Article about 'resistant starch'

[Rose1942]

This link was posted the other day in the LC Media Watch forum, and the subject was roundly criticized.

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/23189188/

That said, however, I decided to test it because I am still in the experimental stage of discovering which foods spike my blood sugar and which cause very little problems, and I'm willing to take a small chance now and then. And I figured that the diabetes forum was the place to tell what happened.

I made some potato salad, with boiled potatoes cooked in their skins, and the usual chopped celery, a bit of onion & green pepper, dried chives, some cider vinegar, and Hellman's to moisten. I have had 1/2 cup of this twice along with meat and no other carb, and each time it did not cause a spike. I test 2 hours post prandial and each time my reading was within 2 points of what it was before the meal - no other carb has done that for me so far. Without fail, a hot potato, even a small one, will cause a big rise.

So I am just offering this as a comment on the possibility of this concept of resistant starch having some truth to it. Before lunch today my BG was 92 - 2 hours PP it was 93. Similar result last night.

[Nancy LC]

Or perhaps eating the fat along with the potato slows down the the way it gets digested?

[Rose1942]

Apparently it is the effect of cooling upon the starch that changes the way it is digested (or not digested, as that is what it seems to be saying). If you reheat it, it loses that benefit and returns to just what we think it is - starch = sugar.

I made a pretty good sized bowl of that yummy potato salad, and we are having it again tonight along with grilled pork chops. I am making sure that no additional carbs are in the meal, raw celery sticks, pickles, and a few olives as a side. This will be another good test! Will let you know.

[locarbbarb]

Hi Rose!

I recently read an article about the same subject in Prevention (the same article) LINK (http://www.prevention.com/cda/article/nature-s-fat-burning-breakthrough/296ca6b509787110VgnVCM20000012281eac____/news.voices/in.the.magazine/march.2008.issue/0/0/1), and every day since then I've had 1/2 c of chilled beans with my lunch. I feel full longer, and I never have any cravings. :thup:

When I read all the positive effects of the resistant starch, I couldn't help but try it.

We have a second refrigerator in the garage, and now I have about 5 cans of beans in there, chilled and ready to go! :lol:

I don't have diabetes, but I sure want to avoid it. I test my BG every once in a while, and it's always OK. I'm so sensitive that I can tell when I've had too many carbs, though (I have hypoglycemia). The beans have nothing but a positive effect on me.

I'm happy!

I'm glad the potato salad is working out for you! Think of the possibilities!

Barb

edited to add: I just found that other thread on this subject. It just goes to show you how many people are so opinionated and it was obvious they HADN'T EVEN READ the article! :doah:

[Rose1942]

Well, this is the last time I will bore you with my blood sugar readings after eating the potato salad, but I just had to do this because the experiment wouldn't be true if I didn't test, test test. It's uncanny - tonight as I said earlier, we had grilled pork chops and I again had the potato salad. Now, I am not pigging on it, just 1/2 cup or so at a time, but for the third time, it did NOT cause an abnormal spike! BG before the meal was 97 because in late afternoon I did have tea with cream in it and 3 crackers and cheese - but BG 2 hours after dinner 106. Not bad really, because dinner was more substantial and I think that makes a diff too. I did eat a whole chop, after all!

Yes, think of the possibilities. I am thinking of hummus now, and possibly even a small portion of cooked COLD sweet potato with maybe some cinnamon - mmmmm. A couple of weeks ago I tried 1/2 cup of hot baked sweet potato and it made my BG soar. If the cold stuff doesn't do that, I will be a happy camper!

If ya had told me I could eat even one bite of potato before I read that article, I would have called ya crazy.

(Film at 11?) grin............

what kind of beans are you eating?

[locarbbarb]

Rose, hearing about your BG readings is NOT a bore! I'm very interested to see how you're doing! :)

I've had Garbanzo (chick peas) and pinto beans with jalapeno's - not too spicy. ;)

But, yes, I'm thinking of hummus, too, and that sweet potato idea sounds good too.

In fact, a few weeks ago I made a multi-layered dip, not even knowing about the resistant starch. It had fat-free refried beans with jalepeno on the bottom, then guacamole- home made, thin layer of lite sour cream, and a sprinkling of cheddar/monterey jack cheeses - lite, of course, and some sliced black olives. It was delish, and did not raise my blood sugar. I used raw veggies for the dippers. Who knew? :lol:

You know, if everyone else wants to be so uppity about this (referring to the other thread), I don't care. We will be eatin' good in the neighborhood! :lol:

Now, I do have a question and I'd like your opinion. The article I read said that these foods could be cooled to room temperature or chilled. Do you know of any other research on this that would be more specific? Here is the quote:

Cooling either at room temperature or in the refrigerator will raise resistant starch levels. Just don't reheat. That breaks up the crystals, causing resistant starch levels to plummet.

If room temp would do it, I might even prefer that. I'll eat the stuff cold, if need be, but even roasted sweet potato at room temp sounds pretty good to me.

Maybe I should try it with the beans. Just open a can off the shelf and see what happens....

In the meantime, I'll so some searches and see what I can find about the required temperature.

I'm glad to have a friend with me on this! Keep me posted on any further experiments you do, and I'll do the same, OK?

Thanks!
Barb

[Rose1942]

Barb, I have no idea if there is any other information on this on the internet - haven't checked that yet. I expect there will be some discussion about it though eventually. I would be interested to see what Dr. Eades says about this, he usually gets the word on new concepts and comments in his blog.

I am thinking that I will not go forth with too much abandon yet, probably best to take it one potato at a time (heh) and wait a week between wild & crazy experiments! That way I will not be heaping one carb upon another and each time I try something, it will be pretty much on it's own. I am wondering also about the calories, because even forgetting the starch, potato salad is kinda fattening (I think). Yet they are saying that this is a fat burning food - goes against our protocol but who knows!

In any event, I think it's a relatively harmless way to discover whether the idea is worthwhile - sure better than obediently taking every new drug that the docs push on ya - which is the point of LC living, and far less dangerous. How many bad side effects can there be from a 1/2 cup of potato salad anyway, compared to taking say, Lipitor?

Oh yeah, your Q about cooling - it does say room temp or in the fridge. I interpret that as meaning let it cool down - as in: Not Hot!

[Rose1942]

Barb, you got my curiosity going. I just Googled 'resistant starch' and came up with a lot of results. Apparently this is not a new discovery, some of the articles go back years. So I have to ask - why have we not heard of this before? Hmmmm. Anyway it makes for some interesting reading.

Google Search Results:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=resistant+starch&btnG=Google+Search

By the way, you will see in several articles that beans are not listed as having to be cold. It does not seem to be an oversight, since in every case, potatoes and rice specifically say: Cold. So I don't know, but it looks like beans are going to be okay hot or cold - we have to research this some more maybe. Also, while we are taught that a banana is one of the worst fruits that we low carbers & diabetics can eat, virtually every article says that unripe or slightly green bananas contain resistant starch.

I am going to do some more testing with some of these things, gradually as I mentioned. As Dr. Bernstein always says - small inputs, small numbers. In other words, try a little of something, not too much. And even if the result is not good, it won't be too terrible because you have only taken a little of it. A little mistake will be corrected in a matter of a few hours but you will know that you shouldn't have that food again, and you probably haven't done serious damage. It's the only way we can learn.

[locarbbarb]

Hi Rose!

I am wondering also about the caloriesI count every calorie. If the RS burns fat, that will be an added plus, but I still count the calories and carbs.

I started looking stuff up online, but most of what I found is so scientific, I really don't understand it. The one thing they say in common is 'room temp,' so, like you said, Not Hot! :)

I'm going to try the beans at room temp eventually (once I use up the cold ones ;) ). I bet it will be just fine. I think the true test will be the sweet potato. I'm looking forward to that one!

ttyl!
Barb

[Nancy LC]

Fiber, inulin and cancer (http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/2008/02/fiber-inulin-and-cancer.html) Mentions resistant starch as cancer causing in mice anyway.

[locarbbarb]

Hi Nancy!

Here is a link from the page you referenced, just for example. LINK (http://fanaticcook.blogspot.com/2008/01/resistant-starch-may-reduce-risk-of.html)

I don't think RS has anything to do with inulin. The article you linked said resistant carbohydrate, and apparently there are different kinds.

Most of what I've seen says RS is benficial, so I'll continue to check it out, but so far it seems safe.

[jeanmarie]

Hi Barb!

Which variety of potatoes did you use for your potato salad?

Thanks!

Jean

[eddiemcm]

Standard mustard potato salad gives me high
glucose spikes.
Eddie

[skeeweeaka]

Interesting reading, thanks for the article and other testing info.....

[Nancy LC]

Hi Nancy!

Here is a link from the page you referenced, just for example. LINK (http://fanaticcook.blogspot.com/2008/01/resistant-starch-may-reduce-risk-of.html)

I don't think RS has anything to do with inulin. The article you linked said resistant carbohydrate, and apparently there are different kinds.

Most of what I've seen says RS is benficial, so I'll continue to check it out, but so far it seems safe.
It mentions resistant starch too. I don't think there's a difference though. Resistant starch is resistant carbohydrate and visa versa.
Just an extreme mouse model, but next time someone extolls their belief in the benefits of resistant starches or fiber, maybe they should read and think!

[Rose1942]

I chose this link from the Google search above because it references a study done by a university and they don't seem to be selling anything (like packaged foods, flours, etc with resistant starch).
http://www.news.uiuc.edu/scitips/01/02legume.html

It says that the short chain fatty acid that is produced by resistant starch (butyrate) is a cancer preventative.

In the other link that was posted by Nancy, it was stated that the strain of mice studied were already bowel cancer prone. Makes me wonder if that didn't skew the results.

Anyway, I am not pushing anything here, just think it is interesting considering that we are told that ALL starch is bad, and here are articles upon articles telling us that certain ones are not. I like to keep an open mind because this diet is going to be forever for me and I want to know what's going on.

We will probably never know the real truth because just as the ADA will hardly lose face by saying their low fat, high carb diet has been wrong for decades, the starch/no starch people on either side will also stick to their guns. Perhaps by the time our great great grandchildren are adults, someone will finally toss in the towel and say they were wrong, after millions have eaten those Twinkies anyway, just to relieve their frustration ..............

p.s. to Jeanmarie - I used regular white potatoes. Boiled them in their skins, then peeled them when slightly cooled. Mixed with chopped celery, sm. amount onion, a little green pepper, some dried chives. Put about 3 or 4 Tbsp. cider vinegar on them, then enough Hellmans' Real Mayo to moisten. Light on the salt & pepper. 3 times out, didn't spike my sugar, go figure!

[RobLL]

For good control, the real rule is 'eat to your meter', congrats on finding this, as I recall you said 1/4 cup. I would find that hard. But I would find 1/4 cub of unsugared berry jam quite the thing. Think I will make some, and try it and test.

[Lisa N]

I used regular white potatoes. Boiled them in their skins, then peeled them when slightly cooled. Mixed with chopped celery, sm. amount onion, a little green pepper, some dried chives. Put about 3 or 4 Tbsp. cider vinegar on them, then enough Hellmans' Real Mayo to moisten. Light on the salt & pepper. 3 times out, didn't spike my sugar, go figure!

I'd be curious to see the results of eating just the potato without anything else.
So far, you know that the combination in your potato salad doesn't spike you at 2 hours out (have you tested any farther out than that?), but you don't know what the potato does all by itself. Also, in some foods, the spike can occur later than you might think. For example, I've seen reports of people saying that Pizza doesn't spike their blood sugars at 2 hours, but when they were encouraged to test at 3, 4 and 5 hours...whoops...the spike showed up at 5 hours.
If I were testing this, I'd eat the potato plain and then test every 30 minutes to see what the food by itself does without any confounding factors to cloud the picture. I think I'd also test the potato salad at 3, 4 and 5 hours (nothing eaten but the potato salad) because the vinegar and/or mayonnaise could be delaying the spike. :idea:

[Cajunboy47]

Testing "resistant carbs" and posting it without additional information does not provide enough information for anyone to learn anything about an experiment.

Controlling diabetes is not about just the food I intake, it is a combination of many factors.

What medications am I on at the time I'm eating those carbs? How many actual carbs did I eat at the meal? What is my level of activity before eating and during that one hour after eating? How much time was there between that meal and my prior meal? What was the content of the prior meal?
What were the times that I was taking my medications that day?

.................that being said, I have another comment.............

As a diabetic, especially as one participating in these forums, I think that experimenting with adding carbs is a little like playing with a loaded gun? Considering how carbs got me to where I am today, what is the point to such an experiment: Learning how to eat everything I ate before, but at a different temperatures, etc.......

To me; finding a way to gulp down more potatoes is plain and simple: "Setting myself up for the fall"...

:) Just thought I'd add a different perspective. I read many posts and its amazing how this diabetes has us all running through a maze like rats tyring to find our way out. There are days when I have total acceptance of being diabetic and then there are days when I feel, there's no way out of that maze, so what's the point of anything............

[RobLL]

Correction: Rose said she ate 1/2 cup potato salad. Again that is a pretty small serving, if like me she makes it with a substantial amount of eggs, veggies, mayo it isn't very much potato.

[Rose1942]

I'm not saying that everyone should try this because obviously one person's little experiment may not be valid. Just that the 3 times I ate it, once with nothing but the potato salad, and the other 2 times, with meat that I knew was safe (nothing but plain meat), I did not get the expected spike I would have expected had I eaten a hot potato in the same amount. When i was first diagnosed I was told that a half a baked potato would be okay (this was the ADA guidlines which I soon ditched). Well, a half a baked potato did indeed spike my sugar, and I have not since taken that temptation. Any potato, rice, or pasta will spike it, and I can see that at 2 hours every time. I do not eat those foods anymore - I DO 'eat to the meter'!

What I was trying to determine was if COLD potato was in fact different than hot potato, as the articles suggest. Potato salad was actually mentioned as a choice. So, one half a cup was all I had at each time, figuring that I would not be stupid and pig out on it. I didn't try it with cold potato only, but I was not afraid of celery, mayo, vinegar etc because those are considered non carb in the amounts that I used (or should I say, ate).

I did not test at 3, 4, and 5 hours because I can pretty well tell at 2 hours if something has spiked my suger enough to warrent further testing. Now, that is just me - my readings will be different that other people's readings at 2, 3, 4, and 5 hours even if we eat exactly the same food because we all have different insulin levels and phase 2 responses, and I don't keep testing if I don't see a red flag at 2 hours. Test strips are too pricy to waste unless I see something that looks bad.

Interestingly, I find that the volume of the meal often has a greater effect on the blood sugar reading at 2 hours than the particular food. Overeating by even a little bit will set off a long period of high sugar for me even if I eat 'safe' foods. Conversely, when I eat a small meal, something that in larger amounts would be bad, might not make a big difference. Say, a little bit of fruit, or a cracker or two, even a spoonful of ice cream (rare, but I confess to doing it now and then).

I honestly didn't mean to start rrouble here, just wanted to bring up the subject which I found intriguing, and to report on what my own 'experiment' showed. It might be all a big hoax, who knows, and that's the problem sometimes - with almost everything medical these days.............

[locarbbarb]

Hi Rose!

I honestly didn't mean to start rrouble here, Rose, it's a forum...everyone has an opinion. ;)

Many times some really good points are brought up. There are a lot of very well informed people here...sometimes it's nothing but arguing! :lol:

Either way, this is an interesting subject and I'm glad you posted about it!

Barb

[Cajunboy47]

Posted by Rose1942

I honestly didn't mean to start rrouble here, just wanted to bring up the subject which I found intriguing, and to report on what my own 'experiment' showed. It might be all a big hoax, who knows, and that's the problem sometimes - with almost everything medical these days.............

You did not start trouble or rruble...:) I've just been a frustrated diabetic lately and it might have spilled over into my post, so I guess if I made you feel bad, I owe you an apology. I do write emphatically at times and it can get taken as overly aggressive.... Sorry! just know that I don't bite!

Let me tell you a little story and you might see where I'm coming from:

I've proven nothing to myself after going through 150 test strips in less than the last 30 days... I've adjusted and readjusted my diet, supplements, etc.... I've been sporatically not exercising as I know I should and I've had a few cheat meals and snacks here and there, partly from frustration, partly cause I know I'm headed back to China in a few days and I will be so far away from American food...

The following has me puzzled:

Today, I woke up late, forgot to take supplements and did not check my FBG as usual. I skipped eating sensibly before leaving. I had to go to an orthodic appointment to order some specially made diabetic shoes. I get two new pair every year. This place is two hours away by car. I stopped along the way at a Burger King and ordered an "Enormous Omelet Sandwich" and ate the Bread and all with a cup of coffee and that fake cream stuff they offer. I ate while driving and that was about 9:00am this morning. Eating on the run is something I rarely do...

I did not eat again till 3:45pm and I stopped at a Chinese Buffet Restaurant. I had a dozen or so muscles on the half shell, a stuffed crab, shrimp, a crab salad, a couple of slices of salmon, a little beef and broccoli, a little chicken and peppers, a big plate of canned pineapples, mandarins and apricots along with some fresh cantelope and two laddles of tapioca pudding. I wasn't exactly diet conscious if you know what I mean..:)

Well, I didn't arrive home till 6:30pm as I had stopped to visit friends and was busy until 7:30pm. I then stopped to check my BG... Considering all of the above events of the day, I was expecting 140 to 160.... It was 104..... Go figure! :)

[Rose1942]

Geez, Cajunboy, you ate like an ADA person and you ended up with 104? Well, the answer is that you ate in the car, obviously. This falls into the catagory of 'Don't try This At Home' :lol: And nah, you didn't make me feel bad, it's just that I did a test and posted what information I had, whether it is valid or not, I don't know. I'm probably going to take that stuff very carefully myself.

Barb, thanks for pointing out that this forum is open to all points of view, and I should remember that, because it is a very good thing - that's how we learn sometimes.

[cappie]

Read what Dr Eades (Protein Power) has to say about resistant starch:

by Michael Eades MD (author of Protein Power) from his Health & Nutrition blog.
http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/metabolism/resistant-starch/
==================================
"Yesterday a reader sent me a film clip from ABC news about resistant starch. In this film clip a young woman who is a registered dietitian (RD) spoke about the virtues of a "type of fiber" that she referred to as resistant starch. According to her, this substance can cure a multitude of ills.
There is a type of fiber called resistant starch that's naturally found in some high carbohydrate foods.
And it's amazing, the benefits. It ranges from helping us burn fat, helping us boost our immune system, control blood sugar, reduce the risk of type II diabetes and reduce the risk of cancer.
She's really excited because, as she points out, there are over 160 studies showing the benefit of resistant starch. Wow! Where do I sign up to get some? It sounds great. Or does it?
There are probably over 1600 studies showing the purported benefits of statin drugs, but we all know what those are.
The 160 studies purporting to show benefit for resistant starch are probably in the same mold. Let's forget about the studies right now and focus more on what we really know about starch and resistant starch to see how well this lady's claims hold up to scientific scrutiny.
When asked about how resistant starch works, she claims that it basically gets fermented in the digestive tract, and it creates beneficial fatty acids. One is called butyrate. And what that does is it helps to shut off the burning of carbohydrates. So carbohydrates are the preferred source of fuel, but if they can't be burned, your body is going to turn to body fat and recently consumed fat instead.
All fiber goes through the digestive tract unabsorbed until it reaches the colon where it is acted upon by colonic bacteria (I suppose you could loosely call it fermented) that convert it to short chain fatty acids, one of which is butyrate (a four-carbon fat). These short chain fatty acids can be absorbed through the colon and used for energy just like any other fat.
So if butyrate "shuts off the burning of carbohydrates," as our RD says it does, then wouldn't it make sense to get as much of it as we can? And what happens to all that carbohydrate we don't burn? Does it just continue to circulate in the blood running our blood sugar sky high? Or does it get stored as glycogen? Does butyrate encourage carbohydrates to head into storage? These are all questions she doesn't address. Let me help clarify.
The list of foods containing resistant starch she mentions specifically are the following:
Beans
Potatoes
Barley
Corn
Brown rice
Under ripe bananas
She claims that these foods contain about 5 percent of their starch as resistant starch (which prety much agrees with other similar claims I've seen in the medical literature). If true, this means that 95 percent of the starch is not resistant starch and breaks down in the GI tract to glucose.
One half cup of any of these foods - so she says - contains all the resistant starch one needs to provide all the above benefits. Let's take a look.
According to the USDA database if we consume a half cup of cooked potato we'll end up with 12.9 grams of carbohydrate (almost three teaspoons), of which 10.5 grams are starch. If we go by our RD's estimate that 5 percent of the total starch is resistant starch, we calculate that our half cup of potato contains about half a gram of resistant starch (0.5265 g to be exact). If we then convert this starch to butyrate we find that we have about 2.3 grams of butyrate (assuming 100 percent conversion to butyrate, which isn't the
case because some is converted to other short chain fatty acids).
So, we eat our half cup of cooked potato, and what do we get? We get almost three teaspoons of sugar and carb that convert almost immediately to glucose and head directly into the bloodstream. The blood volume of a person with a normal blood sugar contains about a teaspoon of sugar, which means that consuming the potato almost quadruples the amount of sugar in the blood. The pancreas then secretes insulin to drive this excess sugar into the cells. This extra insulin then does all the things excess insulin is famous (or
infamous) for doing.
But what about the butyrate from the resistant starch? Oh yeah, the 2.3 grams of butyrate. I don't see how the butyrate is going to do much to stop the insulin spike resulting from the ingestion of the sugars and starch from the non-resistant starch part of the potato. And even if butyrate really does all it is cracked up to do, we wouldn't really need the potato with all its accessory easily absorbed carb because we can get the equivalent amount of butyrate from a single pat of butter. (Or almost the same - a pat of butter contains 1.45 g butyrate. Two pats of butter contain 3 g or about 1.5 times the amount generated by the resistant starch component of the potato.)
If the benefits of the resistant starch come from its conversion to butyrate as our RD avers, and if it requires the amount per day found in only one half cup of potato (or of the other foods she lists) as she also avers, then why not provide ourselves with one and a half times as much by eating a couple of pats of butter per day, which come without the extra three teaspoons of sugar? We get the butyrate without having to convert and we don't get the extra carbs. Makes perfect sense to me.
Amazingly, our RD recommends adding the half cup of one of the resistant-fat-containing foods to the rest of whatever you're eating that day. So, if you're already on a 'normal' diet, i.e., one pretty high in carbs already, she is recommending that you add, say, a half cup of cooked potato to the mix so that you will 'lose fat, reduce blood sugar, and lower insulin levels.' Hmmm. Sounds a little snake oily. Sounds like she's telling porkies.
While I'm at it, I have to mention one other little porky she tells during the interview. Says she
…and because resistant starch doesn't get digested or absorbed it fills you up but you don't get any calories from it.
Okay. Let me get this straight. First, she tells us that it converts to butyrate, a fat, which is absorbed and works miracles once it is absorbed. Second, she tells us that we don't get any calories from it. Have I got that right?
She is correct in saying that resistant starch (as well as any other type of fiber) gets converted to short-chain fatty acids. And she is correct in saying that the short-chain fatty acids get absorbed. But when they do get absorbed, they contain 9 kcal per gram, just the same as any other fat. So they are not free of calories. That's why fiber is counted in the total calorie count on nutritional labels. Fiber does make it's way through the upper digestive tract without being absorbed, but it does get converted to fat and absorbed in the lower GI tract, i.e., the colon. So, I guess we could say she's a fibber when it comes to fiber. At least in terms of its calorie content.
This brief discourse should put you off of resistant starch even without knowing what anti-nutrients are (resistant starch is an anti-nutrient), why they're there and what they do. We'll save that for a later post.
Now that you know the real story behind resistant starch, go back and watch the video to see how filled with misinformation it really is. Which also goes to show why you should never believe anything like this you see in a short spot on a news program without checking it out first."

[cappie]

Cajunboy your bg's were prob low after all those carbs because you had a massive insulin release. This is known as the rollercoaster effect--I get it also when eating off plan during a holiday meal. Bg's go up a little after meal then crash & the later on go back up even higher than the first rise & then drop quickly again. The only way you would see & know this is if you tested every half hour till the bg's became stable again or you had a continuous glucose monitor to record the blips.

cappie

[Cajunboy47]

error in my reply, removed from posting........