Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Resistant Starch - A Solution In Search of a Problem

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

  • Originally posted by Neckhammer View Post
    Thats why I only made the obvious observation and left the heavy lifting to you
    I think I need minions ... I've always wanted minions.

    Anyone willing to join the cause?

    -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
      I think I need minions ... I've always wanted minions.

      Anyone willing to join the cause?

      -PK
      Those are mini-onions, right? Where do you want em sent?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by pklopp View Post
        I think I need minions ... I've always wanted minions.

        Anyone willing to join the cause?

        -PK
        I'm pretty sure minions are anthropomorphized Twinkies... and that is a defunct product.
        No minions for you.

        Unless you get Canadian minions.
        And we all know that those are likely to be an inferior product... just like Canadian bacon.
        “You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.”
        ~Friedrich Nietzsche
        And that's why I'm here eating HFLC Primal/Paleo.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by OneDeltaTenTango View Post
          Those are mini-onions, right? Where do you want em sent?
          If these are these cooked and cooled mini-onions, they could be a good source of...nevermind.

          Comment


          • Minions = 106


            Binions = 109

            Comment


            • OK

              I have searched the interwebz extensively, at least for 2 hours, which makes me a genius in this topic...

              Someone talk me out of buying a bag of potato starch and adding 50g/day it to a cold food or beverage.

              I see studies like this (abstract only, but that's OK, I wouldn't read it all anyway): Resistant starch: the effect on postprandial glycemia, hormonal response, and satiety.

              The effect of resistant starch (RS) on postprandial plasma concentrations of glucose, lipids, and hormones, and on subjective satiety and palatability ratings was investigated in 10 healthy, normal-weight, young males. The test meals consisted of 50 g pregelatinized starch (0% RS) (S) or 50 g raw potato starch (54% RS) (R) together with 500 g artificially sweetened syrup. After the R meal postprandial plasma concentrations of glucose, lactate, insulin, gastric inhibitory polypeptide (GIP), glucagon-like peptide-1, and epinephrine were significantly lower compared with after the S meal. Moreover, subjective scores for satiety and fullness were significantly lower after the R meal than after the S meal. Differences in GIP, texture, and palatability may have been involved in these findings. In conclusion, the replacement of digestible starch with RS resulted in significant reductions in postprandial glycemia and insulinemia, and in the subjective sensations of satiety.
              I have not seen anywhere that raw potato starch, such as this: Opentip.com: Bob's Red Mill Potato Starch, Unmodified, All Natural - 4 x 24 ozs. would be bad for your health, or unhealthy in any way.

              Many people have said NOT to eat raw potatoes, but I think that is just an old wives' tale. I will agree that eating raw potato skins, or potatoes with green in them is bad, but clean, peeled potatoes should be fine to eat in any amount.

              Can anyone provide any info that eating potato starch (or even raw potato) is harmful?

              Despite PKlopp's best attempts, I am still convinced RS has a place in our diet. I would love to try 30-50g/day and see what happens. I don't want to use Hi-Maize. I don't really want to eat that much raw potato. Unless someone can provide evidence that uncooked potato starch is not healthy, I may seriously try this soon.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by otzi View Post

                Can anyone provide any info that eating potato starch (or even raw potato) is harmful?
                I'm pretty sure there has to have been something that you came across telling you eating raw potato was not good. I thought Kruse was fairly anti-tator, but when I looked it looks like he only says in relation to DDD, DJD, Autoimmune and so on not to eat it.

                Heres something http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8054990:

                "As such, sequence similarities not only identify potato lectin as a member of both the hevein and extensin families of plant proteins, but also suggest that an archetypal polypeptide module gave rise to both the plant chitin-binding domain and the reptile disintegrins."

                I wish I worked for a major news outlet.... Headlines read:

                Potatoes contain rattlesnake venom!



                I mean the paleo line on white potatoes is lectins and saponins contributing to increased gut permeability right? Then the sweet potato is of the marigold family rather than a nightshade and doesn't have these problems. Thats like old school Cordain right there though.
                Last edited by Neckhammer; 01-31-2013, 06:44 PM.

                Comment


                • I still dont understand what you expect to gain from eating that much RS?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by otzi View Post
                    OK

                    I have searched the interwebz extensively, at least for 2 hours, which makes me a genius in this topic...

                    Someone talk me out of buying a bag of potato starch and adding 50g/day it to a cold food or beverage.

                    I see studies like this (abstract only, but that's OK, I wouldn't read it all anyway): Resistant starch: the effect on postprandial glycemia, hormonal response, and satiety.



                    I have not seen anywhere that raw potato starch, such as this: Opentip.com: Bob's Red Mill Potato Starch, Unmodified, All Natural - 4 x 24 ozs. would be bad for your health, or unhealthy in any way.

                    Many people have said NOT to eat raw potatoes, but I think that is just an old wives' tale. I will agree that eating raw potato skins, or potatoes with green in them is bad, but clean, peeled potatoes should be fine to eat in any amount.

                    Can anyone provide any info that eating potato starch (or even raw potato) is harmful?

                    Despite PKlopp's best attempts, I am still convinced RS has a place in our diet. I would love to try 30-50g/day and see what happens. I don't want to use Hi-Maize. I don't really want to eat that much raw potato. Unless someone can provide evidence that uncooked potato starch is not healthy, I may seriously try this soon.
                    Allow me to take a stab at this, if I may ...

                    If you eat things that you cannot digest, then you probably shouldn't go about expecting them to have any effect on your blood levels of anything resembling a nutrient ( like say, glucose, for instance ). If there were effects, then that would imply that you had digested and absorbed the things you ate. This directly contradicts our initial assumption about eating "things you cannot digest."

                    Resistant starch is called "resistant" because it resists digestion, slotting nicely into the "things you cannot digest category." Other things that slot nicely into that category : sawdust, the Statue of Liberty, and Olestra.

                    So, if I were to feed you a serving of 50g of sawdust, finely ground and mixed in with an artificially sweetened syrup, what would a reasonable person expect to happen to your glucose levels in your blood stream? Well, unless you possess the digestive system of a termite, I would expect them to say that if there were no carbohydrates you could digest in that "meal", there would be a negligible effect, if any, on blood glucose levels.

                    If we were then to replace the 50g of sawdust with a 50g bolus of readily digested glucose polymers ( just take a look at the glycemic index of cooked potatoes for an indication of just how readily digested they are ) I would expect a massive and immediate effect on glycemia, insulinemia, as well as subjective assessments of increased satiety ( as in, I actually ate food as opposed to sawdust, so I feel more satiated ).

                    Thanks, Otzi, for pulling up a stellar example of the kind of study that I abhor. These so called scientists undertook an experiment to prove that giving someone high glycemic index carbohydrates elicits different effects from giving then the dietary equivalent of sawdust. That is truly mind bogglingly banal. I wish it were possible for you to see my expression right now, I am completely non-plussed ( you should probably look that up, by the way, it probably means the opposite of what you think it does )!

                    -PK
                    My blog : cogitoergoedo.com

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

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Zach View Post
                      I still dont understand what you expect to gain from eating that much RS?
                      It's theoretical at this point. I am a firm believer in eating things that promote gut health.

                      If I were to undertake this experiment, I'd need a clear set of outcomes to watch for. Not sure what they'd be at this point, but something along the lines of better glucose control than I have now, better metabolism as seen by thyroid function, better cholesterol numbers. I hate throwing a whole bunch of things in at once, so I'm giving PHD and starch a nice long run, like 6 months, then get some labs along the way and see where I'm at.

                      How does one know they have a healthy gut? I think mine's pretty healthy right now, how would you know if you made it healthier. I'm just fascinated by the sheer amount of work being done on RS and trying to capitalize in a primal way.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by pklopp View Post
                        I am completely non-plussed ( you should probably look that up, by the way, it probably means the opposite of what you think it does )!

                        -PK
                        I'm starting to see value in your comments and the way you interpret papers.

                        But back to the question: Is there anything in potato starch, consumed cold, that would be inherently un-healthful?

                        Thanks

                        Comment


                        • That is the conundrum otzi. How are you planning to validate your findings if you take this on? Going from healthy to healthier does not really show up in lab tests. Those things are hardly specific enough to diagnose disease in most cases let alone to speak of optimization. Honestly thats the gripe I have with some of the testing done on any "healthy" person trying to tweak and biohack.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Neckhammer View Post
                            That is the conundrum otzi. How are you planning to validate your findings if you take this on? Going from healthy to healthier does not really show up in lab tests. Those things are hardly specific enough to diagnose disease in most cases let alone to speak of optimization. Honestly thats the gripe I have with some of the testing done on any "healthy" person trying to tweak and biohack.
                            Back in the day, I was pre-diabetic. My FBG was around 120, but A1C was normal. During 2 years of LC, my FBG quickly went down to about 95, but crept up to 100. Now that I've added starch back in, I see my FBG is 110-115 some days. If this doesn't self-correct, I need to do something.

