*Starch, or the Decline and Fall of the AS Organism!*

Page 3 of 12 [ 180 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 12  Next

ouinon
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Age: 56
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,939
Location: Europe

18 Feb 2009, 7:38 am

"Too much in your head"; "too heady"; many AS, ( on WP anyway ), have heard this.

What if this annoying feedback had an important grain of truth in it. What if AS in general need to listen to their guts a bit more, pay attention to them?

I am not saying that NTs don't need to too, but that it is perhaps more important for AS, because our 300 square meters of gut are most likely as sensitive to the environment, ( in the form of food ), as the rest of our body is.

PS. It may not be so essential to limit the number of foods per day so much as the number of foods eaten at any one meal. Monkeys don't eat more than a couple of foods at the same time.

But starch is so indigestible that some bacteria in the gut make protective cell walls out of it.
.



Last edited by ouinon on 18 Feb 2009, 10:35 am, edited 1 time in total.

ouinon
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Age: 56
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,939
Location: Europe

18 Feb 2009, 10:29 am

Silvervarg wrote:
There might be a language difference here, our translation does include sugar.
Sugar in fruit: ... [ swedish ] ... "a carbohydrate in plants". English translation: starch

Just thinking that it might be a good idea to clarify this confusion of words. :)

Starch and sugars are both carbohydrates, but starch is a complex carbo whereas sugars are simple carbos.

.



ouinon
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Age: 56
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,939
Location: Europe

18 Feb 2009, 11:07 am

:idea: Am wondering whether this might be one, ( very important ), reason why there are so many instructions in the older parts of the Bible about what foods you can and can't eat; including how to prepare them, which ones you are allowed to eat with which, and when you can eat them.
.



Last edited by ouinon on 18 Feb 2009, 11:18 am, edited 2 times in total.

Mysty
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,762

18 Feb 2009, 11:11 am

Silvervarg wrote:
ouinon wrote:
Protein is even better for "prolonged energy input", without all the problems associated with starch digestion.

Not quite, if it were Atkins diet wouldn't work. The best way is to mix starch and proteins, the starch makes the body store the fat in the meat for later use.
What problems? :)


Starch, or carbohydrates? From what I've read about good carbs and bad carbs, I don't get the impression that starch is any better than sugar. What makes a carbohydrate food good carbs is fiber.



ouinon
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Age: 56
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,939
Location: Europe

18 Feb 2009, 11:38 am

MR wrote:
Starch, or carbohydrates? From what I've read about good carbs and bad carbs, I don't get the impression that starch is any better than sugar. What makes a carbohydrate food good carbs is fiber.

Sugars, ( simple carbohydrates ), are easy to digest, ( unless you are allergic to fructose ), whereas complex carbohydrates, ( starch ), are very indigestible. If want to cut down on overload then starch, ( complex carbo ), is the thing to cut out.

Fibre is widely available in fruit and vegetables. There is no need to eat complex carbos/starchy foods in order to have fibre in the diet.

.



ouinon
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Age: 56
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,939
Location: Europe

18 Feb 2009, 11:56 am

ouinon wrote:
:idea: Am wondering whether this might be one, ( very important ), reason why there are so many instructions in the older parts of the Bible about what foods you can and can't eat; including how to prepare them, which ones you are allowed to eat with which, and when you can eat them.

And there are even instructions for what is in virtually all respects a Rotation Diet, which was "invented" in the 50's by clinical ecologists helping people with food intolerances to find a diet which didn't create new intolerances, ( because very sensitive people tend to develop intolerances to foods they eat too regularly without a break ). It involves leaving at least four days between each kind of food. And the Bible recommends/instructs people to eat several/certain foods on different days of the week.

I believe that someone/a group of people had found that gut overload, something increasingly common once agriculture had altered the balance of the diet towards starches, had a serious effect on mental, physical and emotional functioning in a significant number of cases.

And the Bible was not written by a bunch of misguided idiots, contrary to what a lot of people seem to think.

.



