Topic: Martin Armstrong Discussion - page 336. (Read 647196 times)

Crypto will act as safe havens

Crypto is not immune

So when stocks, commodities and everything collapse...will crypto collapse too?

http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/37383

Whenever I warn of anything using the word “CRASH”, the newspapers immediately report it as a forecast for a crash in the stock market. This demonstrates that there is no consideration that government can also crash and burn — the perfect example of 100% confidence. Yes, if this week simply closes on the Dow below 16280, then we may see that slingshot move I have warned about where in one year we will have a crash and a swing to the upside to new highs. These types of events are the ultimate mind game, but that is how they destroy the majority. As for those who write in, asking which investment will be safe — the answer is NONE.

Some people distort the events of the Great Depression to sell gold, but keep in mind that commodities peaked in 1919 and bottomed WITH stocks in 1932. Real estate peaked in 1927 followed by bonds when the Fed cut rates to try to help Europe. Then, everything reversed and stocks soared in 1929, crashed, and burned into 1932 bottoming with commodities.

There was NO SINGLE INVESTMENT left standing — ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. So while the charlatans will try to sell you newsletters with promises of making you 20,000%, keep in mind this is a period of survival we are entering, not wild speculation. If you do not understand the nature of the beast, the beast will have you for lunch.
What we have to grasp here is that this is a well organized collapse. Each sector will collapse and set in motion the next. If we get this week-end closing below 16280, then we may be heading for a retest of the August low going into October.

This will be the most difficult period ahead to forecast, so pay attention. We are entering a period of chaos that BEGINS with 2015.75; it does not end there with some crash. THIS IS THE BEGINNING, not the END.

Remember, if stocks decline into 2015.75, that should push more and more capital into government bonds completing the BUBBLE. This is by no means a BUBBLE in stocks, commodities, or the dollar. This is a peak in GOVERNMENT. This is not even a Kondratieff Wave based upon commodities. This is the 309.6-year cycle in government and, unfortunately, the other side of 2015.75 is not looking very pretty. This not about just the collapse of Europe, this is the collapse of Western forms of government that will aid the shift in the financial capital of world to China by 2032. These shifts in global economic trends are measured in hundreds of years and, unfortunately, we have a front row seat. It’s Just Time.

Things are getting worse much faster now. When the car is off the cliff there's no turning back and -frankly- won't matter what the Germans or any other country in the EU will do. It's not about production, technological advancements or culture, really. It's about the fail of the ecosystem of finance and this is WORLDWIDE! Manipulating the DJ will cut it but not for long; as altcoinUK wrote before. Markets tend to go bananas prior getting rational.

This time the scene is set for the perfect storm scenario. Simply no escape; FOR ANYONE.

Frankly, I think Germans will withdraw from the eurozone and let the euro collapse before they let Deutsche Bank collapse.

Only time it will go up is when retailers are sufficiently short (to give incentive to buy).. its a game to make money remember.

If there are no sellers, the buyers can fix it at any price pretty much what they did in 2011 to make it rise this much. IMO its all to try lure people back in to hold bags when big bang happens.

Armstrong has confirmed the NY Club does manipulate over the short-term moves such as creating bull traps (he even had extensive audio tapes documenting their manipulations and the SEC wrote him an official letter confirming these confiscated tapes were destroyed at the Twin Towers on 9/11). But he doesn't think they can create a persistently bearish market, meaning he doesn't think gold price is suppressed because of manipulation. There is a distinction between short-term trading manipulation and manipulation of the long-term free market price. The NY Club does do the former, they can't do the latter. Please make sure all understand the distinction.


Hey major news right on time for 2015.75!

1) Boehner Resigns!

2) Yellen almost passes out during speech.

3) Tea Party will stage a US govt shut down over conservative religious values and the tapping into the general angst about the runaway corruption of govt.

4) The recent political shakeup in Australia.

5) Central bank of Germany tells the EU not to release the results of bank stress tests because ostensibly Douchebag Bank is about to go belly up.

6) Migrant crisis.

7) EU environmentalism big business is revealed to be another corrupt lie (Volkswagen, BMW, etc). Add that to the lie of global warming, peak oil, etc..

What a surprise ... the market was struggled above 16280. All buy support disappeared afternoon but finally it was pushed just a bit above Armstrong's threshold, 16280.

The fucking FED-Goldman brigade trying very hard to keep going this casino market and I have no doubt they are very much following Armstrong just like we do.

I am not sure what you mean about the rinse and repeat and "shorts in to make go up". The 16160 was just an analytic thershold I think. From Armstrong's viewpoint it has nothing to do with the short and longs, he says quite rightly that stay away from this casino market.

I am not a professional trader, but I made quite good moneys on the market in the last 25 years. The charts even telling me the not professional that there is no buy support, but when Armstrong open is mouth then the buy support come.

Now 10 minutes left from closing the market ... 16280 is what the bulls FED and Goldman needs to fight against. Let see what's happening.

Actually the things I posted say that nuts are not very good choice (at least not optimal).
Also every individual (depending on the ethnicity background too) react differently so what may be well tolerated for me be a poison for you!

I too don't choose much nuts these days, I prefer to do fasting whole day and eat once every afternoon. Sometimes I skip a day/week too.

So I don't need nuts anymore (used to eat them for breakfast while I was working in a software company along with coffee).

If this was true they would make the market close at 16150 and then get all the shorts in to make it go up, rinse and repeat. I think the 200 point swings are triggering bots playing scalps.

I agree that most traders are out of this game, however that is why I see a massive bull coming in (double dow prices from here), to lure traders back in before the big bang.

I do very little day trading on the stock market these days - I am simply tired to figure out what the FED-PPT-Goldman brigade's next move is, it's actually a very boring way to make money. This stock market is not what we used to trade in. This is a rigged FED-Goldman jamboree party now. Anyway, Armstrong's collusion with FED-Goldman brigade is very unlikely indeed.

It's quite the opposite and actually fucking hilarious what is happening IMHO.

For example, Armstrong published yesterday that if the market close under 16160 (he was talking about Down) then most likely it will test the August lows. I was actually watching the charts at the time. Not long after Armstrong published his projection the market started to go down. Not because of Armstrong, it was just no buy support at all. I was expecting the PPT (Plunge Protection Team) will intervene and of course not going to let the market test the lows just now. Since sudden buy support usually appears when Armstrong's analysis is published, I thought the same will happen again, THEY surely will not let the market crash - there are not enough bagholders just yet. So I opened a nice, big long position at 16030 just to be there when the PPT strike. As I said there were no buy support at all, the market was crashing, but voilà, the mysterious buy support came at 16017 - the market was saved again ... and of course it closed at 16200, just above Armstrong's threshold.
Based on what I am seeing, I am starting to believe that the FED-Goldman-PPT crocks are very much reading Armstrong analyses and do whatever they can do move the market to make sure it won't meet Armstrong's criteria.

Now, when I am writing this the market is at 16230. There are no fucking buyers again but I think it will finish over 16280, just a bit above Armstrong's threshold.

If anyone want some free and easy money just remember Armstrong's thresholds and play the market against it. In my opinion that's what Goldman and the likes do. You can trust the corrupt FED-Goldman brigade that they will do everything to keep the market above Armstrong's thresholds ... until they can, because as Armstrong said at an other day, they can't rig the market forever.

klee I will just tell you that since 2012, I get immediately ill after eating nuts. Before that I loved nuts (I practically lived off peanut butter and whole wheat bread in my 20s which yet another risk factor with me developing gut dysbiosys), but after making myself ill numerous times, I finally had to admit they are poison.

For a healthy person, a few nuts per week will surely be healthier because they are a rich source of minerals. But we can also get those minerals from other foods, for example the selenium from Brazil nuts I can instead get from tuna.

But for a person who has already chronic gut issues, nuts have too high levels of anti-nutrients.

I trust common sense which tells me that nature made seeds with natural pesticides because the seed is the most important production of a plant, its offspring. The way a mother will protect her child at any cost (even her own life). Grains are also the seeds of the plant. Only rice has all its minerals, proteins, and natural pesticides in a removable outer husk. All the other nuts, grains, and legumes have the proteins, minerals, and natural pesticides integrated with the starch (and oils). Coconut may be an exception. And apparently also olives.

I don't trust any study claiming anything in terms of diet, because there is no way they can adjust the study to reflect the fact that most people today are inherently starving because of the Western diet (no grass fed animals!). People are obese because they are starving, because their microflora can no longer digest food well to provide the nutrients they need, and because the food they are consuming is toxic (e.g. non-grass fed meats very high in omega-6).

So for me it is mostly all noise. I do pay attention to the discussion of chemical/biological mechanisms at gutcritters.com because it provides some imperfect insight into how the various variables impact digestion.

What I am doing now is trying as much as possible to emulate the way someone would lived in the Amazon jungle would eat. And remember they fermented the cassava before they ate it. Even the native tribes which subsisted mostly on maize (not the same as today's corn) mashed, washed, and fermented it in order to make it more healthy. I think every native culture was getting massive amount of probiotics in their diet daily. Even your wheat eating European ancestors were mashing, washing, and fermenting the grains. And I assume they were fermenting their dairy products as well. Not to claim that Europeans were that healthy in the Middle Ages, because I am not knowledgeable about that (wasn't there wide spread malnutrition and disease with much lower average age of death).

One big factor is refrigeration and microwave ovens. Never ever should you use a microwave oven because it effective kills the enzymes and denatures the proteins, etc.. It kills what was food and turns the food into anti-nutrients.

Also the refrigeration enables us to eat stale, dead food. The native tribe would instead eat fresh or fermented food.

Maybe if we stopped teaching our females that they should be striving to be men, or parading them around as Frankenstein trophies of independence, they could get back to preparing foods in the traditional ways and we men could get back to being busy engineering and analytical work that men typically do better than females. Or maybe we could make robots to do our traditional food preparation, and then I am not quite sure what the women would do best, I guess only bear and nurture (even home school?) the children (and that is perhaps the most important role in society).

Nuts
Five large epidemiological studies in the USA all seem to indicate that the risk of myocardial infarction is lower for people who eat nuts on a regular basis than for those who do not. In the three studies where nut consumption was reported in the same manner, and after adjusting for other (known) confounding dietary factors, there was a roughly 40% reduced risk by consuming nuts at least 5 times/week, compared to less than once a week. One of the studies was conducted on just over 31 000 Seventh Day Adventists in California, who were interviewed about their dietary habits and tracked for 12 years. The lower risk with higher consumption was statistically significant both among overweight and lean individuals, and was not dependent on the level of other cardiovascular risk factors. In the Physicians’ Health Study, the risk of sudden cardiac-related death was lower among persons who ate nuts more than 2 times/week (relative risk 0.53; 95% 95% CI 0.30–0.92) compared with those who seldom or never ate nuts (P for trend = 0.01). However, there was no apparent relation to deaths from other causes or non-fatal myocardial infarctions.
Randomised intervention studies of increased nut intake are lacking. Therefore, the presence of confounders in the observational studies cannot be ruled out. Certainly, when most of these studies were conducted, there was a general belief among
US health-conscious people that nuts are beneficial, an opinion strongly promoted by John H. Kellogg in the early twentieth century.
The suggested nutritional benefits of nuts include being rich in minerals, vita- mins and soluble fibre. Similar to olive oil, the fat in most nuts is dominated by the monounsaturated fatty acid oleic acid (18:1n-9). The potential disadvantages include a high content of omega-6 fatty acids and phytic acid, as well as a high energy density. A handful of nuts, particularly hazel nuts, drastically increases the omega-6/omega-3 ratio. The phytate content of nuts impedes the body’s ability to absorb minerals such as iron, calcium, zinc and magnesium, where a lack of the last two minerals has been suggested as a contributing factor for ischaemic heart disease481,1639. The low water content means that an extra handful of nuts goes down easily, which is expected to contribute to weight gain. The fact that nuts are rich in plant sterols may help to maintain beneficial levels of serum cholesterol, but the net effect on the heart and blood vessels is unclear (see under ‘Plant sterols’).
Peanuts are not nuts in the botanical sense, and should not be considered so in the context of healthy foods. They belong to the family of legumes (Leguminosae), which also includes beans, peas and lentils. Peanuts are thought to actually increase the risk of atherosclerosis via mechanisms that are partly independent of their fat (see Section 4.3).
Coconut is considerably different from other nuts in that coconut fat is dominated by saturated fatty acids (see also Section 3.2). This probably partly explains why serum cholesterol levels among some Pacific Islanders are not entirely favourable. Even if these populations apparently manage to consume large amounts of coconuts without any problems, people in the Western world are advised to be careful, particularly with coconut fat, which in contrast to coconut meat provides only calories without any vitamins, minerals or fibre.

Dietary fibre
There is insufficient high-quality research on the importance of dietary fibre for ischaemic heart disease. If people who prefer whole grains have less heart disease, it may be because of other elements of their healthy lifestyle. The only published controlled trial of dietary fibre on the risk of developing ischaemic heart disease, the DART study mentioned above, showed a tendency towards increased mortality from cardiovascular diseases in people eating more dietary cereal fibre. The study took roughly 2000 British men, who had had a previous myocardial infarction, and randomly assigned them either a high intake of dietary fibre (≥18 g/day) or an ordinary diet. After 2 years, a total of 123/1017 patients in the fibre group had died, compared with 101/1016 (P = 0.16) from the other group. The number of subjects who developed cardiovascular disease were, respectively, 109 and 85 (P = 0.10). After adjustment for possible confounding factors such as health state and medication, the increased risk of developing ischaemic heart disease was statistically significant (hazard ratio 1.35; 95% CI 1.02–1.80), although it subsided after more than 10 years (hazard ratio 1.11; 95% CI 0.96–1.29). Since cereals made up the main source of fibre, it should not be ruled out that the tendency towards increased mortality was a detrimental effect of the increased grain consumption.
The widely accepted hypothesis that dietary fibre, including cereal fibre, prevents ischaemic heart disease is based on epidemiological studies. However, one of the largest, and most often cited, prospective observational studies points to the appearance of confounders that could possibly explain a large part of the relationship. The study recorded the dietary habits of close to 40000 healthy women, primarily nurses, by means of frequency formulas. During the 6-year follow-up period, 570 new cases of disease were noted, including myocardial infarction (177), stroke, percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty, coronary bypass operations or cardiovascular death. Women in the quintile with the highest fibre intake (median 26.3 g/day) had, compared with the lowest quintile (median 12.5 fibre/day), a relative risk for developing any type of cardiovascular disease of 0.65 (95% CI 0.51–0.84), and 0.46 (0.30–0.72) for undergoing a myocardial infarction. After correcting for differences in cardiovascular risk factors, however, the relative risk dropped to 0.79 (95% CI 0.58–1.09, not significant) and 0.68 (95% CI 0.36–1.22, not significant) respectively.
It should be noted that there are two kinds of dietary fibre. The first is insoluble fibre, which is mainly found in cereals, and which does not appear to affect cardiovascular risk factors very much. The other kind is soluble fibre, which dominates in fruits, root vegetables and nuts, and has been shown to improve blood lipids and glucose metabolism, particularly when ingested in high amounts1780. Insoluble dietary fibre has two main benefits, it is satiating due to its filling capacity in the stomach, and it prevents constipation. Soluble fibre
has the same effects, but it is thought to improve blood lipids and carbohydrate metabolism more than insoluble fibre225,516,1780, hence it probably has a greater ability to prevent cardiovascular disease and diabetes. A case–control study in Italy found fruit fibre to be protective against myocardial infarction, while no such effect was found for cereal fibre. In contrast, a pooled analysis of cohort studies found both kinds of fibre to be inversely related to ischaemic heart disease mortality.


Food choice
From all we know, fruits, vegetables, nuts, fish and lean meat can be eaten without
restrictions. The beneficial effects of a Palaeolithic diet in our study mentioned
above are probably applicable to most people with type 2 diabetes. Fruit has a high
water content and therefore facilitates caloric restriction. It is also low in fat and
salt, while high in soluble fibre, vitamins and minerals. Furthermore, most fruits
have a low GI (melons are relatively high GI). Even ripe bananas are acceptable
with a mean GI of 50 (glucose = 100). However, fruits are considerably
less protein-rich (per unit of energy) than vegetables, which therefore results in a
higher glycaemic load. When fruits replace cereal grains, as will be the case for
most Westerners with diabetes, the total glycaemic load decreases. Nevertheless,
blood sugar should be carefully monitored, particularly when fruit consumption
exceeds 500 g/day and in case of high intakes of grapes or ripe bananas. Serum
triglyceride levels can rise in sensitive patients since fruit contains relatively high
levels of fructose1843. The fructose content in fruit is apparently too low to pose a
significant problem for most people with type 2 diabetes. The amount of fructose
in 500 g of fruit is approximately 25 g, while available evidence suggests that a
fructose intake below 60 g is safe.


Nuts are a complicated issue. Many of them are not actually nuts in a botanical
sense (e.g. peanuts). Nuts are energy-dense often provide a relatively high amount
of energy for the amount of work involved, and may have made up an essential part
of the diet during certain time periods. However, they are obviously critical for the
mother plant to be able to spread its genes. Therefore, it is logical to find that nuts
that are protected by very hard shells have a lower content of phytochemicals than
other nuts. Nevertheless, many stone fruits and seeds may have tasted worse –
and been more poisonous – during the Palaeolithic era than today. Almonds at
that time are thought to have been more bitter than sweet. At the beginning of
agriculture, our ancestors supposedly prioritised the sweetest types of almonds, an
early example of plant breeding.


Phytochemicals
As previously mentioned, the plant kingdom contains thousands of bioactive substances
and other natural chemicals, many of which are thought to be part of their
defence systems against herbivores. The highest concentrations are generally found
in young plants, also in the most vital parts (sprout, seeds, beans and roots). Such
phytochemicals can often make up 5–10% of the plant’s dry weight. Prehistoric
foragers were able to limit the negative health effects by having access to a
large number of various plant species, by consciously avoiding the most poisonous
ones, and by the use of cooking.
Plant lectins are carbohydrate-binding proteins from plants. Strictly, they are
defined as ‘plant proteins with at least one non-catalytic domain that is bound
reversibly to a specific mono or oligosaccharide’. They bind to certain sugars
because they contain carbohydrate residues themselves, i.e. they are glycated
(=glycosylated). The most important function of plant lectins is thought to be
protection against attacks by plant-eating animals. The highest concentration
is found in seeds, beans, potatoes and peanuts. Unrefined grain products, on the
whole, have a higher lectin content than refined seed products. Lectins in wheat,
rye, rice and potatoes bind to GlcNAc-domains (GlcNAc = N-acetylglucosamine)
on receptors in the ‘host organism’ (Table 3.19). Lectins are often not destroyed
during normal cooking. Cooking beans in a pressure cooker deactivates their lectin,
which has been shown for Turkish beans and which is expected to be true for
most plant lectins.
Plant lectins are, compared to other dietary proteins, unusually resistant to enzymatic
breakdown in the intestines and can penetrate the intestinal mucous membrane,
finally being deposited in the internal organs. The ability to avoid destruction
and be absorbed in the intestines makes plant lectins excellent carriers for pharmaceutical
substances. The deposition in internal organs is useful for histochemical
identification of specific cell systems in the microscope. A well-studied effect
of a number of plant lectins is agglutination of red blood cells. The long-term,
potentially negative effects of lectins on humans are addressed in the sections on
atherosclerosis (Section 4.3), insulin resistance (Section 4.6), cancer (Section 4.11)
and autoimmunity (Section 4.15).
During the Palaeolithic period, plant lectins were consumed on a daily basis, but
probably not in the same, high concentrations of today, and not exclusively from
one or a few plant species.
Protease inhibitors are substances in beans and seeds, which inhibit proteindegrading
enzymes in the digestive tract such as trypsin, chymotrypsin and amylase.
This very ancient defence mechanism of plants allows their seeds to pass through
the entire gastrointestinal system (mouth–oesophagus–stomach–gut) undamaged,
thereby surviving excretion and later to grow in the ground. The concentration
of protease inhibitors in beans and cereals is so high that the digestion of dietary
proteins (including other than those in the seed) can be substantially reduced.
Endocrine disruptors such as phytoestrogens constitute another kind of defence
mechanism in the plant’s struggle for survival. These hormone-like substances
can interfere with the consumer’s reproductive system, in which case the defence
strategy may be to cause infertility rather than death. It has been suggested that
isoflavones (also called flavonoids), the phytoestrogens that appear in large amounts
in cereals exert an antioxidative effect, but good evidence is still lacking.
Other hormone-like plant sterols have the effect of reducing blood lipids by hampering
cholesterol absorption in the intestines.
Cyanogenic glycosides are produced by more than 2500 plant species. Their
production and conversion to cyanide constitutes a well-studied defence mechanism
against herbivores. Cyanide can be acutely toxic when consumed in high
amounts, but more relevant in this context is when it is ingested regularly in low
concentrations. Cyanide is then converted to thiocyanate, a potentially goitrogenic
substance which can increase the need for dietary iodine and may cause goitre, even
when iodine intake is high. These are well-documented consequences of certain staple
foods in the Third World such as cassava, bamboo shoots, sweet potatoes, lima
beans and millet. Out of the foods listed, only the edible parts of the cassava plant
contain large amounts of thiocyanate, otherwise the problem is by most authors
considered negligible and is not thought to be a contributing cause of goitre in Europe.
Even linseeds contain cyanogenic glycosides. The National Swedish Food
Administration has issued a warning against consuming more than 1–2 tablespoons
of linseeds on a daily basis, since 10 tablespoons daily caused mild neurological
symptoms in one human, most likely through cyanide exposure (www.slv.se, in
Swedish). The long-term effects of a low intake are unknown.
Pyrrolizidine alkaloids are a large group of chemicals that are produced by over
6000 plant species, some of which are used for food or herbal teas. Low-level
exposure to pyrrolizidine alkaloids is suspected as the underlying cause of endemic
cirrhosis in certain cultural groups in Asia and Africa. The high rate of primary
liver cancer in South Africa may be due to chronic low-level pyrrolizidine alkaloids.
Other organs that are thought to be affected are kidneys, stomach, brain, lungs,
heart and the reproductive system.
Phytic acid is found in seeds (including beans) with the aim of binding phosphorus
and other minerals. The case of phytic acid may be an exception to a common
rule in plant–animal interactions, that bioactive plant constituents are designed to
damage the consuming ‘host’. Apparently, in the case of phytate, the damage is
only coincidental. When phytic acid is consumed, it binds to dietary minerals and
trace metals such as iron, zinc, calcium and magnesium, to form phytate salts with
these ions. As a consequence, these nutrients largely pass unabsorbed through the
intestines and are excreted.
Since phytic acid is mainly found in the germ part of the seed, whole grain
flour is unhealthier than refined flour in this respect. However, the seed also
contains phytases that can break down the phytic acid under beneficial circumstances.
In the best case, if the seeds are tossed in the right way,
soaked and allowed to sit at proper temperature and pH for a sufficient number
of hours (or days), the phytic acid can almost be eliminated. The various types of
grains distinguish themselves in that, out of our four most popular cereals, it is
most difficult to reduce phytic acid in oats. In today’s industrially produced, rolled
oats, the phytases are completely destroyed, which means that it is then impossible
to reduce the phytic acid content. In contrast with humans, rats have a high
capacity to degrade phytates in their intestines, an apparent adaptation to regular
consumption of seeds.
Acrylamide is formed during baking or high-temperature cooking (frying,
grilling, deep-fat frying) of starchy foods, i.e. heating the surface of the food. This
type of food treatment was probably uncommon during the Palaeolithic (apart
from roasting carbohydrate-free foodstuffs like meat and fish). Heating meat and
fish does not form acrylamide. In terms of Western food, crisps and chips have the
highest amount of acrylamide, while bread, breakfast cereals and hash browns are
the dominant sources of acrylamide for the average European. Acrylamide has been
proposed to cause cancer, based on experiments on animals, but the connection is
uncertain.
Knowledge of the health effects of bioactive substances is fragmentary, and in
many cases, it lacks the perspective of evolutionary biology. Research about alkylresorcinols
and biogenic amines has concentrated on the detrimental aspects, while
research on hormone-like substances and antioxidants most often has highlighted
the alleged beneficial effects.

All begin in the gut.

Indeed too much of anything is going to cause problems in the gut and then eventually autoimmunity.

But there are certain foods which are poisons and to be avoided.

And we need fermented foods to promote healthy gut microflora.

https://www.google.com/search?q=native+tribes+have+1000s+more+gut+bacteria

http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2015/04/21/400393756/how-modern-life-depletes-our-gut-microbes


Notice how in that article the scientists have entirely failed to consider that the meat these hunter tribes eat is all wild! And they likely barbecue it, thus they get many of their microbes directly from the nearly raw meat they eat.

klee I wager a bet your M.S. is caused by insufficient variety of gut microflora.

Sweet potato is very well known in paleo recipes, I avoid white rise because it raises blood glucose
https://www.drfuhrman.com/library/whiterice_diabetes.aspx

Avoid ALL white.

http://www.amazon.com/Fiber-Menace-Constipation-Hemorrhoids-Ulcerative/dp/0970679645

http://ketodietapp.com/Blog/post/2014/11/30/Total-Carbs-or-Net-Carbs-What-Really-Counts