Starch and Whole Grains. Re: Whole Grain Benefits

[Guest guest]

Hi Francesca:

Well here is my response to your post below. I am afraid that to

cover the subject matter properly it is going to be somewhat

lengthy. You asked for " ...... unless you have some hard evidence

(or even any evidence) ....... " . Many of these items have been

posted here previously. We have also had some previous discussion of

this issue, and I will reference a few of those posts.

If there is evidence that supports the opposite position it would be

of great interest to me as well as the group as a whole. But for

many years I have been looking out for such studies that would clear

up this matter to my satisfaction, and for certain I have never seen

one. But if anyone has one (or preferably more than one) then I will

be all ears.

So what follows is the situation as I see it. I know I have learnt

an enormous amount from the posts I have read here, and have much

more to learn. And we all know that nutrition/health research itself

(even if we knew all of what is known now) still has a very long way

to go before we can feel comfortable that the vast majority of it is

well understood.

Some people appear to believe that eating starch is desirable, and

that making efforts to restrict it are inappropriate. I believe that

reducing starch intake is desirable wherever conveniently possible

except when it is inextricably accompanied by a lot of healthy

micronutrients.

In one previous post, as well as the one below, I have been accused

of advocating: " the elimination of an entire food group " . I do not

advocate that, never have advocated it, and have never tried to do so

in my own eating habits, or nutrition philosophy. For a start I do

advocate consumption of bran, and also, currently, germ as well.

Both of which are components of the grain food group. But I do

advocate REDUCING starch intake where possible, which is not the same

thing as eliminating it entirely. If you could reference any post

where I have advocated the total elimination of grains from the diet,

or even the total elimination of starch, I would be much obliged. I

am quite sure you will not find one, but if you do I will happily

retract it. Others here in the past may have advocated the total

elimination of starch or grains, but not me.

---------------------------------

First of all, for some perspective, let's start by mentioning a few

basic principles of CRON about which my impression is we all agree.

First, stop eating the junk - that is the foods we all understand to

be actively harmful to health. CRON would of course be dead easy if

all we had to do was stop eating the foods that have been proven to

cause heart disease and cancer, and then gorge ourselves on all the

others. But unfortunately for most people, that is insufficient. We

need to further restict our intakes of calories if we can justifiably

hope to achieve the CR benefits seen in mice. So where next - after

cutting the junk - should we reduce calories?

Well most people agree that the next place to reduce intake is those

food items which, although they have not been clearly demonstrated to

actively undermine health, are of no clear tangible benefit. Often

these foods are designated " Empty Calories " . The definition of which

is of course that while containing abundant calories, they have

little of the beneficial micronutrients of which we need plenty.

Here is a list of empty calorie food types. Perhaps there are more

to add, if so please chirp in, anyone:

Fats and oils (beyond the RDAs for one or two of them)

Sugars

Alcohol

Amino acids (beyond the RDAs)

Starch (a notable component of potatoes, rice, bread, pasta, ....)

I will not cover the first four items in the above list since that

would not be germane to this discussion. As regards the fifth item,

starches, they are, by definition, a group of chemical compounds

(Tony will correct any inaccuracies here) that are composed of

multiple sugar molecules chemically linked together in long

(sometimes very long) chains. These chains can readily be broken

down, when needed, into their component glucose molecules for use as

a source of energy. So starch, I believe, is just another version of

sugar, which plants use to store energy for when they may need it in

the future. In many cases the starch is the energy a plant seed is

supplied with to ensure survival during the period between

germination and the establishment of its root system, after which

time it is able to obtain its energy requirements from the soil.

Now the starch in the endosperm in seeds is usually associated with

only small amounts of micronutrients. It is generally agreed, and

has often been discussed here, that white bread is 'just awful'. And

the reason it is 'just awful' is that it has little in the way of

micronutrient content. All the 'real nutrients', these people say,

have been removed, and a few of them 'put back in' (enriched). These

real nutrients that have been removed are, of course, in the germ and

the bran. So white bread is largely starch, but I have never seen

anyone here rebuked for advising elimination of white bread from the

diet.

But if, as in the case of bread, the overwhelming majority of the

beneficial nutrients (in the germ and bran) can be, and are,

separated from the empty calorie part of the food - the starch - and

can be eaten alone without the starch, then why eat the empty

calories when it is not necessary?

Take, for sake of example, someone pursuing CRON whose average daily

caloric 'limit' is 1500 calories a day. And suppose that, because

they believe whole grains are healthy, they eat ~500 calories a day

of starch in some form or other, associated with whole grains -

perhaps oatmeal and whole wheat bread. Suppose they decide to eat

100g of oatmeal a day (186 calories) and four small slices of whole

wheat bread (340 calories) for a total of 526 calories, the vast

majority of which come from starch. Of course the vast majority of

the micronutrients come from the bran and germ, which are available

for anyone who wants them, on their own, without the high calorie,

nutrient poor, endosperm of the seed, which is where the starch comes

from, and from which 'dreadful' white bread is made. I estimate that

the caloric content of the germ and bran associated with the amounts

of the foods noted above is ~61 calories. So in this case eating the

germ and bran instead of the oats and whole wheat bread appears to

provide a net saving of about 465 calories without forgoing the

micronutrients.

So if one decides to do without the starch and, instead, eat the

amount of germ and bran that corresponds to that contained in the

oatmeal and whole wheat bread that would otherwise have been eaten,

then without increasing caloric intake above the 1500 limit, 465

calories of other nutrient-dense foods can be eaten

instead ........... perhaps extra berries, or more vegetables ......

whatever it is the individual considers to be the healthiest.

So it is my opinion that eating any form of empty calories, and that

includes starch, unnecessarily has the effect, within one's limited

caloric budget, of depriving one of sizeable amounts of highly

beneficial micronutrients.

If some type of starch is available only in a form that is

inextricably bound up with some excellent nutrients so that they

cannot be separated, or if smaller amounts of starch are available in

a food that has clearly demonstrated health benefits (sweet potatoes

and beans may be examples), then each of us can decide for ourselves

whether the additional caloric burden of the empty calories in that

food is worth the extra nutrients the food provides. And the

decision may be yes, or may be no, depending on the alternatives that

are available.

=====================================

So enough for introductory comments. Now onto the issue of

evidence. You may say: " But lots of studies show that people who

eat whole grains are healthier. " I agree, they do. But there are

some problems with those studies that I have previously noted. Here

they are again:

The first problem is that those studies do not prove that it is the

starch that provides the benefit. It is far more likely, imo, in the

light of the evidence listed below, that the benefit, assuming it is

not a figment of confounding which it possibly may be, can be

attributed to the bran, and perhaps the germ also.

The second problem is aptly demonstrated in a recent study I posted

here a few days ago. That study showed very convincingly, imo, that

the people who drink wine eat much healthier foods products than

those who drink beer. The study was done in a country where all

three: food, beer and wine are sold in grocery stores, and the

investigators compared the type of foods bought, as indicated on cash

register receipts of people who bought wine, with the food purchases

of people who bought beer. This showed that wine buyers bought much

healthier foods. The point of this is, of course, that the APPARENT

health benefits that many studies have attributed to wine consumption

may, possibly, have nothing to do with the wine, but rather be

explained purely by the healthier foods this study shows wine

drinkers eat.

The relevance of this to the current issue is that it is very clear

to me that anyone who goes to the trouble of buying whole grain

products will certainly not confine their healthy behaviours purely

to eating whole grains. So it is highly likely that in general those

who eat whole grains will also exhibit many other healthy behaviours

that are much less prevalent among refined grain eaters who,

apparently, do not give a lot of thought to their diet or health.

These behaviours will likely include eating other healthier foods;

not smoking; watching their weight; getting their blood pressure

checked; and so on. These other healthy behaviours likely explain a

significant proportion (possibly all, but I doubt it) of the better

health of whole grain eaters. So again this information in not good

evidence that *starch* is desirable.

Next, what do the studies say about the benefits/hazards associated

with starch intake? Well I haven't noticed studies being posted here

that say something like, for example: " The highest quintile of

starch eaters get 37% less kidney cancer than the lowest quintile " .

Do you know of any studies of that sort? If you do then we certainly

should know about them.

However I do know of studies, some of them posted here previously,

that have indicated an increased incidence of cancer associated with

higher intakes of starch or carbohydrates. One was a study showing

an increased incidence of pancreatic cancer among women. Pancreatic

cancer is fairly common and has, I believe, a 100% fatality rate and

perhaps the shortest life expectancy of all forms of cancer (only 4%

survive five years after diagnosis). This is something it would be

nice to avoid. Here are some excerpts from a press release about the

study:

" Study Suggests a Possible Link Between High-starch Diet And

Pancreatic Cancer in Overweight, Sedentary WomenBoston - September 4,

2002, Harvard Medical School affiliate Dana-Farber Cancer Hospital -

A diet high in starchy foods such as potatoes, rice and white bread

may increase the risk of pancreatic cancer in women who are

overweight and sedentary, according to a new study by Dana-Farber

Cancer Institute, Brigham and Women & #8217;s Hospital and Harvard School of

Public Health researchers.

Published in the Sept. 4 issue of the Journal of the National Cancer

Institute, the study suggests that excess insulin & #8212;a substance used by

the body to process the sugar in foods & #8212;can promote the development of

pancreatic cancer. Nearly 30,000 men and women in the United States

are diagnosed with pancreatic cancer each year, and an equal number

die from it. Pancreatic cancer typically is highly aggressive and is

one of the least-curable malignancies. Only four percent of the

people with pancreatic cancer are alive five years after

diagnosis. .................

The new study explored whether women whose diets are heavy in foods

that increase insulin production are likewise at elevated risk for

pancreatic cancer. The researchers reasoned that if insulin fuels

the growth of pancreatic cancer, then foods that prompt the body to

produce large amounts of insulin should be associated with a greater

occurrence of the disease. Knowing that the body uses insulin to burn

sugar, the researchers focused on foods that raise blood levels of

glucose, a sugar that is a main energy source for cells. Data for

the study came from the Nurses & #8217; Health Study. "

In addition, a study appeared in the International Journal of Cancer

on 10 November 2004 which indicated that avoiding high GI foods was

associated with a 36% reduction in prostate cancer. White bread -

mostly starch - is often used as the benchmark of 100 for GI. I

included this study when I posted a list of studies suggesting ways

to reduce the chances of getting prostate cancer. (Augustin LVA

Galeone C Maso LD Pelucchi C .........) Excerpts from the

abstract:

" Abstract: Dietary carbohydrates have different glycemic and

insulinemic potentials depending on type (glycemic index, GI) and

amount (glycemic load, GL) of carbohydrate consumed or

both. ........ We assessed the relationship of GI and GL with

prostate cancer risk in a multicenter case-control study. (The data

were adjusted) for age, study center, education, family history of

prostate cancer, smoking, body mass index, physical activity, alcohol

consumption, intake of energy, fiber and lycopenes. Compared to the

lowest quintile of GI, the ORs were 1.23, 1.24, 1.47 and 1.57 for

subsequent levels of GI. The corresponding values for GL were 0.91,

1.00, 1.20 and 1.41. We found direct relations between dietary GI

and GL and prostate cancer risk. Correcting for potential confounding

factors did not substantially modify these associations. "

Another study, PMID 15598953, found that: " CONCLUSIONS: Starch and

monounsaturated fatty acids were directly associated with prostate

cancer risk ................ " . That was post # 17746 at

.

And a study in Mexico found a link between carbohydrates and breast

cancer: http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/13/8/1283

This study was also posted here at the time.

Then there is the acrylamide issue, one reference for which is PMID:

15729833 (December 2004), from the abstract: " Acrylamide is a food-

borne toxicant suspected to be carcinogenic to humans. It is formed

in the heating process of starch-containing food. Currently, there is

a great discussion about the possible human health risks connected

with the dietary uptake of acrylamide " .

Another acrylamide paper, PMID 16253758 (December 2005), from the

abstract: " Acrylamide has recently been reported to be spontaneously

formed in fried and baked foods with various concentrations. Although

carcinogenicity in humans is as yet equivocal, numerous positive

genotoxicity data in vitro and in vivo and results of rat long-term

carcinogenicity studies demonstrating tumor induction at multiple

sites, like the mammary gland, thyroid and testes, suggest the risk

with dietary exposure may not be negligible. "

And another report, PMID 16037219 (June 2005), says: " Relatively

high amounts of acrylamide have recently been reported in

carbohydrate-rich foods under low moisture conditions. This sparked

intensive investigations into acrylamide, encompassing its

occurrence, chemistry, and toxicology/potential health risk in the

human diet. " They also note that: " Recent epidemiological studies

[have] failed to evidence an association of cancer incidence and

dietary acrylamide exposure. " So the jury, evidently, is still out

on this one.

And this: PMID 15914214 (July 2005): " ..... This paper reviews

briefly four classes of cooked food toxicants, e.g. acrylamide,

heterocyclic amines, nitrosamines and polyaromatic

hydrocarbons. .............................. Their occurrence,

formation, metabolic activation, genotoxicity and human cancer risk

are briefly presented along with figures on estimated exposure.

Several lines of evidence indicate that cooking conditions and

dietary habits can contribute to human cancer risk through the

ingestion of genotoxic compounds from heat-processed

foods. ................ The genotoxic and carcinogenic potential of

these cooked food toxicants have been evaluated regularly by the

International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which has come to

the conclusion that several of these food-borne toxicants present in

cooked foods are possibly (2A) or probably (2B) carcinogenic to

humans, based on both high-dose, long-term animal studies and in

vitro and in vivo genotoxicity tests. Yet, there is insufficient

scientific evidence that these genotoxic compounds really cause human

cancer, and no limits have been set for their presence in cooked

foods. However, the competent authorities in most Western countries

recommend minimising their occurrence, therefore this aspect is also

included in this review. "

So there are a number of studies that appear to implicate starch in

certain types of cancer.

You may also remember that, at the time of the release of Spindler's

study showing that CRON appreciably extended the lifespan of mice

even when started on CRON only at 'age 60', I took the full text;

found the name of the company that had provided the feed for both the

ad lib mice and the 40% restricted mice; emailed them to get the

detailed analysis of the (chemically defined) diets; and took a look

at what the difference was. This was all posted here at the time,

within a couple of weeks of the study being published. What did it

show? It showed that the only material difference between the two

diets, accounting for the 40% lower caloric intake of the restricted

mice, was that in the restricted mice diet the starch content was

reduced by (I think it was) 97% compared with the ad lib controls.

Everything else was identical in both type and amount. The 97%

number can be checked as it is in the post in the archives

(a " Spindler diet " search would likely find it). My copy of those

data seems to be inaccessible.

To be absolutely clear, the mice that lived 40% longer had consumed

97% less starch. So, given this result, I find it difficult to

imagine how it could be suggested that starch is in some way

essential or important or even desirable for a healthy diet. While I

do not advocate total elimination of starch - because it isn't

practical or necessary - this evidence suggests it is very unlikely

that a 97% reduction in starch would be harmful. To repeat, I am not

suggesting total elimination of starch, I eat a few potatoes and

bread and beans that contain it. I am suggesting reducing it where

possible.

Now you may argue: " But I believe it is the COMBINATION of the

starch in whole grains along with the bran and germ which they also

contain, that is the cause of the benefit. " Well if you believe that

(it could possibly turn out to be true) then I ask what evidence do

you have to support this belief? In other words can you post any

studies which show the following:

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Four groups studied, three equi-caloric (numbers in human terms), all

eating exactly the same except .........

Group A eats 1500 calories, composed of 500 calories of whole grain

bread and 1000 calories of 'very healthy foods';

Group B eats 1500 calories including 500 calories of pure starch and

1000 calories of the same identical 'very healthy foods' ;

Group C eats 1500 calories, including 60 calories of bran and germ

and 1440 calories of the same identical 'very healthy foods'; and

Group D which eats 1200 calories of the same 'very healthy foods', no

starch at all, and 60 calories of bran and germ for a total of 1260

calories.

IMO, if the 'combination of foods' argument is to be taken seriously

the above is the study that needs to be done to demonstrate it. If

you know of such a study, which group was the healthiest and in what

respect?

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

My GUESS is that if the study were done the results would show group

D to be the healthiest (showing the benefits of a sizeable reduction

in calories with a 20% increase in consumption of very healthy foods,

compared with groups A and ; group C the next most healthy (because

they are getting the healthy components of grains, and a huge amount

more 'very healthy foods' than groups A and B that are consuming

minimal-nutrient starch); followed by groups A and B. But of course

we will not know until someone does the study, preferably in a type

of animal that is an excellent analog for human health (hamsters?

gerbils?).

As I have said I, along with everyone else, am naturally interested

in learning as much as possible here, and this post is an effort to

try to get a little closer to the truth about what I believe to be a

fairly important aspect of CRON - limiting the intake of empty

calories, and especially that of empty calorie foods which also have

possible health hazard characteristics. If from here on posts on the

subject of empty calories are going to be considered off limits, then

quite a number of previous posts, not only by me, are also going to

have to be declared out-of-bounds.

This post does not prove I am right. As I have often said we all

have to place our bets about what we figure may be the best path.

And adjust our bets each time some persuasive new (scientific)

information appears. But we are all free to take our own path if our

interpretation of the evidence suggests to us that it makes sense to

do so. No one knows for certain all the details of the best path.

But health/food/nutrition research is slowly getting closer to it.

-----------------------

So the above is the rationale for the health 'bet' I am taking by

limiting my starch intake where possible, while supplementing bran

and germ. And of course it is just fine for others to come to

conclusions that are different from mine, even after reviewing the

same evidence. In summary, I have chosen to reduce starch intake

because I believe it certainly represents empty calories; may be

carcinogenic, especially if heated; while the benefits of whole

grains, if those benefits are real, can most probably be derived from

germ and bran alone at greatly reduced caloric load. Then the

calories that otherwise would have been supplied by starch can be

diverted to other foods that are far denser in the micronutrients we

all believe are highly desirable.

[PS: Some other posts which have relevance include:

17067, 17068, 17069, 17071, 17071, 17074.]

Just my take.

And now I am gonna take the rest of the month off ;; ^ )))

Rodney.

===============================================================

===============================================================

> Hi folks:

>

> I am open minded but a bit skeptical about this. People who take

the

> trouble to eat whole grain products, overall undoubtedly take much

> more care of their health than those who don't pay any attention to

> what they eat. So I wonder how much of the beneficial effect truly

> is a result solely of the whole grains, and how much is attributable

> to their other healthy behaviours.

>

> That said, I do take the trouble to add germ and bran to my diet, as

> I am fairly sure it is not harmful ; ^ )))

>

> --Ditto at least to the bran; the problem comes in trying to

isolate to what

> extent the " whole " outweighs the likely negative " grain " part of

the whole

> grain products--I find it hard to swallow, as it were, that

increased

> consumption of relatively high GI carbohydrates is in any way

beneficial on

> its own.

>

> Maco

>

[Guest guest]

Rod: I appreciate your lengthy response. The topic is not starch but whole grains,

I will simply say that there are issues you've presented here that are " gray areas " and not relevant. Citing a study of obese women who overate on starch has no relevance to our discussion or to this group. Other studies you've cited on starch (which would include white flour, white bread etc and other non-cronie foods ) and acrylimide are tangential and not specific to the topic.

I will simply point to one of our classic posts by Jeff: /message/13831

In one of the many studies that Jeff cites in that post, it says:

This data supports that protection comes from the combination of components

in grains rather than any isolated component.

on 1/23/2006 7:31 AM, Rodney at perspect1111@... wrote:

Hi Francesca:

Well here is my response to your post below. I am afraid that to

cover the subject matter properly it is going to be somewhat

lengthy. You asked for " ...... unless you have some hard evidence

(or even any evidence) ....... " . Many of these items have been

posted here previously. We have also had some previous discussion of

this issue, and I will reference a few of those posts.

If there is evidence that supports the opposite position it would be

of great interest to me as well as the group as a whole. But for

many years I have been looking out for such studies that would clear

up this matter to my satisfaction, and for certain I have never seen

one. But if anyone has one (or preferably more than one) then I will

be all ears.

So what follows is the situation as I see it. I know I have learnt

an enormous amount from the posts I have read here, and have much

more to learn. And we all know that nutrition/health research itself

(even if we knew all of what is known now) still has a very long way

to go before we can feel comfortable that the vast majority of it is

well understood.

Some people appear to believe that eating starch is desirable, and

that making efforts to restrict it are inappropriate. I believe that

reducing starch intake is desirable wherever conveniently possible

except when it is inextricably accompanied by a lot of healthy

micronutrients.