_ap_ufes{"success":true,"siteUrl":"freetheanimal.com","urls":{"Home":"http://freetheanimal.com","Category":"http://freetheanimal.com/blog-admin","Archive":"http://freetheanimal.com/2014/08","Post":"http://freetheanimal.com/2014/08/hypothesis-feminst-theres.html","Page":"http://freetheanimal.com/advertising-product-service","Nav_menu_item":"http://freetheanimal.com/2014/07/subscribe.html","Content_ad_widget":"http://freetheanimal.com/?content_ad_widget=widget-2-5x118"}}_ap_ufee

NuSI Founder Dr. Peter Attia and Dr. Oz on Saturated Fat. Oz Admits He’s Been Wrong

I don't know how you can get any better than this. And Peter was absolutely the best possible spokesman.

Peter Attia and Dr Oz

Dr. Peter Attia and Dr. Oz

I know Peter. We've chatted on the phone and emailed many times, and when we shared a dinner sometime back in Palo Alto, Peter's soft spoken communication skills had the husband and wife at the next table so intrigued they were literally bent over to eavesdrop. Eventually, unable to contain themselves any longer, they apologetically interrupted us and we must have talked for another 30 minutes with them.

Listen very carefully to how skillfully Peter communicates this message, like he has a BIG fish on the line (Oz), and while he certainly wants to reel him in, he doesn't want to fight so hard or come off so adamant that he loses him. In the end, they both come out looking and sounding great, and the way the message is crafted is just stellar, in my view (i.e., the focus on processed foods, rather than blanket "carbohydrates"). Sure, either could have quoted lots of studies, but it would have been lost on the audience Dr. Oz commands.

It's just the beginning. Saturated fat phobia is dying and moneyed interests are going to fight hard for the "food" and "beverage" industry status quo. Too bad for that industry—like you're some machine. They've made billions replacing more wholesome (and costly) ingredients with cheap, industrially processed and refined sugar and grain/seed oils, while being invited by the masters you sheeple vote for to label their junk "heart healthy." This, all supported by legions of Grant Whores in the medical research establishment—or should I say industry—often being funded by these same food giants.

The segment is in two parts, each running a couple of minutes. Click here for part 1. Part 2 should begin automatically but if not, here's the link to that as well.

I suppose it's inevitable that some folks are going to find a way to criticize this on some level. I advise to relax and consider that just a few years ago something like this would be unthinkable.

See Peter's great blog, The Eating Academy, as well as the nutrition research institute he founded, NuSI.

And share this around. You know how it goes. You've talked to friends, family, colleagues and co-workers for years and their pantries still look the same. Give them a few minutes of Dr. Oz and they'll think they came up with the idea.

Share 974 Google +1 51 Pin it 16 Retweet 158 Like 3759

Comments

  1. Good news.

  2. John D says:

    Dr. Attia is a brilliant guy; a major climb getting through the articles on his site. I love the challenge, though.

    A friend of mine is a retired cardiac surgeon, he sent me a health newsletter recently. Makes me want to cry. All about the evils of saturated fat.

    http://www.nutritionaction.com/

    I think the “saturated fat phobia is dead” needs to be restated to “saturated fat phobia is dying, but is being sold harder than ever by AHA and Center for Science in the Public Interest among many others”.

    Meanwhile, this Doc pal of mine recently had big time crack the chest type heart surgery himself. A lifetime of inflammatory manufactured foods, perhaps?

    I suspect the paradigm shift will require a new generation of healthcare practitioners, not sure mainstream med is ready for this shift.

  3. kayumochi says:

    What is seldom if ever mentioned in all the hoopla around the death of the saturated fat phobia is that some cultures/countries never embraced that nonsense.

  4. Cathy says:

    I read an article in the wsj last weekend about this very thing. It was to herald a new book on the subject coming out next week. I have not looked very closely at Peter Attia’s site, but you better believe I will now. Dr. Oz writes a column that appears in my local paper on Tuesdays and usually my husband and I read it and shake our heads and wonder how he gets it so wrong. Thanks for these clips, I could watch them over and over again.

    Something curious though. I was going through some old photos of me and my husband when we were first married. I weighed about 98 lbs. and he about 150. I am 5’3″, he is 6’3″. What was curious was we looked definitely thin, but not emaciated like people do today who weigh the same. These pics were from the late 70s and I don’t remember lowfat being on my radar yet. Maybe it was the fat effect and not many carbs to displace fat from our diets. I don’t know.

  5. Grant says:

    The food status quo isn’t going anywhere. (Most of) the people who oppose it also believe in the kinds of political policies that make it necessary (namely, the welfare state – which enables most of the population to be semi-lumpenproletariat; if not completely lumpen like another big portion is. How are we going to feed everyone without the food status quo? And please, don’t say massive investments in more natural and healthy food production instead. That would require more land. Land which is currently “protected” – precisely because these same people want it protected). So long as most people want it both ways – and are too dense to realize what hypocrites they are for decrying a situation which they themselves created – nothing is going to change.

    • Replace millions of acres of soybean, wheat and government subsidizes corn with open, grass fed grazing fields… probably an even swap

    • Grant says:

      Not even close to an even swap. The only reason why those things dominate now is because they’re economical. More output, less input. Of course, in the long-run, it’s detrimental (the costs just manifest themselves in poor health instead), but if the goal is simply to get everyone enough calories – and just barely above acute malnourishment – then the big cash crops are without a doubt the way to go.

    • Grant go check out Joel Salatin and tell us its not more economical. The guy pulls 10* the profit per acre than any monocropper.

    • Grant says:

      lol, only because Salatin’s market is a bunch of (relatively) wealthy people who are willing to pay his higher prices. It isn’t because his methods are cheaper in absolute numbers. Could they be? Yes – but like I said in my original comment, only if that sort of production could achieve economies of scale (which, as I also said, for political reasons, can’t be done – because the same middle and upper-middle class liberals who buy Salatin’s products also believe that never going hungry is a fundamental human right, and that the environment deserves to be protected for it’s own sake; and they vote accordingly).

    • I apologise I was not clear. His pricing I am unaware of, I was hoping to comment more so on his raw numbers of calories per acre, something he outdoes monocroppers with as well.

      So if its a matter of feeding people with the land we have his methods work. They do scale but horizontally not vertically which means more farmers and farms not more per farm and larger farms – something big ag will never like.

      In terms of pricing, well I buy my meat from a local farmer who organically figured out his own Salatin style approach to beef production and on a small lot he gets $6-$8 a kilo (about 3-4 times what he would receive selling to a supermarket) and I pay at least half what I would pay a supermarket for poorer quality beef.

      Knowing this farmer I am not sure he would not have a liberal customer on his books. :)

      I live in an area trying to create a food movement. There are people doing it (chicken tractors for egg and meat production and mob stocking cattle) and customers buying it. Creating a living for themselves that 15 yrs ago would never have happened.

    • Grant says:

      You’re not factoring in opportunity costs. Yes, generally, the more nutritionally superior a food is, the more calorically-dense it is too – so maybe there could be the same amount of calories produced on the same amount of land (although I doubt it, because not all land is the kind of choice land where such food is usually produced – so calorically dense food would require more acerage to develop into an equal amount of calories than the big cash crops do). But that’s besides the point. You said yourself that it would require more farmers. That’s NOT a good thing. I do think that much of the Western World’s “post-industrial economy” is a farce (propped up by third-world industrial slavery, or at least quasi-slavery), but that doesn’t mean that a return to an industrial economy would mean a return to an AGRICULTURAL economy. A factory worker is more productive than a Starbucks barista, but a Starbuck’s barista is more productive than a farmer. The opportunity costs of making as many people farmers as it would require to do what your source does are huge. It means sacrificing all of those post-industrial workers (who should be industrial workers) to the drudgery of agriculture (do you really think that liberals would allow farmers in a situation like that to be paid what they’re actually worth? That is: less than what they’re being paid at Starbucks now? They can’t even tolerate what such people are being paid at Starbucks now).

      The goal should be figuring out how to produce the same high-quality food your source does, but on as large and efficient a scale as “big ag” produces it’s low-quality food (and if that’s not scientfically/technologically possible, it means being morally prepared to allow all of the people who survive on crops which are subsidized by other people’s taxes to starve – or at least sell their shiny new rims on eBay Motors in order to afford the new, higher price of food).

      As for why you pay half the price of poorer quality beef: it’s because you’re willing to spend things like time, energy, wear and tear on an automobile, fuel, shipping costs, etc to acquire it. If you factored those things in, kilo for kilo, it would be more expensive.

      As for him not being a liberal: that proves nothing. He’s an outlier. It’s an obvious fact that the vast, overwhelming majority of the “natural foods movement’s” producers are the likes of Whole Foods, Trader Joe’s, et al. Those types of places are well-known to be frequented by upper-middle class liberals.

    • More farmers is not a return to an agricultural economy and no farmer I buy from calls their existence drudgery. They are there by choice.
      It might mean a less centralized economy and few intelligent people would argue against that.

      Tell me what would you prefer given the 3 choices presented. Barista, Factory worker or Salatin style Farmer?

    • Grant says:

      More farmers at the rate of production of the likes of Salatin absolutely is an agricultural economy. And yes, it’s drudgery in the economic sense. Agriculture, without mechanization and mass-production, is highly labor-intensive only barely pro-growth. It doesn’t matter how people feel about it. Simply because I recognize that “real food” is objectively better for my health doesn’t mean that I think that ALL of the products of modernity are bad for me. I would absolutely choose barista or factory worker over farmer, and I would be much better off if most of my fellow citizens did as well. In fact, the ONLY aspect of “natural living” which I support are those related to physical health. I absolutely reject all other non-Western and pre-Enlightenment approaches to all other aspects of life. I regard them as not only objectively inferior, but immoral. I don’t think human are ADAPTED to live in any other environment except a modern, technological, capitalist environment.

      And if by “centralized economy” you mean fewer businesses (because there are larger ones), I’m not necessarily against that. It’s not the size of a business that makes it good or bad, but what they do and how they got there (ie: superior performance, or simply political clout). If you think that having economic leverage automatically means being a threat to the political rights of others, guess what: you’re a liberal – even if you don’t think that you are.

  6. Richard:

    Thanks for posting the links. Stuff like this is why I love FTA and keep coming back.

    Hopefully we are seeing the beginning of a paradigm shift on the saturated fat issue.

    There was a great article in the Wall Street Journal a few days back debunking the saturated,
    fat/cholesterol theory of heart disease.

    Peter Attia certainly presents himself very well.

    Great stuff.

  7. At first, I only clicked on the second link. Now I’ve watched the first one.

    My takeaway lesson is that Dr. Oz is an imbecile. His new understanding is that little refined fat globules scratch the arteries? Or something.

    FFS.

    • Relax bro, he’s just trying to explain it in an extremely simplified way to an audience of laymen.

      On topic, the science is finally catching up. This (more or less) started with Paleo getting so popular, allowing for people to actually rethink the paradigms (including Paleo paradigms themselves).

    • Christopher, if you listen closely, he’s just dumbing down large cholesterol vs. tiny.

      It amazes me how people are so prone to tossing out babies in half empty tubs of bathwater.

    • Joshua says:

      I like the traffic metaphor – low density lipoprotein should take the bus while high density lipoprotein should ride motorcycles. If everybody takes a car, there’s huge traffic jams everywhere.

      LDL should be in big particles, and HDL should be in small particles. It’s not the amount of cholesterol that matters, it’s how it gets packaged.

  8. Ugh, more about evil carbs.

    Yes, french fries will kill you, but potatoes won’t. Perhaps it’s not the potatoes, but the soybean oil we fry them in? If he’s right, shouldn’t the Hadza be dropping dead of heart attacks from all the honey and tubers they eat?

    Saturated fat is obviously healthier than Crisco, corn oil and soybean oil, but the segment was not particularly convincing when it comes to comparing bacon grease to olive oil.

    I’ll be convinced that saturated fat is healthy (which would be good news – I love to cook with coconut milk) when there is a study using a diet high in saturated fat to reverse heart disease. So far, the only diets used in published, peer-reviewed studies where heart disease was reversed eliminated or severely limited saturated fat (e.g. Esselstyn, Ornish).

    I don’t see the point of NuSI, really. They seem to want to prove that restricting carbs causes weight loss, when we all know it does, at least in the short-term. So what? It would be more interesting to find out if it reverses diabetes or heart disease. (I suspect it does not.)

    I know she stands alone, and I still love you guys. Be nice. ;)

    • Miguel says:

      A cetogenic diet has not only reversed Type II Diabetes, as well as Type I (even though it a vegetarian type of diet), if you look for the studies you will find them!
      If you have Diabetes, it mean you body has a problem metabolising Glucose, why wouldn’t a diet low in carbohidrates solve or at least alleviate the problem? It doesn’ make much sense, does it?

    • Janet says:

      Sure, we know all about this , but millions don’t and segments like Dr. Oz will begin to let people question the dogma they have heard for decades and frankly, the food industry will sense this (if not already, as I have seen lately in the stores) More articles and studies reported, as this low fat monolith of stupid and dangerous health dogma turns around slowly, will begin to corroborate that in peoples minds. “Hey, Dr. Oz said that too!” That Dr. Oz admitted he had been wrong and is showing what he is eating in his household is very powerful. We shouldn’t be so smug in our supposed knowledge base. I felt that way when I saw people around me gorging on bread! “Look at them “me, myself and I” know better.” LOL We don’t know nothin’ yet, but getting there ourselves too-just like the millions (and me once as well) have been conned by the powers that be. Have a good one, Gina.

    • Boundless says:

      > I don’t see the point of NuSI, really.

      They want to run unconfounded nutrition trials, that probably include low carb and/or keto cohorts, and that are uninfluenced by moneyed interests – something that is essentially absent in nutrition “science” today.

      They are willing to have the results be whatever the results are, and publish them regardless.

    • I looked at their website. The “current science in progress” is all about energy balance. Again, don’t we already know that restricting carbohydrates will cause weight loss? I don’t see what’s so groundbreaking about that.

    • JadeHunter says:

      Im glad Oz was corrected.

      However, it was done in a manner as so the ratings wouldnt lose any weight!
      Oz is the “carpet-bagger” of “info Dr.s” between suffering people, the FDA and Pharma companies. All that matter when it comes down to it with that crowd is MONEY, while people still suffer.

      People who eat unhealthy need to take responsibility for their own bodies. The healthy amount of weight to lose (to keep it off in the end) is 6-9 lbs a month. Even a Dr.Quack could tell us that!
      While some diabetics and others with heart disease are at the mercy of Drs and scripts. on the other hand… I watched my grandmother eat many small portions throughout the day, go without sweets and only need insulin shots about once a week.
      Im a 47 yr. old female myself have found it very difficult to lose the last bit of weight i desire to lose. iIsee it as my body holding on the something it thinks it needs. Exercise is the key for me to hurdle my obsticals and the lock is my metabolism. im almost there.

      Its a BIG SHAME when a trusted Dr. makes money off of suffering people! Now he’s a “humble guy”!

    • Boundless says:

      > Again, don’t we already know that restricting
      > carbohydrates will cause weight loss?

      Weight loss is far from the only goal. The work they are doing is to nail down what readers of the blog already know, but consensus medicine obstinately pretends not to know.

      As the last sentence says at:
      http://nusi.org/the-science/current-science-in-progress
      “This study should be able to document, for the first time ever, what happens when …”

      Rogue physicians who actually read nutrition papers, and strike out on their own, know these things. The average MD does not, and the world needs some unconfounded hard-to-ignore results to hit them over the head with.

    • I don’t think “the world” is as ignorant as you suppose. Every fat person I know starts Atkins induction every year on New Year’s Day. They are all as fat as ever.

      We have diets that have been proven (with very hard to ignore results) to reverse obesity, diabetes and heart disease, but we have more diabetes and heart disease than ever.

      There’s nothing revolutionary going on with NuSI. If NuSI’s results garner attention, the low-carb junk food that came and went will come back for a while. I plan to invest in flaxseed tortillas, sucralose cookies and ketone strips to make a quick buck when it happens.

  9. sally says:

    Found Dr. Attia interesting site about a year or so ago. He has a magnus opus on cholesterol that would blow most cardiologists away. I thought his appearance on Dr. Oz was terrific and the way they both handled the information a great first step. This is not a criticism just a question: Isn’t Dr. Attia strictly a numbers guy though? LDL particle number is the most important, not the size difference – large fluffy vs small dense?

    • LeonRover says:

      Mmmm, yes.

      “Attia .. .. .. Oz

      Large fluffy vs Small dense? ”

      Actual exegesis; my subtextual received message.

      Siáinte

  10. Ankleface Wroughtlandmire says:

    I’m sure that saturated fat by itself is not harmful, but rather beneficial. However, I do kind of worry about the naturally present omega-6 in most “healthy” cooking fats that are known to be high in saturated fat. For example, lard has a ton of saturated fat and works great for cooking, but it also has a considerable amount of omega-6, according to this table:
    http://authoritynutrition.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/fatty-acid-breakdown-of-different-fats.jpg
    For dealing with an inflammatory condition like rheumatoid arthritis, pretty much EVERYONE agrees that omega-6 needs to be drastically reduced. Now, the 20g of omega-6 in a serving of lard (http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/fats-and-oils/483/2) is obviously not the same as using a 1/2 cup of omega-6 canola oil, but still I wonder. A possible solution to reducing omega-6 is getting fat from free range animal products, but frankly that’s almost impossible to buy for a lot of people who live in countries where there is no significant group of health-conscious people who demand free range animal products.

    • Most pigs are raised on crap food. They’re like humans where their diet heavily influences their bodies fat composition. This is less true for ruminants like cows and lamb.

      If you can find pigs fed a healthy diet, the O6 levels are much lower. In fact, find pigs fed coconut and the bacon from them hardly flops at all.

      That being said, it’s a lot easier to just use tallow or butter (clarified to ghee if you are doing high temp cooking). I can get the scrap fat from the grass fed beef at my local whole foods for free and render my own tallow. Low % PUFA ~1:1 O3:O6 ratio. Do talk to the butcher if you go this route, sometimes grass fed is not grass finished, but this is still better than lard.

    • Ankleface Wroughtlandmire says:

      Interesting. What parts of the cow are best for making tallow. And any other tips on how to make it?

    • If you can get the suet (fat around the kidneys and loins) you’ll get the most yield and least waste, but any fat will work.

      All you need is a pot, fine strainer, and glass storage (plastic can melt).

      Cut off any remaining meat/sinew (this is important for good flavor) and then chop the fat up in small cubes (the smaller the quicker the rendering). Put in a pot on low heat and let it cook for ~5-6 hours. You do not want to increase the heat too much as burning the fat will ruin the flavor. Stir every so often. Eventually the junk will float up the top.

      Strain the liquid to remove the junk and let it cool down. You can also use a cheese cloth if you want to pour every last bit out as there will be some particles on the bottom of the pot that you don’t want in your tallow. It will be basically solid at room temp, hard in the fridge.

      Making ghee is a similar process that results in almost pure butter fat without any milk solids. Melt at low temp and strain once the milk solids are golden brown. I’d google some pictures for this as it’s easy to stop too early when the ghee is just foamy.

    • Ankleface Wroughtlandmire says:

      Great, thanks very much for the explanation!

    • LaFrite says:

      “Melt at low temp and strain once the milk solids are golden brown”

      Not exactly, you should melt until there is no moisture. That’s a subtle nuance that can make a big difference in the end result (its shelf-life, etc). To check for moisture, regularly place a glass over the melting fat (like 1-2cm above) and see if condensation occurs. When it does not, the clarification is done.

      This must happen at low heat and the last phase will probably happen with the stove off, or you will burn the solids. It is actually a patient work but worth it as the ghee you get this way will last forever!

    • LaFrite, depends what you are trying to make. Stopping when the condensation is gone is how you make clarified butter. Ghee intentionally goes a bit longer to add that traditional nutty flavor.

      Either one is good for high temp cooking, though. If you are taking forever to use it up, I would go with clarified butter.

    • You guys are splitting butters. :)

      Both right in my view. Now, for something like lobster or crab, I don’t want any nutty or brown butter flavor, so definitely with LaFrite. Very careful low heat, until the moisture is gone. Strain. For a butter dip for steak, I’m browning it.

      And there are a million shades of brown in-between.

      I finally figured out how Ruth’s Chris Steakhouse gets their filets so damn delicious. Browned butter, then fired under the broiler for a bit, until the butter smells burnt.

    • LeonRover says:

      Dr Art has a useful extra test for when to turn the gas off when making ghee.

      He advises to use a cooking thermometer & let the temp rise to 125 C.

      I like the result.

      Sláinte

      PS I also found RN’s advice re continued agitation of the pan while frying equally useful.

  11. Martin says:

    Dr. Oz looks to me like a fish that wants to be caught. A few years ago when he had Gary Taubes on his show, most of the LC/Paleo commentators criticized him for trying to ridicule Taubes. In my opinion he has an agenda and is trying to slowly introduce the concepts in order not to… lose the show and give the sponsors time to adjust.

    I also agree that Peter played it very skillfully.

  12. jason says:

    I PVR Dr Oz regularly and skip through his show just to see what he’s up to. I’ve noticed in the last 6mo or so that he has had several specialist/doctors, etc that basically promote a paleo or gluten free diet. It’s just that they don’t label it as such. Overall Dr. Oz is putting out some pretty good info; even including resistant starch a few times.

  13. Dr Peter Attia is probably the perfect guy to be on the show doing this.

    Dr Oz will redeem himself if he starts to really follow this path and question more “knowns”. Unlikely but here’s hoping.

    • Adrienne says:

      Oz had Dr. David Perlmutter on for a second time yesterday regarding gluten and brain health. Perlmutter stated the brain is 60% fat and it requires good fat to run properly. He then showed a table of health fats (butter , coconut oil, olive oil, avocado, nuts, cheese) and declaried “Butter is back!” He also said to limit carbs to 80 grams per day. That’s higher than the 60 grams mentioned in his book.

    • Boundless says:

      > He also said to limit carbs to 80 grams
      > per day. That’s higher than the
      > 60 grams mentioned in his book.

      And the book apparently doesn’t distinguish between total carbs and “net” carbs (total carbs minus fiber carbs), which is a rule of thumb for how much of the carb will rapidly become glucose, with the rest being fed to gut bugs, or passing through entirely.

      Net carbs is already a coarse guideline, and if the carb has RS, the published “fiber” number is even less reliable, with the reality being subject to how prepared, and even how served.

      The glucometer rules, until further notice.

  14. Gemma says:

    Peter Attia has been using Superstarch (by Generation UCAN) in his diet very extensively. This expensive product Superstarch is nothing else than Resistant Starch (RS3, specifically). That is why he could manage to thrive on his ketogenic diet for so long, and probably in good health. It was not explained like this by him yet, though. He is such a nice guy, I would love to see him address this, finally.

    • Namely says:

      Hi Gemma,

      Please go here and ctrl+f (or cmd+f) search for “tatertot”:
      http://eatingacademy.com/sports-and-nutrition/introduction-to-superstarch-part-i

      Peter quite confidently states that SuperStarch has almost no resistant starch.