Mysty
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,762

18 Feb 2009, 12:08 pm

ouinon wrote:
MR wrote:
Starch, or carbohydrates? From what I've read about good carbs and bad carbs, I don't get the impression that starch is any better than sugar. What makes a carbohydrate food good carbs is fiber.

Sugars, ( simple carbohydrates ), are easy to digest, ( unless you are allergic to fructose ), whereas complex carbohydrates, ( starch ), are very indigestible. If want to cut down on overload then starch, ( complex carbo ), is the thing to cut out.

Fibre is widely available in fruit and vegetables. There is no need to eat complex carbos/starchy foods in order to have fibre in the diet.

.


You seem to have ignored the context in which I said that, what I was replying to. It was a reply to the idea that we need starches in our diet, saying that, going by the standard nutritional information, we don't. In that, at least, it agrees with you.



ouinon
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Age: 56
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,939
Location: Europe

18 Feb 2009, 12:12 pm

MR wrote:
You seem to have ignored the context in which I said that, what I was replying to. It was a reply to the idea that we need starches in our diet, saying that, going by the standard nutritional information, we don't. In that, at least, it agrees with you.

Not ignored, just misunderstood. Thanks for the clarification. I've got it now. :wink:

.



Silvervarg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Jan 2009
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 787
Location: Sweden

18 Feb 2009, 2:39 pm

MR wrote:
Silvervarg wrote:
ouinon wrote:
Protein is even better for "prolonged energy input", without all the problems associated with starch digestion.

Not quite, if it were Atkins diet wouldn't work. The best way is to mix starch and proteins, the starch makes the body store the fat in the meat for later use.
What problems? :)

Starch, or carbohydrates? From what I've read about good carbs and bad carbs, I don't get the impression that starch is any better than sugar. What makes a carbohydrate food good carbs is fiber.

It depends on how you view it. ;)
From what I understod from my education is that starch are "better" to eat if you want to store fat since your body allways trys to digest carbonhydrates first, but unlike sugar, the starch is released in a slow paste and you'll end up eating again befor you can use up all you newstored fat.

ouinon wrote:
Silvervarg wrote:
Quote:
Protein is even better for "prolonged energy input", without all the problems associated with starch digestion.
The best way is to mix starch and proteins, the starch makes the body store the fat in the meat for later use.

:lol: That is obviously why the inuit indians/"eskimos", ( that ate no starchy carbohydrates until recently ) are famously so thin!

Don't be an idiot, they obviously has more to eat than proteins or els they would be long time dead.

Quote:
Your body does not need starch in order to store fat. But eating starch does perhaps encourage your body to create, and fill, more unhealthy "white fat" cells, ( as opposed to the healthy "brown fat" cells ).

It does.
You seems to have a missconception of what the white and the broun fat cells does. The white are for storing energy, isolation and (physical) shock absorber. The brown are heat-generating.

Quote:
Eating starch with proteins slows digestion down drastically. When you eat protein on its own, ( without starchy carbohydrates ), the stomach takes about 6 hours to digest it. When you eat starchy carbs on their own it takes 4-5 hours. But when you eat protein with starch the meal stays in the stomach for 11 - 12 hours.

I don't agree to your hours there, but the point with the food is that you avoid getting hungry longer.

Quote:
The combination, ( of starch and protein ), is so much more difficult to digest that the stomach has to produce far more acid enzymes to deal with it, and this makes the job for the guts/intestines much harder in consequence, requiring the secretion of even more neutralising and self-protecting fluids, and causing more damage to villi.

Can you link to this info?

Silvervarg wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
If AS treated their gut as if it was themselves, only exposing it to a very few foods each day, and no starch, I think many would rediscover levels of energy and confidence and clarity that had thought was lost forever, aswell as a capacity to deal with environmental stimulation which would surprise them.
You are talking about a sugerboost.

No. I am talking about relief from the background clamour of an overloaded gut, and the capacity to withstand stress which a healthy gut provides by neutralising the acid produced by the stomach when we are anxious/afraid etc.
Quote:
If you eat faster foods (fruit etc) you'll need to eat more often. Of course you feel better when you have a high bloodsugar level. But it means you'll have to eat almost constantly.

If all you ate was fruit, yes, ( which is why people use fruit for cleansing/purging fasts ), but not if you eat meat, nuts, fish, vegetables, and seeds aswell.

It still won't provide energy for as long as starches.

Silvervarg wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
Wondering whether this might well be what lies behind so many AS children refusing to eat more than a couple of foods. Children are perhaps still aware of the effect on their guts of a lot of different foods.
All children have that stage.

Untrue, speaking as a mother, but also as someone who didn't go through a stage like that either.

There are no rule without exeptions. That's a rule.

Quote:
Quote:
Bacteria kill off what's coming down, no matter what you eat. And why should some kind of food be more likely to attract harmful bacteria?

Some bacteria positively thrive on certain foods. Klebsiella for instance, ( bacteria which prevents healing of membranes in the body, particularly in the lungs but also elsewhere ), loves starch because its cell walls are made of starch, precisely because starch is so indigestible that it makes a very effective armour.

Whereas "friendly" bacteria, which help us with digestion, ( making vitamin B's more available to us for instance ), and help to keep down the numbers of "unfriendly bacteria, will be decimated by certain unhealthy gut conditions.

And since we've survived the past 10 000 years whilst eating starches daily and with and increasing lifespan, they are obivously not that dangerous.

Silvervarg wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
Our stomach perhaps. But have you heard of the Enteric Nervous System, which is the nervous system wrapped in and around the intestines, and almost completely independent from the brain? It does a lot more than say if the intestines are empty or full.
"It is capable of autonomous functions such as the coordination of reflexes(vomiting etc), although it receives considerable innervation from the autonomic nervous system and thus is often considered a part of it. Its study is the focus of neurogastroenterology.It can be damaged by ischemia." It's not a tongue.

You are still talking about the stomach, rather than the intestines/guts.
Quote:
Yes, well, I can spell stomach faster than the others (even faster that gut), plus it's the first word I think of when I translate my thoughts.

Silvervarg wrote:
ouinon wrote:
:!: Interestingly, monkeys will not eat unripe fruit. They will spit it out if they eat any by accident. And unripened fruit does contain polysaccharides/starch. The ripening process gets rid of them.
When they are hungry they eat almost any fruit they come across, it's later they start to get picky.

When animals, including humans, are very hungry they will eat many things that they would not otherwise. That does not mean that those things are good for them.

And it doesn't mean that it's bad for them either.


_________________
Sing songs. Songs sung. Samsung.


ouinon
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Age: 56
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,939
Location: Europe

18 Feb 2009, 3:11 pm

Silvervarg wrote:
Starch are "better" to eat if you want to store fat since your body allways trys to digest carbonhydrates first, but unlike sugar, the starch is released in a slow paste and you'll end up eating again befor you can use up all you newstored fat.

Partly digested food leaves the stomach in a "smooth paste" as it enters the duodenum, ( first part of the small intestines ), and is then subjected to another few ( 5-6 ) hours of breakdown and absorption before getting to your bloodstream.

The speed/efficiency with which starch, or rather the sugars in the starch, get to our bloodstream, will depend on how able to digest and absorb it the gut is, ( and how many Klebsiella bacteria are feeding off it too! ), which is moot.

Quote:
ouinon wrote:
... the inuit indians/"eskimos" ate no starchy carbohydrates until recently.
Don't be an idiot, they obviously has more to eat than proteins or els they would be long time dead.

The inuit indians are famous for living healthy and long lives without eating any starches/complex carbohydrates.

Silvervarg wrote:
Quote:
Eating starch with proteins slows digestion down drastically. When you eat protein on its own, ( without starchy carbohydrates ), the stomach takes about 6 hours to digest it. When you eat starchy carbs on their own it takes 4-5 hours. But when you eat protein with starch the meal stays in the stomach for 11 - 12 hours.
I don't agree to your hours there, but the point with the food is that you avoid getting hungry longer.

Food in your stomach is not feeding your body, yet. It will stop you feeling hungry, but only because the stomach could not take any more food, which has nothing to do with whether your body has everything it needs to be going on with.

