Page 21 of 26 FirstFirst ... 111920212223 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 210 of 252

Thread: Resistant Starch - A Solution In Search of a Problem page 21

  1. #201
    pklopp's Avatar
    pklopp is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    London
    Posts
    529
    Primal Blueprint Expert Certification
    Quote Originally Posted by RSQueen View Post
    Let's go on the assumption that fermentable fiber is good.
    Sorry? Due to the massive, overwhelming, irrefutable evidence supporting this assumption? Let's not until we have a reason to do so.

    Quote Originally Posted by RSQueen View Post
    The fermentation of RS helps keep colon tissue healthy. That's what they showed in a recent paper. In people that had colitis that developed because the contents of their intestinal tract were diverted, RS was delivered to the colon and the "mucosal appearance returned to normal".
    What if I were to make this argument to you :

    Quote Originally Posted by Some deranged Bizarro Universe version of PK
    Administering insulin to type I diabetics results in normoglycemia and improved markers of health, therefore we should administer insulin to everyone.
    That is a ludicrous syllogism, of course, but it is exactly the same as advocating RS to everyone because it is beneficial for unhealthy folks suffering from colitis. Healthy people aren't the same as sick people ... do I really need to put that in writing?

    Quote Originally Posted by RSQueen View Post
    Natural RS has a very high dose tolerance - other fermentable fibers create gas, cramping, bloating, etc at levels they put into nutrition bars. RS is fermented slowly - you can get enough of it to help you. Most studies find that people can eat about 75 grams of Hi-maize resistant starch (that's 40 grams of fiber) before researchers find a statistically significant increase in gas.
    I would love to see your source for this.

    Quote Originally Posted by RSQueen View Post
    Which brings us back to an original question - eat foods rich in RS (and not tons of high glycemic carbs) and don't develop insulin resistance, or eat un-healthy food, develop first insulin resistance, then diabetes and then get treated with these drugs. If you're stuck somewhere in the middle and have already developed insulin resistance, I would absolutely take all precautions and dietary approaches to reverse it. RS helps with this, no doubt about it. I for one can't eat raw potatoes and my family won't eat beans or green bananas very often.

    And yes, you need to carefully read the scientific papers to confirm their findings. Maki found improved insulin sensitivity in men but not in women. He used methods accepted in the research and measurement of insulin sensitivity. Denise Robertson at the University of Surrey has found improved sensitivity and lower levels of insulin in men and women using the gold standard method for measuring insulin sensitivity (the hyperinsulinemic euglycemic clamp). They are still investigating the mechanisms behind it. Animal studies suggest that GLP-1 and PYY and other hormones produced in the gut are involved, but the data isn't there to confirm the exact mechanism in humans. But the fact remains - people who have eaten Hi-maize have lower levels of insulin and higher glucose uptake into their muscle tissues than people who have not eaten Hi-maize.
    The benefits you cite above have nothing to do with resistant starch and everything to do with the effects of short chain fatty acids on metabolism. Once you start talking about insulin sensitivity, you have already presupposed that RS has been converted to SCFAs that have been systemically absorbed and integrated metabolically. But if that is the case, you need to give me a rock solid reason why I wouldn't ingest more SCFAs directly without having to go through the insipid gymnastics of having some cooperative bacteria produce SCFAs with a minimum of gases ( hopefully ).

    You say you want butyrate? Great, eat butter. Acetate is more your cup of tea? Better make that a cup of vinegar, then, since vinegar = acetic acid = acetate, the shortest saturated fat known to man, assuming you don't count formic acid.

    This will have you falling back on the argument that RS is good for the colonic enterocytes, to which I will, of course, ask you to produce studies supporting your claims that do not rely upon samples from populations that exhibit some pathology or another. In other words, please show me, if you would, that healthy people need to go out rooting / foraging for RS.

    -PK
    My blog : cogitoergoedo.com

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

  2. #202
    Rasputina's Avatar
    Rasputina is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,023
    Isn't it possible that the different resistant starch foods are good for some things and not great for other things? For example, the RS in the cold potatoes may be beneficial because it can help promote gut health, act as a probiotic, and may help colon cells AND potatoes may not be so beneficial in the arthritis department.
    P.S. sorry if I sound naive, I just don't understand the big tug-o-war over this!
    Last edited by Rasputina; 01-29-2013 at 05:26 PM.

