Page 13 of 26 FirstFirst ... 3111213141523 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 252

Thread: Resistant Starch - A Solution In Search of a Problem page 13

  1. #121
    Drumroll's Avatar
    Drumroll is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    3,900
    Primal Fuel
    Us vs. them...

    I like that term for describing the issue. It's not that we fear carbs, it's that we're taking advantage of being low carb because of the benefits. And no, it doesn't mean that we'll be low carb forever!

  2. #122
    otzi's Avatar
    otzi Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by cori93437 View Post
    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.
    There are people who do LC with great success and there are those who think it's the only option.

    I did not touch a drop of starch and kept my carbs under 50-100g for about 2 years, thinking it's what I needed to do to prevent 'insidious weight-gain'. The only ones talking about carbs were the chocotaco's ofthe crowd and they got hammered. Since upping my carbs from 50-100g to 150-250g, nothing bad has happened, and in fact good things have happened.

    6 months ago I would have cried "Oh HAIL No!" if someone suggested I eat 2 potatoes a day. I don't think I go out of my way to dissuade others from eating LC. I think there's a time and place for everything.

    Friends?

  3. #123
    otzi's Avatar
    otzi Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Drumroll View Post
    Us vs. them...

    I like that term for describing the issue. It's not that we fear carbs, it's that we're taking advantage of being low carb because of the benefits. And no, it doesn't mean that we'll be low carb forever!
    There are the 'Them' that fear carbs, tho. I sure was one. I was positive that adding any carbs would cause instant weight gain. I lived in a glycogen depleted state trying to build muscle only hitting wall after wall and setting my sights lower time and time again. I guess I'm 'that guy' the ex-smoker, the born-again Christian...

  4. #124
    cori93437's Avatar
    cori93437 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    central FL
    Posts
    6,715
    Quote Originally Posted by otzi View Post
    Friends?
    Sho nuff...

    The LC is "bad" thing is just too much sometimes.
    It has it's place just like higher carbs does.

    Even in the "Eat MAOR Fat" thread a few people have come in to go keto and been redirected to try other approaches first because the more experienced of the HFLC crowd didn't think that the keto thing was really right for a really active lifestyle, because they had very little weight to lose, or they were a person just starting out in Primal and were recommended to give the regular PB a good several months go before trying something more strict.
    But we are certainly especially welcoming to anyone who has been trying and failing, has binging/emotional eating issues, quite a lot of weight to lose, feels like they are hungrier when they eat carby foods... because those are things we are all familiar with to some degree or another.

    Low carbers aren't trying to suck everyone in.
    “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.


  5. #125
    Dirlot's Avatar
    Dirlot is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Edmonton Canada
    Posts
    2,499
    When you look at the studies that show low carb/ketogenic diets have on brain health you would stay low cab.

    So let me get this right, we need to eat resistant starch do promote gut bacteria that digest resistant starch. If we don't eat resistant starch we won't have the bacteria to digest is?!? So?
    Eating primal is not a diet, it is a way of life.
    PS
    Don't forget to play!

  6. #126
    RSQueen's Avatar
    RSQueen is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Clinton, NJ
    Posts
    25
    Quote 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.

    I'm new to this site, so I'll apologize in advance for mistakes that I make. I have been using resistant starch for 10 years and am hoping to provide some insights to this string, which I've been reading for days. There are 3 types of fiber - bulking, viscous and fermenting. You need all 3 kinds for good health. Bulking = wheat bran, psyllium, cellulose in plant cell walls. They promote regularity because they hold onto a lot of water and stimulate the physical movement through the intestinal tract. Viscous = beta-glucan from oats and barley. It thickens the contents of the intestinal tract to slow down the absorption of cholesterol and glucose. Fermenting = inulin (soluble), resistant starch (insoluble), lots of other fibers are partially fermented. Most bulking fibers are NOT fermented - they are physically incapable of triggering the health benefits of fermentable fibers because they are not fermented. The data is explained in more details than most people can understand in a book chapter by Dan Gallaher of the Univ of MN published in 2006 by the International Life Science Institute called Present Knowledge in Nutrition, 9th edition. The fermentating fibers are becoming more recognized as important because they feed the microbiota in your gut, which are becoming recognized as more and more important (i.e., the Human Microbiome Project has gotten good publicity over the past year). Different fermenting fibers appear to feed different types of bacteria and a lot of researchers are tracking which fibers increase which bacteria and what the impact turns out to be. There's a lot more questions than answers in this area right now because the large intestinal fermentation has been regarded as a black box for decades. It is widely recognized that intestinal fermentation contributes to health, but nobody is saying that one fermenting fiber is NECESSARY. However, if you feed your gut good fibers (often called prebiotics) and good bacteria (probiotics), it works better.

    The best food sources of resistant starch are slightly green bananas (containing appx 4.7 g of resistant starch/medium banana), beans (3.7 g of resistant starch in 1/2 cup cooked white beans) and lentils (3.4 grams of resistant starch in a 1/2 cup of cooked lentils). Yes, raw potatoes are all resistant starch. When you cook it, the starch gelatinizes and the starch granules burst open and it all becomes rapidly digestible - it will spike your blood sugar levels strongly. When a cooked potato is cooled, the glucose chains crystallize a bit and forms about 12% resistant starch. All in all, cooked and cool potatoes deliver low levels of RS - in the range of 1 gram/cup.

    The strongest data that I've seen for why you should care about resistant starch is that it improves insulin sensitivity, directly, immediately and without requiring you to lose weight, or exercise. Its fermentation in the large intestine produces different short-chain fatty acids from fermentation than other types of fermentable fibers (i.e., inulin, FOS or beta-glucan). They don't know why - researchers are still working on it. However, 6 human clinical studies have been published showing that when people eat resistant starch (an isolated ingredient called Hi-maize resistant corn starch - delivering 15 grams of fiber/day or more), their insulin levels go down and their blood sugar control improves. The National Institutes of Health is funding 3 additional clinical trials to work on figuring out these mechanisms and metabolic shifts. Other fibers may do similar things, but nobody knows right now.

    My apologies for dumping a lot of data on you - I thought it would help clarify some of the questions that are being raised.

  7. #127
    otzi's Avatar
    otzi Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Dirlot View Post
    When you look at the studies that show low carb/ketogenic diets have on brain health you would stay low cab.
    Actually, I am on a LC diet. Most everybody who eats PB style and adds up to a pound or so of potato, rice, or other starch would still be considered LC, by CW standards anyway. I am in the 100-200g/day range. Not ketogenic, by any means, and I think ketogenic diets have their place for medical reasons.


    So let me get this right, we need to eat resistant starch do promote gut bacteria that digest resistant starch. If we don't eat resistant starch we won't have the bacteria to digest is?!? So?
    Your conclusion about RS is completely different than mine. I came to the conclusion that we should try to eat some RS because it promotes healthy conditions for colonocytes, the cells that line your colon and are the first line of defense in the gut-blood barrier. Healthy colonocytes = Healthy gut. I am a big believer in the fact our gut and gut bacteria play a huge roll in health.

    Quote Originally Posted by RSQueen View Post
    My apologies for dumping a lot of data on you - I thought it would help clarify some of the questions that are being raised.
    Thanks! Be prepared to be dragged through the coals!

  8. #128
    Drumroll's Avatar
    Drumroll is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    3,900
    RSQueen, I'm willing to give you that resistant starch might be good for gut bacteria. In fact, scratch might. It is. I believe it. But as long as things are moving smoothly already, I still don't see the need to go to special lengths to seek them out. Oh, and believe me when I say I replenish my good gut bacteria with plenty of fermented foods almost daily.

    And all of this begs the question... If resistant starch is so good for you, where are my resistant starch supplements at the health food store?

  9. #129
    RSQueen's Avatar
    RSQueen is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Clinton, NJ
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by otzi View Post
    Your conclusion about RS is completely different than mine. I came to the conclusion that we should try to eat some RS because it promotes healthy conditions for colonocytes, the cells that line your colon and are the first line of defense in the gut-blood barrier. Healthy colonocytes = Healthy gut. I am a big believer in the fact our gut and gut bacteria play a huge roll in health.



