Resistant Wheat Starch Calories: Kevin?

[retroworx]

Hi Folks:

I notice that the RWS 75 list 35 calories per tablespoon, with 8 total carbs and 7 fiber, netting 1 carb. If there are no additional additives and the flour is mostly fiber, do our bodies really absorb this many calories from this? (Or do the calories reflected on this label simply reflect the units of energy required to "burn" this in the testing machine but cannot be processed by our bodies?)

And how are the other "flours" we bake with (carbquick, WPI etc) less cals per tablespoon when they have more carbs and some have additives??

Puzzled,

Susan

[Kevinpa]

Sorry Susan, you need a food chemist for that one. I am not even a calorie counter.

[Kevinpa]

Originally Posted by retroworx

And how are the other "flours" we bake with (carbquick, WPI etc) less cals per tablespoon when they have more carbs and some have additives??

If you look at the calories based on weight rather than measure all of these are very close to calories per gram.

Just an observation.

[retroworx]

Originally Posted by Kevinpa

If you look at the calories based on weight rather than measure all of these are very close to calories per gram.

Just an observation.

Ah, interesting! Thanks!

Susan

[Soobee]

I just read that there are 4 classes of resistant starches, and that they are digested at different percentages. I don't know which class resistant wheat starch falls into, but the calories are probably about 50% of what is written.

[retroworx]

Well, this all probably spins us back around to the question of fiber and labels. Are calories from fiber included in calorie totals?

If I have a product here that is 100% fiber, no additives, shouldn't it be 0 calories?

Susan

[theislandgirl]

Food chemists can and do try to answer that question. It's way complicated. The best layperson's explanations I have ever seen are on the info pages at Barb Pollack's Expert Foods site (which I cannot list here), yes the creator of ThickenThin not/Starch and not/Sugar.

FYI, the 75 in the name is supposed to mean that up to 75% of the starch in the product is resistant to digestion and is generally (by most?) treated as fiber in the digestion.

The only way I can deal with odd numbers like this (and it's consistent this way for me across all such odd products, such as this RS and polydextrose and polyols, etc.) is to take the declared calorie count, divide by 4 (actually a different number but 4 is close enough for horseshoes and handgrenades) if there are no protein and fat grams to take out of the equation, and that becomes MY carb count and I plug it into my MasterCook.

Hope that helps you some...

[CreekWatcher]

Originally Posted by retroworx

Well, this all probably spins us back around to the question of fiber and labels. Are calories from fiber included in calorie totals?

If I have a product here that is 100% fiber, no additives, shouldn't it be 0 calories?

Susan

In the US, fiber is indeed included in the calorie counts that we see. (But for practical purposes it would make sense for us to subtract it.) I believe that in some european countries, fiber is not included in calorie counts; also some countries classify some digestion resistant starches as fiber which we do not.

[retroworx]

Originally Posted by theislandgirl

and that becomes MY carb count and I plug it into my MasterCook.

Jude:

Could you clarify for me: you do this calculation to determine the actual carb count, not true calorie count, yes?

So regarding consistency in labeling, do we think the reported calories on polydextrose have been calculated the way the calories are on the RWS, for instance, so that I can be confident I am comparing apples to apples? (I'm guessing, since they are from the same company, the answer is most likely yes. . . .)

Thanks very much for pointing me to the Expert Foods site for more info. I'm going to head on over there next!

Susan

[retroworx]

Originally Posted by CreekWatcher

(But for practical purposes it would make sense for us to subtract it.)

Sure would!

I wish we could get a breakout of the fiber calories. If we have acknowledged that we don't digest them by giving them their own breakout on the carbs list, why be inconsistent in this category?

I hate nutrition labels. . . (mutter, mutter)

Susan

[retroworx]

Urrggghh!

According to the info I just skimmed on the site that Jude pointed me to, all the fiber is not necessarily included in the calorie counts in the U.S., it's voluntary, which means that we never really can know if we are comparing apples to apples in regard to how the fiber was handled in the calorie counts:

". . . .for processed foods, manufacturers are permitted to calculate calories from the average values of 4-4-9 kcal/g for protein, carbohydrate, and fat, respectively. The only exception is that, optionally, they may subtract the insoluble fiber from this calculation."

"Another way to check that the label indeed follows US regulations, is that if it lists fiber, it must be indented under the "total carbohydrate" line. In addition, soluble fiber must be included in the calorie count and insoluble fiber may be included -- both at a rate of four calories per gram. The reason this is important is these calories are not bioavailable so that the actual calories are effectively lower.

