Peat "safe Starches"

[narouz]

Juxtapose these two takes on the subject from Danny Roddy.

The first is here (expressed in Mr. Roddy's inimitable style) in
"Carbon Dioxide: The Real Reason Safe Starches Are a Joke" at
http://www.dannyroddy.com/main/2012...the-real-reason-safe-starches-are-a-joke.html:

The dark days of carbohydrate restriction bore more than the Teletubby version of myself; it created the concept of "safe-starches" and the universal acceptance of fructose being a toxin.

The benefit of "safe-starches" is that they soften the excruciating mental transition low-carbers face when escaping no-sugar island. Similar ideas helped me crawl out of my zero-carb coma a few years ago.

The downside, of course, is that the very idea of "safe starches" prevents the zombie corpse of carbohydrate-insulin-hypothesis (carbohydrates "spike" insulin causing disease) from entering its coffin.

If fact, I wouldn't be surprised if there was a direct correlation between the phrase "Is this a safe-starch?" and the mobilization of living dead.

Sometimes Danny's baroque style of humor outstrips his clarity just a tad
(or maybe it just outstrips my twee brain),
but if I'm reading him right there
he seems to be slamming the notion of "safe starches" within a Peatian context.
In other words: starches are NOT safe.

But then check out his response here in his
"The Peat Whisperer: Increasing The Metabolic Rate With The Visionary Work of Raymond Peat PhD" at
http://www.dannyroddy.com/main/2012...ncreasing-the-metabolic-rate-with-the-vi.html
...in the comments section:

Stray question, I know...
(maybe the answer will appear in The Peat Whisperer!?)
...but anybody:
Somewhere I read or heard in an interview that Dr. Peat said white rice was okay to eat
about once per week.
Can anybody confirm this?
Jul 31, 2012 | Unregistered Commenter darley

@Darley,
There's nothing wrong with white rice.
Those with digestive issues may want to stick to more digestible carbohydrates like fruit.
Jul 31, 2012 | Registered Commenter Danny Roddy

So you see, even from the eminent Peat interpreter Danny Roddy,
there is ambiguity
or even ambivalence
about what has come to be called "Peat Safe Starches."

Is that a term Peat uses?
Or is it a term applied to Peat by an interpreter?
I've come to use it myself sometimes,
but I wonder if I should.

The designation ("Peat Safe Starches") usually means, within PeatDom, in this order (best to worst):
potatoes, masa harina, white rice.
Others rush to include other tubers or root vegetables
like sweet potatoes, yams, parsnips, daikon, etc,
because Peat has said something to the effect that
underground vegetables are safer than above-ground veggies.
And he has also tossed out the phrase "roots, tubers, and shoots"
in an attempt, I think, to identify less harmful vegetables.

I've long thought that this area of ambiguity or ambivalence within Peat interpretation
represents the loophole
through which many starch-bearing trucks may be driven.

And it is perhaps the most important "gray area" to be clarified,
because if we fully and unqualifiedly embrace those supposedly "safe" starches here
then it becomes possible to interpret a "Peat-derived Diet"
in radically different ways.
Two people, both eating what they claim to be a Peatish Food Plan (or some such locution),
could be eating two very very very different kinds of diet.

If that's the way it should be in our best interpretations of Peat
then I'm fine with it.
But I do think it deserves some close interrogation.

I've been carrying on a running exploration of this issue
with the brilliant surfer-scientist Cliff McCrary.
I will try to round those exchanges up and post them over here.

 

[narouz]

(I posted this over in the "Notes Toward a Handle Like..." thread, but I wanted to put it here too because it's obviously related.)

Here, I’m starting to wrestle with the thorny area in PeatDom
which is sometimes referred to as “Peat’s Safe Starches.”

Here’s an overview of some of the questions examined:
-Where did the term “safe starches” come from?
-Is it a Peat term?
-If it’s not a Peat term, does Peat have something like it in mind?
-Is “roots, shoots, and tubers” a Peat phrase?
-Do they belong within something like a Peat “better starch” area?
-What would a list of Peat’s preferred starches look like, in order from most to least preferred.