                            Also, on LC, my TSH crept up into hypothyroid territory and they put me on thyroid meds a few months back. Since adding starch, I think the meds are making me hyperthyroid, which would be a cause of high FBG. I cut my thyroid meds in half and have an endo appt in 2 weeks for labs.

                            My hdl has gone from 25 to 60 in last 2 years, ldl from 120's to 200's. Trigs from 400 to 50. I'll be curious where these settle at after 6 months of starch, but would also be a marker.

                            Blood pressure used to be high, now normal. All my labs are normal. If starch increase improves the labs I'm watching, I will probably not try any targeted RS. But since this thread is still going I thought this would be a good time to get some thoughts on potato starch for RS to mull over for a while.

                            I've never seen anything that would indicate raw potato starch would be harmful, no matter how dumb the idea.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by otzi View Post
                              I'm just fascinated by the sheer amount of work being done on RS and trying to capitalize in a primal way.
                              A couple of observations here. A lot of this research is being done as part of a food science effort on behalf of the food industry so they can justify why you ought to eat their "food products". You've already seen this with "heart healthy" marketing, and soon, you will probably see "colon biome health promoting", or some similar and suitably marketing friendly slogan lavished on the box. With this in mind, the level of activity around RS ought to make you suspicious. A few posts back I replied to a study posted by RSQueen which used wheat flour as one of the dietary interventions, an intervention that produced similar results to the high amylose maize starch (RS) intervention. What was really, really interesting was how in the paper, that little detail was completely glossed over, swept under the research rug. I suspect that this is because wheat flour is a hard sell, particularly with all the gluten, WGA backlash and so on so not even the deep pockets of the food industry are willing to attempt to spend their way out of that marketing black hole.

                              Second, whether your dietary philosophy is primal, paleo, or your own homebrew admixture, if one of its basic tenets is an attempt to be true to the dietary evolutionary history of mankind, then the first thing you need to realize is that your evolutionary history is indelibly etched in your metabolism. You can speculate about what prehistoric man ate all the day long, but if a healthy metabolism lacks the chemical machinery to process a given substance, then that substance cannot and should not be labelled a nutrient.

                              With that in mind, the strategy of purposefully eating resistant starch has a problem, and that problem goes by the name of ptyalin.

                              You may know ptyalin by its not so secret identity as salivary amylase. If you are wondering why a single enzyme requires multiple names, that's because ptyalin is different from the workhorse of the digestive system, pancreatic amylase. Giving it its own distinct name helps to make that clear ( at least that's the theory ).

                              Many mammals, including some humans, completely lack salivary amylase, but are none the worse off for it since pancreatic amylase performs the bulk of starch breakdown in the small intestine. Cats, dogs, foxes, horses, and goats, for example, all lack ptyalin, while rabbits, mice, humans, and chimpanzees all possess it. In general, as one would expect, most carnivores lack ptyalin, since they don't ingest plant matter, least of all starch.

                              Gene sequencing of ptyalin indicates that salivary amylase is a fairly recent evolutionary development, within the last 200 000 years, whereas pancreatic amylase came on the scene millions upon millions of years ago. In fact, it seems that both rodents and primates share an ancestral pancreatic amylase gene, although each independently developed ptyalin much later in the evolutionary timeline.

                              When scientists observe such instances of convergent evolution across different species, they become extremely interested, because the implication is that the adaptation in question confers some evolutionary advantage that benefits the species. The natural question then is, what is the benefit of early digestion of starch in the mouth? This is an especially interesting question particularly when one considers 1) that ptyalin is destroyed by the acidic environment of the stomach and 2) that ptyalin is not even remotely necessary for the digestion or absorption of starch by and in the small intestine.

                              The most likely explanation for these observations is that ptyalin is intended to serve as an early detection mechanism for nutrient rich foods. By breaking down the 1-4 glycosidic bonds in the starch and producing simple sugars, the chemoreceptors in the mouth ( a.k.a tastebuds ) signal to the brain that this is a good food to ingest.

                              Note that this is a very potent argument in favor of starches being a fundamental aspect of an evolutionary consonant dietary strategy. But if this interpretation is correct, what of resistant starch, something for which we lack the evolutionary machinery to detect and process? To ingest resistant starch is to gamble nutritionally that one is in possession of a micro-biome suited to its digestion, and further, even those lucky enough to possess a micro-biome that can process resistant starch are relying on that micro-biome to not be pathogenic.

                              But what of this evolutionary symbiotic miracle where we have bacteria in our colons that are seemingly purpose built to aid us in digesting RS? My question always is ... knowing what we know about how bacteria work, would we expect things to be different?

                              So what do we know about bacteria? The first thing is that they are massively invasive organisms, occurring in virtually all environments on the planet, including you and your colon, among other areas. The interesting thing is that your colon is effectively sterile at birth, a prime and pristine environment to be exploited by bacteria, the moment you are born and start to feed. If you've ever had the privilege of changing diapers for a newborn, you can watch the evolution of their colonic bacterial colonies as the poop itself start changing, due in no small measure to the bacterial war happening in their colons as various species of bacteria duke it out over whatever nutrients are around.

                              But the colon is hardly a passive environment, as anyone who has ever experienced food poisoning can attest to. If there are colonic / digestive bacteria producing toxins, the body mounts a vigorous, immediate, and sometimes explosive response in an attempt to repeal the invading organisms.

                              Studies show ( I can pull up the cites for you, I don't have them at hand right now ) that the colonic biome stabilizes by about the second year of life. During that time, your colon has a great deal of opportunity to affect the evolutionary composition of the biota it contains. Take a look at the table below to see some number relating to the generation time of several common bacteria:



                              E. Coli has a generation time of 17 minutes! That means that over the lifespan of a 2 year old toddler, its colon has had the opportunity to affect the evolution of almost 62000 generations of E. Coli. Sixty ... Two ... THOUSAND! To put that in human evolutionary terms, this amounts to about 1 million years, assuming that on average humans reproduced at 15 years old. Which is to say, it isn't particularly surprising to observe that the healthy human colon contains bacteria that aren't actively trying to kill it, if not being mildly beneficial by scavenging some nutrients from otherwise unavailable digesta.

                              The main takeaway from all of this should be that the resistant starch processing bacteria of the colon are the result of structural processes. That is, bacteria digest RS because they can. It is one of the things that constitutes food for them. If you were to regularly consume wood chips, you would find a significant population of cellulose digesting bacteria in your colon, because these bacteria exist in nature, and you would be creating an environment where such bacteria could proliferate. It would be foolhardy, however, to advocate the eating of wood chips on this basis.

                              -PK

                              P.S. It sucks to be a male rabbit.
                              My blog : cogitoergoedo.com

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

                              Comment


                              • PKlopp - That was very good. Not exactly what I was looking for, but very good. I have a feeling you will be busy in the near future debunking lots of RS claims if RS hits the supplement industry. I, too, have a feeling RS will soon explode onto the dieting scene. Looking back, the title to this thread is spot-on.

                                I still just have this 'gut feeling' that something is not right with a diet that completely eliminates starch, as Primal Blueprint and Paleo does for most who undertake it in conjunction with Low Carb. Potatoes and rice are one of the first, and easiest, foods to cut. The are easy to identify, stand on their own and aren't 'hidden ingredients' like flour and sugar. With the complete elimination of grain and starchy plants, if RS were important in any way, even in small amounts, it also would be completely lacking.

                                The existence of salivary amylase tells me we are well-designed to eat starch. If you have a blood glucose monitor, you can watch it in action. Measure your FBG, chew and spit a mouthful of potatoes, re-measure FBG...it will have dropped by about 10%. The salivary amylase triggers a quick release of insulin. This mechanism shows me we are well-capable as a species to eat starch in large amounts.

                                Any species who eats lots of starch is going to get some RS whether they want it or not. You must admit, there is something going on when one ingests RS, whether or not it plays any part of long-term health is debateable, as you have shown, but it would be part of our evolutionary past. So, to be completely void of RS, by completely eliminating starch, seems to been a poor dietary choice.

                                PKlopp, you have done a great job in defending your stance. I haven't checked your blog lately but you should condense all this into a readable version. I have a feeling there will be a lot of Google-ing for RS soon, and it's a shame that most will stop at the first source that says 'Hi-Maize has been proven to...."

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X