Gyroscopic Investing

1.  While perfect diet is not in favor of eating legumes, and only prepared beans, In today's Kresser e-mail is the following:

In a recent article, Stephan Guyenet of Whole Health Source discussed the widespread belief that beans and lentils are not “allowed”? on a Paleo diet and were not a component of our early ancestors’ diets. Stephan points out that “there is good evidence of widespread legume consumption by hunter-gatherers and archaic humans, and that beans and lentils are therefore an ancestral food that falls within the Paleo diet rubric.”?

2.  White rice (perfect diet) strikes me as not a great idea because of arsenic, and because of its poor glycemic index/link to increased risk diabetes (which are two parts of the same thing).  White potatoes don't have the arsenic thing, but sweet potatoes/yams seem a better choice for many given glycemic index/load and the rampant obesity/insulin resistant/pre-diabetic state of many.

Kresser may like/recommend the perfect diet, but his take on things e.g. point 1 above continues to seem to me more sane (unless you have GI issues in which case you need to see what works for you).

Thanks for that, Benko! Personally, I have started using unmodified potato starch as a method of reducing somewhat elevated fasting blood glucose levels. This was due to the recommendation of a friend. I'm sure that beans and legumes would work similarly.

Reub wrote: I have started using unmodified potato starch as a method of reducing somewhat elevated fasting blood glucose levels.

Meaning substituting for potatoes themselves?

I can guess who as I'm about to try potatoe starch myself (for the prebiotic benefits).

Benko wrote:White rice (perfect diet) strikes me as not a great idea because of arsenic

There is very little arsenic in California white rice. Arsenic is very high in all brown rice (it concentrates in the bran) and most rice-bound arsenic is found in Southern US rice fields that were former cotton fields that were treated with arsenic pesticides. So, again, California white rice has low levels of arsenic.

Chris Kresser wrote:The EPA’s 5 ppb per day limit on arsenic is probably what we should shoot for in our diets, in light of current evidence. Many of the white rice products tested had fairly low levels of arsenic, and in the context of a few servings a week for an adult, it’s probably not an issue.... Lundberg...California White Basmati Rice has only 1.3 to 1.6 ppb arsenic per serving (1/4 cup uncooked), well below the safe limit...

...No food is completely safe or without some level of contamination risk: vegetables make up 24 percent of our arsenic exposure and tap water can legally contain 10 ppb arsenic per liter (some systems even exceed the legal limit.)

Source: http://chriskresser.com/arsenic-in-rice ... uld-you-be

Benko wrote:White rice...because of its poor glycemic index/link to increased risk diabetes (which are two parts of the same thing).  White potatoes don't have the arsenic thing, but sweet potatoes/yams seem a better choice for many given glycemic index/load and the rampant obesity/insulin resistant/pre-diabetic state of many.

That's an overly-simplistic way of evaluating starchy foods — it only works out that way if you consume the food alone. In the context of a meal, fat content is the primary variable of the glycemic index. In other words, consuming a high glycemic food — such as a white potato — along with a few pats of butter, or as part of a fatty meal, will bring the glycemic index down below that of a sweet potato eaten alone.

See: Fat And Glycemic Index: The Myth Of “Complex Carbohydrates”?

J Stanton wrote:* Mexican flour tortillas have a GI of 30, whereas American whole wheat bread has a GI of 72. Remember, you need plenty of lard (or, at least, grain oil) to make a nice, flat, chewy tortilla.

* A plain French baguette has a sky-high glycemic index of 95: spread some butter and jam on it, and the GI declines to 65.

* Cooked white rice has 0.2% fat and a GI of 64; a meal of white boiled rice, grilled hamburger, cheese, and butter has a GI of 24.

* A Pizza Hut Super Supreme pizza (13.2% fat) has a GI of 30, whereas a Vegetarian Supreme (7.8% fat) has a GI of 49. (Source.)

This is common sense once we think about it for a minute. As anyone who’s taken a freshman nutrition class can tell you, fat inhibits gastric emptying and slows digestion.

Source: Fat And Glycemic Index: The Myth Of “Complex Carbohydrates”?

So, there is no reason for most people to fear white rice or a white potato in the context of a meal.

Secondly, not all white rice is high glycemic — it depends on the type of white rice: Bangladeshi rice has a GI of 37, American brown rice of 50, Japonica (a white short-grained rice) of 48, Basmati rice of 58, Chinese vermicelli of 58, American long-grain rice of 61, risotto rice of 69, American white rice is 72, short-grain white rice is 83, and jasmine rice 89. [Source]

And finally, there is little to no real world link between eating white rice and causing diabetes — the countries who consume the most white rice have the lowest diabetes rates in the world.

Benko wrote:Kresser may like/recommend the perfect diet, but his take on things e.g. point 1 above continues to seem to me more sane (unless you have GI issues in which case you need to see what works for you).

For the record, here is Kresser's take on legumes...

Chris Kresser wrote:I think grains and legumes are okay in moderation when properly prepared/soaked.

http://chriskresser.com/how-to-save-you ... rn-disease

Keep in mind that Kresser and his family eats a cross between Paleo and WAPF. WAPF is basically lots of properly prepared grains (soaked, soured, fermented, sprouted, etc.). But, I wouldn't call that a resounding endorsement of beans/legumes as some kind of super food. They're ok.

How much longer do you think it will extend your life if you actually find the perfect diet?

My Dad died a few months ago at 94 after following a strict diet of mostly fried chicken, mashed potatoes, bacon and eggs, and lots of ice cream and pie for dessert.

My diet is much better (except he didn't drink and I do way too much), but 94 years would be enough for me.

ns2 wrote: How much longer do you think it will extend your life if you actually find the perfect diet?

My Dad died a few months ago at 94 after following a strict diet of mostly fried chicken, mashed potatoes, bacon and eggs, and lots of ice cream and pie for dessert.

My diet is much better (except he didn't drink and I do way too much), but 94 years would be enough for me.

Paleo dieters (what we are talking about here) generally believe that high fat diets are good for you — so long as the fat in your food is naturally occurring in animals (and some tropical plants) and somewhat favors saturated fat (i.e. the opposite of conventional wisdom). Bacon and eggs in particular are considered quite healthy, and some Paleo dieters ("Perfect Health Diet" followers) believe that mashed potatoes, with butter, are excellent sources of fat, glucose, magnesium, potassium, Vitamin C, B6 and some resistant starch. And they would readily consume the fried chicken if it were fried gently in lard (which technically isn't all that different from the composition of olive oil).

So, many Paleo dieters would easily nod their heads in agreement with most of your Dad's diet. Though, they'd probably skip the ice cream and pie most nights as sugar isn't technically a nutrient.

Benko wrote:

Reub wrote: I have started using unmodified potato starch as a method of reducing somewhat elevated fasting blood glucose levels.

Meaning substituting for potatoes themselves?

I can guess who as I'm about to try potatoe starch myself (for the prebiotic benefits).

For the record, I never mentioned it directly to Reub, so it wasn't me. Though, I happen to use raw potato starch as well for similar BG benefits. I learned about it from "Tatertot Tim" and Richard Nikoley's n=1 experiments at freetheanimal.com. (Jaminet has also been recommending maximizing naturally occurring Resistant Starch for a few years now).

And hopefully Reub isn't substituting potato starch for potatoes. One cannot digest raw potato starch for nutrition, as "Resistant Starch" is purely a fermentable fiber for your microbiome.

No, I'm not substituting unmodified potato starch for potatoes. It was recommended to me that 4 tablespoons of this resistant starch per day could have many health benefits, including a reduction/stabilization of my slightly elevated blood sugar.

BTW here is some more info on what resistant starch can do for your gut bacteria:

"Studies such as this one have demonstrated that ingesting approximately 33g/day of resistant starch lead to major changes in gut microflora in as little as one week and at 3 weeks, Bifido-bacteria strains had increased up to 10-fold from baseline levels to almost 20% of total gut flora!"

http://freetheanimal.com/2013/11/resist ... rison.html

I've become a fan of freetheanimal.com recently, if simply for the fact that Richard Nikoley (along with Paul Jaminet) is increasing awareness of the potential problems with low carb dieting in the Paleosphere:

Richard Nikoley wrote:I'm neither trying to kill low carb, nor elevate Paleo. I chose Paleo to support, because it's purportedly about human evolution, whatever makes sense or we discover. So, it's open-ended; but LC is simply not, and there is just zero way of getting around that. I'm sorry you chose to eschew roughly 1/3 of a valid dietary intake and call it "healthy," but I simply cannot suborn that thinking.

