Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Resistant Starch - A Solution In Search of a Problem

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

  • #46
    From the article you insisted we read:

    Western diets are typically low in fibre and have been linked with a higher incidence of bowel cancer. Even though Australians eat more dietary fibre than many other western countries, bowel cancer is still the second most commonly reported cancer in Australia with 30 new cases diagnosed every day. Dr David Topping, from CSIRO's Food Futures Flagship, said this is referred to as 'the Australian paradox'. "We have been trying to find out why Australians aren't showing a reduction in bowel cancer rates and we think the answer is that we don't eat enough resistant starch, which is one of the major components of dietary fibre," Dr Topping said.

    "Have been linked" and "we think" rank right up there with "it is said". Heart disease "has been linked" with meat consumption but do you believe it's true? Vegans will tell you about how essential fiber is and how meat rots in your colon.

    Are you really buying all that CW blather, Otzi? All that is is an AllBran commercial. Rs is nothing more than dietary fiber (or fibre if you are in the UK or Oz).
    Last edited by Paleobird; 01-17-2013, 02:12 PM.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by otzi View Post
      I only have the energy to argue this one point...where I saw that raw potato contains 75%. I have seen it several places, unfortunately, I don't catalog everything I have ever read. But here is a chart I just now found. It is from Table 2 in Health properties of resistant starch - Nugent - 2005 - Nutrition Bulletin - Wiley Online Library, which, by the way you should consider reading...

      Also of interesting note, there are many 'food' manufacturing companies out there trying to GMO wheat and other grains to increase RS as well as make RS from corn and other grain products. From the chart above, raw potato blows away anything they have made so far...

      And in case you say "That's NATIVE POTATO STARCH not raw potato starch, here's what native potato starch is: Production of native potato starch - Mainpage
      Native potato starch is as natural as any dehydrated / freeze dried food is. The large discrepancy in your table between cooked and cooled potato starch at 3.8 ( percent, presumably, since there are no units given ) vs. 78.1 is entirely due to the industrial processing of potatoes. Hardly primal / paleo / natural.

      If you are trying to console or soothe me by pointing out big Agro is interested in genetically modifying normal food to make it contain more resistant starch, then you are failing miserably.

      -PK
      My blog : cogitoergoedo.com

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

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by pklopp View Post
        I am very interested in debating whether one needs to go out of one's way to "supplement" with RS from potatoes, for instance. I do not believe this to be the case as there are other indigestible carbohydrates which serve the exact same function from the colonic bacteria point of view ... things like fructans, inulin, and various other things that you get by eating such things as fibrous vegetables, onions, asparagus, etc. etc.

        -PK
        I guess I did miss that...my apologies.

        I think that within a Primal Blueprint framework, potatoes are a very good solution if one felt the need to increase RS in their diet.

        The other things you mention: "fructans, inulin, and various other things that you get by eating such things as fibrous vegetables, onions, asparagus, etc. etc." I don't believe serve the same function, but if someone had evidence otherwise, I would be very open to hearing them.

        As you can see, I have clicked many RS links. All of them describe RS as I discussed earlier in the wikipedia link with RS1,2,3,4.

        I believe the key is in the starch, not the carbohydrate. There are two sorts of fiber and we need to eat both to keep the large bowel and other parts of the digestive system health. Soluble fiber includes pectins, gums and mucilage, which are found mainly in plant cells. Soluble fiber is thought to lower blood cholesterol levels. Good sources of soluble fiber include fruits, vegetables, oat bran, barley, seed husks, dried beans, lentils, peas, soymilk and soy products.

        Insoluble fiber includes cellulose, hemicelluloses and lignin, which make up the structural parts of plant cell walls. This type of fiber is said to prevent constipation and hemorrhoids. Good sources include wheat bran, corn bran, rice bran, the skins of fruits and vegetables, nuts, seeds, dried beans and wholegrain foods.

        Resistant starch is not fiber at all but it acts in a similar way in the body. Resistant starch resists normal digestion. Bacteria in the large bowel ferment and change the resistant starch into short-chain fatty acids, which may protect against cancer. Resistant starch found in many unprocessed cereals and grains, firm bananas, potatoes and lentils.

        Primal Blueprint and paleo in general isn't a big fan of fiber.

        Soluble fiber slows stomach emptying, which prevents the body from being flooded with glucose at the same rate as it would be with a low fiber meal (assuming a high glycemic load in the meal). But therein lies the pertinent question: if you maintain a diet with low glycemic load, do you really need to slow the digestion process with fiber? Hmm. If that fiber were adding a plethora of nutrients, as found in vegetables, then the answer would be yes. But as for a fiber source without all those nutrients? Not so convincing. - Mark Sisson

        Read more: Fun With Fiber: The Real Scoop | Mark's Daily Apple
        I personally never put much stock in fiber. Every time I tracked it I was waaaay short of the RDA. When I started hearing about Resistant Starch, I was a bit more interested. I think gut health is of UTMOST concern for all of us, and taking out a big piece of the gut health puzzle, RS, seemed to me worthy of looking into.

        Mark Sisson took a jab at RS a couple years ago:

        ...It’s silly and not worth a lot of typing, so I’ll make it short. The thing that jumps out at me is the author’s obsession with “Resistant Starch.” First of all, I’m not sure why it deserves repeated capitalization (maybe it’s some sort of deity?), and second, resistant starch is just another type of prebiotic whose fermentation by microbiota releases beneficial short chain fatty acids. You can get the same kind of reaction by eating other sources of soluble fiber, many of them decidedly low-carb. Think leafy greens, broccoli, berries, apples, jicama, onions, garlic, leeks, Jerusalem artichokes. And yes, if your activity levels and metabolic health permit, Primal starches are good sources of resistant starch and soluble fiber alike, but it’s not the carbs doing it. It’s the “carbs” that you literally cannot digest without your little microscopic friends’ assistance. - Mark Sisson

        Read more: Is Central Heating Related to Obesity? | Mark's Daily Apple
        It seemed like he is down on RS, but this was just an off-hand comment about an article: 8 reasons carbs help you lose weight | Healthy Living - Yahoo! Shine

        I don't think Mark has ever taken a serious look at RS, but judging by his complete endorsement of Perfect Health Diet - A diet for healing chronic disease, restoring youthful vitality, and achieving long life and all it's 'Safe Starches', I would say he's due to offer some serious insight into starch and RS.

        So the question is: Can you get RS from other sources of fiber? I think the answer is "No". RS, and meaningful butyrate/SCFA/colon microflora benefits only come from RS, and one of the best Primal Blueprint RS' is potatoes, cold better, raw best, with cold rice in distant 4th place.

        I think it is definitely worthwhile to purposely source and increase RS in the PB framework.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by pklopp View Post
          Native potato starch is as natural as any dehydrated / freeze dried food is. The large discrepancy in your table between cooked and cooled potato starch at 3.8 ( percent, presumably, since there are no units given ) vs. 78.1 is entirely due to the industrial processing of potatoes. Hardly primal / paleo / natural.

          If you are trying to console or soothe me by pointing out big Agro is interested in genetically modifying normal food to make it contain more resistant starch, then you are failing miserably.

          -PK
          Not sure where this is coming from. The RS found in native starch is the same as RS found in raw potato. If a potato has 35g carbs, about 34g of them are starch with 78% being RS.

          Pointed out that big agro is trying to develop this because there is a market for it. I hate the fact they are GMO'ing more foods. I think it would be a big step backwards for humanity if we all started eating GMO wheat with high RS.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by otzi View Post
            Not sure where this is coming from. The RS found in native starch is the same as RS found in raw potato. If a potato has 35g carbs, about 34g of them are starch with 78% being RS.
            The fat found in heavy cream is the same as the fat found in milk, therefore, since the milk fat content of heavy cream is somewhere around 35%, the milk fat content of milk must be 35%.

            Do I need to beat this dead horse further, or are you willing to admit that industrially processed foods are not equivalent to their natural sources?

            -PK
            My blog : cogitoergoedo.com

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

            Comment


            • #51
              Hey pklopp ~ Waving hi & appreciating your contributions here. Too bad some folk just don't get it.
              I just found your blog, which I am enjoying immensely!
              Ancestral Nutrition Coaching
              Pregnancy Nutrition Coaching
              Primal Pregnancy Nutrition Article

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by pklopp View Post
                You keep missing the point.
                pklopp, what exactly is your point to this thread? From what I can tell, otzi's point is that if you're going to consume starch, the ideal starch to consume are foods higher in resistant starch because there may be small benefits in fat oxidation and a decreased risk of colon cancer. There may be some truth to that, and I will argue to the grave that almost every single one of us should have significant starch in our diet because my research has shown it to be *the* most consumed human energy source, and it very well may be the healthiest. From what I can tell, your agenda is to dissuade people from consuming starch? At least that's how it comes off. I don't understand what your point is.
                Last edited by ChocoTaco369; 01-18-2013, 07:23 AM.
                Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by pklopp View Post
                  The fat found in heavy cream is the same as the fat found in milk, therefore, since the milk fat content of heavy cream is somewhere around 35%, the milk fat content of milk must be 35%.

                  Do I need to beat this dead horse further, or are you willing to admit that industrially processed foods are not equivalent to their natural sources?

                  -PK

                  Let's beat it a little more...maybe I am misunderstanding.

                  If you take a raw potato, grind it to bits, filter all the starch from the water and cell walls, and dry the starch, then measure the RS value of this dried starch and find it to be 78% RS/22% non-RS starch, how is that different from just eating the potato raw in the first place. You are consuming all the raw starch, which is 78% RS.

                  In your example, if you said a sample of raw cows milk contained 3.6% fat, which was 75% saturated fat, that would never change. If you chemically separated all the fat from raw cows milk, dried it, and powdered it, it would still be 75% saturated fat. If you further reduced it by removing all the other fats, then it would be closer to 100% saturated fat.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by otzi View Post
                    Let's beat it a little more...maybe I am misunderstanding.

                    If you take a raw potato, grind it to bits, filter all the starch from the water and cell walls, and dry the starch, then measure the RS value of this dried starch and find it to be 78% RS/22% non-RS starch, how is that different from just eating the potato raw in the first place. You are consuming all the raw starch, which is 78% RS.

                    In your example, if you said a sample of raw cows milk contained 3.6% fat, which was 75% saturated fat, that would never change. If you chemically separated all the fat from raw cows milk, dried it, and powdered it, it would still be 75% saturated fat. If you further reduced it by removing all the other fats, then it would be closer to 100% saturated fat.
                    Fine, but I'm first going to beat another dead horse known as "cherry picking." I'm sure you are familiar with the term, but just in case you're not, this entails selecting data that supports your claim while turning a blind eye to that which does not.

                    From the data source that you yourself quoted and then advised me to read:

                    Native Potato Starch RS content as a percentage : 78%

                    WOWZA! Talk about confirming what you already believe to be true. Let's just stop reading, then, shall we?

                    I can only assume that you just stopped reading at that point, which is a real shame, because the very next line reads:

                    Originally posted by Table 2. Resistant starch contents of a number of sample foods and commercially manufactured sources of resistant starc
                    Native potato starch 78.1
                    Cooked and cooled potato starch  3.8
                    At this point, the onus really is on you to explain why your source, not mine. claims that there is a twenty fold difference between the resistant starch content of cooked and cooled potatoes vs. "commercially manufactured sources of resistant starch."

                    I will also point out that my sources claim that boiled potatoes come in at 2% resistant starch. Both my and your sources tell us that cooling starches roughly doubles the resistant starch content ... care to divide 3.8% by 2 and tell me what you get? Suspiciously close to 2% resistant starch content, isn't it?

                    If you still insist that I speculate as to what in the world did they have to do to increase the resistant starch content in the sample you took as gospel, I can, but it would probably have to be speculation, unless there's some footnote lurking about in that paper somewhere....

                    Let me know if you want me to speculate ... I'm pretty imaginative.

                    -PK
                    My blog : cogitoergoedo.com

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

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by pklopp View Post
                      Native Potato Starch RS content as a percentage : 78%

                      At this point, the onus really is on you to explain why your source, not mine. claims that there is a twenty fold difference between the resistant starch content of cooked and cooled potatoes vs. "commercially manufactured sources of resistant starch."

                      I will also point out that my sources claim that boiled potatoes come in at 2% resistant starch. Both my and your sources tell us that cooling starches roughly doubles the resistant starch content ... care to divide 3.8% by 2 and tell me what you get? Suspiciously close to 2% resistant starch content, isn't it?

                      If you still insist that I speculate as to what in the world did they have to do to increase the resistant starch content in the sample you took as gospel, I can, but it would probably have to be speculation, unless there's some footnote lurking about in that paper somewhere....

                      Let me know if you want me to speculate ... I'm pretty imaginative.

                      -PK
                      That's really easy. In a raw potato, you have RS2, the raw starch, mostly resistant. When you heat this up, the starch gels and the cell walls burst, making it plain old starch, the kind that gets digested starting from the amylase in the mouth and stomach and completely gets digested quickly in the small intestine.

                      When you cool the plain old starch down toward freezing, it crystallizes, and undergoes a process called retrogradation, and turns into RS-3.

                      If re-heated, the RS-3, re-gels and you lose some value.

                      This is why I like to eat a few slices of raw potato as I'm getting ready to cook, then eat some warm potato, then cool some down and eat it cold the next day. The best of all worlds.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by otzi View Post
                        That's really easy. In a raw potato, you have RS2, the raw starch, mostly resistant. When you heat this up, the starch gels and the cell walls burst, making it plain old starch, the kind that gets digested starting from the amylase in the mouth and stomach and completely gets digested quickly in the small intestine.

                        When you cool the plain old starch down toward freezing, it crystallizes, and undergoes a process called retrogradation, and turns into RS-3.

                        If re-heated, the RS-3, re-gels and you lose some value.

                        This is why I like to eat a few slices of raw potato as I'm getting ready to cook, then eat some warm potato, then cool some down and eat it cold the next day. The best of all worlds.
                        Ok Otzi, you are very enthusiastic, but in your haste, you miss details so forgive me for getting pedantic here:
                        1. Take a potato
                        2. Boil it
                        3. Cool it
                        4. Measure the resistant starch
                        5. You get 4%

                        That's what your source says ... boiled cooled potatoes. Your 78% RS is pure wish fulfillment / cherry picking and baseless speculation because you need it to be that way to support your position.

                        -PK
                        My blog : cogitoergoedo.com

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

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
                          pklopp, what exactly is your point to this thread? From what I can tell, otzi's point is that if you're going to consume starch, the ideal starch to consume are foods higher in resistant starch because there may be small benefits in fat oxidation and a decreased risk of colon cancer. There may be some truth to that, and I will argue to the grave that almost every single one of us should have significant starch in our diet because my research has shown it to be *the* most consumed human energy source, and it very well may be the healthiest. From what I can tell, your agenda is to dissuade people from consuming starch? At least that's how it comes off. I don't understand what your point is.
                          The first takeaway for this thread, again, I repeat myself here, is that knowledge is power. Knowing "why" is far more empowering than knowing "that." So, my very first post in this thread was outlining some fundamental knowledge regarding resistant starch.

                          The second takeaway should be that one probably does not need to go out of one's way to seek out indigestible carbohydrates. If you read my first post, towards the end I alluded to there being more than one way to skin the butyrate cat. My intent there was to start speaking of other resistant carbohydrates, like inulin. I got hijacked along the way by Otzi's denigration of my "dissertation."

                          The third takeaway from what this thread has morphed into should be that there are some significant questions that Otzi completely glosses over, such as:
                          1. What is the optimal amount of resistant starch to ingest to lower colorectal cancer rates due to butyrate production?
                          2. How much resistant starch containing food does one need to ingest to reach this level?
                          3. Are all fermentable carbohydrates equally suited for this effect?
                          4. For the love of God, just how much resistant starch is there actually in a potato.


                          I find it stunning, absolutely stop-me-dead-in-my-tracks non-plussed and slack-jawed stunning that Otzi can in one fell swoop both accept as gospel one datum from a study that supports his claims, while adamantly denying another datum from the exact same study which most inconveniently does not. Ancel Keys would have been proud.


                          -PK
                          Last edited by pklopp; 01-18-2013, 03:45 PM.
                          My blog : cogitoergoedo.com

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

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
                            pklopp, what exactly is your point to this thread? ... From what I can tell, your agenda is to dissuade people from consuming starch? At least that's how it comes off. I don't understand what your point is.
                            Can you please do me a favour and go back to the beginning of this thread and point out where I intimated that people ought not to eat starch? The smoking gun you are looking for should be something to the effect of "you probably shouldn't eat starch", or "in my infinite wisdom, I suggest you only eat x amounts of carbohydrates", where x is some suitably small number.

                            Take your time, I'm willing to wait.

                            Now realize that I have a significant issue with potato diet apologists that try to rationalize their desire to eat potatoes with really dubious claims, and even more dubious science. My agenda is to point out their glaring contradictions and to try to bring some badly needed perspective to the table.

                            -PK
                            My blog : cogitoergoedo.com

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

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by pklopp View Post
                              1. What is the optimal amount of resistant starch to ingest to lower colorectal cancer rates due to butyrate production?
                              2. How much resistant starch does one need to ingest to reach this level?
                              3. Are all fermentable carbohydrates equally suited for this effect?
                              4. For the love of God, just how much resistant starch is there actually in a potato.


                              I find it stunning, absolutely stop-me-dead-in-my-tracks non-plussed and slack-jawed stunning that Otzi can in one fell swoop both accept as gospel one datum from a study that supports his claims, while adamantly denying another datum from the exact same study which most inconveniently does not. Ancel Keys would have been proud.
                              I would add a #5 to that list. I'm still waiting for any proof that the richest source of butyrate on earth, butter, does not supply all the butyrate needed. Yes, it is absorbed in a different spot in the digestive process, but that doesn't mean it can't be used where needed.

                              Originally posted by pklopp View Post
                              Can you please do me a favour and go back to the beginning of this thread and point out where I intimated that people ought not to eat starch? The smoking gun you are looking for should be something to the effect of "you probably shouldn't eat starch", or "in my infinite wisdom, I suggest you only eat x amounts of carbohydrates", where x is some suitably small number.

                              Take your time, I'm willing to wait.

                              Now realize that I have a significant issue with potato diet apologists that try to rationalize their desire to eat potatoes with really dubious claims, and even more dubious science. My agenda is to point out their glaring contradictions and to try to bring some badly needed perspective to the table.

                              -PK
                              Please continue to do so.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by pklopp View Post
                                Ok Otzi, you are very enthusiastic, but in your haste, you miss details so forgive me for getting pedantic here:
                                1. Take a potato
                                2. Boil it
                                3. Cool it
                                4. Measure the resistant starch
                                5. You get 4%

                                That's what your source says ... boiled cooled potatoes. Your 78% RS is pure wish fulfillment / cherry picking and baseless speculation because you need it to be that way to support your position.

                                -PK
                                The 78% is from RAW potato. 2% cooked, 4% cooked and cooled.

                                How is this possible? As I explained many times, the RS found in a raw potato is made non-RS by cooking it. However, a small amount of RS remains (2%), the rest is regular starch. Cool the potato, and some of the regular starch retrogrades into RS, a different type of RS than was found in the raw potato, but RS, nonetheless.

                                I don't see how that's difficult to comprehend.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X