Starch ... What's with all the antagonism?

< RANT WARNING >  This post is a compilation of several that have been lying in the draft bin.  Consider it a response to a perfect storm of the arrogance and pitiful whining by staunch low carb advocates in past months.   I've had enough of the absolute abomination that is Jimmy Moore orchestrating the rhetoric, but also many of the attendant hangers on.  So yes, I'm going on a rant here folks.  You've been forewarned.  Fasten your seatbelt and enjoy the ride, or just hit that "X" button up there on the corner right of your browser.  < /RANT WARNING >

Most readers are probably aware of Jimmy Moore's latest demonstration that he's LLVLClue to the hilt lately:  Jimmy Moore’s n=1 Experiments: ‘Safe Starch’ Sweet Potato.  I mean really, I cannot imagine that this experiment resembles in any way what Paul Jaminet would construct for someone adding starches back to a low carb diet.  The pricking begins on day one of adding some sweet potato.  It is never consumed in what would be a normal meal for most people.  Let's look at the sweet potato -- on the first two days he eats 1/2 with 1 T of honey (fructose!), the remaining days with stevia except for the last day when he eats just a half of a sweet potato.  Each day except the last he adds an unbelievable "copious" amount of butter:  3T!!  Yes, to half a sweet potato he adds over 1/3rd stick of butter.  Now let's add in the variable meals of mostly 2 brats with sauerkraut or chicken smothered in cheese.  This is DISHONEST folks.  If you're going to do self experiments and publish results, learn to do it right.  And if you're testing the effect of starch on your body, you have to consume it as plainly as possible, or at least with a normal amount of added fat.  Even sweet potato fries from a family restaurant don't hold a candle to that absolutely ridiculous added fat-to-whole food ratio!!    With reservations stated, Jimmy soldiered on ...

As a diehard ketogenic low-carber for over eight years, it’s very difficult for me to wrap my head around the idea that eating something that would ostensibly turn to sugar in the body and raise my blood sugar and insulin levels could be identified as “safe” for me to consume. But of course I’ve merely ASSUMED that this was the case and never actually tested to see what would happen if I actually ate some starch. That’s what inspired me to pull out my handy-dandy blood glucose monitor (which everyone who cares about their health should own and test often whether you have diabetes or not) and put this “safe starch” theory to the test on my body.

So publish the results he did, and, despite his best efforts, the results show two things:

• Jimmy's fasting blood glucose levels have continued to rise/stay elevated to pre-diabetic or at least borderline levels since he started these n=1's last summer.  Thus Jimmy is exhibiting the symptoms of hepatic insulin resistance.   
• Jimmy is surprisingly not exhibiting symptoms of IGT (Impaired Glucose Tolerance).  His glucose levels rise and fall back to baseline in good order consuming mixed and arguably very high fat meals.  

Just for reference, in 2008 he consumed 5 fried eggs with cheese and a chicken breast (I put this into FitDay using 2T butter and 2 oz cheese, likely an underestimate -- it contained 1080 cals, 76g fat, 6g carb, 92g protein.  Here's what his BG & insulin levels did then:  TIME–GLUCOSE–INSULIN ... FASTING–87–4.4 ... 30 MIN–89–13.7 ... 1 HOUR–78–11.1 ... 2 HOUR–78–9.0 ... 3 HOUR–89–5.1 ... 4 HOUR–87–5.0 ... 5 HOUR–89–4.7 .  Nothing abnormal there considering protein stimulates insulin and perhaps his glycogen depleted liver is a little behind the ball being able to generate glucose, hence the "hypoglycemia". 

I mean, duh already, starch turns to glucose but so freakin' what?!   Our bodies are equipped with an organ  called a pancreas that secretes insulin to, among other things, assist in moving that glucose into our cells to burn it for fuel.  Except for a type 1 -- who will never produce insulin due to beta-cell demise  -- most of us, including Jimmy, can and probably do handle the blood glucose spike quite handily.  At this point, T2's should be considered to have dysfunctional beta cells unless and until it is established they have actually lost considerable cell mass.  Because it is no secret in these parts that proper beta cell function can be restored in a matter of days in many of these people.  Now during the experiment, Jimmy's weight bounced around but at 300 lbs, realize even 5 lbs is <2% of one's body weight and thus inconsequential to the outcome.  But bottom line, if you are going to test the effect of starch consumption on your body, you need to adapt your body to such a dietary intervention for a period of time (I would say two weeks minimum) and control properly.  Jimmy fails miserably on both counts.  His 1/2 sweet potato = around 100 cal max is nothing close to seeing what including 50 - 100g starch carbs into one's diet and consuming it mashed with an absurd amount of butter with different proteins and cheese one day, sauerkraut the next, etc.etc. is not good science.  Where's Gary Taubes when you need him.

