Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Resistant starch?
vegmebuff
Posts: 31,389 Member
Thoughts?
0
Replies
-
It's a thing...but definitely majoring in the minors.5
-
I'm not sure what you are asking for here. Had to look it up to figure out what was being refereed to because I've never heard the term before. It is just referring to the fact that not all configurations of plant produced starches are digestible by eukaryotic enzymes and therefore some starch passes through your small intestine to your large intestine where it is metabolized by your gut microbiome. That sounds legitimate to me but I'm not sure what relevance it has or what you are asking us to "debate" exactly.4
-
I like cold potatoes (the little ones), but I still think eating too many will keep me from maintaining my calorie deficit and could lead to weight gain.2
-
Aaron_K123 wrote: »I'm not sure what you are asking for here. Had to look it up to figure out what was being refereed to because I've never heard the term before. It is just referring to the fact that not all configurations of plant produced starches are digestible by eukaryotic enzymes and therefore some starch passes through your small intestine to your large intestine where it is metabolized by your gut microbiome. That sounds legitimate to me but I'm not sure what relevance it has or what you are asking us to "debate" exactly.
Thanks for the explanation!0 -
Had to google, browsed the hit linked below. Sure, it probably has some benefits but nothing to supersede consuming the right number of calories, and a healthy distribution of macros, or as @cwolfman13 more succinctly put it. Rearranging deck chairs, if you don't have the higher priorities areas locked in.
https://www.precisionnutrition.com/all-about-resistant-starch1 -
Had to google, browsed the hit linked below. Sure, it probably has some benefits but nothing to supersede consuming the right number of calories, and a healthy distribution of macros, or as @cwolfman13 more succinctly put it. Rearranging deck chairs, if you don't have the higher priorities areas locked in.
https://www.precisionnutrition.com/all-about-resistant-starch
Sorry all for my lack of 'direction' regarding this. The above said website is what I was mainly referring to (being I assumed most of us are interested in this view regarding calories/health etc.,)
I, personally, am most interested in thoughts regarding the rate of absorption depending on the type of starch consumed. As the above article stated:
"Since RS is incompletely digested, we only extract about 2 calories of energy per gram (versus about 4 calories per gram from other starches). That means 100 grams of resistant starch is actually only worth 200 calories, while 100 grams of other starch gives us 400 calories. High-RS foods fill you up, without filling you out."
And if this is 'true', then 'cico' isn't necessarily the determining fact regarding calories that are used by the body.8 -
A diabetic is taught to balance each meal for all the macros. Fats have about twice the calories per gram than protein and carbs.
Generally speaking the carbs are absorbed first, followed by the proteins and the fats a slow third. Fiber slows absorption overall.
None of this affects people whose insulin is not impaired. The insulin dampens down any spikes.
If you learn to juggle the three macros with fiber, you can start worrying about slower carbs. I never did. I never noticed a difference.1 -
Had to google, browsed the hit linked below. Sure, it probably has some benefits but nothing to supersede consuming the right number of calories, and a healthy distribution of macros, or as @cwolfman13 more succinctly put it. Rearranging deck chairs, if you don't have the higher priorities areas locked in.
https://www.precisionnutrition.com/all-about-resistant-starch
Sorry all for my lack of 'direction' regarding this. The above said website is what I was mainly referring to (being I assumed most of us are interested in this view regarding calories/health etc.,)
I, personally, am most interested in thoughts regarding the rate of absorption depending on the type of starch consumed. As the above article stated:
"Since RS is incompletely digested, we only extract about 2 calories of energy per gram (versus about 4 calories per gram from other starches). That means 100 grams of resistant starch is actually only worth 200 calories, while 100 grams of other starch gives us 400 calories. High-RS foods fill you up, without filling you out."
And if this is 'true', then 'cico' isn't necessarily the determining fact regarding calories that are used by the body.
