http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNr2JwJ6ARE

http://www.generationucan.com/expert_jeff.html

I'm curious as to what anyone has to say on this!

I have my misgivings about "specially cooked" ground corn. What exactly do they mean by non-GMO? Supposedly modern wheat is not, strictly speaking, GMO, but that doesn't make it good for you.

The combination of carbs and fat makes a certain amount of sense, as supposedly even high glycemic foods have less effect when taken in context of meals. Even bread with butter has less effect than bread alone.

And supposedly, this stuff is intended for athletes, not the general public. It's not supposed to be used in place of meals, but in conjunction with healthy meals, just before and just after a competition.

I can see how some people might be tempted to use it as a way of losing fat, since they say it contributes to the burning of fat, and I wonder if that use would end up being harmful in some fashion.

My take is that if it is used by that narrowly defined range of athletes within the narrowly defined situations (before and after intense sporting events) with normal healthy meals, then it could be ok.

But I still have my concerns about the basic ingredient, supposedly non-GMO ground cooked corn.

Yeah, that caught my eye, too...

Normally, I wouldn't have spent five seconds on this stuff, but with Volek and Peter Attia vouching for it

I'm going to say should not. Even if you're an athlete, it just seems like a waste of money. If you can easily handle the carbs, you don't need it. If you can't, you shouldn't flirt with it.

Hummm one gram of fat and 30 grams of carbohydrate. Hummm. I've always liked Volek, but this is a sell out.

Ohhhh, I have a hard time believing what I'm seeing. Volek? Really? I think Jeff is a founder of Nutrition And Metabolism, a low carb advocacy entity (now a genuine scientific journal). He's also a co-author, along with Phinney and Westman, of the latest Atkins diet book. But super-starch for athletes? He knows better. Though maybe there's other considerations here. Like money for instance. Well, I don't blame him.

Take the check, Jeff.

On the subject of super-starch for athletes though, I see exactly zero benefit to feeding an athlete with that stuff. Jeff says at one point "...can burn both carbs and fat at the same time...optimal situation..." That's just not true and he knows it. When the mitochondria burns fat, it can't burn glucose and vice verse. They are mutually exclusive. And this is regulated by insulin, and he admits as much. Now if there's excess glucose, it's gonna be burned first, because of high insulin. If there's not enough glucose to cause a rise in insulin, as that super-starch is claimed not to do, there won't be glycolysis, it's gonna be all lipolysis.

Well he's an LC advocate so he can't use the twinkie excuse.

He was possessed?

PJ

This doesn't sound right.

The superstarch breaks down slowly to glucose, possibly not quickly enough to elicit an increase from basal insulin, like in someone with exquisite insulin sensitivity, like a hardcore athlete. Basal insulin will get that glucose where it needs to go, ostensibly, in athletes, to skeletal muscle. Once inside the cells, there's still no increase above basal insulin so no impetus for glycogenesis---therefore why shouldn't the glucose undergo glycolysis?

Simultaneously, the lack of increase to basal insulin means lipolysis is not inhibited but continues.

For an intensely working athlete, their insulin sensitivity may allow this. Mine sure as hell wouldn't!




I don't know enough about exercise physiology to say whether this would be useful to an athlete, though it makes sense that it would, as why rely only on energy from lipolysis if you can add in some from glycolysis at the same time?

On the other hand, depending on how much truth there is to the partitioning of energy we all learn (glycolysis for anaerobic, lipolysis for aerobic), what would be the purpose of dual energy source? I, non-athletic person that I am, can't fathom trying to lift weights to exhaustion while running a 5k, even.

Finally, what might be the physiological ramifications of boosting cellular energy production beyond "just glycolysis or just lipolysis", not only at the mitochondrial or cellular levels, but at the systemic level?

Even during aerobic exercise, glycolysis and lypolysis occur at the same time, but provide different proportions of energy to the body. In fact, during intense aerobic exercise, lypolysis occurs at a higher absolute rate than when you're in the "fat-burning zone" of 70% of max. heart rate.

From the graph, BG goes up to 120, then goes back down to 80. Before I got that nose infection, my BG stayed around 65 and never went much higher than that. I'm no athlete. Now imagine an athlete's BG. If an athlete is indeed exquisitely insulin sensitive, his BG will be much lower than mine was. If it's much lower, then even the tiniest rise in BG will cause a proportional rise in insulin, and this insulin will do its job of regulating glycolysis and lipolysis at every level.

Also, insulin sensitivity is like insulin level. When insulin resistance is high, it's like when insulin level is low, so more insulin is needed to do the same job. When insulin sensitivity is high, it's like when insulin level is high, so less insulin is needed to do the same job.

Then there's glycation - AGE's. HbA1c, one kind of AGE, is an indicator of average carb intake over the last several months. In other words, we suffer the consequences of carbohydrate poisoning even if we're exquisitely insulin sensitive. Athletes are not immune to the DOCs. In fact, since athletes are exquisitely insulin sensitive, it means their cells take up glucose more readily and quickly than the rest of us, and the damage is concentrated mostly inside their cells.

Then there's insulin sensitivity as a function of carbohydrate storage level. When cells have plenty of glucose, they become insulin resistant. This means when you feed an athlete who's insulin sensitive, their cells take in glucose more quickly, and become insulin resistant more quickly as well. Since insulin is used for amino acid uptake by cells, when we're insulin resistant our cells can't take up those amino acids as efficiently anymore, and we can't make as much maintenance and repair.

And BG level. When BG is low, cells will become insulin resistant to protect BG to save it for cells that absolutely need it. Now they're doing their natural job. But since BG is low, the need for insulin is much lower. If insulin is low, cells can go back to being insulin sensitive because there's isn't much insulin to push in the little glucose that's in the bloodstream. And when insulin is low, this is the signal for lipolysis so insulin sensitivity is less important. It's all relative.

Then there's cholesterol metabolism and its role in maintenance and repair. When we eat carbs, cholesterol metabolism is disrupted. Somehow I think that's a bad thing. Maintenance and repair suffers, we don't work as good anymore. An athlete's body works overtime, therefore accumulates extra wear and tear, therefore needs more maintenance and repair, not less.

Then there's the digestion factor. An athlete needs to be in top shape all the time. If what he eats causes digestive problems, his strength will be sapped. That's no good. I believe this super-starch isn't that good for digestion.

The point is that if we're just looking at the effect of super-starch on insulin, we're ignoring the big picture. Yet since athletes are exquisitely insulin sensitive, it means the tiniest changes in insulin level and sensitivity will produce much greater effects in athletes than in the rest of us. Indeed the tiniest changes in anything from hormones like testosterone to enzymes like HSL will produce much greater effects in them than in us. So when we're looking only at insulin level in athletes, we gotta change our perspective.

Basically it's the same thing with BP, heart rate, body fat, etc. All those things will be much better for an athlete than for the rest of us. Lower BP, HR, body fat, etc. BG should be lower as well. Mine was at 65 at rest and fasting. BP 90/60. HR 60. BF ~15%. All those things are regulated in part by insulin level and insulin sensitivity. Look at that graph again. That's not an athlete's graph, it's a regular people's graph.

That's true, AJ. But they are still mutually exclusive in the same mitochondria. It's either or. The concept of dual energy source is fine but it's only really applicable when we consider that some cells absolutely require glucose, while all other cells can do just fine, and probably better with ketones. That's two different fuels. There's the concept of duel energy source.

Anybody know how high BG rises when we eat mostly fat? About none at all. So no insulin rise, so no insulin sensitivity drop. So no BG, HR, BF rise. Basically, when we eat low carb, we're becoming an athlete without all that gym work.

I don't know why. Volek and Phinney are dedicated to athletic performance -- especially for endurance athletes. This product sounds like a winner for that crowd. Can you elaborate why you feel this way?


The "cooking" refers to a processing which gets you up to a weight of 500,000 to 750,000 g/mol -- a very high molecular weight. This kind of cooking is kinda tricky -- linking up the shorter molecules without oxidizing the carb.

As Volek/Phinney note in a sidebar the Art & Science of Low-Carb Performance, this high molecular weight means a very low osmotic pressure and low rate of transfer from the intestine to the bloodstream. The product was developed for a child with glycogen storage disease; Superstarch allowed the kid to sleep normally -- he could go for 8 hours without food.


I listened to Generation UCAN's webcast session with ultramarathon paddleboarder Jenn J Lee on Wednesday night. Jenn is a pro paddleboarder who does distance events like an annual race in the channel between Molokaʻi and O'ahu islands. This is clearly an event where providing nutrition during the event is most challenging.



Have you investigated? I haven't heard of any.

At the same time, I don't think the product is tremendously useful for those who have physiologically adapted to a low-carb diet who don't participate in long-duration athletic contests.

While I have never used the product and have no plans to use it, the product has helped me: I now understand the ravages of GI stress when consuming carbohydrates in normal food. Understanding the stresses of digesting and storing excess carbs is crucial to my success on a low-carb diet.


It could be valuable to those who have not ketogenically adapted. The product could help them bridge to a low-carb diet. It's vastly superior than the currently-accepted "energy drinks" for providing long-term energy while minimizing insulin response.

I think it could be a great alternative for those with T1 or T2 diabetes -- provided they can find a doctor/RD who will support and supervise their use of the product. IMHO, it's clearly vastly superior than "energy drinks" or fruit juices for these populations. These products may also provide a major conceptual clue and help them to shift to a low-carb diet. It could also help their care providers become more accepting of low-carb diets.


Have you sorted out your concerns since posting this a year ago?

Welcome to the forum, Bowling.

I read your arguments, and I disagree with every one of them. To be precise, I think none of them are relevant: Corn just isn't food for humans. Sure, we eat corn as we would food, we pop it and enjoy a good movie while munching on a large bowl of it, we make bread and other stuff with it, but it's not food for humans. Think about it. We also drink beer as we would water, and inhale tobacco as we would air, but have we ever confused beer with water, or tobacco with air? No, we're not that dumb. That said, don't you think it's difficult to go from "corn isn't food for humans", to "endurance athletes would benefit from super-starch"? I think endurance athletes would benefit much more from genuine food.

You said "it could be a great alternative for those with T1 or T2 diabetes". I can't help but ask: Alternative to what exactly? If it's an alternative to something that causes BG to rise higher, then maybe. But those are not the only alternatives. The product still causes BG to rise higher than normal. If you know anything about diabetes, "higher than normal BG" is diabetes. In fact, your argument is used by the ADA (American Diabetes Association), although not worded exactly as you did. They use it with the "whole grains vs refined grains" thing, when we all know all grains are refined whether whole or not.

You asked "have you sorted out your concerns since posting this a year ago?". Evidently, you sorted out your own concerns. Could you tell us how you did that? Not trying to put you on the spot, but if you told us how you solved the obvious problems we collectively expressed here, maybe it would help us sort out our own concerns. You must realize that you can't convince me personally, unless you can convince me that corn is food for humans first. But maybe you can convince others anyway without doing that first.

Stick around, you might just find out why we pretty much all think that's a bad product for anybody.

You disagree with my claim that this is an effective means for providing essential nutrition for children with glycogen storage disorder type 1b? Really? If you had a child with this disease, would you tell your spouse, "Corn just isn't food for humans. I'd prefer waking up ourselves [and our child] every 2 hours than give him a product based on corn."

Your [apparent] attitude brings new meaning to the concept of paleontologically correct thinking.


Ultra-distance athletes are achieving tremendous performance with this product.


If you think that you can create some "food for humans" that would work better for those endurance athletes, knock yourself out.


I spelled that out in my reply: IMHO, it's clearly vastly superior than "energy drinks" or fruit juices for these populations.


By looking at the performance that those athletes are getting with the product.

Can you explain: why do you think that a molecule with a density of 500,000 g/mol would behave at all like the molecules in the traditional grain?


Participants here have collectively expressed concern with a product based on a waxy maize with a density between 500k and 750k g/mol? You have collectively concluded that the metabolization of this product should be equivocated with "corn"? Is there science behind your collective conclusion, or is it entirely a thought experiment? Where can I find these discussions?



If you had a child who could not store and process glycogen, nothing could convince you to use this corn derivative? Obstinance has its place, but your claimed attitude sounds rather extreme to me.



Bad for anybody? Really?

Can you produce a single other person in this discussion who would refuse to use this product to feed a child having this glycogen storage disease?