Last edited by ChocoTaco369; 01-18-2013 at 06:23 AM.
Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.
The Caveman Eats: My Primal Recipes for Athletes and Average Joe's Alike
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.
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:
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."Originally Posted by Table 2. Resistant starch contents of a number of sample foods and commercially manufactured sources of resistant starc
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.
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.
- Take a potato
- Boil it
- Cool it
- Measure the resistant starch
- 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.
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:
- What is the optimal amount of resistant starch to ingest to lower colorectal cancer rates due to butyrate production?
- How much resistant starch containing food does one need to ingest to reach this level?
- Are all fermentable carbohydrates equally suited for this effect?
- 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.
Last edited by pklopp; 01-18-2013 at 02:45 PM.
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.
Well-behaved women rarely make history : Laurel Thatcher Ulrich
My New Primal Journal : http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum...tml#post821642
My 1st Primal Journal (including travel journal of Africa) http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum...back-to-Africa
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.