Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Resistant Starches

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

  • Originally posted by FrenchFry View Post
    That was a question I asked at freetheanimal on the 14th of Sep:

    I did not get any reply to this question.
    I thought the great parts of the study were it's contradictions, showing that we don't know all there is to know about metabolism when you include well-fed gut microbes in the equations. For instance:

    The decreased NEFA output from adipose tissue reflected a significant postprandial reduction in the rate of action of hormone-sensitive lipase, the enzyme responsible for the mobilization of stored triacylglycerol. There was no significant effect of RS intake on plasma triacylglycerol despite a significant reduction in the calculated rate of action of lipoprotein lipase. Although the release of NEFAs from adipose tissue was lower, the arterialized NEFA concentration and the total uptake of fatty acids by muscle were unchanged by supplementation
    and

    ...propionate uptake was significant only after the high-RS diet. Butyrate uptake was not significant. Acetate uptake increased after RS supplementation across both tissues: as a function of increased plasma concentration (adipose tissue) and as increased fractional extraction (skeletal muscle). Propionate was present at much lower concentrations and had a higher fractional extraction across adipose tissue after the RS supplement
    and

    Adipose tissue itself is also an important site for maintaining glucose homeostasis, with total glucose removal increasing by 200% after RS supplementation. The metabolic fate of this additional glucose is at present unclear.
    and

    After RS supplementation, the peripheral concentrations of both acetate and propionate were increased, as was the rate of uptake into the specific tissues. SCFAs were recently shown to bind to the G protein–coupled receptors GPR41 and GPR43, which have been isolated from both adipose tissue and skeletal muscle. The function of these receptors is at present ill defined, but they have been proposed to trigger leptin release from adipocytes. Despite significantly higher SCFA concentrations, no significant change in plasma leptin or leptin mRNA was found after RS supplementation. SCFAs have been shown to inhibit adipose tissue lipolysis in vivo and thus may contribute to the observed reduction in lipolysis. However, this has never been reported physiologically after fiber intake. We found no relation between NEFA release from adipose tissue and SCFA concentrations, so additional mechanisms may be involved.
    and

    An interesting observation was the increase in the circulating concentration of total ghrelin after RS supplementation. This result is counterintuitive from what we know about the satiating effects of RS and the appetite-stimulating effects of ghrelin. Perhaps the systemic concentration of ghrelin is more relevant in determining its peripheral actions, independent of those induced within the hypothalamus. Elevations in plasma ghrelin have been linked to increased insulin sensitivity in numerous studies, although debate still exists as to the mechanism. It is hypothesized that the hyperinsulinemia of insulin resistance down-regulates ghrelin release and thus that elevated ghrelin is merely a consequence of the low insulin concentrations. In the present study, fasting ghrelin concentrations were significantly elevated with no significant change in fasting insulin concentrations, and thus it is doubtful that this mechanism is in place.
    and in the conclusion:

    We have now shown insulin sensitization at the whole-body leve...In addition, we showed a reduction in adipose tissue lipolysis and an increase in the insulin sensitivity of skeletal muscle glucose clearance. These effects of RS may be due to changes in the peripheral metabolism of SCFAs or in the secretion of ghrelin...we have been able to show the metabolic changes induced by fermentable fiber at both the whole-body and the tissue level.
    So, to me, this study is a gold mine in contradictions that point to the fact that a diet high in prebiotic, fermentable fiber, in this case resistant starch, is going to do things to aid in regulating your entire metabolism and not just markers like blood glucose or insulin.
    Last edited by otzi; 09-17-2013, 09:47 AM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by otzi View Post
      I thought the great parts of the study were it's contradictions, showing that we don't know all there is to know about metabolism when you include well-fed gut microbes in the equations. For instance:


      So, to me, this study is a gold mine in contradictions that point to the fact that a diet high in prebiotic, fermentable fiber, in this case resistant starch, is going to do things to aid in regulating your entire metabolism and not just markers like blood glucose or insulin.
      This is characteristic of your confirmation bias roaring with a full head of steam. You yourself go on and on and on about the contradictory results of this study, but in the end, damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead with the assumed wholly beneficial RS! "Son, your ego's writing cheques, your body can't cash!"

      -PK
      My blog : cogitoergoedo.com

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

      Comment


      • Originally posted by pklopp View Post
        This is characteristic of your confirmation bias roaring with a full head of steam. You yourself go on and on and on about the contradictory results of this study, but in the end, damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead with the assumed wholly beneficial RS! "Son, your ego's writing cheques, your body can't cash!"

        -PK
        And I can't see how a smart guy like you can look at inconsistencies like that and not be intrigued. The inconsistencies were between what they thought they knew and what they were seeing. That is how we advance.

