Starch and the Diabetic

[PSDave]

I have been reading about RESISTANT STARCH on the internet.
Right off the top, you should Google Resistant Starch. Fascinating! Wikipedia’s article on resistant starch will serve as an eye opener. Another place to find it is at Slim Down with Carbs - Prevention magazine (http://www.prevention.com/starch)
I haven't had a potato for 1-1/2 years. Now, maybe, a 4 or 5 oz. of COLD potato or 1/2 cup of pinto beans will actually be good for me.
Since my BG is pretty well characterized, I think I will try a small cold spud one day, and 1/2 cup of Pinto or Navy beans the next. I will report back.
I have an HbA1c scheduled for tomorrow, so the "cold spud test" WON'T start tonight!
PSDave

[BlueSky]

Don't believe everything you read about so-called resistant starch. There is a lot of misunderstanding and misinformation going around about it. The supposed benefits have been blown out of all proportion. Your cold 5oz potato would contain about 30grams of carbohydrate, and only about 3 grams of resistant starch. I don't think eating a potato cold would make a noticeable difference to my blood glucose response. And the notion that resistant starch delivers no calories is a complete fallacy. Health benefits are supposedly derived from the fact that resistant starch is converted in butyrate. But there are much easier sources of these fatty acids that don't carry the overhead of huge amounts of carbohydrate. The whole hoopla is an attempt to find health benefits in food that is unhealthy.

For an alternative evaluation of the resistant starch debate, follow this link Health & Nutrition by Michael R. Eades, M.D. » Resistant starch (http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/metabolism/resistant-starch/)

[Mich]

Thanks, Blue. ;)

A very well written piece on resistant starch. He really does know his stuff. Now I have to go look up anti-nutrients.

Mich

[BlueSky]

.... Now I have to go look up anti-nutrients....
Basically anti-nutrients are toxins in plant food, that are there to stop animals eating it. Potatoes, for example, are a food source for new seedlings. And it is not in the plant's interest that they should be eaten by animals. So they have evolved to contain toxic substances. This is why raw potatoes are poisonous. They have to be cooked to neutralise these toxins and make potato safe to eat. Anti-nutrients in potato include :

Solanine - (Gastrointestinal symptoms, inflammation of kidney, binds metals, decreased iron absorption, inhibits enzymes)
Protease inhibitors - (Inhibition of trypsin and chymotrypsin, decreased digestion of protein)
Phenols - (Decrease availability of trace elements)

Flour is another case in point. If you eat the stuff raw, you get very sick! Seeds are intended for propagating the species, and their consumption is discouraged by the inclusion of powerful anti-nutrients. Anti-nutrients are mostly detoxified by cooking but it is thought that there is still some residual action.

Anyway, Michael Eades regards resistant starch as an anti-nutrient. I can't see why as it doesn't seem to have an adverse effect on the consumer, but I am looking forward to his blog on the subject. ;)

[Mich]

Hi Blue,

Beecha to it. I knew what those were, I just didn't know they were called that. Besides. Your explanation was such a nice condensation and so much more understandable. Good job!
You are a top notch researcher and a great resource for this group.

[PSDave]

Well, thanks very much BS (blue sky)! There is so much this-and-that on the internet, you need a program. That's why I am here (the best Diabetes forum I have found) --
I have a spud "colding" in the fridge right now. I think I'll eat it for dinner. Measure BG pre and post (and weigh that spud) to see what it does.
PSDave

[BlueSky]

... I have a spud "colding" in the fridge right now. ....
While the logic behind it is suspect, we are all a bit different and you may find this works for you. As they say in the classics, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Your test-and-measure approach is the way to go. Let us know what happens.

[volleyball]

Does not make sense. If they did not absorb and kept the rest of the potato or rice from being digested and converted to energy, how did/ do people live on those item for such a long period, and why do they raise my BS.
I did hear that potatoes cooked and then chilled, will have different properties the next day that kept down the spike. Maybe the tests were done a day or more after being cooked.