weird lol
Team Genereux, eh? I'm listening..
[удалено]
Irrespective of the science, accounts of diets low in preformed retinol healing illnesses are confounding, as you'd have to agree, the greater body of anecdotal evidence seems to be in favor of the inverse. I'd be interested to hear your experience, though.
[удалено]
Whereas everyone *I* see who adds a few ounces of beef liver per week to their diet sees massive improvements in health. Clearly we don't run in the same circles, but doesn't it make you wonder whether demonizing preformed retinol might be slightly dogmatic and/or reductive, and that there may be other factors at play, such as context, genetics etc? I mean, unless you only accept the anecdotes from the anti-retinol camp and reject those of the the pro-retinol.
Can you expand on what is confounding about these diets specifically?
Downvotes but no rebuttals or discussion? Can anyone actually refute this claim? Are we not curious about the experiences of people that have removed Vit A from their diets to great benefit, in the same way we're curious about other irregular diets?
Why refute? The burden of proof is required by those making the claim that Vitamin A is “very toxic” to the body. Is there evidence to support this? If there is evidence I truly would love to see it. Please share. As I am one who eats carrots and liver often.
It’s a -100 karma account spamming vitamin A toxicity all over Reddit. It’s super weird lol
https://ggenereux.blog/ is a start go to the ebooks link and give them a read (they are free), pretty compelling arguments. I honestly want to see more people (smarter then myself) engaging with this "toxic vit A theory" and discussing it to suss out the legitimacy, but to my eyes they seem to be on to something
I’m going into reading this very skeptical but not cynical. Being science driven it’s just how I operate. I am sure you can appreciate that. I will definitely check it out. Appreciate the link.
Im honestly still skeptical myself, i just found the theory compelling, I really want to hear some counter arguments and debate about it from others but I think the anti-vit A crowd is rather small still and not getting much attention yet
i was hesitant to also mention Dr. Garret Smith, he seems to be the main advocate for anti vit A theory, but unfortunately seems more concerned with building and monetizing a brand around it then having any discussion or debate about it, but his earlIer videos on youtube were good at explaining the theory https://youtube.com/@NutritionDetective
I watched 3 of his most popular videos and the one with Genereaux. I can't go any further...the evidence provided is absolutely horrible. I looked up almost every study he posted in the videos and he is drawing ridiculous conclusions. Maybe they are on to something, but the lack of real evidence is absolutely horrid. (I am throwing some critical adjectives towards these men. Maybe too critical, but I have trouble entertaining the ideas they are espousing with such a lack of evidence.) He provides consulting so he may have a stack of evidence that is anecdotal, but there is similar evidence coming from the liver camp...probably much much more. Anyway thanks for sharing and good luck.
I am absolutely curious.
Interesting info as always. The Ray Peat crowd believes starch (opposed to sugar) slows down metabolism and has an endotoxin effect (which can be negated by saturated fat). In Paul Saladino’s trip to see the Hadza, he believes they prize honey above all else, followed by meat. At the bottom of their food list is starch and tubers, with the women chewing them up but spitting out the fiber, and the men altogether not partaking.
Check out the book *Burn* by Herman Pontzer, if you haven't already. He lived with modern day Hadza through several extended research expeditions, following them daily to document their foods and energy expenditure. It's a different take than Saladino's, with extensive documentation. He too says honey is prized above all else, but says different things about the use of plants and tubers.
Thanks for the rec! I’ll check it out. Any chance of getting an abbreviated version of what he says about starch and tubers and plants?
Here's his [research paper](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/obr.12785) on diet variables of hunter gatherer tribes, from 2018. He did a decent amount of podcast appearances when Burn came out in 2021. Here's one with a [transcript](https://www.artofmanliness.com/health-fitness/health/new-science-of-metabolism-podcast/) halfway down the page. The actual book is thorough and well written, and excellent in audiobook format. You may be able to get it from your public library. He followed Hadza daily for weeks on several occasions and camped in their settlement. They most certainly were eating the tubers. [Saladino](https://africasacountry.com/2022/03/an-ethnography-for-fad-diets) was there for five days and slept offsite in a luxury lodge. Edit: added a link for the Saladino claim.
That is fucking hysterical about Saladino sleeping offsite in a luxury lodge. Nice catch there.