        Comment


        • Hi Pklopp, So it sounds like we agree that some RS-rich whole foods are probably OK and don’t need to be removed from the primal template. Your beef seems to be with Bob’s Red Mill potato starch because it's processed in ways you don't approve of for some reason (grinding, drying, sieving), yes?

          I agree with you that the way the “all starches become glucose” quote treats all starches the same and implies that resistant starch gets digested into glucose is an inherent contradiction, but it’s not seen that way by a fair number of people, based on the above quotes I provided and some comments at this forum and FTA. You are so far a rare exception on this. If everyone would acknowledge this the way you have it would be a huge advance in discussion in the Paleosphere. Kudos to you for that.

          I do consume MOAR BUTTER and some vinegar already. Adding RS sources to my butter-rich diet to a level that happens to be more in line with the true primal template, had a much more positive effect on my BG and general carb tolerance than butter. I also don't see it as an either-or. I consume both.

          I don't currently tolerate well many carby whole foods like certain fruits or cooked squashes, sweet potatoes and potatoes. RS seems to maybe be gradually improving my tolerance so that I may be able to eat more of those whole foods. Wouldn't that be a good thing? Why wouldn't I want to do that, if possible? Potato starch makes it easier for me to get a decent intake of RS than from only raw dried green plantains and raw semi-ripe plantains (though I try to get it mainly from the plantains) and thus has improved my results. Why wouldn’t I do that just because it’s processed in a way some guy on the Internet doesn’t approve of?

          I’ve tried some legumes too, but they did not work well for me. I bought some small gourmet-type potatoes and plan on trying those. New potatoes are supposed to contain more RS than mature potatoes.

          Why is a processed product like butter that was concentrated from milk OK (centrifuged, churned, and high-heat pasteurized) OK, but not potato starch, shelled nuts (BTW, I do eat unshelled walnuts sometimes and they are scrumptuous), and fruit/vegetable juices (not even fresh-squeezed?)? This is the first I’ve encountered this view.
          Last edited by Paleophil; 09-17-2013, 08:25 PM.
          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


          • I was not thrilled to see that at the time. If I had known I was going to be quoted, I would have waited until I had done more testing before reporting on it. I had a much less stellar 2nd result of testing for short-term effects from potato starch today. http://freetheanimal.com/2013/09/pal...comment-536540 It's a good reminder about not getting too optimistic too early.

            I had considered adding a caveat to my first report about one test result being too little to draw a conclusion from, but figured it was unnecessary because everyone would know that. Then when I saw it get quoted I wished I had included one.
            Last edited by Paleophil; 09-17-2013, 08:12 PM.
            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


            • Umm....
              I would say its a good reminder to actually do your own research!
              Sure, we know the internet is full of point scoring and blind science, but don't become part of it.

              So therefore, when you give advice, you know its genuine, because you understand it. Simple.

              “If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself"
              Well said Einstein!....Science doesn't necessarily have to be understood by a scientist.... If you don't know something, be patient or just ask.

              Comment


              • Hi Marc, Who are you writing that to and quoting?

                Your post was a good reminder for me to add my standard signature that I use at another forum, thanks. Your first tip is similar to the discussion aid #1 of my sig.
                Last edited by Paleophil; 09-18-2013, 04:32 AM.
                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


                • Love the rules, Paleophil.

                  I still can't bring myself to eat beans cold, but warm with eggs and egg whites they sure make a wonderfully satiating breakfast. With glucomannan in the afternoon, I can get through the day on 4 or so meals without getting ravenous.

                  I was wondering if replacing almond butter with peanut butter will impact satiation or peanuts have nothing to do with starches and are legumes only in name and the same as nuts in the way they impact a body?
                  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 Paleophil View Post
                    Hi Marc, Who are you writing that to and quoting?

                    Your post was a good reminder for me to add my standard signature that I use at another forum, thanks. Your first tip is similar to the discussion aid #1 of my sig.
                    The quote, is from Einstein, and yes, aimed at yourself who suffered a tad bit of embarrassment by rushing through things....

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Paleophil View Post
                      Hi Pklopp, So it sounds like we agree that some RS-rich whole foods are probably OK and don’t need to be removed from the primal template. Your beef seems to be with Bob’s Red Mill potato starch because it's processed in ways you don't approve of for some reason (grinding, drying, sieving), yes?

                      I agree with you that the way the “all starches become glucose” quote treats all starches the same and implies that resistant starch gets digested into glucose is an inherent contradiction, but it’s not seen that way by a fair number of people, based on the above quotes I provided and some comments at this forum and FTA. You are so far a rare exception on this. If everyone would acknowledge this the way you have it would be a huge advance in discussion in the Paleosphere. Kudos to you for that.

