Someone recently sent me a link to an online article titled 8 reasons carbs help you lose weight. There’s no author named, but the source of the article is Health.com. Based on other anonymous articles I’ve read from the same source, I’m guessing Health.com is funded by the producers of grain products and is dedicated to scaring people away from low-carb diets.
If you read this article carefully — heck, even if you read it casually — you’ll soon realize the anonymous author is attempting some journalistic sleight-of-hand, taking the supposed benefits of a type of fiber and applying them to carbohydrates in general. Here’s the opening of the article:
Eating a diet packed with the right kind of carbs is the little-known secret to getting and staying slim for life.
When we talk about the right kind of carbs, we mean Resistant Starch. Hundreds of studies conducted at respected universities and research centers have shown Resistant Starch-such as grains, beans, and legumes-helps you eat less, burn more calories, feel more energized and less stressed, and lower cholesterol.
Hundreds of studies have been conducted on resistant starch? Boy, I’d sure like to see a list of references. The few studies I’ve seen were designed pretty much like the studies that concluded whole grains prevent diabetes: that is, they replaced white flour products with products made from resistant starch, which is a type of fiber. Then when the subjects who consumed resistant starch showed better glucose control, they credited the resistant starch.
They could just as easily credit the better glucose control to giving up white flour. But of course, that’s not the message this article wants to convey. Quite the opposite, in fact:
Sound too good to be true? Here are eight evidence-based reasons you must get carbs back in your life if you are ever to achieve that coveted sleek, slim look.
Got that, people? No way you’ll ever be sleek and slim if you don’t get carbs back into your life. (You can almost picture Paul McCartney singing to a muffin: “Got to you get you into my life…”)
That’s what I mean by sleight-of-hand. Resistant starch was magically transformed into the generic word carbs. And in case you’re tempted to chalk it up to verbal carelessness, here’s the next paragraph:
Eating carbs makes you thin for life. A recent multi-center study found that the slimmest people also ate the most carbs, and the chubbiest ate the least. The researchers concluded that your odds of getting and staying slim are best when carbs make up to 64% of your total daily caloric intake, or 361 grams.
Here we go again … yes, studies have shown that people who restrict carbs are fatter than the population as a whole. People who go to Weight Watchers are also fatter than the population as a whole. People who drink diet sodas are fatter than the population as a whole. That’s because people who go on diets of any kind are (surprise!) fatter than the population as a whole. If the unnamed researchers really believe the key to staying slim is to consume two-thirds of our calories from carbohydrates, I’d like them to explain why we saw a significant rise in obesity during the past three decades, when the only macronutrient we increased in our diets was carbohydrates.
Carbs fill you up. Many carb-filled foods act as powerful appetite suppressants. They’re even more filling than protein or fat. These special carbs fill you up because they are digested more slowly than other types of foods, triggering a sensation of fullness in both your brain and your belly. Research done at the University of Surrey in the United Kingdom found that consuming Resistant Starch in one meal caused study participants to consume 10% fewer calories.
Amazing … once again, our anonymous author takes a benefit of fiber and simply applies it to the generic word carbs. Fiber may actually provide extra satiety, by the way. Farther down in the article, we even get an explanation as to why:
Carbs high in Resistant Starch speed up your metabolism and your body’s other natural fat burners. As Resistant Starch moves though your digestive system, it releases fatty acids that encourage fat burning, especially in your belly.
Yup … fiber turns to fat in your digestive system, and fat is satiating. That’s why I eat plenty of fat in my meals.
These fatty acids help preserve muscle mass-and that stokes your metabolism, helping you lose weight faster.
Hmmm … sounds to me like I could derive those same benefits from a few strips of bacon and some eggs fried in butter.
Researchers set out to fatten up two groups of rats, feeding one group food that was low in Resistant Starch. A second group was fed Resistant Starch-packed food. The rats fed the low Resistant Starch chow gained fat while losing muscle mass. Rats that ate the high Resistant Starch meals preserved their muscle mass, keeping their metabolism moving.
Okay, let me get this straight: If you feed rats a diet that replaces their high-carb rat chow with a type of fiber that turns to fat in the digestive tract, they preserve their muscle mass. If you feed rats regular ol’ high-carb rat chow, they get fatter and lose muscle mass. So this proves you must get carbs back in your life if you are ever to achieve that coveted sleek, slim look.
I’m holding my face right now with both hands, fighting myself like a blogger version of Dr. Strangelove, trying to avoid banging my head against my desk.