“Safe Starches”

I’ve been trying to remember where, exactly, this phrase comes from. I’ve gotten it conflated with Peat’s language and with language others have employed to describe Peat’s ideas.

In researching, I re-read this response to a blog of
Danny Roddy’s “Carbon Dioxide: The Real Reason Safe Starches Are a Joke"

http://www.dannyroddy.com/main/2012...the-real-reason-safe-starches-are-a-joke.html

“Hey Danny, I agree with the previous commenter who pointed out that the term "safe starches" does not refer to glycemic impact or demonization of fructose. It's a term coined by the Jaminets to mean sources of starch w/o toxins like gluten, phytates, lectins and such. The arch LC'ers claim no starches are safe because they will all cause a postprandial glucose and insulin spike.
Either way, interesting article!”
May 23, 2012 | Evelyn aka CarbSane

So, not that this is definitive, but it does seem likely that the term “safe starches” was coined by the Jaminets in their PHD.

I’ve been seeking some clarity on this thorny issue in PeatWorld.
I guess it is clarifying a bit just to pin down that “safe starches” is not a Peat term.
And, indeed, in Roddy’s blog article noted above,
he would seem to be quite vigorously arguing against supposedly “safe starches” (and fats)
as a major part of a diet.
In the same blog, Roddy interprets and quotes Peat:

"When deciding whether to obtain carbohydrate from "safe starches," low-calorie vegetable matter, or fruit, consider that sugar (especially fructose) is supportive of CO2 production:
"It is concluded that both fructose and glucose-induced thermogenesis occurs exclusively in extrasplanchnic tissues. Compared with glucose, fructose ingestion is accompanied by a more marked rise in CO2 production, possibly reflecting an increased extrasplanchnic oxidation of lactate and an accumulation of heat in the body."
Moreover, when glucose oxidation is inhibited (diabetes, Randle cycle), fructose provides pyruvic acid for oxidative energy:
"One of the points at which fatty acids suppress the use of glucose is at the point at which it is converted into fructose, in the process of glycolysis. When fructose is available, it can by-pass this barrier to the use of glucose, and continue to provide pyruvic acid for continuing oxidative metabolism, and if the mitochondria themselves aren't providing sufficient energy, it can leave the cell as lactate, allowing continuing glycolytic energy production. In the brain, this can sustain life in an emergency." - Ray Peat

If you go to Roddy's site and read his article,
you will see that, in general, and if I'm interpreting him (who in turn is interpreting Peat) correctly,
--you will see that Roddy thinks Peat strongly prefers fruit over starches and oil because...well, I'll leave those finer points for you to master from the article! :)

I’m grappling with how to interpret Peat in this area of starches.
How they should best be represented on the food chart.
Although Peat does not use the term “safe starches,”
he would seem to have a concept and category similar to it.

From that same blog, Roddy answers another reader with a different Peat quote:

“@Evan,
Here is a quote from Peat about it:
"There is a great anti-sugar cult, with even moralistic overtones, equating sugar craving with morphine addiction. Sugar craving is usually caused by the need for sugar, generally caused by hypothyroidism. When yeasts have enough sugar, they just happily make ethanol, but when they don't have sugar, they can sink filaments into the intestine wall seeking it, and, if the person is very weak, they can even invade the bloodstream and other organs. Milk, cheese, and fruits provide a very good balance of nutrients. Fruits provide a significant amount of protein. Plain sugar is o.k. when the other nutrients are adequate. Roots, shoots, and tubers are, next to the fruits, a good carbohydrate source; potatoes are a source of good protein. Meat as the main protein can provide too much phosphorus in relation to calcium."

—Ray Peat (bolding mine)

At long last I found where
I had gotten the phrase “roots, shoots, and tubers” in my head as a Peat phrase!
This is quite a missing link for me!—the fact that Peat says that they are
“next to the fruits, a good carbohydrate source.”

