Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Resistant Starches

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • I just hate seeing people write "Mark said" "Mark provided" when it should be "Mark researched" ... Or better still, just point to the article he used.

    Sorry to be pedantic, but even reading the comments on "Are Potatoes's Paleo" people are throwing around Carb hating like some sort of religious cult. Its along the lines of sniffing your own farts and expecting pats on the back for avoiding Spuds :/

    Oh and "Christ on a bike" was supposed to be the phrase I was after :P

    Comment


    • OK, thanks for the background explanation. I did point to the article he used, so I hope that's some consolation. I'm not going to worry much about whether I use "said"/"provided" vs. "researched," sorry. I can't please everyone and my main concern is whether or not you understood me rather than whether I wrote it literally perfectly.

      FWIW, I find it helps to avoid frustration and improve communication, getting along with others and focus on important things to not worry about semantics. I used to get caught up too much in semantics, grammar, spelling, etc. in the past (perhaps due in part to having teachers for parents), but it became gradually less important to me and then Nassim Taleb really reinforced my growing conclusion that the message is the important thing and I've been trying to be even less concerned about it since. So I guess I'm trying to move in the opposite direction on this and trying to persuade me to go back in the other direction could be frustrating. :P
      Originally posted by tatertot
      Finding a diet you can tolerate is not the same as fixing what's wrong.
      "our ancestors obtained resistant starch and other fermentable fibers by eating a diversity of wild plant foods, bulbs, corms, tubers, cattails, cactuses, and medicinal barks..." -Mark Sisson

      "I've long ago tossed the idea that a particular macro ratio is poison, and am now starting to think that the EM2…is defined less by novel NADS…and more by the gut microbiome and environmental pseudocommensals ..." -Kurt Harris, MD

      Comment


      • Loren Cordain and Ray Audette were the only early prominent Paleo diet advocates I noticed forbid potatoes.
        Cordain prohibits more than he allows. Most paleo-sphere happily consumes vinegar, salt, caffeine, alcohol...

        I have started noticing more and more joint problems, so I have been avoiding potatoes. But with the price of yams & squashes here soaring, and my crop of squashes destroyed by a mole (sigh) I might have to start self-experimenting.

        I finally made the leap and put the beans back in. Still as good of a satiating effect as I remember. Does one need to eat beans cold though, or hot ones are Okay?
        My Journal: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum/thread57916.html
        When I let go of what I am, I become what I might be.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Leida View Post
          I finally made the leap and put the beans back in. Still as good of a satiating effect as I remember. Does one need to eat beans cold though, or hot ones are Okay?
          Eat them cold for best RS content.
          I also don't really understand the ban on foods like beans. Properly prepared, they are a great addition to a menu.

          Comment


          • Oh, zut, have been eating them warm with my egg-egg white breakfast. Will try to have them as a cold side. yeah, I know. I looked through it all, and I just don't buy the legumes=poison.
            My Journal: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum/thread57916.html
            When I let go of what I am, I become what I might be.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by FrenchFry View Post
              Eat them cold for best RS content.
              I also don't really understand the ban on foods like beans. Properly prepared, they are a great addition to a menu.
              RAW beans (red kidney beans especially but also white kidney beans and broad beans) are poisonous. If they're not soaked and cooked to a high enough heat, they can actually cause death. The "properly prepared" is an important caveat. I think that's why they were put on the "forbidden" list.

              Comment


              • A lot of things are poisons or toxic if prepared improperly or spoiled. But it is one of those a bit pointless 'why one and not another if both have the same quality' arguments.

                I think toxicity/high pressure cooking was why Chaco was making argument some time ago about canned beans >> soaked and cooked. I got the dry ones now, going to soak and slow cook them tonight/tomorrow. But if canned ones better, they are certainly easier (but ~2x more expensive)!
                My Journal: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum/thread57916.html
                When I let go of what I am, I become what I might be.

                Comment


                • Paleophil is famous!

                  Paleophil Uses Resistant Starch To Hugely Blunt BG Spikes for His Raw Fermented Honey Habit | Free The Animal

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Leida View Post
                    A lot of things are poisons or toxic if prepared improperly or spoiled. But it is one of those a bit pointless 'why one and not another if both have the same quality' arguments.

                    I think toxicity/high pressure cooking was why Chaco was making argument some time ago about canned beans >> soaked and cooked. I got the dry ones now, going to soak and slow cook them tonight/tomorrow. But if canned ones better, they are certainly easier (but ~2x more expensive)!
                    The high pressure cooking of canned beans removes some of the RS content. Also sodium is added which negates the magnesium and potassium of beans. Start with dry black, the most nutritious and cheap.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Bobert View Post
                      The high pressure cooking of canned beans removes some of the RS content. Also sodium is added which negates the magnesium and potassium of beans. Start with dry black, the most nutritious and cheap.
                      Do explain to me, how Salt, a easily and rapidly absorbed mineral, would effect magnesium and potassium uptake?
                      I find that very baffling.

                      We all know that fruit has naturally occurring sodium, so, according to you that would make eating Fruit and Veg pretty much useless.
                      Even adding more salt...why would it make a difference?
                      Dare I put a pinch of Salt in me Cocoa? Making its antioxidant qualities useless...

                      As I say, do tell.... Salt is so rapidly absorbed that it barely effects a thing.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by otzi View Post
                        Interesting article on RS and insulin sensitivity.
                        I have this eerie feeling that I'm trapped in a Zombie movie, and no matter how hard I try to kill them all, there's always another bazillion just behind the bazillion I've just blown to smithereens!

                        I tend to have a very strong aversion to second hand interpretations of research, especially so when that interpretation is by someone whom I do not particularly respect. I don't bear any particular animosity towards Richard Nikoley, he has managed to lose quite a bit of weight, but I'm not impressed with his results, and certainly not with his analytical skills.

                        Nikoley both cherry picks and misinterprets / misunderstands this study (although I will give him credit for linking it).

                        Originally posted by Richard Nikoley
                        "In conclusion, RS intake increases insulin sensitivity in non-insulin-resistant subjects by changing both adipose tissue and skeletal muscle metabolism. This is potentially due to elevations in the systemic concentrations of both ghrelin and SCFAs. RS intake at this dose (30 g/d) was well tolerated and thus could have beneficial effects for the treatment of insulin-resistant persons or those with type 2 diabetes. This would require further investigation."

                        In my own Conclusion, let's jump back up to the Results section:

                        "There was no significant difference in reported food intake between the 2 supplementation periods and no subsequent change in either body weight or BMI. There was a small but significant increase in lean body mass (P = 0.003) averaging 1.1 kg (0.6–1.6 kg) over the 4-wk period of RS supplementation"

                        Translation: if weight or BMI didn't change, but lean mass increased to the tune of 2.2 pounds over 4 weeks, then body fat had to have decreased. Now, run that out to several years worth of supplementing resistant starch. A few tablespoons of cheap Bob's Red Mill Potato Starch just might be your slow, body comp improvement Ace in the Hole.
                        It's interesting that not only does Nikoley neglect to mention here that the researchers did actually measure body fat changes and deemed them to be statistically insignificant ( i.e. could just as easily have arisen due to chance rather than an effect of the intervention ), but he also goes off the deep end and extrapolates years into the future on the basis of his own febrile imagination:





                        Nikoley also fails to realize that not all lean mass is created equal. What do you suppose happens if you suddenly increase the amount of available food for the microbiota that colonize your large intestine? Do you suppose that they will exhibit the exact same population dynamics that we see in every ecosystem that we have ever studied? If so, then the limiting factor on population size is always available food supply. Which means that we can expect a bacterial population explosion. Considering that under ideal conditions E. Coli produces a new generation every 17 minutes, basically within 20 minutes or so of that RS meal you will be increasing the size and therefore lean mass of your intestinal bacteria. Not quite the same as adding that mass to your biceps, but hey ... it's lean mass!!

