Very interesting read. I will leave it to you all (who actually read the article) to decide.

Very long read, but totally worth it:
http://www.fathead-movie.com/index....tarch-part-one/

I heard him discussing this on the podcast he mentions.

Since I went AIP in March I've stopped just dismissing out of hand the stuff about gut (which used to make my eyes glaze over and roll, but 3 weeks of AIP and I suddenly felt GOOD and now I'm more open to thinking about gut...).

I've put researching and potentially testing resistant starch on my list of "diet tricks to try if I'm bored" in the future. So far Wahls has me plenty preoccupied...

There are some very smart people who think resistant starch is worth trying, even for the overweight. Much of the stuff about starch and resistant starch I saw a few years back was more oriented towards crossfit, or other extreme exercisers/fit people so I pretty much ignored it. Today, I'm thinking it warrants more consideration.

I had been using glucomannan the last 10 days or so, which is low carb. Apparently it works like resistant starch in the gut. I haven't been taking my BG but my weight has moved slightly lower (which I'm epically stalled, so that is a good thing. Still hovering at/around my set-point though.

I already made up my mind on resistant starch. To summarize, the premise is flawed. All benefits exist only within the context of a high-carb diet, and/or an existing disease state, and compared to straight low-carb are utterly insignificant. Take the colon/butyrate argument for example. Butyrate is a fatty acid, and oxygen is required to oxydize it, therefore blood (which contains the required oxygen) must reach those colon cells that oxydize butyrate, therefore they can also get butyrate directly from the same blood, which is exactly what they do on low-carb, only better. Or the blood sugar argument. Low-carb is the best at this, bar none.

I could go on, but the point is every single benefit listed for resistant starch, low-carb does it, only better.

People on long term LC diets tend to get high fasting blood sugar. I know I sure do and I have never been able to achieve the low fasting blood insulin some folks have. I've been experimenting with glucomannan powder (made into pudding). It works similarly to resistant starch. My weight is drifting down a little. I haven't been taking my BG but I suspect it is better.

Anyway, whether or not you want to use resistant starch, there is food for thought in the article. I, for instance, didn't know that glucomannan acts like resistant starch. It, however, is pure fiber and thus low carb.

Thanks for posting that link Nancy. Like many others, I too dismissed RS out of hand because of the "S" word, but after reading that article, I'm now intrigued. During the 3 years I've been eating VLC, my fasting blood glucose levels have kept rising. I don't test at home, but the last time I had blood work done it was several points over 100. Some say not to worry, that this is normal for someone eating VLC over time, but I remain unconvinced. I might give this RS idea a shot.

It is certainly worth a little self-experimentation.

I had dismissed the RS info before for similar reasons to Tom Naughton's - studies comparing replacing an equivalent amount of white flour with resistant starch, etc. Sort of the comparing the bad with the less bad - like filtered and unfliltered cigarettes, or white flour vs. whole grain flour. But the Fat Head article was very convincing - Tom's BG numbers: low carb diet with no resistant starch (ok but not perfect) compared to low carb diet *and* resistant starch (MUCH lower) were pretty convincing too. Of course he is an experiment of one, but many other low carbers had reported similar results. To me it seems like and experiment worth trying. My own weight and BG have been slowly drifting a bit upward in the last year or so. I'm ready to experiment.

I found that my local Publix carries the Bob's Red Mill unmodified potato starch so I went out and bought a bag last night. Had 1 tbsp this morning with breakfast. I also bought some small potatoes and roasted 4 of them last night, as Tom said he does, so they would be cold today, and used 2 of them to make a small potato salad with my lunch. I'm out of testing strips so don't know their impact on my BG at this point, but I *feel* pretty good. I might make a smoothie for dinner incorporating half a green banana - and I also have glucommanan so might add a bit of that as well!

Yes, that Bob's starch is easy to find where I live too. Whole Foods and Sprouts carry it.

I found an interesting comment on another RS page: http://authoritynutrition.com/resis.../#comment-71820

I'm betting that is Tim Ferris.

Heck, I can just indulge in a bit of potato salad now and then. From Mark Sisson's article, that is the same thing.

Pretty much, but it sounds like you need to let the potatoes cool for 24 hours first. Then they form retrograde starch.

That's Tim "Tatertot" Steele, Richard Nikoley's partner in RS crime. What he wrote has also shown up on the Free the Animal blog, which is how I know.

In the Tom Naughton post, one of the people he interviews is Tim Steele. I'll bet it's that Tim.

Ah! Good catch. Thanks. "Tatertot"!

24 hours? Oops, that's what I get by jumping in without much research. I roasted mine last night as Tom said he does, so it was only about 18 hours between the time they were roasted and when I ate the first two - and about 22 hours after I had the last two, which I cut in half (each was smaller than a ping-pong ball) and then put some salt and a bit of butter on top of each half to have as a snack. Pretty darn tasty! But if you have to wait 24 hours I guess if I roast more tonight I'll have to wait until Friday to eat them. Maybe by then I'll have gotten some new testing strips.