Now, I would have to pause here a moment to qualify:
while Roddy’s site is wonderful and provides an abundance of Peat views and quotes
I haven’t found elsewhere...
...I do have to add that that information is very raw in many cases:
sources don’t have clear attribution or any attribution sometimes,
we often don’t know who Peat is addressing,
and what the context is—what was the question asked to him?
was Peat’s answer in a private consultation?
--it is not a scholarly journal, put it that way.

But, if the info is accurate,
and I tend to accept it as being so,
then we could round up a category of starches
which could be viewed (though not designated so by Peat)
as his “better starches” or somesuch.
And that category would comprise,
in this seeming order of quality:

1. Potatoes (being a tuber or root, I guess, and considering Peat has said “Roots, shoots, and tubers are, next to the fruits, a good carbohydrate source.”) And Peat has also said that potatoes are more like fruits than vegetables.
2. Other roots and tubers like, I guess, sweet potatoes, yams, daikon, turnips, etc
3. Shoots? What are shoots? According to one definition they are: “The aerial portions of a plant, including stem, branches, and leaves and also, new immature growth on a plant.” I think for now we need to hold this category of food in abeyance. If shoots includes “leaves,” for instance, we know that Peat strongly opposes the inclusion of “foliage” (leaves, right?) in a healthy diet. This needs more exploration. That one reference, above, to “roots, shoots, and tubers” is the only one I’ve seen, supposedly from Peat himself. Elsewhere I’ve heard, more than once, Peat use the phrase “roots and tubers.” So maybe this lone mention of “shoots” is not accurate. Until we get something more solid I suggest we leave it out of our list.
4. Masa harina: corn treated with lime and cooked
5. White rice: ideally boiled with lye for over 40 minutes
6. Brown rice: ideally boiled even longer I’d suppose and also with lye
7. Oatmeal: if boiled a long time—Peat says it will then be made “more acceptable” or something like that.

So that's a start.
Next I'll be scrutinizing
how Peat views starches in general
and how he would seem to see them within a healthy diet.

Please let me know if you have problems with what I've said above
or additional information
or other viewpoints.
It is a blurry area.

 

[cartman]

7. Oatmeal: if boiled a long time—Peat says it will then be made “more acceptable” or something like that.

How long should the oats been boiled?
I always used to warm milk and add the oats until it turns into a porridge.

 

[Birdie]

This was really good,narouz. The quotes outlining the general diet. Thank you. A lot of your thoughts are mine also except that you put it in good order.

I'm not sure anymore whether it was my own conclusion or Peat's that I gave a while back. Someone in the fans group had been asking about the frequency of his allowable/acceptable starches. Btw, safe starches is definitely a Jaminet term well known in the paleo community... Where was I. Okay, I commented in the fans about starch. Probably, my own deductions, tha t masa corn could be about 3 times a week, white rice once, and potatoes every day. That was just a general answer for someone who wanted to eat starch. Some there were eating masa corn 3 times a day and seem to think that's in line with Peats advice. I sure didn't mean to be quoted anywhere as thinking this was Peat's advice for an optimum diet. Haha. I was flattered to see me quoted on this forum. but my thoughts are not usually well thought out enough to be quoted IMO.

 

[narouz]

I'm not sure anymore whether it was my own conclusion or Peat's that I gave a while back. Someone in the fans group had been asking about the frequency of his allowable/acceptable starches. Btw, safe starches is definitely a Jaminet term well known in the paleo community... Where was I. Okay, I commented in the fans about starch. Probably, my own deductions, tha t masa corn could be about 3 times a week, white rice once, and potatoes every day. That was just a general answer for someone who wanted to eat starch. Some there were eating masa corn 3 times a day and seem to think that's in line with Peats advice. I sure didn't mean to be quoted anywhere as thinking this was Peat's advice for an optimum diet. Haha. I was flattered to see me quoted on this forum. but my thoughts are not usually well thought out enough to be quoted IMO.

