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 otzi View Post
    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.
    Let us know how the thyroid and FBG responds over the next few months. I'm quite interested as it seems the addition of starch has traded one borderline poor marker for another. Hopefully you can get them both in optimal range and you're correct that the meds are making you hyper.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by pklopp View Post
      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.
      I find it extremely short-sighted that you would dismiss anything that you perceive as potentially, maybe biased. I'm going to have to dig out the paper you dissected again - if they did add omega-3 to the test diet and then attributed all of the benefits to RS, that would be wrong and deceptive. But, you're missing the point that industry is definitely not driving this bus. There are so many researchers that are doing very good research (and all research has its own flaws and holes and researchers have strong biases that aren't always revealed either). OK, you won't accept that RS might be valuable and contribute to health. You get to live with the consequences of your dietary decisions. I know that RS helps improve insulin sensitivity and helps reverse the metabolic pathways that lead to type 2 diabetes. Data is being generated right now as to whether it helps type 2 diabetics as well. The US government, the Australian government, the diabetes research community, the Chinese government and several other major groups are trying to figure it out and are investing millions of dollars in those studies (which won't be perfect either, but they're the best we've got). If you'd rather wait for another twenty years until more of the questions get answered, go for it. But to dismiss resistant starch because you think it is tainted with industry money is really silly.

      Comment


      • Otzi, salavary amylase does indeed point to the fact that we are adapted to eating carbs. It does not, however, provide any clue as to how much, when, in what manner, and from what sources said carbohydrates should be consumed. All of that is still well in contention.

        I agree that humans were designed to consume carbohydrates. But we're they intended for daily consumption? Or was this merely an adaptation that we developed to survive when meats were in low supply and we needed calories? Are they best to be eaten seasonally to store fats for the winter lean times, or do we need to eat them all year-round so that we can feed our gut fiber with the fibers and resistant starch they provide?

        Frankly, all that the human amylase adaptation proves is that we CAN consume carbohydrates, and not, what is optimal regarding their consumption.

        I haven't come down in favor of either side, but there's still a lot of research yet to be done.
        "The cling and a clang is the metal in my head when I walk. I hear a sort of, this tinging noise - cling clang. The cling clang. So many things happen while walking. The metal in my head clangs and clings as I walk - freaks my balance out. So the natural thought is just clogged up. Totally clogged up. So we need to unplug these dams, and make the the natural flow... It sort of freaks me out. We need to unplug the dams. You cannot stop the natural flow of thought with a cling and a clang..."

        Comment


        • I still think that potato starch would be better for RS than Hi-Maize. I also have come to see there is probably not enough found in a normal day's worth of potatoes (or rice or green bananas) no matter how prepared.

          Since potato starch is 50-75% RS, I'm still interested in hearing what harm could potentially come from ingesting 30-50g (3-4TBS) of potato starch per day. It would be an easy thing to add to smoothies or potato salad, but would definitely have to be consumed cold--not cooked.

          I'm seriously not ready to eat corn starch, but potato starch or banana starch (Banana starch - Banana Products Corporation) or rice starch (Rice bran : Riso Scotti Ingredients Italy : Products : Rice starch) even. But is seems only potato starch is readily available. (Opentip.com: Bob's Red Mill Potato Starch, Unmodified, All Natural - 4 x 24 ozs.)

          I'm actually surprised potato starch hasn't gotten more attention in Primal cooking. It would make an excellent thickener even if that did destroy the RS value.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by otzi View Post
            I still think that potato starch would be better for RS than Hi-Maize. I also have come to see there is probably not enough found in a normal day's worth of potatoes (or rice or green bananas) no matter how prepared.

            Since potato starch is 50-75% RS, I'm still interested in hearing what harm could potentially come from ingesting 30-50g (3-4TBS) of potato starch per day. It would be an easy thing to add to smoothies or potato salad, but would definitely have to be consumed cold--not cooked.

            I'm seriously not ready to eat corn starch, but potato starch or banana starch (Banana starch - Banana Products Corporation) or rice starch (Rice bran : Riso Scotti Ingredients Italy : Products : Rice starch) even. But is seems only potato starch is readily available. (Opentip.com: Bob's Red Mill Potato Starch, Unmodified, All Natural - 4 x 24 ozs.)

            I'm actually surprised potato starch hasn't gotten more attention in Primal cooking. It would make an excellent thickener even if that did destroy the RS value.
            If you cant get "enough" RS in a days worth of normal food, that should tell you something right there. Honestly i think you are obsessing over something that would never realistically have happened in our evolution and even now does not sound very amazing in terms of potential health benefits. If you want to eat a bunch of RS, go for it, no one else really cares.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Zach View Post
              If you cant get "enough" RS in a days worth of normal food, that should tell you something right there. Honestly i think you are obsessing over something that would never realistically have happened in our evolution and even now does not sound very amazing in terms of potential health benefits. If you want to eat a bunch of RS, go for it, no one else really cares.
              I'm not obsessing in the least, just trying to get an answer to whether potato starch could be dangerous or unhealthy.

              I also think RS would have played a part in ancestral eating. Before we cooked, all starch would have been eaten raw. After we started cooking, I'm sure a lot was cooked and allowed to cool and/or was still eaten raw. Grain eaters get a bit of RS, anyway.

              You are right, though, it may be a totally moot point, but I'd like too hear if potato starch is bad--so far I have seen nothing showing negative health benefits.

              I don't want to eat a bunch of RS, as you seem to think...I would just like to be able to propose an alternative to Hi-Maize.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by otzi View Post
                I'm not obsessing in the least, just trying to get an answer to whether potato starch could be dangerous or unhealthy.

                I also think RS would have played a part in ancestral eating. Before we cooked, all starch would have been eaten raw. After we started cooking, I'm sure a lot was cooked and allowed to cool and/or was still eaten raw. Grain eaters get a bit of RS, anyway.

                You are right, though, it may be a totally moot point, but I'd like too hear if potato starch is bad--so far I have seen nothing showing negative health benefits.

                I don't want to eat a bunch of RS, as you seem to think...I would just like to be able to propose an alternative to Hi-Maize.
                What makes you believe that our ancestors at a lot of raw starch? Tools and fire were used quite a long time ago. Fruits, bugs and eggs would seem much more likely as staple foods and then later with wild game. There might be some times in our history where groups would have to sustain on almost inedible plant matter but it doesnt seem likely that it would transfer over to positive health benefits down the line.

                Also Drumroll, your comment about us adapting to eat carbs, wouldnt that be the other way around since we evolved from plant eaters? Fruit was probably our original food. Amylase might be an adaption to something along the lines of what Otzi is thinking but i believe we were always sugar eaters.

                Comment


                • Slow down there intrepid researcher!
                  When you say "Before we cooked" you do not mean humans... do you?
                  No, of course you don't.
                  Because Homo erectus had fire even before us...
                  I think you stretch things much too far if you are of the thinking that the dietray needs of our extinct predecessors is of more importance than or current model of Homo sapiens.

                  Homo sapiens always prefers cooking tubers when given the opportunity.
                  They will ONLY eat non cooked tubers as an absolute last ditch survival technique... this is shown in moder society and has been shown repeatedly in descriptions hunter gatherer tribes.
                  “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 RSQueen View Post
                    I find it extremely short-sighted that you would dismiss anything that you perceive as potentially, maybe biased. I'm going to have to dig out the paper you dissected again - if they did add omega-3 to the test diet and then attributed all of the benefits to RS, that would be wrong and deceptive. But, you're missing the point that industry is definitely not driving this bus. There are so many researchers that are doing very good research (and all research has its own flaws and holes and researchers have strong biases that aren't always revealed either). OK, you won't accept that RS might be valuable and contribute to health. You get to live with the consequences of your dietary decisions. I know that RS helps improve insulin sensitivity and helps reverse the metabolic pathways that lead to type 2 diabetes. Data is being generated right now as to whether it helps type 2 diabetics as well. The US government, the Australian government, the diabetes research community, the Chinese government and several other major groups are trying to figure it out and are investing millions of dollars in those studies (which won't be perfect either, but they're the best we've got). If you'd rather wait for another twenty years until more of the questions get answered, go for it. But to dismiss resistant starch because you think it is tainted with industry money is really silly.
                    Someone here is definitely missing the point, I agree. First, let me clear the air about something, when I say "I suspect", this constitutes my opinion, my speculation, my gut feeling, the heebie jeebies, maybe, but not something based on evidence. With that out of the way, my speculation as to what is driving the research is for all intents and purposes irrelevant. If you are taking me to task for my opinion, then you are wasting your time and mine.

                    Please do take me to task for things that I claim are evidence and or facts. Since you are re-reading that paper, scrutinize the diagram that shows that the DNA damage observed with the western wheat flour diet was not different in a statistically significant way from the damage ( or lack thereof ) observed with the RS interventions. Now, go to the text of the paper and find me a sentence in there that clearly states this. If you cannot, then it may be safe to say that the scientists "glossed over" this detail, would you not agree?

                    And once again, you repeatedly hammer on this tired nag of a point "RS improves insulin sensitivity."

                    Do you have any inkling about what I am about to say next? I have said it before, so there is precedent here. Nothing coming to mind? Fair enough, once more with feeling : RS improves insulin sensitivity due to the systemic effects of SCFA metabolism. RS improves insulin sensitivity due to the systemic effects of SCFA metabolism. Yes, I did type that twice ( copy and paste, truth be told ) in the hopes that it somehow makes it through your perceptual filters. And once again with arrant pedantry : if we are discussing systemic FA metabolism, then we have zero need to ingest RS in order to have bacteria ferment it and create a surfeit of SCFAs that can then be systemically absorbed to produce the highly prized insulin sensitizing effects.

                    As a matter of fact, this insulin sensitizing effect is not simply a property of SCFAs, but rather, of most fats with less than 12 carbons. Or to put it in other terms, it is the long chain fatty acids ( with particular emphasis on palmitate ) that induce insulin insensitivity. This is due to palmitate being the predominant storage form of fat in the human body, and large circulating amounts of palmitate are a metabolic signal that you may be relying on adipose tissue for energy in light of a shortage of available carbohydrate ( i.e. it is winter ) in which case, you don't want tissues drawing down blood glucose levels unless it is absolutely necessary ( hence physiological insulin resistance which is as far apart from pathological insulin resistance as RS is from real food ).

                    If, as you say, "there are so many researchers that are doing very good research" then surely you can come up with some more compelling studies than the one you pulled up? Should you find the motivation to go out and get some others for me, again, please find something that discusses humans that do not have some underlying pathology, because my repeated request from the outset was for some compelling evidence that healthy human beings need to go out of their way to ingest resistant starch.

                    Lastly, we are in complete agreement on this point : "to dismiss resistant starch because you think it is tainted with industry money is really silly" which is precisely why I dismiss it on the lack of compelling evidence . The single study that you managed to present I dismissed on the basis of methodological questions as well as the profound lack of results. The internet has this annoying tendency to preserve your history indefinitely, so you can easily go back in this thread to verify.

                    -PK
                    Last edited by pklopp; 02-04-2013, 12:54 PM.
                    My blog : cogitoergoedo.com

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

                    Comment


                    • Good post, PKlopp, but it begs the question...do you think that the typical PB/Paleo diet contains enough dietary SCFA to reap the benefits you describe?

                      You realize your critiques are probably being studied by Starch Moguls so they can stave off further critiques by users which would cut into their multi-billion dollar upstart industrial RS businesses.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by otzi View Post
                        I'm not obsessing in the least, just trying to get an answer to whether potato starch could be dangerous or unhealthy.

                        You are right, though, it may be a totally moot point, but I'd like too hear if potato starch is bad--so far I have seen nothing showing negative health benefits.
                        One of the advantages of working in the industry is that I know people. I went looking for an answer to your question from other undoubtedly biased, product pushing (but people who know) industrialists. The potato people say that the following two links give a good description of the best answers to your question - The Risks Of Eating Raw Potatoes | LIVESTRONG.COM and The pros and cons of munching on raw potatoes | UTSanDiego.com.