No...CICO is still the determining factor, it is just really hard to get a truly accurate CI and CO value which is why it is important to track both your calories and your weight and your intakes and adjust accordingly over time. Initial estimates from calculators and tracking calories by food packaging is just a reasonable starting point, not the end point. The above example is just one of hundreds of examples. Another one off the top of my head is that fiber is often listed as being a number of grams in the carb column despite fiber not contributing to your caloric intake.
CICO doesn't mean that the calories on packaging is exactly the amount of energy a person will get from eating that food, the calories on packaging are a maximum value representing the energy content of the food whereby if you were to vaporize it in a bomb calorimeter it would raise the temperate or 1 liter of water by (Calorie value) degrees celsius.
If you think what CICO means is that calories on boxes are accurate then you misunderstand what is meant by CICO being the determiner for weight. It is an energy equation, not a strategy or instructions on how to eat. CICO just states that if you know your CI and you know your CO and you balance the two you will maintain your weight, if CI is higher you will gain weight and if CO is higher you will lose weight. That is literally all it says. It says nothing about how accurate your estimates of CI or CO are going to be.
10 -
Perhaps it would help the discussion if we just linked back to one of the multitude of other threads where the concept of CICO was completely misunderstood/misconstrued and re-explained over and over ad nauseum, rather than hashing it all out again.9
-
Perhaps it would help the discussion if we just linked back to one of the multitude of other threads where the concept of CICO was completely misunderstood/misconstrued and re-explained over and over ad nauseum, rather than hashing it all out again.
Well here is my attempt to explain it with an analogy. Its an exceedingly long post though so chances are people won't read it
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10665134/cico-and-calorie-counting-explained-by-analogy/p1
5 -
Thanks - I think I was just confusing myself....I do appreciate/understand CICO concept.3
-
Supposedly, cooling and reheating starches makes more of them into resistant starch, so in theory I should have lower bg after eating leftover spaghetti than the same amount of fresh. In practice, taking my bg after meals, if this is true the effect is so slight I can't detect it.1
-
My N=1: I eat a LOT of chilled starches because I tend to cook in bulk and eat the leftovers over several days. If it does make a difference, it's not one I've been able to discern in my actual results over time. I don't doubt that it's real, it just makes me think that it's something that is unlikely to make much of a difference in regular practice.5
-
Good article on resistant starch. My take - eat more beans. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2015/11/16/ask-the-expert-legumes-and-resistant-starch/0
-
Admittedly I'm not sure what the distinction they are making between "resistant starch" and just what we call fiber. I mean tree bark and wood is made out of chains of sugar molecules that we cannot digest, that is basically what fiber is....chains of sugars you can't digest. Grass in your yard is made almost entirely out of sugar and it certainly has calories in terms of that if you were to burn it you would get energy out, but clearly you wouldn't get calories from consuming it. So the components of starches that are not digestable I'd think would be a form of fiber, but I guess perhaps the distinction is between what your gut microbiome can and cannot digest. Perhaps fiber is what neither you nor your microbiome can digest while "resistant starch" is what your cells cannot digest but your microbiome can? I don't know simply because I've never heard the term "resistant starch" before but it is certainly true that not all components of your food that are caloric are actually digestable.1
-
The distinction seems to be in the amylopectin vs. amylose content. The amylose, being an unbranched molecule can form structures that physically "hide" parts of the molecule from digestive enzymes.0
-
geneticsteacher wrote: »The distinction seems to be in the amylopectin vs. amylose content. The amylose, being an unbranched molecule can form structures that physically "hide" parts of the molecule from digestive enzymes.
So it isn't a chirality difference with D-form or L-form isomers then? I literally just haven't looked into this at all, I'm assuming if I bothered to I could probably understand what distinction is being made.0 -
Not a chemist, but it seems due to the formation of crystalline structures by amylose. From Harvard article linked above:
"Why is some starch resistant to digestion? A small portion of it is physically inaccessible to digestive enzymes. But most of it is resistant due to the chemical structure of starch. Starch is composed of two molecules called amylose and amylopectin.
