Resistant Starch - A Solution In Search of a Problem page 12

[Drumroll]

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?

[peril]

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

[cori93437]

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.

[Drumroll]

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.

[otzi]

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

[Drumroll]

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.

[cori93437]

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.

[otzi]

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.

[otzi]

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.

[cori93437]

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.