Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Resistant Starch - A Solution In Search of a Problem

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

  • #76
    If you're dead set determined otzi, then here is more info than anyone EVER wants to know about resistant starch.

    http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewco...ut%20health%22
    "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


    • #77
      Originally posted by Drumroll View Post
      If you're dead set determined otzi, then here is more info than anyone EVER wants to know about resistant starch.

      http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewco...ut%20health%22
      I've seen this paper. This paragraph was the basis of my idea to eat cooked, cooked and cooled, and raw potato:

      The type of RS seems to influence the modulation effects even the starch is from the same
      origin. Kleessen et al. (1997) compared the effects of native potato starch (type 2 RS) and
      retrograded potato starch (type 3 RS) feeding on the shifts of bacteria population in male
      Wistar rats. Although both RS given at 10% (wt/wt diet) increased cecal Bifidobacterium
      counting compared to control starch (highly digestible waxy corn starch), only retrograded
      starch significantly increased cecal Lactobacillus, Streptococcus and Enterobacteria counting.
      Further analysis of Lactobacillus species with FISH showed that Lactobacillus cellobiosus
      was enriched with the highest abundance in animals fed retrograded starch.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Neckhammer View Post
        Otzi I'm gonna go have some sushi right now just for you

        As for finding something to prove you don't need RS....wouldn't that be any HG society that basically didn't have access to carbs?
        Ugh, like who? Every hunter gatherer society had access to starch and fiber.

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by Zach View Post
          Ugh, like who? Every hunter gatherer society had access to starch and fiber.
          I think it is possible to live with a sterile gut, evidence from the fact you can kill everything off with antibiotics and still survive. But the truth is, we are supposed to have bacteria in our guts and they do good (or bad) things for us.

          Probably the only HG group that didn't have access to year-round starchy tubers would be the Inuit, but they weren't as starch depleted as many say. Seaweed was a big part of the diet, as well as Eskimo potato - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

          It's also possible that there are other things that feed the bacteria just as well as RS from potatoes/starchy plants such as the stomach contents of ruminants, which the Inuit ate, or just plain dirt.

          As for me, RS is just another reason to eat potatoes.

          Comment


          • #80
            A FELLOW SCIENCE MAJOR AND NOTED COMMENTATER(sorry cd.n't resist-hee hee there I go again stop me before I post ano study I haven't read and/or don't understand) PEER-VINDICATES OTZI!Al Sharpton's Hilarious Teleprompter Flub On MSNBC Show - YouTube
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=2CifYWxJXaI
            Last edited by Terry H; 02-13-2013, 01:06 PM.

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Terry H View Post
              A FELLOW SCIENCE MAJOR AND NOTED COMMENTATER(sorry cd.n't resist-hee hee there I go again stop me before I post ano study I haven't read and/or don't understand) PEER-VINDICATES OTZI!Al Sharpton's Hilarious Teleprompter Flub On MSNBC Show - YouTube
              Shoulda used this one:



              or this one

              Last edited by otzi; 01-19-2013, 12:17 PM.

              Comment


              • #82
                Nah'. Former more apropos.

                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUprWGzYYeQ
                "Evelyn, A Modified Dog"
                Viewed the quivering fringe of a special doily
                Draped across the piano, with some surprise

                In the darkened room
                Where the chairs dismayed

                And the horrible curtains

                Muffled the rain

                She could hardly believe her eyes


                A curious breeze

                A garlic breath

                Which sounded like a snore

                Somewhere near the Steinway (or even from within)

                Had caused the doily fringe to waft & tremble in the gloom


                Evelyn, a dog, having undergone

                Further modification

                Pondered the significance of short-person behavior

                In pedal-depressed panchromatic resonance

                And other highly ambient domains...


                Arf she said



                Read more: FRANK ZAPPA - EVELYN, A MODIFIED DOG LYRICS


                [
                Last edited by Terry H; 01-19-2013, 12:40 PM.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Here's some very resistant starch...

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    tHATS WAT YER BOWELS LOOK LIKE WEN U EAT TATERS. YEP.

                    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tqxz...yer_detailpage
                    Last edited by Terry H; 01-19-2013, 01:23 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by otzi View Post
                      I think it is possible to live with a sterile gut, evidence from the fact you can kill everything off with antibiotics and still survive. But the truth is, we are supposed to have bacteria in our guts and they do good (or bad) things for us.

                      Probably the only HG group that didn't have access to year-round starchy tubers would be the Inuit, but they weren't as starch depleted as many say. Seaweed was a big part of the diet, as well as Eskimo potato - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

                      It's also possible that there are other things that feed the bacteria just as well as RS from potatoes/starchy plants such as the stomach contents of ruminants, which the Inuit ate, or just plain dirt.

                      As for me, RS is just another reason to eat potatoes.

                      Exactly. One group of people who traveled to arctic regions like a thousand years ago might have gone most the year without much starch. That is not proof that humans dont need starch or fiber. Pointing the the inuit every time someone talks about anything zero carb related is crazy. They are a tiny exception. There has never been a pure carnivorous society just like there has never been a pure vegan society. Also Inuit are not paleo, so why would anyone claiming to eat paleo or primal try to eat like them?

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Zach View Post
                        Ugh, like who? Every hunter gatherer society had access to starch and fiber.
                        Guess I should have said abundant carbs? Not claimig zero carb, but since you ask:

                        "There are a number of striking things about the data once you sum them up. First of all, diet composition varied widely. Many groups were almost totally carnivorous, with 46 getting over 85% of their calories from hunted foods. However, not a single group out of 229 was vegetarian or vegan."

                        Note this is Guyenet speaking about data found in "The Ethnographic Atlas" by Dr. George P. Murdock, which holds data on hundreds of HG groups that has been analyzed and used in several studies including those published by Cordain and the like. What you also need to know is that these peoples got 85% from "hunted food" BUT of the 15% "gathered"....small game such as rodents, insects, squirrels, scavenged meat and the like all fall under "gathered" heading.....I'm gonna go ahead and call 25% + of HG's low carb and feel pretty good about the data justifying that claim.

                        On average for all the groups studied they get 70% of their calories from "hunted" food leaving 30% on average again to gathered insects, small game, fruits, nuts, vegetables, and tubers and the like.

                        There is a wide variety and this is not a carb bashing session....just a response to is RS necessary, since otzi threw down that particular gauntlet. But hey maybe they are also eating bark or some shit to feed that colon bacteria....that would be very low calorie and tons of fiber for the colony to munch up right?
                        Last edited by Neckhammer; 01-19-2013, 02:49 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Thats fine, will agree with some being low carb. But there is edible forms of starch literally everywhere so i dont believe that any one group at 0%.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Otzi, it never occurred to me that you could possibly be advocating eating raw potatoes. Once that realization hit, then of course I must admit that you are correct, raw potatoes do contain significantly large amounts of resistant starch. In fact, the majority of the starch is resistant. This is why, as a rule, raw potatoes do not form a part of any "modern" diet.

                            I am playing a little bit fast and loose with the concept of modernity that I am applying here, insofar as it reaches back about one million years to some of the earliest recorded use of fire by our human ancestors, and at this point, realize that we're talking about Homo Erectus.

                            I know you dislike my dissertations, so I'm just going give you the ESPN highlight reel. For anyone interested I'll post some followup more "dissertation-like" explanations.
                            1. Humans have been cooking their food since Homo Erectus appeared on the scene. To not cook represents an aberration. Not cooking potatoes would therefore represent deviant behavior.
                            2. Cooking increases bioavailability of nutrients ( roughly doubles it for starches ). To actively seek less nutrients is only a mania of image obsessed modern man. Primitive man was concerned with immediate survival and therefore maximizing nutritional returns.
                            3. Increased bioavailability of nutrients reflects itself as morphological changes in digestive organs ( i.e. since you've outsourced digestion, you no longer need as much in the way of innate digestive capacity so your digestive organs shrink ). Modern humans reflect this relative to other higher primates indicating our habitual reliance on cooking.
                            4. Higher primates prefer cooked potatoes to raw. They lack the knowledge of how to transform them to their preferred state, but proto-hominids did not, so would have eaten potatoes cooked.
                            5. Any primate that possesses the ability to manipulate fire to cook its food but willingly chooses not to do so is an evolutionary failure since it must expend more effort for the same caloric payoff. This organism will be selected against in favor of those primates that preferentially consume the denser calories of cooked foods.
                            6. Feeding resistant starch to organisms results in morphological / physiological adaptations specific to fermentation, namely, they get larger colons to host larger colonies of fermentation bacteria. In other words, they increasingly start to look like hind gut fermenters ( gorillas ). If an organism does not possess the physiology of a hind gut fermenter, that's because it isn't one. Humans do not exhibit these morphological changes, in fact, we have the opposite changes suggesting we did not habitually consume resistant starches.
                            7. Salivary amylase.
                            8. You are not the intended evolutionary beneficiary of underground food storage organs (UFSOs).


                            For these reasons, it is highly likely that mankind only ever ate raw potatoes under extreme periods of duress where other foods were unavailable and cooking the potatoes was not possible. Consequently, the RS content of the uncooked version of potatoes is moot, so we're back to there not being a heck of a lot of RS in a cooked potato.

                            -PK
                            My blog : cogitoergoedo.com

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

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              This is an interesting resource backing up PK's points above.

                              Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human: Richard Wrangham: 9780465020416: Amazon.com: Books

                              Besides, raw potato? Blech!

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                PKLOPP - good sumation in last post. You are correct, not a lot of RS in a cooked potato. That's why, since I eat potatoes anyway, I'm sure to eat a few slices of raw potato when I'm cutting potatoes, I cook and eat some hot potatoes, and I also eat some cooked and cooled potatoes. I like to eat them all three ways, so it works for me. If there's some RS in there and it does me good, hot damn! If it's a waste of time, I still got to eat some tasty spuds.

                                I guess we will have to invoke former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in saying about RS: "There are no "knowns." There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we do not know we don't know. So when we do the best we can and we pull all this information together, and we then say well that's basically what we see as the situation, that is really only the known knowns and the known unknowns. And each year, we discover a few more of those unknown unknowns."
                                Last edited by otzi; 01-22-2013, 01:26 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X