Silvervarg wrote:
Quote:
The combination, ( of starch and protein ), is so much more difficult to digest that the stomach has to produce far more acid enzymes to deal with it, and this makes the job for the guts/intestines much harder in consequence, requiring the secretion of even more neutralising and self-protecting fluids, and causing more damage to villi.

Can you link to this info?

I might hunt one up.

Silvervarg wrote:
It [ protein, etc ] still won't provide energy for as long as starches.

Starch clearly takes longer to digest and absorb, and so its arrival in the bloodstream will be "spread out" compared with simple sugars, ( which as you pointed out are used up fast and you have to top up frequently ), but protein and fat are even longer lasting sources of energy.

If fed enough of them, as the inuit indians prove, the body is capable of running at optimum energy levels for long periods of time, ( they did not make a habit of snacking every two hours ).

Feed your body enough protein and fat and your body will metabolise them to provide energy as and when you need it until it runs out. A couple of days later.

Silvervarg wrote:
ouinon wrote:
Some bacteria positively thrive on certain foods. Klebsiella for instance, ( bacteria which prevents healing of membranes in the body, particularly in the lungs but also elsewhere ), loves starch because its cell walls are made of starch, precisely because starch is so indigestible that it makes a very effective armour, whereas "friendly" bacteria, which help us with digestion, ( making vitamin B's more available to us for instance ), and help to keep down the numbers of "unfriendly bacteria, will be decimated by certain unhealthy gut conditions.
And since we've survived the past 10 000 years whilst eating starches daily and with and increasing lifespan, they are obivously not that dangerous.

That is the whole point of this thread; that we may be alive but are we well?

I am suggesting that we may survive on modern diets, but that our guts, ( all 300 square meters of sensitive membrane, probably more sensitive in AS ), are overloaded by the starches and huge numbers of foods eaten at the same time, and that this overload seriously compromises our ability to function.

.



zen_mistress
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2007
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,033

18 Feb 2009, 4:06 pm

What I dont understand about this is I thought that gluten was what overwhelmed ASD guts, but starches? Why starches?



Silvervarg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Jan 2009
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 787
Location: Sweden

18 Feb 2009, 4:17 pm

Silvervarg wrote:
ouinon wrote:
Some bacteria positively thrive on certain foods. Klebsiella for instance, ( bacteria which prevents healing of membranes in the body, particularly in the lungs but also elsewhere ), loves starch because its cell walls are made of starch, precisely because starch is so indigestible that it makes a very effective armour, whereas "friendly" bacteria, which help us with digestion, ( making vitamin B's more available to us for instance ), and help to keep down the numbers of "unfriendly bacteria, will be decimated by certain unhealthy gut conditions.
And since we've survived the past 10 000 years whilst eating starches daily and with and increasing lifespan, they are obivously not that dangerous.

That is the whole point of this thread; that we may be alive but are we well?

I am suggesting that we may survive on modern diets, but that our guts, ( all 300 square meters of sensitive membrane, probably more sensitive in AS ), are overloaded by the starches and huge numbers of foods eaten at the same time, and that this overload seriously compromises our ability to function.[/quote]
I would guess more that it's the increasing lack of communication and exercise that is the most pressing matter in the western world. And this is reflected harder on us then on NTs. :)


_________________
Sing songs. Songs sung. Samsung.


ouinon
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Age: 56
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,939
Location: Europe

18 Feb 2009, 4:21 pm

zen_mistress wrote:
What I dont understand about this is I thought that gluten was what overwhelmed ASD guts, but starches? Why starches?

The first reason is probably and simply that during two million years of human evolution we did not eat starches/complex carbohydrates/polysaccharides. We probably ate much like chimpanzees for a long time, a mixture of fruit, nuts and seeds, green plants, some meat, ( and later fish, eggs, and perhaps dairy ), and some raw root vegetables.

So our digestion did not at that time "have" to adapt to starch. It adapted to simple sugars, and proteins and fats. The neolithic revolution, with the spread of agriculture, changed our diet dramatically, but the 12,000 years that have passed since are not enough to have "eradicated"/selected against everyone whose body can not handle complex carbohydrates/starch.