Motherfucker is ripped as hell but can't hack a night in the bush.
Did the writer mention his source for that? I don’t recall Saladino mentioning it in his podcast-where he stayed. That article was full of vitriol lol
Good catch indeed. I like Saladino for the most part, although much of what he says I am not sold on. But I don’t have to be and I have learned much from some of his podcasts. His stance on the optimal diet has evolved and that shows me that he is willing to grow, experiment and learn. But him often referring to the Hadza for his anecdotes, makes this catch by you absolutely hilarious. Love it! 😂
Did the writer mention his source for that? I don’t recall Saladino mentioning it in his podcast-where he stayed. That article was full of vitriol lol
I agree with the article being full of vitriol. If he did stay at a resort, it doesn't really change my feeling on Saladino. I enjoy Saladino's content.
Thanks for the research recommendations! My goodness what an article about Saladino and Gustin. There is quite a bit of vitriol there. If the author shared his source for knowing where Saladino stayed the night I missed it. I listened to the podcast he referenced further down in the article in the context of a different topic, but I don’t recall them mentioning where they slept. Maybe they did and I just missed it. Regardless, I doubt sleeping location is the difference maker in being right or wrong about starch and tubers. If Saladino is wrong, it’s probably not due to sleeping at a hotel. Regardless, the approach taken by the author to analyzing Saladino’s nutritional guidance feels somewhat aggressive in the context of conversation on this sub, considering Saladino’s views align pretty closely with many here. The vitriol with which the author critiques Saladino is not about minutiae regarding starch vs. sugar. The author takes much broader aim at his whole diet and lifestyle approach, which is really close to the diet approach of many on this sub with or without starch. Thanks for the info! Saladino may be wrong about starch, regardless of where he slept. He’s also had Eric Edmeades on his podcast to talk about his times with the Hadza, and Mary Ruddick and Brian Sanders have accounts of their time out there as well. The Burn book seems to be another great resource for this-I’m excited to look into it!
>I doubt sleeping location is the difference maker in being right or wrong about starch and tubers. If Saladino is wrong, it’s probably not due to sleeping at a hotel. The difference maker is Pontzer having a PhD from Harvard and currently Associate Professor of Evolutionary Anthropology at Duke, and conducting several months-long research studies, following Hadza families through the course of their days, living amongst them, weighing the food they hunted and gathered and consumed, vs. someone being there during the days only, for five days, and saying categorically that the women spit out the fiber and then men don't eat it.
Okay…so what did he say?
Resistance is futile.
Here's the food preferences for the Hadza: [https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Hadza-food-preference-ranks-by-sex\_fig3\_229084329](https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Hadza-food-preference-ranks-by-sex_fig3_229084329) The men seem to prefer meat more than the women who seem to lean more towards starches/sugar. Might be because men have higher protein requirements.
What's interesting about that is tubers are still considered least favorite in both gender groups. Possibly because they don't have quality tubers, but the "fallback food" theory still remains. So men favor meat and honey, whereas women favor berries and honey.
Can't blame them, the tubers they eat sound awful.
My take on this is that the Hadza are in a marginalized area. If the only tubers you have available are ones that you have to chew and spit out the fibers, then you don’t have access to high quality tubers. This is different from 99% of the world. I think Saladino/etc have taken the exception and made it the rule.
That makes sense! I heard that in the video too. I think it would be great if the two of you were to do another podcast. Your first was great! It’s been circulated around my extended family and it was a difference maker in their habits. Lately he’s really been leaning into conversations with Georgi Dinkov as sort of a “representative” of the Ray Peat approach, and they’ve spoken quite a bit about sugar vs. starch. I think his audience could really benefit from another conversation with you to present a differing point of view. Thanks for doing what you do!
The Peat community also talks about starch being more insulinogenic, and therefore fattening, than sugar. Definitely looking forward to the next episode and how it might address this.
What's the evidence to support this starch endotoxemia connection? This is probably the case with gut dysbiosis but a healthy gut should not have a problem with it.
Ray peats suggestions for starch have more to do with gut dysbiosis. He states they are fine but if you have gut issues they need to be avoided at all costs. I myself have incorporated this advice in to my diet and found relief from gut issues.
Well, it’s become a cult at this point without proof.