Over on PaleoHacks, it seems more and more are on to Jimmy's shenanigans.  If you're going to test these things ... do it right!  Still, if you read some of the comments on PH and on Jimmy's blog, there's this persistent theme of the "damaged metabolism" of a 40 year old former 400+ pound man vs. the healthy people Paul Jaminet and others are supposedly dangerously pushing starches upon with reckless abandon.  For Jimmy, the sooner he acknowledges that he's broken beyond fixing and settles for mediocre, the better.   One of the things that really peeved me reading Jimmy's comments such as:

I'm concerned about "safe starch" for diabetics. And yet there's this notion that starch is the magic answer.

...it seems those who promote "safe starches" are using it as an excuse to eat more carbohydrates. Some can get away with that but others of us cannot.

While Jimmy is oh so careful to pretend he's not attacking Paul Jaminet for his concept of "safe starches" -- which was NEVER about glycemic index or load -- he routinely makes comments like the above implying Paul and others are reckless in their recommendations.  In this regard Paul is *too* nice in not calling him on this BS.  And then you gotta love this regarding the butter in the experiment:

The point with the butter in this experiment was inhibiting the blood sugar response to the starch in the sweet potato. It was an experiment. That said, I'm happy to test the idea that lowering calories would produce weight loss. That n=1 would be better because I wouldn't have to prick my finger. :D Maybe I can do this when I return back from the Low-Carb Cruise in mid-May.

(Translation, I'm going to ride this for a little while longer cuz I can't be bothered doing anything when there's a midnight pizza buffet to consider ... pizza toppings are paleo, right?)  But:

Incidentally, I cut my calories drastically to around 1200-1500 daily during this weight stall for about a month. Net results: I gained five pounds. There's something more at play here than mere calories.

Gee Jimmy, perhaps you actually WANT the blood sugar response so your insulin levels do spike and suppress appetite!  As to testing the idea of lowering calories, I'm going to call Jimmy a flat out liar here.  EVERY time he has cut calories consistently in the past he has lost weight.  Not only lost it, but like gangbusters lost it.  Sometimes double digit pound losses in bodyweight per week.  If there's a single person in my audience that believes him I'm going to actually have to forbid you from reading this blog anymore as your gullibility quotient is too high to get anything of value from the information provided here.   One last Jimmy quote from the comments:

I've been told by people I eat too much and that I don't eat enough, so perhaps my calories are right where they need to be. :D Still working through it all and you know I NEVER giving up

LOL.  I would like to see him do one of his data dump posts on what Jimmy eats.  Pick any month where  he showed pictures or did any estimating of his calories (he never weighs/measures folks, only estimates) from the 3.5+ years of his menus blogs and held or gained weight.  Find me ONE "expert" willing to weigh in -- including old Gary himself -- on the amount Jimmy eats and suggest he's not eating enough.  Yeah, right.  People are demonstrating extreme gullibility lately, but they are not THAT gullible!

Antagonism ... what's with all this antagonism?

As mentioned from the get go, parts of this have been around for a while, and this part was prompted by Jimmy's whinefest 2012 regarding the so-called antagonism against low carb.   Maybe it's just me, but I've never perceived a lot of antagonism by the carb eaters in the community towards LC (except, perhaps, against the BS mangling of science) ... but boy have I ever been on the receiving end of far worse than antagonism from staunch low carbers!  I mean you'd think I killed some person's dog once when I mentioned I eat some low fat dairy and pointed out that it may be slightly higher in carbs, but unless it's sweetened, there are no added carbs.  And that was mild compared to the firestorm unleashed on me over my podcast, etc.etc.  Never mind the whole confused, mentally unstable stalker chick crap.  Frankly, if one relied on Jimmy for their info, they might even conclude that the Drs. Jaminet wrote their Perfect Health Diet book, recommending 100g carbs from "safe starches", just to antagonize Atkins dieters about the globe or something.   If there's antagonism against LC, it's probably a WTF does this guy have to do with paleo backlash.  Jimmy went paleo to save his business because despite reports out of Sweden, low carb was on the fade again, and it will be another couple of years before the next best LC diet book hits the stands.   Sure, there's an LC faction in the paleo community, but they already have their cyber home over on MDA.  If Jimmy feels any personal antagonism, it might just be the normal reaction of those trying to build their own primal/paleo/ancestral/etc. empires wondering who the heck this obese Jimmy-come-lately is trying to get in on a piece of their action.

OK, OK ... by now you're probably wondering why this "nothing new under the sun" BS post from Jimmy got me started.  Well, the reason is that it brought back up the whole larger safe starches debate and the upcoming AHS12.  (Yes, I'm still going!  Ordered my bunny ear webcam - grin - kidding?)  You see, Jimmy Moore will be moderating a discussion/debate on starches to include Paul Jaminet, Ron Rosedale, Cate Shanahan and Jack Kruse.  Considering just the panel, this is like 2.5 against 1, and perhaps less than 1.  Allow me to explain.  The 2 of the 2.5 are Rosedale and Shanahan -- firmly in the camp of carbs spike leptin and/or insulin and will glycate your ass into an early grave quicker than Jimmy Moore can down a Quest bar.  The 0.5 is for Leptin Man who can't seem to decide what side of this issue he's even on depending on his circadian yoking and level of mind numbness.  Which leaves Paul at probably somewhat less than 1 for starches, and I say that in no way demeaning his intellect or knowledge level.  I say that because despite being portrayed as a Starched Crusader, Paul is by no means an advocate of high carbs.  So there will not be anyone on this panel or moderating it to advocate for getting the bulk of your energy from carbs vs. fat.  This is too bad, because we have so many healthy *ANCESTRAL* cultures consuming diets that are quite low in fat and high in carbs it seems almost criminal nobody will likely address these.  Paul advocates a sweet spot approach and a preference for fats to make up the remaining calories once carbs have been considered.  This is one point I've come to disagree with fairly strongly of late, ever since I looked into this issue more closely.  While I'm still a PHD fan, I have reservations over the justification for fat being the primary preferred fuel for humans.

In any case, after recent weeks/months of Kaptain Konfusion and Physician Phollies at the hands of Kruse and Shanahan, being reminded of equally annoying pseudoscience from Ron "everyone's some degree of diabetic" Rosedale and all of this just got to me.  I wonder what kind of open debate Rosedale is even capable of engaging in given my brief interactions with him on PaleoHacks and such.  One such discussion can be found here.  Rosedale promised many studies to back his assertions.  He believes insulin should never be -- NEVER -- used to treat T2's.  The many studies never were forthcoming.  He makes several claims including the requisite Big Pharma conspiracy and criminal medicine whopper that no insulin lowering drug even exists.  Apparently he's not heard of diazoxide.   Rosedale is a burned-out-pancreas believer.  The evidence against this is quite substantial and consistent.  But so sure is Rosedale of his diet, he can take pot shots at me for my lack of clinical experience but lacks the balls to allow the comment below in response.

The bottom line is that Rosedale's own studies do not support his contentions.  In any case Rosedale's modus operandi in debate is to state, restate and restate again the same cherry picked studies -- the full texts/results of which don't support what he's using them to substantiate -- and assertions w/o substantiation.

Now, I've spent a fair amount of time on Dr. Cate here, but not discussed what bothers me most about her.  Sure, she's provided some fodder for Physician Phollies posts, but she's rather a small player in all of this.  Ahh ... but if recent events are any indication, she's moving to the front of the stage.  She has two books out.  I've read neither, nor do I intend to unless anyone cares to send me their copy of either.  Dr. Cate as she likes to be called (call it a peeve, I'm not a big fan of the Dr. First Name crowd) seems to have arrived at the LC-paleo mine from the WAPF-inspired shaft looking to cash in. She has her TRIM diet after all, and seems to have moved across the country recently enough that there are no MD ratings for her in CA.  Folks, repackaging a low calorie diet into real foods or whatever doesn't cut it.  She says sometimes she drinks a glass of whole raw milk for breakfast and that holds her until the evening meal.  In this video we learn how to make a perfectly symmetrical peanut butter on apple "meal" to have with a glass of milk.  Ezekial bread is on her menus.  In this video with Sean Croxton, she and her hubs make bone broth/stock and add FLOUR!  She makes the case that paleolithic man likely domesticated animals for milk.  Don't get me started on her celebrity siblings inspired theories on birth order, spacing and all that.  Wandering to Wooville is something Cate, erm Dr. Cate, is no stranger to.  I do find it disappointing that it was Paul who invited her to be a part of the safe starches debate.  Friendships can be tricky?  In her Paleo Summit presentation, she very clearly mangles known basics of human metabolism by claiming that high carbs cause the liver to create LDL that makes us fat, addressed specifically here.

So amidst Jimmy's bellyaching the past few months over some perceived antagonism towards low carbers, I couldn't help but get annoyed at Cate's contribution to the discussion.    Heck, it was even she that insisted on speculating on the motivation of the "anti-LC camp".   This is a 2 minute audio clip from about the 47 min. mark of their podcast.  (I recorded this from my computer screen, don't ask me how it got skewed on the diagonal.)   Listen to Jimmy groan!  Double groan!

Yeah, that's right.  Don't pay any attention to that camp over there, they're just a bunch of sugar addicted asshats.  She already wrote me off as a "hater" for calling her out on some ridiculous statements she made about snacking and blood volume, etc.  I don't know what makes these folks so thin-skinned that they can't seem to respond on the science.  Should be easy if the science was on your side, right?  But Cate is from the "they don't teach this in medical schools" camp of physicians.  Listening to her "expertise" on how sugar is sticky so it gums up the works and other gems, I'm at a loss as to what she adds to any discussion on glucose.

Jimmy, if we're all on the same team seeking optimal health, how can you and all of your so-called experts continue to ignore the billions of long living, disease free humans consuming far more than 50% of their calories from carbohydrates?   In his recent blog post comments we get this gem:  

And you're right...it seems those who promote "safe starches" are using it as an excuse to eat more carbohydrates. Some can get away with that but others of us cannot.

It's insulting quips like this that fuel any antagonism towards low carb.  Excuses?  You want excuses?  I'll see your claims and raise you a damaged metabolism squared.  Sheez.  It's bad enough we have to hear incessantly how VLC is *the* healthy way to eat ... for everyone.  You don't suppose a bunch of mostly fit paleos might just not wanna be scolded and ridiculed by a 300 pound low carber?  Ahh but money/publicity rules the day, so when Richard Nikoley jumped ship a while back coinciding with publication of a book, Jimmy just had to make room to squeeze in that podcast.  Oh please, Angry Dick calls him the "delightful Jimmy Moore".  Anyone have a barf bag handy?    The "delightful" FrankG doles out a good dose of antagonism (quite a bit directed at yours truly on blogs I've been banned from responding on).  It seems to me that the antagonism is a figment of the martyr complex.   Listen to any of his Low Carb Conversations, and as you can see, even his "professional" podcasts, who is routinely front and center mocking and denigrating.  And speaking of which, if one goes back and reads my posts on Taubes, they are utterly mild rebukes of his flawed hypothesis compared to the pointed personal attacks made against me by many bloggers or commentors.  At least I have the guts to allow dissent here for anyone who feels I've attacked them unfairly.  There's only one disruptive troll banned from here and that's because I refuse to allow my blog to provide a platform for racist vulgarity.  But Rosedale takes a pot shot at me and my response is censored.  Big boy him.

I guess one of those "last straw" moments with this bullcrap came in the Gatewing (Adam Kosloff) podcast.  I mean I listened to that and thought to myself, who died and made Jimnatius Mooreilly king?  After misrepresenting our exchange, these two had a little pow wow on how "we" all need to get along.  Team CICO must be defeated ... all hands on deck. I can't tell you what's in that little black box Jimmy is carrying for me there, you have to pony up $9.99 not to learn what's in there.  In any case, these two had a little go at me and unnamed others who are just antagonistic.  Sorry, but I consider it my duty to call out bullshit at this point.  I'm not about to bite my tongue when you have hucksters like Jimmy out there ... especially as they try to dominate the debate and destroy dissenters.  If it's not crystal clear to everyone by now, having me on his podcast was part of a broader plan to do just that.  Only it backfired because truth is on my side.  So Mr. "Why's Everybody Always Picking on Me" Moore has the audacity to claim that the movement has no use for people like me.  Better watch out Jimmy, because the time will come when the community you're seeking to co-opt takes stock of benefits vs. damage spotlighting you brings.  The dwindling ranks of low carbers in the community is not antagonistic, they just represent a threat to his livelihood.

So bringing this back around to the safe starch thing, I think Jimmy's own data dump post was antagonism personified (as was the insulin post before it).  By choosing the experts he distorts the perception of overall opinions.  Rosedale is now invited to paleo events too and owes that to Jimmy.  Rosedale is not a very cordial person on the internet and Paul went above and beyond the call of duty to keep his responses cordial.  Jimmy has no remorse in publishing Jeff Volek (ever wonder how a PhD in Kinesiology out of the Education department at UConn gets funding for low carb diet research and published in reputable peer review journals? ... tease) calling Paul a "nut job".  Nah ... no antagonism there?!

The reality is that the TWICHOOB hangers-on have become increasingly desperate, and where desperation breeds gullibility amongst the masses seeking to lose weight, it breeds far uglier things amongst those profiting from them.  As Nightwing swings the pool noodles in relative obscurity, Boy Wonder Glucagon rages war on a hormone without which we tend to die in rather short order.  Meanwhile Fatman has been hibernating with polar bears in the Fatcave figuring out ways to save Gluttony City from the ever increasing numbers of defectors.  < sarcasm >Never any antagonism from these folks. < /sarcasm > Never any addressing of the scientific arguments made against their flawed hypothesis either.  Let's rant on over Tara Parker Pope and how if only she tried low carb.  Let's insist ad nauseum that calories don't count it's the quality, not the quantity.  Let's put forth another data dump post on thyroid.  I'm thinking sleep will be next, because it seems apparent to me that I'm not the only one who experienced issues with sleep on LC.  And let's make sure to censor most of the folks on the other side.  And let's continue to wonder why the majority of the community doesn't welcome you with open arms as you try to co-opt the movement.  Calling people addicts and excuse-makers isn't going to make you new friends.  I and others have nothing against "the low carb" as Cate called it.  I, and I won't speak for others, do take serious issue with the promotion of quackery and demonstrably flawed science for sake of notoriety and profit.

I'll leave you with a little fun as I imagine the starch discussion to go at AHS.

Dr. Cate:  Jack, how can you eat all those carbs in the summer?

Leptin Man:  Cate, it's complicated, but when you yoke your leptin receptors to geothermal circadian cycles carbohydrate electrons take quantum leaps from 30,000 feet.

Dr. Cate:  Huh?  Wouldn't glycation happen anyway?  I think you're just looking for an excuse to feed your carb addiction.

Rosedale:  This is where I disagree with Jack.  There is no safe level of glucose in your blood more than a few mg/dL above the minimum to prevent hypoglycemia.  

Leptin Man:  Chill out dude.   Hey, can't we all just get along dude?  There's no room for bickering when we have a cause.  Hey, anyone seen a starfish? ... dude

Paul:  Can we discuss starches and glucose metabolism please?

Leptin Man:  Paul I love you dude but you are not a neurosurgeon.  I have used CT on my patients ever since my epic biohack and proven that if you're cold adapted glycation does not occur.

Paul:  Would that include glycosylation reactions that are part of human metabolism?

Rosedale:  Paul, my diet is the optimal diet for everyone.  I limit carbs and protein and nobody on my diet gets wrinkles because there's no glycation.  We will live forever!

Leptin Man:  Ron, if you want to live forever dude, you've got to get into the cold dude.  Dude, I'm a neurosurgeon!

Rosedale:  My diet lowers body temperature without ice.   

Dr. Cate:  Guys, guys, did you snack today or something?  Seems your brains might be dehydrated from that.  Let's just agree to agree carbs are evil.   (Holds out hand to shake Paul's hand ... they shake)  Paul!  You're hands are sticky!  Have you been eating starches again?

Jimmy:  Let's get back on topic about how a high fat, moderate protein, low carb diet is the healthiest diet for optimal health please?  Ron ... tell us about your diet ... 

Rosedale:  Well my diet limits protein ...

Dr. Cate:  Ron, if I may interupt ... 

Leptin Man:   I've been out of the ice for 4 hours already, can we wrap this up before feeling returns to my torso?

Jimmy:  So, there you have it.  Starch is not safe to consume as it will spike your blood sugar levels.  Paul should recall all copies of PHD immediately for containing dangerous medical advice.  Thank you all for your participation.