Second, starch is a large complex molecule, the "biggest" carbohydrate as gluten is the "biggest" protein that we eat. It is possible that the reason monkeys spit out unripened ( starchy ) fruit , ( unless very hungry :wink: ), is because it is fairly indigestible by sheer virtue of its size.

One strong indication that it is not very digestible is that certain bacteria use starch for their cell walls, as a protective armour, inside our digestive systems. ie. Our small intestine cannot, or cannot easily, break it down.

.



ouinon
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Age: 56
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,939
Location: Europe

18 Feb 2009, 4:48 pm

ouinon wrote:
The neolithic revolution, with the spread of agriculture, changed our diet dramatically, but the 12,000 years that have passed since are not enough to have "eradicated"/selected against everyone whose body can not handle complex carbohydrates/starch.

But it occurs to me that perhaps we are seeing/experiencing the first stages of such a selection.

The overload that starch, ( and modern dietary habits in general ), may be causing in those with the most sensitive guts ( logically AS because we are more sensitive to everything ), by negatively affecting our ability to function in society, will have, ( perhaps already has had ), a significant effect on our ability to reproduce. Selection in action.

Unless we learn to "love" our enteric Nervous Systems/guts and exclude the item(s) which cause it/us to overload. :wink:
.



Last edited by ouinon on 19 Feb 2009, 4:34 am, edited 1 time in total.

Silvervarg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Jan 2009
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 787
Location: Sweden

18 Feb 2009, 5:14 pm

Quote:
So our digestion did not at that time "have" to adapt to starch. It adapted to simple sugars, and proteins and fats. The neolithic revolution, with the spread of agriculture, changed our diet dramatically, but the 12,000 years that have passed since are not enough to have "eradicated"/selected against everyone whose body can not handle complex carbohydrates/starch.

It can, all of us can digest starches, if we couldn't our bodies would react in the same way as when we eat grass, it would go straight though us.

Quote:
Second, starch is a large complex molecule, the "biggest" carbohydrate as gluten is the "biggest" protein that we eat. It is possible that the reason monkeys spit out unripened ( starchy ) fruit , ( unless very hungry ), is because it is fairly indigestible by sheer virtue of its size.

It's not the reason, unriped fruit tastes bad and/or contains chemicals that are harmfull to us, becouse we're not meant to eat them until the seeds inside are ready and of course no one eats a discusting type of food if you can just wait for it to get better.

Quote:
Unless we learn to "love" our guts and exclude the item(s) which cause it/us to overload.

You seem stuck in a conception.


_________________
Sing songs. Songs sung. Samsung.


ouinon
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Age: 56
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,939
Location: Europe

19 Feb 2009, 4:33 am

Silvervarg wrote:
Quote:
So our digestion adapted to simple sugars, and proteins and fats. The neolithic revolution, with the spread of agriculture, changed our diet dramatically, but the 12,000 years that have passed since are not enough to have "eradicated"/selected against everyone whose body can not handle complex carbohydrates/starch.
It can, all of us can digest starches, if we couldn't our bodies would react in the same way as when we eat grass, it would go straight though us.

Which must be why Klebsiella bacteria living in our intestines use starch for cell walls, so that they will be digested.

I did not say that we absolutely cannot digest starch, but that many of us, ( with the hypersensitive guts of AS ), can not handle it. That the work involved in digesting it is the source of constant unremitting overload.

Silvervarg wrote:
ouinon wrote:
Monkeys spit out unripened ( starchy ) fruit , ( unless very hungry :wink: ).
Unriped fruit tastes bad and/or contains chemicals that are harmful to us;

One of the "chemicals that are harmful" being the polysaccharide called starch, which is bad for many animals unless they are ruminants. As soon as the polysaccharides/starch disappear as part of the ripening process the fruit becomes sweet and appealing to all animals that eat fruit.

Silvervarg wrote:
ouinon wrote:
Unless we learn to "love" our Enteric Nervous System/guts and exclude the item(s) which cause it/us to overload.

You seem stuck in a conception.

And you're not? :roll: :lol:

.