We should probably switch the population to some sort of generic human chow. Then we'd have a baseline from which to compare results when the human chow is altered with this or that fiber.

This whole resistant starch, recooked potatoes, boil rice with coconut oil thing. Nah. I want to see studies of fermentable fibers, totally undigestible otherwise, added to a very low carb diet. I've seen claims of "better" fasting blood glucose with resistant starch and low carb than without. That comes up against the whole question of what's optimal, and physiological insulin resistance and all that. If I had a fasting blood glucose between 90 and a hundred, and resistant starch brought it down to the 80s, I wouldn't know if that was an improvement--or if slightly higher digestible carb intake was lowering my fasting glucose, a situation where I have no idea whether slightly lower is better or not. If I was Shawn Baker, at 127 fasting glucose or so, and resistant starch brought things down--I think I might consider keeping on with the resistant starch. I still wouldn't be 100 percent certain it was necessary, but that blood sugar's just out of normal enough for low carb dieters that I'd risk the resistant starch.