Talk:Resistant starch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Food and drink  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Questions without answers[edit]

Readers may well be interested in understanding the answers to the following questions:

  • If a food is cooled and re-heated and eaten hot, what part of the benefits, if any, are lost?
  • What foods provide the most benefit in terms of containing resistant starches? Does the benefit go up linearly with the amount of resistant starch in a food?
  • Where can I find more complete lists of the amount of Resistant starch in various foods?

It may not be clear to the reader what point is being made in Energy management that is not being made in Blood sugar response/glycemic management - the points may be very different but understanding the difference may be hard for folks w/o enough food science background.

Thanks! Dnklu (talk) 18:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

1. When food is heated internal bonds break or get loose. Take a look at the chemical concept: activation energy. It is temperature dependent. In short the hotter it gets, the easier to break a bond or switch from one state to another.

2. There many books and articles on this subject. For example The Skinny Carbs Diet by David Federal and David Bonom.


WikiProject Food and drink Tagging[edit]

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and carefull attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 17:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

glycemic impact[edit]

It would be useful if "glycemic impact" was explained in this article. --JWSchmidt (talk) 05:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Consumer Products[edit]

I want to get more resistant starch in my diet. Apparently, the best way is to eat a lot of beans. I'm interested in convenient, brand-name consumer products, too. As far as I can tell, wheat dextrin (sold under the brand name of Benefiber) is a resistant starch. I'm not sure, though. I googled pretty thoroughly, but a direct answer evaded me. I think this topic should be included in the article, and personally, I'd like to know. (talk) 22:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


I am tagging this for NPOV discussion. I think that while this article does a reasonably good job of citing references in most (but not all) sections, the general tone of the article is far from neutral. It reads like an advertisement for a product. Even when citing references, I think the article occasionally overstates what the cited articles actually say, or puts a more positive spin on the articles than is justified. (I already corrected one instance of this.) Overall, I think the article goes above and beyond what the scientific consensus in its claims of the benefits of resistant starch. --Randall Nortman (talk) 02:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe so (which actually means "maybe so, maybe not so"), but in a world (especially the Western world) where refined sugar is king, a small percieved lack of neutrality in favor slow-sugars does not get even close to restoring the balance. I wouldn't worry about dialling it down. (talk) 17:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the above contention that two wrongs make a right. I don't have the scientific expertise to judge the validity of the discourse, but am troubled by the links at the end of the article which include commercial entities of considerable bias. This undermines the credibility of the article as a whole, as do overstatements of the science or the benefits of resistant starch (despite protestations of those who are on a "crusade" against sugar). Since the commercial groups are selling manufactured products, perhaps the manufactured products should be factored out of this discussion into a separate topic where the given links would make more sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

After reading the article, and checking the links, I've got to wonder if this article is a well disguised add for National Starch, LLC, which is marketing HiMaize, some sort of Resistant Starch product. (talk) 21:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

After reading the article and comparing it to the content at, it is obvious that much of the text has been copied from this site and only slightly modified. Frankly, most of this article is a thinly disguised promotional effort effort by the owner of the web site, National Starch LLC, to promote their corn product which they claim contains "resistant starch". The enourmous number of external links at the bottom of this article are also replicated on the same web site owned by this company and appear to be an attempt stack search engines when searching for "resistant starch" (talk) 07:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

This article reads like an ad for the external reference site AND some of the citations do not discuss resistant starches as claimed. Wikiarthurb (talk) 05:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest that if any such inapplicable cites are found, those should be specified or listed here so others can check them. Gzuufy (talk) 22:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
    • As someone who has been told by medical practitioners to AVOID resistant starch to ease symptoms of IBS this article is a joke, certainly not up th the required standard-- (talk) 18:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I've noticed the sections currently beginning with Health Benefits seem to be organized in such a way to appear as sales oriented. There is some redundancy that probably should be removed, and in my view cannot easily be removed without such a reorganization. The Federal Register phrase regarding "phasing out" may suggest a rationale for some of this appearance. I've made some changes here and there, and added some history highlights, which can certainly be expanded into a fully fledged section of its own. However, I'm sorry to report I'm not the best editor for this particular job. Gzuufy (talk) 22:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Gluten Free[edit]

The gluten free section states "Butyrate, a short-chain fatty acid, has been shown to have anti-carcinogenic properties and anti-inflammatory properties, which may be useful for preventing and/or treating Celiac disease and inflammatory bowel disease" There is no reference for this and I think it should be removed until someone can show some decent evidence for this (I doubt there is any especially in 'preventing and treating coeliac disease'. This whole article seems to be an ad for a coule of companies selling resistant starch.

Is it just me or is resistant starch just fibre with a fancy name so they can advertise it better? Maybe the whole article should be merged into a section in the fibre article. (talk) 01:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

PubMed 21423403 seems to provide a research overview for some of the sentence. I wonder if Celiac was a typo for Crohn's? Gzuufy (talk) 23:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

This article is largely the same as this web site: I have no idea which one came first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

"Euresta definition"?[edit]

What the heck is "Euresta"? A search on Ixquick turns up this Wikipedia article, and several property development companies.

This sentence appears in the first section of the article: Resistant dextrins are not starches, and they can be soluble or insoluble. They might be described as "starch degradation products", which is literally included in the EURESTA definition, but their characteristics and performance are very different than insoluble resistant starches.

It is unsupported and EURESTA is not defined (a government agency? a corporation? a university program?)

I do not edit Wikipedia articles because of ad hominen attacks on "Talk" pages, but I would recommend this line be removed entirely from the article, immediately. As a professional editor, I would never accept this sort of unsupported statement in a book. (talk) 19:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

One might be able to find out more about "EURESTA" by following the reference: "(Champ, 1992)" from PMID 9924275. I have not had the time to do it yet.
--Seren-dipper (talk) 03:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

EURESTA was a (FLAIR?) project set up under EU funding, with Nils-Georg Asp of the University of Lund as a prime mover. It began by setting up a collaborative programme to compare the then existing methods of Resistant Starch(RS3)analysis, notably the one developed by Englyst and Cummings using final GLC analysis of sugars, and a quicker more speific one described by Berry, in which the final gluocse from enzymatic hydolysis of RS was measured colorimetrically with glucose oxidase. The final method adopted, described as the Champ procedure, decided to incorporate the recommendation of Berry that food samples for analysis of RS should not be subject to further heating, since this had a deleterious effect on RS levels previously acquired through heating/cooling cycles. (talk) (talk) 18:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC) Colin Berry PhD —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


Specific sentences and associated inline cites

"In 2003, the World Health Organization concluded that dietary fiber was the only dietary component that had convincing evidence showing a protective effect against weight gain and obesity." inline cite: currently #33 This sentence is accurate with respect to the cite used, but the "convincing" evidence conclusion of the report is regarding non-starch polysaccharides (NSP), thus it seems to belong on the dietary fiber, or perhaps cellulose, page, not the "functional fiber" resistant starch page. I propose sentence and cite deletion. Anyone object?

It's worth noting that sentence acts as a transition to the sentence and cite following it: "While the exact mechanisms of fiber protecting against weight gain are still under investigation, its ability to increase satiety and decrease subsequent hunger, along with altering the secretion of hormones related to food digestion, are considered likely mechanisms." PubMed 15797686 That cite does use the term "resistant starch" in its conclusion, but its phrasing suggests only a possibility, perhaps based upon the false inference that functional fiber = dietary fiber via the IOM definition of total fiber. Thus deletion of the first sentence italicized above and its cite probably infers deletion of the second sentence and cite following it. Gzuufy (talk) 21:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The table showing naturally occurring levels of resistant starch lacks solidarity in my opinion. Firstly, the examples given are poor (A 1/2" cold potatoe? What sort of potatoe? What has the temperature got to do with anything? Was the skin left on? etc.), and secondly, the cited source has no link provided. Elesueur (talk) 06:16, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

  • I found a related table on the web at [1] It has some of the same entries, but not the 1/2" cold potato. However, since it does have both cooked and uncooked oats, and the uncooked oats have a higher level of resistant starch, I suspect that cold potato means uncooked potato and that cooking degrades some of the resistant starch. Don't really feel like editing the table myself or following up on the listed source of the table I did find to see if the other entries are located there. Carolina wren (talk) 02:34, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Maybe Handbook of Vegetable Science and Technology: Production, Compostion ... By D. K. Salunkhe, S. S. Kadam provides a lead:

    Jones et al. (74) reported that there was little resistant starch in raw potato, but that it formed 20-50% by weight of total dietary fiber of cooked potato. However, it is not known whether or not this resistant starch is digested in the human digestive tract (75-79). Fresh potato has a dietary fiber content similar to that of the sweet potato, but somewhat lower than that of other roots and tubers, and much lower than that of cereals and legumes. Unpeeled potatoes contain higher amounts of dietary fiber than peeled raw or boiled potatoes(74).

Unfortunately, the page for reference #74 appears censored "Pages 53 to 54 are not shown in this preview". Gzuufy (talk) 14:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

As functional fiber[edit]

In the table: "Examples of naturally-occurring resistant starch" it doesn't mention Potato-Strach. why is that? Thanks. Ben-Natan (talk) 12:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Harkinna (talk) 18:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

This looks to be clearly just an Ad for this stuff at the bottom of the page, below the citations: Yacon Syrup== External links == Should it be removed?