good article on resistant starches

[ldubois7]

http://chriskresser.com/how-resistant-s ... nd-thinner

[tex]

Hi Linda,

The theory behind resistant starch sounds good when we read about it, and I do believe that resistant starches are vastly better (healthier) than the alternatives (insoluble and soluble fiber), but I still have reservations about the entire concept of intentionally eating foods that are indigestible, and therefore have absolutely no nutritional value whatsoever. The only times that our paleo ancestors intentionally ate any significant amount of indigestible foods was when they were starving to death, and desperate for something just to fill their stomach.

Resistant starch is another example of a food that did not exist in paleo times, so our digestive system did not evolve to digest it. The concept of resistant starch was created by plant breeders searching for unique characteristics in grains. Though I realize that this is totally dissimilar, it reminds me of gluten, another food that no one can digest, because it did not exist back when our digestive system was developing.

But obviously my beef with indigestible foods designed to feed so-called "beneficial" bacteria, is that I don't recognize any bacteria as beneficial. In my vocabulary, there are 2 types of gut bacteria — harmful (pathogenic) bacteria, and less-harmful bacteria. Truly beneficial bacteria do not exist (at least they do not provide any net benefits for us) They are all parasites, and we most definitely do not need them in order to survive. Not only can we thrive without them, but we are better off without them. Of course if we are going to play host to any type of gut parasites, then we are obviously much better off supporting less-harmful bacteria than pathogenic species. And therein lies the theory of "beneficial" bacteria, and the convoluted logic used by their fans, in order to rationalize their support for the little pests.

That said, it's an excellent article (and I wouldn't expect anything less from Chris Kressor, of course — he's definitely a doctor who understands the relationship between diet and health). And I'm not aware of any reason why eating resistant starch would be harmful in and of itself, other than the fact that it promotes an environment in which gut parasites thrive. As a pragmatist though, (and someone who is not convinced that gut parasites are our friends ), I'm still trying to think of a reason why I would want to add resistant starch (or any other indigestible food) to my diet. I'm not pregnant, so I'm only eating for one. Of course, YMMV.

Thanks for the link, I agree that it's a good article.

Tex

[nerdhume]

There is a link off that page to this one:
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2 ... er-of.html

Quote from that link:

Butyrate Suppresses Inflammation in the Gut and Other Tissues

In most animals, the highest concentration of butyrate is found in the gut. That's because it's produced by intestinal bacteria from carbohydrate that the host cannot digest, such as cellulose and pectin. Indigestible carbohydrate is the main form of dietary fiber.

It turns out, butyrate has been around in the mammalian gut for so long that the lining of our large intestine has evolved to use it as its primary source of energy. It does more than just feed the bowel, however. It also has potent anti-inflammatory and anti-cancer effects. So much so, that investigators are using oral butyrate supplements and butyrate enemas to treat inflammatory bowel diseases such as Crohn's and ulcerative colitis. Some investigators are also suggesting that inflammatory bowel disorders may be caused or exacerbated by a deficiency of butyrate in the first place.

Butyrate, and other short-chain fatty acids produced by gut bacteria**, has a remarkable effect on intestinal permeability. In tissue culture and live rats, short-chain fatty acids cause a large and rapid decrease in intestinal permeability. Butyrate, or dietary fiber, prevents the loss of intestinal permeability in rat models of ulcerative colitis. This shows that short-chain fatty acids, including butyrate, play an important role in the maintenance of gut barrier integrity. Impaired gut barrier integrity is associated with many diseases, including fatty liver, heart failure and autoimmune diseases (thanks to Pedro Bastos for this information-- I'll be covering the topic in more detail later).

I will be checking into this farther....

[tex]

It turns out, butyrate has been around in the mammalian gut for so long that the lining of our large intestine has evolved to use it as its primary source of energy. It does more than just feed the bowel, however. It also has potent anti-inflammatory and anti-cancer effects.

Theresa, while you're checking, please see if you can locate the author's references for those lofty claims (if they exist). Note that he makes those claims without bothering to list any references to back them up. That suggests that the article may be based on pseudoscience or smoke and mirrors.

So much so, that investigators are using oral butyrate supplements and butyrate enemas to treat inflammatory bowel diseases such as Crohn's and ulcerative colitis. Some investigators are also suggesting that inflammatory bowel disorders may be caused or exacerbated by a deficiency of butyrate in the first place.

The results of a small study were published about 9 years ago that showed that roughly half of the few Crohn's patients in the study showed significant improvement (remission). A link to the research report can be found below. The same claims have been made about nitric oxide (some "experts" say that NO can be used to treat IBD, some say that a deficiency causes IBD, and some say that that the NO is there because it's a bacterial response to the immune system's efforts to fight whatever is causing the IBD, and therefore nitric oxide is detrimental. Who's right?

I have a hunch that all of this stuff is strictly coincidental (bacteria are opportunists, and they are naturally going to congregate wherever they see an opening, and they are naturally going to produce chemical effluents), but this is irrelevant because it probably has nothing to do with the actual cause and/or treatment/prevention of the disease.

PDF version:

Oral butyrate for mildly to moderately active Crohn’s disease

HTML version:

Oral butyrate for mildly to moderately active Crohn's disease

Tex

[ldubois7]

Tex,

I don't eat any starches or grains or anything except meat & veggies, seed butter, & coconut, and I'm doing better than I have in a while.
I guess I'm looking for a reason to add potatoes to my diet! Haha!

For someone without MC, this may be a good thing, but for me.....

Also Tex...did I read that a lot of people on the forum can use psyllium husks? I keep running across baked goods recipes that use it, and was staying away because I thought it would have a laxative effect.

[tex]

I don't eat any starches or grains or anything except meat & veggies, seed butter, & coconut, and I'm doing better than I have in a while.
I guess I'm looking for a reason to add potatoes to my diet! Haha!

It's good to hear that you're doing better. There are so many different types of potatoes, that surely there's a type somewhere that you might be able to add to your diet.

Also Tex...did I read that a lot of people on the forum can use psyllium husks? I keep running across baked goods recipes that use it, and was staying away because I thought it would have a laxative effect.

Psyllium is made from the husks and seed coats of plantago seeds (which doesn't sound particularly appealing to me, but that's probably because I'm not a fiber fan. ). It's claimed to be composed of approximately 70 % soluble fiber (which supposedly forms a gel in the intestines to provide bulk) and approximately 30 % insoluble fiber (which promotes bowel motility, and is presumably more abrasive than insoluble fiber).

It's probably most useful when used to prevent constipation. It has been promoted as a prebiotic (to feed beneficial gut bacteria), but research shows that to be a flop, because it is actually just as likely to promote the development of pathogenic bacteria, as it is to promote the development of so-called beneficial bacteria (it obviously can't tell the difference, and the bacteria don't care, because they can't read the advertising claims, anyway. )

But regardless of all that, while I wouldn't say that we have a lot of members who can tolerate psyllium while they are recovering, yes, we do have a few. I can recall 1 or 2 even posting that they thought that it helped to stop/minimize D. Of course it's always possible that any of us might misinterpret the outcome of events, and attribute improvements to the wrong input. Sometimes we improve in spite of using a supplement, rather than because we are using it, but we attribute the improvement to the supplement anyway, because it's the last thing that we added to our treatment program. We might overlook the possibility that we might have only been a day or 2 away from remission when we added the supplement, for example. Such are the perils of research trials based on a cohort where n = 1.

I would guess that whether or not it would be likely to promote D for any one of us might depend on our current level of inflammation (or lack thereof) combined with our healing progress. Obviously someone who has less inflammation and more healing (or less remaining damage) is more likely to be able to tolerate fiber sources such as psyllium than someone who is at the opposite extreme.

Tex

[nerdhume]

I realize UC is different than MC, but usually the same treatments apply.

While researching butyrate I ran across this recent research:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4110578/

CONCLUSION.
UC is mainly due to increased infiltration of gut bacteria and the resultant recruitment of neutrophils and formation of crypt abscess, and can be viewed as a polymicrobial infection that is characterized by a sustained broken mucus barrier with subsequent bacterial migration toward the mucosa and proliferation of complex bacterial biofilms on the epithelial surface. Regulation of the mucus secretion and viscosity, suppression of bacterial biofilms, probiotics and immunostimulation should be increasingly considered to treat UC and evaluated in the future.

I don't pretend to be intelligent enough to understand all of this, but isn't immunostimulation the opposite of immunosuppression? Also it seems to state that UC is caused by a polymicrobial infection.

[ldubois7]

Thanks for the info Tex. I think Ill pass on the psyllium as fiber is not my friend anymore. :)

I've been looking for blue potatoes, in my area, but haven't located any...thought they may digest better!

[tex]

I don't pretend to be intelligent enough to understand all of this, but isn't immunostimulation the opposite of immunosuppression? Also it seems to state that UC is caused by a polymicrobial infection.

Yes, that's correct. That's a brand new paper, and it's out of China (which may or may not be irrelevant ), and the suggested treatment concept is a radical departure from conventional methods. Apparently they view UC as a biofilm problem.

Thanks for the link. That paper may shake up some of the antiquated viewpoints held by many of the movers and shakers in the GI world who practice in this country.

Tex

[tex]

Linda,

I've never seen any blue potatoes either. You may have to try to grow some, if you can locate a source for some seedstock.

Tex