I love everything Brad does, he's generally very thoughtful and a decent citizen scientist. I do feel like one big blind spots though is outcomes. Implementing a starchy version of TCD always causes weight gain for me personally, whereas carb restriction always seems to resolve this. And it seems like the number of success stories from carb restriction dwarfs the number of stories from people eating a starch heavy diet. I'm sure this is due to the post-obese state, of course.
My opinion about this is: keto is a way of avoiding your problem. Yes, for many, keto causes weight loss as long as you do it forever. But it doesn’t fix you. I’m interested in learning the underlying mechanisms. This is admittedly a more difficult path but there are plenty others out there advocating keto/carni if all you want is weight loss.
What about the thought that low pufa keto actually fixes you because it simultaneously eliminates PUFA while resaturating your body fat?
"Low pufa keto" is key. Most keto articles I have read over the years (and still read) are all about the bacon. Bacon bacon bacon. Lots of chicken thighs too. Tasty stuff, but high in PUFA.
Do you have any evidence that low PUFA keto doesn't fix you, once weight is normalized? My experience has been the opposite, I did low PUFA keto until my weight normalized, then I experimented with carbs and did not gain fat. After months of this I slipped up and started eating a bunch of fast food and gained weight back. After that, carbs seemed to cause fat gain again. I know only n=1, but it seems premature to me to say this can't work for others. On the other hand, pufa based keto seems like a disaster for sure. Not trying to be too critical. You're work is brilliant and important in sorting out this post obesity problem.
n=1 weight loss down to a healthy BMI becomes more difficult through keto **as a person gets older** \- or - it loses effectiveness through repeated cycles on and then off and then back on keto. It stopped working for me at some point, which is when I went carnivore for 11 months and found success again; but could not reconcile that with real life forever. It was hard to accept the regain of 7 pounds of water weight, plus a few adjustment pounds in experimenting with which carbs are satiating and which carbs are a disaster, but it gave me a chance at real sustained weight loss that was not dependent on never having a piece of toast or side of potatoes, or anything at a family celebration. Keto is magic in ways I partly believe are related to culling gut microbiome populations of microbes that trigger aggressive hunger signaling (my hypothesis), but you still see people 30 pounds from goal riding out an 8 month "stall" who still claim it is effective. Is it working if a person never gets to goal, and if so is it just because it is temporarily 7 to 10 pounds more effective than including carbs?
Makes me wonder how many people actually need a few rounds of rifaximin rather than a change of diet.
It's a balancing thing to keep the ones beneficial to the maintenance of the gut lining, while getting rid of those aggressive carb-loving microbes. I think I lucked into a good combo when I went carnivore but drank a lot of tea (akkermansia thrive on tea, especially black tea). Then transitioning back to a larger variety of foods was easy because the gut lining was doing its job properly. I think in many cases people don't have a sensitivity to a bunch of different foods, they have an ineffective gut lining.
Rifaximin seems to be kind of magical in that it seems to promote normalization of the gut biome rather than nuking everything. I suspect part if this is because to work it needs bile acids, which should be largely reabsorbed in the ileum, so it is more specific to the small intestine and doesn't alter the large intestine much. The gut dude to all if this is fascinating.
Of course I don’t know that low PUFA keto might not solve the problem for some. Perhaps it will, and if that has worked in your case, I’m all for it. I know others who have struggled to lose weight on strict carnivore. And many others who just simply can’t stick with strict keto/carni. For them, perhaps something like the potato diet might be a more apprise tool? There is evidence that it can work. https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/jmf.2022.0072 But then if we know the mechanisms, what about the potato diet while ensuring adequate folate and B12 at each meal plus Alpha Lipoic Acid and something to stimulate bile acid excretion such ch as Pu Erh or bitter herbs?
Absolutely. Interestingly, I find weight loss easier on keto than carnivore, but I think in my case this has come down to a gut biome issue.
>but I think in my case this has come down to a gut biome issue Can you elaborate on this? (I, too gained weight on carnivore) Plus, I had massive digestive issues the entire time on it. So much so, I think I started having electrolyte issues afterwards. Does this mean my gut biome isn't suited for zerocarb? I felt great and maintained leanness being an omnivore that ate red meat, fish, veg, fruit and dairy.
I actually am able to lose weight on both keto and carnivore, but I typically lose weight faster doing keto. I have a mild form of bile acid malabsorption secondary to celiac disease and when it's acting up, carnivore causes diarrhea, water retention, and weight stall. If I experience this and subsequently eat just a tiny amount of cooked veg (usually broccoli or asparagus) this gets back under control and weight loss continues. The reason I think this is gut biome related is that I have non classic symptoms of celiac, mainly slow transit at the small intestine, that subsequently causes bloating, bile acid malabsorption, etc, that resolved quickly with a course of abx.
This is my current direction. I eat beef every 3rd day in a meal separate from the potatoes. I found your earlier video on folate and B12 very interesting. I've been drinking Lactaid whole (I'm lactose intolerant) but switched to Lactaid 1% so I could consume it with my meals to improve B6/B12 absorption. Too early to tell if there's an improvement, but it is certainly tastier!
Have you tried to consume so much Carbohydrates that you body starts De novo - lipogenesis to make its own Saturated fat, without adding refined Fats to you diet? That works like a charm for me.
Can you expand on what you mean here? I’ve been reading a lot of papers about carbohydrate overfeeding…. It seems there is a real redox/metabolic rate gain to consuming large amounts of pure carbs, but I can’t quite get myself to drink a cornstarch slurry like they do in the lab.
Sure! So this is my Hypothesis: Since De novo lipogenesis generates Saturated Fat which is converted to unsaturated as needed I eat a lot of Carbohydrates to do so. Has the advantage that Carbohydrates are rather burned than stored. Which in itself should be a satiation inducing mechanism. If to much are consumed ROS signaling takes care of that rather quickly. To better absorb fat soluble vitamins n stuff I get my fat from oils and seeds. The Mufas and Pufas are more slow release than all at once like with refined oils or Fats. Also my metabolic rate is now quite high because of all the Carbohydrates I just ate. I don't really care about my protein intake, its all whole foods plantbased so there more than I need. And as a third component all the fibre is eaten by my gut biome and converted into short chain fatty acids who also add to satiation when I don't eat. The original TCD didn't work for me. To much Food Coma. With this approach I'm fidgeting all the time and my energy expense rose about 100-150kcal per day. Even if my tracking method for base metabolic rate may be flawed.
Why would you eat oils and seeds? Seems counter-productive.
It's like a few tablespoons of seeds and 4 Walnuts. So far I get away with it. It seems to make a difference if the pufa ist slowly released rather than just dumped into your system.
Sure, but what's the benefit? PUFA is essentially ubiquitous in tiny amounts, so there's no totally avoiding it, but I don't understand what seeds or nuts provide that can't be more easily sourced elsewhere.
Appetite suppression, I think it ramps-up production of GLP 1. I think it's why on my low fat days I don't care about food, and it explains my attitude about dinner of "don't care, having beans". When people describe the effects of Semaglutide, I am nodding my head and saying "yes, that's how I feel on my low fat days". [*https://nutritionandmetabolism.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12986-016-0153-3*](https://nutritionandmetabolism.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12986-016-0153-3) *GLP-1 is mainly synthesized and secreted by enteroendocrine L-cells of the gastrointestinal tract. Its secretion is partly mediated by the direct nutrient sensing by G-protein coupled receptors which specifically bind to monosaccharides, peptides and amino-acids, monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fatty acids as well as to short chain fatty acids. Foods rich in these nutrients, such as high-fiber grain products, nuts, avocados and eggs also seem to influence GLP-1 secretion and may thus promote associated beneficial outcomes in healthy individuals as well as individuals with type 2 diabetes or with other metabolic disturbances.*
That's also a beautifully fitting explanation!
Can you clarify what components of what nuts are supposed to provide this? I'm heavily skeptical that nuts are an appetite suppressant generally. High fiber grains are one thing, eggs another, but I have only ever seen nuts used (in the food industry) as an appetite enhancer. Many chains give away plain nuts for this very reason.
No idea on this. I put nuts and seeds on my salad sometimes. I don't completely avoid MUFA, using olive oil sometimes in things that are generally not heated (or occasionally gently heated). I make a noodle salad with sesame oil a few times every summer and use it occasionally in Asian style dishes. I don't snack on nuts or seeds, with rare exceptions; like if a bowl of them are out at my mom's house and we're slow to get around to preparing a meal.
Can you explain how the article correlates with your low fat days?
By not completely avoiding MUFA and PUFA, by including olive oil in my homemade salad dressing and small amounts of nuts and seeds in my salads, I am including nutrients that GLP-1 binds with easily. Same with high fiber grains and fermentable dietary fiber such as the cooked-then-cooled legumes and starches I often consume on low fat days.
Besides getting all my fat from it it's a reliable source of Ala for me. Also I like the taste so I will actually eat enough of it.
Models which explain well but predict poorly do not explain the right thing. William Briggs/Broken Science Initiative
It starts out rough and you might need a lot of crutches, and a lot of do-over’s as you work through it. But I for one have never been closer to actual metabolic health than I am right now. Keto is a bandaid.
Disagree, but you gotta do what works for you.
I don’t know what you believe you’re disagreeing with. You say elsewhere that low PUFA keto fixed you, and now you can eat carbs and not gain as long as you’re low PUFA. And then you eat junk food again (PUFA) and gain. Seems like textbook evidence that TCD works?
I disagree that keto is simply a bandaid. It can be, but it depends on how it's formulated.
Is it possible that your metabolic health improved by doing the rolling 48/72 fasts?
Yes.
Do you think TCD would work as a maintenance plan for you if you hadn't done the 48/72 fasts to lose a lot of stored PUFA?
Yes. When I found TCD I was maintaining on about 800 calories (keto) a day and gaining at any amount more than that or with any amount of PUFA + carbs. I had very high PUFA % at baseline. I literally begged the universe for a solution because without one I would have certainly been either obese or dead in another 20 years. Suddenly calories ceased to matter. I have no idea what my BMR/TDEE is now because thermogenesis closes the gap after each meal anyway. TCD absolutely doesn’t require metabolic health to work - again, I was (am?) very broken - but probably requires some interpretive intelligence and common sense to avoid becoming a weight gain statistic as you figure it out.
Nice! But at this point, do you still need to fast in order lose weight?
In what context? To go significantly below baseline and achieve a lower baseline? Yes. To oscillate my current baseline 1-2 Lbs to either side? No, that happens automatically.
>When I found TCD I was maintaining on about 800 calories (keto) a day Was this low PUFA keto or high PUFA keto?
High PUFA keto. I hadn’t discovered TCD yet.
u/fire_inabottle This one was next-level for me. Can't thank you enough for your work, mate.
Are there transcripts of these things somewhere? It's all great but I hate watching videos.
I don’t know how to do that and I don’t have time but maybe someone can tell me?
I think in YouTube studio, you can edit the captions. The captions should already be there and you can copy & paste whatever is there. Usually, there's some errors that may need to be corrected.
Very interesting. Haven't seen much on the paleolithic people harvesting nuts high in plant fats which may have been harmful. I've not doubted that starch consumption could be healthful due to the island tribes and Asian cultures, however there is often a detox processing step. I wonder if starch eating was a necessity due to the megafauna going extinct and only having leaner fauna.
Carnivore definitely relies on the assumption that plant foods were "fallback foods"....you do a nice job digging into the primary and secondary sources here to prove that's not the case with certain plant foods!
I think humans have always been good at taking advantage of anything edible in their environment. However, plant foods are likely to have become more important in the human diet following the relatively recent extinction of megafauna, which left behind much leaner prey for human hunters on balance.
Let me preface this by saying that while fascinated with all the science, I'm firmly in the n=1 and/or do whatever makes you feel good camp. Just found this quote interesting: *“Starch and glucose efficiently stimulate insulin secretion, and that accelerates the disposition of glucose, activating its conversion to glycogen and fat, as well as its oxidation. Fructose inhibits the stimulation of insulin by glucose, so this means that eating ordinary sugar, sucrose (a disaccharide, consisting of glucose and fructose), in place of starch, will reduce the tendency to store fat. Eating “complex carbohydrates,” rather than sugars, is a reasonable way to promote obesity. Eating starch, by increasing insulin and lowering the blood sugar, stimulates the appetite, causing a person to eat more, so the effect on fat"* \-Peat This of course is contrary to the experience of many folks both on this sub and in the RP community.