Amylose is a linear chain of glucose molecules linked end-to-end.
Amylopectin is a much larger molecule with numerous branches of short chains of glucose molecules linked to a main chain like the branches of a tree growing from the trunk.
The starch molecules, especially amylose, form crystalline regions that are resistant to digestion by the starch digesting enzymes in our body (3). Compared with other high starch foods like corn, wheat, and rice, the starch in legumes is very high in amylose, comprising up to 40% of the starch, making it more resistant to digestion.
It is important to realize that resistant starch is not a distinct molecular structure like glucose or cholesterol, but a concept developed to explain why some starch is not digested (8).
The amount of resistant starch reported in foods is therefore highly dependent on the method used to analyze for resistant starch. In 2000 a standardized test for determining the content of RS in food was approved by AACC International (9). The numbers reported in this article were determined by this method (10).
If cooked legumes contained as much resistant starch as raw legumes we would have a very difficult time digesting them. As with all high starch foods, when legumes are cooked in boiling water large portions of the crystalline regions are destroyed, reducing the amount of resistant starch. But since legumes are so high in amylose, a smaller amount of resistant starch is destroyed by cooking than in other foods because some forms of crystalline amylose are stable even in boiling water (8)."0 -
geneticsteacher wrote: »Not a chemist, but it seems due to the formation of crystalline structures by amylose. From Harvard article linked above:
"Why is some starch resistant to digestion? A small portion of it is physically inaccessible to digestive enzymes. But most of it is resistant due to the chemical structure of starch. Starch is composed of two molecules called amylose and amylopectin.
Amylose is a linear chain of glucose molecules linked end-to-end.
Amylopectin is a much larger molecule with numerous branches of short chains of glucose molecules linked to a main chain like the branches of a tree growing from the trunk.
The starch molecules, especially amylose, form crystalline regions that are resistant to digestion by the starch digesting enzymes in our body (3). Compared with other high starch foods like corn, wheat, and rice, the starch in legumes is very high in amylose, comprising up to 40% of the starch, making it more resistant to digestion.
It is important to realize that resistant starch is not a distinct molecular structure like glucose or cholesterol, but a concept developed to explain why some starch is not digested (8).
The amount of resistant starch reported in foods is therefore highly dependent on the method used to analyze for resistant starch. In 2000 a standardized test for determining the content of RS in food was approved by AACC International (9). The numbers reported in this article were determined by this method (10).
If cooked legumes contained as much resistant starch as raw legumes we would have a very difficult time digesting them. As with all high starch foods, when legumes are cooked in boiling water large portions of the crystalline regions are destroyed, reducing the amount of resistant starch. But since legumes are so high in amylose, a smaller amount of resistant starch is destroyed by cooking than in other foods because some forms of crystalline amylose are stable even in boiling water (8)."
Again haven't looked into it yet but that just sounds to me like the difference between alpha and beta linkages in sugar polymer formation which is the reason why we cannot digest cellulose (it has beta(1>4) linkages of glucose monomers) which is why it is considered dietary fiber. Starch is also known as amylose is glucose linked by alpha (1>4) links which we can digest.
I wouldn't call it "crystaline" really but it sounds like that is what they are talking about. I mean that isn't weird that is just true of sugar polymers.
The only difference between the starch of a potato and the wood of a tree is whether the glucose is alpha 1>4 or beta 1>4 linked. But traditionally we would just call that fiber, not "resistant starch" so not sure where that term arose from.
Alright looked what you were saying up enough to realize that the distinciton between amylose (your basic starch) and amylopectin is that amylopectin contains alpha 1>6 bonds that cause branching. But glycogen, our main storage molecule for glucose in humans, has a lot of alpha 1>6 linkages and we totally can digest those so not sure.