Carbs control blood sugar and diabetes. The right mix of carbs is the best way to control blood sugar and keep diabetes at bay. In one study at the Beltsville Human Nutrition Center at the USDA, participants who consumed a diet rich in high Resistant Starch foods were able to lower their post-meal blood sugar and insulin response by up to 38%.
Right … because they replaced white flour with resistant starch. Here’s an idea: replace white flour with sausage and avocadoes, then compare glucose levels.
Resistant starch may provide some minor metabolic benefits, just like other fibers. The jury’s out on that one, as far as I’m concerned. But here’s why I think this particular article was produced by someone in the grain industry: As I pointed out before, article gushes about the wonders of resistant starch and then attempts to transfer those wonders to carbs in general. Now take a look at the photo that accompanied the article, which I copied and pasted. A slice of wheat bread with a heart — got to love your carbs, people!
So I looked it up. A slice of wheat bread provides exactly one-quarter of a gram of resistant starch … assuming you don’t cut out a heart shape from your bread, in which case it would be even less.
Enough said.
If you enjoy my posts, please consider a small donation to the Fat Head Kids GoFundMe campaign.
Isn’t this kind of like the basis of the cotton ball diet?
I don’t know how much resistant starch you’re supposed to eat to see weight loss, blood glucose improvement, etc. (I’m no expert on statistics, but the 5.4g mentioned in the study I cited earlier seems like a statistical fluke.) If it’s enough to keep you from eating some sugary, starchy junk food, maybe that’s good. OTOH, there’s a school of thought that a lot of modern diseases are caused by vitamin, mineral, and dietary fat deficiencies. If that that’s your problem, and if eating resistant starch keeps you from eating meat, eggs and veg, it’s hard for me to imagine you’d be helping yourself.
I’m certainly not going to start pouring the stuff in my stew.
Hmmm…In my limited understanding, putting a pure resistant starch supplement on foods (30grams @ 4.5 grams per tablespoon!?!) and encouraging people that they must eat carbs (that may contain tiny amounts of resistant starch by comparison) are different things. Citing the studies about resistant starch without explaining their conditions and context to the general public while giving the impression that adding more carbs will give the same results as the studies is VERY MISLEADING.
You can defend and explain resistant starch studies all you want, but it has nothing to do with telling people to eat 361 grams of carbs per day in order to be “sleek and slim”. This article is more media brainwash for the masses – a big heaping spoonful of sugar coated B.S.
That’s my complain exactly. Fibers of various kinds may have benefits, they don’t translate to carbs in general.
on a side note, I would eat less too if I had to sprinkle large quantities of what amounts to digestive sawdust on my meals. “just sayin”
I second that, although I believe the research indicated they ate less in their next meals too. Not surprising if the resistant starch turned into fatty acids.
>>>> National Starch sells Hi-maize into the food industry, but some companies are selling it to consumers online (see http://www.hi-maize.com for info). Thus, you can get the benefits of resistant starch without having to add a lot of carbs to your diet. One tablespoon of Hi-maize 260 contains 13 calories and 4.5 grams of resistant starch.<<<<<
This may *sound* like a good idea, but if you go to that website above they don’t give any hint of their product actually being sold to consumers *as is*. If you go to the “where can I find Hi-Maize” link it tells you “Just look for the Hi-maize® symbol on food labels” and of course the products shown to have it are baked goods, pastas, breads, pretzels, hot dog buns, etc. All the bad-old carb and gluten stuff that made us sick in the first place. If you can actually just buy the resistant starch all by itself somewhere it sure seems to be a well-kept secret. I have not found it via googling so far at any rate.
That’s why I was wondering how they add it to meals. If I have to eat pasta and bread, I’m not interested. I’d rather skip carbs than mix good ones with bad ones.
I take back my previous comment though. It looks like you *can* buy it from King Arthur Flour. When I first looked I only saw them offering flour blends containing the product, but I see they actually sell just the resistant starch also. So: “your body, your science experiment” – we can all try it out if we want, without having to eat 400g of other carbs, as recommended by that goofy health.com article, to get some resistant starch. 😀
So perhaps you could add it to a casserole or soup that didn’t contain other flours. I wonder how it tastes.
Isn’t this kind of like the basis of the cotton ball diet?
I don’t know how much resistant starch you’re supposed to eat to see weight loss, blood glucose improvement, etc. (I’m no expert on statistics, but the 5.4g mentioned in the study I cited earlier seems like a statistical fluke.) If it’s enough to keep you from eating some sugary, starchy junk food, maybe that’s good. OTOH, there’s a school of thought that a lot of modern diseases are caused by vitamin, mineral, and dietary fat deficiencies. If that that’s your problem, and if eating resistant starch keeps you from eating meat, eggs and veg, it’s hard for me to imagine you’d be helping yourself.
I’m certainly not going to start pouring the stuff in my stew.
What a funny group you are. There’s a huge difference between fermentable fibers and cotton balls/cellulose/saw dust/soy fiber and so on.
The concept is relatively new, but the benefits of intestinal fermentation are really more indepth than the RS turns into fatty acids which is used by energy. The fatty acids turn on genes in the large intestine that make important satiety hormones. This concept is called nutrigenomics and is real and measurable. Because insoluble RS is fermented over many hours, it continues to trigger the production of satiety hormones. Researchers at Louisiana State University are working on isolating these mechanisms and have compared the RS to cellulose. Cellose caused no shifts in the genes and no changes in GLP-1 in the blood whereas Hi-maize caused major changes in the gene expression and significant increases in GLP-1 in the blood.
Regarding how much you need. Different studies utilize different quantities. The studies focusing on regularity and intestinal function have generally found 17 grams or more of Hi-maize RS2/day (around 3 tablespoons) increased regularity, or positively impacted other biomarkers of intestinal health. The insulin sensitivity studies started with very high doses (80 grams of Hi-maize 260/day – 8.5 tablespoons/day) and have been bringing it down since then. They are seeing improvements in insulin sensitivity at about 2.5 tablespoons/day. The Higgins study at the University of Colorado found shifts in fat oxidation at 5.4 grams of fiber from Hi-maize/day – about a tablespoon. I guess it depends on the effect you’re looking for and whether you’re trying to address a major health issue (where you would need more to try to reverse the condition) or stay healthy (likely to need less)
I make a smoothie in the morning and throw in around a tablespoon. I’m not trying to treat a medical condition or prevent diabetes, but I use it for appetite management and regularity. I can tell the difference if I eat it in the morning or if I don’t. Friends of mine who are trying to lose weight are eating about 2 tablespoons/day. They also watch portion sizes and stop mindless eating as well as walk every day.
Don’t know if this helps, but the cotton ball diet comment kind of spurred me to throw in additional info. The researchers don’t have all the answers, but they’re finding important shifts in metabolism that we know are linked to weight, glycemic and digestive health. I can guarantee you that cotton balls WILL NOT do the same thing!
Plus you’d get cotton-mouth for sure.
What a funny group you are. There’s a huge difference between fermentable fibers and cotton balls/cellulose/saw dust/soy fiber and so on.
The concept is relatively new, but the benefits of intestinal fermentation are really more indepth than the RS turns into fatty acids which is used by energy. The fatty acids turn on genes in the large intestine that make important satiety hormones. This concept is called nutrigenomics and is real and measurable. Because insoluble RS is fermented over many hours, it continues to trigger the production of satiety hormones. Researchers at Louisiana State University are working on isolating these mechanisms and have compared the RS to cellulose. Cellose caused no shifts in the genes and no changes in GLP-1 in the blood whereas Hi-maize caused major changes in the gene expression and significant increases in GLP-1 in the blood.
Regarding how much you need. Different studies utilize different quantities. The studies focusing on regularity and intestinal function have generally found 17 grams or more of Hi-maize RS2/day (around 3 tablespoons) increased regularity, or positively impacted other biomarkers of intestinal health. The insulin sensitivity studies started with very high doses (80 grams of Hi-maize 260/day – 8.5 tablespoons/day) and have been bringing it down since then. They are seeing improvements in insulin sensitivity at about 2.5 tablespoons/day. The Higgins study at the University of Colorado found shifts in fat oxidation at 5.4 grams of fiber from Hi-maize/day – about a tablespoon. I guess it depends on the effect you’re looking for and whether you’re trying to address a major health issue (where you would need more to try to reverse the condition) or stay healthy (likely to need less)
I make a smoothie in the morning and throw in around a tablespoon. I’m not trying to treat a medical condition or prevent diabetes, but I use it for appetite management and regularity. I can tell the difference if I eat it in the morning or if I don’t. Friends of mine who are trying to lose weight are eating about 2 tablespoons/day. They also watch portion sizes and stop mindless eating as well as walk every day.
Don’t know if this helps, but the cotton ball diet comment kind of spurred me to throw in additional info. The researchers don’t have all the answers, but they’re finding important shifts in metabolism that we know are linked to weight, glycemic and digestive health. I can guarantee you that cotton balls WILL NOT do the same thing!
Plus you’d get cotton-mouth for sure.
Well, something has to explain why a 1000 kJ bowl of oatmeal produces a lower insulin response than a 1000 kJ steak, and why 1000 kJ serving of lentils produces a near identical insulin response to 1000 kJ portion of fish. If it’s not the fiber content, what is it? Insulin index: http://www.mendosa.com/insulin_index.htm
And it’s not that fermentable fibers turn into just any fatty acids, they become short-chain fatty acids like acetic, butyric and propionic acid. Acetic acid is vinegar, which is well known as a historical treatment for diabetes. Propionic acid and butyric acid are both extremely foul tasting (butyric acid is what makes parmesan cheese taste so strong), making them practically impossible to consume directly. A short news article of short-chain fatty acids: http://www.foodproductdesign.com/news/2010/06/short-chain-fatty-acids-promote-satiety.aspx
Protein foods raise insulin because insulin is necessary to drive amino acids into the muscles. What you’d want to check is the blood sugar response. Oatmeal can send people into the glucose stratosphere. A steak doesn’t.
Well, something has to explain why a 1000 kJ bowl of oatmeal produces a lower insulin response than a 1000 kJ steak, and why 1000 kJ serving of lentils produces a near identical insulin response to 1000 kJ portion of fish. If it’s not the fiber content, what is it? Insulin index: http://www.mendosa.com/insulin_index.htm
And it’s not that fermentable fibers turn into just any fatty acids, they become short-chain fatty acids like acetic, butyric and propionic acid. Acetic acid is vinegar, which is well known as a historical treatment for diabetes. Propionic acid and butyric acid are both extremely foul tasting (butyric acid is what makes parmesan cheese taste so strong), making them practically impossible to consume directly. A short news article of short-chain fatty acids: http://www.foodproductdesign.com/news/2010/06/short-chain-fatty-acids-promote-satiety.aspx
Protein foods raise insulin because insulin is necessary to drive amino acids into the muscles. What you’d want to check is the blood sugar response. Oatmeal can send people into the glucose stratosphere. A steak doesn’t.
Calories have very little to do with glycemic response. Protein and carbs both contribute 4 kilocalories/gram of food. However, proteins don’t break down into glucose, which triggers the production of insulin to transport the glucose out of the blood stream and into the muscles and tissue. Carbs do. Different foods contain different proportions of protein and carbs. This is Nutrition 101 and very basic.
I haven’t followed protein digestion as closely as I have followed carbohydrate digestion, but the mechanisms are very different.
Calories have very little to do with glycemic response. Protein and carbs both contribute 4 kilocalories/gram of food. However, proteins don’t break down into glucose, which triggers the production of insulin to transport the glucose out of the blood stream and into the muscles and tissue. Carbs do. Different foods contain different proportions of protein and carbs. This is Nutrition 101 and very basic.
I haven’t followed protein digestion as closely as I have followed carbohydrate digestion, but the mechanisms are very different.
Protein can, and is, used for gluconeogenesis. It can be dietary protein or your own muscle. However, protein conversion to glucose is less efficient but that’s what happens when zero carbs, or less than the minimum glucose requirement, is provided by diet.
Protein can, and is, used for gluconeogenesis. It can be dietary protein or your own muscle. However, protein conversion to glucose is less efficient but that’s what happens when zero carbs, or less than the minimum glucose requirement, is provided by diet.
Daphne, I’m a diabetic… eating the oatmeal (or the lentils) would shoot my blood sugar sky high and keep it there for HOURS, and I’d probably end up taking a 2+hour nap to deal with it…that tends to happen when I eat high carb foods, regardless of how “healthy” they are supposed to be… I sit down for a minute, and next thing you know, I’m waking up, an hour or two later. If I ate the steak or fish, there would be no blood sugar spike, no crash, and I’d have more energy than I knew what to do with. I think I’d rather have the temporary insulin spike from the protein/fat foods than the much longer blood sugar spike from the carby foods. Even though I do miss oatmeal…
That’s what really matters: how do various foods affect blood sugar and long-term insulin levels.
Daphne, I’m a diabetic… eating the oatmeal (or the lentils) would shoot my blood sugar sky high and keep it there for HOURS, and I’d probably end up taking a 2+hour nap to deal with it…that tends to happen when I eat high carb foods, regardless of how “healthy” they are supposed to be… I sit down for a minute, and next thing you know, I’m waking up, an hour or two later. If I ate the steak or fish, there would be no blood sugar spike, no crash, and I’d have more energy than I knew what to do with. I think I’d rather have the temporary insulin spike from the protein/fat foods than the much longer blood sugar spike from the carby foods. Even though I do miss oatmeal…
That’s what really matters: how do various foods affect blood sugar and long-term insulin levels.