I have to give creds here to Mark Sisson, though. Just look at his carb chart, and it goes way back.

Paul Jaminet, too. You know. Rice. Safe starches.

My only essential difference is that I'm saying that more like 150g is probably going to turn out best for the very vast majority of you—call it 100-200, so you don't fucking stupidly obsess. The other difference is that Mark & Paul have food restrictions I don't, unless they happen to bother you particularly. Paul recognizes billions of rice eating Asians. His wife is Asian. I recognize billions of beaners (my wife is Hispanic).

Source: Clearing The Air: My Beef With The So-Called “‘Healthy’ Low Carb Lifestyle”?

Like Chris Kresser and Stephan Guyenet, Richard Nikoley also advocates proper soaking and traditional preparation of legumes.

So, as Nikoley points out, it turns out that legumes can be a good source of certain kinds of Resistant Starch as well. If legumes are prepared/soaked properly and are well tolerated by those with healthy guts, there is no reason not to eat them in moderation (other than the fact that they technically contain a few gut-punching toxins in them). The improvement in microflora may even counteract the drawbacks for all we know.

It's worth pointing out that Jaminet is overly strict in eliminating food toxins from his. "Perfect Health" diet since it is mainly geared towards those with health issues.

Gumby wrote: It's worth pointing out that Jaminet is overly strict in eliminating food toxins from his. "Perfect Health" diet since it is mainly geared towards those with health issues.

1. Ding Ding. 
This is my point and needs to be said explicitly when discussing the diet (but I doubt it is said/pointed out often enough).

Your point about fat determining glycemic index is probably oversimplified, though it depends of course on how high a fat diet one eats.  Non-enzymatic glycation is one of the mechanisms of aging and unless I misunderstand things choosing a diet with a little as possible blood sugar rise after eating (ideally none) will provide more health/anti-aging benefits (for most people) than avoiding all toxins in that diet.

2  Another thing that cannot be overstated is that any discussion of low carb being unhealthy ONLY APPLIES to people who are not overweight. 

3.  You are usually correct, but don't always emphasize the perspective/context on what you say e.g. the quote above, # 2 above so people understand the context/who it applies to/under what circumstances it applies.

Benko wrote:Non-enzymatic glycation is one of the mechanisms of aging and unless I misunderstand things choosing a diet with a little as possible blood sugar rise after eating (ideally none) will provide more health/anti-aging benefits (for most people) than avoiding all toxins in that diet.

Since glucose is necessary for life, and low glucose levels can be fatal (hypoglycemia), I don't think it makes much sense to demonize all glycation toxicity above fasting levels. Clearly the body has a mechanism to regulate glucose — and all of our organs need glucose — and we know that toxicity from glycation becomes a significant problem above 140 mg/dl. So, this implies a U-shaped curve where health is balanced somewhere in the middle between hypoglycemia and hyperglycemic toxicity. It's also worth pointing out that fructose has about ten times the glycation activity of glucose.

So, I assume that's your own personal opinion and low carb dogma when you say that there should be no rise in blood sugar, since that statement has never been proven one way or the other. It could very well be that the benefits of moderate glucose intake outweigh any negatives.

And population-based evidence doesn't really support your statement — i.e. the Japanese consume a lot of white rice daily, and yet they have the longest life spans. And the Kitava eat a diet of ~70% carbs and yet have practically no chronic disease. Okinawans eat ~85% carbs, and Tukisentas eat ~90% carbs and also have practically no chronic disease [Source].

Only the diehard low carbers seem to believe that blood sugar should not ever rise, as best as I can tell. The evidence that all carbs are bad for you isn't really based on any good science — it's almost always based on the evidence from refined carbs and on diabetics (i.e. metabolically damaged subjects).

See: http://chriskresser.com/do-carbs-kill-your-brain

Chris Kresser wrote:While I don’t argue with the idea that refined and processed carbs like flour and sugar contribute to modern disease, there’s no evidence to suggest that unrefined, whole-food carbohydrates do. In fact, there are three compelling reasons why this is not the case...

...As you may know if you’ve been following my website, there is plenty of modern research demonstrating that diets rich in refined and processed carbohydrates are harmful. However, this is not due to carb content alone, and there’s no evidence that whole-food carbs have the same effect.