      Though, what certainly is interesting about Peter is that because his exercise volume is so extreme he consumes more carbs than most anyone else that’s following a ketogenic diet. So, I would presume that he gets some of the digestive benefits from eating “carb rich” foods even during the times he’s aiming to be in ketosis. (Plus, he talks a lot about eating enormous mountains of salad, which probably is already big step up to let’s say a near-carnivorous ketogenic diet that has a low-volume of plants.)

    • Gemma says:

      @Namely

      Just because Peter Attia states (stated one year ago) that UCAN Superstarch contains no RS doesn’t mean that it’s true, sorry.

      The patented production process of Superstarch (in short: heat-moisture processed cornstarch) corresponds with the methods used to produce Resistant starch type 3.

      SuperStarch was originally designed for the treatment of a rare genetic disorder called glycogen storage disease, which is characterized by an impaired ability to convert glycogen to glucose in the liver. Newborns with glycogen storage disease (GSD) need to be fed a frequent source of carbohydrate to maintain blood glucose levels or else they risk experiencing severe hypoglycemia and ultimately death. They used to be fed with normal cornstarch in the evening so that the children could sleep without waking up too often. Normal cornstarch doesn’t contain much RS, though. So on Superstarch (marketed as Glycosade) they could last longer.

      So, the whole effect of Superstarch is very similar, if not the same, to the effects of RS (for instance in the form of potato starch) just because the mechanism is probably the same, as we know now: gut flora modulation of intestinal gluconeogenesis via SCFA created by fermenting RS (in Peter’s explanation = Superstarch is semi-resistant to digestion, but is eventually completely absorbed into the bloodstream, thereby giving it a slow time-released absorption profile).

      Second, the experience of people using Superstarch is similar to experience of PS consumption. (Some need to titrate the dose very slowly up during the first two weeks because of GI issues, it tastes chalky, needs to be mixed otherwise it would sit on the bottom, must not be warmed up etc.

      In my mind, Tatertot very cleverly in his answer one year ago tried to bring Peter’s attention to this fact, that there must be some RS in Superstarch and that there is something crazy cheap called native potato starch full of RS. Or if he sees it differently now, I’m sure he can comment.

      Sorry for hijacking this thread, saturated fats are important too. And to be very clear, I like Peter Attia very much!

    • Gemma says:

      One more remark on the resistant starch content of UCAN SuperStarch (= Glycosade):
      Have a look at this study:
      “Use of modified cornstarch therapy to extend fasting in glycogen storage disease types Ia and Ib”
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3808112/
      which contains Table 1:
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3808112/table/T1/
      Characteristics of the conventional and experimental starches examined in the study
      Conventional starch / Experimental starch
      Resistant starch (%) 60.5 / 67.7

      Conventional starch was Argo; experimental starch was Glycosade (Vitaflo International Ltd, Liverpool, United Kingdom).

      More on the relation of Vitaflo (now owned by Nestle) and UCAN here (in the article chapter “Super dedicated”):
      http://colgate.imodules.com/s/801/scene_inside.aspx?gid=1&pgid=5366

      Conclusion? SuperStarch contains 67,7% of resistant starch. Point.

  15. Gemma says:

    And this Glycosade = Superstarch = Resistant Starch starts to be very interesting:

    Evaluation of the efficacy of Glycosade on epilepsy in 2 children with glucose transporter GLUT-1 deficiency

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/211249202/MEM-EPNS-Abstracts-2013

    ” Coppens S, Van Bogaert P.
    Clinique de neurologie pédiatrique, Hôpital Erasme, Brussels, Belgium – [email protected]

    Introduction:
    GLUT-1 deficiency syndrome (DS) is a cause of refractory epilepsy, often accompanied by developmental delay or mental retardation. Ketogenic diet is the gold standard treatment (KD), but is not always effective and tolerance can be difficult. One study demonstrated that seizures and EEG discharges are more frequent in the fasting state in GLUT1 DS. De Meirleiret al investigated the clinical efficacy of Glycosade, an high-amylopectin-containing cornstarch, in two patients, but without EEG seizure quantification, with encouraging results.

    Objectives:
    Evaluate the efficacy of Glycosade on clinical and EEG seizures in patients with refractory epilepsy secondary to GLUT1 DS.

    Patients and methods:
    Two patients were included, with genetically proven GLUT-1 DS, refractory epilepsy (absence seizures), mental retardation, and ineffectiveness or unacceptable side effects of KD. Seizure frequency was quantified by long term video-EEG monitoring, before and after the intake of Glycosade (2x30g) at short and long term. Blood glucose measurements were also obtained.

    Results:
    In patient 1, we did not observe a reduction in seizure quantification nor in the first days of administration of Glycosade, nor at one month of administration. In patient 2, we did not observe a decrease in seizure quantification in the first days, but we observed a 85% decrease of seizure number at month 3. We then stopped the administration of Glycosade and observed a return to baseline for seizure number. In both patients, we observed a stabilisation of glycaemia in the pre-prandial period at lunchtime.

    Conclusions:
    We have observed asignificant decrease in seizure number after 3 months of administration of Glycosade in one patient. It would necessary to investigate several other patients. Glycosade could be an alternative treatment for refractory epilepsy in GLUT-1 deficient patients when ketogenic diet is ineffective or has intolerable side effects.”

  16. Gemma says:

    And it goes on. Where else can Resistant Starch (aka Glycosade / SuperStarch containing 67,7% RS) help?

    Annual Symposium of the Society for the Study of Inborn Errors of Metabolism
    Istanbul, Turkey, 31 August 3 September 2010
    http://rpcadm.hospitalmoinhos.org.br/Arquivos/96b3f7d2-cf38-4749-901d-379a5dcd6b78.pdf

    159-P
    TREATMENT OF SCOT DEFICIENCY WITH MODIFIED CORN STARCH (GLYCOSADE)
    Verloo P1, Van Driessche M1, Van Coster R1
    1Div Child Neur & Metab, Univ Hosp Ghent, Ghent, Belgium

    A seven-year-old boy was referred to the metabolics department. He was followed in a pediatric nephrology department because of presumed renal tubular acidosis. However, acidotic crises occured more frequenty and
    became severe. Further increase of sodium bicarbonate suppletion had no beneficial effect on the clinical evolution. Analysis of blood gas during decompensation showed normoglycemic ketoacidosis. Lactate, organic acids and acylcarnitine profile were completely normal. Moreover, ketonuria was never absent. The diagnosis of succinyl-CoA acetoacetate transferase (SCOT) deficiency was considered. Enzymatic analysis is currently ongoing. Therapy was started with sufficient carbohydrate intake and home monitoring of urinary ketones. However, this therapy scheme led to severe fluctuations of ketosis during the day. To limit these fluctuations, therapy with uncooked corn starch as carbohydrate source was started. Unfortunately, the carbohydrate need of the patient was so high that the large amounts of uncooked corn starch intake (up to 200 g/day) led to gastrointestinal problems. As a next step, a therapy with modified corn starch (Glycosade) was started. Glycosade has been used for patients with glycogen storage diseases as a new source of carbohydrates. In the patient, modified corn starch was well tolerated. When dosed 60 grams two times
    daily, daytime fluctuations in ketosis were not anymore observed. Moreover, good control of ketoacidosis led to improved attention span
    and school performance.

  17. Debbie says:

    I was in shock watching this. I well remember Oz treating Gary Taubes and his food with utter disgust. He made faces, appeared horrified by Taubes’ fat – and now, a total shift. And he smoothly changes gears, Mr. Humble. What a piece of work he is. How about acknowledging those who pioneered and publicized the truth in the face of obtuse people like himself? How about apologizing to Gary Taubes?

Speak Your Mind

*