  3. #203
    RSQueen's Avatar
    RSQueen is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Clinton, NJ
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by cori93437 View Post
    Yes.

    The issue I was speaking to is the fact that a few members of our community feel that if a persons tolerance for oligosaccharides is on the low side that it is because they are "broken" and they need to be "fixed" somehow, not because they simply have a lower tolerance to a different substance, which is why I made the comparison to people who are lactose intolerant and cannot drink say milk without getting the effects, but who can put cream in their coffee and be fine.
    This recent review cites the data on both inulin, FOS and resistant starch. Grabitske, Hollie A. and Slavin, Joanne L.(2009) 'Gastrointestinal Effects of Low-Digestible Carbohydrates', Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 49: 4, 327 360.

    If everybody has issues with fermenting higher levels of oligosaccharides, perhaps its because the human body isn't made to digest a lot of oligosaccharides. There's nothing to be fixed. Fermentable fibers promote the growth of health-promoting bacteria.

  4. #204
    RSQueen's Avatar
    RSQueen is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Clinton, NJ
    Posts
    25
    [QUOTE=otzi;1077248]RSQueen - If a good way of using Hi-Maize for RS is to put it in a smoothie, wouldn't potato starch be just as, or more, effective? QUOTE]

    That's a great idea. However, raw potatoes contain higher levels of phytate, which interferes with mineral absorption. That's why they're considered toxic. I've never seen anybody promote the consumption of raw potatoes.

    And thanks for your encouragement.

  5. #205
    RSQueen's Avatar
    RSQueen is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Clinton, NJ
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by pklopp View Post
    You say you want butyrate? Great, eat butter. Acetate is more your cup of tea? Better make that a cup of vinegar, then, since vinegar = acetic acid = acetate, the shortest saturated fat known to man, assuming you don't count formic acid.

    This will have you falling back on the argument that RS is good for the colonic enterocytes, to which I will, of course, ask you to produce studies supporting your claims that do not rely upon samples from populations that exhibit some pathology or another. In other words, please show me, if you would, that healthy people need to go out rooting / foraging for RS.

    -PK
    This thread has covered this point before - SCFAs that are eaten in foods are consumed as food and broken down long before they get into the colon. The colonycytes never see SCFAS consumed in the diet.

    To answer your second question - I'll cite a study - you seem to like those.
    Conlon et al, Resistant starches protect against colonic DNA damage and alter microbiota and gene expression in rats fed a western diet. Journal of Nutrition, 2012;142(5):832-840. The researchers work for the CSIRO in Australia (similar to the US's National Institutes of Health). Twenty years ago, the Australian government encouraged food companies to increase fiber in the Australian diet. They actually did - the dietary consumption of dietary fiber in Australia is now 25 grams/day. However, the incidence of colon cancer and other colon diseases have not budged one bit. They're still at the same levels they were 20 years ago. Here's the info from the CSIRO suggesting that not all fibers are equal - Australians have not increased fermentable fibers - they increased insoluble, nonfermentable wheat fiber from plant cell walls. There are literally 100 published studies showing that resistant starch promotes colon health.

  6. #206
    RSQueen's Avatar
    RSQueen is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Clinton, NJ
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasputina View Post
    Isn't it possible that the different resistant starch foods are good for some things and not great for other things? For example, the RS in the cold potatoes may be beneficial because it can help promote gut health, act as a probiotic, and may help colon cells AND potatoes may not be so beneficial in the arthritis department.
    P.S. sorry if I sound naive, I just don't understand the big tug-o-war over this!
    I think you're absolutely right. Foods naturally contain mixtures of all kinds of compounds. There's nothing that remotely suggests they're all good for you.

  7. #207
    otzi's Avatar
    otzi Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by RSQueen View Post
    That's a great idea. However, raw potatoes contain higher levels of phytate, which interferes with mineral absorption. That's why they're considered toxic. I've never seen anybody promote the consumption of raw potatoes.
    This goes against everything I thought I knew...

