Quote:
|
Originally Posted by teaser
I think all Australia shows is that fiber wont fix a bad diet. I doubt that resistant starch would either. Might make marginal improvements. A big problem with fiber is that people just went around adding it to whatever they were eating, and what they were eating wasn't good. Doesn't matter how much bran you add to a muffin, it's still going to be an un-iced cupcake.
|
I agree. AND, they are going about RS in the wrong way, their plan is to add it to all baked goods in the form of Hi-Maize and Barley-Max, two 'specially bred' forms with higher amounts of RS than would be found in real foods.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by teaser
For all I said about not knowing where prudence lies--does adding resistant starch to a ketogenic diet make things better or worse? and all that--I think it's probably worth a shot if a person wants to experiment. My point there was just that we have very little information about the effects of resistant starch on gut bacteria in that context. Not knowing--there's as much risk in not trying it as in trying it.  |
This sums up my feelings exactly. Couldn't have said it better myself. I was led to RS through a link to the Hi-Maize website. I read it and said 'BullSh--!" That was almost the end for me, but I followed the citations and links and found out there have been hundreds and hundreds of studies done on the gut modulating and metabolic effects of adding RS in the range of 20-40g/day to a standard diet. I think it would be very easy to talk yourself into believing that RS is not needed by anyone in any amount, but read through 10 or 12 research papers or theses and you will see common themes of insulin sensitivity, colonic environment, increased beneficial bacteria, etc...
I have to ask myself two questions:
1. Why has so much research been done?
2. Why haven't we heard about this?
The answers are, I believe:
1. So much research has been done because RS produces verifiable, easily testable, and repeatable health benefits and there has been a mad scramble to try to commercialize and make money from RS since the 90's.
2. It's so easy to get RS from regular foods in therapeutic ranges that commercialization is nearly impossible--the only way anyone has found to make money is to breed grain with high levels of RS. Hi-Maize' makers, National Starch, used to be the world's leading supplier in HFCS. I guess they need a new market for all their corn since HFCS flew out of vogue.
If they could invent an RS supplement that only required 1 pill, it would fly off the shelves. Drug companies have actually tried this approach (
http://www.pinnaclepharmacist.com/s...health-booster/) This formula contains 1g of RS...hardly enough to do anything.
I find RS an intriguing subject. I don't have all the answers, and on a real-food, low carb/ketogenic platform, prebiotics may be of little concern. But if anyone who reads this wants to increase their RS intake for any of the reported benefits, it can easily be had without eating grain-based products.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by teaser
My main concern would be if people whose metabolism really can't handle glucose were to go too heavy on regular starchy foods, just for the resistant starch that comes with them.
|
This is actually part of my soap-box speech. RS can be had with minimal carb load. Up until now, all of the advice on RS (see:
http://www.doctoroz.com/videos/resi...bs-fight-cancer for example) revolves around pasta, potato salad, and beans. Going that route would require massive amounts of carbs to get a fraction of 20 grams. Resistant starch can be found in a nearly pure form in potato starch, banana flour, and tapioca flour, and in high amounts in green bananas. The only hitch is they must be eaten cold, such as in smoothies or mixed with yogurt or the like. Green bananas must be eaten as they are--not cooked like Dr. Oz says.