• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

"Starchy Diet Provides Diabetes Protection"

Urgh there is no proof as to what causes type 1. Therefore we cannot know what protects us against it. I fear how people will take this to mean.
 
Whoa!

That link doesn't give NEARLY enough info.
For example, my understanding is that resistant starch in potatoes is maximised by cooking and cooling, and maybe reheating again. Just stuffing potato isn't going to do what is being suggested.
And as for cashews, how many? I mean, I am sure we could all eat them all day, but that would result in massive weight gain...

Plus, of course, identifying those heading towards T1 before they were showing symptoms, and giving them this specially supervised diet... for ever?

Mind you, I am going to tag in @Lesleywo because she may find the info useful.
 
PansyP said:
http://www.skynews.com.au/news/national/2017/03/28/starchy-diet-provides-diabetes-protection.html - Nice one!
Click to expand...
Just looking at this a little more deeply ..

# Opening claim in article .. "A specialised diet high in resistant starch found in many foods including fruit and vegetables provides 'complete' protection against type 1 diabetes, according to a new study"

# Data from article .. "FOODS HIGH IN RESISTANT STARCH: Potato, Cashew nuts, Bananas, Oats, White beans, Lentils, AAP"

# Closing statement from article .. "However, he (Prof Mackay) says, the diet is not just about eating vegetables or high-fibre foods but involves special food and a special process"

Apart from the fact that this is arguable from a diabetes treatment point of view .. does any of this actually make any sense eg: complete protection? .. special food and a special process? .. and what's AAP?

I'm genuinely confused and concerned that this was even printed ..
 
All I can say is I was raised on this stuff...
Still got a healthy dose of D when I was 8.

@AM1874 ,

AAP? American Academy of Paediatrics... "Baby food."
 
Jaylee said:
All I can say is I was raised on this stuff...
Still got a healthy dose of D when I was 8.

@AM1874 ,

AAP? American Academy of Paediatrics... "Baby food."
Click to expand...
That's all that I could find as well .. as I said, for me, it makes no sense
 
When it come to studies we only believe what we want to believe
 
Professor Mackay said that the diet was not just about eating vegetables or high-fibre foods but involved special food and a special process, and would need to be managed by nutritionists, dietitians and clinicians.

Possibly the important bit. No need to go out and buy spuds.
 
AM1874 said:
That's all that I could find as well .. as I said, for me, it makes no sense
Click to expand...

I'm with you on that..! Plus it bolsters my "conspiracy therory" about the Mr Potato head franchise... :D
 
I will try to explain this study, as I've been following some of these researchers for a long time.

Resistant starch is fermented in the large intestine, producing the short-chain fatty acids acetate, butyrate and propionate. These researchers created an experimental type of resistant starch which binds extra short-chain fatty acids to resistant corn starch. In this way, they are delivering a super boost of acetate, or a super boost of butyrate or a super boost of propionate to see what happens in the gut. In other words, they are trying to identify what the individual short-chain fatty acids do. The activity in the large intestine is really complicated and they are trying to isolate individual pathways of each fatty acid, which is really difficult.

This paper is very exciting because it tells us that there is a definite link between gut chemistry and type 1 diabetes. Many research papers are showing that resistant starch's fermentation changes the expression of hundreds of genes all over the body. Recent research has shown changed gene expression in the gut, liver, kidney, brain, pancreas and fat tissue. In short, resistant starch's fermentation changes many aspects of metabolism and health. This new animal study gives us a clue that autoimmune diseases may also be relieved by specific pathways within the gut.

The study is more about acetate and butyrate than it is about resistant starch. Yes, resistant starch produces acetate and butyrate, but the study showed that the basic resistant starch in the diet was not enough for this benefit - it needed the super boost of extra short-chain fatty acids. This study opens a new window to investigate where only muddiness and confusion existed before.

Let me compare it to a similar breakthrough that happened in 1995. I am particularly excited about the studies showing that resistant starch improves insulin sensitivity and helps reverse prediabetes, (which Diabetes UK helped fund). The first animal study showing improved insulin sensitivity was published in 1995, also in Australia. The first study in humans showing this effect was published in 2003 and gave the participants 60 grams of resistant starch in one day. That's a huge amount - much higher than the recommendations for dietary fiber. The second study showed the same effect with 30 grams. The next 9 clinical studies continued to explore the lower threshold of resistant starch that delivered that benefit, which populations it worked the best in, etc. So, we have come a long way in 20 years but now know that resistant starch improves insulin sensitivity, especially in individuals with prediabetes who are insulin resistant. You can get it in foods, in supplements or in specialized foods.

This study begins a new story focusing on type 1 diabetes. My hope is that additional animal studies will help researchers understand the pathways and what goes wrong in the gut that leads to type 1 diabetes. If it progresses, maybe we'll see a human clinical study in 8 years and have widespread recognition on a new way to prevent type 1 diabetes in 20 years. I wish it did not take that long, but it does. Research is slow, needs to be duplicated, but this is a very exciting new breakthrough.

Does this help explain the new Nature Immunology paper?
 
RS_Queen said:
The study is more about acetate and butyrate than it is about resistant starch. Yes, resistant starch produces acetate and butyrate, but the study showed that the basic resistant starch in the diet was not enough for this benefit - it needed the super boost of extra short-chain fatty acids. This study opens a new window to investigate where only muddiness and confusion existed before.
Click to expand...

And what are some good sources for these extra short-chain fatty acids?
 
kokhongw said:
And what are some good sources for these extra short-chain fatty acids?
Click to expand...
Fermentable fibers are the best sources of short-chain fatty acids to the colon. Resistant starch makes more butyrate than any other fiber tested, but inulin, fructo-oligosaccharide, galactooligosaccharides and pectin also make a lot of acetate. There really isn't a better source, which is why the researchers had to specially make these ingredients in the lab.

Fermentation also = gas :eek:
Click to expand...
Fermentation does not always mean a lot of gas. Soluble fibers (inulin, fructo-oligosaccharide and galactooligosaccharides) are fermented very quickly because there is nothing to slow it down. In the scientific literature, they report that the tolerance for these types of fibers is 10-15 grams/day, but a lot of people are sensitive to them at doses as low as 5-10 grams, or the amount you can find in a FiberOne bar.

In contrast, resistant starch is insoluble. The natural ones are big starch granules that the bacteria have to eat slowly. The bacteria can only access the outside starch in the big granule, and they have to eat their way through it to get to the middle. As a consequence, resistant starch is fermented more slowly and tends to reach more of the distal colon. This is important because the distal colon is where most of the colon diseases occur - researchers think the diseases occur for lack of short-chain fatty acids. In any case, resistant starch has been reported to have a tolerance of 45 grams/day before there is a statistically significant increase in gas. Unlike soluble fibers, we have never seen anything more than a little bit of gas (bloating, cramping, diarrhea, etc.) in the published studies.

If you are not used to eating fermentable fiber, you should add them slowly to give your body time to adjust to them. People do tend to adjust to them and often gas either goes away or becomes easier to deal with. As you feed the beneficial bacteria, they tend to crowd out the bad bacteria which can be big, smelly gas producers. It all depends on the kind of bugs you have in your gut, which are very individual. Some people get gas no matter what type of fermentable fiber they eat or for how long, while others don't get nearly so much.

Any amount of fermentable fibers that you can get - from foods or supplements - is good.
 
Brilliant information. Are you yourself involved in its research? Presumably fermentable fibre is good for Type 2 also?
 
How does the high fibre/ starch react with the lack of insulin and correlation with alpha and beta cells?

PansyP said:
Brilliant information. Are you yourself involved in its research? Presumably fermentable fibre is good for Type 2 also?
Click to expand...

I would think that fermented fibre would be too concentrated to not effect blood glucose levels!

Until you identify the actual process in digestion, not all type ones will benefit. It is too individual!
 
Back
Top