    A quick search turned up this:

    White potatoes have 0.111-0.269 percent of dry weight of phytic acid, a level approximately equivalent to the amount in white rice. Cooking does not significantly remove phytates in potatoes, but consumption of potatoes with plenty of butter or other animal fat in the context of a nutrient dense diet should be enough to mitigate the effects of phytate. Yams contain an amount of phytate equal to or less than that in white potatoes, and sweet potatoes contain no phytate at all. One idea for corn would be to soak/sour it with wheat such as in the process of making corn bread. Corn generally is prepared without the whole kernel, removing the kernel will reduce the phytate content a little bit. I don’t have further details on corn preparation, an entire article could be written on corn and traditional preparation.
    and this

    Corn is high in phytic acid and low in phytase. The Native Americans fermented cooked corn meal for two weeks, wrapped in corn husks, before preparing it as a flat bread or tortilla. In Africa, corn is fermented for long periods of time using a lactobacillis culture to produce foods like kishk, banku, or mawe. No such care is given to corn products in the western world! But you can prepare healthy corn products at home. As with oatmeal, the addition of a rye starter or rye flour to the soaking water may be particularly helpful in reducing phytate content—think of the colonial “Ryn‘n’Injun” bread made from rye and corn. In one research project, soaking ground corn with 10 percent whole rye flour resulted in a complete reduction of phytate in six hours.66 Again, more research—and more experimenting in the kitchen—is needed!
    (both from Living With Phytic Acid - Weston A Price Foundation, which was the first Google hit. I will dig a little deeper, though. )
    Last edited by otzi; 01-30-2013 at 08:52 AM.

  8. #208
    Neckhammer's Avatar
    Neckhammer is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    7,731
    Quote Originally Posted by RSQueen View Post
    This thread has covered this point before - SCFAs that are eaten in foods are consumed as food and broken down long before they get into the colon. The colonycytes never see SCFAS consumed in the diet.

    To answer your second question - I'll cite a study - you seem to like those.
    Conlon et al, Resistant starches protect against colonic DNA damage and alter microbiota and gene expression in rats fed a western diet. Journal of Nutrition, 2012;142(5):832-840. The researchers work for the CSIRO in Australia (similar to the US's National Institutes of Health). Twenty years ago, the Australian government encouraged food companies to increase fiber in the Australian diet. They actually did - the dietary consumption of dietary fiber in Australia is now 25 grams/day. However, the incidence of colon cancer and other colon diseases have not budged one bit. They're still at the same levels they were 20 years ago. Here's the info from the CSIRO suggesting that not all fibers are equal - Australians have not increased fermentable fibers - they increased insoluble, nonfermentable wheat fiber from plant cell walls. There are literally 100 published studies showing that resistant starch promotes colon health.
    Well I have been following along and just wanted to point out that you have indeed fallen back on the colonycyte claim rather than addressing the metabolic activity that Pklopp had asked about. He stated that the metabolic effect (not speaking of local colonic cells) of the SCFA's were achievable through ingestion of foods such as butter and vinegar. Course its his thread so I'll just leave it there for you guys to continue on with

  9. #209
    pklopp's Avatar
    pklopp is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    London
    Posts
    529
    Quote Originally Posted by RSQueen View Post
    This thread has covered this point before - SCFAs that are eaten in foods are consumed as food and broken down long before they get into the colon. The colonycytes never see SCFAS consumed in the diet.

    Although Neckhammer already beat me to the punch ... I was in the middle of writing this up, so, I'll post it anyway so as not to feel that I wasted my time : you must have missed the part of my post where I predicted that you would fall back on the SCFAs are good for the colonocytes mantra. Moving right along, you are therefore conceding the point that the insulin sensitivity argument is due entirely to SCFA metabolism? Good. I am fully aware that SCFAs are water soluble, are readily absorbed directly into plasma in the small intestine and not via the lymphatic system / chylomicron transport mechanism and I've never argued otherwise.


    Quote Originally Posted by RSQueen View Post
    To answer your second question - I'll cite a study - you seem to like those.
    No, actually, I don't like studies. Many are badly conceived, some poorly executed, others intentionally misleading, and all are time consuming to read and understand. I do happen to be exceedingly fond of evidence, which forces my hand, unfortunately.