    Thanks! Be prepared to be dragged through the coals!
    Thanks OTZI. I completely agree with you that a healthy gut leads to health. There is not one way to get there, nor one right answer. I just have heard so much rhetoric about increasing specific types of bacteria which are assumed to lead to health without clear evidence of that connection. So, I do look for evidence linking all the way through the bacteria to a health condition (a higher hurdle indeed).

    You might be interested in a new study from LSU, who have been working with Hi-maize for many years. They have shown that the microbiome profile of aged rats is very different from the microbiome of younger rats. They have also shown that when they feed aged rats resistant starch, the microbiome profile changes and looks a lot more like that found in younger rats. They're not sure of all of the health implications but it goes beyond one or two strains of bacteria. The reference is Tachon Sybille, Zhou J, Keenan M, Martin R, Marco ML. The intestinal microbiota in aged mice is modulated by dietary resistant starch and correlated to improvements in host responses. FEMS Microbiology Ecology. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-6941.2012.01475.x. Epub ahead of print Sept 17, 2012.

    I hesitate to step into these types of discussions as I have been ripped apart upon occasion. I sympathize with people who have figured out what works for them being hesitant to hear information from outsiders who have not gone through their experiences and frustrations. I have my own frustrations in figuring out what works for me. It's too often, however, that low carbers discount the possibility that one type of carb (in this case resistant starch) can actually help them manage the health conditions they're trying to address (wide swings in blood sugar and insulin levels). I compare it fats - years ago, everybody thought that all fats were bad for them until the evidence was overwhelming that omega-3 fatty acids were health promoting. Today, most people believe that all starches are bad for them but the evidence is building that resistant starch is health promoting. It's not a silver bullet - that doesn't exist. But, a healthy intestinal environment is critical to overall health, and you can enable metabolic shifts through fermentation that help promote blood sugar health. Not eating carbohydrates at all won't promote blood sugar health - it just prevents further degradation. Reversing insulin resistance is actually better, all while you're keeping your colonocytes healthy and facilitating regularity.

  10. #130
    pklopp's Avatar
    pklopp is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    London
    Posts
    531
    Primal Blueprint Expert Certification
    Quote Originally Posted by otzi View Post
    Don't know why I even bother, but this study: Health properties of resistant starch - Nugent - 2005 - Nutrition Bulletin - Wiley Online Library

    So, I stand by my conclusion that a couple potatoes a day would be extremely healthy. The starchy substrate, recommended at 60-80g above, is there as well as a dose of RS a bit higher than a standard western diet. To give further impact, about half of the potatoes should be eaten cooked and cooled and a few pieces eaten raw.

    I'm 100% positive this will not satisfy you and look forward to seeing your rebuttal.
    You are prescient, Otzi, this hardly satisfies me.



    Quote Originally Posted by Otzi
    Gives an upper limit of 30g:
    Resistant starch appears to have no adverse impact on gastrointestinal function in well-nourished people and may even promote health in children with diarrhoeal disease (Topping & Clifton 2001). In addition, it appears to be more readily acceptable than other forms of dietary fibre (e.g. wheat bran) at high levels in the human diet (Ferguson et al. 2003). It has been reported that it is not feasible for humans to consume more than 30 g/day of RS due to problems with flatulence, belching, bloating, mild laxative effects and stomach aches (Heijnen et al. 1996); however, it is unlikely that humans would consume such high levels of RS without aggressive supplementation and in some instances RS was supplemented in association with other forms of dietary fibre. No cases of allergic reactions have been reported following supplementation with more traditional forms of RS, such as those made from high amylose maize (Goldring 2004). At present, other new sources of starch being used which are based on other types of starch including tapioca, potato and wheat. At present, there is little information regarding their effects, or those of RS4, in humans; more comprehensive information and studies are needed in vivo.
    I've highlighted the parts above where the discussion tells us that eating anywhere near 30g of resistant starch is very difficult to do without "aggressive supplementation." That's neither here nor there because we are after some indication as to what is optimal, as opposed to what is tolerable. Even straight poisons are tolerable in small enough doses.


    Quote Originally Posted by Otzi
    Average and optimal discussed here:

    Several studies have attempted to quantify population dietary intakes of RS. However, a number of different methods of analyses of RS were used in these studies and this makes any real comparisons between countries and/or studies difficult. From population studies, 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).

    Worldwide, dietary intakes of RS are believed to vary considerably. It is estimated that intakes of RS in developing countries with high starch consumption rates range from approximately 30 to 40 g/day (Baghurst et al. 2001). Dietary intakes in India and China were recently estimated at 10 and 18 g/day (Platel & Shurpalekar 1994; Muir et al. 1998). Intakes in the EU are thought to lie between 3 and 6 g/day (Dyssler & Hoffmann, 1994). Dietary intakes of RS in the UK are estimated at 2.76 g/day (Tomlin & Read 1990) and are believed to range from 5 to 7 g/day in Australia (Baghurst et al. 2001). In the study of Baghurst et al. (2001) the authors analysed population dietary intakes of RS using Australian National Dietary Survey data for the years 1988 and 1993 and a foods database which they constructed using analytical data from published findings and data presented at a scientific (EURESTA) meeting. The main sources of RS for this cohort were cereals (42%), vegetables (26%) and fruit and fruit juice (22%). There was little evidence of any age- or occupation-related trends in the density of RS in the diet. However, this data must be viewed with caution as it represents only a small amount of data, a number of techniques were used to ascertain the amount of RS in foods, the authors reported inconsistencies in the database and the data refers to Australian dietary intakes. As mentioned earlier, intakes of RS in Australia are likely to be greater than in Europe due to the commercial availability of top-selling breads and cakes that are enriched with RS.
    These are just observational studies. They tell us the amounts of RS that various populations across the world ingest. There is no mention as to what is optimal apart from the unattributed speculative sentence : "...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." Believed by whom? What substrate are they talking about here? There is also a factual problem insofar as they meant to say "1013-1014 species of organisms found in the human large bowel." In terms of organisms count, you get about 10^12 ( 1 trillion ) bacterial cells per ml in your colon.

    The biggest problem with these sorts of studies, however, is that they assume that all of the 1014 species of bacteria are worthy of cultivation and beneficial to the host ( you ). This is simply not the case and several of the species in your colon have been implicated in the etiology of colorectal cancer. Of course, my question to you was not about the optimal feeding of gut microflora, but rather about the optimal level of colonic fermentation for the benefit of the human host via the generation of SCFA. This study does absolutely nothing to address that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Otzi
    Importance of RS from starch as opposed to inulins, etc...:

    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).
    Apart from not addressing the optimal level of colonic fermentation for human health, the conclusions from this study are so banal as to make you wonder what was the amount of the bribe given to the editors of the publication where this appeared.

    Imagine that cats and dogs eat completely separate diets. One day you place 1 kg of cat food in your back yard, and then you perform a bioassay ( you count the number of critters in your back yard ) So you get a bunch of cats in your backyard. You then do the same with 1 kg of dog food, taking another bioassay. Lastly, you put 1kg of dog food and 1kg of cat food in your backyard and again count the organisms. Lo and behold, much to your banal surprise, cat food combined with dog food gets you more critters in your back yard.

    It really should be no surprise to anyone by now that nutrients can have synergistic effects, should it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Otzi
    All that
    So, I stand by my conclusion that a couple potatoes a day would be extremely healthy. The starchy substrate, recommended at 60-80g above, is there as well as a dose of RS a bit higher than a standard western diet. To give further impact, about half of the potatoes should be eaten cooked and cooled and a few pieces eaten raw.

    I'm 100% positive this will not satisfy you and look forward to seeing your rebuttal.
    You still have not provided any evidence to support your stand on RS.

    -PK
    My blog : cogitoergoedo.com

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

Page 13 of 26 FirstFirst ... 3111213141523 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •