Starch and Whole Grains. Re: Whole Grain Benefits

[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.

[Guest guest]

Some fraction of starch doesn't resolve to glucose it the upper GI.

This is called " resistant starch " and it is usually likened to

fiber, because it ferments in the colon.

Apparently, resistant starch is much sought after for processed

foods, probably for reasons other than its health benefits. I think

it can be as much as 10% of the starch itself. Cooking does tend to

destroy it, however.

Googling ( " resistant starch " health benefits) yields over 27,000

references.

Here's an interesting backgrounder on resistant starch in rice:

http://tinyurl.com/dksgu

And another on the effect of resistant starch on lipid oxidation:

Conclusions: These data indicate that replacement of 5.4% of total

dietary carbohydrate with RS significantly increased post-prandial

lipid oxidation and therefore could decrease fat accumulation in the

long-term.

http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/1/1/8

Now, if we can just find natural foodstuffs high in resistant starch

(RS) and low in plain old starch (POS), and its RS isn't destroyed

by preparation, we might have something.

Mike

>

> 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.

>

[Guest guest]

I can hardly wait. (TIC)

Regards.

[ ] Starch and Whole Grains. Re: Whole Grain Benefits

Some fraction of starch doesn't resolve to glucose it the upper GI. This is called "resistant starch" and it is usually likened to fiber, because it ferments in the colon.Apparently, resistant starch is much sought after for processed foods, probably for reasons other than its health benefits. I think it can be as much as 10% of the starch itself. Cooking does tend to destroy it, however.Googling ("resistant starch" health benefits) yields over 27,000 references.Here's an interesting backgrounder on resistant starch in rice:http://tinyurl.com/dksguAnd another on the effect of resistant starch on lipid oxidation:Conclusions: These data indicate that replacement of 5.4% of total dietary carbohydrate with RS significantly increased post-prandial lipid oxidation and therefore could decrease fat accumulation in the long-term.http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/1/1/8Now, if we can just find natural foodstuffs high in resistant starch(RS) and low in plain old starch (POS), and its RS isn't destroyed by preparation, we might have something.Mike

[Guest guest]

I can hardly wait. (TIC)

Regards.

[ ] Starch and Whole Grains. Re: Whole Grain Benefits

Some fraction of starch doesn't resolve to glucose it the upper GI. This is called "resistant starch" and it is usually likened to fiber, because it ferments in the colon.Apparently, resistant starch is much sought after for processed foods, probably for reasons other than its health benefits. I think it can be as much as 10% of the starch itself. Cooking does tend to destroy it, however.Googling ("resistant starch" health benefits) yields over 27,000 references.Here's an interesting backgrounder on resistant starch in rice:http://tinyurl.com/dksguAnd another on the effect of resistant starch on lipid oxidation:Conclusions: These data indicate that replacement of 5.4% of total dietary carbohydrate with RS significantly increased post-prandial lipid oxidation and therefore could decrease fat accumulation in the long-term.http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/1/1/8Now, if we can just find natural foodstuffs high in resistant starch(RS) and low in plain old starch (POS), and its RS isn't destroyed by preparation, we might have something.Mike

[Guest guest]

The problem is that they come as a package and by eliminating parts of the

package, we may be eliminating more than we know.

In general, I dont think there is a problem with the package as a whole.

But, in many of the studies Rodney cited, they are looking at Americans, who

right now, average no more than one serving of whole grains a day, so their

" starch " consumption was coming mostly from refined white flour carbohydrates,

which is mostly the starch component. No wonder starch looked so bad.

Jeff

[Guest guest]

The problem is that they come as a package and by eliminating parts of the

package, we may be eliminating more than we know.

In general, I dont think there is a problem with the package as a whole.

But, in many of the studies Rodney cited, they are looking at Americans, who

right now, average no more than one serving of whole grains a day, so their

" starch " consumption was coming mostly from refined white flour carbohydrates,

which is mostly the starch component. No wonder starch looked so bad.

Jeff

[Guest guest]

Just a small comment, there's no such thing as whole grain wheat bread, unless you make it with whole kernel wheat which includes the germ. King Arthur flour.

That's one reason I doubt a lot of data.

Another thing is we make bread with bicarb, not yeast, so the gluten has to be different and livable.

Regards

RE: [ ] Starch and Whole Grains. Re: Whole Grain Benefits

The problem is that they come as a package and by eliminating parts of the package, we may be eliminating more than we know.In general, I dont think there is a problem with the package as a whole. But, in many of the studies Rodney cited, they are looking at Americans, who right now, average no more than one serving of whole grains a day, so their "starch" consumption was coming mostly from refined white flour carbohydrates, which is mostly the starch component. No wonder starch looked so bad.Jeff

[Guest guest]

Just a small comment, there's no such thing as whole grain wheat bread, unless you make it with whole kernel wheat which includes the germ. King Arthur flour.

That's one reason I doubt a lot of data.

Another thing is we make bread with bicarb, not yeast, so the gluten has to be different and livable.

Regards

RE: [ ] Starch and Whole Grains. Re: Whole Grain Benefits

The problem is that they come as a package and by eliminating parts of the package, we may be eliminating more than we know.In general, I dont think there is a problem with the package as a whole. But, in many of the studies Rodney cited, they are looking at Americans, who right now, average no more than one serving of whole grains a day, so their "starch" consumption was coming mostly from refined white flour carbohydrates, which is mostly the starch component. No wonder starch looked so bad.Jeff

[Guest guest]

Some of our healthiest veggies are full of starch, legumes, for example. Rod himself, talked recently about eating legumes for longer life.

on 1/24/2006 10:53 AM, Jeff Novick at jnovick@... wrote:

The problem is that they come as a package and by eliminating parts of the package, we may be eliminating more than we know.

In general, I dont think there is a problem with the package as a whole.

But, in many of the studies Rodney cited, they are looking at Americans, who right now, average no more than one serving of whole grains a day, so their " starch " consumption was coming mostly from refined white flour carbohydrates, which is mostly the starch component. No wonder starch looked so bad.

Jeff

[Guest guest]

Some of our healthiest veggies are full of starch, legumes, for example. Rod himself, talked recently about eating legumes for longer life.

on 1/24/2006 10:53 AM, Jeff Novick at jnovick@... wrote:

The problem is that they come as a package and by eliminating parts of the package, we may be eliminating more than we know.

In general, I dont think there is a problem with the package as a whole.

But, in many of the studies Rodney cited, they are looking at Americans, who right now, average no more than one serving of whole grains a day, so their " starch " consumption was coming mostly from refined white flour carbohydrates, which is mostly the starch component. No wonder starch looked so bad.

Jeff