Page 4 of 26 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 252

Thread: Resistant Starch - A Solution In Search of a Problem page 4

  1. #31
    Neckhammer's Avatar
    Neckhammer is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    8,086
    ^ Unfortunately I think he's talking about eating the whole thing raw Pklopp. Not anything I would recommend, but you could see the RS factor going through the roof. Or am I missing something in the back and forth here...

  2. #32
    sbhikes's Avatar
    sbhikes is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Santa Barbara
    Posts
    10,215
    I am not sure what is being debated here. Is it whether or not this mysterious RS is necessary, or whether or not it does anything in particular? I don't eat resistant starch. I just eat food. If it has RS in it, well, who cares? That reminds me. Time to bake my breakfast potato. Why? So I can get my precious RS? Of course not, silly. I'm having a potato because it's big and I'm hungry and it'll go well with my salmon.
    Female, 5'3", 49, Starting weight: 163lbs. Current weight: 135 (more or less).
    I can squat 180lbs, press 72.5lbs and deadlift 185lbs

  3. #33
    ChocoTaco369's Avatar
    ChocoTaco369 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Narberth, PA
    Posts
    5,627
    Quote Originally Posted by pklopp View Post
    This is to some extent irrelevant, and I don't particularly care to engage in a data source duel, because what I really want to discuss is whether one ought to go out of one's way to purposefully add resistant starch to one's diet. Having said that, however, I seem unable to help myself, so I will take exception to your assertion regarding the starch in a potato:
    Funny you post this. Tim Ferriss recommends beans for weight loss. Maybe this is a big reason why.

    Health versus weight loss: beans may not be the healthiest food to ingest for health, but it very well may be superior to most paleo foods for weight loss. Paleo is a great way to become healthy (assuming you don't exclusionary diet like low carb, low fat, etc), but it's not necessarily the best way to get very lean. Nature doesn't want you to be very lean after all. Beans very well may be a superior weight loss food due to this, so maybe this is why Tim pushes them so hard for fat loss.

    I challenge anyone to get fat eating chicken breast and navy beans. Most paleos would scoff at this meal - and I probably would as well due to the boredom - but I bet it's a damn fine fat loss meal.

    I would call potatoes a vastly superior food for weight loss versus green vegetables slathered in butter, but I may put canned beans above a potato. But chicken breast is a superior weight loss food to beef ribeye. But...guess which is thawing in my fridge as we speak. Not the chicken. So what's more important to you?
    Last edited by ChocoTaco369; 01-17-2013 at 09:21 AM.
    Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

  4. #34
    ChocoTaco369's Avatar
    ChocoTaco369 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Narberth, PA
    Posts
    5,627
    Quote Originally Posted by sbhikes View Post
    I am not sure what is being debated here. Is it whether or not this mysterious RS is necessary, or whether or not it does anything in particular? I don't eat resistant starch. I just eat food. If it has RS in it, well, who cares? That reminds me. Time to bake my breakfast potato. Why? So I can get my precious RS? Of course not, silly. I'm having a potato because it's big and I'm hungry and it'll go well with my salmon.
    I don't see any point to this discussion, either. My thoughts:

    1.) Potatoes are a very healthy, nutrient dense food that fits perfectly into a paleo or primal eating plan.

    2.) Potatoes are a very good food for weight loss due to the high satiety factor and low food reward. They only become problematic when you "dress them up" too much (cover them in butter, sour cream, salt, green onions, bacon and cheddar and it's not really fair to call a potato 'fattening').

    3.) Eating them cold may have a small weight loss advantage and slight health benefits to eating them hot.

    In conclusion, eat potatoes if you like them because they're good for your body and good for your waistline. If you like them better hot than cold, don't worry about it. If you don't have a preference, eat them cold. If you don't like them at all, no one is forcing you to eat them.
    Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

  5. #35
    iniQuity's Avatar
    iniQuity is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Northern NJ
    Posts
    5,718
    Quote Originally Posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
    I don't see any point to this discussion, either. My thoughts:

    1.) Potatoes are a very healthy, nutrient dense food that fits perfectly into a paleo or primal eating plan.

    2.) Potatoes are a very good food for weight loss due to the high satiety factor and low food reward. They only become problematic when you "dress them up" too much (cover them in butter, sour cream, salt, green onions, bacon and cheddar and it's not really fair to call a potato 'fattening').

    3.) Eating them cold may have a small weight loss advantage and slight health benefits to eating them hot.

    In conclusion, eat potatoes if you like them because they're good for your body and good for your waistline. If you like them better hot than cold, don't worry about it. If you don't have a preference, eat them cold. If you don't like them at all, no one is forcing you to eat them.
    Dressed up potatoes are so good though, like so ridiculously good. I LOVE potatoes smothered in any sort of fat, fuck... I'm starving. Could one compromise and have fatty potatoes with lean protein? I'm going to vote yes...

    I can only do cold potatoes when eating peruvian ceviche, which is a very primal friendly meal and given this discussion also a great fat loss meal (almost no fat in it at all) though that is typically served with cold sweet potatoes I could do it with white just as well. Those interested should seek some recipes.
    I used to seriously post here, now I prefer to troll.

  6. #36
    otzi's Avatar
    otzi Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by pklopp View Post
    Take a look at the red arrow, which tells us that 2% of the starch in a boiled potato is resistant. So, of that 35 grams of starch, you're looking at a thoroughly underwhelming 0.7g of resistant starch. I find that the proportion of resistant starch attributed to potatoes tends to directly and positively correlated to how hard one is trying to convince you to eat an all potato diet.

    From the table you can see that if you are really looking to get resistant starch from potatoes, you can double your yield by going to pommes frites ( green arrow ). Of course, you also do wonders for palatability with respect to boiled potatoes, a win-win.

    -PK
    This whole thread makes it look like PK is comparing RS to unicorns. RS definitely exists, and is definitely being studied for health benefits...undisputed facts.

    As to the amounts contained in potatoes, I can't see where you are coming up with such low figures. From your chart, it shows that (far right column) nearly 100% of a potato carbs, no matter how it's prepared, are potentially available as 'starch'.

    Since I love Wikipedia, we'll go there for details at Potato - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    A typical potato weighs about 250g (1/2lbs), and contains 17g per 100g of carbs, or 42g of carbs, of which nearly 100% is starch (from your chart, far right column)

    I have seen it said, that the RS in a raw potato is approx 75% of available starch, so the typical raw potato has about 30g of RS.

    From wikipedia link:

    The amount of resistant starch in potatoes depends much on preparation methods. Cooking and then cooling potatoes significantly increases resistant starch. For example, cooked potato starch contains about 7% resistant starch, which increases to about 13% upon cooling.
    So, the potato in my example, when boiled, now has 3g of RS. Allowed to cool, it will have 5.5g of RS.

    It looks to me like your chart is showing 100g serving sizes, which is like less than half a potato.

    My whole point here is that the SAD contains some RS, from potato chips, beans, grains, and other off-limits Primal Blueprint foods. When we switch away from the SAD to a healthier paleo style diet, we remove most, if not all, RS. Eating potatoes and rice will get some RS back into your diet. Eating cooked and cooled potatoes and rice will get even more, and eating raw potato will get a whole lot.

    For me, this means eating potatoes on a daily basis, approx 1 pound (or 2 potatoes), I eat some hot, some cold, some raw. I eat them plainly, with just salt and pepper or a bit of dipping sauce.

    I also eat sushi rice guilt free.

  7. #37
    otzi's Avatar
    otzi Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
    Funny you post this. Tim Ferriss recommends beans for weight loss. Maybe this is a big reason why.
    Hey, Choco - It seems like you are OK drinking RS koolaid, so take a look at the Green Banana Diet that is sweeping Japan. Guess what's special about green bananas...

    http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/fe...ng-banana-diet

  8. #38
    Zach's Avatar
    Zach is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,869
    Otzi, what are the health benefits of RS?

  9. #39
    otzi's Avatar
    otzi Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Zach View Post
    Otzi, what are the health benefits of RS?
    Go to Google, Google Scholar, PubMed, anywhere and search for 'Resistant Starch + health' or similar, you'll get thousands of hits. In every one, you will see things like:

    ...the addition of RS to the diet protects against protein-induced colonic DNA damage and maintenance of the colonic mucus barrier, apparently through increased SCFA production by colonic fermentation. The results of these experiments indicate a strong potential for RS to be effective in maintenance of large bowel integrity in the face of high dietary protein.
    or

    ...RS appears to confer considerable benefits to human colonic health, but has a smaller impact on lipid and glucose metabolism. Comparisons between studies are hampered by differences in study design, poor experimental design and differences in the source, type and dose of RS in the ingredients or diets used. It is likely that RS mediates some or all of its effects through the action of short chain fatty acids but interest is increasing regarding its prebiotic potential. There is also increasing interest in using RS to lower the energy value and available carbohydrate content of foods. RS can also be used to enhance the fibre content of foods and is under investigation regarding its potential to accelerate the onset of satiation and to lower the glycaemic response. Due to the difficulties in agreeing on a universal definition and method of analysis for dietary fibre, RS may be included within the term ‘fibre’ on the nutrition labels in some countries but not in others. Pressure to agree a legal definition and universal method of analysis is likely to increase due to the potential of RS to enhance colonic health, and to act as a vehicle to increase the total dietary fibre content of foodstuffs, particularly those which are low in energy and/or in total carbohydrate content. from Health properties of resistant starch - Nugent - 2005 - Nutrition Bulletin - Wiley Online Library

  10. #40
    pklopp's Avatar
    pklopp is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    London
    Posts
    531
    Primal Blueprint Expert Certification
    Quote Originally Posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
    I don't see any point to this discussion, either.
    The point, as I see it, is that knowledge is power. To that end, discussion is valuable provided it is bolstered by evidence, rather than the mere stating and restating of intensely held opinion.

    With the above in mind, I wasn't expecting this to be a very controversial post. The metabolic processing of resistant carbohydrates is not really amenable to debate, the biochemistry is pretty well established, and I see nothing wrong with sharing that with other interested folks here. The debate started when potato / resistant starch apologists took exception to the science.

    I think that as adults, if you like potatoes and really want to eat potatoes, then you should just eat the damn potatoes. Trying to rationalize your desire with pseudo science doesn't do anybody any good. Note that none of this is to say that eating potatoes or resistant starch is a bad thing, only that these are not miracle foods. There is no such thing.

    -PK
    My blog : cogitoergoedo.com

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

Page 4 of 26 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... 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
  •