Source: http://chriskresser.com/do-carbs-kill-your-brain

It's well worth it to read the entire article if you still believe the low carb dogma of eliminating blood sugar curves. Thanks to Jaminet, Kresser, Guyenet, Sisson, Harris and Nikoley, low carb paleos are starting to see that all this low carb eating has led to a depleted microbiome and a slew of other health issues over time, such as rising fasting blood sugars, adrenal issues and poor thyroid function.

In other words, avoiding most carbs for fear of any glycation may not afford most people the best health and longevity. Moderate starchy complex carb consumption (~30% carbs) seems to eliminate low carb health issues while simultaneously avoiding hyperglycemic toxicity for most people when those carbs are consumed in the context of a meal.

Yes, if you want to put it all into context, some people with damaged metabolisms seem to need to be a bit more careful with their carb consumption — but that isn't by any means "normal" and likely shouldn't be recommended as such. Even diabetics are beginning to see that they can tolerate white potatoes if they increase their Resistant Starch consumption, which implies that there is something far more to their metabolic damage than purely starch/sugar content of their meals.

Gumby,

1. I made no low carb statement.  One can eat lots and lots of carbs and not spike blood sugar levels.

Of the high carb native populations:
Okinawans use more sweet potatoes and less rice
Kitavans use root veggies and fruit. 

So if you said high carb diets made of sweet potatoes/root veggies are OK that sounds reasonable.

What about rice and e.g. Japanese?  No clue, but it is not a stretch to wonder if they have different genetics given they have been eating rice for a long time.  OTOH there are studies linking rice consumption to increased risk of diabetes including in asian people    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/eating-whit ... hows/  The more rice eaten, the greater increased risk of diabetes.

2.  "It could very well be that the benefits of moderate glycation outweigh the negatives."
Glycation produces damaged proteins.  Anything is possible, but  is there any evidence for your theory?

From wikipedia on glycation

Glycation is the first step in the evolution of these molecules through a complex series of very slow reactions in the body known as Amadori reactions, Schiff base reactions, and Maillard reactions; which lead to advanced glycation endproducts (AGEs). Some AGEs are benign, but others are more reactive than the sugars they are derived from, and are implicated in many age-related chronic diseases such as cardiovascular diseases (the endothelium, fibrinogen, and collagen are damaged), Alzheimer's disease (amyloid proteins are side-products of the reactions progressing to AGEs),[7][8] cancer (acrylamide and other side-products are released), peripheral neuropathy (the myelin is attacked), and other sensory losses such as deafness (due to demyelination).

3. "Clearly the body has a mechanism to regulate glucose — and all of our organs need glucose — and we know that toxicity from glycation becomes a significant problem above 140 mg/dl.  So, this implies a U-shaped curve where health is balanced somewhere in the middle between hypoglycemia and toxicity from glycation. "

"toxicity from glycation becomes a significant problem above 140 mg/dl."

Perhaps what you meant was:

"Far more important than a single fasting blood glucose reading is the number of hours a day our blood sugar spends elevated over the level known to cause complications, which is roughly 140 mg/dl (7.7 mmol/L)."

From Kresser's article:

http://chriskresser.com/when-your-%E2%8 ... mal-part-2

blood sugar of 140 is very easy to exceed. 

Benko wrote:OTOH there are studies linking rice consumption to increased risk of diabetes including in asian people    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/eating-whit ... hows/  The more rice eaten, the greater increased risk of diabetes.

Did you just Google "white rice diabetes," read the CBS news article and linked abstract and assume the conclusion was correct? If you took the time to read and critique the study, you would see that it is nothing more than junk science. The HSPH only analyzed the relative risk of four countries (China, Japan, Australia, and the United States) even though there is publicly available data from over 160 countries.

See critique: http://perfecthealthdiet.com/2012/03/re ... ice-oh-my/

This is the trademark of junk science — cherry picking relative risk data from just a handful of countries to reach a manipulated conclusion. It's the same trick that everyone fell for, years ago, when the same thing was done for cholesterol (only they used 7 countries for that hit job).

Paul Jaminet, Ph.D. wrote:If anything, diabetes incidence goes down as rice consumption increases. Countries with the highest white rice consumption, such as Thailand, the Philippines, Indonesia, and Bangladesh, have very low rates of diabetes...

...To me, the HSPH white rice study doesn’t look like science. It looks like gaming of the grant process – generating surprising and disturbing results that seem to warrant further study, even if the researchers themselves know the results are most likely false.

Source: http://perfecthealthdiet.com/2012/03/re ... ice-oh-my/

The fact of the matter is that when you look at 162 countries worth of data, the countries that consume the most white rice have the lowest incidence of diabetes.

[align=center][/align]

Please understand that I am not advocating that people eat buckets of rice every day. This is only to point out that there is no evidence that moderate consumption of white rice causes diabetes. The evidence to demonize it just isn't there.

Benko wrote:So if you said high carb diets made of sweet potatoes/root veggies are OK that sounds reasonable.

I favor those nutrient-dense carbs and most people should as well. But, my point is that the HSPH anti-white rice study is junk science. There is no evidence that white rice consumption causes diabetes.

And it's worth pointing out that the major difference between white rice and a sweet potato is the fiber in a sweet potato. So, the risk from blood sugar spikes from rice happens if you don't eat your rice with a meal that contains fat or fiber. It's always best to eat rice in the context of a meal. Again, sticking a few pats of butter on your rice will bring the GI of that rice down below that of a sweet potato.

Benko wrote:"It could very well be that the benefits of moderate glycation outweigh the negatives."
Glycation produces damaged proteins.  Anything is possible, but  is there any evidence for your theory?

My apologies, but you nabbed my original quote. I had soon changed it to read "It could very well be that the benefits of moderate glucose intake outweigh any negatives". Obviously there's no benefit from glycation toxicity But, that Wikipedia quote is taken somewhat out of context as you left out the part about fructose having  ten times the glycation activity of glucose.

Anyway, there's good evidence for moderate glucose consumption. Jaminet, Kresser, Guyenet, Sisson, Harris, Masterjohn and Nikoley have all been writing about those benefits for a few years now. And it's particularly believable when many Paleo low carbers with health issues are finding an improvement to their health by increasing carb consumption to -30% of calories (Kresser's upcoming book will no dount cover this). Improved immune function, improved body temperatures, improved thyroid, improved microbiome, improved energy, improved mood, better glucose tolerance, lower fasting blood sugars, and so on.

I also found this to be particularly interesting in terms of our likely need for moderate glucose consumption:

Paul Jaminet, Ph. D. wrote:Why is so much glucose consumed outside the brain? Immune function (which may utilize significant glucose in people with infections) and glycogen replacement (high utilization in athletes) are two reasons that can be significant in some persons, but in the vast majority of people the biggest reason for glucose utilization is the construction and maintenance of the human glycome.

There are about 20,000 human genes and, due to transcriptional variants and manufacture of proteins from multi-gene subunits, about 200,000 human proteins. However, these proteins are subject to various post-translational modifications, chief of which is glycosylation. Over half of all human proteins need to be glycosylated for proper function, and such is the variety of ways in which they can be glycosylated that there are an estimated 2,000,000 compounds in the human glycome.

These glycosylated proteins coat the plasma membrane of all cells. For many proteins, only glycosylated forms are allowed to leave the endoplasmic reticulum and Golgi complexes where they are formed; nonglycosylated forms are ubiquinated and destroyed.

Nearly every major extracellular molecule has significant carbohydrate content. Glycosaminoglycans such as hyaluronan and proteoglycan components such as heparan sulfate and chondroitin sulfate are important building blocks of the extracellular matrix. Proteoglycans in general mediate all intercellular interactions.

All the body’s lubricating molecules are rich in carbohydrate. Mucins, the most important molecules in mucus, tears, and saliva, are predominantly composed of carbohydrate. Mucin-2, the dominant mucin of the intestine, is 80% sugar by weight.

Production of hyaluronan alone consumes 5 gm, or 20 calories, of glucose per day. [3] I have been unable to find detailed measurements of daily mucin production, but if mucin constitutes 1.5% of the 400 g daily stool weight, then it consumes 5 gm of glucose per day. Since gut flora can break down and metabolize mucin sugars, this may be an underestimate.

So: whole body measurements indicate peripheral glucose utilization of around 100 to 150 g (400 to 600 calories) per day in normal humans, and a mere two of the 2,000,000 carbohydrate-containing compounds in the human body account for nearly 10% of that.

Source: http://perfecthealthdiet.com/2011/10/ji ... -my-reply/

Mucin, of course, is critical for a healthy gut barrier and a healthy immune system.

