Is it Gordan Lauc?

You’ve mentioned him as part of the advisory team to the Croatian government during the whole COVID thing.

He is mentioned in the recording above (around 1:10:xx), regarding blood type and diet.

Frof. Lutz? Gordan? Gordon?

Oops Igor remind me/Gabor who that guy was again – a little more detail?

Ivor, would you be so kind to write the name od the Dr. from Croatia? I’m from Croatia and would like to check out his work.

Thank you and keep up the “very good” work!

Thank you for the suggestion, Rachel. We’re considering several options, and among them the incorporation of some of the lectures into an online training course. If that decision is made it would be counterproductive to prematurely release the lectures in question in PDF forms.

Sorry for the late reply, quite some developments in my “professional life” recently.

There’s certainly more to metabolic damage than carbohydrate processing. If you watched all three parts it may have become more clear that food order, meal frequency, physical activity post meals, etc. also play a role. Not to mention factors not discussed in this series, such as air pollution, synthetic organic compounds (endocrine disrupters), bad sleep quality, noise, etc.
When thinking of the Japanese for example, two factors come to mind:
– there’s a traditional food order that puts plant roughage to the beginning of a meal then they continue with protein and fat rich food items and eat most of the rice and any sweets at the end.
– an old Japanese saying goes something like: climb a thousand steps after meals and you live to a hundred years.

Thanks, Gabor. No doubt heat (cooking) can break down food structure. What I wonder is what evidence we have comparing the detrimental hormonal effects of cooking with modern industrial processes such as milling flour and isolating sugars.

It’d be interesting to see comparisons, if they exist, of the hormonal effects of, say, cooked tubers, white rice, flour bread, fruit juice, etc. I’d like to think that pre-industrial processing is, in general, less harmful, or even beneficial (Schindler), but the reality may be different.

More generally I wonder why, mechanistically, you think cultures eating cooked starches, for example, can remain so lean and healthy, in contrast to cultures that have undergone the “nutrition transition” to industrially processed foods.

Thanks,
Bill

The impact depends on starch structure and how it can be solubilized by cooking. From the hormonal response perspective, cooking is usually not inert, rather greatly accelerates digestibility. Just think of most industrial processes that involve cooking of starches despite the considerable cost of heat treatment. In the most sophisticated starch processing plants “cooking” temperature can reach 140 C (~285 F) at high pressure. And it’s worth it, because a single percent or so more starch can be converted to glucose.
So technically it’s definitely not correct to say that cooking is unquestionably harmless because of its role in human evolution. But again, cooking starchy or sugary foods can be a problem, cooking (not burning) protein and fat rich whole foods is not really.

Some caution has to be expressed in connection with big hunks in physiology from the appearance of a nutrient/compound in the gut and systemic metabolism. Depending on the type of the compound in question, several tissues have a pass before systemic availability. SCFA go directly to the liver, and their hepatic metabolism is not uniform at all. There seems to be no upper threshold for systemic release of acetate, but butyrate clearance is strictly regulated. See https://academic.oup.com/jn/article/145/9/2019/4644344
That’s likely due to the strong signaling effects of butyrate which acetate doesn’t have.
Acetate is also a substrate for lipogenesis, so it can contribute to lipid storage in some circumstances. High colonic levels signal microbial dysbiosis.