    Quote Originally Posted by RSQueen View Post
    Conlon et al, Resistant starches protect against colonic DNA damage and alter microbiota and gene expression in rats fed a western diet. Journal of Nutrition, 2012;142(5):832-840. The researchers work for the CSIRO in Australia (similar to the US's National Institutes of Health). Twenty years ago, the Australian government encouraged food companies to increase fiber in the Australian diet. They actually did - the dietary consumption of dietary fiber in Australia is now 25 grams/day. However, the incidence of colon cancer and other colon diseases have not budged one bit. They're still at the same levels they were 20 years ago. Here's the info from the CSIRO suggesting that not all fibers are equal - Australians have not increased fermentable fibers - they increased insoluble, nonfermentable wheat fiber from plant cell walls. There are literally 100 published studies showing that resistant starch promotes colon health.
    Hmmm, a rat study ... I suppose this is a result of my lack of specificity since when I asked earlier for evidence from a population that did not exhibit some pathology, I neglected to mention my interest in human populations. Nevertheless, it is my mess to fix in a sense, so let's get on with it.

    So, to recap, the article title boldly proclaims "Resistant starches protect against colonic DNA damage blah blah blah" It behooves us, then, to look at the results regarding colonic DNA damage, according to the researchers themselves:

    Quote Originally Posted by Conlon et al.
    Colonocyte DNA single-strand breaks (SSB) were significantly higher (by 70%) in rats fed the Western diet containing LAMS relative to controls. Dietary HAW, HAMS, and HAMSB opposed this effect while raising digesta levels of SCFA and lowering ammonia and phenol levels.
    Breaks in DNA are bad and a potential leading indicator for cancer, so the fact that the "western diet containing LAMS" had 70% higher SSBs is of concern. The researchers attribute this to the protective effects of resistant starch, so it all sounds like a pretty damning indictment of non-resistant starch, low amylose diets, designated as LA by the researchers. In this case, they actually fed two variants of LA diets to their rats, one with low amylose maize starch ( corn starch ) designated LAMS, and one with low amylose wheat starch, designated LAW.

    But if we dig just a wee bit deeper, we find this gem of a diagram:



    What this diagram tells us is that with the exception of the "western diet containing LAMS", for all intents and purposes, all other variants did not differ in a significant way in their effect on SSBs. Most remarkably, this includes other variants of the diet low in RS ( see C-LAMS and W-LAW in the diagram). Which is to say, the true question is not how did the RS provided by the other diets protect against SSBs, but rather, what is it about the specifics of the W-LAMS diet that is so toxic to rat colons?

    With that question fresh in our minds, let's look at what these rats were fed:

    Quote Originally Posted by Conlon et al.
    The dietary compositions (Supplemental Table 1) were based on the AIN-93 diet (22). The composition of dietary wheat components (Supplemental Table 2) was determined using standard analytical methods as previously described (21). In the maize starch diets, casein (~80% protein) was the main protein source, with the remainder coming from wheat bran (~20%) (Supplemental Table 2). The control diet contained 7% fat, 13% protein, a highly digestible starch [low amylose maize starch (LAMS); National Starch Food Innovation], and 22% wheat bran as the fiber source. The control treatment is designated C-LAMS. The other diets, all moderate in fat (19%) and protein (20%) (deemed a Western diet), differed primarily with respect to the sources and forms of polysaccharides.
    So what on earth does the AIN-93 rodent diet consist of? Well, something along these lines :



    For the purposes of the study, the researchers mucked about with the source of the starch, but they also played a little fast and loose with the fats, substituting "a blend of palm and canola oils prepared by Goodman Fielder Limited (Australia) that contained ~39% SFA, 46% MUFA, and 15% PUFA" for the soybean oil specified by AIN-93. I'm not sure why they did this, and it may have something to do with the insulin resistance inducing effects of palmitic acid. They were trying to make their rats sick, after all, to point out the miracle restorative properties of RS.

    It remains up to you to determine whether you consider a diet comprised of 60% starch, 20% protein ( all of it in the form of casein, a milk protein ), and 20% fat ( with palmitic acid as the predominant saturated fat ) as representative of the "western diet" for human beings. In the end, it is somewhat academic, because as we've already noted, changing from non-resistant corn starch to non-resistant wheat starch completely erases any benefit claimed for RS.

    Sigh, another few hours killed drilling through studies of dubious worth...

    -PK
    My blog : cogitoergoedo.com

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

  10. #210
    Neckhammer's Avatar
    Neckhammer is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    7,731
    Quote Originally Posted by pklopp View Post
    Although Neckhammer already beat me to the punch ...


    Sigh, another few hours killed drilling through studies of dubious worth...

    -PK
    Thats why I only made the obvious observation and left the heavy lifting to you

Page 21 of 26 FirstFirst ... 111920212223 ... 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
  •