                      I do consume MOAR BUTTER and some vinegar already. Adding RS sources to my butter-rich diet to a level that happens to be more in line with the true primal template, had a much more positive effect on my BG and general carb tolerance than butter. I also don't see it as an either-or. I consume both.

                      I don't currently tolerate well many carby whole foods like certain fruits or cooked squashes, sweet potatoes and potatoes. RS seems to maybe be gradually improving my tolerance so that I may be able to eat more of those whole foods. Wouldn't that be a good thing? Why wouldn't I want to do that, if possible? Potato starch makes it easier for me to get a decent intake of RS than from only raw dried green plantains and raw semi-ripe plantains (though I try to get it mainly from the plantains) and thus has improved my results. Why wouldn’t I do that just because it’s processed in a way some guy on the Internet doesn’t approve of?

                      I’ve tried some legumes too, but they did not work well for me. I bought some small gourmet-type potatoes and plan on trying those. New potatoes are supposed to contain more RS than mature potatoes.

                      Why is a processed product like butter that was concentrated from milk OK (centrifuged, churned, and high-heat pasteurized) OK, but not potato starch, shelled nuts (BTW, I do eat unshelled walnuts sometimes and they are scrumptuous), and fruit/vegetable juices (not even fresh-squeezed?)? This is the first I’ve encountered this view.
                      The founder of Toxicology, Paracelsus, said that the dose makes the poison, which is to say that all things, in the right dose, are toxic. With this as an operating principle, we need to be careful when we concentrate nutrients (i.e. increase the dose ) because at some threshold, our nutrients will become poison, even water. This threshold may be very far away from normal consumption levels, or it may not be, and in any case, it will also vary from individual to individual.

                      The problem with juices is that they present an artificially elevated nutrient concentration relative to their source plant matter. As an example, an average glass of orange juice is equivalent to 4 oranges, one standard cup is 3. You are far more likely to inadvertently "overeat" the juiced oranges than the real thing. Further, and quite ironic in a thread that is discussing resistant starches, when you juice vegetables and fruit the very thing you are throwing away is the fiber content, which, if you claim to believe in the benefits of ingesting fiber is a very strange thing to do.


                      Orange Juice vs. Oranges

                      If I were pressed to express an opinion, then I would guess that the mechanical processing of fruit (juicing) was probably not a prominent feature of paleolithic life. The same holds for shelled nuts. How many calories of nuts can you ingest when you are forced to shell every one? Certainly less per unit of time than when you have access to mechanically shelled versions. The per unit of time is important because metabolic feedback mechanism like satiety take some time to express. If you ever find yourself still hungry after a meal, simply allow yourself to eat again only if you still feel that way 15 mins. later. Quite often you will find that the break gives your satiety responses a chance to kick in and you are no longer hungry. This is a particularly pernicious problem with mechanically processed nuts, because they are so calorie dense that it is very easy to overshoot the mark.

                      You're right, if my analytical framework called for me to behave in a fashion consistent with how I believe paleolithic man behaved, then I theoretically would take exception to Bob's Red Mill Potato Starch because of the mechanical processing ( dehydration, grinding, sifting, etc. ) But that's not my analytical framework.

                      For me, I have nothing against mechanical processing per se, and I eat dairy products with gusto and abandon because I am neither a Paleo nor Primal fetishist. I do my praying at the altar of metabolism because our evolutionary history is indelibly inscribed there and this spares me from having to fantasize about the inscrutable lifestyles of long extinct hominids. This is one of the principal bones of contention between me and Otzi. He likes to formulate lush visions of how man the noble savage used to live and to act accordingly, whereas I like to work from the first principles of cellular metabolism. Let's just say it's a clash of top down vs. bottom up approaches.

                      I occasionally use Paleo / Primal as rough guidelines for the generation of ideas. These ideas I then attempt to contextualize with what we know of metabolism, and metabolic research always trumps hypotheses generated from Paleo speculation. That has worked really well for me and I would need a very compelling set of reasons to change that approach. I don't expect this to happen any time soon.

                      -PK
                      My blog : cogitoergoedo.com

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

                      Comment


                      • I still can't get past the fact that all these sources of resistant starch seems so strange.

                        The talks I've been to on this topic always mention plant fibers as a source for SCFA generation in the gut. Is there evidence that evidence that the purified RS leads to more SCFA generation, Treg induction, or healing of the colonic epithelium compared to eating more natural sources?
                        Using low lectin/nightshade free primal to control autoimmune arthritis. (And lost 50 lbs along the way )

                        http://www.krispin.com/lectin.html

                        Comment


                        • What are the actual temperature thresholds? I'm assuming cooled starches needn't be less than body temp, since they'll surely warm up to that as soon as you eat them anyway?

                          Comment


                          • Thanks Leida. I don't normally eat almond butter or peanut butter and haven't studied them extensively, so I may not be much help. Besides, the only way to know how they'll impact your satiation is to test them yourself. That's what I do--test foods myself and monitor the results, though I do get some clues about what foods I might test from other folks. One thing I tried was blanched (briefly boiled) peanuts. I figured they would be one of the least problematic forms of peanuts, but I didn't fare all that well with them (mild indigestion and malaise). On the other hand, they didn't make me badly ill either. I fared better with "raw" South American "Jungle peanuts," which are edible raw (though my guess is that the packaged kind are heated somewhat to dehydrate them, just not to a level considered "cooked"), but I didn't notice any benefit from them and the taste was good but not extraordinary, so to me they weren't worth the price.

                            Pklopp, I'm still not clear on why you consider processing OK in the case of butter, but not in the case of potato starch, or what evidence if any you're basing that on, but to each his own, and there are also RS-rich whole foods for those who don't want to use potato starch. For me, butter and potato starch are not ideal and I do try to emphasize whole foods, but they are useful and convenient tools that I have benefited from. Fresh-squeezed lemon juice and 100% grassfed ground beef are some more processed foods I enjoy and haven't noticed any harm from.

                            Originally posted by pklopp View Post
                            I occasionally use Paleo / Primal as rough guidelines for the generation of ideas. These ideas I then attempt to contextualize with what we know of metabolism, and metabolic research always trumps hypotheses generated from Paleo speculation.
                            Well said, that's part of my basic approach also, and I also utilize other good sources of info. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

                            To Marc and anyone else who thinks I'm giving advice: please don't take my word as advice on anything. On the contrary--please refer to my signature and DON'T do anything just because I'm doing it or talking about it; investigate things yourself.

                            I’m not looking to win any personality contests, so I’m going to try to avoid getting drawn into responding to each and every personal criticism and other tangents that are irrelevant to the substance of the pluses vs. minuses, research, self-experiment results and how to's of RS, and instead try to remain focused on the substance of the topic.

                            To that end, I have asked some questions on RS that I haven't gotten answers to. I was skeptical of RS at first (I even asked the common question of why I couldn't get all the butyrate I need from the plentiful butter I was eating, until some helpful folks at another forum pointed out to me that most of the butyrate in butter doesn't reach the large intestine) and it still seems almost too good to be true. Surely there must be some downside somewhere beyond the occasional excess fartage when accidentally overdoing it. It's plausible that the benefit from RS is largely hormetic. If so, it's also plausible that it could be overconsumed in the longer run.

                            The most serious concern I've seen raised is alleged potential to promote harmful bacteria. The only specific potentially harmful bacteria I’ve seen cited by RS critics is klebsiella. Oddly, the only research report I found cited by any of them actually concluded that RS was good for FIGHTING klebsiella, not promoting it ("Stimulation of bifidobacteria, lactobacilli, and SCFA [with resistant starch] may be useful for the suppression of pathogenic organisms in the colon" - from “Feeding resistant starch affects fecal and cecal microflora and short-chain fatty acids in rats,” 1997 Feeding resistant starch affects fecal and cecal ... [J Anim Sci. 1997] - PubMed - NCBI). Yet this rumor persists, so I’m guessing that there’s something else out there somewhere to account for it. So here’s a call out to RS critics to please provide any supporting research that directly links resistant starch to harm from klebsiella or anything else (and I don’t mean the studies on “fibre/fiber/dietary fiber,” I mean specifically resistant starch). Let's see if we can get some real evidence-based criticism of RS going. Thanks.
                            Last edited by Paleophil; 09-19-2013, 07:08 PM.
                            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 jammies View Post
                              I still can't get past the fact that all these sources of resistant starch seems so strange.

                              The talks I've been to on this topic always mention plant fibers as a source for SCFA generation in the gut. Is there evidence that evidence that the purified RS leads to more SCFA generation, Treg induction, or healing of the colonic epithelium compared to eating more natural sources?
                              The answers you are looking for are probably in this paper.

                              Comment


                              • Ive found this thread quiet intereesting, due to having bowel and digestive issues, and definitley believe in probiotics and prebioitics.

                                Today, i plan on having a banana mashed with some kefir and later on a cold sweet potato mashed with kefir, am i doing this 'RS' thing right? Cheers in advance.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X