1 -
Looked up to find a figure showing polymers of amylose (starch), cellulose and glycogen and found this
All of those are chains of the simple sugar glucose, just in different arrangements. Top one is going to be plant storage molecule we can digest, middle is a plant structural molecule we cannot digest and the third one is animal storage molecule we can digest (it is how we store glucose). Amylopection is just like glycogen except the branch points are less frequent.
Amylopectin is just amylose chains with branch points formed by alpha 1>6 links
So we can digest the 1>4 links but not the 1>6 links which basically means when we digest amylose (starch) we digest all of it but when we digest amylopectin we digest the majority of it but leave the 1>6 links intact. Looks like standard amylopectin there is a branch point every 30 glucose units which would basically mean that 3% of it isn't digestable. You'd have a 30 unit chain branched with another 30 unit chain and after digesting it you'd still have two units connected with the 1>6 linkage so you would digest 58 out of the 60. That isn't that big of a deal really especially given your gut bacteria would digest it and you'd still get some caloric benefit from it.
So basically you eat starch from a plant and most of that is amylose but some is amylopectin and of the part that is amylopectin about 3% you wouldn't be able to digest but your bacteria would and you'd still get something from it...so yeah its like less than 1% of a difference calorically from what would be written on the box.3 -
The experiment I'm aware of regarding re-cooking starches, spaghetti. It was just that, recooking rather than reheating they did. It was after the re-cooking there was a difference.0
-
Haven't read it but this looks like a good summary of carbohydrate storage
https://2012books.lardbucket.org/books/an-introduction-to-nutrition/s08-01-a-closer-look-at-carbohydrates.html
0 -
Best explanation I have found: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1750-3841.138090
-
Certainly worthwhile adding some to your diet. It’s very good for your gut flora!5
-
tennisdude2004 wrote: »Certainly worthwhile adding some to your diet. It’s very good for your gut flora!
It is rather difficult to draw objective conclusions as to what is "good" or "bad" for ones gut microbiome in relation to ones own health. Resistant starches may provide sustenance for the types of bacteria that can digest them and thus support their growth but whether favoring those microorganisms over others is "good" and not doing so is "bad" I don't believe has been established.9 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »Certainly worthwhile adding some to your diet. It’s very good for your gut flora!
It is rather difficult to draw objective conclusions as to what is "good" or "bad" for ones gut microbiome in relation to ones own health. Resistant starches may provide sustenance for the types of bacteria that can digest them and thus support their growth but whether favoring those microorganisms over others is "good" and not doing so is "bad" I don't believe has been established.
Furthermore, I doubt that it's universal to all people. Not everybody has the exact same gut flora, and not everybody has unhealthy gut flora.1 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »Certainly worthwhile adding some to your diet. It’s very good for your gut flora!
It is rather difficult to draw objective conclusions as to what is "good" or "bad" for ones gut microbiome in relation to ones own health. Resistant starches may provide sustenance for the types of bacteria that can digest them and thus support their growth but whether favoring those microorganisms over others is "good" and not doing so is "bad" I don't believe has been established.
Who’s suggesting not eating resistance starch is bad?
1 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »Certainly worthwhile adding some to your diet. It’s very good for your gut flora!
It is rather difficult to draw objective conclusions as to what is "good" or "bad" for ones gut microbiome in relation to ones own health. Resistant starches may provide sustenance for the types of bacteria that can digest them and thus support their growth but whether favoring those microorganisms over others is "good" and not doing so is "bad" I don't believe has been established.
Who’s suggesting not eating resistance starch is bad?
Well if something is very good to do then not doing that thing would be bad. If you dont agree with that meaning of bad then more to the point I question whether or not it is "very good" for your microbiome. I dont think anyone actually knows if a particular type of starch will help cultivate a beneficial microbiome, it is more that the starch that our enzymes cannot digest end up being digested by the types of bacteria capable of digesting that. Is that "very good"? Shrug....I'm not sure if put any sort of moral judgement on it.4 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »Certainly worthwhile adding some to your diet. It’s very good for your gut flora!
