Lentils.

[Connor Davies]

Who likes them?

[Cody Ward]

Never had them.

[Kate Abernethy]

Me! I cook up a Dahl at the weekend and eat it with rice for breakfast four days a week.

[Christian Sørlie]

Don't mind them at all.

[Matteo.Za]

I eat a good amount of them, especially with rice

[ADRIANO FLORES CANO]

Not of my favourite foods, but definitely here in Spain is a "Must" and a classic. They have a good ratio of protein:carbs and a lot of fiber. Better put in water 24h before consumption.

[Srini Duggirala]

 Better put in water 24h before consumption.

 

V

This.

 

And freeze them after cooking for even better nutritional benefits. 

 

Google- resistant starch lentils second meal effect- if you are interested to learn more about these benefits.

 

I cook massive batches of lentils and other beans and freeze them. Eat them once or twice a day most days of the week. Soak, cook, freeze, reheat and enjoy.

 

T-Nat

[Connor Davies]

Better put in water 24h before consumption.

Wait, what?

[Kate Abernethy]

http://www.themindfulfoodie.com/2013/02/12/do-you-need-to-soak-lentils/

[Briac Roquet]

Soaking lentils and then freezing them. Well, that's new. 

[Nicholas Herreros]

As with most legumes. Soaking them releases gases and softens them some. U can also boil them to get the same effect. Boil. Let sit, then cook them.

I eat my lentils with pasta.

I do freeze my leftovers. Didn't know there was a nutritional benefit from that. But, boy it sure does allow food to marinade and soak in the flavors.

[Connor Davies]

Q: where's the reference for why freezing it makes it better? Does freezing/thawing break down the material for easier digestion or something?

I remember Naterman recommending freezing all your vegetables, because it breaks down the cell walls and allows for greater bioavailability of nutrients without destroying them like cooking does.

 

Not sure how it applies to lentils, because you have to cook them anyway...

[Briac Roquet]

Was it actually all of them?

[Srini Duggirala]

OK, when I talked about lentils, I was lumping them together with all other beans. Whether lentils should be excluded from this group that benefits from soaking, cooking and freezing, I am not sure but I tend to believe that it will derive similar benefits as the other beans.

 

BTW, it is soaking, cooking, freezing and re-heating. So cooking is still required but will take a lot less time after the long soak!

 

As far as why follow this process, this whole thing has to do with the hottest research currently going on i.e., gut microbiome and resistant starch. You can literally spend weeks reading this subject but here are some key points.

I will leave you with one very important benefit of resistant starch. It is the ability to improve insulin sensitivity. I'll try to post most information when my time permits if anyone is interested.

 

For now, read on below to get an idea of what I am talking about....

---

Everybody agrees there are toxins in raw/undercooked beans and nobody wanted to be bothered on how to prepare them, plus they make you fart–that can’t be good, right?

Here’re some things I learned. Beans come with a hefty coating of bacteria attached to them. It is present on nearly all beans commercially available. There are usually several strains of bacteria, but the nearly ever-present lactobacillus is the one we need for our gut.

To maximize lactobacillus, the beans must be soaked. Total lactobacillus growth is achieved with a 48 hour soak, but for our purposes, 24-36 is fine. I wouldn’t go less than 12. Lactobacillus can grow in temps ranging from freezing to 122 deg F, so temperature isn’t super-important. Room temp is fine, but 118 deg F seems to be the ideal temp.

Once soaked, they are considered to be ‘fermented’. During the fermentation process, a whole host of things happen: dietary fiber is converted from insoluble to soluble, resistant starch is freed from it’s outer shell transforming it from RS1 (physically inaccessible) to RS2 (raw starch), and some compounds that make us fart, like raffinose, was degraded almost completely by the lactobacillus.

There still may be some compounds that are less than desirable left behind–especially in kidney beans. To ensure all these are neutralized, the beans must be boiled for a period of 10 minutes.

Pressure cooking is fine, maybe even preferred. If one doesn’t have a pressure cooker, the beans can be brought to a rolling boil for 10 minutes, then turned down to a simmer for 1-2 hours until the beans are soft.

During the cooking process, more amazing transformations occur. Insoluble fiber increases by 97% and resistant starch decreases by 97%. The raffinose all but disappears, glucose and other sugars are converted to starches. The decrease in RS is OK–that’s what happens to RS when cooked.

If you eat these properly fermented and cooked beans while hot, they are delicious and nutritious. If you store them at 40 deg F or less for at least 24 hours, or better yet, freeze them for days or weeks, all that starch that you made will reform into resistant starch (RS3). What’s amazing about RS3 is that it will withstand being reheated, even gaining more RS3 when reheated.

Microwaving them is fine, adding them to chili or bean soup is great, making refried beans by mashing them up and heating in a pan is great, too. Eating the beans cold is perfectly fine, too.

I like to make a whole bag of beans at once and freeze the leftovers. It is super-simple and you end up with a lot of pre-cooked, RS rich beans for use later.

[Srini Duggirala]

I remember Naterman recommending freezing all your vegetables, because it breaks down the cell walls and allows for greater bioavailability of nutrients without destroying them like cooking does.

 

Not sure how it applies to lentils, because you have to cook them anyway...

Bipocni,

cooking is still required of all the beans and lentils unless you are sprouting them. Even with sprouting some may still be unpalatable in their raw form.

[Srini Duggirala]

As with most legumes. Soaking them releases gases and softens them some. U can also boil them to get the same effect. Boil. Let sit, then cook them.

I eat my lentils with pasta.

I do freeze my leftovers. Didn't know there was a nutritional benefit from that. But, boy it sure does allow food to marinade and soak in the flavors.

This is correct. Soaking them in lukewarm water for 24-48 hours before cooking is preferred.

 

 pasta el dente  (Partially cooked pasta) and freezing cooked potatoes and cooked parboiled rice (no need to soak rice) also has similar beneficial effects by increasing the amounts of resistant starch.

[Joshua Naterman]

This is correct. Soaking them in lukewarm water for 24-48 hours before cooking is preferred.

 

 pasta el dente  (Partially cooked pasta) and freezing cooked potatoes and cooked parboiled rice (no need to soak rice) also has similar beneficial effects by increasing the amounts of resistant starch.

With respect, soaking your rice and using fresh water for cooking said rice will help reduce the presence of antinutrients such as phytates. I do not know if it will change siRNA content or not, there is no data on that yet.

 

As for the freezing of all veggies, that's a personal decision. I mentioned that because it does give you access to around 10% more of the total nutritional value of the veggies,if I remember correctly. It also makes veggies mushy, which is handy for quickly preparing carrots but perhaps not ideal if you like crisp broccoli. 

[Keilani Gutierrez]

With respect, soaking your rice and using fresh water for cooking said rice will help reduce the presence of antinutrients such as phytates. I do not know if it will change siRNA content or not, there is no data on that yet.

 

As for the freezing of all veggies, that's a personal decision. I mentioned that because it does give you access to around 10% more of the total nutritional value of the veggies,if I remember correctly. It also makes veggies mushy, which is handy for quickly preparing carrots but perhaps not ideal if you like crisp broccoli. 

how about really thick veggie broth? this is something i've toyed with in my head to see if it'd be simple enough to prepare and just grab and go but don't know what would be IN the water since you say these antinutrients are removed from the plant matter. 

 

so, would you prepare the veggies, strain them and bam, add in to the broth? or just cook all as is? (i'm not asking for an "end-all" answer, only one for my current and future living situation of needing certain meals of the day on the go)

[Srini Duggirala]

With respect, soaking your rice and using fresh water for cooking said rice will help reduce the presence of antinutrients such as phytates. I do not know if it will change siRNA content or not, there is no data on that yet.

 

As for the freezing of all veggies, that's a personal decision. I mentioned that because it does give you access to around 10% more of the total nutritional value of the veggies,if I remember correctly. It also makes veggies mushy, which is handy for quickly preparing carrots but perhaps not ideal if you like crisp broccoli. 

Joshua, first up I am huge fan of your contributions on nutrition here.

I was talking about parboiled rice which is already soaked , boiled and dried before milling. Additional soaking of parboiled rice will not result in any additional reduction of antinutrients. Moreover, antinutrients in white polished rice are negligible compared to brown rice because bran and germs are removed in white rice. However, soaking and draining of white rice may potentially reduce arsenic levels. Rice grown in former tobacco regions such as North Carolina have much higher content of arsenic.

 

My main reason for eating parboiled rice(and soaked, cooked, frozen and reheated beans etc) is for its enhanced resistant starch content. Resistant starch has HUGE benefits to your gut microbiome. People who do low carbing should seriously look into it.

 

T-Nat

[Frankincensed]

Yeah, I had some dahl and rice recently. We also soak the dried lentils overnight. Certainly makes cooking them faster.

Also we pressure cook them to really break them down into the liquid.  Using lentils or peas as a soup base is really good rich hearty for the winter as well.

 

Regarding frozen veggies,if you get more than enough whether you get 10% more or less isn't going to be noticeable, though it might be theoretically better. That guy who was stranded for a year(?) in the sea started craving fish eyes. He didn't know why but apparently they are rich in vitamin C, which helped keep him alive and reasonably well. I mean people who worry about getting enough are the best fed people on the planet! 

 

Regarding a broth, if you are eating the water that the veggies cooked in you will recapture most of the lost nutrients. They aren't largely lost or damaged during cooking. Can toss a pot full of veggies, few bones if you want, some lentils/peas, some spices  and let it simmer and you have hearty soup that can last all week. Great way to get kids to eat a wide variety of veggies.

[Connor Davies]

Well, I soaked some lentils overnight.  Wasn't expecting them to expand as much as they did.  My kitchen counter is covered in lentils.  Thanks guys...

 

So given that lentils expand when you cook them, and they expand when you soak them, am I to assume that the expansion without the application of heat leads to different reactions in the starch?

[Srini Duggirala]

Well, I soaked some lentils overnight.  Wasn't expecting them to expand as much as they did.  My kitchen counter is covered in lentils.  Thanks guys...

 

So given that lentils expand when you cook them, and they expand when you soak them, am I to assume that the expansion without the application of heat leads to different reactions in the starch?

Yes, physically inaccessible starch has been converted to raw starch. And most of the fart inducing rafficose is removed after the soak and most of the anti-nutrients such as phytates are gone now.

Read this post to see what happens to your beans/lentils - https://www.gymnasticbodies.com/forum/topic/14909-lentils/?p=145567

 

The expansion from now on after cooking will be a little less than what it would have been without the soak. But the important step is to freeze them after cooking to convert the regular starch into resistant starch- the kind your gut bugs love to feast on. An overnight freeze will convert most of the starch into RS3- and the gut bugs will ferment this resistant starch in your colon and produce a short chain fatty acid called butyrate (butyric acid) thereby setting up stage for a host of other benefits. Repeating this cycle of freezing and reheating will further improve the RS content. There is a ton of research out there on pubmed if anyone wants to ruin their weekends :-) BTW, butyrate is present in butter but it does not make it to the right place in your body to be beneficial. It is used up as energy before it can reach your colon where it is most beneficial.

 

30g of RS is the minimum RDA to get the full benefits but it is quite difficult to get it from food alone. But any amount is good.

[Srini Duggirala]

And here's some latest research on Resistant Starch and how it could impact body recomposition.

Note- body recomposition not weigh loss. I don't think anyone out here needs weight loss but all of us are interested in body recomp. Aren't we?

Thanks to Richard @ freetheanimal. Check his blog out for a ton of information on RS.

 

-----

 

Hot off the presses this week, Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition. Tim writes in email.

Hey, Guys, check this out. A new paper (review of other studies) just out this week. Kind of disappointing, but still a total 'Win' for us. The goal of the paper was to see if RS was a 'superfood' for losing weight. The answer is a resounding 'NO,' simply adding RS to one's diet does not lead to weight loss. It does however, lead to improved insulin sensitivity, reduced visceral fat, a reduction in inflammation, and reduced risk for diabetes, CVD, and cancer.

They seemed to have pinned down why it doesn't work for weight loss. And this should make everyone think about how silly the term 'weight loss' really is.

RS is not a good weight loss tool because it leads to an increase in lean body mass!

So, I'm really glad that we never portrayed this as a weight loss tool. We are vindicated in our explanations of why RS is a good thing—and it ties intimately with the gut microbiome. Here are a few clips from the paper, but please have a read and see what you think. It basically describes every human and animal study ever done, but focuses mostly on weight loss and Total Energy Expenditure ('TEE').

From the Abstract

"The obesity epidemic has prompted researchers to find effective weight-loss and maintenance tools. Weight loss and subsequent maintenance are reliant on energy balance-the net difference between energy intake and energy expenditure. Negative energy balance, lower intake than expenditure, results in weight loss whereas positive energy balance, greater intake than expenditure, results in weight gain. Resistant starch has many attributes, which could promote weight loss and/or maintenance including reduced postprandial insulinemia, increased release of gut satiety peptides, increased fat oxidation, lower fat storage in adipocytes, and preservation of lean body mass. Retention of lean body mass during weight loss or maintenance would prevent the decrease in basal metabolic rate and, therefore, the decrease in total energy expenditure, that occurs with weight loss. In addition, the fiber-like properties of resistant starch may increase the thermic effect of food, thereby increasing total energy expenditure. Due to its ability to increase fat oxidation and reduce fat storage in adipocytes, resistant starch has recently been promoted in the popular press as a "weight loss wonder food". This review focuses on data describing the effects of resistant starch on body weight, energy intake, energy expenditure, and body composition to determine if there is sufficient evidence to warrant these claims."

As Tim said, we have never once touted this as a weight loss deal. What we have been open to is the possibility that perhaps over as long a time as it caused to mess up a gut and gain a lot of fat, that with a clean diet incorporating RS, perhaps satiety signals will be better and a person might lose excess fat slowly. Since I began incoprating RS in April, I've dropped 10 pounds—about a pound per month—with doing absolutely nothing to try to lose weight. I only learned this just yesterday, because I hadn't stepped on a scale in quite a long time but noticed my face looked leaner. Was just going by how my pants fit, and I was satisfied. I also "feel" as though I've gained lean mass in upper body and thighs and anymore, I don't do much but walk and take hikes now & then. A little fun with the kettle bells in the backyard, now & then.

We got hold of the full text and here's some of the meat quotes with emphasis added.

"Despite numerous observations in rodents and humans describing no change in body weight, energy intake, or TEE in response to RS ingestion, almost every rodent study that has measured body composition finds lower fat mass (FM) and/or higher LBM with RS ingestion.

"These data have been scrutinized and replicated many times in different experimental paradigms, lending credence to the idea that RS causes changes in metabolic flux that act to increase fat oxidation with a concomitant decrease in carbohydrate and protein oxidation. Thus, RS could increase protein accretion (LBM) and reduce the amount of fat available for net storage without changing TEE. In addition, it has been shown that high fiber diets, such as a RS diet, cause lower total metabolizable energy than predicted/measured in vitro due to decreased in vivo digestibility of non-starch polysaccharides, carbohydrate, and fat (Behall and Howe, 1995). Thus, there may be less net carbohydrate and fat available for storage in response to a RS diet. [...]

"Taken together, these data provide convincing evidence that the gut microbiome can play a crucial role in the absorption and use of dietary nutrients as well as exhorting a strong influence the development of obesity. As RS can change the microbiome of the gut, it is reasonable to assume that RS consumption could influence the development of obesity and the success of weightloss/ maintenance attempts.

"Five important caveats regarding data interpretation were discussed:

1) Energy intake may be dependent on the energy density of the diet; future studies should consider this during the experimental design process.

2) Higher total bowel content, lumen thickness, and mass of the microbiome in response to RS ingestion can cause overestimation of total body weight.

3) Data in humans is from healthy adults who are able to effectively regulate body weight. It is likely that different effects would be observed in obese subjects.

4) Acute human studies have been too short to observe any effect of RS fermentation on TEE.

5) Visual analog scale estimation of hunger may not correlate well with food intake; therefore, data from subjective measurements should be interpreted carefully.

"It is apparent that ingestion of RS, relative to DS (digestible starch), has no effect on body weight in healthy rodents, no effect on energy intake, although this seems to be dependent on the energy density of the diet, and the effects on TEE are equivocal and require further investigation. However, there is strong evidence that RS lowers whole-body and visceral adiposity. The magnitude of these changes in adiposity are very large and sufficient to independently improve insulin sensitivity, and reduce the risk of diabetes, CVD, and certain cancers.

"Human data corresponds well with that from rats. RS, in comparison with DS, does not seem to have any impact on body weight, although studies in humans would need to be of longer duration in order to observe any such effect, has no effect on energy intake or TEE, and increases fat oxidation. There is a scarcity of data regarding the effect of RS on fat mass and LBM in humans. There is data from mice and humans to show that RS changes the microbiota in the gut which has been shown to influence energy absorption and the development of obesity.

"There is some scant evidence that the metabolic changes that occur in response to RS ingestion may not occur in obese rodents. Clearly, further studies need to be conducted in obese humans and rodent models before any conclusions can be drawn regarding the usefulness of RS in this population. A plethora of metabolic adaptations occur in obesity and in the weight-reduced state, including changes to the microbiota that influence energy absorption from the diet and obesity, and it is vital to determine if RS has any biologically relevant effects under these conditions. The observation that RS increases protein retention during overfeeding indicates that RS could have positive effects on body composition and, therefore, on BMR. Clearly, there is evidence that RS has effects, such as increased fat oxidation and reduced fat storage in adipocytes, that imply that it would be a useful weight-loss and/or maintenance tool. However, there is no direct data showing that RS has any impact on body weight, energy intake, or energy expenditure. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct well-designed studies, of sufficient duration, in obese individuals during periods of underfeeding, overfeeding, and energy balance before any meaningful conclusions can be drawn."

So there you have it. Pretty much as we suspected. Feed the gut, healthy gut. Healthy gut, healthier human. Healthier human, well regulated hormones and over time, nature takes its course in the most perfect way possible: Body Recomposition vs. simplistic "weight loss" strategies.

Anyone still think they don't have a "starch deficiency?"

[Srini Duggirala]

For those scientifically inclined, here's a paper that explains the black bean fermentation process in detail. Holds true for other beans as well.

 

http://fusion.infiniteplane.com/lactic-acid-bean-fermentation.pdf

 

And an exhaustive article on phytate reduction. Takeaways- soak in lukewarm water and add a TBSP of live enzymes such as raw apple cider vinegar

 

http://www.thenourishinggourmet.com/2010/09/reducing-phytic-acid-in-grains-and-legumes.html

[Frankincensed]

And here's some latest research on Resistant Starch and how it could impact body recomposition.

Note- body recomposition not weigh loss. I don't think anyone out here needs weight loss but all of us are interested in body recomp. Aren't we?

Thanks to Richard @ freetheanimal. Check his blog out for a ton of information on RS.

 

-----

 

Hot off the presses this week, Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition. Tim writes in email.

From the Abstract

Hey, Guys, check this out. A new paper (review of other studies) just out this week. Kind of disappointing, but still a total 'Win' for us. The goal of the paper was to see if RS was a 'superfood' for losing weight. The answer is a resounding 'NO,' simply adding RS to one's diet does not lead to weight loss. It does however, lead to improved insulin sensitivity, reduced visceral fat, a reduction in inflammation, and reduced risk for diabetes, CVD, and cancer.

They seemed to have pinned down why it doesn't work for weight loss. And this should make everyone think about how silly the term 'weight loss' really is. RS is not a good weight loss tool because it leads to an increase in lean body mass!

So, I'm really glad that we never portrayed this as a weight loss tool. We are vindicated in our explanations of why RS is a good thing—and it ties intimately with the gut microbiome. Here are a few clips from the paper, but please have a read and see what you think. It basically describes every human and animal study ever done, but focuses mostly on weight loss and Total Energy Expenditure ('TEE').

"The obesity epidemic has prompted researchers to find effective weight-loss and maintenance tools. Weight loss and subsequent maintenance are reliant on energy balance-the net difference between energy intake and energy expenditure. Negative energy balance, lower intake than expenditure, results in weight loss whereas positive energy balance, greater intake than expenditure, results in weight gain. Resistant starch has many attributes, which could promote weight loss and/or maintenance including reduced postprandial insulinemia, increased release of gut satiety peptides, increased fat oxidation, lower fat storage in adipocytes, and preservation of lean body mass. Retention of lean body mass during weight loss or maintenance would prevent the decrease in basal metabolic rate and, therefore, the decrease in total energy expenditure, that occurs with weight loss. In addition, the fiber-like properties of resistant starch may increase the thermic effect of food, thereby increasing total energy expenditure. Due to its ability to increase fat oxidation and reduce fat storage in adipocytes, resistant starch has recently been promoted in the popular press as a "weight loss wonder food". This review focuses on data describing the effects of resistant starch on body weight, energy intake, energy expenditure, and body composition to determine if there is sufficient evidence to warrant these claims."

As Tim said, we have never once touted this as a weight loss deal. What we have been open to is the possibility that perhaps over as long a time as it caused to mess up a gut and gain a lot of fat, that with a clean diet incorporating RS, perhaps satiety signals will be better and a person might lose excess fat slowly. Since I began incoprating RS in April, I've dropped 10 pounds—about a pound per month—with doing absolutely nothing to try to lose weight. I only learned this just yesterday, because I hadn't stepped on a scale in quite a long time but noticed my face looked leaner. Was just going by how my pants fit, and I was satisfied. I also "feel" as though I've gained lean mass in upper body and thighs and anymore, I don't do much but walk and take hikes now & then. A little fun with the kettle bells in the backyard, now & then.

We got hold of the full text and here's some of the meat quotes with emphasis added.

"Despite numerous observations in rodents and humans describing no change in body weight, energy intake, or TEE in response to RS ingestion, almost every rodent study that has measured body composition finds lower fat mass (FM) and/or higher LBM with RS ingestion.

"These data have been scrutinized and replicated many times in different experimental paradigms, lending credence to the idea that RS causes changes in metabolic flux that act to increase fat oxidation with a concomitant decrease in carbohydrate and protein oxidation. Thus, RS could increase protein accretion (LBM) and reduce the amount of fat available for net storage without changing TEE. In addition, it has been shown that high fiber diets, such as a RS diet, cause lower total metabolizable energy than predicted/measured in vitro due to decreased in vivo digestibility of non-starch polysaccharides, carbohydrate, and fat (Behall and Howe, 1995). Thus, there may be less net carbohydrate and fat available for storage in response to a RS diet. [...]

"Taken together, these data provide convincing evidence that the gut microbiome can play a crucial role in the absorption and use of dietary nutrients as well as exhorting a strong influence the development of obesity. As RS can change the microbiome of the gut, it is reasonable to assume that RS consumption could influence the development of obesity and the success of weightloss/ maintenance attempts.

"Five important caveats regarding data interpretation were discussed:

1) Energy intake may be dependent on the energy density of the diet; future studies should consider this during the experimental design process.

2) Higher total bowel content, lumen thickness, and mass of the microbiome in response to RS ingestion can cause overestimation of total body weight.

3) Data in humans is from healthy adults who are able to effectively regulate body weight. It is likely that different effects would be observed in obese subjects.

4) Acute human studies have been too short to observe any effect of RS fermentation on TEE.

5) Visual analog scale estimation of hunger may not correlate well with food intake; therefore, data from subjective measurements should be interpreted carefully.

"It is apparent that ingestion of RS, relative to DS (digestible starch), has no effect on body weight in healthy rodents, no effect on energy intake, although this seems to be dependent on the energy density of the diet, and the effects on TEE are equivocal and require further investigation. However, there is strong evidence that RS lowers whole-body and visceral adiposity. The magnitude of these changes in adiposity are very large and sufficient to independently improve insulin sensitivity, and reduce the risk of diabetes, CVD, and certain cancers.

"Human data corresponds well with that from rats. RS, in comparison with DS, does not seem to have any impact on body weight, although studies in humans would need to be of longer duration in order to observe any such effect, has no effect on energy intake or TEE, and increases fat oxidation. There is a scarcity of data regarding the effect of RS on fat mass and LBM in humans. There is data from mice and humans to show that RS changes the microbiota in the gut which has been shown to influence energy absorption and the development of obesity.

"There is some scant evidence that the metabolic changes that occur in response to RS ingestion may not occur in obese rodents. Clearly, further studies need to be conducted in obese humans and rodent models before any conclusions can be drawn regarding the usefulness of RS in this population. A plethora of metabolic adaptations occur in obesity and in the weight-reduced state, including changes to the microbiota that influence energy absorption from the diet and obesity, and it is vital to determine if RS has any biologically relevant effects under these conditions. The observation that RS increases protein retention during overfeeding indicates that RS could have positive effects on body composition and, therefore, on BMR. Clearly, there is evidence that RS has effects, such as increased fat oxidation and reduced fat storage in adipocytes, that imply that it would be a useful weight-loss and/or maintenance tool. However, there is no direct data showing that RS has any impact on body weight, energy intake, or energy expenditure. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct well-designed studies, of sufficient duration, in obese individuals during periods of underfeeding, overfeeding, and energy balance before any meaningful conclusions can be drawn."

So there you have it. Pretty much as we suspected. Feed the gut, healthy gut. Healthy gut, healthier human. Healthier human, well regulated hormones and over time, nature takes its course in the most perfect way possible: Body Recomposition vs. simplistic "weight loss" strategies.

Anyone still think they don't have a "starch deficiency?"

A miracle fat-loss product that also causes muscle growth with gosh-darn sciernfic studies AND personal claims that it is incredible to boot? Who would have thunk it was possible?