Benko wrote:Perhaps what you meant was:

"Far more important than a single fasting blood glucose reading is the number of hours a day our blood sugar spends elevated over the level known to cause complications, which is roughly 140 mg/dl (7.7 mmol/L)."

Yes. That is what I meant.

Benko wrote:blood sugar of 140 is very easy to exceed.

Do you have any evidence for that in the context of a meal? I find it hard to believe that eating ~30% of one's calories as "safe starches" (potatoes, rice, sweet potatoes, plantains, taro, etc.) as part of a meal does that in most people for any significant period of time. Even some diabetics are claiming success with some safe starches. The most vocal Paleos and commenters who are following the PHD diets are some of the most anal blood glucose watchers and almost all of them are reporting improved glucose tolerance by increasing their carb consumption from their previous low carb diets.

If eating ~600 calories, total, of complex carbs throughout the day — a moderate consumption of carbs in the context of meals — spikes your blood sugar above 140 for any significant period, then you already have some serious metabolic issues that need to be tended to.

Benko, I think we both agree that Kresser — as a practitioner — offers the most balanced and pragmatic advice.

Here's his take on white rice (which is pretty much in line with Jaminet):

Chris Kresser wrote:The two grains that I think are okay, and that I actually eat myself and recommend to my patients—provided they tolerate them, of course—are white rice, which always sends people for a loop, and buckwheat. Now white rice, you know, of course, a lot of people think brown rice would be the healthier choice. But brown rice has the bran, and all of the antinutrients and the toxins are found in the bran.

In white rice, that’s been removed. So what you have left over is just a starch, a long polymer of glucose molecules linked together. And presuming you do not have blood sugar issues, or you’ve got decent glucose tolerance and insulin sensitivity, there’s no problem with white rice. It’s a safe starch, a safe source of glucose. I wouldn’t make it, you know, something that you eat at every meal, every day, but it seems fine to eat it occasionally. It can be a healthy source of glucose, which is the sugar that our cells know how to make use of. Contrary to fructose, for example.

And then the other one is buckwheat, which is kind of a grey area...buckwheat’s totally outside of the family that contains all the rest of the grains. So I find that a lot of people are able to tolerate buckwheat, especially if it’s soaked and fermented. Stephan Guyenet has a fantastic recipe for sourdough buckwheat crepes, WholeHealthSource.blogspot.com and those are pretty tasty, too.

Source: http://chriskresser.com/the-healthy-ske ... -episode-5

That pretty much sums it up in the way that I eat white rice. Not every day, but occasionally — and in the context of meals. There's no nutrition in white rice beyond glucose, so obviously the nutrient-dense potato or sweet potato is a "better" choice.

In another post, he writes:

Chris Kresser wrote:One of the most defining characteristics of Japanese cuisine is the ubiquitous presence of white rice. In Japan, white rice is almost always served for two meals per day, and will commonly be featured in all three. (2) When ‘Paleo’ was still synonymous with ‘low carb,’ many wondered about the Asian Paradox – how can Asians eat so many refined carbohydrates and stay lean?

But now that ‘safe starches’ have become more widely accepted, it doesn’t seem like so much of a paradox. You know my take on the matter: not everyone does well on starch, but many people do, and adding more starch can often give people more energy and help them achieve their weight loss or other health goals. Starch has been part of the human diet for a couple million years, and white rice is one of the most benign forms of starch available. Plus, Japan’s high consumption of white rice means they eat significantly less wheat than most modern countries, which is probably a good thing...

...I think the Japanese diet shows us how important context can be. For a metabolically damaged American, eating white rice at every meal might cause problems, but for the Japanese, it provides a safe source of carbohydrates that complements their traditionally nutrient-dense diet.

Source: http://chriskresser.com/health-lessons- ... ines-japan

I think that was well said. Like you said, it's all about context.

Gumby wrote: That pretty much sums it up in the way that I eat white rice. Not every day, but occasionally — and in the context of meals.

Gumby wrote: KRESSER: not everyone does well on starch, but many people do, and adding more starch can often give people more energy and help them achieve their weight loss or other health goals.

Gumby wrote: KRESSER:  For a metabolically damaged American, eating white rice at every meal might cause problems,
Source: http://chriskresser.com/health-lessons- ... ines-japan

Thanks those clarifications are helpful.