Thanks the info, akman.

I really don't get the attitude. 13,000 + posts and all you can do is man-bash me? This entire thread has absolutely nothing to do with weightloss.

I can understand where PJ is coming from. Men do this on our forum all the time, not all men, but it seems to be primarily men. Usually they're folks who post their miraculous findings within minutes of finding the forum. They do a diet and it works splendidly for them and they think they've found the Holy Grail. If it doesn't work for someone else they assume they're doing something wrong.

Most men lose weight a lot easier and faster than most women. Combine that with the frustrating things that happen around middle-age to many women and you sometimes find people that have tried almost everything to lose weight. So when yet another person posts that they've got the miracle solution to weight loss, you might run into some healthy skepticism.

Me, I've seen it so often I just say, "Here we go again." Someone lost weight eating nothing but potatoes all day long, or nothing but rib eye steaks. They always seem to be men. I'd like to, for once, see a middle-aged woman with a long history of difficult weight loss, even on low carb and/or low calorie, post something like that. Once. Just once. The only time it happened, it was fraudulent claims made by someone with a commercial interest.

I probably shouldn't try to put words in PJ's mouth, but I can certainly understand her frustration.

The best thing you can take away from participating in a forum like this (other than the support and friendship), and I have been for 10 years now, is that we're all precious snowflakes. I say that tongue in cheek but it sure seems true when it comes to people finding what works for them.

Again, not wanting to put words in PJ's mouth, I would suggest you set yourself up for strong responses when your initial post is that long time members MUST do something that seems to work for you. Thanks for the advice, but it is strictly up to me, and everyone else whether I/they decide to follow it.

I agree colon health is important, but it may be defined differently for different people and the goal met in different ways.

I'm just curious to know how on earth one ensures a healthy colon, How do you know whether its healthy or not lol????

Jo xxx

I actually wish I could latch onto this as an excuse to eat potatoes. *sigh* - that is the only food I actually miss.

The thread title was a joke. This is the war zone, right?

I thought the opening line of the post explained that the subject line was meant to be an attention grabber. And my take on the rest of the post was that it was about improved health rather than weight loss.

Personally I'm a bit interested in RS, so I was happy for the information. Currently I'm losing weight on another intervention. And I have a couple of other things I want to try when the weight loss ends. And I'd rather try them one at a time rather than all at once. But RS is on my list of possibilities down the road.

And I'm a post-menopausal middle-aged lady who has a very hard time losing weight.

I sounds to me that eating potatoes the RS way may put you off them for life.

Yeah, I knew he wanted our attention, but until a poster says otherwise, I usually assume they are serious in what they say. I guess I didn't really get HOW resistant starch was going to improve my health. It's pretty stellar since going LC. And all without cramming down cold potatoes (Ugh).

And in all seriousness, one person I know who tried the Perfect Diet found her blood sugar went too high eating so called resistant starch; for another it enabled her to lose another 6 or 7 pounds. It is SO individual how our bodies react.



Yeah, me too. You certainly have my sympathies.

Liz, that's an interesting point. Taubes sometimes cites the example of one person he interviewed who told him that she/he (I forget) lost weight even though at some point she/he was drinking sugar water. His rationale for this had something to do with the interaction between insulin, glucose, the liver, and hunger. It doesn't refute what he's been saying about sugar, since he understands that the effect he cites for carbs/obesity is not necessarily universal. If it's possible to get an opposite effect at the liver, then it's equally likely to get an opposite effect at the gut as well, especially since gut flora profile would most likely be different for every single individual on this planet. Preliminary research (fecal transplant ring a bell?) about the effect of gut flora on fat tissue mass suggests this anyway.

If we're looking directly at gut health instead, then we can infer that whatever gut flora profile makes us fat, would also make our gut sick. We can infer from this what if we're already fat, it makes no sense to try RS. We'd have to get lean first, and in doing so restore a more normal gut flora, which would then be more receptive to RS, and extract any benefit claimed.

My last post just made me think about your idea again. Let's use the premise that the Atkins diet (or any good low-carb diet) is equivalent to an HG diet in all things that are pertinent. Mostly whole foods, few refined carbs, few digestible carbs, some fiber, lots of fat, fresh meat, etc. Now let's see how much RS is in a typical Atkins menu, and we get our optimal amount of RS. Better yet, how about one of us who does Atkins give us a typical daily menu and figure out RS content from that. That's a much better test of RS than just RS-exclusive experiments because it's a test of an entire diet which is known to return us to - and keep us in - good health, including our gut.

I don't know how much RS is found in a typical Atkins menu, but my guess is not much at all, a few grams or something. If that's right, then my anticipated conclusion is that it's very difficult to argue any significant benefit from such a small quantity of RS compared to other substances which are known to bring much more significant benefits to the entire body, mostly because they are either not there (refined carbs) or are there in significant quantities (fat).

The logic here is that if RS is indeed beneficial, then its effect would show up even if the overall diet is already so beneficial to begin with.

OK, I apologize for the thread title. Rather than debate resistant starch, I will leave you with some study material. If you choose to read, then you can make up your own minds on what, if anything, is important--or different--about RS, and whether it is something you should pursue.

This is a thesis written at the University of Iowa in 2010 by (now) Dr. Li Li.

Thesis

Dr. Li Li spent her grad student years studying RS. The above thesis is the culmination of her studies. There is no corporate influence on her conclusions. In the end, she realized that a study in RS is a study in gut microbes, and said:



So, have fun, read if you like. Nice chatting with you all!

The link didnt work - but it doesnt matter to me, I've lost all the weight I needed to and maintained without eating potatoes - never did like em anyway lol

Jo xx

http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewc...gut%20health%22

This is the full link, maybe some will have better luck.

Funny you say that about potatoes--RS, in general has nothing to do with eating potatoes, and RS has nothing to do with weightloss, unless a healthier gut leads to better calorie partitioning as some claim. Potatoes are just one of many sources of RS. And, yes, one can lose and maintain weight loss without ever giving any consideration to gut flora.