                        Eat your heart out - as long as you eat fresh, unblemished, unsprouted potatoes with no hint of green.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by RSQueen View Post
                          One of the advantages of working in the industry is that I know people. I went looking for an answer to your question from other undoubtedly biased, product pushing (but people who know) industrialists. The potato people say that the following two links give a good description of the best answers to your question - The Risks Of Eating Raw Potatoes | LIVESTRONG.COM and The pros and cons of munching on raw potatoes | UTSanDiego.com.

                          Eat your heart out - as long as you eat fresh, unblemished, unsprouted potatoes with no hint of green.
                          Thanks. I've seen both of those links. I was wondering specifically about using potato starch as an RS supplement. Does National Starch still make potato starch? New potato based starches from National Starch Would you use it as a supplement?

                          I can see why researchers would prefer Hi-Maize since it's a controlled amount of RS whereas potato starch may be a bit different between batches.

                          Before anyone freaks out, this is all hypothetical. I can't see a downside, though, for personal use.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by pklopp View Post
                            If, as you say, "there are so many researchers that are doing very good research" then surely you can come up with some more compelling studies than the one you pulled up? Should you find the motivation to go out and get some others for me, again, please find something that discusses humans that do not have some underlying pathology, because my repeated request from the outset was for some compelling evidence that healthy human beings need to go out of their way to ingest resistant starch.
                            -PK
                            Improved insulin sensitivity is not simply an effect of fermentation and production of SCFAs.

                            Dr. Robertson at the University of Surrey has shown that healthy people had an 33% improved insulin sensitivity after eating 30 grams of dietary fiber/day from Hi-maize resistant starch. See Robertson, AJCN 2005 Her research team has also shown that people had improved insulin sensitivity and lower insulin levels 30 minutes after they consumed Hi-maize (control = a glycemic starch that matched the quantity of glycemic carbohydrates in the Hi-maize product. See Bodinham, British Journal of Nutrition, 2010 The reduced insulin levels in healthy people could not have been from fermentation effects - they were seen before any of the starch even reached the large intestine. These are two out of the six clinical publications on the topic.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by otzi View Post
                              Thanks. I've seen both of those links. I was wondering specifically about using potato starch as an RS supplement. Does National Starch still make potato starch? New potato based starches from National Starch Would you use it as a supplement?
                              I knew you'd have seen those links, but perhaps it's useful to know that you've already uncovered what there is to know. National Starch never made potato starch. They have an alliance with Avebe, who makes the specialty potato starch that Ingredion sells. See the announcement here.

                              There are some relatively old clinical studies published with raw potato starch. For instance, Cummings JN 1996 found that different types of resistant starch produced varying quantities of laxative effects, which reflects their fermentation. Potato RS2 produced 1.62 grams per gram of resistant starch fed. Banana RS2 produced 1.68 grams/gram of RS. Wheat RS3 produced 2.50 grams/g of RS. High amylose corn RS3 produced 2.66 grams/gram of RS fed while the wheat bran control (which holds a lot of water but is minimally fermented) produced 4.9 grams/g of fiber found. This particular study did not have high amylose corn RS2 (like Hi-maize), but it does show that potato RS2 is fermented in the large intestine. Other studies by Olesen have showed increased breath hydrogen, which is a biomarker for fermentation as well. Potato starch is just chains of glucose, just like corn starch is just chains of glucose. I would guess that it would likely have similar effects, even though the studies haven't been done.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by otzi View Post
                                Would you use it (potato starch) as a supplement?
                                If I didn't want to use high amylose corn, yes, I would use a raw potato starch supplement. I encourage everyone to eat more natural resistant starch, no matter what source. With that said, I do not encourage modified resistant starches, because their digestion and fermentation profiles are different and I have no confidence that they produce the same effects. But, natural starches are much more similar, in that they're just chains of glucose. Eat what you like and what fits into your dietary preference.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X