Thanks, Birdie!
Ha...that's really amazing that we tracked that source down! :P
This accurate sourcing, documentation, attribution...
all that is very problematic on the "interwebs."
There are amazing benefits to the free flow of info
especially on obscure subjects like Dr. Peat,
but there can be some drawbacks.

So I'm trying to be vigilant about accuracy.
It is so easy to be loosey-goosey with it on the internet.

Getting back to your comment about the starches:
I tend to think you're on the money, roughly.
That's the reason I thought the info might've come from Peat through private communication/consultation.
I think your estimates about what Peat would recommend
are pretty compatible with his general statements.

To me, if you're eating masa harina and rice in considerable volume on a daily basis...
that is not really what Peat would recommend.

Thank you again for nailing that down!!

 

[narouz]

Peat Potato Extract/Soup

I copied the following into this thread from over in the "Notes Toward a Handle Like "A Basic Peat Diet" thread
because it is pertinent to discussion of what are sometimes viewed as the "Peat Safe Starches."

I have been listening to the interview with Peat by Josh and Jeanne
called Dr. Ray Peat: Glycemia, Starch and SUGAR in context!
by Josh Jeanne Rubin
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/eastwesthe ... in-context

First, let me summarize some of the things Peat says about potatoes and his recommended
"potato soup."
Here are some snippets:

Peat outlines how root vegetables like turnips and potatoes, if properly prepared,
can be "pretty safe":

"For example, young turnips and young potatoes
that have not maximized their starch production,
eaten with butter,
after being thoroughly cooked,
are pretty safe."


Let's pause there a sec and just consider
before going futher
the fairly intense qualifications and caveats
Peat has mentioned already:

-he doesn't sweepingly include All root vegetables or All starches
-he notes the potatoes and turnips should be "young," before they can
"maximize their starch production"
-he says they should be "thoroughly cooked" (and by this I believe Peat means over 40 minutes)
-he says they should be eaten with butter
-and after all those steps and qualifier he says they will be "pretty safe"
(not, perhaps, the most ringing endorsement).

So, even when it comes to "roots and tubers,"
a carbohydrate source ranked next-best by Peat next after fruits,
he still expresses how much care and "technology" and trouble
one must go to in order to protect against the negative contents of these starches.

Focusing in on potatoes (around the 46 minute point)
Peat says that "potatoes are almost unique among the plant materials":

"The liquid part of the potato, in between the starch grains...
has the equivalent of amino acids, besides some proteins.
These are the keto acids, which can be used by the brain and heart
as a substitute for sugar or fatty acids and are really an ideal
anti-stress fuel and can instantly turn into amino acids as needed.
And so, apart from the starch, the potato is an amazing food."


High praise indeed.
But note that none of that praise is directed toward the starch component.
Peat then discusses
Potato extract (or what we've been calling Potato Soup).
He discusses anecdotal evidence he has observed in supposedly incurable, undiagnosed,
dying people
who have eaten such soup, and its remarkable healing properties.
He describes how to make it:

"Just by juicing a few pounds of potatoes...
with a centrifugal juicer you throw out the starch grains almost completely,
and then you cook it just like you would scrambling an egg. The juice coagulates,
so it's sort of like limp mashed potatoes."


Okay, so note the special technology needed--the centrifugal juicer--
to get rid of the starch.
And note also that the remaining extract still should be cooked.
Peat continues:

"This [the cooked extract] provides both energy and the essential amino acids
but without the stimulating insulin or cortisol, so its sort of an emergency food
for almost any stress problem."


Notice above how getting rid of most of the starch,
by centrifuging and cooking,
creates a food "without the stimulating insulin or cortisol"
problems of starch.

So my point here--besides getting me geared up for some potato juicing--
is to point out Peat's view of starch.

Even in potatoes,
which Peat calls "almost unique among plant materials,"
and an "amazing food" when centrifuged and cooked...

