Dietary type 2 resistant starch improves systemic inflammation and intestinal permeability?

[salvio]

Abstract​

Type 2 resistant starch (RS2) is a fermentable dietary fiber conferring health benefits. We investigated the effects of RS2 on host, gut microbiota, and metabolites in aged mice on high-fat diet. In eighteen-month old mice randomly assigned to control, high-fat (HF), or high-fat+20% RS2 (HFRS) diet for 16 weeks, RS2 reversed the weight gain and hepatic steatosis induced by high-fat diet. Serum and fecal LPS, colonic IL-2 and hepatic IL-4 mRNA expressions decreased while colonic mucin 2 mRNA and protein expressions increased in the HFRS compared to the HF and the control group. 16s rRNA sequencing of fecal microbial DNA demonstrated that RS2 decreased the abundance of pathogen taxa associated with obesity, inflammation, and aging including Desulfovibrio (Proteobacteria phylum), Ruminiclostridium 9, Lachnoclostridium, Helicobacteria, Oscillibacter, Alistipes, Peptococcus, and Rikenella. Additionally, RS2 increased the colonic butyric acid by 2.6-fold while decreasing the isobutyric and isovaleric acid levels by half compared to the HF group. Functional analyses based on Clusters of Orthologous Groups showed that RS2 increased carbohydrate while decreasing amino acid metabolism. These findings demonstrate that RS2 can reverse weight gain, hepatic steatosis, inflammation, and increased intestinal permeability in aged mice on high-fat diet mediated by changes in gut microbiome and metabolites.

Dietary type 2 resistant starch improves systemic inflammation and intestinal permeability by modulating microbiota and metabolites in aged mice on high-fat diet - PubMed

Type 2 resistant starch (RS2) is a fermentable dietary fiber conferring health benefits. We investigated the effects of RS2 on host, gut microbiota, and metabolites in aged mice on high-fat diet. In eighteen-month old mice randomly assigned to control, high-fat (HF), or high-fat+20% RS2 (HFRS)...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[Rinse & rePeat]

Salvio l I don't know what your agenda is on this site, but there are AGAIN, just as many studies saying resistant starches are bad. Why don't quit shoving Google down our throats, and eat a bunch of restant starches and report back to us? That is what the intelligent Ray Peat people do here, our own homework and share.

 

[salvio]

Salvio l I don't know what your agenda is on this site, but there are AGAIN, just as many studies saying resistant starches are bad. Why don't quit shoving Google down our throats, and eat a bunch of restant starches and report back to us? That is what the intelligent Ray Peat people do here, our own homework and share.

Please show me these studies or if you only want to make controversy, don't reply to me anymore, I'll appreciate that, thanks.

 

[Rinse & rePeat]

Please show me these studies or if you only want to make controversy, don't reply to me anymore, I'll appreciate that, thanks.

I am fine not talking to you salvio, trust me. So far you haven't anything interesting to say in a Ray Peat forum. We value and trust Ray Peat's science. You apparently believe EVERYTHING you read. I will be in every thread you post that is ANTI-PEAT, but I wont be trying to convince you of anything.

 

[salvio]

I am fine not talking to you salvio, trust me. So far you haven't anything interesting to say in a Ray Peat forum. We value and trust Ray Peat's science. You apparently believe EVERYTHING you read. I will be in every thread you post that is ANTI-PEAT, but I wont be trying to convince you of anything.

I suppose that Peat bases what he say on other studies. I'm not anti Peat, unluckly life isn't so easy.

I believe on experiments, I suppose this is called scientific method for this you can't convince me but you can only show me evidences about what you say.

Anyway the fact that you said that I'm against the founder of this forum, show that you aren't looking for comparison but only to try to make me ban, so please don't talk to me anymore I won't do it.

If someone else can show me prove about dangerous of resistant starches, please show me here without controversy, cause in that case I won't reply to.

I'm here to confront studies and try to understand what variables can determinate why one is opposite of another, but I'm not here to be a target of some moody person.

 

[Rinse & rePeat]

Asia Pac J Clin Nutr. 2003;12 Suppl:S12.
Anxiety following increased hind-gut fermentation.
Hanstock TL, Claytons EH, Mallet PE.
Background – Previous investigations into the effects of carbohydrate on behaviour have focussed on behavioural changes 2-4 hrs after consumption of the diet and have not considered the effect of site of digestion. Fermentation and lactic acid production in the caecum and colon can lead to detrimental effects in several animal models, including adverse behaviour in horses. Objective – To determine changes in anxiety promoted by the consumption of fermentable carbohydrate and increased fermentation in the hind-gut of rats. Design – Randomised control trial with 3 iso-energetic dietary treatment groups, a soluble carbohydrate diet containing wheat (n=12), a fermentable carbohydrate diet based on cooked and cooled rice (n=12) and a basal control rat and mouse Chow diet (n= 12). Behaviour was assessed 3 and 21 hrs after dietary consumption by the light dark emergence test. Outcomes – The 3 diets promoted different fermentation patterns in terms of pH and lactic acid concentrations in the caecum of rats 3 or 21 hrs after consumption. The length of time spent in the dark compartment of the light dark emergence test, indicating increased anxiety, was associated with increased concentrations of D- and L-lactic acid in the caecum (r(2)= 0.97 and 0.96 respectively; P <0.01) irrespective of dietary group. Conclusions – Fermentation of carbohydrate leading to increased concentrations of lactic acid in the caecum of rats was associated with increased anxiety in rats. This has important implications in terms of those diets promoting increased fermentation (eg. with a high intake of resistant starch) without considering any possible detrimental effects.

 

[salvio]

Please don't reply to my posts anymore I don't want to talk to you, good-bye.

 

[Rinse & rePeat]

I suppose that Peat bases what he say on other studies. I'm not anti Peat, unluckly life isn't so easy.

I believe on experiments, I suppose this is called scientific method for this you can't convince me but you can only show me evidences about what you say.

Anyway the fact that you said that I'm against the founder of this forum, show that you aren't looking for comparison but only to try to make me ban, so please don't talk to me anymore I won't do it.

If someone else can show me prove about dangerous of resistant starches, please show me here without controversy, cause in that case I won't reply to.

I'm here to confront studies and try to understand what variables can determinate why one is opposite of another, but I'm not here to be a target of some moody person.

You have never heard of funded studies? Liberals vs Republicans? There are always two sides and both sides have their right points depending on what their agendas are. There is plenty that Ray Peat has said about resistant starches being bad. Are you wanting me hand them all to you cause you are being lazy or if I handed them to you you don't want to believe it anyway. Lucky for you in am in really good mood, but earlier hearing back from you after your giddy response to the study you posted yesterday about "I guess Ray Peat's wrong"makes me AGAIN wonder why you are here then? If you think he is wrong why be posting anything more?

 

[salvio]

Is there a way to block this stalker and avoid reading and replying on my posts.

To answer to the study, I do it only cause I can help other: I think that the problem is when there's dysbiosis, when microbiome is ok there's no problems.

 

[Rinse & rePeat]

Is there a way to block this stalker and avoid reading and replying on my posts.

To answer to the study, I do it only cause I can help other: I think that the problem is when there's dysbiosis, when microbiome is ok there's no problems.

Both of your only posts were Anti-Peat. Are you trying to help them away from Ray Peat cause you think you know better? I am sorry what are your credentials?

 

[mrchibbs]

Still, I don't think there should be any pressure or censorship on this forum though.

Considering the climate in which we live in, I think it's important we make an effort to discuss everything openly.

Vitamin A toxicity was a big "Anti-Peat" idea a few years back and I think everybody grew from the discussion.

 

[Rinse & rePeat]

“Bacteria thrive on starches that aren’t quickly digested, and the bacteria convert the energy into bulk, and stimulate the intestine. (But at the same time, they are making the toxins that affect the hormones.)” -Ray Peat

 

[mrchibbs]

Ray has a lot of great quotes and insight but I think it is important to dig references and always question what Ray says, even Danny Roddy does it. Good ideas can resist challenges.

Regarding starches I think there are a lot of interactions and context dependent factors which may make starches more beneficial for some. Many factors influence intestinal permeability and if it is strong, and the particles of type II resistant starch are big enough, maybe the risk of persoption is low enough for it to have beneficial effects.

Type II resistant starches are very rare foods from unriped bananas and uncooked potatoes, uncommon to any culture, but maybe they could have a carrot-like effect by passing through the small intestine undigested.

Some people have uses for unripe bananas, but I personally can't see it working for me.

 

[Rinse & rePeat]

Still, I don't think there should be any pressure or censorship on this forum though.

Considering the climate in which we live in, I think it's important we make an effort to discuss everything openly.

Vitamin A toxicity was a big "Anti-Peat" idea a few years back and I think everybody grew from the discussion.

I appreciate your mediation mrchibbs. I just get so irritated listening to people that try to find fault in Ray Peat.

 

[salvio]

Regarding starches I think there are a lot of interactions and context dependent factors which may make starches more beneficial for some. Many factors influence intestinal permeability and if it is strong, and the particles of type II resistant starch are big enough, maybe the risk of persoption is low enough for it to have beneficial effects.

Type II resistant starches are very rare foods from unriped bananas and uncooked potatoes, uncommon to any culture, but maybe they could have a carrot-like effect by passing through the small intestine undigested.

Some people have uses for unripe bananas, but I personally can't see it working for me.

I totally agree with this:

Resistant starch: is it actually good for gut health? - Lucy Mailing, PhD

www.lucymailing.com

 

[mrchibbs]

According to the link, individual differences in gut microbiota can modulate response to resistant starches, but considering it seems to promote gut inflammation and tumor formation in some people.

I believe strongly that individual physiology varies a lot and what works for someone will not work for others.

I would be very worried about the risk of persorption as well, which I why I limit starch and eat it very well cooked and with lots of butter/coconut oil to prevent that from happening.

 

[salvio]

According to the link, individual differences in gut microbiota can modulate response to resistant starches, but considering it seems to promote gut inflammation and tumor formation in some people.

I believe strongly that individual physiology varies a lot and what works for someone will not work for others.

I would be very worried about the risk of persorption as well, which I why I limit starch and eat it very well cooked and with lots of butter/coconut oil to prevent that from happening.

To be honest I saw that meals that cause increasing in losing intestinal barrier increasing insulin resistance.

Most probably they're linked in some way.

 

[salvio]

I appreciate your mediation mrchibbs. I just get so irritated listening to people that try to find fault in Ray Peat.

Good, someone told me how to silence you. Good bye.

 

[Rinse & rePeat]

Ray has a lot of great quotes and insight but I think it is important to dig references and always question what Ray says, even Danny Roddy does it. Good ideas can resist challenges.

Regarding starches I think there are a lot of interactions and context dependent factors which may make starches more beneficial for some. Many factors influence intestinal permeability and if it is strong, and the particles of type II resistant starch are big enough, maybe the risk of persoption is low enough for it to have beneficial effects.

Type II resistant starches are very rare foods from unriped bananas and uncooked potatoes, uncommon to any culture, but maybe they could have a carrot-like effect by passing through the small intestine undigested.

Some people have uses for unripe bananas, but I personally can't see it working for me.

I signed up for the resistant starch fad for a couple of years and didn't find them to be anything beneficial. At the time it made sense, but I wasn't getting my information from a scientist. Stumbling upon Ray Peat and hearing his take on them saying that resistant starch feeds bad bacteria as well and that there really is no good bacteria, I sadly dumped my crunchy snacks and convenient reheated potatoes.

 

[Rinse & rePeat]

Good, someone told me how to silence you. Good bye.

Your funny!