Talk:Resistant starch/Archive 1

Questions without answers
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.

Omerkn.

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

Consumer Products
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.69.225.245.89 (talk) 22:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality
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. 24.203.68.10 (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 69.228.216.7 (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. 140.242.16.2 (talk) 21:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

After reading the article and comparing it to the content at http://www.resistantstarch.com/ResistantStarch/Health+Focus/, 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"114.129.130.53 (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--87.115.211.19 (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
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. 203.173.32.102 (talk) 01:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * 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: http://lowcarbdiets.about.com/od/nutrition/a/resistantstarch.htm. I have no idea which one came first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.167.233 (talk) 14:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

"Euresta definition"?
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. 96.18.39.97 (talk) 19:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * One might be able to find out more about "EURESTA" by following the reference: "(Champ, 1992)" from . 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.

109.158.12.119 (talk)  109.158.12.119 (talk) 18:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC) Colin Berry PhD

sciencebod01@aol.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.12.119 (talk) 18:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Dubious
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." 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  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)

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)
 * 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)."

Regarding the importance of temperature in resistant potato starch - raw potato starch is very high in RS2 resistant starch (measured at 69% by Garcia-Alonso et al, Nahrung 2000) as the starch is protected from digestion by the starch granule produced by the plant. When it is cooked, the granule is disrupted and the starch is released. It becomes highly digestible and high glycemic and its resistant starch content falls to about 1%. If the potato is cooled, the released glucose chains can crystallize in a process known as retrogradation and form RS3 resistant starch. Depending upon the processing conditions, the resistant starch content ranges from 4.6% in boiled and cooled potatoes, 6.6% in french fries and 10.4% in retrograded potato flour, according to Garcia-Alonso A, Goni I. "Effect of processing on potato starch: In vitro availability and glycaemic index" Nahrung, 2000: 44(1):19-22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1521-3803(20000101)44:1<19::AID-FOOD19>3.0.CO;2-E. --RSWitwer (talk) 12:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

As functional fiber
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?

Poor sourcing
A large proportion of this article is sourced to primary research which fails WP:MEDRS. This really needs to be deleted as it gives rise to problems of neutrality and the risk of us becoming an ersatz secondary source. Alexbrn (talk) 12:21, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The data that was just added cites a summary article and petition to the FDA that resistant starch from high amylose corn (one particular type of resistant starch) helps to reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes. This information is in response to questions about too many primary sources, as it is a credible summary of the data.  Deleting the "reduces the risk of" does not reflect the published data or FDA petition, as the information does not show or claim to state that resistant starch treats type 2 diabetes - rather it improves a recognized biomarker and reduces the risk of developing type 2 diabetes in healthy individuals at risk for developing type 2 diabetes. --RSWitwer (talk) 12:43, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If it's only being evaluated we shouldn't put in Wikipedia's voice as fact that it "may reduce" without impeccable sourcing, and simply reverting a revert to assert your text is not great. The primary sourcing problems are worse than what you've just added though: this article is a problem and has been long-tagged as such - it should be getting better, not worse! (Add: and just what have you added anyway? a petition from a consulting group?! Have you read WP:MEDRS?) Alexbrn (talk) 12:47, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

"Reducing the risk of type 2 diabetes" is not the same as "Type 2 diabetes". The first refers to prediabetic individuals while the second is clearly individuals with a disease. Correcting erroneous information is not evidence of "simply reverting a revert." The fact that a qualified health claim petition is relevant information. The FDA has completed an initial review and accepted the petition and is seeking public comments, which will lead to a major regulatory decision on the credibility of this benefit. This action moves toward general recognition of benefits, not away from it. As with any other scientific information, primary research comes first, then general evaluation of key areas and review articles. Very few qualified health claim petitions are submitted as it is very difficult to assembly the quality data needed for such a submission. This review merits inclusion in Wikipedia. --RSWitwer (talk) 13:07, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The text is in bold and so should function as an inline heading, giving the subject area ("Type 2 diabetes") which the text then elaborates on. As you original put it it was qualified by a topic sentence for the section which said: "Consumption of natural resistant starch by humans has been shown to result in". So, not good. What secondary sources cover this "petition" you're wanting to insert? You are adding health-related information that is not sourced to WP:MEDRS (you didn't say if you'd read it). Alexbrn (talk) 13:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Use of Appropriate Review Citations
New information as posted is substantiated by appropriate review citations - often many published reviews. Deleting appropriate information does not help when the previous introduction was biased, negative, and unsubstantiated.RSWitwer (talk) 19:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ledes should summarize the article body - see WP:LEDE. Best not to dump a load of novel content in the lede. Please also don't delete stuff from the lede that was properly summarizing the body. Alexbrn (talk) 20:01, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The lead does summarize the article body. You jumped on deleting a new lead immediately when the body was edited moments afterwards. RSWitwer (talk) 14:02, 23 August 2015 (UTC) I'm going to re-insert information in the "health effects" section that is substantiated by appropriate review articles. The fermentation of this specific type of dietary fiber is entirely relevant to its health benefits and helps consumers to understand that different types of fibers offer different benefits.98.221.246.29 (talk) 17:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * IP user 98.221.246.29, are you ? Alexbrn (talk) 17:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Third opinion (3O) FYI - I have posted about this article and requested a third opinion in order to reach agreement on health benefits section. RSWitwer (talk) 18:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This dispute appears to stem from the health effects discussion right above it, where several editors are discussing it; thus, I removed it from the third opinion noticeboard. Maybe this section should be merged into that one?  Erpert  blah, blah, blah... 22:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of substantiated data is unjustified.
Deleting entire sections of this page is not justified. The data that had been submitted was verifiable and documented by published clinical studies in peer reviewed, medical journals. --RSWitwer (talk) 15:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you read WP:MEDRS? We need to remove unreliable content. It has not been simply "deleted" but replaced with content sourced to reliable, WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. Alexbrn (talk) 15:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

The content was verified, published in peer-reviewed medical journals and accepted in the food and dietitian communities. By whose opinion is it unreliable?--98.221.246.29 (talk) 04:47, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I ask again: did you read WP:MEDRS? Primary research (well-published peer-reviewed, respectable, etc.) is not considered reliable for statements relating to human health. We need to use secondary sources. Please follow our WP:PAGs. Alexbrn (talk) 04:52, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I have read WP:MEDRS. It is informative, although does not appropriately address classic nutritional research, which is more complicated than pharmaceutical research. As I currently have 37 review articles on resistant starch which are classified as secondary sources, I'll redraft information that is appropriate and cites current information for submission, using primary sources as supporting information. I will restate again that you have deleted information that is current, well accepted and represents majority opinions in the field of nutrition experts.--RSWitwer (talk) 11:10, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * So why did you delete a bunch of material sourced to review articles (a few of which have been in the article for a long time)? Alexbrn (talk) 13:26, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * as Alexbrn indicated all medical information via Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine) can come from...1. secondary sources (reviews, meta-analysis), 2. position statements (NIH,HHS,WHO,CDC,) or 3. textbooks medical(5 years or so)thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Why is only negative information from secondary review sources included? Is there any balance of any kind allowed in the editing process? Or, are you expecting that all of the 30+ review articles have to agree on every detail before information is allowed to be communicated? This process appears so stacked against fair communciation. Why was the reference to the European Food Safety Authority removed? It may not be apparent to someone outside of the nutrition field, but the EFSA positive opinions are very difficult to obtain - much more difficult than getting a single review article published. If you are committed to allowing only negative information, so be it. For a nutritional ingredient that is supported by 117 published human clinical trials in peer reviewed, medical journals to be limited to this brief synopsis of health information is unjustified and ludicrous. 98.221.246.29 (talk) 23:58, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

WT:MED
FYI, I have posted about this article at WT:MED. Alexbrn (talk) 13:24, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Where have you posted about this article? I could not find it at WT:MED and also want to find a 3rd party to help improve this article. Opinions have to be backed up by data to withstand scrutiny on Wikipedia. Numerous references and multiple layers of data have been offered but information continues to be deleted. I do not understand the basis upon which valid information published in review articles around the world is not acceptable on this site. RSWitwer (talk) 18:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * see here for the WT:MED posting (which is now archived). You don't need a "third opinion" since you already have a third, fourth, fifth ... opinion. Multiple editors disagree with the bulk of your edits to this page. This suggests the WP:CONSENSUS is against you and you'll need to change that for changes to stick. Edit warring is not going to work and risks getting you you blocked. Alexbrn (talk) 05:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Health effects
the health effects of resistant starch are being actively researched, but many of the efforts, including those into any possible effect on disease in humans, remain at an early stage. Different types and sources of resistant starch are digested and/or fermented differently and thus it is useful to differentiate between them in study.

Although some observed effects of resistant starch in the laboratory have suggested that it might have a role to play in weight management, there is no evidence that it is of benefit in helping to manage either human weight or energy balance.

Fermentation of resistant starch in the gut can contribute to bloating and flatulence, and control of these embarrassing problems can be aided by a diet which limits resistant starch as a dietary component. Resistant starch can function as a laxative.

There is some evidence that resistant starch, used as a substitute for refined carbohydrate, may be a useful dietary component in helping to reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes.

Resistant starch may help to keep colon tissue healthy by producing protective compounds called short-chain fatty acids. One of these, called butyrate, is particularly important for colon health because it is the primary energy source for colonic cells and has anti-carcinogenic as well as anti-inflammatory properties that are important for keeping colon cells healthy. Published research has shown that butyrate induces apoptosis or programmed cell death of human colorectal cancer cells.

The Health Effects edits submitted yesterday were clearly written and substantiated by multiple review articles. Your insistence that your short three paragraphs adequately explains all of the relevant information is simply not true. There are multiple facts that have been discussed in multiple review articles, published around the world, that need to be included here. 98.221.246.29 (talk) 10:14, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any clear factual problems with this. Can someone explain why this is "erroneous"? I understand "this isn't sufficiently enthusiastic for my POV", but what exactly is wrong here? Do you think that it is not being researched, that people never get flatulence, that it has no effect at all on type 2 diabetes? Where is the alleged error? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:55, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I marked reference 1, 12, 23, 24 as they appear on the article,( not those above they look OK)because they were old --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:08, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks reasonably sound to me, at least as a starting point. I propose reinstating it. Alexbrn (talk) 16:10, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

The health effects section needs to identify colon health as a primary benefit, as numerous review articles from around the world and about 70 clinical trials demonstrate this benefit. It is common knowledge among anyone in the fiber and old information about this dietary fiber. In addition, the Cummings reference for gas side effect is not accurate. The Cummings article talks about prebiotics, which is not even mentioned in this article. The most common prebiotics reviewed extensively in that article are sugar-based inulin and fructo-oligosaccharides, which are soluble and very quickly fermented. There is a lot of discussion about gas produced from these ingredients. Resistant starch is insoluble and slowly fermented. If clinical trials mention gas production, it is identified as minor and not causing individuals to drop out of the trial.RSWitwer (talk) 12:35, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The health effects are demonstrated by more than 100 published clinical studies and multiple review papers. Repeated removal of valid information is not going to be tolerated without valid justifications or scientific publications. You have to have more than personal opinion to maintain information on Wikipedia Alexbrn. RSWitwer (talk) 18:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring
is edit-warring content into this article which is poorly-sourced and/or unreadably technical &amp; detailed and so unsuitable for the lay readers we are meant to be writing for. There is also a strong smell of WP:ADVOCACY from this WP:SPA which, given their role as a marketing professional for promoting resistant starch is not surprising. We should be summarizing just the key points about this topic as contained in the best sources, not "throwing up on the reader" with floods of turgid text. Alexbrn (talk) 05:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * If you would read the review articles that have been referenced for this section, you could only conclude that the data is appropriately sourced. Summarizing 10 review articles published from authors all over the world with similar content cannot be termed "floods of turgid text." Please offer better sources to support your position - not just one negative quotation. RSWitwer (talk) 12:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Something being a "review" does not grant it an automatic need to be used: we must use the best sources (current, high-quality reviews e.g.) and even then they must be summarized in a way our lay readership can understand. Alexbrn (talk) 13:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * When so many articles are written and so many qualified experts around the world are in general agreement about a topic, the information should be reflected on this site. Your summarization of the published literature is to cherry-pick a couple of negative quotes and ignore the vast majority of available information, which does not do justice to the topic. They have been summarized in many ways that people not expert in the field can understand - all of which have been rejected and/or overturned. Personally attacking me does not change your insisted and unjustified rejection of valid information. I will continue to appeal this topic until there is some balance on the "health benefits" section of this page.RSWitwer (talk) 15:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Have you even read WP:MEDRS? How, by its guidance, do you think your use of as a source for the claim "Consumption of RS2 resistant starch from high amylose corn increases satiety[ref][ref], changes in lipid metabolism within adipose (fat) tissue of healthy people" is justified? It doesn't even make sense. Alexbrn (talk) 15:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Let's talk about why you will not allow information about biomarkers for colon health, which is a long established, well known benefit for resistant starch. It improves regularity, reduces pH, and helps keep colon cells healthy. Numerous review articles have been cited for these benefits. It doesn't even make sense.RSWitwer (talk) 15:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Resistant Starch Content of Foods
This table uses such different measures as to be useless. 1 cup of cooked oats vs 1/2 cup of pearl barley? Or a 1/2" diameter potato - is this serious? Please can this be revised by someone who has access to meaningful data. Stub Mandrel (talk) 12:54, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * With the exception of the entry on cold potato, these are standard serving sizes for these foods, derived from U.S. Department of Agriculture database. It is possible to go the the USDA database and find nutrient content for the same weight of foods, i.e., per 100 grams, but nutritionists prefer to work with real serving size.David notMD (talk) 15:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposal
Propose to bring the short overview of starch retrogradation into the section on processing effects on this page Chalky (talk) 06:25, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Type 5?
I'm no expert, but Type 5 of resistant starch seems to be a thing? Increasing resistant starch content in rice for better consumer health MrRedwood (talk) 02:23, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

RS5 has been defined by academic experts. A mini-review paper can be found at http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/star.201600203.RSWitwer (talk) 22:00, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Strength of evidence for glycemic management
There are now 21 published clinical studies examining the impact of resistant starch (from corn, banana and potato) on glycemic health, including fasting glucose levels, fasting insulin levels, insulin sensitivity, etc. This is more than "weak" evidence, but consistently shows improvements in managing blood sugar levels across multiple groups of people. It has been shown in people with healthy blood sugar levels, in prediabetics, in overweight men, in postmenopausal women, across three continents. If the data were indeed weak, I would not object to your correction, but a good review article was just published concluding that there was good evidence in this area. I respectfully request that the word "weak" is removed or deleted from the Health section on this article. RSWitwer (talk) 22:00, 14 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RSWitwer (talk • contribs) 21:58, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Best to follow the source, which registers significant caveats. We are not an advocacy site. I would be happy with "tentative" instead of "weak". Alexbrn (talk) 22:31, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Cancer
This paper is very interesting as described here  but it is a primary source. We need a review if claims are to be made about cancer. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:12, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Resistant maltodextrin
Research in support of edits to the maltodextrin page show that the relationship between RS and digestion-resistant maltodextrin (DRM) is confused. DRM is claimed to be a RS of types 3, 4 or 5, depending on author. This page (now) does not support any of those claims. Is the definition of RS vague, changing or a matter of opinion? Does a medical finding regarding one type of RS say anything about the medical effects of another type? 75.83.196.223 (talk) 18:34, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Definition
Starch appears to be more of a dietary definition than a chemical one. Chemistry defines starch as a mixture of two well-defined chemical families. RS seems to be a messy topic, since a RS is not necessarily a starch. As a result a digestion-resistant maltodextrin is not a classical maltodextrin and may be a RS without being a starch. I request the clearest possible definitions on this page. 75.83.196.223 (talk) 18:54, 21 February 2024 (UTC)