RE: Starch: Was Re: Newbie question on fats.

[Guest guest]

The prudent thing is to eat some whole grains. Since nutritional science

is so young, how do you know you won't be missing something health

enhancing? An example of how different nutrients interact with each other

is your recent posting that tomatoes eaten together with broccoli enhance

the anti-carcogenic activity multiple times more than would be expected. So

until something is proven, I'll take my whole grains, in moderation of

course.

Your studies discuss peoples who eat LARGE amounts of starch, not moderate

amounts such as a CRONIE would. Theses large amounts are taking the place

of other healthy foods in their diets. You know better than to cite such

studies and we do not advocate such diets. Variety and moderation is

essential. A high starch food like beans for example has many health

benefits. Too much of course would be counter productive to being a CRONIE

- because of high calories and lack of variety of other foods due to

excessive intake of the food in question.

Variety, variety variety.

on 10/10/2004 4:05 PM, Rodney at perspect1111@... wrote:

>

> Hi Francesca:

>

> Well as you know from previous discussions here, I am not one who

> accepts the proposition that white bread can be just absolutely

> dreadful for health while, at the same time, whole grain bread is

> just wonderful.

>

> The reason of course is that ~82% of whole grain bread is the very

> same (supposedly dreadful) white flour that white bread is made of.

> So if white bread is as dreadful as many people would have us

> believe, then so is whole grain bread. Presumably the same,

> approximately, applies to the various constituents of the other

> grains.

>

> More likely, imo, is that **starch** is either a neutral but prolific

> source of empty calories at best; or at worst, a cancer-causing

> source of empty calories. I don't think it is yet known for sure

> which. But I do believe it is clear that it is one of the very best

> sources of empty calories available.

>

> For example, take a look at Fitday's analysis of an entire cup of

> cornstarch. It contains zero of all of the following: potassium,

> vitamins A, C, D, E, B-6, B-12, thiamine, niacin, riboflavin and

> folic acid.

>

> This cupful contains a mere one third of a GRAM of protein, and less

> than one fifth of a gram of fat. It does contain very small amounts -

> 3% or less of the daily values - of the five remaining nutrients

> Fitday lists. Yet it contains 488 kcalories - about 27% of a day's

> caloric needs - a ton of calories accompanied by a trace of

> micronutrients.

>

> Here are a couple of articles related to a possible carcinogenic

> connection. The first from ScienceDaily:

>

> " Study Suggests A Possible Link Between High-Starch Diet And

> Pancreatic Cancer "

>

> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/09/020904073950.htm

>

> (After lung, colon, breast and prostate cancers, pancreatic cancer is

> the next most common. So this is not a minor detail.)

>

> Another relatively recent study, that has previously been posted

> here, showed that mexican women who ate large amounts of

> carbohydrates had higher breast cancer rates. Of course breast

> cancer is more common than pancreatic cancer. Their main sources of

> carbohydrates were reported to be " corn tortillas, fried chips, white

> bread, and soft drinks " - the first three on that list contain

> considerable amounts of starch. (See post #14583).

>

> I agree that there is no general agreement yet as to whether starch

> is dangerous beyond its substantial caloric content. But most of us

> here regard eating foods that are high in caloric content and low in

> non-calorie nutrients as not beneficial to health, even if they

> present no suspected cancer risk.

>

> And it is clear to me that those who believe whole grain products are

> so wonderful should be eating the germ and bran only - avoiding the

> starch - for the benefits usually attributed to whole grain

> products. Unfortunately it is also *possible* that the results of

> studies that show benefits of whole grains are confounded by the fact

> that only people who are quite health-conscious seek out whole grain

> products. Since these people are also no doubt taking many other

> steps to preserve their health - not just eating whole grain bread -

> the benefits they show may simply be provided by those other things

> they are doing, rather than the whole grain. I do not know whether

> any studies have made sure this particular wrinkle is controlled

> for. Although the benefits of the bran component do seem to be

> pretty clear.

>

> There is also the acrylamide/cancer link, where carbohydrates heated

> to high temperatures create acrylamide which has been shown to cause

> cancer. The original study was done in Sweden, I believe, and posted

> here around that time. The study results were subsequently confirmed

> elsewhere, IIRC.

>

> Over the years I have eaten a lot of starch from one source or

> another. I still eat more than I regard as healthy. I am resolved

> to reduce it over time. But I will certainly never be able to

> eliminate it entirely.

>

> Rodney.

>

>

>>

>>>

>>> Hi :

>>

>>> There are some vague hints that starch, despite its very

> widespread

>>> use in human nutrition, may not be entirely benign, for reasons in

>>> addition to its caloric content. And in the mouse CR experiments

> the

>>> only material difference between the diets of the control mice and

>>> the subjects on CR was that the CR mice had starch very nearly

>>> completely eliminated from their diet. Of course the mice

> without

>>> the starch lived 40% longer. So there seems to be no risk

> associated

>>> with going without it.

>>>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

At the risk of repeating myself (who me?).... I feel food allergies are

about the only good reason to completely knock out a food group with the

exception of trans-fats. Even then we must be careful that we aren't missing

some obscure nutrient(s).

AFAIK as long as we cover essential nutrients, energy balance trumps

macronutrient ratio every time. Specific foods are not good or bad per se.

Combinations of food can be good or bad depending upon how they add up.

Pursuit of optimal foods or optimal food combinations are fine for those

with too much time on their hands but IMO the rest of us might be better

served to focus on getting adequate nutrition while consuming a caloric load

that supports a quality of life we find acceptable.

Live long, well, and happy. Two out of three just doesn't cut it....

JR

-----Original Message-----

From: Rodney [mailto:perspect1111@...]

Sent: Sunday, October 10, 2004 3:06 PM

Subject: [ ] Starch: Was Re: Newbie question on fats.

Hi Francesca:

Well as you know from previous discussions here, I am not one who

accepts the proposition that white bread can be just absolutely

dreadful for health while, at the same time, whole grain bread is

just wonderful.

T

Rodney.

> Rodney:

>

> we are not mice. I would be careful about drawing such tenuous

conclusions.

> Many starchy foods such as: Brown rice, whole grains, corn, beans

etc are

> correlated with long life and good health. In fact we have a file

on this.

>

[Guest guest]

Depends on the source. My whole wheat bread is just that: never put in white flour and never will. - Ruth

From: " Rodney " <perspect1111@...>

Reply-

Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 20:05:44 -0000

Subject: [ ] Starch: Was Re: Newbie question on fats.

Hi Francesca:

Well as you know from previous discussions here, I am not one who

accepts the proposition that white bread can be just absolutely

dreadful for health while, at the same time, whole grain bread is

just wonderful.

The reason of course is that ~82% of whole grain bread is the very

same (supposedly dreadful) white flour that white bread is made of.

So if white bread is as dreadful as many people would have us

believe, then so is whole grain bread. Presumably the same,

approximately, applies to the various constituents of the other

grains.

More likely, imo, is that **starch** is either a neutral but prolific

source of empty calories at best; or at worst, a cancer-causing

source of empty calories. I don't think it is yet known for sure

which. But I do believe it is clear that it is one of the very best

sources of empty calories available.

For example, take a look at Fitday's analysis of an entire cup of

cornstarch. It contains zero of all of the following: potassium,

vitamins A, C, D, E, B-6, B-12, thiamine, niacin, riboflavin and

folic acid.

This cupful contains a mere one third of a GRAM of protein, and less

than one fifth of a gram of fat. It does contain very small amounts -

3% or less of the daily values - of the five remaining nutrients

Fitday lists. Yet it contains 488 kcalories - about 27% of a day's

caloric needs - a ton of calories accompanied by a trace of

micronutrients.

Here are a couple of articles related to a possible carcinogenic

connection. The first from ScienceDaily:

" Study Suggests A Possible Link Between High-Starch Diet And

Pancreatic Cancer "

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/09/020904073950.htm

(After lung, colon, breast and prostate cancers, pancreatic cancer is

the next most common. So this is not a minor detail.)

Another relatively recent study, that has previously been posted

here, showed that mexican women who ate large amounts of

carbohydrates had higher breast cancer rates. Of course breast

cancer is more common than pancreatic cancer. Their main sources of

carbohydrates were reported to be " corn tortillas, fried chips, white

bread, and soft drinks " - the first three on that list contain

considerable amounts of starch. (See post #14583).

I agree that there is no general agreement yet as to whether starch

is dangerous beyond its substantial caloric content. But most of us

here regard eating foods that are high in caloric content and low in

non-calorie nutrients as not beneficial to health, even if they

present no suspected cancer risk.

And it is clear to me that those who believe whole grain products are

so wonderful should be eating the germ and bran only - avoiding the

starch - for the benefits usually attributed to whole grain

products. Unfortunately it is also *possible* that the results of

studies that show benefits of whole grains are confounded by the fact

that only people who are quite health-conscious seek out whole grain

products. Since these people are also no doubt taking many other

steps to preserve their health - not just eating whole grain bread -

the benefits they show may simply be provided by those other things

they are doing, rather than the whole grain. I do not know whether

any studies have made sure this particular wrinkle is controlled

for. Although the benefits of the bran component do seem to be

pretty clear.

There is also the acrylamide/cancer link, where carbohydrates heated

to high temperatures create acrylamide which has been shown to cause

cancer. The original study was done in Sweden, I believe, and posted

here around that time. The study results were subsequently confirmed

elsewhere, IIRC.

Over the years I have eaten a lot of starch from one source or

another. I still eat more than I regard as healthy. I am resolved

to reduce it over time. But I will certainly never be able to

eliminate it entirely.

Rodney.

>

> >

> > Hi :

>

> > There are some vague hints that starch, despite its very

widespread

> > use in human nutrition, may not be entirely benign, for reasons in

> > addition to its caloric content. And in the mouse CR experiments

the

> > only material difference between the diets of the control mice and

> > the subjects on CR was that the CR mice had starch very nearly

> > completely eliminated from their diet. Of course the mice

without

> > the starch lived 40% longer. So there seems to be no risk

associated

> > with going without it.

> >