The Best Source of Resistant Starch

Resistant starch wasn’t discovered until 1982. Before that, we thought all starch could be digested by the digestive enzymes in our small intestine. Subsequent studies confirmed that there are indeed starches that resist digestion and end up in our large intestine, where they can feed our good bacteria, just like fiber does. Resistant starch is found naturally in many common foods, including grains, vegetables, beans, seeds, and some nuts, but in small quantities, just a few percent of the total. As I discuss in my video Getting Starch to Take the Path of Most Resistance, there are a few ways, though, to get some of the rest of the starch to join the resistance.

When regular starches are cooked and then cooled, some of the starch recrystallizes into resistant starch. For this reason, pasta salad can be healthier than hot pasta and potato salad can be healthier than a baked potato, but the effect isn’t huge. The resistant starch goes from about 3 percent up to 4 percent. The best source of resistant starch is not from eating cold starches, but from eating beans, which start at 4 or 5 percent and go up from there.

If you mix cooked black beans with a “fresh fecal” sample, there’s so much fiber and resistant starch in the beans that the pH drops as good bacteria churn out beneficial short-chain fatty acids, which are associated both directly and indirectly with lower colon cancer risk. (See Stool pH and Colon Cancer.) The more of this poopy black bean mixture you smear on human colon cancer, the fewer cancer cells survive.

Better yet, we can eat berries with our meals that act as starch blockers. Raspberries, for example, completely inhibit the enzyme that we use to digest starch, leaving more for our friendly flora. So, putting raspberry jam on your toast, strawberries on your corn flakes, or making blueberry pancakes may allow your good bacteria to share in some of the breakfast bounty.

Another way to feed our good bacteria is to eat intact grains, beans, nuts, and seeds. In one study, researchers split people into two groups and had them eat the same food, but in one group, the seeds, grains, beans, and chickpeas were eaten more or less in a whole form, while they were ground up for the other group. For example, for breakfast, the whole-grain group got muesli, and the ground-grain group had the same muesli, but it was blended into a porridge. Similarly, beans were added to salads for the whole-grain group, whereas they were blended into hummus for the ground-grain group. Note that both groups were eating whole grains—not refined—that is, they were eating whole foods. In the ground-grain group, though, those whole grains, beans, and seeds were made into flour or blended up.

What happened? Those on the intact whole-grain diet “resulted in a doubling of the amount excreted compared to the usual diet and produced an additional and statistically significant increase in stool mass” compared with those on the ground whole-grain diet, even though they were eating the same food and the same amount of food. Why? On the whole-grain diet, there was so much more for our good bacteria to eat that they grew so well and appeared to bulk up the stool. Even though people chewed their food, “[l]arge amounts of apparently whole seeds were recovered from stools,” but on closer inspection, they weren’t whole at all. Our bacteria were having a smorgasbord. The little bits and pieces left after chewing transport all this wonderful starch straight down to our good bacteria. As a result, stool pH dropped as our bacteria were able to churn out so many of those short-chain fatty acids. Whole grains are great, but intact whole grains may be even better, allowing us to feed our good gut bacteria with the leftovers.

Once in our colon, resistant starches have been found to have the same benefits as fiber: softening and bulking stools, reducing colon cancer risk by decreasing pH, increasing short-chain fatty acid production, reducing products of protein fermentation (also known as products of putrefaction), and decreasing secondary bile products.

Well, if resistant starch is so great, why not just take resistant starch pills? It should come as no surprise that commercial preparations of resistant starch are now available and “food scientists have developed a number of RS-enriched products.” After all, some find it “difficult to recommend a high-fiber diet to the general public.” Wouldn’t be easier to just enrich some junk food? And, indeed, you now can buy pop tarts bragging they contain “resistant corn starch.”

Just taking resistant starch supplements does not work, however. There have been two trials so far trying to prevent cancer in people with genetic disorders that put them at extremely high risk, with virtually a 100-percent chance of getting cancer, and resistant starch supplements didn’t help. A similar result was found in another study. So, we’re either barking up the wrong tree, the development of hereditary colon cancer is somehow different than regular colon cancer, or you simply can’t emulate the effects of naturally occurring dietary fiber in plant-rich diets just by giving people some resistant starch supplements.

For resistant starch to work, it has to get all the way to the end of the colon, which is where most tumors form. But, if the bacteria higher up eat it all, then resistant starch may not be protective. So, we also may have to eat fiber to push it along. Thus, we either eat huge amounts of resistant starch—up near the level consumed in Africa, which is twice as much as were tried in the two cancer trials—or we consume foods rich in both resistant starch and fiber. In other words, “[f]rom a public health perspective, eating more of a variety of food rich in dietary fibre including wholegrains, vegetables, fruits, and pulses [such as chickpeas and lentils] is a preferable strategy for reducing cancer risk.”


What’s so great about resistant starch? See my video Resistant Starch and Colon Cancer.

I first broached the subject of intact grains in Are Green Smoothies Bad for You?.

Why should we care about what our gut flora eats? See Gut Dysbiosis: Starving Our Microbial Self.

Did I say putrefaction? See Putrefying Protein and “Toxifying” Enzymes.

Berries don’t just help block starch digestion, but sugar digestion as well. See If Fructose Is Bad, What About Fruit?.

The whole attitude that we can just stuff the effects into a pill is a perfect example of reductionism at work. See Reductionism and the Deficiency Mentality and Why is Nutrition So Commercialized? for more on this.

In health,
Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live, year-in-review presentations:

Why There Is so Much Commercial Corruption in Nutrition

The prevalence of chronic diseases such as diabetes has skyrocketed, as has the number of articles published about diabetes in medical journals. “Why does our wealth of academic knowledge not translate more directly to improving the human condition?” Perhaps our over-attachment to the reductionistic mindset that proved so successful with acute deficiency diseases may actually represent an obstacle to success battling chronic disease.

These days, health seems to have been reduced to a highly commercialized commodity, in which we’re marketed all sorts of high-cost, high-tech tests and treatments of dubious value with substantial risks attached. “This is worrisome because most of the things that make us healthy and keep us healthy are cheap and largely available without professional help or commercial prodding.” This isn’t to say modern medicine can’t work miracles, but what about the big picture? That is, what about the 80 percent of death and disability caused by preventable diet-related diseases?

What about the field of nutrition? In my video Why Is Nutrition So Commercialized?, I discuss how it’s become about profits and products, and extracting nutrients from whole foods so they can be repackaged and marketed. But food is best eaten whole. Eat the broccoli and the blueberries, not some broccoberry supplement. But the reason there aren’t more studies on whole foods is fairly obvious: You can’t patent them. Why should a company spend a lot of money, time, and effort to convince you to buy broccoli when any other company can sell it to you? That’s why the field of nutrition can be more about marketing profitable products than educating people about the fundamentals of health and wellness. For example, the benefits of whole grains over refined grains is commonly attributed to the fiber, which enables the food industry to whip out fiber-fortified Froot Loops and make you feel all better.

Let’s consider this ingenious study: Burkitt and colleagues thought the extraordinarily low rates of killer chronic diseases in sub-Saharan Africa were due to all the whole, plant foods they were eating. This turned into the fiber hypothesis, the reductionistic thought that fiber must be the magic bullet active ingredient. What happens if we put it to the test? What if we compared two groups of older women, both getting around six grams of grain fiber a day, but one group mostly from whole grains and the other mostly from refined grains? Who do you think lived longer? If it was just the fiber, there shouldn’t be much difference because both groups ate about the same amount. In fact, the whole grain group lived longer and with a significantly lower mortality rate, which implies that it may be all the other wonderful things in whole plant foods “linked to fiber [that] may confer important health benefits above and beyond effects of the fiber itself.” That’s why fiber supplements wouldn’t be expected to offer the same benefit.

Indeed, food, not nutrients, is the fundamental unit in nutrition.

As Dr. David Katz has pointed out, “Our culture doesn’t want to hear that the active ingredient in broccoli is broccoli—it wants to know what supplement it can take.”


This is part of my extended series on the reductionist trap, which includes:

The Five to One Fiber Rule still holds, though, since it’s an indication of how heavily processed a product is.

There are two sides to the intellectual property argument when it comes to food. I explore both in Plants as Intellectual Property: Patently Wrong?.

And, of course, this is why I always recommend Taking Personal Responsibility for Your Health.

In health,
Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live, year-in-review presentations:

The Role of Pesticides in Parkinson’s Disease

In the original description of Parkinson’s disease by none other than Dr. James Parkinson himself, he described a characteristic feature of the disease: constipation, which may precede the diagnosis by many years. In fact, bowel movement frequency may be predictive. Men with less than one bowel movement a day were four times more like likely to develop Parkinson’s an average of 12 years later. This could be simply a really early symptom of the disease tied to decreased water intake, however. Many Parkinson’s patients report never really feeling very thirsty, and perhaps that led to the constipation. “Alternately, one may speculate that constipation also increases the risk of Parkinson’s disease as constipation results in a longer stay of the feces in the bowel and thus more absorption of neurotoxicants,” neurotoxins from the diet.

Two studies suggest an association between constipation and Parkinson’s, but, at the same time, 38 studies link the disease to pesticide exposure and by now more than 100 studies link pesticides to an increased risk of up to 80 percent.

Many of these studies are on occupational exposure, like that experienced by farmworkers, who may reduce their risk of Parkinson’s by wearing gloves and washing their clothes, but Parkinson’s has also been linked to ambient exposure. In the United States where approximately a billion pounds of pesticides are applied annually, just living or working in high-spray areas may increase Parkinson’s risk. It’s the same with using pesticides in the home. I didn’t realize how common household pesticide use was, and a study out of UCLA suggests it might not be such a good idea. 

Pesticides may cause DNA mutations that increase susceptibility for Parkinson’s or play a more direct role. Many neurodegenerative diseases appear to be caused by the buildup of misfolded proteins. In Alzheimer’s, it’s the protein amyloid beta; in Creutzfeldt-Jakob and mad cow disease, it’s prions; in Huntington’s, it’s a different protein; and in Parkinson’s disease, it’s a protein called alpha synuclein. A variety of pesticides—8 out of the 12 tested by researchers—were able to trigger synuclein accumulation in human nerve cells, at least in a petri dish, though the study has since been retracted so it’s unclear what the data actually showed.

The buildup of synuclein may play a role in killing off specialized nerve cells in the brain, 70 percent of which may be gone by the time the first symptoms arise. Pesticides are so good at killing these neurons that researchers use them to try to recreate Parkinson’s disease in animals. Is there any way to stop the process? As of this writing, there aren’t yet any drugs that can prevent this protein aggregation. What about flavonoid phytonutrients, natural compounds found in certain fruits and vegetables? Flavonoids can cross the blood-brain barrier and may have neuroprotective effects, so researchers tested 48 different plant compounds to see if any could stop the clumping of synuclein proteins into the little fibers that clog up the cell. And, indeed, they found a variety of flavonoids that can not only inhibit the spider web-like formation of synuclein fibers, but some could even break them up. It turns out flavonoids may actually bind to synuclein proteins and stabilize them.

In my video Berries vs. Pesticides in Parkinson’s Disease, you can see healthy nerve cells and the neurites, the arms they use to communicate to one another. After exposure to a pesticide, however, you can see how the cell is damaged and the arms are retracted. But, if you first incubate the nerve cells with a blueberry extract, the nerve cell appears better able to withstand the pesticide effects. So, this implies that flavonoids in our diet may be combating Parkinson’s disease as we speak, and healthy diets may be effective in preventing and even treating the disorder. However, these were all petri dish experiments in a laboratory. Is there any evidence that people eating berries are protected from Parkinson’s?

A study published quite a long time ago suggested the consumption of blueberries and strawberries was protective, but it was a tiny study and its results were not statistically significant. Nevertheless, that was the best we had…until now. In a more recent study, those eating a variety of phytonutrients were less likely to develop Parkinson’s disease. Specifically, higher intake of berries was associated with significantly lower risk. The accompanying editorial, “An Apple a Day to Prevent Parkinson Disease,” concluded that more research is necessary, but, until then, “an apple a day might be a good idea.” Of course, that’s coming from a man. Apples appeared protective against Parkinson’s for men, but not women. However, everyone appeared to benefit from the berries.

We may not want to have our berries with cream, though, as milk may be contaminated with the same kind of neurotoxic pesticide residues found in the brains of Parkinson’s disease victims.


I’ve produced other videos on Parkinson’s disease, including: 

Learn about other neurological muscular disorders, including essential tremor and ALS:

The same reason Parkinson’s may be related to constipation may also explain the breast cancer connection. For more on this, see my video Breast Cancer and Constipation.

What else can berries do?

But what about all the sugar in fruit? See my videos If Fructose Is Bad, What About Fruit? and How Much Fruit Is Too Much?.

In health,
Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live, year-in-review presentations: