“You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.”
And that's why I'm here eating HFLC Primal/Paleo.
Minions = 106
Binions = 109
I have searched the interwebz extensively, at least for 2 hours, which makes me a genius in this topic...
Someone talk me out of buying a bag of potato starch and adding 50g/day it to a cold food or beverage.
I see studies like this (abstract only, but that's OK, I wouldn't read it all anyway): Resistant starch: the effect on postprandial glycemia, hormonal response, and satiety.
I have not seen anywhere that raw potato starch, such as this: Opentip.com: Bob's Red Mill Potato Starch, Unmodified, All Natural - 4 x 24 ozs. would be bad for your health, or unhealthy in any way.The effect of resistant starch (RS) on postprandial plasma concentrations of glucose, lipids, and hormones, and on subjective satiety and palatability ratings was investigated in 10 healthy, normal-weight, young males. The test meals consisted of 50 g pregelatinized starch (0% RS) (S) or 50 g raw potato starch (54% RS) (R) together with 500 g artificially sweetened syrup. After the R meal postprandial plasma concentrations of glucose, lactate, insulin, gastric inhibitory polypeptide (GIP), glucagon-like peptide-1, and epinephrine were significantly lower compared with after the S meal. Moreover, subjective scores for satiety and fullness were significantly lower after the R meal than after the S meal. Differences in GIP, texture, and palatability may have been involved in these findings. In conclusion, the replacement of digestible starch with RS resulted in significant reductions in postprandial glycemia and insulinemia, and in the subjective sensations of satiety.
Many people have said NOT to eat raw potatoes, but I think that is just an old wives' tale. I will agree that eating raw potato skins, or potatoes with green in them is bad, but clean, peeled potatoes should be fine to eat in any amount.
Can anyone provide any info that eating potato starch (or even raw potato) is harmful?
Despite PKlopp's best attempts, I am still convinced RS has a place in our diet. I would love to try 30-50g/day and see what happens. I don't want to use Hi-Maize. I don't really want to eat that much raw potato. Unless someone can provide evidence that uncooked potato starch is not healthy, I may seriously try this soon.
Heres something http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8054990:
"As such, sequence similarities not only identify potato lectin as a member of both the hevein and extensin families of plant proteins, but also suggest that an archetypal polypeptide module gave rise to both the plant chitin-binding domain and the reptile disintegrins."
I wish I worked for a major news outlet.... Headlines read:
Potatoes contain rattlesnake venom!
I mean the paleo line on white potatoes is lectins and saponins contributing to increased gut permeability right? Then the sweet potato is of the marigold family rather than a nightshade and doesn't have these problems. Thats like old school Cordain right there though.
Last edited by Neckhammer; 01-31-2013 at 06:44 PM.
I still dont understand what you expect to gain from eating that much RS?
If you eat things that you cannot digest, then you probably shouldn't go about expecting them to have any effect on your blood levels of anything resembling a nutrient ( like say, glucose, for instance ). If there were effects, then that would imply that you had digested and absorbed the things you ate. This directly contradicts our initial assumption about eating "things you cannot digest."
Resistant starch is called "resistant" because it resists digestion, slotting nicely into the "things you cannot digest category." Other things that slot nicely into that category : sawdust, the Statue of Liberty, and Olestra.
So, if I were to feed you a serving of 50g of sawdust, finely ground and mixed in with an artificially sweetened syrup, what would a reasonable person expect to happen to your glucose levels in your blood stream? Well, unless you possess the digestive system of a termite, I would expect them to say that if there were no carbohydrates you could digest in that "meal", there would be a negligible effect, if any, on blood glucose levels.
If we were then to replace the 50g of sawdust with a 50g bolus of readily digested glucose polymers ( just take a look at the glycemic index of cooked potatoes for an indication of just how readily digested they are ) I would expect a massive and immediate effect on glycemia, insulinemia, as well as subjective assessments of increased satiety ( as in, I actually ate food as opposed to sawdust, so I feel more satiated ).
Thanks, Otzi, for pulling up a stellar example of the kind of study that I abhor. These so called scientists undertook an experiment to prove that giving someone high glycemic index carbohydrates elicits different effects from giving then the dietary equivalent of sawdust. That is truly mind bogglingly banal. I wish it were possible for you to see my expression right now, I am completely non-plussed ( you should probably look that up, by the way, it probably means the opposite of what you think it does )!
If I were to undertake this experiment, I'd need a clear set of outcomes to watch for. Not sure what they'd be at this point, but something along the lines of better glucose control than I have now, better metabolism as seen by thyroid function, better cholesterol numbers. I hate throwing a whole bunch of things in at once, so I'm giving PHD and starch a nice long run, like 6 months, then get some labs along the way and see where I'm at.
How does one know they have a healthy gut? I think mine's pretty healthy right now, how would you know if you made it healthier. I'm just fascinated by the sheer amount of work being done on RS and trying to capitalize in a primal way.