Resistant Starch - A Solution In Search of a Problem page 6

[Dragonfly]

Hey pklopp ~ Waving hi & appreciating your contributions here. Too bad some folk just don't get it.
I just found your blog, which I am enjoying immensely!

[ChocoTaco369]

You keep missing the point.

pklopp, what exactly is your point to this thread? From what I can tell, otzi's point is that if you're going to consume starch, the ideal starch to consume are foods higher in resistant starch because there may be small benefits in fat oxidation and a decreased risk of colon cancer. There may be some truth to that, and I will argue to the grave that almost every single one of us should have significant starch in our diet because my research has shown it to be *the* most consumed human energy source, and it very well may be the healthiest. From what I can tell, your agenda is to dissuade people from consuming starch? At least that's how it comes off. I don't understand what your point is.

[otzi]

The fat found in heavy cream is the same as the fat found in milk, therefore, since the milk fat content of heavy cream is somewhere around 35%, the milk fat content of milk must be 35%.

Do I need to beat this dead horse further, or are you willing to admit that industrially processed foods are not equivalent to their natural sources?

-PK

Let's beat it a little more...maybe I am misunderstanding.

If you take a raw potato, grind it to bits, filter all the starch from the water and cell walls, and dry the starch, then measure the RS value of this dried starch and find it to be 78% RS/22% non-RS starch, how is that different from just eating the potato raw in the first place. You are consuming all the raw starch, which is 78% RS.

In your example, if you said a sample of raw cows milk contained 3.6% fat, which was 75% saturated fat, that would never change. If you chemically separated all the fat from raw cows milk, dried it, and powdered it, it would still be 75% saturated fat. If you further reduced it by removing all the other fats, then it would be closer to 100% saturated fat.

[pklopp]

Let's beat it a little more...maybe I am misunderstanding.

If you take a raw potato, grind it to bits, filter all the starch from the water and cell walls, and dry the starch, then measure the RS value of this dried starch and find it to be 78% RS/22% non-RS starch, how is that different from just eating the potato raw in the first place. You are consuming all the raw starch, which is 78% RS.

In your example, if you said a sample of raw cows milk contained 3.6% fat, which was 75% saturated fat, that would never change. If you chemically separated all the fat from raw cows milk, dried it, and powdered it, it would still be 75% saturated fat. If you further reduced it by removing all the other fats, then it would be closer to 100% saturated fat.

Fine, but I'm first going to beat another dead horse known as "cherry picking." I'm sure you are familiar with the term, but just in case you're not, this entails selecting data that supports your claim while turning a blind eye to that which does not.

From the data source that you yourself quoted and then advised me to read:

Native Potato Starch RS content as a percentage : 78%

WOWZA! Talk about confirming what you already believe to be true. Let's just stop reading, then, shall we?

I can only assume that you just stopped reading at that point, which is a real shame, because the very next line reads:

Native potato starch 78.1
Cooked and cooled potato starch  3.8

At this point, the onus really is on you to explain why your source, not mine. claims that there is a twenty fold difference between the resistant starch content of cooked and cooled potatoes vs. "commercially manufactured sources of resistant starch."

I will also point out that my sources claim that boiled potatoes come in at 2% resistant starch. Both my and your sources tell us that cooling starches roughly doubles the resistant starch content ... care to divide 3.8% by 2 and tell me what you get? Suspiciously close to 2% resistant starch content, isn't it?

If you still insist that I speculate as to what in the world did they have to do to increase the resistant starch content in the sample you took as gospel, I can, but it would probably have to be speculation, unless there's some footnote lurking about in that paper somewhere....

Let me know if you want me to speculate ... I'm pretty imaginative.

-PK

[otzi]

Native Potato Starch RS content as a percentage : 78%

At this point, the onus really is on you to explain why your source, not mine. claims that there is a twenty fold difference between the resistant starch content of cooked and cooled potatoes vs. "commercially manufactured sources of resistant starch."

I will also point out that my sources claim that boiled potatoes come in at 2% resistant starch. Both my and your sources tell us that cooling starches roughly doubles the resistant starch content ... care to divide 3.8% by 2 and tell me what you get? Suspiciously close to 2% resistant starch content, isn't it?

If you still insist that I speculate as to what in the world did they have to do to increase the resistant starch content in the sample you took as gospel, I can, but it would probably have to be speculation, unless there's some footnote lurking about in that paper somewhere....

Let me know if you want me to speculate ... I'm pretty imaginative.

-PK

That's really easy. In a raw potato, you have RS2, the raw starch, mostly resistant. When you heat this up, the starch gels and the cell walls burst, making it plain old starch, the kind that gets digested starting from the amylase in the mouth and stomach and completely gets digested quickly in the small intestine.

When you cool the plain old starch down toward freezing, it crystallizes, and undergoes a process called retrogradation, and turns into RS-3.

If re-heated, the RS-3, re-gels and you lose some value.

This is why I like to eat a few slices of raw potato as I'm getting ready to cook, then eat some warm potato, then cool some down and eat it cold the next day. The best of all worlds.

[pklopp]

That's really easy. In a raw potato, you have RS2, the raw starch, mostly resistant. When you heat this up, the starch gels and the cell walls burst, making it plain old starch, the kind that gets digested starting from the amylase in the mouth and stomach and completely gets digested quickly in the small intestine.

When you cool the plain old starch down toward freezing, it crystallizes, and undergoes a process called retrogradation, and turns into RS-3.

If re-heated, the RS-3, re-gels and you lose some value.

This is why I like to eat a few slices of raw potato as I'm getting ready to cook, then eat some warm potato, then cool some down and eat it cold the next day. The best of all worlds.

Ok Otzi, you are very enthusiastic, but in your haste, you miss details so forgive me for getting pedantic here:

1. Take a potato
2. Boil it
3. Cool it
4. Measure the resistant starch
5. You get 4%

That's what your source says ... boiled cooled potatoes. Your 78% RS is pure wish fulfillment / cherry picking and baseless speculation because you need it to be that way to support your position.

-PK

[pklopp]

pklopp, what exactly is your point to this thread? From what I can tell, otzi's point is that if you're going to consume starch, the ideal starch to consume are foods higher in resistant starch because there may be small benefits in fat oxidation and a decreased risk of colon cancer. There may be some truth to that, and I will argue to the grave that almost every single one of us should have significant starch in our diet because my research has shown it to be *the* most consumed human energy source, and it very well may be the healthiest. From what I can tell, your agenda is to dissuade people from consuming starch? At least that's how it comes off. I don't understand what your point is.

The first takeaway for this thread, again, I repeat myself here, is that knowledge is power. Knowing "why" is far more empowering than knowing "that." So, my very first post in this thread was outlining some fundamental knowledge regarding resistant starch.

The second takeaway should be that one probably does not need to go out of one's way to seek out indigestible carbohydrates. If you read my first post, towards the end I alluded to there being more than one way to skin the butyrate cat. My intent there was to start speaking of other resistant carbohydrates, like inulin. I got hijacked along the way by Otzi's denigration of my "dissertation."

The third takeaway from what this thread has morphed into should be that there are some significant questions that Otzi completely glosses over, such as:

1. What is the optimal amount of resistant starch to ingest to lower colorectal cancer rates due to butyrate production?
2. How much resistant starch containing food does one need to ingest to reach this level?
3. Are all fermentable carbohydrates equally suited for this effect?
4. For the love of God, just how much resistant starch is there actually in a potato.

I find it stunning, absolutely stop-me-dead-in-my-tracks non-plussed and slack-jawed stunning that Otzi can in one fell swoop both accept as gospel one datum from a study that supports his claims, while adamantly denying another datum from the exact same study which most inconveniently does not. Ancel Keys would have been proud.


-PK

[pklopp]

pklopp, what exactly is your point to this thread? ... From what I can tell, your agenda is to dissuade people from consuming starch? At least that's how it comes off. I don't understand what your point is.

Can you please do me a favour and go back to the beginning of this thread and point out where I intimated that people ought not to eat starch? The smoking gun you are looking for should be something to the effect of "you probably shouldn't eat starch", or "in my infinite wisdom, I suggest you only eat x amounts of carbohydrates", where x is some suitably small number.

Take your time, I'm willing to wait.

Now realize that I have a significant issue with potato diet apologists that try to rationalize their desire to eat potatoes with really dubious claims, and even more dubious science. My agenda is to point out their glaring contradictions and to try to bring some badly needed perspective to the table.

-PK

[Paleobird]

1. What is the optimal amount of resistant starch to ingest to lower colorectal cancer rates due to butyrate production?
2. How much resistant starch does one need to ingest to reach this level?
3. Are all fermentable carbohydrates equally suited for this effect?
4. For the love of God, just how much resistant starch is there actually in a potato.

I find it stunning, absolutely stop-me-dead-in-my-tracks non-plussed and slack-jawed stunning that Otzi can in one fell swoop both accept as gospel one datum from a study that supports his claims, while adamantly denying another datum from the exact same study which most inconveniently does not. Ancel Keys would have been proud.

I would add a #5 to that list. I'm still waiting for any proof that the richest source of butyrate on earth, butter, does not supply all the butyrate needed. Yes, it is absorbed in a different spot in the digestive process, but that doesn't mean it can't be used where needed.

Can you please do me a favour and go back to the beginning of this thread and point out where I intimated that people ought not to eat starch? The smoking gun you are looking for should be something to the effect of "you probably shouldn't eat starch", or "in my infinite wisdom, I suggest you only eat x amounts of carbohydrates", where x is some suitably small number.

Take your time, I'm willing to wait.

Now realize that I have a significant issue with potato diet apologists that try to rationalize their desire to eat potatoes with really dubious claims, and even more dubious science. My agenda is to point out their glaring contradictions and to try to bring some badly needed perspective to the table.

-PK

Please continue to do so.

[otzi]

Ok Otzi, you are very enthusiastic, but in your haste, you miss details so forgive me for getting pedantic here:

1. Take a potato
2. Boil it
3. Cool it
4. Measure the resistant starch
5. You get 4%

That's what your source says ... boiled cooled potatoes. Your 78% RS is pure wish fulfillment / cherry picking and baseless speculation because you need it to be that way to support your position.

-PK

The 78% is from RAW potato. 2% cooked, 4% cooked and cooled.

How is this possible? As I explained many times, the RS found in a raw potato is made non-RS by cooking it. However, a small amount of RS remains (2%), the rest is regular starch. Cool the potato, and some of the regular starch retrogrades into RS, a different type of RS than was found in the raw potato, but RS, nonetheless.

I don't see how that's difficult to comprehend.