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.
Oh snap! I read that drivel but couldn’t deconstruct it like you did.
You are awesomeness.
M
Here’s an article on resistant starch at the Nutrition and Metabolism site:
http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/1/1/8
The results don’t exactly bowl me over:
“No difference in fasting or postprandial insulin, glucose, FFA, or triglyceride concentration was observed between any of the RS doses examined (Figure 1).”
“No difference in fat oxidation was evident between the maximal 10.7% dose of RS and the 0% dose.”
Meal fat storage decreased with 5.4 g of RS added to breakfast in 12 subjects:
http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/1/1/8/figure/F4
Full disclosure: “Janine Higgins and Ian Brown [two of the researchers who wrote up the study] are listed as inventors on RS patents filed by Penford Australia Limited. Both Drs. Higgins and Brown are listed as inventors on these patents as they have intellectual property ownership of some of data used in these but receive no financial benefit.”
The problem with adding carbs with resistant starch (e.g., bananas, beans) is that in some of us, they spike blood glucose. In the real world, those blood glucose spikes cause a variety of problems. My mother, who is a type 2 diabetic, would get a BG reading over 200 if she ate 1/2 cup of beans.
Thanks for the links. I’ll check those too.
But, but…wait! It’s on the internets, so it must be true!
This was a headline story on Yahoo the day I read it and I had the same must-not-bang-head-on-desk reaction. No author, no cited sources. Unbelievable.
Thank you for writing about this one, for your blog, and for Fat Head!
Thank you for reading.
Diabetic friend: I hate taking this insulin. I’ve gained 60 lbs since I started taking it.
Me: I’ve lost 60 lbs on low carb this year. I’ll bring you lunch tomorrow so you can see what I eat.
Next day-
Me: Look, I brought you a giant slice of quiche with spinach and cheese and ham in it. It only has 30 carbs in it.
Diabetic friend: I can’t have just that for lunch! I need at least 45 carbs so I can take my insulin!
Geez, by all means, do as you please.
Oh my lord … must eat carbs, must take insulin. Let’s thank the medical community for that one.
Health.com is owned by the same colpany that owns timemagazine.com, Time Inc.
(Whois.domaintools.com/health.com)
Wether they are funded by Big Grain, or that this is some sort of advertarticle or propogand piece is up in the air.
Interstingly, I have now seen ‘gluten free’ cereal at my local grocery store. They are jumping on the band wagon to cram the stuff down our throats.
Gluten-free cereal … that’s funny. I say just give up the cereal.
Drew says “Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t every one of those studies they cited compare resistant starches to non-resistant starches — AKA carbs?”
You’re actually wrong. Most of the published insulin sensitivity studies compared resistant starch to no resistant starch. The amount of glycemic carbohydrates in the diet was the same in both the test and the control populations. For instance, the Robertson 2005 AJCN study fed one group of people 50 grams of Novelose 260 per day. Novelose 260 contains a portion of glycemic carbohydrates (20 grams) and a portion of dietary fiber as resistant starch (30 grams). The control population got 20 grams of glycemic carbohydrates. Thus, the difference was 30 grams of resistant starch.
Thank you for the references. I’ll give them a look. How do they add resistant starch to a meal? I haven’t heard of Novelose.
Sounds like an excuse to keep one’s sugar addiction going strong….
You asked for the references – ok here goes. There’s 20 years of references by independent researchers from all over the world and a lot more published science than you give resistant starch credit for. It may be a type of dietary fiber, but it is triggering metabolism changes that other types of dietary fiber don’t appear to do.