                        During the study, participants went from ingesting 17.5g of dietary fiber in the pre-intervention phase to 47.9g during the RS phase. This represent almost a threefold increase in fiber intake. On average, an individual has between 3 to 4 lbs. of bacteria in their gut. Let's be conservative and say that this threefold increase in available food resulted in a meager 50% increase in the gut bacterial population ... meaning that if you started out with 4 lbs. of bacteria in your gut, you'd wind up with a net gain of 2 lbs. of "lean mass" .... hmm ... where have we seen numbers of that magnitude in this study? If anyone expresses interest, I can point you to a study that I have floating around on my computer somewhere that shows that feeding suckling pigs resistant starch results in an increase in large intestine mass, due to the need to accommodate the bacterial population increase. Not really the kind of lean mass I'm looking to put on my frame.

                        Lastly, as I already mentioned, due to the rapid reproduction rate of bacterial populations, by week four of this study, the population sizes would have long stabilized, meaning that unless you would change your RS intake, your "lean mass" would have also stabilized. So much for extrapolating years into the future. But while I'm calling Nikoley out for baseless, mindless, extrapolation into the future, let's give him the benefit of the doubt and just run the numbers, let's run a 2.2 lb lean mass gain per four weeks out to several years (3) worth of supplementing resistant starch ... so 13 four week segments per year for 3 years makes 39 cycles of 2.2 lbs per cycle, or roughly 80 lbs of lean muscles mass. Now that's utterly ridiculous. So not only does Nikoley have a shaky grasp of biology, the man is also incapable of performing simple arithmetic.

                        But there's more! I did highlight some salient bits in the quote above, and let's look now the part I highlighted in red, the changes in muscle and adipose tissue metabolism.

                        At this point, I'll let the study authors speak for themselves:

                        Originally posted by Robertson et al.
                        Muscle glucose clearance was significantly higher despite lower prevailing insulin concentrations. The mean glucose clearance per pmol/L insulin, averaged across the study period, was 43.9% higher after RS intake than after the placebo (P = 0.013). A similar trend was observed for adipose tissue, with glucose uptake being higher by almost 3-fold.

                        Hmmm... 50% increase in glucose uptake for muscle, and a whopping 300% increase in the uptake of glucose by adipose tissue. Are we really sure this is such a great thing?

                        What else happened to adispose tissue metabolism?

                        Originally posted by Robertson et al.
                        In adipose tissue ... there was significantly greater expression of hormone-sensitive lipase (35.7 ± 5.5 to 45.8 ± 7.7 amol/μg total RNA; P = 0.036) and lower expression of insulin receptor substrate 1 (11.2 ± 1.5 to 8.8 ± 1.4 amol/μg total RNA; P = 0.016) after RS supplementation than with placebo.
                        Wait ... so we're radically increasing the rate of glucose uptake by adipose tissue and increasing the enzyme responsible for inhibiting lypolysis at the same time? Wow, where do I sign up?

                        And there is still more:

                        Originally posted by Robertson et al.
                        An interesting observation was the increase in the circulating concentration of total ghrelin after RS supplementation ... In the present study, fasting ghrelin concentrations were significantly elevated with no significant change in fasting insulin concentrations ... Ghrelin has been shown to inhibit lipolysis, stimulate lipogenesis, and stimulate the expression of peroxisome proliferator activated receptor γ in vitro (41), which potentially influence insulin sensitivity in vivo.
                        Last, but not least, note the items highlighted in green. This study involved non-insulin resistant subjects, and whether these results would carry over to an insulin resistant population is anybody's guess, something that the authors plainly express by urging further investigation.

                        -PK
                        My blog : cogitoergoedo.com

                        Interested in Intermittent Fasting? This might help: part 1, part 2, part 3.

                        Comment


                        • You haven't tested resistant starch, pklopp, have you?

                          Here's a common view about starch in low carb circles:
                          "ALL STARCHES BECOME GLUCOSE. So if you are eating starch or you are eating glucose, it all leads to glucose. The reason is: amylase breaks starch into maltose (disaccharide of glucose), then maltase in the small intestine breaks the maltose into glucose. So, that pasta, white potato, red potato, squash, potato chip, cereal, and every grain based processed food becomes glucose."
                          - Attributed to David Pendergrass, professor of Molecular Biosciences at Kansas University, Paleo Movement Group Facebook comments, https://www.facebook.com/permalink.p...99508906778406

                          "In Conclusion: So, there you have the straight skinny on starch and sugar. No matter what form you eat, it will become glucose once it is in your body." What Are Sugars And Starches?

                          "Eating starch will raise blood sugar to some extent in all living beings that do so, and that will cause some degree of harm in everybody. Therefore, the term 'safe starch' is an oxymoron. 'Tolerably harmful'? Perhaps for some". - Dr. Ron Rosedale,
                          More ‘Safe Starches’ Stuff And Why I’ve Decided NOT To Test Them On Myself « Jimmy Moore's Livin' La Vida Low Carb Blog
                          I'm still waiting for a single person to report that unmodified potato starch, raw green plantain or raw potato spiked their blood glucose.
                          Originally posted by tatertot
                          Finding a diet you can tolerate is not the same as fixing what's wrong.
                          "our ancestors obtained resistant starch and other fermentable fibers by eating a diversity of wild plant foods, bulbs, corms, tubers, cattails, cactuses, and medicinal barks..." -Mark Sisson

                          "I've long ago tossed the idea that a particular macro ratio is poison, and am now starting to think that the EM2…is defined less by novel NADS…and more by the gut microbiome and environmental pseudocommensals ..." -Kurt Harris, MD

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by pklopp View Post
                            Wait ... so we're radically increasing the rate of glucose uptake by adipose tissue and increasing the enzyme responsible for inhibiting lypolysis at the same time? Wow, where do I sign up?

                            And there is still more:
                            That was a question I asked at freetheanimal on the 14th of Sep:

                            Originally posted by La Frite
                            One thing from the article: it says that lipolysis is reduced so that muscles take glucose more efficiently (if I understood correctly) … so why the leaner results in the 4 week experiment ? Doesn’t lipolysis mean fat breakdown into FFAs ? aren’t those FFAs a source of energy for organs and muscles in absence of glucose ? I find it all odd …
                            I did not get any reply to this question.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Paleophil View Post
                              You haven't tested resistant starch, pklopp, have you?

                              I'm still waiting for a single person to report that unmodified potato starch, raw green plantain or raw potato spiked their blood glucose.
                              No, I haven't tested RS since I am normo-glycemic, and if I weren't, I would tightly control my intake of carbohydrates so as not to be forced into figuring out increasingly esoteric ways to somehow coax my saturated tissues into absorbing yet more glucose. My ancestors are obviously nordic, I have the pigmentation to prove it, so you don't find me laying out on the beach for countless hours without taking appropriate measures to prevent the inevitable sun damage. I work with my metabolism, I don't engage in speculation as to how I can "outsmart it."

                              As far as waiting for someone to report that resistant starch behaves metabolically as though it were not resistant, that's obviously an inherent contradiction. In order for starch to elevate blood glucose, you need for it to be digested. We call resistant starch resistant precisely because it resists being digested.

                              When you eat resistant starch, your end goal is to feed the microbiota in your large intestine. These in turn ferment the starch to yield energy for themselves and short chain fatty acids as metabolic wastes. The short chain fatty acids ( acetate, propionate, butyrate ) are all water soluble, which is a good thing, because your large intestine lacks the bile secretions necessary to emulsify and otherwise aid uptake of fats. Being water soluble, they, with the exception of butyrate, are taken up in the large intestine, the purpose of which is predominantly absorption of water. Butyrate never makes it into plasma because the cells lining your large intestine consume it for energy. So metabolically, RS = elevated acetate and propionate via a rather tortuous and indirect route.

                              Now, if your end goal is to elevate plasma concentrations of short chain fatty acids for their metabolic effects, would you not be better off downing a vinegar shake? After all, vinegar is acetate, pure and simple. If you want plasma butyrate, to borrow a tired meme, eat MOAR BUTTER.

                              I don't have anything specifically against RS to be perfectly frank. The thing that bothers me most is this gushing infomercial air about the next dietary silver bullet that somebody dredges up. Nikoley is really really bad for this tendency. He is also somewhat smug and militant, and frankly, the last photo that I could find on his website depicting the results of his dietary insights is, well, if you have nothing kind to say ...

                              I do have some general objections to not eating real food, and eating Bob's Red Mill Potato Starch definitely slots into that. If as a community we are going to have pretensions that we are trying to eat in an evolutionarily consonant fashion, then we'd better own that and be vigilant against food products replacing food. If you adopt this viewpoint, then a few surprising things are off the table: processed starches of any kind, whether from Bob's Red Mill or otherwise, fruit / vegetable juices, raw foods, nuts, whey protein and more.

                              I expect that people will object to my including nuts, but they are there because if you think nuts grow in the snack isle at the supermarket, then, yeah, you have a food product. At the very least, shelling nuts is an obligatory fact of life in the real world, a fact that evaporates in the supermarket, unless you are a masochist that buys unshelled nuts. Nobody does that, so the problem becomes an unnatural caloric concentration in that food product, irrespective of any additional "value added" processing. This is also the issue with juices and whey protein, for example.

                              The issue with raw food is precisely the opposite. An unnatural dilution of calories due to the fact that one refuses to admit that our morphology clearly and increasingly indicates that we are adapted to external digestion ( i.e. cooking ). Feed a dog a large beef meal and 50% (!!) of the caloric content of that meal is taken up solely by the digestive process itself. Feed a human a large beef meal, and that 50% is more like 17 - 20%. This ought to give you pause, because we are omnivores, not particularly well suited to any diet, whereas dogs are descendants of canis lupus, an apex carnivorous predator, so they ought to be really good at digesting meat. It turns out that they are, we are better because we rely on technology. The dog eats its beef raw, we have it as beef bourguignon.

                              So, do I see a concerted effort to include resistant starch in my future? Probably not, but I'm going to keep following the research.

                              -PK
                              Last edited by pklopp; 09-17-2013, 06:51 AM.
                              My blog : cogitoergoedo.com

                              Interested in Intermittent Fasting? This might help: part 1, part 2, part 3.

                              Comment


                              • Here's my stance on RS, and I'm sticking to it. RS is a great prebiotic, in that it feeds beneficial gut bacteria. Our ancestral diet was filled with prebiotics and surely the gut of our paleo ancestors looked nothing like modern mans gut. Staples since the dawn of man included plantains, bananas, taro, cactus, and a bit later potatoes, rice, legumes. A 'paleo' diet as laid out by all the paleo gurus neglects prebiotics. The best you can do eating a salad is maybe 1-5g per day of prebiotics. When prebiotics are included at a rate of 20-40g/day, amazing things happen in the gut--populations of gut microbes shift towards more beneficial types and make it harder for the pathological bacteria to take hold.

                                That is all I need to know. I've read all the research, I've read people say you don't need to worry about gut microbes. Anyone who says gut microbes are inconsequential is usually trying to justify a low carb diet.

                                Taking away almost all of the best prebiotics and thinking it is the optimal human omnivore diet is just plain wrong. As a minimum, I think people need to eat beans, rice, potato, bananas, plantains, and nuts daily to keep microbes happy. I like the idea of using unmodified potato (or tapioca) starch as it is basically just washed out of the potato (or cassava root) and not processed at all. To me, a spoonful of potato starch is like taking a giant leap back in time to a more traditional diet when our gut microbes were fed this way on a regular basis.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X