Inevitably, critiques of resistant starch are beginning to show up here and there. This is a good thing. Everyone—and I mean: EVERYONE—is highly biased, cherry pics, etc. The myth of objectivity exists merely to give the impression that scientists are somehow above or more trustworthy than any regular dude or dudess who experiments. All humans navigating a life experiment all the time, and since such experiments have actual application to their everyday lives, they are often doing the most valid, objective science that exists.
Still, everyone is biased, everyone lies to themselves.
So, I will be happy to help get the word out on critiques of resistant starch provided the following points are in some way acknowledged in those critiques:
- There exists an impressive number (hundreds at this point) of positive n=1 anecdotes covering a variety of beneficial outcomes, such as improved blood glucose regulation, improved bathroom habits, improved sleep and even slow natural weight loss.
- There are no reports of objective harm to anyone.
- While we desire to understand all of this better, discover what’s real vs. myth, etc., it seems reasonable to conclude that no matter what the underlying dynamics, this is obviously helping a lot of people in a lot of ways while doing no harm. Accordingly, “wait until the science is in” warnings do not seem justified and people are likely on very safe footing experimenting with it.
That is all.