Out of the 92 published human clinical trials with natural resistant starch, many different areas are under investigation. A total of 340 studies have been published (in vitro, animal, and human studies, plus a smattering of reviews, summaries and explanatory articles) on one type of resistant starch – RS2 from high amylose corn. You can find a good summary at http://www.resistantstarch.com. Full references are provided – go see for yourself. To specifically answer some of your questions—
The improvements in insulin sensitivity were not due to changes in glycemic impact of the foods. Resistant starch was added on top of a normal diet (measured as 30 grams of dietary fiber/day). The glycemic impact was standardized and the same. In other words, the effects cannot be because of taking high glycemic carbs out of the diet – it had to be because of the RS added. Insulin sensitivity was improved 33% and glucose clearance was 44% higher in healthy people. (Robertson DM, Bickerton AS, Dennis AL, Vidal H and Frayn KN: Insulin-sensitizing effects of dietary resistant starch and effects on skeletal muscle and adipose tissue metabolism. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (2005) 82:559–67.)
You stated “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.” The reference is Bodinham CL, Frost GS, Robertson MD. Acute ingestion of resistant starch reduces food intake in healthy adults. British Journal of Nutrition. (March 2010), 103(6):917-922. doi:10.1017/S0007114509992534. And, yes, the control group was matched for glycemic impact of the foods. Once again, the results cannot be attributed to taking flour or high glycemic carbs out of the diet, but rather to the additional resistant starch added on top of normal, everyday foods.
Another published study tested insulin resistant people (pre-diabetics) and found that 40 grams of dietary fiber from resistant starch increased insulin sensitivity by 19% while the control population had decreased insulin sensitivity by 14%. Again, the glycemic impact was standardized and the same in both populations (Johnson KL, Thomas EL, Bell JD, Frost GS, Robertson MD. Resistant starch improves insulin sensitivity in metabolic syndrome. Diabetic Medicine (April 2010):27(4):391-397)
The field of dietary fiber is undergoing an explosion of research because different dietary fibers act differently within the body. Some provide bulking and do an excellent job at promoting regularity (wheat bran, soy fiber, cellulose, etc.) but because they aren’t fermented, their effects are limited to their bulking. Other types of dietary fiber do an excellent job at thickening or viscosifying the contents of the intestinal tract. They are the best at reducing cholesterol and glucose absorption because these benefits are driven by its thickening effects. Fermentation within the large intestine is the third major mechanism of fibers. Inulin and resistant starch and other fermentable fibers are being used to identify the physiological effects of fermentation. It goes way beyond delivery of nutrients and proves the theory of nutrigenomics (what you eat turns genes on and off within your body resulting in measurable changes in biochemical markers and hormones).
Dietary fibers have a wide range of effects on satiety and appetite. Some fibers impact satiety because of their bulking and physical mass (cellulose, soy fiber, wheat fiber). Others impact satiety because they thicken within the stomach and delay stomach emptying (guar gum). Some don’t impact satiety at all. Published human clinical trials show that natural resistant starch significantly impacts satiety and helps people eat less food. Even the National Institues of Health are investigating the metabolism effects of resistant starch. These references are:
1. Willis HJ, Eldridge AL, Beiseigel J, Thomas W, Slavin JL. Greater satiety response with resistant starch and corn bran in human subjects. Nutrition Research. (February 2009) 29(2):100-105.
2. Nilsson A.C., Ostman E.M., Holst J.J., Bjorck I.M.E. Including indigestible carbohydrates in the evening meal of healthy subjects improves glucose tolerance, lowers inflammatory markers, and increases satiety after a subsequent standardized breakfast. Journal of Nutrition (2008) 138:732-739.
3. Anderson GH, Cho CE, Akhavan T, Mollard RC, Lohovyy BL, Finocchiaro ET. Relation between estimates of cornstarch digestibility by the Englyst in vitro method and glycemic response, subjective appetite, and short-term food intake in young men. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. (April 2010) 91(4):932-9.
4. Bodinham CL, Frost GS, Robertson MD. Acute ingestion of resistant starch reduces food intake in healthy adults. British Journal of Nutrition. (March 2010), 103(6):917-922. doi:10.1017/S0007114509992534.