It is rather difficult to draw objective conclusions as to what is "good" or "bad" for ones gut microbiome in relation to ones own health. Resistant starches may provide sustenance for the types of bacteria that can digest them and thus support their growth but whether favoring those microorganisms over others is "good" and not doing so is "bad" I don't believe has been established.
Who’s suggesting not eating resistance starch is bad?
Well if something is very good to do then not doing that thing would be bad. If you dont agree with that meaning of bad then more to the point I question whether or not it is "very good" for your microbiome. I dont think anyone actually knows if a particular type of starch will help cultivate a beneficial microbiome, it is more that the starch that our enzymes cannot digest end up being digested by the types of bacteria capable of digesting that. Is that "very good"? Shrug....I'm not sure if put any sort of moral judgement on it.Aaron_K123 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »Certainly worthwhile adding some to your diet. It’s very good for your gut flora!
It is rather difficult to draw objective conclusions as to what is "good" or "bad" for ones gut microbiome in relation to ones own health. Resistant starches may provide sustenance for the types of bacteria that can digest them and thus support their growth but whether favoring those microorganisms over others is "good" and not doing so is "bad" I don't believe has been established.
Who’s suggesting not eating resistance starch is bad?
Well if something is very good to do then not doing that thing would be bad. If you dont agree with that meaning of bad then more to the point I question whether or not it is "very good" for your microbiome. I dont think anyone actually knows if a particular type of starch will help cultivate a beneficial microbiome, it is more that the starch that our enzymes cannot digest end up being digested by the types of bacteria capable of digesting that. Is that "very good"? Shrug....I'm not sure if put any sort of moral judgement on it.
So by your reckoning anything that is not classed as healthy to eat must be unhealthy!
Really?
6 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »Certainly worthwhile adding some to your diet. It’s very good for your gut flora!
It is rather difficult to draw objective conclusions as to what is "good" or "bad" for ones gut microbiome in relation to ones own health. Resistant starches may provide sustenance for the types of bacteria that can digest them and thus support their growth but whether favoring those microorganisms over others is "good" and not doing so is "bad" I don't believe has been established.
Who’s suggesting not eating resistance starch is bad?
Well if something is very good to do then not doing that thing would be bad. If you dont agree with that meaning of bad then more to the point I question whether or not it is "very good" for your microbiome. I dont think anyone actually knows if a particular type of starch will help cultivate a beneficial microbiome, it is more that the starch that our enzymes cannot digest end up being digested by the types of bacteria capable of digesting that. Is that "very good"? Shrug....I'm not sure if put any sort of moral judgement on it.Aaron_K123 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »Certainly worthwhile adding some to your diet. It’s very good for your gut flora!
It is rather difficult to draw objective conclusions as to what is "good" or "bad" for ones gut microbiome in relation to ones own health. Resistant starches may provide sustenance for the types of bacteria that can digest them and thus support their growth but whether favoring those microorganisms over others is "good" and not doing so is "bad" I don't believe has been established.
Who’s suggesting not eating resistance starch is bad?
Well if something is very good to do then not doing that thing would be bad. If you dont agree with that meaning of bad then more to the point I question whether or not it is "very good" for your microbiome. I dont think anyone actually knows if a particular type of starch will help cultivate a beneficial microbiome, it is more that the starch that our enzymes cannot digest end up being digested by the types of bacteria capable of digesting that. Is that "very good"? Shrug....I'm not sure if put any sort of moral judgement on it.
So by your reckoning anything that is not classed as healthy to eat must be unhealthy!
Really?
Uh no, when did I say that? I said anything that someone claims is "Very good" to do they imply in saying so that they believe it is not good to not do that. If I say it is very good to obey the law then it isn't a stretch to assume that I would think not following the law would be bad. That is because "very good" is a moral judgement, "healthy" is not a moral judgement. Something that is very good to do we ought to do, something that is healthy to eat there is no "ought" in that statement. You can't act like "Very good" and "healthy" are somehow interchangeable because they aren't.1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 429 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions