Page 23 of 26 FirstFirst ... 132122232425 ... LastLast
Results 221 to 230 of 252

Thread: Resistant Starch - A Solution In Search of a Problem page 23

  1. #221
    otzi's Avatar
    otzi Guest
    Primal Fuel
    Quote Originally Posted by pklopp View Post
    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 )!

    -PK
    I'm starting to see value in your comments and the way you interpret papers.

    But back to the question: Is there anything in potato starch, consumed cold, that would be inherently un-healthful?

    Thanks

  2. #222
    Neckhammer's Avatar
    Neckhammer is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    7,728
    That is the conundrum otzi. How are you planning to validate your findings if you take this on? Going from healthy to healthier does not really show up in lab tests. Those things are hardly specific enough to diagnose disease in most cases let alone to speak of optimization. Honestly thats the gripe I have with some of the testing done on any "healthy" person trying to tweak and biohack.

  3. #223
    otzi's Avatar
    otzi Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Neckhammer View Post
    That is the conundrum otzi. How are you planning to validate your findings if you take this on? Going from healthy to healthier does not really show up in lab tests. Those things are hardly specific enough to diagnose disease in most cases let alone to speak of optimization. Honestly thats the gripe I have with some of the testing done on any "healthy" person trying to tweak and biohack.
    Back in the day, I was pre-diabetic. My FBG was around 120, but A1C was normal. During 2 years of LC, my FBG quickly went down to about 95, but crept up to 100. Now that I've added starch back in, I see my FBG is 110-115 some days. If this doesn't self-correct, I need to do something.

    Also, on LC, my TSH crept up into hypothyroid territory and they put me on thyroid meds a few months back. Since adding starch, I think the meds are making me hyperthyroid, which would be a cause of high FBG. I cut my thyroid meds in half and have an endo appt in 2 weeks for labs.

    My hdl has gone from 25 to 60 in last 2 years, ldl from 120's to 200's. Trigs from 400 to 50. I'll be curious where these settle at after 6 months of starch, but would also be a marker.

    Blood pressure used to be high, now normal. All my labs are normal. If starch increase improves the labs I'm watching, I will probably not try any targeted RS. But since this thread is still going I thought this would be a good time to get some thoughts on potato starch for RS to mull over for a while.

    I've never seen anything that would indicate raw potato starch would be harmful, no matter how dumb the idea.

  4. #224
    pklopp's Avatar
    pklopp is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    London
    Posts
    529
    Quote Originally Posted by otzi View Post
    I'm just fascinated by the sheer amount of work being done on RS and trying to capitalize in a primal way.
    A couple of observations here. A lot of this research is being done as part of a food science effort on behalf of the food industry so they can justify why you ought to eat their "food products". You've already seen this with "heart healthy" marketing, and soon, you will probably see "colon biome health promoting", or some similar and suitably marketing friendly slogan lavished on the box. With this in mind, the level of activity around RS ought to make you suspicious. A few posts back I replied to a study posted by RSQueen which used wheat flour as one of the dietary interventions, an intervention that produced similar results to the high amylose maize starch (RS) intervention. What was really, really interesting was how in the paper, that little detail was completely glossed over, swept under the research rug. I suspect that this is because wheat flour is a hard sell, particularly with all the gluten, WGA backlash and so on so not even the deep pockets of the food industry are willing to attempt to spend their way out of that marketing black hole.

    Second, whether your dietary philosophy is primal, paleo, or your own homebrew admixture, if one of its basic tenets is an attempt to be true to the dietary evolutionary history of mankind, then the first thing you need to realize is that your evolutionary history is indelibly etched in your metabolism. You can speculate about what prehistoric man ate all the day long, but if a healthy metabolism lacks the chemical machinery to process a given substance, then that substance cannot and should not be labelled a nutrient.

    With that in mind, the strategy of purposefully eating resistant starch has a problem, and that problem goes by the name of ptyalin.

    You may know ptyalin by its not so secret identity as salivary amylase. If you are wondering why a single enzyme requires multiple names, that's because ptyalin is different from the workhorse of the digestive system, pancreatic amylase. Giving it its own distinct name helps to make that clear ( at least that's the theory ).

    Many mammals, including some humans, completely lack salivary amylase, but are none the worse off for it since pancreatic amylase performs the bulk of starch breakdown in the small intestine. Cats, dogs, foxes, horses, and goats, for example, all lack ptyalin, while rabbits, mice, humans, and chimpanzees all possess it. In general, as one would expect, most carnivores lack ptyalin, since they don't ingest plant matter, least of all starch.

    Gene sequencing of ptyalin indicates that salivary amylase is a fairly recent evolutionary development, within the last 200 000 years, whereas pancreatic amylase came on the scene millions upon millions of years ago. In fact, it seems that both rodents and primates share an ancestral pancreatic amylase gene, although each independently developed ptyalin much later in the evolutionary timeline.

    When scientists observe such instances of convergent evolution across different species, they become extremely interested, because the implication is that the adaptation in question confers some evolutionary advantage that benefits the species. The natural question then is, what is the benefit of early digestion of starch in the mouth? This is an especially interesting question particularly when one considers 1) that ptyalin is destroyed by the acidic environment of the stomach and 2) that ptyalin is not even remotely necessary for the digestion or absorption of starch by and in the small intestine.

    The most likely explanation for these observations is that ptyalin is intended to serve as an early detection mechanism for nutrient rich foods. By breaking down the 1-4 glycosidic bonds in the starch and producing simple sugars, the chemoreceptors in the mouth ( a.k.a tastebuds ) signal to the brain that this is a good food to ingest.

    Note that this is a very potent argument in favor of starches being a fundamental aspect of an evolutionary consonant dietary strategy. But if this interpretation is correct, what of resistant starch, something for which we lack the evolutionary machinery to detect and process? To ingest resistant starch is to gamble nutritionally that one is in possession of a micro-biome suited to its digestion, and further, even those lucky enough to possess a micro-biome that can process resistant starch are relying on that micro-biome to not be pathogenic.

    But what of this evolutionary symbiotic miracle where we have bacteria in our colons that are seemingly purpose built to aid us in digesting RS? My question always is ... knowing what we know about how bacteria work, would we expect things to be different?

    So what do we know about bacteria? The first thing is that they are massively invasive organisms, occurring in virtually all environments on the planet, including you and your colon, among other areas. The interesting thing is that your colon is effectively sterile at birth, a prime and pristine environment to be exploited by bacteria, the moment you are born and start to feed. If you've ever had the privilege of changing diapers for a newborn, you can watch the evolution of their colonic bacterial colonies as the poop itself start changing, due in no small measure to the bacterial war happening in their colons as various species of bacteria duke it out over whatever nutrients are around.

    But the colon is hardly a passive environment, as anyone who has ever experienced food poisoning can attest to. If there are colonic / digestive bacteria producing toxins, the body mounts a vigorous, immediate, and sometimes explosive response in an attempt to repeal the invading organisms.

    Studies show ( I can pull up the cites for you, I don't have them at hand right now ) that the colonic biome stabilizes by about the second year of life. During that time, your colon has a great deal of opportunity to affect the evolutionary composition of the biota it contains. Take a look at the table below to see some number relating to the generation time of several common bacteria:



    E. Coli has a generation time of 17 minutes! That means that over the lifespan of a 2 year old toddler, its colon has had the opportunity to affect the evolution of almost 62000 generations of E. Coli. Sixty ... Two ... THOUSAND! To put that in human evolutionary terms, this amounts to about 1 million years, assuming that on average humans reproduced at 15 years old. Which is to say, it isn't particularly surprising to observe that the healthy human colon contains bacteria that aren't actively trying to kill it, if not being mildly beneficial by scavenging some nutrients from otherwise unavailable digesta.

    The main takeaway from all of this should be that the resistant starch processing bacteria of the colon are the result of structural processes. That is, bacteria digest RS because they can. It is one of the things that constitutes food for them. If you were to regularly consume wood chips, you would find a significant population of cellulose digesting bacteria in your colon, because these bacteria exist in nature, and you would be creating an environment where such bacteria could proliferate. It would be foolhardy, however, to advocate the eating of wood chips on this basis.

    -PK

    P.S. It sucks to be a male rabbit.
    My blog : cogitoergoedo.com

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

  5. #225
    otzi's Avatar
    otzi Guest
    PKlopp - That was very good. Not exactly what I was looking for, but very good. I have a feeling you will be busy in the near future debunking lots of RS claims if RS hits the supplement industry. I, too, have a feeling RS will soon explode onto the dieting scene. Looking back, the title to this thread is spot-on.

    I still just have this 'gut feeling' that something is not right with a diet that completely eliminates starch, as Primal Blueprint and Paleo does for most who undertake it in conjunction with Low Carb. Potatoes and rice are one of the first, and easiest, foods to cut. The are easy to identify, stand on their own and aren't 'hidden ingredients' like flour and sugar. With the complete elimination of grain and starchy plants, if RS were important in any way, even in small amounts, it also would be completely lacking.

    The existence of salivary amylase tells me we are well-designed to eat starch. If you have a blood glucose monitor, you can watch it in action. Measure your FBG, chew and spit a mouthful of potatoes, re-measure FBG...it will have dropped by about 10%. The salivary amylase triggers a quick release of insulin. This mechanism shows me we are well-capable as a species to eat starch in large amounts.

    Any species who eats lots of starch is going to get some RS whether they want it or not. You must admit, there is something going on when one ingests RS, whether or not it plays any part of long-term health is debateable, as you have shown, but it would be part of our evolutionary past. So, to be completely void of RS, by completely eliminating starch, seems to been a poor dietary choice.

    PKlopp, you have done a great job in defending your stance. I haven't checked your blog lately but you should condense all this into a readable version. I have a feeling there will be a lot of Google-ing for RS soon, and it's a shame that most will stop at the first source that says 'Hi-Maize has been proven to...."

  6. #226
    Neckhammer's Avatar
    Neckhammer is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    7,728
    Quote Originally Posted by otzi View Post
    Back in the day, I was pre-diabetic. My FBG was around 120, but A1C was normal. During 2 years of LC, my FBG quickly went down to about 95, but crept up to 100. Now that I've added starch back in, I see my FBG is 110-115 some days. If this doesn't self-correct, I need to do something.

    Also, on LC, my TSH crept up into hypothyroid territory and they put me on thyroid meds a few months back. Since adding starch, I think the meds are making me hyperthyroid, which would be a cause of high FBG. I cut my thyroid meds in half and have an endo appt in 2 weeks for labs.

    My hdl has gone from 25 to 60 in last 2 years, ldl from 120's to 200's. Trigs from 400 to 50. I'll be curious where these settle at after 6 months of starch, but would also be a marker.

    Blood pressure used to be high, now normal. All my labs are normal. If starch increase improves the labs I'm watching, I will probably not try any targeted RS. But since this thread is still going I thought this would be a good time to get some thoughts on potato starch for RS to mull over for a while.

    I've never seen anything that would indicate raw potato starch would be harmful, no matter how dumb the idea.
    Let us know how the thyroid and FBG responds over the next few months. I'm quite interested as it seems the addition of starch has traded one borderline poor marker for another. Hopefully you can get them both in optimal range and you're correct that the meds are making you hyper.

  7. #227
    RSQueen's Avatar
    RSQueen is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Clinton, NJ
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by pklopp View Post
    A couple of observations here. A lot of this research is being done as part of a food science effort on behalf of the food industry so they can justify why you ought to eat their "food products". You've already seen this with "heart healthy" marketing, and soon, you will probably see "colon biome health promoting", or some similar and suitably marketing friendly slogan lavished on the box. With this in mind, the level of activity around RS ought to make you suspicious. A few posts back I replied to a study posted by RSQueen which used wheat flour as one of the dietary interventions, an intervention that produced similar results to the high amylose maize starch (RS) intervention. What was really, really interesting was how in the paper, that little detail was completely glossed over, swept under the research rug. I suspect that this is because wheat flour is a hard sell, particularly with all the gluten, WGA backlash and so on so not even the deep pockets of the food industry are willing to attempt to spend their way out of that marketing black hole.
    I find it extremely short-sighted that you would dismiss anything that you perceive as potentially, maybe biased. I'm going to have to dig out the paper you dissected again - if they did add omega-3 to the test diet and then attributed all of the benefits to RS, that would be wrong and deceptive. But, you're missing the point that industry is definitely not driving this bus. There are so many researchers that are doing very good research (and all research has its own flaws and holes and researchers have strong biases that aren't always revealed either). OK, you won't accept that RS might be valuable and contribute to health. You get to live with the consequences of your dietary decisions. I know that RS helps improve insulin sensitivity and helps reverse the metabolic pathways that lead to type 2 diabetes. Data is being generated right now as to whether it helps type 2 diabetics as well. The US government, the Australian government, the diabetes research community, the Chinese government and several other major groups are trying to figure it out and are investing millions of dollars in those studies (which won't be perfect either, but they're the best we've got). If you'd rather wait for another twenty years until more of the questions get answered, go for it. But to dismiss resistant starch because you think it is tainted with industry money is really silly.

  8. #228
    Drumroll's Avatar
    Drumroll is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    3,868
    Otzi, salavary amylase does indeed point to the fact that we are adapted to eating carbs. It does not, however, provide any clue as to how much, when, in what manner, and from what sources said carbohydrates should be consumed. All of that is still well in contention.

    I agree that humans were designed to consume carbohydrates. But we're they intended for daily consumption? Or was this merely an adaptation that we developed to survive when meats were in low supply and we needed calories? Are they best to be eaten seasonally to store fats for the winter lean times, or do we need to eat them all year-round so that we can feed our gut fiber with the fibers and resistant starch they provide?

    Frankly, all that the human amylase adaptation proves is that we CAN consume carbohydrates, and not, what is optimal regarding their consumption.

    I haven't come down in favor of either side, but there's still a lot of research yet to be done.

  9. #229
    otzi's Avatar
    otzi Guest
    I still think that potato starch would be better for RS than Hi-Maize. I also have come to see there is probably not enough found in a normal day's worth of potatoes (or rice or green bananas) no matter how prepared.

    Since potato starch is 50-75% RS, I'm still interested in hearing what harm could potentially come from ingesting 30-50g (3-4TBS) of potato starch per day. It would be an easy thing to add to smoothies or potato salad, but would definitely have to be consumed cold--not cooked.

    I'm seriously not ready to eat corn starch, but potato starch or banana starch (Banana starch - Banana Products Corporation) or rice starch (Rice bran : Riso Scotti Ingredients Italy : Products : Rice starch) even. But is seems only potato starch is readily available. (Opentip.com: Bob's Red Mill Potato Starch, Unmodified, All Natural - 4 x 24 ozs.)

    I'm actually surprised potato starch hasn't gotten more attention in Primal cooking. It would make an excellent thickener even if that did destroy the RS value.

  10. #230
    Zach's Avatar
    Zach is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,869
    Quote Originally Posted by otzi View Post
    I still think that potato starch would be better for RS than Hi-Maize. I also have come to see there is probably not enough found in a normal day's worth of potatoes (or rice or green bananas) no matter how prepared.

    Since potato starch is 50-75% RS, I'm still interested in hearing what harm could potentially come from ingesting 30-50g (3-4TBS) of potato starch per day. It would be an easy thing to add to smoothies or potato salad, but would definitely have to be consumed cold--not cooked.

    I'm seriously not ready to eat corn starch, but potato starch or banana starch (Banana starch - Banana Products Corporation) or rice starch (Rice bran : Riso Scotti Ingredients Italy : Products : Rice starch) even. But is seems only potato starch is readily available. (Opentip.com: Bob's Red Mill Potato Starch, Unmodified, All Natural - 4 x 24 ozs.)

    I'm actually surprised potato starch hasn't gotten more attention in Primal cooking. It would make an excellent thickener even if that did destroy the RS value.
    If you cant get "enough" RS in a days worth of normal food, that should tell you something right there. Honestly i think you are obsessing over something that would never realistically have happened in our evolution and even now does not sound very amazing in terms of potential health benefits. If you want to eat a bunch of RS, go for it, no one else really cares.

Page 23 of 26 FirstFirst ... 132122232425 ... 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
  •