If I get this straight, you main argument is glycogen storage disorder. All your other arguments are examples of false dilemma. Even your argument of GSD is a false dilemma: This product is not the only alternative. However, I'll give you this one. Clearly, we're not talking about food here, but about the therapeutic benefit of a highly-processed non-food item for a pathological disorder. For your argument about "tremendous performance", I ask: Compared to what? If your answer is similar to that for T1/T2, I can only point out the false dilemma again.

For one of my points "genuine food", you replied "create food". Maybe you misread or misunderstood, I don't know. But think about this for a moment. If I "create food", is it going to be genuine food? As far as I know, only nature can create genuine food. Humans create processed foods such as the product we're discussing here.

So you looked at the performance athletes can achieve with this product to sort out your concerns. Could you give us a link to a study? I mean, we can't just take your word for it, can we.

I think once we admit the glycogen storage disease into the discussion, that opens the way for other possible therapeutic uses of this stuff. With the glycogen storage disease--even on a ketogenic diet, the liver serves the purpose of supplying glucose for the brain. It doesn't take much, but it's still important. There are people who are on ketogenic diets, and still report some problems with hypoglycemia--it's possible that this might have some therapeutic use, at least in some cases.

As far as weight-loss goes, I have to wonder. The acute insulin response may be reduced compared to other starches. And fat burning during exercise might be higher vs glucose oxidation after eat superstarch. But then what? Either the glucose coming in is stored as glycogen during the exercise, or downregulates the breakdown of glycogen--I mean, it must, if the respiratory quotient is lower. Does stored glycogen impede fat breakdown later, in the fasted state? For a ketogenic dieter, will replete glycogen stores raise fasting insulin levels? If you accept Phinney and Volek's statements (maybe it's just Phinney, but I thought Volek agreed) that it takes several weeks of ketogenic eating to get properly ketoadapted, well, there's just about got to be a problem here.

Leaving out the t1/t2/glyc disorder; its important to note the difference between "not much" and none. The body of a healthy human is perfectly capable of manufacturing any glucose it needs; and it needs comparably little. The glucose that is manufactured does require some insulin; but the benefit isn't a "none" thing, its a "gentle" thing, Gentle ebbs and flows of insulin, glucose, leptin, etc.

Now, a truly normal, healthy human also will have very stable blood glucose, 80-110 under all but the most obnoxious stimuli; it won't be low, and it won't be high, it will be stable. But its because they can produce massive quantities of insulin, and their muscle and adipose tissue is sensitive to the insulin signal, and it is regulated VERY tightly.

As to specialty products, people have been selling expensive supplements to the sub-pro athlete market forever. The pros that really get bang out of better living through chemistry have real medical and training staff and tweak them like the high performance, high maintenance race engines that they are. The sub-pros, don't need the supplement, and don't need the real stuff either. They get nothing that isn't better achieved through losing weight, optimizing training, eating better real food, etc.

But people like to "believe" in a miracle product that makes them go faster, so what can you say besides, "knock yourself out, just don't ask me to pay for it or participate in your wishful thinking."

To specially cooked corn??? Why pay big money for something that can't possibly be a better carb than bagged dextrose by the pound?

That's not my concern. When you made the statement:
I wonder whether or not you are speaking with rigor. Are you investigating the peer-reviewed published statements before making that claim? If they have a contrary claim, do they have science to back it up? I have no direct interest in glycogen storage disorder, but seeing how you actually back up your claim of "disagreeing with everything [I] say" speaks volumes.

The pertinent science paper about Superstarch is the 2006 paper A novel starch for the treatment of glycogen storage diseases. Did you read it? From the summary of that paper:



All indications -- including that science paper -- conclude this is a breakthrough formulation.


So you say. Please let us know: what exact alternatives are you talking about? What objective measures do you have that those alternatives are viable? What science papers can you cite showing those other products?

I do not accept a dogmatic claim of comparable formulations. If you wish your claim to be believed, you must provide evidence to back it up. Unless you do that, your opinions are more a philosophical/poetic argument than fact-based.

I'll repeat the questions: What exact alternatives for glycemic storage disease are you talking about? Why do you think they are superior to the Superstarch product? And what science do you have to back up your conjectures?

Please directly answer my questions. Thank you.

No. You're too contentious, even for my taste.

I think the stuff sounds very interesting.

May not be ideal for most people, but then again, even health nuts sometimes eat something less than ideal, and particularly athletes looking to quickly carb load, and it sounds like some segment of people might see some benefit.

It's sorta surprising it's so incredibly contentious (love how you said that Martin, like he's the only one LOL!).

I've never heard of that condition before.

PJ

I think it's indisputable that the insulin response is lower. The BG level is lower; the insulin response will be, too. Further, insulin response is non-linear: an incremental lowering in BG has a large impact on insulin response. Clearly, there would be limits: if someone gorged themselves on excessive amounts of Superstarch all at once, I'm guessing they'll wind up with a BG spike...

One of the most interesting things discussed with in the Generation UCAN presentation with ultramarathon stand-up paddleboard surfer Jen Lee: her body composition improved markedly once she shifted from sugar-based training snacks (she mentioned GU Energy). Athletes that had been eating sugar-based supplements like candy for a long time probably have a tremendously screwed-up energy metabolism.

OTOH, even ketogenically-adapted athletes need some carbohydrates during their extreme endurance events. If they're not consuming this product, what specific alternatives would you suggest?

I'm not following your last point. Some amount of carbs are needed by these athletes while training and racing, and this seems to be an excellent way to get those carbs. I think this audience has widespread agreement that it's far better to get those carbs this way than GU Energy, or traditional "energy" beverages.

Volek and Phinney explicitly recommend Superstarch in "The Art & Science of Low-Carb Performance" (2012). Both their names are on the book; they're both on the hook (or both deserve the credit).

Is it possible to become ketogenically adapted while using Superstarch? I'd say it's certainly possible for athletes that are training for several hours a day. To me, the more interesting question is whether or not the product can aid non-athletes with the transition. Perhaps non-athletes would be served with lower portions of this product. I don't know, and I'm pretty sure that nobody really has the answer to that question.

In my first message here, I noted that I've never used Superstarch and have no plans to use the product. All things equal, I think people would be better off just making a clean transition to a ketogenic metabolism. At the same time, if this product can ease the metabolic transition for some part of the population, that would be great by me. If this product can help people with T1D, T2D, or pre-diabetics help shift their metabolism, I think that would be spectacular.

Regular people's body composition "improved markedly" as well just by cutting carbs, in a dose-response manner: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eREu...player_embedded

Therefore, Jen Lee's results could simply be a function of a reduction of the total quantity of dietary carbs, and/or the absolute insulin response with subsequent lipolysis/glycolysis balance.

Athletes don't need carbs in their extreme endurance events. In fact, they may do much better without carbs: http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?t=445468

And even if they did really need carbs, they can get all the carbs they need straight from the liver: http://www.diabetes-warrior.net/201...d-diabetes-cgm/

Mark Sisson is a former endurance athlete, and he's been quite candid about the toll carb loading does to even the most finely-tuned body. He's convinced low carb is good for athletes:

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/jona.../#axzz2QX46q527

Absolutely. I have repeatedly said in the discussion: I'm one of those people. I've never used Superstarch and I have no plans to use the product. At the same time, if the product can help those with T1D, T2D, pre-diabetes conditions, or even those with no diabetes symptoms whatsoever shift to a low-carb diet, I think that would be wonderful. There is no "one size fits all" way for individuals to improve their body composition.

Sorry. I'm not going to watch 75 minutes of video to glean to think some claimed "therefore" exists. If you think there is some section a long video pertinent for a discussion, please provide a link to the pertinent section of the YouTube video, or provide a quote from the video -- with timestamp.

That's a thought experiment. If you have some particular idea you think would work best for endurance athletes, you should coach some athletes or try it out. Simply thinking that some approach will work better is not sufficient in an evidence-based discussion.

I find no facts in that discussion to support your conjecture. If you trace down the interview that Janet references in that discussion, you'll discover that nobody is saying they, "do much better without carbs." The point of the article is to challenge the traditional notion of carb-loading and high-carbohydrate intake on the race course. Nobody -- absolutely nobody -- in that article is recommending the athletes avoid carbohydrates during the 100-mile race. There's no evidence that any of the athletes are doing that, either.

Winner Tim Olson doesn't describe what he eats during the race. I looked around for a bit and found notes from Jimmy Moore's 2013 interview with Olson . Olson points out:

o Most racers eat 300-400 calories in gels per hour in a race
o He limits to no more than 100 calories per hour of goo

Again, the point is that the carb-loading and high-carb intake during these races are less effective than a small amount of carbs per hour in such races.

The intense exercise charted in that article is 20 minutes or less. The only long exercise (3 hours) is "leisure walking". Why do you think that any of that blogger's experiences is remotely applicable to multi-hour endurance events -- or a 100-mile running event?

The organic food bars that Jonas uses have between 25g and 30g of carbs per bar. AFAICT, he's repeating the message of Volek and Phinney: the 50-year tradition of carb loading and heavy carb consumption during endurance events is less than optimal. However, I see absolutely nobody recommending that athletes should categorically avoid carbs during these marathon events.

The logical equivalent of your statement is: Less carbs is better than more carbs.

That's a hopeless simplification. For participants in endurance events, blood sugar levels continue to lower over time. For keto-adapted athletes, the slope is flatter, but sugar levels do decrease. Yesterday, you mentioned a discussion about the low-carber who won the Western States 100-mile endurance run:

You implied that the winner wasn't using carbs during the race, but that was incorrect. In this interview, winner Tim Olson notes that he consumes about 100 calories of a sugar supplement ("goo") per hour. If you know a single person participating in races like this who doesn't regularly replace their carbs, please provide a reference.

You asked earlier for the references about research with the waxy maize Superstarch. Here you go:

1. A novel starch for the treatment of glycogen storage diseases.

2. Use of modified cornstarch therapy to extend fasting in glycogen storage disease types Ia and Ib.

3. Use of slow release starch (SRS) to treat hypoglycaemia in type 1 diabetics

4. Ingestion of a high-molecular-weight hydrothermally modified waxy maize starch alters metabolic responses to prolonged exercise in trained cyclists.

All those papers were noted in "The Art & Science of Low-Carb Performance" (2012). If you are interested in fact-based research of low-carb metabolism and physiology, this is an essential text for your library.

Now: do you have any evidence that any ultramarathon athletes are succeeding in races consuming no carbs whatsoever during the races?

This product does not deliver "carb loading". It's about delivering a low level of carbs to athletes.

The contentious statement happened early in the discussion when Martin implied that this scientist had sold out by promoting this product: "Take the check, Jeff." If Martin publicly attacks the credibility of a scientist, he needs to be prepared to back up his inflammatory claim with facts and reasoning. So far, he has failed to do that.

Martin has never explicitly stated what he believes is the most effective nutrition for ultra-endurance athletes in the middle of events. He seems to be stating that the consumption of any carbs during the race is counterproductive. Volek and Phinney are saying something quite different: consumption of large amounts of carbs is counterproductive, but consumption of small amounts of carbs (especially carbs that slowly trickle from the GI tract to the bloodstream) are essential for performance.

I didn't know anything about it until seeing Volek's mention of Superstarch in the low-carb athletes' book. There are genes for everything, and there's the recently-discovered "live wire" of conversations between our genes. Until very recently, children with these diseases just died or had to have nearly-constant care. Look up Jonah's story for the specifics that led to the creation of this company -- his parents literally rejoiced when they could go for a whole night without feeding their son. That's why Martin's comment "This product is not the only alternative" -- with nothing to back it up -- did not ring true to me. While I know nobody first-hand with this disease, I can definitely connect with the deep frustration of these parents to find an effective treatment. It's also a tremendous gift: other parents have available a cheap non-prescription product for their children with this condition. Having some know-it-all claim there are alternative and then fail to provide any evidence to back up his claim strikes me as contentious and nonsensical behavior.

Dr. Jeff Volek, Dr. Stephen Phinney, and Dr. Eric Westman are some of our greatest assets in the low-carb movement. If someone has a criticism of these people, please make sure it's fact-based and not grounded in a flawed model of physiology.

Great argument, (sorry debate.)
I loves a good argument.

Can't find anything that looks like independent scientific analysis of this. Most of the links are UCAN or what looks suspicously like commercial shills.

What I'd like to know is:
Does it get absorbed across the gut, or broken down (slowly) in the gut, some of the articles suggest the former.

If absorbed across the gut.

If it has a mole weight of 500,000g, then that sounds many orders of magnitude above the point at which other starches can be soluble/absorbed.
If this happens by some weird alchemy that allows such unprecedented molecular juggernauts to boldly go where none have gone before, do I want my personal metabolism to be among the first to venture into this brave new world.

How do the various bits of human biology/physiology perform a controlled break down of a molecule that size, and where does it happen?


Personally I won't be eating this anytime soon. I'll let the guinea-pigs continue to run the experiment for me. But I don't have any qausi-religous adherence to nutrients as deities or devils. And that goes for nutritional "experts" also.

Interesting times ahead. However this turns out, hopefully we will learn something useful from the it.