...even, then, with Peat's very favorite starchy food
notice how careful he is to caution against potential dangers
and to describe how to avoid them.

Essentially, all those cautions and steps amount to:
get rid, as completely as possible, of the STARCH!

I don't think Peat is at all cavalier about including starches into one's diet.
In fact, he goes to great lengths to describe how best to avoid it.
The potato soup is just one specific example.
But it is part of a pattern,
part of a general view of nutrition in Peat's work,
which makes me hesitate in thinking that
an ideal or strict Peat derived diet
would include starchy foods--even the preferred Peat starches--
to any major extent.

 

[narouz]

I put this is the Peat Quotations thread,
but it is relevant to our discussion about the place of starch in a Peat diet:

"Any carbohydrate...that is not sugar can potentially feed bacteria [in the intestines] that produce toxins and cause systemic stress."

from Dr. Ray Peat: Glycemia, Starch and SUGAR in Context!
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/eastwe...ray-peat-glycemia-starch-and-sugar-in-context

Go to approximately the 29 minute mark of the interview.

Starch is a "carbohydrate...that is not sugar," right?

 

[charlie]

"Tom Lee" over at Ray Peat Fans said this about starch. I figured I would add it here because it's something that I have also been interested in. It seems that every time I eat potatoes, my temps, soar. Even into the next day, my basal temp will be higher. I just ordered some masa harina so I will let you know how that goes. I just really think that maybe we shouldn't alienate(maybe thats not the right word) starches like potatoes because it's helping people to raise their metabolism, including me.

So, there we have a conflict: Insulin leads to increased serotonin levels in the brain (but it´s also my understanding that serotonin in the gut is much more harmful), but on the other side insulin is the carrying hormone for nutrients, amino acids and glucose and is also the primary hormone for lowering cortisol and adrenaline. That´s why I´m a fan of a good amount of starch and not only sugar. (I have read here that some people believe higher temps from starch are a result from an adrenaline surge which is absolutely nonsense and bull****. Starch is better for controlling adrenaline levels and it´s more likely to cause reactive hypoglycemia with sugar than with starch.)

Tom, this might be the answer I've been looking for. Could you elaborate further?

Diana Schwarzbein (wrote a good book about the interactions of the hormones insulin, glucagon, cortisol and adrenaline) notes that the primary factor for lowering the stress hormones is insulin and raised blood sugar. The anabolic function of insulin also helps to recover and repair the adrenal glands and other tissues. Here is also a study which was once discussed by Paul Jaminet: http://www.nature.com/ijo/​journal/v21/n10/pdf/​0800494a.pdf Not that I´m saying that sugar is bad because I´m sure that the result would be different with fruits because of potassium and magnesium but if I have the choice between refined sugar and starch I will always choose the starch. After two years of this type of diet with fucosing on sugar I was never able to control my temps and get rid of insomnia and increased levels of adrenaline and cortisol until I discovered the powerful benefits of starch. Whenever I feel stressed or have insomnia and other symptoms I will eat a good amount of potatoes with some cheese and maybe some fruit. I´m now recovering with a good amount of starch to lower my stress hormones efficiently and building some muscles after losing 25 lbs with sugar (fat AND muscles). And my metabolism is thankful too.

 

[charlie]

Some more of what Tom said in the same thread later on:

If digestive issues are your problems I would at first focus on this. I had problems digesting all of Peats recommended foods and the amounts but enzymes and ginger really helped me. A good qoute from Schwarbein: "Since your insulin levels must be higher than your adrenaline/cortisol levels to heal, it does not always feel very good to be in the healing phase of your transition. It is during this time that the self-medicating phase becomes important in keeping you on your path to restoring your metabolism."

Schwarzbein says you don´t lose weight to get healthy, you get healthy to lose weight. She also notes: "The fat-burning phase of the transition occurs after your body has done all its rebuilding in the healing phase.
You begin your fat burning phase only after your hormones are completely normalized and your metabolism is healed. Only then is your body ready to burn off the rest of your stored fat if it needs to. All of your symptoms of fluctuating adrenaline, cortisol and/or insulin will be gone, and you will feel great. During this phase you will be rebuilding and using up your functional and structural biochemicals again at an equal rate." So at first you need to go through the healing phase to reach the phase where you have achieved your ideal body composition. We know that a lot of Peatarians gain weight which would be normal in the healing phase. But what if they never come trough the healing phase because they do something wrong? The Peat diet is a context-based diet and even now since I eat a lot of starch I would still define me as a real Peatarian. Peat also said it´s absolutely fine to eat a good amount of starch. He will only encourage somebody to lower the amount if digestive issues are present or if one wants to lose weight (this, however, is something where I don´t agree). Emma Price for example did it right. She realized that she needs more starch. (And by the way, I´m not saying everyone should eat starch since context is everything what counts. On sedentary days fruit is good but on stressful and active days I definitely need starch.)

 

[narouz]

"Tom Lee" over at Ray Peat Fans said this about starch. I figured I would add it here because it's something that I have also been interested in. It seems that every time I eat potatoes, my temps, soar. Even into the next day, my basal temp will be higher. I just ordered some masa harina so I will let you know how that goes. I just really think that maybe we shouldn't alienate(maybe thats not the right word) starches like potatoes because it's helping people to raise their metabolism, including me.

I'm going to have to read the stuff you posted and look into it further.
I don't know anything about that guy or that site.
As you know, I am very interested in exploring potatoes,
especially the de-starched potato extract soup.

In terms of "not alienating the starches" (like potatoes)...
that almost becomes a contradiction in terms,
doesn't it?
I mean: it would seem that if the potatoes are juiced centrifugally as described by Peat,
that putatively removes almost all the starch right there.
Then that gets cooked--
further defanging :P any remaining starch....


So really...doesn't seem like we are even talking about a "starch" anymore...?
Have you tried making/juicing the "potato soup"...?

 

[charlie]

No I havent, but I listened to that radio show with Josh that you recently posted up. And I heard Peat talking about the potato soup stuff and the way he was sounding, its like some kind of super food.

 

[nwo2012]

No I havent, but I listened to that radio show with Josh that you recently posted up. And I heard Peat talking about the potato soup stuff and the way he was sounding, its like some kind of super food.

And it is. It has contributed to healing my son's digestive issues (caused by intolerances to various foods) alongside the Peatarianism.

 

[narouz]

"Tom Lee" over at Ray Peat Fans said this about starch. I figured I would add it here because it's something that I have also been interested in. It seems that every time I eat potatoes, my temps, soar. Even into the next day, my basal temp will be higher. I just ordered some masa harina so I will let you know how that goes. I just really think that maybe we shouldn't alienate(maybe thats not the right word) starches like potatoes because it's helping people to raise their metabolism, including me.

So, there we have a conflict: Insulin leads to increased serotonin levels in the brain (but it´s also my understanding that serotonin in the gut is much more harmful), but on the other side insulin is the carrying hormone for nutrients, amino acids and glucose and is also the primary hormone for lowering cortisol and adrenaline. That´s why I´m a fan of a good amount of starch and not only sugar. (I have read here that some people believe higher temps from starch are a result from an adrenaline surge which is absolutely nonsense and bull****. Starch is better for controlling adrenaline levels and it´s more likely to cause reactive hypoglycemia with sugar than with starch.)

Tom, this might be the answer I've been looking for. Could you elaborate further?

Diana Schwarzbein (wrote a good book about the interactions of the hormones insulin, glucagon, cortisol and adrenaline) notes that the primary factor for lowering the stress hormones is insulin and raised blood sugar. The anabolic function of insulin also helps to recover and repair the adrenal glands and other tissues. Here is also a study which was once discussed by Paul Jaminet: http://www.nature.com/ijo/​journal/v21/n10/pdf/​0800494a.pdf Not that I´m saying that sugar is bad because I´m sure that the result would be different with fruits because of potassium and magnesium but if I have the choice between refined sugar and starch I will always choose the starch. After two years of this type of diet with fucosing on sugar I was never able to control my temps and get rid of insomnia and increased levels of adrenaline and cortisol until I discovered the powerful benefits of starch. Whenever I feel stressed or have insomnia and other symptoms I will eat a good amount of potatoes with some cheese and maybe some fruit. I´m now recovering with a good amount of starch to lower my stress hormones efficiently and building some muscles after losing 25 lbs with sugar (fat AND muscles). And my metabolism is thankful too.

Hey Charlie,
I tried to go explore that stuff,
but I couldn't find it on that website
(which is a neat site, by the way...never been over there).
Is this "Tom Lee" just a poster...?

 

[charlie]

Yes, he is just a poster. Thats the thing about Facebook, its really hard to find things. Thats one of the many reasons I started this place.

 

[narouz]

Yes, he is just a poster. Thats the thing about Facebook, its really hard to find things. Thats one of the many reasons I started this place.

Okay. I figured that.
I guess it's a good thing
that search engines have their limits on Facebook....

 

[narouz]

In general terms...

In general terms,
regarding what are viewed as the favored Peat starches--
potatoes, masa harina, white rice, some of the root veggies....

There are still question marks in my mind.
Consider, for example, the case of the Peat Potato Extract Soup.

If Peat says potatoes are a good food
when cooked for over 40 minutes
and
when served with butter...

...then why would he even bother with all the trouble and expense
(because anybody who makes it knows you lose a LOT of "product")
of making Peat Potato Extract Soup?

I mean: if cooking for 40 minutes kills or negates or removes the starch
then why even bother with the Extract Soup?

My speculation is that
the cooking and eating with butter does Not
completely remove/negate/kill
the starch.

And my further speculation is that
Peat simply isn't sure how worried we should be about consuming some small amount of starch.

Still, it seems pretty clear to me
that Peat does not think starch is a good thing.
I think I could even be more emphatic:
I think Peat thinks starch is a bad thing.
If you consider his body of work and his cumulative statements,
that seems pretty clear to me.

So I think the ambiguity lies in the area
of judging how okay (if I can put it that way) those Peat favored starches--
all treated to counteract the starch by cooking, cooking with lye, cooking with lime, etc--
of judging "how okay" those starches are for people to eat.

Some would advocate blowing that door open and
saying that a legitimate Peat diet could consist of eating
huge amounts of masa harina, rice, potatoes, turnips, etc
at every meal.

I don't see it that way.
I don't think it accurately reflects Peat's ideas.

 

[charlie]

First they take away my plantains, now, they try and take away my masa harina before I even get a chance to try it.

 

[j.]

First they take away my plantains, now, they try and take away my masa harina before I even get a chance to try it.

it seems to be at least less evil. can you store it and give it a try in say, 3 months?

 

[charlie]

I could probably freeze it. I think I am gonna give it a shot and see how I react to it. However, it seems like staying away from starches is the best thing. Decisions, decisions.

 

[Birdie]

I just checked around for more precise instructions for less starchy potatoes. Some of the info here if anybody's interested:

1. Choose potatoes with high water, lower starch content = young red and white potatoes.
Russet/Yukon Gold types = high starch and low water

2. Soak raw potatoes 2-4 hours in cold water. They can be peeled and cut up to further the starch removal. Rinse with cold water.

3. Boil on med to hi heat approx 1 hour. If cut up, pos to cook less.

4. Drain off hot water. Will look milky with starch. Rinse with cold water.

So, I figure to follow these instructions when I make my next batch of potatoes for my husband. I won't do the final cold rinse on the ones he'll have that night. I have been doing step one, as Peat advised, but I only heard him mention young potatoes. It makes sense that he meant the young, low starch type. Young before the starch develops as he said. I've also been peeling and cutting and boiling the heck out of them, but I think these other steps sound helpful, too.