5. Dr. Ron Krauss at the Children’s Hospital and Research Center in Oakland, California has a study underway. Information on this trial can be found at: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01027325?term=%22resistant+starch%22&rank=6
The Health editors have certainly simplified resistant starch and are trying to relate it to commonly consumed foods. But, don’t throw the baby out with the bath water – resistant starch has a lot of health benefits. Removing carbs from your diet is one option – resistant starch in foods provides additional options for managing your blood sugar and weight.
So we’re back to certain kinds of fibers providing metabolic benefits, which is good news. But I’m sure you can see why I consider it a journalistic sleight-of-hand to transfer those benefits to carbs in general and whole-wheat bread (which contains barely any resistant starch) in particular. Given the number of people (myself included) who don’t tolerate gluten and react badly to lectins, I certainly wouldn’t recommend everyone run out and start consuming wheat and soy just to get some resistant starch in their diets.
How do you add resistant starch to a meal in a clinical study? Is it part of a whole food, or added in like a supplement?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t every one of those studies they cited compare resistant starches to non-resistant starches — AKA carbs?
FWIW the “slow carb diet” getting all the press now due to The Four Hour Body is based on replacing all carbs with resistant starches, primarily legumes. I know lots of paleo fans avoid legumes too, but the science seems to support the idea.
Sure, if the choice is between refined carbs or what basically amounts to fiber, I say go for the fiber.
Reading “standard” nutrition articles next to one by someone like Chris Masterjohn (who actually provides references, which actually support what he says) makes you wonder how anyone could fall for all the current crap out there. People way too often just want “answers” from some authoritative figure.
Oh by the way, health.com is owned by Health Publshing, Inc., a division of Time, Inc. Who owns Time, and who advertises there? There’s your money trail.
No, no, you have to do it RIGHT;-) The resistant starch foods have to be cooked and COOLED before you eat them, such as potatoes in potato salad or barley cooked and cooled for cereal in the morning. YUCK!!
http://www.prevention.com/health/nutrition/healthy-eating-tips/nature-s-fat-burning-breakthrough/article/296ca6b509787110VgnVCM20000012281eac____
I guess it works for some people, probably those who can tolerate higher levels of carbs in the first place. And what about all of those skinny Irish folks who used to cook up a pot of potatoes and eat them cold throughout the week? Maybe they were on to something (other than malnutrition).
I think I’ll just live without those potatoes, despite my Irish heritage.
An internet search has turned up two things: 1) this article has been discredited all over the web; 2) it looks like health.com has taken this article off its website.
Who owns health.com? Health Publishing, Inc., which seems to be owned by Time. Tom Angelillo, President of Health Publishing, is also President of Southern Progress Corporation at the same address. Wikipedia says “The company publishes such magazines as Southern Living, Cooking Light, and Sunset.” I’m not familiar with the first two mags, but southern cooking isn’t exactly known for making you slim and trim, and cookinglight.com has a bunch of carb-heavy recipes.
References:
http://whois.domaintools.com/health.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Progress_Corporation
A technique that’s a useful tool in the BS detector kit is thinking about how you’d convey this information yourself. Me, I’d define resistant starch, describe how it’s different from regular starch, describe my own results on the diet (or those of people I know), cite sources, and describe the studies in more detail (e.g., what two things were being compared). In other words, I’d plant a flag I could defend.
Still makes me wonder why there’s no actual byline. It strikes me as a PR piece written by one of the advertisers.
Never saw anything at the store with a Resistant Starch label but I am Insulin Resistant from eating sooooo many starches all my life. One slice of any kind of bread makes me gain a pound and shoots my blood sugar way up. I’d like to slap the tv with a chunk of any kind of starch when it talks low fat, blah blah blah.
Hey Tom,
That was a funny read, I still can’t get over the “Carbs control blood sugar and diabetes” lol But I had an enquiry, can u guide me towards any studies or articles that discuss the merits or issues with soya in diet, as in getting the protein replacement from soya instead of meat. My dad wants to start adding soya into his diet (he is vegetarian) and he really doesn’t want to start eating meat because he isn’t used to eating it for a longtime. So he wanted to get protein from some other source and replace his consumption of carbs like rice and bread. So it would be a huge help if you could point me towards some of those information on merits of soya. Thanks.
Regards
Rahul
Best place to start reading up on soy products would be the Weston A. Price site, http://www.westonaprice.org.
“I need at least 45 carbs so I can take my insulin!” Good lord, I’ll be quoting that one.
Rhonda, thanks for the detail. You clearly know how to read a research paper, and how to discuss it. I think this post was talking about was (yet another) example of poor reporting of research, and conclusions based on poor reading of the research.
I’ve only recently heard of resistant starch, so I’m just getting up to speed on what it’s all about. Thanks for the references.
I need to read up it more as well.
LMAO – GREAT visual: “You can almost picture Paul McCartney singing to a muffin: “Got to you get you into my life…””
I know that this is anecdotal evidence, but 8 months ago I started resisting starches. Unfortunately I have only lost a bit more than 40 pounds (I was a “whopping” 215 pounds at 6’1″) and eat as often and as much as I desire. I don’t miss starches. I think I will stay the course and continue to trust people and writers willing to sign their work and OOH – BTW do intelligent research and present a cogent and well articulated explanation for their beliefs. Ah..people like G. Taubes, the Eades doctors, and my favorite blogger, Mr. Tom!
Did you say “only” 40 pounds? That’s a great result.
Here’s an article on resistant starch at the Nutrition and Metabolism site:
http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/1/1/8
The results don’t exactly bowl me over:
“No difference in fasting or postprandial insulin, glucose, FFA, or triglyceride concentration was observed between any of the RS doses examined (Figure 1).”
“No difference in fat oxidation was evident between the maximal 10.7% dose of RS and the 0% dose.”
Meal fat storage decreased with 5.4 g of RS added to breakfast in 12 subjects:
http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/1/1/8/figure/F4
Full disclosure: “Janine Higgins and Ian Brown [two of the researchers who wrote up the study] are listed as inventors on RS patents filed by Penford Australia Limited. Both Drs. Higgins and Brown are listed as inventors on these patents as they have intellectual property ownership of some of data used in these but receive no financial benefit.”
The problem with adding carbs with resistant starch (e.g., bananas, beans) is that in some of us, they spike blood glucose. In the real world, those blood glucose spikes cause a variety of problems. My mother, who is a type 2 diabetic, would get a BG reading over 200 if she ate 1/2 cup of beans.
Thanks for the links. I’ll check those too.
Drew says “Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t every one of those studies they cited compare resistant starches to non-resistant starches — AKA carbs?”
You’re actually wrong. Most of the published insulin sensitivity studies compared resistant starch to no resistant starch. The amount of glycemic carbohydrates in the diet was the same in both the test and the control populations. For instance, the Robertson 2005 AJCN study fed one group of people 50 grams of Novelose 260 per day. Novelose 260 contains a portion of glycemic carbohydrates (20 grams) and a portion of dietary fiber as resistant starch (30 grams). The control population got 20 grams of glycemic carbohydrates. Thus, the difference was 30 grams of resistant starch.
Thank you for the references. I’ll give them a look. How do they add resistant starch to a meal? I haven’t heard of Novelose.
No, no, you have to do it RIGHT;-) The resistant starch foods have to be cooked and COOLED before you eat them, such as potatoes in potato salad or barley cooked and cooled for cereal in the morning. YUCK!!
http://www.prevention.com/health/nutrition/healthy-eating-tips/nature-s-fat-burning-breakthrough/article/296ca6b509787110VgnVCM20000012281eac____
I guess it works for some people, probably those who can tolerate higher levels of carbs in the first place. And what about all of those skinny Irish folks who used to cook up a pot of potatoes and eat them cold throughout the week? Maybe they were on to something (other than malnutrition).
I think I’ll just live without those potatoes, despite my Irish heritage.
It seems to me that a lie about how our dietary foundation should be is much more powerful than any chemical toxin they put in our meat and butter…
Never saw anything at the store with a Resistant Starch label but I am Insulin Resistant from eating sooooo many starches all my life. One slice of any kind of bread makes me gain a pound and shoots my blood sugar way up. I’d like to slap the tv with a chunk of any kind of starch when it talks low fat, blah blah blah.
Hey Tom,
That was a funny read, I still can’t get over the “Carbs control blood sugar and diabetes” lol But I had an enquiry, can u guide me towards any studies or articles that discuss the merits or issues with soya in diet, as in getting the protein replacement from soya instead of meat. My dad wants to start adding soya into his diet (he is vegetarian) and he really doesn’t want to start eating meat because he isn’t used to eating it for a longtime. So he wanted to get protein from some other source and replace his consumption of carbs like rice and bread. So it would be a huge help if you could point me towards some of those information on merits of soya. Thanks.
Regards
Rahul
Best place to start reading up on soy products would be the Weston A. Price site, http://www.westonaprice.org.
“I need at least 45 carbs so I can take my insulin!” Good lord, I’ll be quoting that one.
Rhonda, thanks for the detail. You clearly know how to read a research paper, and how to discuss it. I think this post was talking about was (yet another) example of poor reporting of research, and conclusions based on poor reading of the research.
I’ve only recently heard of resistant starch, so I’m just getting up to speed on what it’s all about. Thanks for the references.
I need to read up it more as well.
Wow… laughed my way through that one, especially this: “you must get carbs back in your life if you are ever to achieve that coveted sleek, slim look.”
News to me… that certainly explains why I resisted the starches and got rid of the “carbs” and lost a lot of weight and gained a lot of energy. Always makes me want to bang my head on a table when a friend who is gulping down a “big gulp” of diet coke tells me that I really need to get more starch and fiber or I’m going to gain weight and get cancer.
What astounds me though, besides the lack of basic understanding of biology, is when people who are getting sick on the SAD diet hold on to the model and insist that they must just not be eating enough carbs!
I have to admit, it took me a long time to realize my high-carb diet wasn’t working. I kept thinking I wasn’t doing it right.
ha, there was a link for this article on Yahoo. i laughed through the whole thing (especially the carb eaters being slimmer than their low-carb – and apparently chubby, which is news to me – counterparts.). if i didn’t know any better, i would’ve thought it was satire. tragically, it was not.
It was certainly silly enough to humorous, although that wasn’t their intention.
LMAO – GREAT visual: “You can almost picture Paul McCartney singing to a muffin: “Got to you get you into my life…””
I know that this is anecdotal evidence, but 8 months ago I started resisting starches. Unfortunately I have only lost a bit more than 40 pounds (I was a “whopping” 215 pounds at 6’1″) and eat as often and as much as I desire. I don’t miss starches. I think I will stay the course and continue to trust people and writers willing to sign their work and OOH – BTW do intelligent research and present a cogent and well articulated explanation for their beliefs. Ah..people like G. Taubes, the Eades doctors, and my favorite blogger, Mr. Tom!
Did you say “only” 40 pounds? That’s a great result.
I had a feeling this morning, that this whole ‘resistant starch’ crap is just trying to sell us something. Looking into it after my class, I think I’m on to something. I know everyone’s gotta make a living and all, so please don’t take it personally Rhonda, but http://www.resistantstarch.com/ according to whois, is owned by National Starch LLC, which is a subsidiary of Corn Products International.
http://www.nationalstarch.com/About%20us/Pages/AboutUs2.aspx
“The food ingredients market where National Starch competes is valued at $30 billion and includes texturizers, nutritional carbohydrates, process aids and other niche food applications. Our core products compete in a narrower space which includes not only specialty starches, but also soy and whey proteins and fat-based emulsifiers. ”
http://www.cornproducts.com/about-us/overview/
“Our starches, sweeteners and other ingredients are used by our customers to provide everything from sweetness, taste and texture to immune system support, fat replacement and adhesive strength.”
I think what we need here is less corn, and more free range cattle. That’s my opinion anyway.
That’s why I want to read more on the topic, not just the references she sent me. After seeing “King Corn,” I think I probably have enough corn in me already. I’m certainly not going to add any to my diet.
It seems to me that a lie about how our dietary foundation should be is much more powerful than any chemical toxin they put in our meat and butter…
Wow… laughed my way through that one, especially this: “you must get carbs back in your life if you are ever to achieve that coveted sleek, slim look.”
News to me… that certainly explains why I resisted the starches and got rid of the “carbs” and lost a lot of weight and gained a lot of energy. Always makes me want to bang my head on a table when a friend who is gulping down a “big gulp” of diet coke tells me that I really need to get more starch and fiber or I’m going to gain weight and get cancer.
What astounds me though, besides the lack of basic understanding of biology, is when people who are getting sick on the SAD diet hold on to the model and insist that they must just not be eating enough carbs!
I have to admit, it took me a long time to realize my high-carb diet wasn’t working. I kept thinking I wasn’t doing it right.
ha, there was a link for this article on Yahoo. i laughed through the whole thing (especially the carb eaters being slimmer than their low-carb – and apparently chubby, which is news to me – counterparts.). if i didn’t know any better, i would’ve thought it was satire. tragically, it was not.
It was certainly silly enough to humorous, although that wasn’t their intention.
I had a feeling this morning, that this whole ‘resistant starch’ crap is just trying to sell us something. Looking into it after my class, I think I’m on to something. I know everyone’s gotta make a living and all, so please don’t take it personally Rhonda, but http://www.resistantstarch.com/ according to whois, is owned by National Starch LLC, which is a subsidiary of Corn Products International.
http://www.nationalstarch.com/About%20us/Pages/AboutUs2.aspx
“The food ingredients market where National Starch competes is valued at $30 billion and includes texturizers, nutritional carbohydrates, process aids and other niche food applications. Our core products compete in a narrower space which includes not only specialty starches, but also soy and whey proteins and fat-based emulsifiers. ”
http://www.cornproducts.com/about-us/overview/
“Our starches, sweeteners and other ingredients are used by our customers to provide everything from sweetness, taste and texture to immune system support, fat replacement and adhesive strength.”
I think what we need here is less corn, and more free range cattle. That’s my opinion anyway.
That’s why I want to read more on the topic, not just the references she sent me. After seeing “King Corn,” I think I probably have enough corn in me already. I’m certainly not going to add any to my diet.
Unbelievable.
While searching med papers about the association between fructan etc and IBS etc I came across some info about the association between fructans and laminitis in horses. I searched some more and found papers about equine insulin resistance and how it is related to horses eating too many starches… human nutrition ‘experts’ will generally say that we get fat and then ill by eating too much fat and processed foods… but of course horses don’t eat cheese, butter, cream or burgers… yet they are still getting insulin resistant and the list of problems they suffer due to eating fructans and grains is long. I have posted on my blog but I think digging into the equine insulin resistance subject might be useful, as, if horses can’t handle too much starch and grain despite being herbivores, it sort of suggests that we’ll have even more problems.
I greatly enjoy your articles. Loved your movie and am sharing it with others.
Thank you.
Unbelievable.
While searching med papers about the association between fructan etc and IBS etc I came across some info about the association between fructans and laminitis in horses. I searched some more and found papers about equine insulin resistance and how it is related to horses eating too many starches… human nutrition ‘experts’ will generally say that we get fat and then ill by eating too much fat and processed foods… but of course horses don’t eat cheese, butter, cream or burgers… yet they are still getting insulin resistant and the list of problems they suffer due to eating fructans and grains is long. I have posted on my blog but I think digging into the equine insulin resistance subject might be useful, as, if horses can’t handle too much starch and grain despite being herbivores, it sort of suggests that we’ll have even more problems.
I greatly enjoy your articles. Loved your movie and am sharing it with others.
Thank you.
Pity the poor businesses that exist to sell carbs… If we’re generous, we can see this merely as someone reaching the bargaining stage of grief. 🙂 Only depression, testing, and acceptance to go!
Ha, good point. I wonder when they’ll reach the acceptance stage.
I hate when a nutrition article or video is only about, HALF right…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYRa1G9A-bA
Half right is about right. We’re not fat because of abundance. We’re fat because we eat the wrong foods.
Pity the poor businesses that exist to sell carbs… If we’re generous, we can see this merely as someone reaching the bargaining stage of grief. 🙂 Only depression, testing, and acceptance to go!
Ha, good point. I wonder when they’ll reach the acceptance stage.
I hate when a nutrition article or video is only about, HALF right…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYRa1G9A-bA
Half right is about right. We’re not fat because of abundance. We’re fat because we eat the wrong foods.
In an interview, Dr. Ravnskov said that the solution that is, sadly, proffered to diabetics (who instead might be helped more by being told to reduce carb ingestion), is to INCREASE their insulin dose to process the sugar! They are told to eat low-fat and basically all the sugar they want, and we’ll just give you more insulin to process all the extra sugar! Their system is already compromised and ineffective to begin with when it comes to these molecules. “You have trouble with sugar and insulin processing?, no big deal -just eat more and more sugar and we’ll give you even more insulin (which turns the blood vessel epithelia into bone forming cells and hardens arteries).
Hyperlipid blogger Peter (from whence I got the article about hyperinsulinemia induced bone creation in the blood vessel linings) also found an article about this- the process of getting fat is protection against the onslaught of forever ingesting carbs. Gary Taubes referenced this in an interview with Jimmy Moore. Gary said that it is illustrated by the (rare, but they are out there) ultra-obese who do NOT have diabetes. They just seem to continue to get fat as PROTECTION against developing diabetes from eating SUGAR in any of its many forms- ‘healthy whole grains”- a travesty! Sorry for the rant, the caps and the !!!!!!!!
Ranting allowed and often encouraged.
In an interview, Dr. Ravnskov said that the solution that is, sadly, proffered to diabetics (who instead might be helped more by being told to reduce carb ingestion), is to INCREASE their insulin dose to process the sugar! They are told to eat low-fat and basically all the sugar they want, and we’ll just give you more insulin to process all the extra sugar! Their system is already compromised and ineffective to begin with when it comes to these molecules. “You have trouble with sugar and insulin processing?, no big deal -just eat more and more sugar and we’ll give you even more insulin (which turns the blood vessel epithelia into bone forming cells and hardens arteries).
Hyperlipid blogger Peter (from whence I got the article about hyperinsulinemia induced bone creation in the blood vessel linings) also found an article about this- the process of getting fat is protection against the onslaught of forever ingesting carbs. Gary Taubes referenced this in an interview with Jimmy Moore. Gary said that it is illustrated by the (rare, but they are out there) ultra-obese who do NOT have diabetes. They just seem to continue to get fat as PROTECTION against developing diabetes from eating SUGAR in any of its many forms- ‘healthy whole grains”- a travesty! Sorry for the rant, the caps and the !!!!!!!!
Ranting allowed and often encouraged.
Saw that on Yahoo! and was amazed in a bad way. It often seems to me that they will only publish terrible info that is absolutely false and counterproductive.
To answer the question about how researchers have been adding resistant starch to foods – National Starch isolates and sells a natural resistant starch. It used to be called Novelose 260 (which was referenced in some of the earlier studies). It was re-named a few years ago and is called Hi-maize 260. It is isolated from a hybrid that is naturally rich in amylose. These long linear chains of glucose (called amylose) are the key to what is different about this type of cornstarch that causes it resists digestion within the intestinal tract. Researchers are using this source of resistant starch in their studies for many reasons: 1. They can sprinkle it into foods without significantly changing the caloric content 2. It is stable in baked goods and other mild processing conditions whereas other food forms change the quantity of RS as the food ripens, 3. It has been available for years and has a large body of evidence behind it – appx 350 published studies and 92 published human clinical trials. Each researcher decides how they’re going to feed the RS – the Robertson group sprinkles it into mousse or pudding and instructs their participants how to blend it into their foods. Other researchers have baked it into bread, muffins, and many other types of foods. Some researchers have compared it to high glycemic carbs, as was suggested earlier in this discussion. Each research publication is different as the researcher decides how they’re going to design the study. Because there are many factors involved (glycemic impact, caloric content, composition of fat/protein/carbohdyrate in the meal, fiber content of the meal, etc), there is not one magical way to isolate everything you want to know. You have to evaluate multiple studies and see if you get effects under multiple conditions. The fact that Hi-maize resistant starch is showing improvements in insulin sensitivity and in satiety across multiple forms, in different research groups and food forms suggests that consumers will get these benefits across a wide range of diets as well.
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.
And while National Starch sells the ingredient, the research has been largely published by independent academics. The studies have been paid for by a wide variety of groups, including the National Institutes of Health, Diabetes UK, the Chinese government, the Australian government, etc. This isn’t a case of a manufacturer sponsoring all of the research – it’s more like researchers have figured out that resistant starch is intellectually interesting and can help people eat better. But, for researchers, it’s about identifying something new that is publishable.
Thanks for the clarification.
Saw that on Yahoo! and was amazed in a bad way. It often seems to me that they will only publish terrible info that is absolutely false and counterproductive.
To answer the question about how researchers have been adding resistant starch to foods – National Starch isolates and sells a natural resistant starch. It used to be called Novelose 260 (which was referenced in some of the earlier studies). It was re-named a few years ago and is called Hi-maize 260. It is isolated from a hybrid that is naturally rich in amylose. These long linear chains of glucose (called amylose) are the key to what is different about this type of cornstarch that causes it resists digestion within the intestinal tract. Researchers are using this source of resistant starch in their studies for many reasons: 1. They can sprinkle it into foods without significantly changing the caloric content 2. It is stable in baked goods and other mild processing conditions whereas other food forms change the quantity of RS as the food ripens, 3. It has been available for years and has a large body of evidence behind it – appx 350 published studies and 92 published human clinical trials. Each researcher decides how they’re going to feed the RS – the Robertson group sprinkles it into mousse or pudding and instructs their participants how to blend it into their foods. Other researchers have baked it into bread, muffins, and many other types of foods. Some researchers have compared it to high glycemic carbs, as was suggested earlier in this discussion. Each research publication is different as the researcher decides how they’re going to design the study. Because there are many factors involved (glycemic impact, caloric content, composition of fat/protein/carbohdyrate in the meal, fiber content of the meal, etc), there is not one magical way to isolate everything you want to know. You have to evaluate multiple studies and see if you get effects under multiple conditions. The fact that Hi-maize resistant starch is showing improvements in insulin sensitivity and in satiety across multiple forms, in different research groups and food forms suggests that consumers will get these benefits across a wide range of diets as well.
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.
And while National Starch sells the ingredient, the research has been largely published by independent academics. The studies have been paid for by a wide variety of groups, including the National Institutes of Health, Diabetes UK, the Chinese government, the Australian government, etc. This isn’t a case of a manufacturer sponsoring all of the research – it’s more like researchers have figured out that resistant starch is intellectually interesting and can help people eat better. But, for researchers, it’s about identifying something new that is publishable.
Thanks for the clarification.
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.