". . . .remember that manufacturers are allowed to exclude calories from insoluble fiber."

[retroworx]

Originally Posted by theislandgirl

The best layperson's explanations I have ever seen are on the info pages at Barb Pollack's Expert Foods site

Jude:

Thank you sooo much for directing me to these pages -- I had been on their site before but never seen this incredible in-depth, yet "digestible," info

I've printed it out for more thorough reading later, but it covered so many of the issues I have been questioning: who regulates the labeling? how are the numbers vetted? why are inconsistencies the "norm" etc.

Very comprehensive and really touched on almost all of my lingering questions, so thanks again!

Susan

[CreekWatcher]

Originally Posted by retroworx

Urrggghh!

According to the info I just skimmed on the site that Jude pointed me to, all the fiber is not necessarily included in the calorie counts in the U.S., it's voluntary, which means that we never really can know if we are comparing apples to apples in regard to how the fiber was handled in the calorie counts:

". . . .for processed foods, manufacturers are permitted to calculate calories from the average values of 4-4-9 kcal/g for protein, carbohydrate, and fat, respectively. The only exception is that, optionally, they may subtract the insoluble fiber from this calculation."

"Another way to check that the label indeed follows US regulations, is that if it lists fiber, it must be indented under the "total carbohydrate" line. In addition, soluble fiber must be included in the calorie count and insoluble fiber may be included -- both at a rate of four calories per gram. The reason this is important is these calories are not bioavailable so that the actual calories are effectively lower.

". . . .remember that manufacturers are allowed to exclude calories from insoluble fiber."

Oh, well. Thank you, retroworx, that's useful, if confounding, information.

[Kevinpa]

It makes my head hurt.

[retroworx]

Originally Posted by Kevinpa

It makes my head hurt.

EXACTLY!!!

I'm a control freak but I think they've got me beat on this one -- I think I'm gonna' have to just chill

Susan

[Soobee]

I found this information on the Fanatic Cook blog.
Below is the current classification used for RS. There are 4 groups, varying among other qualities by degree of digestibility:

RS1 - Starch that is resistant to digestion because it exists in a physically dense, or physically protected form. Examples are whole- or partly-milled grains, seeds, and legumes. Milling, grinding (including chewing), and homogenization free this starch for digestion.

RS2 - Starch that is resistant to digestion because it exists in a physically dense and relatively dehydrated form. This lack of water is internal to the structure of the starch granule. It's not evident by looking at it. Examples are raw potatoes and unripe banana. Boiling and homogenization free this starch for digestion.

RS3 - The most resistant kind. Starch, mostly amylose, that becomes resistant to digestion when heated then cooled. Also known as retrograded starch. Examples are cooled cooked potatoes and beans. Amounts in pasta vary and are dependant upon the structure of the pasta, and heating and cooling times.

Boiling RS3 will not easily free it for digestion, as it will RS2. In fact, moist heating will encourage the starch molecules to swell then rearrange themselves as they cool, making this starch almost entirely resistant to digestion by pancreatic amylases. Another unique feature of RS3 ... repeated heating and cooling cycles will further increase the RS content.

RS4 - Starch that is resistant to digestion because it has been chemically modified. Bonds other than naturally occurring α-(1-4) and α-(1-6) are formed. Examples are commercially made breads, cakes, crackers, etc. that contain "modified food starch".

[theislandgirl]

Sigh.

I guess it's clear why I try to keep things relatively simple, just assume the calorie number is somewhere close to correct, base all further calculations thereon. I figure the law of averages means I'm going to get a number I can work with, and if it errs on the side of the carbs being higher, well so be it. It's probably safer that way for me

[Kevinpa]

I'm with you Jude. I know I choose right when I can but I am not going to lose sleep and sweat the small stuff.

[retroworx]

Soobee: Thanks for the additional info.

Kevin & Jude: Tryin' to achieve your Zen state

Susan

[rexsreine]

Just saw this thread. Had a thought about the RS3: If heating and cooling makes the starch even more resistant, then, theoretically, the black bean/white bean cakes posted on another thread by Carolyn should be less carb-y than you might at first think. The beans have been cooked and cooled (canned or homemade), then cooked again in the cake and cooled. What do you think, Jude?

[CreekWatcher]

Originally Posted by Soobee

I found this information on the Fanatic Cook blog.
Below is the current classification used for RS. There are 4 groups, varying among other qualities by degree of digestibility:

RS1 - Starch that is resistant to digestion because it exists in a physically dense, or physically protected form. Examples are whole- or partly-milled grains, seeds, and legumes. Milling, grinding (including chewing), and homogenization free this starch for digestion.

RS2 - Starch that is resistant to digestion because it exists in a physically dense and relatively dehydrated form. This lack of water is internal to the structure of the starch granule. It's not evident by looking at it. Examples are raw potatoes and unripe banana. Boiling and homogenization free this starch for digestion.

RS3 - The most resistant kind. Starch, mostly amylose, that becomes resistant to digestion when heated then cooled. Also known as retrograded starch. Examples are cooled cooked potatoes and beans. Amounts in pasta vary and are dependant upon the structure of the pasta, and heating and cooling times.

Boiling RS3 will not easily free it for digestion, as it will RS2. In fact, moist heating will encourage the starch molecules to swell then rearrange themselves as they cool, making this starch almost entirely resistant to digestion by pancreatic amylases. Another unique feature of RS3 ... repeated heating and cooling cycles will further increase the RS content.

RS4 - Starch that is resistant to digestion because it has been chemically modified. Bonds other than naturally occurring α-(1-4) and α-(1-6) are formed. Examples are commercially made breads, cakes, crackers, etc. that contain "modified food starch".

Soobee, do you believe that boiling potatoes part way, then cooling, then completeing the cooking (and cooling again) would probably cause the starch to be more digestion resistent than potatoes boiled to the same doneness all at once, and then cooled? Thanks.

[Soobee]

It might be true. I just don't know. I need to work with so few carbs to maintain that I wouldn't chance it myself. Even though potatoes have resistant starch, they also have regular old starch, the kind that wreaks havoc on my life. Perhaps you could try just a small portion to see how it affects your weight loss.

[theislandgirl]

Originally Posted by rexsreine

Just saw this thread. Had a thought about the RS3: If heating and cooling makes the starch even more resistant, then, theoretically, the black bean/white bean cakes posted on another thread by Carolyn should be less carb-y than you might at first think. The beans have been cooked and cooled (canned or homemade), then cooked again in the cake and cooled. What do you think, Jude?

Sorry for the wait, RexsReine...got hauled away to do 80 hours on site in a kitchen in all of 8 days. I think I'm in recovery now!

Anyway, my comment still applies (about erring on the high side and letting it go). That being said, I don't think all the heating and cooling in the world is going to change the carb's (starch) resistance to any significant degree.

Let's say a hot boiled new potato is somewhere between 76 and 81 (actually taken from this website and this website). So it's cooled and sliced and then has apparently got some more resistance?

Let's guestimate all of 10%, because I can't see it being a big number, personally (though can't prove it). So the GI of this potato is guestimated to be now somewhere between, what, 68 and 74?

And let's all remember that the resistance factor doesn't actually change the carb count, at all. We can get into the concept of Glycemic Load here, a function blending absolute Carb Count and Glycemic Index (blood sugar response over a given period of time), but that's another kettle of carbs altogether...this is a good website, from the Linus Pauling Institute at Oregon State, for some info about GL. Which is one of those concepts that I think is the single most useful for the majority of people who fall into the big bell curve of carb tolerance (or insulin/glucose response, however you want to describe it) but not for those very sensitive to carbs...and like SooBee, they know who they (ok, we...) are! Right, SooBee?

Well, off my wee soapbox now... hope y'all are having a great time with this discussion; I have to admit I really like to get into it, but then I just want to go back and make good food......so that's where I'm off to shortly.

[cyndi101]

Can RWS be used to replace cornstarch? If so, is it measured the same? Do I need to adjust the amount of liquids in the recipe?

[dianafoot]

Originally Posted by cyndi101

Can RWS be used to replace cornstarch? If so, is it measured the same? Do I need to adjust the amount of liquids in the recipe?

No, they are two very different things. The characteristic of corn starch that makes it good for a thickener are the fact it is very absorbant and swells in the liquid in which it is cooked. RWS won't work the same way at all, either in thickening or in baking...

[cyndi101]

Originally Posted by dianafoot

No, they are two very different things. The characteristic of corn starch that makes it good for a thickener are the fact it is very absorbant and swells in the liquid in which it is cooked. RWS won't work the same way at all, either in thickening or in baking...

So what does the RWS bring to a recipe?

[buttoni]

Found this article on RWS that may offer some insight: Resistant Starch - What is Resistant Starch - Sources - Benefits of Resistant Starch