Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Resistant Starch - A Solution In Search of a Problem

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

  • So wait, wait... Otzi, clear this up for me if you will. According to your sources above, humans are supposed to get between 60-80 grams of fiber (spread throughout the various types) per day in order to support proper levels of intestinal bacteria (see this line: "However, it is believed that approximately 60–80 g of substrate is needed per day to sustain the 1013−1014 organisms found in the human large bowel"). And yet, humans have been living for generations on far less than 20 just fine? Ok, then do we really NEED that recommended 60-80 grams? Seems like the overzelous recommendation of someone eating a typical CW type of diet that actually probably requires more cut bacteria than someone eating primally. And even for the typical CW eater 60-80 grams of fiber a day is going to keep them on the pot most of the day. Yikes!
    Last edited by Drumroll; 01-24-2013, 04:29 PM.
    "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


    • Ummm...

      Potatoes have about 1gm of fiber per oz.
      and 26 calories.

      60-80 grams of fiber would be 1560-2080 cal/day just from potatoes.
      WTF dude.

      That doesn't sound very healthy.
      It sounds genuinely obsessive.

      Also... for anyone with not so great kidneys like prone to stones or something, please ignore at least the raw potato advice.
      Good lord.
      Feel free to eat potatoes but at least boil them.
      “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 Drumroll View Post
        So wait, wait... Otzi, clear this up for me if you will. According to your sources above, humans are supposed to get between 60-80 grams of fiber (spread throughout the various types) per day in order to support proper levels of intestinal bacteria (see this line: "However, it is believed that approximately 60–80 g of substrate is needed per day to sustain the 1013−1014 organisms found in the human large bowel"). And yet, humans have been living for generations on far less than 20 just fine? Ok, then do we really NEED that recommended 60-80 grams? Seems like the overzelous recommendation of someone eating a typical CW type of diet that actually probably requires more cut bacteria than someone eating primally. And even for the typical CW eater 60-80 grams of fiber a day is going to keep them on the pot most of the day. Yikes!
        They are talking about dietary fiber or 'non-starch polysaccharides'...

        it has been calculated that intakes of non-starch polysaccharides are approximately < 20 g/day (Baghurst et al. 1996). The last national survey of dietary intakes in the UK revealed that intakes of non-starch polysaccharides were approximately 12 g/day for women and 15 g/day for men (Henderson et al. 2003). However, it is believed that approximately 60–80 g of substrate is needed per day to sustain the 1013−1014 organisms found in the human large bowel. It is thought that RS contributes to this ‘carbohydrate gap’ (Topping et al. 2003). RS has been reported to constitute up to 15% of the dry matter of a food product (Champ et al. 2003b).
        non-starch polysaccharides, from my beloved Wikipedia:

        Chemically, dietary fiber consists of non-starch polysaccharides such as arabinoxylans, cellulose, and many other plant components such as resistant starch, resistant dextrins, inulin, lignin, waxes, chitins, pectins, beta-glucans, and oligosaccharides.[1] A novel position has been adopted by the US Department of Agriculture to include functional fibers as isolated fiber sources that may be included in the diet.[1] The term "fiber" is something of a misnomer, since many types of so-called dietary fiber are not actually fibrous.
        The reason I think there goal is so high (60-80g) is that if you are eating the usual lineup of fiber (grain, fruit etc..) it takes a lot of it to ensure there is a good bit of RS. If you are targeting RS through cooked and cooled potatoes, for instance, you shouldn't need that much dietary fiber (the 'carbohydrate gap')

        Comment


        • Also from the Great Font of Knowledge: Dietary fiber - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


          Current recommendations from the United States National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine, suggest that adults should consume 20–35 grams of dietary fiber per day, but the average American's daily intake of dietary fiber is only 12–18 grams.[69][74]

          The AND (Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, previously ADA) recommends a minimum of 20–35 g/day for a healthy adult depending on calorie intake (e.g., a 2000 Cal/8400 kJ diet should include 25 g of fiber per day). The AND's recommendation for children is that intake should equal age in years plus 5 g/day (e.g., a 4 year old should consume 9 g/day). No guidelines have yet been established for the elderly or very ill. Patients with current constipation, vomiting, and abdominal pain should see a physician. Certain bulking agents are not commonly recommended with the prescription of opioids because the slow transit time mixed with larger stools may lead to severe constipation, pain, or obstruction.

          The British Nutrition Foundation has recommended a minimum fiber intake of 18 g/day for healthy adults.[75]
          Fiber recommendations in the USA

          On average, North Americans consume less than 50% of the dietary fiber levels recommended for good health. In the preferred food choices of today's youth, this value may be as low as 20%, a factor considered by experts as contributing to the obesity levels seen in many developed countries.[76][77]
          I've never bothered to figure out the average fiber content of a PB diet. I'd guess it's even less than SAD. That doesn't really concern me. It really seems the RDA is so high just to ensure a minimal amount of RS.

          Comment


          • Otzi you really can't win this.

            Look at it this way, its the same reason I would not bother to claim that ketosis is optimal for all humans. You know why? Cause there are notable exceptions to the claim. The same stands in this case just in the complete reverse.

            You can claim that it is not inherently harmful, as you have plenty of evidence for that (well except for the raw potato bit...not a good idea). Or, you may be able to find specific instances and population (imbalance/disease) in which it "could" be a better alternative just like you can with ketosis. But, your not gonna be able to prove that its anything more than that (least I doubt you can).

            BTW I have always grabbed a slice of potato as my mom was peeling them as a kid and ate a bit, but I still don't think its a good idea.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by otzi View Post
              The reason I think there goal is so high (60-80g) is that if you are eating the usual lineup of fiber (grain, fruit etc..) it takes a lot of it to ensure there is a good bit of RS. If you are targeting RS through cooked and cooled potatoes, for instance, you shouldn't need that much dietary fiber (the 'carbohydrate gap')
              I'm quite aware what fiber is thanks. However, even in my boldly CW days, I was having MAJOR digestion issues on 30-40 grams of fiber a day. I'm just shuddering right now that I used to think that was NORMAL and HEALTHY. I cannot BEGIN to imagine what 60-80 grams would do to me! Ugh.

              But you still haven't really addressed PK's basic question which is, if resistant starch is a soluable fiber, and all soluable fibers feed our gut bacteria pretty much equally, how it is any more special than the others?
              "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


              • Originally posted by otzi View Post
                Also from the Great Font of Knowledge: Dietary fiber - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



                I've never bothered to figure out the average fiber content of a PB diet. I'd guess it's even less than SAD. That doesn't really concern me. It really seems the RDA is so high just to ensure a minimal amount of RS.
                You have no reference for any of that. You really are just making it up as you go
                Four years Primal with influences from Jaminet & Shanahan and a focus on being anti-inflammatory. Using Primal to treat CVD and prevent stents from blocking free of drugs.

                Eat creatures nose-to-tail (animal, fowl, fish, crustacea, molluscs), a large variety of vegetables (raw, cooked and fermented, including safe starches), dairy (cheese & yoghurt), occasional fruit, cocoa, turmeric & red wine

                Comment


                • Originally posted by otzi View Post
                  Also from the Great Font of Knowledge: Dietary fiber - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



                  I've never bothered to figure out the average fiber content of a PB diet. I'd guess it's even less than SAD. That doesn't really concern me. It really seems the RDA is so high just to ensure a minimal amount of RS.
                  Otz... the folks who do the RDA don't give two hoots if what makes up your RDA comes entirely from ALL Bran cereal and Brussels sprouts, it'll still be counted just the same.
                  Seriously.

                  It has nothing to do with resistant starch. They are not taking that into account at all.
                  “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 cori93437 View Post
                    Otz... the folks who do the RDA don't give two hoots if what makes up your RDA comes entirely from ALL Bran cereal and Brussels sprouts, it'll still be counted just the same.
                    Seriously.

                    It has nothing to do with resistant starch. They are not taking that into account at all.
                    This is so true. The recommendation says fiber and does not, and likely never WILL go into more detail than that.
                    "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


                    • Originally posted by Drumroll View Post

                      But you still haven't really addressed PK's basic question which is, if resistant starch is a soluable fiber, and all soluable fibers feed our gut bacteria pretty much equally, how it is any more special than the others?
                      Isn't that what this says:

                      RS appears to function as a prebiotic and symbiotic (Brown et al. 1997; Wang et al. 1999). Studies in humans and pigs have revealed that consumption of high-RS diets result in a time-dependent shift in faecal and large-bowel SCFA profiles, suggesting a change in the autochthonous (local) microbial population and that RS could interact with gut bacteria (Topping et al. 2003). It is also worth noting that RS appears to function differently than more well known prebiotics (e.g. fructo-oligosaccharides); when the RS and fructo-oligosaccharides were fed together, the increase in faecal bacteria was greater than the individual increases observed when these two ingredients were fed separately (Brown et al. 1998).
                      Anyway, to answer a bunch of people's comments: You guys are absolutely right. I can never win this, and yes, I pull a lot of this out of my (highly RS fed) butt.

                      All I ask, is just do a quick Google, Google Scholar, or PubMed search on Resistant Starch. If anyone can find a reason that eating a couple potatoes a day, or trying to get a little extra RS in your diet through cooked and cooled potatoes or rice is a bad thing, I will rethink it. So far, everyone is just trying to play 'stump the dummy' with me.

                      It's not like I'm saying eat whole grains or Hi-Maize manmade RS (Hi-maize USA Home Page). I think, yes, think, can't provide peer-reviewed cites, that the short-chain fatty-acid and butyrate connection with the RS found in potatoes and rice could bean important, overlooked piece of the puzzle to long-term health.

                      Is it possible that we don't need a single molecule of RS to ever touch our colon and we could live to 120 years without any colon problems? Yes. Do the studies reflect that? No.

                      Am I going to eat a big potato with supper? Yes

                      Is PKlopp going to see this when he gets up in the UK and tear me a new one? Probably

                      Comment


                      • Otzi, nobody is saying resistant starch is bad for you. I think the majority of us are trying to wrap our heads around why it's NECESSARY though. You seem to be recommending it to everyone and everything and I think we're trying to figure out what it is that makes it so special and unique when our evidence is showing that it's not, that it's simply another form of fiber that makes up a small piece of our diets.

                        We're all wondering why we should go out of our way to seek this out. I, and I'm sure many others, are just not seeing the compelling evidence behind the benefits of resistant starch that you are.

                        So, in summation, nobody is saying that it's bad for you. But we aren't seeing any special reason to make such a big fuss over it anyway, so we're all wondering why you seem to go to such great lengths to defend it.
                        "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


                        • Originally posted by Drumroll View Post
                          Otzi, nobody is saying resistant starch is bad for you. I think the majority of us are trying to wrap our heads around why it's NECESSARY though. You seem to be recommending it to everyone and everything and I think we're trying to figure out what it is that makes it so special and unique when our evidence is showing that it's not, that it's simply another form of fiber that makes up a small piece of our diets.

                          We're all wondering why we should go out of our way to seek this out. I, and I'm sure many others, are just not seeing the compelling evidence behind the benefits of resistant starch that you are.

                          So, in summation, nobody is saying that it's bad for you. But we aren't seeing any special reason to make such a big fuss over it anyway, so we're all wondering why you seem to go to such great lengths to defend it.
                          This.

                          I'm all for the starch eaters eating potatoes when they feel like it.
                          But I don't understand promoting them obsessively to the exclusion of other foods.

                          Lots of foods are great, you don't need to eat potatoes every single day... and no one ever needs to eat raw potatoes.
                          Potatoes one day, sweet potatoes the next... maybe some roasted mixed root veg like rutabagas, turnips, and parsnips and whatnot for a change the next.
                          How about a baked sweet plantain the next day.
                          No need not to keep the diet varied.
                          Heck, even those folks noshing on some roasted brussels sprouts and sauteed onions are doing OK.
                          There are good foods all over the place!
                          Chill man.
                          “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 cori93437 View Post
                            I'm all for the starch eaters eating potatoes when they feel like it.
                            But I don't understand promoting them obsessively to the exclusion of other foods.

                            Lots of foods are great, you don't need to eat potatoes every single day... and no one ever needs to eat raw potatoes.
                            Potatoes one day, sweet potatoes the next... maybe some roasted mixed root veg like rutabagas, turnips, and parsnips and whatnot for a change the next.
                            How about a baked sweet plantain the next day.
                            No need not to keep the diet varied.
                            Heck, even those folks noshing on some roasted brussels sprouts and sauteed onions are doing OK.
                            There are good foods all over the place!
                            Chill man.
                            I think this post is spot on. It also highlights a big food source missing from most PB'ers diets, the starchy tuber.

                            For the record, when I eat a potato, I don't do it because of the RS. I just think the RS is a nice little hidden bonus, much like the zinc in my oysters.

                            I had never heard of RS until a month or so ago. It's been fun defending it because it made me go out and look at a lot of research and the more I dig, the more I like it.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Drumroll View Post
                              So, in summation, nobody is saying that it's bad for you. But we aren't seeing any special reason to make such a big fuss over it anyway, so we're all wondering why you seem to go to such great lengths to defend it.
                              As far as I know, this is the only RS thread in existence and it was started by PKlopp, not me. I only take time to defend RS because there are so many carb-phobic people around here who should see that all carbs aren't bad and may be good.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by otzi View Post
                                As far as I know, this is the only RS thread in existence and it was started by PKlopp, not me. I only take time to defend RS because there are so many carb-phobic people around here who should see that all carbs aren't bad and may be good.
                                Dude...
                                I think you mistake "carb phobic" for people who are simply at a different place than you in their diet right now.

                                Some people with substantial weight to lose simply do better with less carbs.
                                It helps with satiety to do it that way. It helps restructure their eating habits long term even... just ask people like SBhikes.
                                It doesn't mean they are going to be that way forever or that they "fear" carbs... it just means that's where they are right now.

                                I really wish people would stop seeing this as some sort of Us vs. Them issue.
                                It's not.
                                “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

                                Working...
                                X