Nicholas
Member
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2015
- Messages
- 666
Westside PUFAs said:post 106932Nicholas said:post 106906 you do absorb some of the carbs (about half). the effect on blood glucose is not limited only to the RS meal but also subsequent meals and insulin sensitivity overall regardless of whether you're eating a RS meal or starch meal.
This is not true. The concept of "resistant" starch in the way people talk about it is pure paleo propaganda because they are so afraid of carbohydrate. The amount of "resistant" starch is so small that it means nothing.
Your body temp is almost 100 degrees. Even if a starch food had been cooled down its still going into your near 100 degree body.
What do you think happens to the non resistant starch because it is cooled? Nothing. The starch is still there whether it has been cooled or not.
Jeff Novick dunked this topic:
"There is a lot of hype out there about resistant starch, most of it has nothing to do with someone who is following the guidelines and principles recommended here.
A cooked baked potato has about 1 gram of RS per 100 grams. Increase that by 10% and you have 1.1
Cooked Brown Rice has 1.7 per 100 grams. increasing that by 10% and you have 1.87.
You said above that this is important to you in regard to, "someone who wants to lose weight." Well, the impact of this 10% would be miniscule and not relevant.
Let's take a closer look.
RS is still absorbed and yields calories but instead of the it yielding 4 cal/gram, it yields about 2 cal/gram.
Even if you consumed nothing but hot potatoes, 2000 grams would be 1860 calories. The 2000 grams would yield 20 grams of resistant starch. If you cooled the potatoes and increased the yield of RS 10%, you now have 22 grams of RS, not 20. You have 2 more grams. And those 2 grams would now yield 2 calories each and not 4. So, 2 grams x 2 calories each is 4 calories, so you would have reduced the total caloric load of the diet by 4 calories.
If you run the numbers on a 2200 calorie diet consuming nothing but brown rice, the difference will be 3.4 grams of resistant starch, and the calories saved would be 6.8
As you can see, the reduction in total calories of the food is miniscule, even if you ate nothing but cooked potatoes or brown rice.
However, understanding the principles and guidelines of calorie density, would be more important.
The average calorie density of brown rice and potatoes is about 500 cal/lb. Now, all you are talking about is increasing the amount of RS by 10% and thus, reducing a small portion of the calories absorbed.
In regard to calorie density, even if you could reduce the absorption of "all" the calories in the brown rice and the potatoes by 10%, they would now be 450 cal/lb, which is still in the exact same "range" of calorie density as before and would not have an impact to anyone following the guidelines and principles of calorie density.
Therefore, again, the impact of temperature on the RS is miniscule to anyone following this WOE..
omeone PM'd me and asked if I would comment on beans. They said beans are being touted as the food highest in RS, making up about 30% of the calories and so using beans would make a larger difference as you would only get about 70% of the calories listed.
Let's take a closer look at beans and RS.
First, most all my previous comments above apply, as you will see.
Second, to be accurate, as there are many numbers circulating on the internet about the amount of RS in foods, we will use the the current Standard Reference for Resistant Starch, which comes from this study.
Resistant starch intakes in the United States. J Am Diet Assoc. 2008 Jan;108(1):67-78.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18155991
It compiled the data on RS from many studies. It also pointed out how earlier methods of calculating RS were not accurate and used animal models, test tube analysis, etc etc and how they have tried to correct for all of this. That is why there may be varying numbers out there and why we will use the Standard Reference.
So, knowing there are some limitations on the numbers and how they are analyzed and calculated, here is the info on beans and the amount of RS per 100 grams.
Legumes - Amount of RS per 100 grams
Beans, black/brown, cooked/canned - 1.7
Beans, kidney, cooked/canned -2.0
Beans, mung, cooked- 1.6
Beans, pinto, cooked- 1.9
Beans, white, cooked/canned -4.2
Chickpeas, cooked/canned- 2.6
Cowpeas, cooked - 0.6
Lentils, cooked- 3.4
Lima beans, cooked/canned- 1.2
Peas, mature, cooked/canned - 2.6
The average of these is 2.2 grams of RS per 100 grams.
However, lets use a "best case" scenario and use one of the higher foods tested, lentils, so we really see how big the impact of RS is and how the numbers work out.
Lentils are 3.4 grams of RS per 100 grams, which is about 1/2 cup and about 116 calories. The 3.4 grams would yield about 13.6 calories if it was totally digestible. That means 12% of their calories are RS, which they say you do not absorb. Subtracting that amount from the total would lower the calorie value from 116 to 102.4
However, RS yields about 2 calories per gram so using the 2 calories per gram, instead of lowering the calories value 12%, it would only lower it 6% and the calories would go from 116 to 109.
Some actual studies have shown that RS actually yields 2.2 to 2.8 calories per gram.
("Resistant starch averaged 2.8 kcal/g for all 24 subjects but only 2.2 kcal/g in the hyperinsulinemic subjects" Resistant starch as energy. J Am Coll Nutr. 1996 Jun;15(3):248-54.)
So, if we used the 2.8 cal/gram, the calorie yield would only be lowered from 116 to 111.9, which is only 3.6%
And, that is a "best case scenario" using one of the higher legumes tests. However, according to the Standard Reference, the actual average amount of RS in beans is only about 2.2 grams per 100 grams, or about 2.2 grams per 1/2 cup cooked. So, the impact would be much lower.
On average, 100 grams of cooked beans is about 1/2 cup and about 115 calories and contains 2.2 grams of RS. The 2.2 grams of RS would yield 4.4 calories instead of 8.8 and so lower the total calories from 115 to 110.6, or about 3.8%.
At 2.8 calories per gram of RS, the 2.2 grams of RS would yield 6.16 calories instead of 8, lowering the total from 115 to 113.16 or about 1.6%
In Health
Jeff
PS From the SR Database, here is the RS in 100 grams of other recommend foods
Potatoes, baked -1.0
Potatoes, boiled -1.3
Pasta, whole-wheat, cooked- 1.4
Rice, brown, cooked- 1.7
Barley, pearled, cooked -2.4
Buckwheat groats, cooked- 1.8
Millet, cooked- 1.7
Pita, wheat- 1.3
Whole-wheat bread -1.0
Tortillas, corn- 3.0
Sweet potatoes, cooked- 0.7
Yam, cooked -1.5"
https://www.drmcdougall.com/forums/view ... 0958d98d28
If the reduction in calories or non-absorption of nutrients with RD is a myth then that is only good news for me....when i eat cooked and cooled potatoes i have a uniquely and consistently different experience than eating them fresh cooked. The numbers show the same unique difference for diabetics who use purely "RS" (potato starch or cooked and cooled potatoes) as opposed to things like fresh cooked potatoes. When i eat the cooked and cooled potatoes, i want to get basically the same amount of calories which it seems your quotes help to show. I wonder if the same is true for the nutrients. I admit i was a bit confused by the RS info on the web because i did believe that all foods have RS regardless of their cooking and preparation.
i started eating potatoes cooked and cooled for a year before i had even heard of the RS movement and i had perceived on my own that they make me feel completely different than fresh cooked.
Last edited by a moderator: