RESEARCH
Review
Resistant Starch Content in Foods Commonly
Consumed in the United States: A Narrative
Review
Mindy A. Patterson, PhD, RDN; Madhura Maiya, PhD; Maria L. Stewart, PhD
ARTICLE INFORMATION
Article history:
Submitted 16 April 2019
Accepted 21 October 2019
Keywords:
Dietary fiber
Food analysis
Resistant starch
Insulin sensitivity
Qualified health claim
2212-2672/Copyright ª 2020 by the Academy of
Nutrition and Dietetics.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jand.2019.10.019
ABSTRACT
Resistant starch (RS; types 1 to 5) cannot be digested in the small intestine and thus
enters the colon intact, with some types capable of being fermented by gut microbes. As
a fiber, types 1, 2, 3, and 5 are found naturally in foods, while types 2, 3, and 4 can be
added to foods as a functional ingredient. This narrative review identifies RS content in
whole foods commonly consumed in the United States. Scientific databases (n¼3) were
searched by two independent researchers. Ninety-four peer-reviewed articles published
between 1982 and September 2018 were selected in which the RS was quantified and
the food preparation method before analysis was suitable for consumption. The RS from
each food item was adjusted for moisture if the RS value was provided as percent dry
weight. Each food item was entered into a database according to food category, where
the weighted meanÆweighted standard deviation was calculated. The range of RS
values and overall sample size for each food category were identified. Breads, breakfast
cereals, snack foods, bananas and plantains, grains, pasta, rice, legumes, and potatoes
contain RS. Foods that have been cooked then chilled have higher RS than cooked foods.
Foods with higher amylose concentrations have higher RS than native varieties. The data
from this database will serve as a resource for health practitioners to educate and
support patients and clients interested in increasing their intake of RS-rich foods and for
researchers to formulate dietary interventions with RS foods and examine associated
health outcomes.
J Acad Nutr Diet. 2020;120(2):230-244.
D
IETARY FIBER CONSISTS OF MANY TYPES OF NONdigestible
plant components that have been found
to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease, cancer,
and obesity while promoting gut health and immune
function.1
Despite the health-related properties associated
with adequate dietary fiber intake, US consumption
patterns are substantially lower than the current recommendations
of 25 g for females and 38 g for males, or 14 g per
1,000 calories daily.2,3
The Institute of Medicine defines dietary
fiber as nondigestible carbohydrate and lignin intrinsic
and intact in plants, as well as those nondigestible carbohydrates
that are isolated and provide a physiological benefit.3
Resistant starch (RS) is a type of fiber that can be categorized
as being intrinsic to starchy plants or isolated to function
as an ingredient.
RS is the component of starch that is not hydrolyzed by
digestive enzymes and enters the large intestine intact, with
some types undergoing fermentation by resident microbiota.
Because of the digestive properties of RS it is considered an
insoluble fiber. Five types of RS have been classified (RS1, RS2,
RS3, RS4, and RS5) based on the nature and properties of the
RS granule. RS1 includes granules that are resistant, as a
result of physical inaccessibility, to digestive enzymes
because of the physical nature of the food. RS1 is found in
seeds, legumes, and cereals that are partially milled (eg,
whole grains), in which the granule is trapped in the cell wall
or matrix. RS2 granules are resistant because of a tightly
packed amylose structure that forms a crystallized molecule.
RS2 is found in raw potatoes and green bananas, as well as
legumes and high-amylose corn. RS2 is resistant to digestion
because of its native granule conformation. RS3 is formed
when the starch granules are gelatinized and then cooled and
causes the starch to crystalize, which is known as retrogradation.
RS4 is a chemically modified RS that is not naturally
occurring in foods, but can be added as a functional ingredient
to improve the dietary fiber content in foods. RS5 is
heat-stable and formed when lipids bind to amylose in the
starch granule to prevent expansion of the granule, which is
necessary for digestive enzyme hydrolysis.4
Foods with naturally occurring RS include potatoes, cereals,
whole grains, beans, legumes, rice, and bananas—many of
which are staple foods in the United States. The RS in these
foods can be altered because of several factors, including
variety, preparation or cooking method, storage temperature
and duration, and serving temperature.5
For example, higher
amylose to amylopectin ratio within the starch granule can
compact under certain conditions to become resistant to
hydrolysis. RS concentrations can also be influenced by the
230 JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF NUTRITION AND DIETETICS ª 2020 by the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.
environment, natural selection, and mutations.4
These inconsistencies,
along with the methodology used to quantify
RS in foods, make it challenging to identify the amount of RS
in foods.
RS can be measured using the integrated dietary fiber
methods utilizing chromatography (AOAC 2011.25, 2009.01),
enzymatic-gravimetric methods (AOAC 991.43, 985.29), and a
specific RS method (AOAC 2002.02); however, the amount of
RS quantified by these methods varies, and poses a challenge
for labeling and understanding actual dietary RS intake.6
Estimation of RS in foods was initially proposed by Englyst
and colleagues,7,8
who recognized RS fractions in both plant
foods (in vitro) and human ileostomy effluent samples
(in vivo). In vitro analysis can be either direct or indirect. The
amount of RS quantified is dependent on several factors, such
as sample preparation, sample pretreatment, enzymes used,
and incubation conditions.9
The Englyst method indirectly
analyzes RS, where the total RS is estimated to be the difference
between total starch and sum of rapidly and slowly
digested starch.7
Modifications to this indirect method
include reduction of sample particle size and change in incubation
temperature to 37
C, which established a preliminary
basis towards quantification of RS in a food sample
and further enabled the estimation of different types of RS.10
Berry11
was one of the first to modify the indirect procedure
proposed by Englyst and colleagues7,8
to measure RS
directly. Modifications proposed by Berry included omitting
the initial heating step to 100
C, changes in a-amylase and
pullulanase ratio to starch, and a KOH-dependent solubilization
procedure. Subsequent changes to both Berry and
Englyst procedures by Goni and colleagues,12
Muir and
O’Dea,13
and Akerberg and colleagues14
aimed to replicate the
actions in the human digestive tract. Predominant changes in
methodology included sample pretreatment (chewed vs
milled vs homogenized), enzyme variations (sample treatment
with pepsin, replacing pullulanase with amyloglucosidase),
and the pH at incubation (5.0 vs 5.2 vs 6.9).
More recently, McCleary and Monaghan15
reported that
omitting the sample treatment with pepsin, inclusion of
amyloglucosidase at an incubation pH of 6.0, and a shaking
tube experiment resulted in replicating in vivo conditions. A
commercially available kit based on this methodology (AOAC
2002.02) is commonly used to determine RS in foods and is
available through Megazyme.16
This kit accurately measures
total RS, which is the sum of RS1, RS2, and RS3; however, it is
not a reliable measure of RS4 because of underestimation.9,16
There are currently no reported methods to estimate RS5 in
foods.
Numerous health benefits of RS have been observed in a
variety of populations. The resident gut microbiota ferment
primarily RS2 and RS3 in the distal bowel to produce shortchain
fatty acids (butyrate, propionate, and acetate), which
decreases fecal pH.17
Other gastrointestinal benefits from RS
intake include increased fecal wet weight,17
mild laxation,
defecation ease, and frequency.18
Because some types of RS
can be fermented by gut bacteria, RS may be considered a
prebiotic.19,20
To classify RS as a prebiotic, more evidence that
RS selectively increases the abundance of gut bacteria and
provides benefit to the host is needed. Studies have shown
that RS2 improves Ruminococcus bromii and Eubacterium
rectale21
and increases the Bifidobacteria genus in middleaged
and elderly adults, while improving dysbiosis from
Proteobacteria in the elderly adults.22
Another study found
that a 2-week supplementation of 66 g RS2/day in adults
with reduced insulin sensitivity increased the ratio of Firmicutes
to Bacteroidetes,23
suggesting that RS2 can alter the
gut microbiome in populations with metabolic dysfunction.
RS also reduces gastric emptying to promote feelings of
satiety24
and lowers energy intake at a subsequent meal.25
Consistent data have shown that RS lowers postprandial
glycemia and insulinemia26,27
; improves insulin sensitivity28-30
;
and reduces inflammation,31
postprandial fat oxidation,32
and
both serum and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol.33
A
recent review summarized the body of evidence from animal
and human trials, specifically noting that the most consistent
benefit was related to postprandial blood glucose management
and improvements in insulin sensitivity.34
Additional
publications have examined the role of RS in digestive health
and cardiometabolic risk factors.23,31,35
Many of the health benefits of RS result from RS consumed
as a functional fiber in adequate amounts (!15 g/day)26,29
with either acute administration36
or over time (!4 to 12
weeks).28,37
However, with appropriate meal planning, this
level of RS can be achieved through foods with naturally
occurring RS. In fact, RS has been attributed to improved
health in populations consuming a non-Western diet, such as
an African diet rich in corn meal.38
Many RS-containing foods
are rich in fiber and can contribute to the total US dietary
fiber intake and benefit overall health. The mean RS intakes
in the United States have been estimated to be 4.9 g/day
(range¼2.8 to 7.9 g/day).39
However, the intake data were
calculated from 155 individual foods, where only approximately
57% of the foods reported were analyzed using
methods that best mimic human digestion.39
Over the past
several years, the number of foods analyzed for RS has
expanded considerably as a result of a commercially available
RS analysis kit utilizing a method that simulates RS digestion.
Therefore, the purpose of this narrative review was to create
a database using data from peer-reviewed journal articles
that quantified the RS content in foods commonly consumed
in the United States. In addition, differences in variety,
preparation, storage, and processing of RS content in food
will be described. The creation of this database is important
because it will allow health practitioners and researchers to
identify foods containing RS and examine how consuming
these foods contributes to health outcomes. The benefits of
RESEARCH SNAPSHOT
Research Question: What are the foods consumed in the
United States that contain resistant starch (RS) and how
much RS do they contain?
Key Findings: In this narrative review, foods containing RS
were identified, which include breads, cereals, cakes and
muffins, chips and snacks, cookies and crackers, bananas and
plantains, grains, noodles and pasta, rice, legumes, potatoes,
and hazelnuts. Barley, potatoes, and rice with higher amylose
concentrations have more RS then lower amylose varieties,
and foods cooked then chilled have higher RS than foods
cooked without chilling.
RESEARCH
February 2020 Volume 120 Number 2 JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF NUTRITION AND DIETETICS 231
RS related to insulin sensitivity have been reported when
adequate amounts (approximately !15 g/day)29
are
consumed from RS administered as a functional ingredient,
not foods with naturally occurring RS. Additional research is
needed to identify the amount and duration of RS found
naturally in foods to produce health outcomes. By utilizing
the database, 15 g of RS from food can be achieved in freeliving
individuals with appropriate meal planning.
METHODS
Three databases (PubMed, Scopus, and Science Direct) were
utilized to identify peer-reviewed articles published between
1982 and September 2018 that analyzed the amount of RS in
foods commonly consumed in the United States for this
narrative review. The search terms resistant starch, English
language, and food* were used to identify references. References
were included if the RS analysis was conducted in a
laboratory either inside or outside of the United States, but
the foods were commonly consumed in the United States.
Excluded terms included human*, animal*, and clinical trial*.
Exclusion criteria included the use of RS from flours or
starches, isolated raw starch, or uncooked foods unsuitable
for consumption (eg, raw potatoes and raw cassava). However,
raw bananas and plantains and raw oats were included.
References that used specific methods not commonly used by
consumers before food consumption (eg, adding an acid,
enzymes such as pullanase, extrusion of raw material to
create an ingredient, or other process) were also excluded.
Autoclaved foods were included because this is a technique
used in the canning process. Foods that were cooked or
milled incompletely were excluded. Foods cultivated to produce
a mutant of the native food as a means to alter the
nutritional or RS content were also excluded, except for
barley, rice, and potatoes, as they were identified as low- or
high-amylose varieties. The references meeting inclusion
criteria were hand selected by two independent researchers
according to the title and abstract, followed by reviewing the
full text. In this review, data were pooled from all of the
studies that analyzed RS using both in vivo and in vitro
methods. Any references that reported either heating the
sample before enzyme hydrolysis or an incubation temperature
of 100
C were omitted, as it has been reported that this
method estimated only RS3 and not RS1 or RS2.9
The references presented the RS data in one of two ways:
percent dry weight (g RS/100 g dry weight) or as a whole
food with the moisture included (g RS/100 g whole food).
Both data types were included in the database. However,
because the objective of this review is to provide RS content
in whole foods, the percent RS in dry weight was adjusted to
include moisture content. Moisture was either measured and
provided in the article or identified by the US Department of
Agriculture FoodData Central database40
from the most
similar food item. The pooled data were compiled in an Excel
(Microsoft) database, then summarized in the Table according
to food category.
Statistical Analysis
The raw data added to the Excel database included percent RS
based on dry weight (g RS/100 g dry weight)Æstandard deviation
(SD), percent RS in the whole food (g RS/100 g whole
food)ÆSD, the number of samples analyzed in each reference,
the percent moisture either as provided in the reference or as
identified in the US Department of Agriculture FoodData
Central database.40
Using the raw data, calculations were
employed to adjust for moisture content if percent dry
weight was given in the reference, as well as the individual
weighted means for each item followed by the overall
weighted meanÆweighted SD.
When only percent RS by dry weight was given, the formula
(1e% moisture)*% dry weight RS was used to adjust for moisture,
which provided RS content in the whole food. Due to
some references measuring RS in several samples, the
weighted mean was calculated for each food item. The
weighted mean was determined by multiplying the number of
RS samples analyzed in the reference by the whole food RS
content (with moisture). Then the overall weighted mean was
calculated by summing the individual weighted means and
dividing by the total number of samples from all references in
the food category. Next, the weighted SD was calculated for
each individual food item by multiplying the sample size by
the mean RS content in the whole food minus the overall
weighted mean squared. The individual weighted SD was
summed and divided by the total sample size minus 1, then the
square root of this value was calculated to obtain the overall
weighted SD. The overall weighted mean of whole food RS and
overall weighted SD for each food category are reported in the
Table. In addition, the ranges (minimum to maximum) of
weighted means in each food category are listed in the Table.
Also, the total number of samples in each food category is
provided. Note that some references analyzing RS in more than
one sample list the mean without the SD. However, the SD for
each food item was not necessary to calculate the overall
weighted SD. Some references listed a mean RS value without
noting the sample size in which a value of 1 was given in the
Table. RS values that were >200% of the mean were removed
from the database to control for potential outliers.
RESULTS
The Table provides the overall weighted meanÆweighted SD,
range (minimum to maximum for each food item), and the
total sample size of naturally occurring RS concentrations in
the whole food for each food item from 94 articles. All foods
requiring percent moisture values from the FoodData Central
database were available except baked corn tortillas, where
the measured value from a reference was used.63
The number
of individual food samples included in each food category
include 145 bananas and plantains,13,41-46
446 breads,8,10,46-80
37 breakfast cereals,10,14,50,79,81,82
222 ready-to-eat ce-
reals,8,10,12-15,41,45,47,49-52,74,75,79,81,83,84
11 cakes and
muffins,51,54,85
18 chips and snacks,47
50 cookies and
crackers,47,49-52,85
103 cooked grains,10,50,74,76,79,82,84,86-89
765
legumes,10,15,45,50-52,69,75,76,79,90-109
98 noodles and
pasta,10,14,41,47,50,52,74,76,78,81,82,110-112
6 hazelnut,113
311
potatoes,10,13,14,41,45,50,52,76,80,81,114-122
and 170
rice.5,14,41,50,52,81,84,123-127
The foods with the highest mean RS
content included uncooked or raw foods, such as uncooked
rolled oats (7.7 g/100 g), uncooked rolled milled oats (6.5 g/
100 g), ripe raw plantains (5.1 g/100 g), and unripe raw
plantains (5.0 g/100 g). Of the cooked foods, high-amylose
potatoes that were cooked then chilled for 2 days
(6.4 g/100 g); butter or lima beans (6.4 g/100 g); potato salad
(5.2 g/100 g); yellow potatoes that have been cooked, chilled,
then reheated (5.1 g/100g); corn tortillas that have been
RESEARCH
232 JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF NUTRITION AND DIETETICS February 2020 Volume 120 Number 2
Table. Naturally occurring resistant starch in whole foods commonly consumed in the United States, extracted from peerreviewed
articles published from 1982 to September 2018
Food
g RSa
per 100 g Foodb
nf
Weighted mean–weighted SDcd
Rangee
Bananas and plantains
Banana, unripe, cooking type, raw41,42
2.8Æ0.1 2.3-2.9 42
Banana, ripe, cooking type, raw42,43
1.8Æ0.1 1.0-2.0 42
Banana, cooked13,44
0.0Æ0.0 0.0-0.3 11
Banana, cooked and cooled44
2.0 NAg
NA
Banana, cooked, cooled and reheated44
1.4 NA NA
Plantain, unripe, raw42,45
5.0Æ1.1 4.2-7.0 18
Plantain, ripe, raw42,46
5.1Æ13.6 1.7-11.4 15
Plantain, cooked44-46
2.6Æ1.3 0.0-3.5 10
Plantain, cooked and cooled44
3.2 NA NA
Plantain, cooked, cooled and reheated44
1.2 NA NA
Plantain, cooked, unripe chips46
0.0 NA 3
Bread
Bagel, plain47
0.7 NA 2
Barley, commercial variety48
1.0Æ0.3 0.7-1.3 4
Barley, high b-glucan48
0.9Æ0.2 0.8-1.1 2
Barley, low b-glucan48
0.9Æ0.2 0.8-1.1 2
Barley, low amylose48
0.4Æ0.0 0.3-0.4 2
Barley, high amylose48
1.6Æ0.4 1.3-1.9 2
Breadsticks, white wheat47
0.4 NA 2
Brioche49
1.1 NA NA
Biscuit, oatmeal50
0.9 NA NA
Biscuit, spelt51
0.5 NA 3
Biscuit, unspecified type, store bought52
1.1 NA 4
Biscuit, wheat, whole grain51
0.5 NA 3
Ciabatta, plain53
0.5 NA NA
Corn bread54
0.5 NA NA
Croissant, store bought53
0.3 NA NA
Crumpet47,53
0.7Æ0.5 0.1-1.0 3
Croutons, store bought47
1.4 NA 2
English muffin, white, store bought47,53
0.7Æ0.5 0.1-1.0 3
Focaccia47
1.2 NA 2
French baguette, white, long and thin49,53
1.0Æ0.6 0.4-1.4 3
Gluten-free bread55,56
0.9Æ0.3 0.5-1.2 15
Mixed-grain bread47,57-59
2.6Æ4.9 1.5-4.4 23
Naan53
0.2 NA NA
Oatmeal bread47
1.2 NA 2
Pastry shell, store bought, baked47
0.5Æ0.1 0.4-0.5 4
Pita bread, wheat, store bought47
0.5 NA 2
Pita bread, white, store bought47,53
0.5Æ0.4 0.1-0.7 3
(continued on next page)
RESEARCH
February 2020 Volume 120 Number 2 JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF NUTRITION AND DIETETICS 233
Table. Naturally occurring resistant starch in whole foods commonly consumed in the United States, extracted from peerreviewed
articles published from 1982 to September 2018 (continued)
Food
g RSa
per 100 g Foodb
nf
Weighted mean–weighted SDcd
Rangee
Pizza crust, baked47,60
0.9Æ0.9 0.4-2.0 3
Potato dumpling60
0.4 NA NA
Pumpernickel bread47,53
0.9Æ0.5 0.4-0.9 3
Rye bread50,57
3.0Æ0.2 2.9-3.2 3
Scones, white with fruit53
0.1 NA NA
Sourdough bread, spelt51
0.7Æ0.0 0.6-0.7 6
Sourdough bread, wheat61,62
3.3Æ3.1 0.7-5.0 10
Sourdough bread, whole wheat51
0.7Æ0.0 0.7-0.7 6
Spelt bread51,61
0.8Æ0.0 0.8-0.8 11
Tortilla, corn, store boughth 47
0.8 NA 2
Tortilla, corn, freshly bakedh 63-71
2.6Æ0.6 1.8-4.0 33
Tortilla, corn, stored 4
C, 24 hh 65-69
3.3Æ0.8 2.1-4.7 24
Tortilla, corn, stored 4
C, 48 hh 65-69
3.6Æ0.7 2.5-5.0 24
Tortilla, corn, stored 4
C, 72 hh 65-69
3.9Æ0.6 2.9-5.1 24
Tortilla, corn, stored 4
C, 96 hh 65
4.5Æ0.5 4.0-5.1 9
Tortilla, corn, stored 4
C, 7 dh 68
4.6 NA 18
Tortilla, corn, stored 4
C, 14 dh 68
4.7 NA 18
Tortilla, corn, stored 25
Ch 67
3.6Æ0.3 3.2-4.0 18
Tortilla, corn, hard shell47,69
2.7Æ1.2 0.9-3.9 5
Tortilla, flour, store bought47,53
0.2Æ0.2 0.0-0.4 5
Waffles, multigrain, toasted47
0.5 NA 2
Waffles, plain, toasted47
0.6 NA 2
Wheat-germ bread53
0.1 NA NA
White bread, added fiber72
1.7Æ0.2 1.4-1.9 12
White bread8,10,46,47,50-53,57-62,72-79
1.0Æ0.9 0.0-3.9 85
White bread, baked 120
C to 150
C for 3 to 4 h61
1.1Æ0.0 1.1-1.1 8
White bread baked 120
C to 150
C for 12 to 20 h80
2.2Æ0.5 1.9-2.5 2
White bread, crusty or toasted53,60
1.9Æ2.4 0.2-3.6 2
Whole-wheat bread10,47,50,53,77,79
1.7Æ1.2 0.3-2.9 14
Breakfast cereal
Oats, unknown type, cooked10,50
1.0Æ1.2 0.1-1.8 2
Oats, flaked, cooked81
0.3 NA 6
Oats, rolled, uncooked82
7.7 NA NA
Oats, rolled, milled, and uncooked82
6.5 NA NA
Rice, cooked14,79,81
1.0Æ0.6 1.2-1.6 18
Semolina, cooked81
4.8 NA 6
Wheat, cooked79
0.4 NA 3
Breakfast cereal, ready to eat
Corn, flaked8,10,12-15,41,45,47,49,51,52,74,75,79,83,84
4.0Æ1.8 1.0-6.3 165
Corn, puffed47
1.4 NA 2
(continued on next page)
RESEARCH
234 JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF NUTRITION AND DIETETICS February 2020 Volume 120 Number 2
Table. Naturally occurring resistant starch in whole foods commonly consumed in the United States, extracted from peerreviewed
articles published from 1982 to September 2018 (continued)
Food
g RSa
per 100 g Foodb
nf
Weighted mean–weighted SDcd
Rangee
Corn, square47
1.3 NA 2
Granola47
0.1 NA 2
Multigrain, flaked47
0.0 NA 2
Multigrain, baked47
0.8 NA 2
Oat, bran47,50
0.5Æ0.4 0.3-0.7 3
Oat, flaked14,79
0.6Æ0.5 0.3-0.7 9
Oat, square47
0.9Æ0.3 0.6-1.2 4
Rice, flaked or crisped10,45,47,49,50
1.4Æ0.8 0.0-2.5 11
Rice, square47
4.2 NA 2
Wheat bran, flaked47,50
0.8Æ0.2 0.7-1.1 3
Wheat, puffed50,81
1.9Æ1.9 1.2-6.2 7
Wheat, shredded10,47,50
1.0Æ0.7 0.0-1.6 4
Wheat, square47
1.4 NA 2
Wheat, whole, flaked47
1.0 NA 2
Cakes and muffins
Cake, apple crumble54
0.2 NA NA
Cake, plain, white85
1.8 NA NA
Cake, unspecified type54
0.4 NA NA
Muffins, plain85
1.0 NA NA
Muffins, spelt51
0.4 NA 3
Muffins, unspecified type54
1.0 NA NA
Muffins, wheat51
0.6 NA 3
Chips and snacks (store bought)
Cheese puffs47
0.2 NA 2
Chips, corn, low fat47
0.7 NA 2
Chips, corn47
0.8 NA 2
Chips, multigrain47
0.9 NA 2
Corn puffs, fried47
0.9 NA 2
Granola bar, oats and honey47
0.2 NA 2
Popcorn cakes47
0.3 NA 2
Pretzels47
1.0 NA 2
Rice cakes47
0.2 NA 2
Cookies and crackers (store bought unless specified)
Biscuit, tea or sugar47,50,52
1.1Æ0.5 0.1-1.4 7
Cone, ice cream47
0.3 NA 2
Cone, sugar, old fashioned47
0.5 NA 2
Cookies, ginger snaps47
0.4 NA 2
Cookies, oatmeal47
0.2 NA 2
Cookies, plain, laboratory prepared85
0.8 NA NA
Cookies, spelt, laboratory prepared51
0.2 NA 3
(continued on next page)
RESEARCH
February 2020 Volume 120 Number 2 JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF NUTRITION AND DIETETICS 235
Table. Naturally occurring resistant starch in whole foods commonly consumed in the United States, extracted from peerreviewed
articles published from 1982 to September 2018 (continued)
Food
g RSa
per 100 g Foodb
nf
Weighted mean–weighted SDcd
Rangee
Cookies, vanilla wafers47
0.2 NA 2
Cookies, wheat, laboratory prepared51
0.3 NA 3
Crackers, club47
0.4 NA 2
Crackers, graham47
0.3 NA 2
Crackers, multigrain47
1.0Æ0.6 0.5-1.5 4
Crackers, melba type47
1.2Æ0.3 0.9-1.5 4
Crackers, rice crunch47
0.4 NA 2
Crackers, rye crisp (store bought and laboratory prepared)47,50
2.0Æ2.0 0.9-4.3 3
Crackers, saltine type47
0.6Æ0.1 0.5-0.6 4
Crackers, unspecified type49
1.7 NA NA
Crackers, wheat, shredded47
1.2 NA 2
Crackers, wheat, thin47
0.4 NA 2
Grains, cooked
Barley, native10,50,74,84,86
3.4Æ0.8 1.7-4.2 24
Barley, high amylose86
3.5Æ0.3 3.1-3.8 18
Barley, low amylose, waxy86
0.3Æ0.0 0.3-0.3 18
Corn, hominy grits82
1.3 NA NA
Corn, meal76,79,82
0.8Æ0.2 0.7-1.0 7
Corn, tamale87
1.3Æ0.4 0.9-1.6 6
Groats, buckwheat88,89
0.9Æ0.2 0.8-1.8 25
Millet10,79
1.0Æ0.5 0.8-1.6 4
Legumes
Cooked
Butter or lima bean15,50
6.4Æ1.8 1.2-7.1 10
Black bean69,90-93
2.7Æ1.7 1.2-5.3 12
Chickpea45,50,52,76,90,93-99
2.1Æ1.0 0.8-4.1 67
Fava bean92
0.7 NA NA
Great Northern bean92,93
1.2Æ0.4 0.8-1.6 3
Kidney bean15,50,51,79,93,100
3.8Æ1.4 0.8-4.7 50
Kidney, white bean50,92
3.6Æ3.2 1.4-8.3 4
Lentils10,50,52,76,79,94,95,98,101-104
2.0Æ16.9 0.5-3.2 232
Lentil, gram dhal105
1.6Æ0.4 1.2-2.2 4
Mung bean45,99,106
1.2Æ0.3 0.6-1.5 20
Navy bean92,95
1.6Æ0.2 1.6-1.9 4
Peas10,50,75,76,79,95,98,100,103
1.9Æ0.9 0.9-6.3 40
Pinto or common brown bean50,52,91,93,95,97,98,107
2.0Æ0.3 1.4-2.4 27
Pinto, refried bean90
0.8 NA 4
Red, small bean93
1.4 NA NA
White bean52,84,93,103,108
2.2Æ1.5 1.4-2.6 24
(continued on next page)
RESEARCH
236 JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF NUTRITION AND DIETETICS February 2020 Volume 120 Number 2
Table. Naturally occurring resistant starch in whole foods commonly consumed in the United States, extracted from peerreviewed
articles published from 1982 to September 2018 (continued)
Food
g RSa
per 100 g Foodb
nf
Weighted mean–weighted SDcd
Rangee
Cooked and stored for 24 to 96 h
Black69,91
4.7Æ2.0 2.3-7.3 21
Pinto or common brown52,91,107
2.7Æ1.6 2.0-8.4 43
Cooked, chilled, and reheated
Lentils102,109
1.6Æ0.2 1.5-3.0 198
Noodles and pasta
Noodles, egg, cooked47
0.2Æ0.2 0.0-0.4 4
Noodles, rice, cooked47
0.6Æ0.1 0.5-0.6 4
Pasta, corn, cooked41
0.1 NA 8
Pasta, cooked10,14,47,50,52,74,76,81,82
1.5Æ0.8 0.2-2.9 34
Pasta, cooked then chilled10,76
1.0Æ0.2 0.8-1.4 5
Pasta, durum wheat, cooked41,78,110-112
1.2Æ1.2 0.2-3.2 23
Pasta, durum wheat, cooked then chilled 3 to 5 d111
3.4Æ0.0 3.4-3.5 12
Pasta, mixed grain, cooked41
0.5 NA 6
Pasta, whole wheat, cooked47
0.2 NA 2
Other
Hazelnuts113
1.4Æ0.1 1.3-1.4 6
Potatoesi
Boiled, baked, or microwaved
Potato, unknown variety10,13,14,41,45,50,52,76,80,81,114-119
0.7Æ0.5 0.1-2.0 74
Potato, high-amylose variety118
4.6 NA 3
Potato, red variety120,121
1.7Æ1.3 0.7-3.8 16
Potato, russet121
3.1Æ0.5 2.6-3.5 6
Potato, sweet variety45,50,80
0.5Æ0.5 0.3-2.1 15
Potato, yellow variety120,121
1.4Æ1.3 0.3-3.5 16
Cooked then chilled
Potato, unknown variety10,13,14,80,114-116,118,119
1.3Æ0.6 0.3-2.4 47
Potato, high-amylose variety118
6.4Æ0.2 6.0-6.8 6
Potato, red variety120,121
2.0Æ1.7 1.1-4.8 13
Potato, russet121
4.3Æ0.5 3.8-4.7 6
Potato, salad81,115
5.2Æ1.9 1.0-5.9 7
Potato, sweet variety80
0.4Æ0.0 0.4-0.4 2
Potato, yellow variety120,121
2.5Æ3.8 0.6-5.4 16
Cooked then frozen
Potato, unknown variety117
0.4Æ0.0 0.4-0.4 2
Cooked, chilled then reheated
Potato, unknown variety115,116
1.6Æ0.7 0.4-2.2 11
Potato, red variety121
3.2Æ0.7 2.6-3.8 6
Potato, russet121
3.9Æ0.3 3.6-4.2 6
Potato, yellow variety121
5.1Æ2.3 2.2-4.3 6
(continued on next page)
RESEARCH
February 2020 Volume 120 Number 2 JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF NUTRITION AND DIETETICS 237
stored at 4
C for 14 (4.7 g/100 g) and 7 (4.6 g/100 g) days,
respectively; and cooked high amylose potatoes (4.6 g/100 g).
The foods with the lowest mean RS content include multigrain
flaked store-bought cereal (0.0 g/100 g), cooked
bananas (0.0 g/100 g), and cooked unripe plantain crisps
(0.0 g/100 g), fruit scones (0.1 g/100 g), wheat-germ bread
(0.1 g/100 g), store-bought granola (0.1 g/100 g), cooked corn
pasta (0.1 g/100 g), and cooked brown rice (0.1 g/100 g).
Table. Naturally occurring resistant starch in whole foods commonly consumed in the United States, extracted from peerreviewed
articles published from 1982 to September 2018 (continued)
Food
g RSa
per 100 g Foodb
nf
Weighted mean–weighted SDcd
Rangee
Fried
Potato, unknown variety80,81,114,115
3.8Æ1.9 0.2-5.5 15
Potato, sweet variety80
0.3Æ0.0 0.3-0.3 2
Fried then frozen
Potato, unknown variety122
2.9Æ0.6 2.3-3.8 12
Other
Potato, chips50,52,114,115
3.1Æ0.7 1.4-4.5 11
Potato, instant10,50,81,114,115
1.4Æ1.1 0.2-2.4 13
Rice
Steamed, boiled, or pressure cooked
Brown50
0.1Æ0.0 0.0-0.1 5
White, long grain5,14,50,52,81,84,123-125
1.4Æ1.0 0.0-3.7 46
White, medium grain5,41
0.2Æ0.1 0.1-0.5 18
White, short grain5,123,124
0.3Æ0.2 0.0-0.6 20
White, high amylose126,127
0.8Æ0.1 0.7-0.9 18
White, intermediate amylose126,127
0.5Æ0.0 0.5-0.6 9
White, low amylose124,126,127
0.2Æ0.1 0.1-0.4 11
Cooked then chilled
White, long grain5,125
0.9Æ0.8 0.4-2.6 13
White, medium grain5
0.6Æ0.3 0.3-0.9 6
White, short grain5
0.4Æ0.3 0.2-0.8 6
Stir-fried
White, long grain124
2.2 — 2
White, short grain124
1.4Æ0.1 1.4-1.4 4
Stir-fried then chilled
White, long grain124
4.5Æ0.8 3.9-5.2 4
White, short grain124
3.7Æ1.0 2.5-5.0 8
a
RS¼resistant starch.
b
RS value in whole food with moisture included. For references providing RS values on a dry weight basis, the formula (1e% moisture)*% dry weight RS value was used to calculate RS in
the whole food. Moisture content was either measured and provided in the reference or obtained from the US Department of Agriculture FoodData Central database (www.fdc.nal.usda.
gov)40
using the most similar food item.
c
SD¼standard deviation.
d
First, the weighted mean RS was calculated for each food item by multiplying the mean RS in the whole food (with moisture) by the number of samples analyzed in the reference. Next,
the individual weighted means were summed and divided by the total of samples from all references in the food category to obtain the overall weighted mean. Then, the weighted SD was
calculated by the individual food item by multiplying the sample size by the mean RS of each whole food (with moisture) minus the overall weighted mean squared. Next, the individual
weighted SD were summed and divided by the total sample size minus 1. Lastly, the square root of this value provided the overall weighted SD. The weighted SD is not provided if the SD
was not reported in the reference, even if more than one sample was analyzed.
e
Minimum to maximum weighted mean RS values in each food item category with more than 1 mean RS value.
f
Total number of samples analyzed for each food item.
g
NA¼not available.
h
Baked corn tortilla moisture content was not available in the FoodData Central database,40
therefore, the measured moisture from Rohlfing and colleagues63
was used.
i
Analyzed without skin.
RESEARCH
238 JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF NUTRITION AND DIETETICS February 2020 Volume 120 Number 2
DISCUSSION
RS is found in many starch-containing foods, such as breads,
grains, pasta, cereals, beans and legumes, potatoes, and rice.
Over the last several years, an increase in the quantitative
analysis of RS in foods resulted from the development of a
commercially available assay that indirectly measures RS. A
complete database showing the RS content of whole foods has
not been developed because the commercially available assay
was used widely by the scientific community. In addition, the
prior reference providing RS content in foods included RS
values on a dry weight basis,39
which would not be accurate in
whole foods, where moisture is included. Therefore, a database
was developed based on data from peer-reviewed publications
that analyzed the RS content in whole foods that are
consumed by individuals in the United States.
The database has the potential to assist registered dietitian
nutritionists, researchers, the food industry, and consumers
in several ways. First, the database could be a resource for
registered dietitian nutritionists to assist client and patient
efforts to incorporate naturally occurring RS foods into their
diets. Next, the database could be used as a resource for
practitioners and researchers to support the development of
well-controlled dietary intervention studies that may
examine the appropriate amount of naturally derived RS from
foods needed to achieve a specific health outcome. Studies
have indicated that adequate amounts of RS (approximately
!15 g/day)128
can improve postprandial glucose26,36
and insulin
sensitivity, especially among adults with insulin resis-
tance,29,129
and modulate the gut microbiome,130
which may
improve gastrointestinal health. However, many of these
studies used RS as a functional ingredient either alone or
added to a specific food (eg, muffin or cookie) instead of foods
with naturally occurring RS. Next, food-manufacturing companies
can utilize the database to formulate new products
that contain naturally occurring RS-containing foods. Lastly,
the database can also be used as a resource for consumers
who are interested in adding RS foods to their diet.
Variation in RS Content in Foods
The variation in RS content within and between each food
item category can be influenced by many factors. Breeding
techniques can increase the amylose to amylopectin ratio of
the starch granule to allow for RS formation during the
cooling process.4
According to the database, high-amylose
grains have more than 10 times, boiled high-amylose potatoes
have more than 4 times, and high-amylose cooked
white rice has more than 4 times the amount of RS than lowamylose
varieties.
Varietal differences among the same food also contain
different amounts of RS.4
For example, according to the
database, russet potatoes have a higher mean RS (4.3 g/100 g)
than yellow (2.5 g/100 g) and red (2.0 g/100 g) potatoes that
were cooked and then chilled. Butter or lima beans (6.4 g/100
g), kidney beans (3.8 g/100 g), and white kidney beans (3.6 g/
100 g) had the highest mean amount of RS, while fava beans
(0.7 g/100 g), refried pinto beans (0.7 g/100 g), Great Northern
beans (1.2 g/100 g), and mung beans (1.2 g/100 g) had the
lowest amount of mean RS among the cooked legumes.
The preparation methods and storage conditions can
change the RS content of food. Heat and moisture improve
the gelatinization properties of the starch granule, which
upon cooling allows the linear amylose chains to pack tightly
and resist digestive enzymes, a process called retrograda-
tion.9
Cooking and then chilling of bananas and plantains,
pasta, stir-fried rice, black and pinto beans, and potatoes increase
the RS content. However, reheating after chilling reduces
the RS content in bananas and plantains, legumes, and
potatoes. In fact, cooking bananas eliminates all RS. Storage
temperature and duration also influence RS formation in
some foods, such as corn tortillas. Freshly baked corn tortillas
have the lowest RS content compared to corn tortillas stored
at 4
C, in which the RS content increases with time. The
maximum RS formation in corn tortillas occurs when stored
at 4
C for 3 to 5 days. Another example includes durum
wheat pasta, where chilling the cooked pasta for 3 to 5 days
increases the RS by almost three times compared to the
freshly cooked pasta. Baking temperature and duration of the
baking process also influence RS formation in breads. White
wheat bread baked at a lower temperature (120
C) for longer
duration (20 hours) contained 2.2 g/100 g RS compared to 1.1
g/100 g RS when bread is baked a higher baking temperature
(150
C) for shorter duration (3 hours) (specific data not
shown in the Table).61,80
Finally, the type of analytical methods used to quantify the
amount of RS can vary across the same food. The differences
in analytical methods used pose challenges in adequately
quantifying RS, especially when RS is to be included as a
component of dietary fiber declarations. For example, AOAC
methods 2011.25 and 991.43 yield distinctly different fiber
values for some RS sources.131
These analytical challenges can
create confusion for consumers seeking to add sources of RS
to their diet, especially when RS is incorporated into the dietary
fiber quantity on the Nutrition Facts label.
RS as Functional Ingredient
Enrichment of processed foods with RS can improve RS intake
beyond the consumption of naturally occurring RS foods.
Adding RS as a functional ingredient, specifically RS2 and RS3,
to foods can improve the nutritional profile and retain sensory
appeal without significant changes in texture or shelf
life.132-135
Apart from being bland in flavor and having a
neutral white color, commercial sources of RS2 and RS3 have a
high gelatinization temperature, finer particle size, and are
less susceptible to changes during processing and storage
than RS found naturally in foods.135
These properties can
improve texture, provide better mouthfeel, color, and food
flavor, thereby increasing the consumer acceptability of foods
with added RS.135
For these reasons, enriching foods with RS2
or RS3 as a functional ingredient may be more advantageous
than foods with naturally occurring RS because the commercial
RS retains resistance under processing and cooking
conditions.136
For example, heating potatoes in water increases
the solubility of the RS2 starch granule to improve
digestibility and reduce resistance, thus lowering RS content.
However, RS as a functional ingredient incorporated into
pasta will retain its resistance when cooked in water.
RS Food Claims Based on Clinical Trials
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has now recognized
some types of RS, specifically high amylose starch containing
RS2, as dietary fibers for Nutrition Facts and
RESEARCH
February 2020 Volume 120 Number 2 JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF NUTRITION AND DIETETICS 239
Supplement Facts labeling.137
In addition, the US FDA authorized
a qualified health claim for high-amylose maize RS and
reduction of risk of type 2 diabetes. Additional requirements
for foods bearing the claim are described in FDA Letter of
Enforcement Discretion: Docket # FDA-2015-Q-2352.138
The
FDA will exercise enforcement discretion for the following
qualified health claim statements: “High-amylose maize
resistant starch may reduce the risk of Type 2 diabetes. FDA
has concluded that there is limited scientific evidence for this
claim.”138
“High-amylose maize resistant starch, a type of
fiber, may reduce the risk of Type 2 diabetes. FDA has
concluded that there is limited scientific evidence for this
claim.”138
The clinical science for this qualified health claim is based
on improved insulin sensitivity in healthy or at-risk individuals
after consuming high-amylose maize
RS.29,30,37,129,139,140
The European Food Safety Authority has
also authorized a health claim that describes the benefit of RS
on postprandial blood glucose concentrations.137
Several strengths and limitations of this review must be
mentioned. The strengths include identifying RS in foods that
were analyzed in samples appropriate for human consumption.
For example, raw foods (except bananas, plantains, and
oats) or starches were not included, as they are not suitable for
consumption, although some individuals add RS flour to foods
as a functional ingredient. However, this review did not
include these type of flours because they are manufactured
and not present naturally in foods. In addition, three databases
were searched by hand to include as many peer-reviewed articles
quantifying RS in foods as possible. The database
adjusted the RS value to include moisture if given as percent
dry weight basis, which is more representative of RS in whole
foods. A weighted sampling method was used to provide more
weight for values with higher sampling representation
compared to lower, which improves the validity of the data.
A few limitations must also be noted. The method of RS
analysis highlights one major limitation. There is an everpresent
gap between in vitro and in vivo analysis regardless
of the methods used to quantify RS. Englyst and colleagues,7,8
and many others who adapted the Englyst procedure, based
their RS analysis on a broad assumption of homogenization
or milling food showing similar properties as those of
chewing. However, chewing is very individualized and
cannot be controlled to replicate a milled or homogenized
product. Estimation of newly identified RS, such as RS4, deviates
from methods utilized to estimate RS2 and RS3. The
changes range from significant decrease in initial incubation
times to a cold KOH treatment in order to solubilize RS4.141
It
is clear that RS estimation is a constantly evolving process
and any comparisons of RS values by different analytical
methods are bound to reflect some amount of over- or underestimation.
Also, a method to quantify RS5 has not been
described. Another limitation was the adjustment of moisture
when RS was provided on a percent dry weight basis. If the
moisture was not measured and given in the reference, a food
database was utilized to identify the moisture content in a
similar food item. In addition, environmental and natural
genetic differences influence starch digestibility and are
inherently difficult to control.4
Processing, cooking, and
storing methods can change the properties of the starch
granule to allow for more or less resistance. Future research
attempting to standardize RS quantification is needed to be
more accurate in assessing RS content in foods. Lastly, only
peer-reviewed articles estimating RS in foods were included.
Private or food companies conducting an independent RS
analysis in foods were excluded, which limited the comprehensiveness
of the database.
CONCLUSIONS
RS is found naturally in both processed and whole starchy
foods, including breads, cereals, bananas and plantains,
grains, noodles and pasta, potatoes, rice, and legumes. According
to the database, raw foods, including oats and plantains,
had the highest RS content. Among cooked foods,
potatoes and grains (barley and rice) bred to have a higher
amylose to amylopectin ratio have higher amounts of RS than
those with a lower amylose to amylopectin ratio. Potatoes
and grains that are cooked and then chilled have more RS
than if boiled or heated, where the chilling process promotes
the retrogradation of the starch granule to make it less
digestible. The duration of storage also increases RS in some
foods, such as corn tortillas, durum wheat pasta, and black
and pinto beans. Foods with the lowest RS include multigrain
flaked cereal, cooked bananas, cooked unripe plantain chips,
fruit scones, wheat-germ bread, store-bought granola,
cooked corn pasta, and cooked brown rice.
References
1. Dahl WJ, Stewart ML. Position of the Academy of Nutrition and
Dietetics: Health implications of dietary fiber. J Acad Nutr Diet.
2015;115(11):1861-1870.
2. Grooms KN, Ommerborn MJ, Pham DQ, Djousse L, Clark CR. Dietary
fiber intake and cardiometabolic risks among US adults,
NHANES 1999-2010. Am J Med. 2013;126(12):1059-1067. e1051-
1054.
3. Institute of Medicine. Dietary Reference Intakes for Energy, Carbohydrate,
Fiber, Fat, Fatty Acids, Cholesterol, Protein, and Amino Acids.
Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2005.
4. Birt DF, Boylston T, Hendrich S, et al. Resistant starch: Promise for
improving human health. Adv Nutr. 2013;4(6):587-601.
5. Chiu YT, Stewart ML. Effect of variety and cooking method on
resistant starch content of white rice and subsequent postprandial
glucose response and appetite in humans. Asia Pac J Clin Nutr.
2013;22(3):372-379.
6. Westenbrink S, Brunt K, van der Kamp JW. Dietary fibre: Challenges
in production and use of food composition data. Food Chem.
2013;140(3):562-567.
7. Englyst H, Wiggins HS, Cummings JH. Determination of the nonstarch
polysaccharides in plant foods by gas-liquid chromatography
of constituent sugars as alditol acetates. Analyst.
1982;107(1272):307-318.
8. Englyst HN, Cummings JH. Digestion of the polysaccharides of some
cereal foods in the human small intestine. Am J Clin Nutr.
1985;42(5):778-787.
9. Perera A, Meda V, Tyler RT. Resistant starch: A review of analytical
protocols for determining resistant starch and of factors affecting
the resistant starch content of foods. Food Res Int. 2010;43(8):1959-
1974.
10. Englyst HN, Kingman SM, Cummings JH. Classification and measurement
of nutritionally important starch fractions. Eur J Clin Nutr.
1992;46(suppl 2):S33-S50.
11. Berry CS. Resistant starch: Formation and measurement of starch
that survives exhaustive digestion with amylolytic enzymes during
the determination of dietary fibre. J Cereal Sci. 1986;4(4):301-314.
12. Goñi I, García-Diz L, Mañas E, Saura-Calixto F. Analysis of resistant
starch: A method for foods and food products. Food Chem.
1996;56(4):445-449.
13. Muir JG, O’Dea K. Measurement of resistant starch: Factors affecting
the amount of starch escaping digestion in vitro. Am J Clin Nutr.
1992;56(1):123-127.
RESEARCH
240 JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF NUTRITION AND DIETETICS February 2020 Volume 120 Number 2
14. Akerberg AK, Liljeberg HG, Granfeldt YE, Drews AW, Bj-orck IM. An
in vitro method, based on chewing, to predict resistant starch
content in foods allows parallel determination of potentially
available starch and dietary fiber. J Nutr. 1998;128(3):651-660.
15. McCleary BV, Monaghan DA. Measurement of resistant starch.
J AOAC Int. 2002;85(3):665-675.
16. Megazyme. Resistant starch assay kit. www.megazyme.com. Published
2019. Accessed June 16, 2019.
17. Shen D, Bai H, Li Z, Yu Y, Zhang H, Chen L. Positive effects of
resistant starch supplementation on bowel function in healthy
adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized
controlled trials. Int J Food Sci Nutr. 2017;68(2):149-157.
18. Grabitske HA, Slavin JL. Low-digestible carbohydrates in practice.
J Am Diet Assoc. 2008;108(10):1677-1681.
19. Purwani EY, Purwadaria T, Suhartono MT. Fermentation RS3 derived
from sago and rice starch with Clostridium butyricum BCC B2571 or
Eubacterium rectale DSM 17629. Anaerobe. 2012;18(1):55-61.
20. Zaman SA, Sarbini SR. The potential of resistant starch as a prebiotic.
Crit Rev Biotechnol. 2016;36(3):578-584.
21. Martinez I, Kim J, Duffy PR, Schlegel VL, Walter J. Resistant
starches types 2 and 4 have differential effects on the composition
of the fecal microbiota in human subjects. PLoS One. 2010;5(11):
e15046.
22. Alfa MJ, Strang D, Tappia PS, et al. A randomized trial to determine the
impact of a digestion resistant starch composition on the gut microbiome
in older and mid-age adults. Clin Nutr. 2018;37(3):797-807.
23. Maier TV, Lucio M, Lee LH, et al. Impact of dietary resistant starch
on the human gut microbiome, metaproteome, and metabolome.
MBio. 2017;8(5).
24. Willis HJ, Eldridge AL, Beiseigel J, Thomas W, Slavin JL. Greater
satiety response with resistant starch and corn bran in human
subjects. Nutr Res. 2009;29(2):100-105.
25. Ble-Castillo JL, Juarez-Rojop IE, Tovilla-Zarate CA, et al. Acute consumption
of resistant starch reduces food intake but has no effect
on appetite ratings in healthy subjects. Nutrients. 2017;9(7).
26. Maziarz MP, Preisendanz S, Juma S, Imrhan V, Prasad C,
Vijayagopal P. Resistant starch lowers postprandial glucose and
leptin in overweight adults consuming a moderate-to-high-fat diet:
A randomized-controlled trial. Nutr J. 2017;16(1):14.
27. Zenel AM, Stewart ML. High amylose white rice reduces postprandial
glycemic response but not appetite in humans. Nutrients.
2015;7(7):5362-5374.
28. Johnston KL, Thomas EL, Bell JD, Frost GS, Robertson MD. Resistant
starch improves insulin sensitivity in metabolic syndrome. Diabet
Med. 2010;27(4):391-397.
29. Maki KC, Pelkman CL, Finocchiaro ET, et al. Resistant starch from
high-amylose maize increases insulin sensitivity in overweight and
obese men. J Nutr. 2012;142(4):717-723.
30. Robertson MD, Bickerton AS, Dennis AL, Vidal H, Frayn KN. Insulinsensitizing
effects of dietary resistant starch and effects on skeletal
muscle and adipose tissue metabolism. Am J Clin Nutr. 2005;82(3):
559-567.
31. Peterson CM, Beyl RA, Marlatt KL, et al. Effect of 12 wk of resistant
starch supplementation on cardiometabolic risk factors in adults
with prediabetes: A randomized controlled trial. Am J Clin Nutr. 2018.
32. Wutzke KD, Schmidek KV. The effect of resistant starches on fat
oxidation in healthy adults as measured by a (13)CO2-breath test.
Isotopes Environ Health Stud. 2017;53(6):553-562.
33. Yuan HC, Meng Y, Bai H, Shen DQ, Wan BC, Chen LY. Meta-analysis
indicates that resistant starch lowers serum total cholesterol and
low-density cholesterol. Nutr Res. 2018;54:1-11.
34. Lockyer S, Nugent AP. Health effects of resistant starch. Nutr Bull.
2017;42(1):10-41.
35. Bergeron N, Williams PT, Lamendella R, et al. Diets high in resistant
starch increase plasma levels of trimethylamine-N-oxide, a gut
microbiome metabolite associated with CVD risk. Br J Nutr.
2016;116(12):2020-2029.
36. Stewart ML, Zimmer JP. A high fiber cookie made with resistant
starch type 4 reduces post-prandial glucose and insulin responses
in healthy adults. Nutrients. 2017;9(3).
37. Gower BA, Bergman R, Stefanovski D, et al. Baseline insulin sensitivity
affects response to high-amylose maize resistant starch in
women: A randomized, controlled trial. Nutr Metab (Lond).
2016;13:2.
38. O’Keefe SJ, Chung D, Mahmoud N, et al. Why do African Americans
get more colon cancer than Native Africans? J Nutr. 2007;137(1
suppl):175S-182S.
39. Murphy MM, Douglass JS, Birkett A. Resistant starch intakes in the
United States. J Am Diet Assoc. 2008;108(1):67-78.
40. US Department of Agriculture ARS. FoodData Central. www.fdc.nal.
usda.gov. Published 2019. Accessed October 1, 2019.
41. Carcea M, Salvatorelli S, Turfani V. Measurement of resistant starch
in cooked cereal-based foods. Qual Assur Saf Crop. 2009;1(4):240-
245.
42. Odenigbo AM, Asumugha VU, Ubbor S, Ngadi M. In vitro starch
digestibility of plantain and cooking-banana at ripe and unripe
stages. Int Food Res J. 2013;20(6):3027-3031.
43. Lintas C, Cappelloni M, Adorisio S, Clementi A, Del Toma E. Effect of
ripening on resistant starch and total sugars in Musa paradisiaca
sapientum: Glycaemic and insulinaemic responses in normal subjects
and NIDDM patients. Eur J Clin Nutr. 1995;49(suppl 3):S303-
S306.
44. Englyst HN, Cummings JH. Digestion of the carbohydrates of banana
(Musa paradisiaca sapientum) in the human small intestine.
Am J Clin Nutr. 1986;44(1):42-50.
45. Platel K, Shurpalekar KS. Resistant starch content of Indian foods.
Plant Food Hum Nutr. 1994;45:91-95.
46. Oladele EO, Williamson G. Impact of resistant starch in three
plantain (Musa AAB) products on glycaemic response of healthy
volunteers. Eur J Nutr. 2016;55(1):75-81.
47. Gelroth JA, Ranhotra GS, Gelroth JA, Ranhotra GS. Determination of
resistant starch in selected grain-based foods. J AOAC Int.
2000;83(4):988-991.
48. Djurle S, Andersson AAM, Andersson R. Effects of baking on dietary
fibre, with emphasis on b-glucan and resistant starch, in barley
breads. J Cereal Sci. 2018;79:449-455.
49. Englyst KN, Vinoy S, Englyst HN, Lang V. Glycaemic index of cereal
products explained by their content of rapidly and slowly available
glucose. Br J Nutr. 2003;89(3):329-340.
50. Englyst HN, Veenstra J, Hudson GJ. Measurement of rapidly
available glucose (RAG) in plant foods: A potential in vitro predictor
of the glycaemic response. Br J Nutr. 1996;75(3):327-337.
51. Abdel-Aal E-SM, Rabalski I. Effect of baking on nutritional properties
of starch in organic spelt whole grain products. Food Chem.
2008;111(1):150-156.
52. Saura-Calixto F, Garcia-Alonso A, Goni I, Bravo L. In vitro
determination of the indigestible fraction in foods: An alternative
to dietary fiber analysis. J Agric Food Chem. 2000;48(8):
3342-3347.
53. Food Standards Agency. Nutrient Analysis of Bread and Morning
Goods. Project Number AN1062: Analytical Report. London, UK:
Ministry of Agriculture Fischeries and Food, Department of Health
and the Scottish Executive; 2001.
54. Muir JG, Yeow EG, Keogh J, et al. Combining wheat bran with
resistant starch has more beneficial effects on fecal indexes than
does wheat bran alone. Am J Clin Nutr. 2004;79(6):1020-1028.
55. Giuberti G, Fortunati P, Gallo A. Can different types of resistant
starch influence the in vitro starch digestion of gluten free breads?
J Cereal Sci. 2016;70:253-255.
56. De La Hera E, Rosell CM, Gomez M. Effect of water content and flour
particle size on gluten-free bread quality and digestibility. Food
Chem. 2014;151:526-531.
57. Buddrick O, Jones OAH, Hughes JG, Kong I, Small DM. The effect of
fermentation and addition of vegetable oil on resistant starch formation
in wholegrain breads. Food Chem. 2015;180:181-185.
58. Collar C, Jimenez T, Conte P, Fadda C. Impact of ancient cereals,
pseudocereals and legumes on starch hydrolysis and antiradical
activity of technologically viable blended breads. Carbohydr Polym.
2014;113:149-158.
59. Ragaee S, Guzar I, Dhull N, Seetharaman K. Effects of fiber addition
on antioxidant capacity and nutritional quality of wheat bread. LWT
Food Sci Technol. 2011;44(10):2147-2153.
60. Giacco R, Brighenti F, Parillo M, et al. Characteristics of some wheatbased
foods of the Italian diet in relation to their influence on
RESEARCH
February 2020 Volume 120 Number 2 JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF NUTRITION AND DIETETICS 241
postprandial glucose metabolism in patients with type 2 diabetes.
Br J Nutr. 2001;85(1):33-40.
61. Amaral O, Guerreiro CS, Gomes A, Cravo M. Resistant starch production
in wheat bread: Effect of ingredients, baking conditions
and storage. Eur Food Res Technol. 2016;242(10):1747-1753.
62. Rizzello CG, Calasso M, Campanella D, De Angelis M, Gobbetti M.
Use of sourdough fermentation and mixture of wheat, chickpea,
lentil and bean flours for enhancing the nutritional, texture and
sensory characteristics of white bread. Int J Food Microbiol.
2014;180:78-87.
63. Rohlfing KA, Paez A, Kim HJ, White PJ. Effects of resistant starch and
fiber from high-amylose non-floury corn on tortilla texture. Cereal
Chem. 2010;87(6):581-585.
64. Bello-Perez LA, Flores-Silva PC, Agama-Acevedo E, de Dios Figueroa-Cardenas
J, Lopez-Valenzuela JA, Campanella OH. Effect of
the nixtamalization with calcium carbonate on the indigestible
carbohydrate content and starch digestibility of corn tortilla.
J Cereal Sci. 2014;60(2):421-425.
65. Osorio-Díaz P, Agama-Acevedo E, Bello-Pérez LA, IslasHernández
JJ, Gomez-Montiel NO, Paredes-López O. Effect of
endosperm type on texture and in vitro starch digestibility of maize
tortillas. LWT Food Sci Technol. 2011;44(3):611-615.
66. Agama-Acevedo E, Rendon-Villalobos R, Tovar J, Paredes-Lopez O,
Islas-Hernandez JJ, Bello-Perez LA. In vitro starch digestibility
changes during storage of maize flour tortillas. Die Nahrung.
2004;48(1):38-42.
67. Islas-Hernández JJ, Rendón-Villalobos R, Agama-Acevedo E, et al.
In vitro digestion rate and resistant starch content of tortillas stored
at two different temperatures. LWT Food Sci Technol. 2006;39(8):
947-951.
68. Rendon R, Arturo Bello-Pérez L, Osorio-Díaz P, Tovar J, ParedesLopez
O. Effect of storage time on in vitro digestibility and resistant
starch content of nixtamal, masa, and tortilla. J Agric Food Chem.
2005;53(4):1281-1285.
69. Sayago-Ayerdi SG, Tovar J, Osorio-Diaz P, Paredes-Lopez O, BelloPerez
LA. In vitro starch digestibility and predicted glycemic index
of corn tortilla, black beans, and tortilla-bean mixture: Effect of cold
storage. J Agric Food Chem. 2005;53(4):1281-1285.
70. Gutiérrez-Dorado R, Ayala-Rodríguez AE, Milán-Carrillo J, et al.
Technological and nutritional properties of flours and tortillas from
nixtamalized and extruded quality protein maize (Zea mays L.).
Cereal Chem. 2008;85(6):808-816.
71. Santiago-Ramos D, De Dios Figueroa-Cárdenas J, Véles-Medina JJ,
et al. Resistant starch formation in tortillas from an ecological
nixtamalization process. Cereal Chem. 2015;92(2):185-192.
72. Angioloni A, Collar C. Physicochemical and nutritional properties of
reduced-caloric density high-fibre breads. LWT Food Sci Technol.
2011;44(3):747-758.
73. Skrabanja V, Liljeberg HG, Hedley CL, Kreft I, Bjorck IM. Influence of
genotype and processing on the in vitro rate of starch hydrolysis
and resistant starch formation in peas (Pisum sativum L.). J Agric
Food Chem. 1999;47(5):2033-2039.
74. Englyst KN, Englyst HN, Hudson GJ, Cole TJ, Cummings JH. Rapidly
available glucose in foods: An in vitro measurement that reflects
the glycemic response. Am J Clin Nutr. 1999;69(3):448-454.
75. Marlatt KL, White UA, Beyl RA, et al. Role of resistant starch on
diabetes risk factors in people with prediabetes: Design, conduct,
and baseline results of the STARCH trial. Contemp Clin Trials.
2018;65:99-108.
76. Rosin PM, Lajolo FM, Menezes EW. Measurement and characterization
of dietary starches. J Food Comp Anal. 2002;15:367-377.
77. Hallstrom E, Sestili F, Lafiandra D, Bjorck I, Ostman E. A novel wheat
variety with elevated content of amylose increases resistant starch
formation and may beneficially influence glycaemia in healthy
subjects. Food Nutr Res. 2011;55.
78. Hoebler C, Karinthi A, Chiron H, Champ M, Barry JL. Bioavailability
of starch in bread rich in amylose: Metabolic responses in
healthy subjects and starch structure. Eur J Clin Nutr. 1999;53(5):
360-366.
79. Dodevska MS, Djordjevic BI, Sobajic SS, Miletic ID, Djordjevic PB,
Dimitrijevic-Sreckovic VS. Characterisation of dietary fibre components
in cereals and legumes used in Serbian diet. Food Chem.
2013;141(3):1624-1629.
80. Yadav BS. Effect of frying, baking and storage conditions on resistant
starch content of foods. Br Food J. 2011;113(6):710-719.
81. Liljeberg Elmstahl H. Resistant starch content in a selection of
starchy foods on the Swedish market. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2002;56(6):
500-505.
82. Bednar GE, Patil AR, Murray SM, Grieshop CM, Merchen NR,
Fahey GC Jr. Starch and fiber fractions in selected food and feed
ingredients affect their small intestinal digestibility and fermentability
and their large bowel fermentability in vitro in a canine
model. J Nutr. 2001;131(2):276-286.
83. Olesen M, Rumessen JJ, Gudmand-Hoyer E. The hydrogen breath
test in resistant starch research. Eur J Clin Nutr. 1992;46(suppl 2):
S133-S134.
84. Muir JG, O’Dea K. Validation of an in vitro assay for predicting the
amount of starch that escapes digestion in the small intestine of
humans. Am J Clin Nutr. 1993;57(4):540-546.
85. Marlett JA, Longacre MJ. Comparison of in vitro and in vivo measures
of resistant starch in selected grain products. Cereal Chem.
1996;73(1):63-68.
86. Emami S, Meda V, Pickard MD, Tyler RT. Impact of micronization on
rapidly digestible, slowly digestible, and resistant starch concentrations
in normal, high-amylose, and waxy barley. J Agric Food
Chem. 2010;58(17):9793-9799.
87. Mariscal-Moreno RM, de Dios Figueroa Cárdenas J, SantiagoRamos
D, Rayas-Duarte P, Veles-Medina JJ, Martínez-Flores HE.
Nixtamalization process affects resistant starch formation and
glycemic index of tamales. J Food Sci. 2017;82(5):1110-1115.
88. Skrabanja V, Liljeberg Elmstahl HG, Kreft I, Bjorck IM. Nutritional
properties of starch in buckwheat products: Studies in vitro and
in vivo. J Agric Food Chem. 2001;49(1):490-496.
89. Lu L, Murphy K, Baik B-K. Genotypic variation in nutritional
composition of buckwheat groats and husks. Cereal Chem.
2013;90(2):132-137.
90. Fabbri ADT, Schacht RW, Crosby GA. Evaluation of resistant starch
content of cooked black beans, pinto beans, and chickpeas. NFS J.
2016;3:8-12.
91. Osorio-Díaz P, Bello-Pérez LA, Sáyago-Ayerdi SG, BenítezReyes
MdP, Tovar J, Paredes-López O. Effect of processing and
storage time on in vitro digestibility and resistant starch content of
two bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L) varieties. J Sci Food Agric.
2003;83(12):1283-1288.
92. Pujolà M, Farreras A, Casañas F. Protein and starch content of raw,
soaked and cooked beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Food Chem.
2007;102(4):1034-1041.
93. Wang N, Hatcher DW, Tyler RT, Toews R, Gawalko EJ. Effect of
cooking on the composition of beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) and
chickpeas (Cicer arietinum L.). Food Res Int. 2010;43(2):589-594.
94. Aguilera Y, Esteban RM, Benitez V, Molla E, Martin-Cabrejas MA.
Starch, functional properties, and microstructural characteristics in
chickpea and lentil as affected by thermal processing. J Agric Food
Chem. 2009;57(22):10682-10688.
95. Brummer Y, Kaviani M, Tosh SM. Structural and functional characteristics
of dietary fibre in beans, lentils, peas and chickpeas. Food
Res Int. 2015;67:117-125.
96. Hawkins A, Johnson SK. In vitro carbohydrate digestibility of
whole-chickpea and chickpea bread products. Int J Food Sci Nutr.
2005;56(3):147-155.
97. Marconi E, Ruggeri S, Cappelloni M, Leonardi D, Carnovale E.
Physicochemical, nutritional, and microstructural characteristics of
chickpeas (Cicer arietinum L.) and common beans (Phaseolus vulgaris
L.) following microwave cooking. J Agric Food Chem.
2000;48(12):5986-5994.
98. De Almeida Costa GE, Da Silva Queiroz-Monici K, Pissini
Machado Reis SM, De Oliveira AC. Chemical composition, dietary
fibre and resistant starch contents of raw and cooked
pea, common bean, chickpea and lentil legumes. Food Chem.
2006;94(3):327-330.
99. Veena A, Urooj A, Puttaraj S. Effect of processing on the composition
of dietary fibre and starch in some legumes. Die Nahrung.
1995;39(2):132-138.
100. Eyaru R, Shrestha AK, Arcot J. Effect of various processing techniques
on digestibility of starch in red kidney bean (Phaseolus
RESEARCH
242 JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF NUTRITION AND DIETETICS February 2020 Volume 120 Number 2
vulgaris) and two varieties of peas (Pisum sativum). Food Res Int.
2009;42(8):956-962.
101. Araya H, Pak N, Vera G, Alvina M. Digestion rate of legume carbohydrates
and glycemic index of legume-based meals. Int J Food Sci
Nutr. 2003;54(2):119-126.
102. Johnson CR, Thavarajah D, Thavarajah P, Payne S, Moore J, Ohm JB.
Processing, cooking, and cooling affect prebiotic concentrations in
lentil (Lens culinaris Medikus). J Food Comp Anal. 2015;38:106-111.
103. Piecyk M, Wolosiak R, Druzynska B, Worobiej E. Chemical composition
and starch digestibility in flours from Polish processed
legume seeds. Food Chem. 2012;135(3):1057-1064.
104. Wang N, Hatcher DW, Toews R, Gawalko EJ. Influence of cooking
and dehulling on nutritional composition of several varieties of
lentils (Lens culinaris). LWT Food Sci Technol. 2009;42(4):842-848.
105. Nigudkar MR, Madan JG. Resistant starch content of traditional
Indian legume preparations. Curr Res Nutr Food Sci. 2017;5(3).
106. Kaur M, Sandhu KS, Ahlawat R, Sharma S. In vitro starch digestibility,
pasting and textural properties of mung bean: Effect of
different processing methods. J Food Sci Technol. 2015;52(3):1642-
1648.
107. Landa-Habana L, Pina-Hernandez A, Agama-Acevedo E, Tovar J,
Bello-Perez LA. Effect of cooking procedures and storage on starch
bioavailability in common beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Plant Foods
Hum Nutr. 2004;59(4):133-136.
108. Noah L, Guillon F, Bouchet B, et al. Digestion of carbohydrate from
white beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) in healthy humans. J Nutr.
1998;128(6):977-985.
109. Siva N, Thavarajah P, Thavarajah D. The impact of processing and
cooking on prebiotic carbohydrates in lentil. J Food Comp Anal.
2018;70:72-77.
110. Aravind N, Sissons M, Fellows CM, Blazek J, Gilbert EP. Optimisation
of resistant starch II and III levels in durum wheat pasta to reduce
in vitro digestibility while maintaining processing and sensory
characteristics. Food Chem. 2013;136(2):1100-1109.
111. Bello-Perez LA, Flores-Silva PC, Camelo-Mendez GA, ParedesLopez
O, Figueroa-Cardenas JD. Effect of the nixtamalization process
on the dietary fiber content, starch digestibility, and antioxidant
capacity of blue maize tortilla. Cereal Chem. 2015;92(3):265-
270.
112. Khan I, Yousif A, Johnson SK, Gamlath S. Effect of sorghum flour
addition on resistant starch content, phenolic profile and antioxidant
capacity of durum wheat pasta. Food Res Int. 2013;54(1):578-
586.
113. Kalkan F, Vanga SK, Gariepy Y, Raghavan V. Effect of MW-assisted
roasting on nutritional and chemical properties of hazelnuts. Food
Nutr Res. 2015;59:28916.
114. Garcia-Alonso A, Goni I. Effect of processing on potato starch:
In vitro availability and glycaemic index. Die Nahrung. 2000;44(1):
19-22.
115. Kingman SM, Englyst HN. The influence of food preparation
methods on the in-vitro digestibility of starch in potatoes. Food
Chem. 1994;49(2):181-186.
116. Leeman M, Ostman E, Bjorck I. Vinegar dressing and cold storage of
potatoes lowers postprandial glycaemic and insulinaemic responses
in healthy subjects. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2005;59(11):1266-
1271.
117. Englyst HN, Cummings JH. Digestion of polysaccharides of potato in
the small intestine of man. Am J Clin Nutr. 1987;45(2):423-431.
118. Zhao X, Andersson M, Andersson R. Resistant starch and other dietary
fiber components in tubers from a high-amylose potato. Food
Chem. 2018;251:58-63.
119. Monro J, Mishra S, Blandford E, Anderson J, Genet R. Potato genotype
differences in nutritionally distinct starch fractions after
cooking, and cooking plus storing cool. J Food Comp Anal.
2009;22(6):539-545.
120. Larder CE, Abergel M, Kubow S, Donnelly DJ. Freeze-drying affects
the starch digestibility of cooked potato tubers. Food Res Int.
2018;103:208-214.
121. Raatz SK, Idso L, Johnson LK, Jackson MI, Combs GF. Resistant starch
analysis of commonly consumed potatoes: Content varies by
cooking method and service temperature but not by variety. Food
Chem. 2016;208:297-300.
122. de Vasconcelos NCM, Salgado SM, Livera AVS, de Andrade SAC, de
Oliveira MG, Stamford TLM. Influence of heat treatment on the
sensory and physical characteristics and carbohydrate fractions of
french-fried potatoes (Solanum tuberosum L.). Food Sci Technol.
2015;35(3):561-569.
123. Ortuno J, Ros G, Periago MJ, Martinez C, Lopez G. Cooking water
uptake and starch digestible value of selected spanish rices. J Food
Qual. 1996;19(1):79-89.
124. Reed MO, Ai Y, Leutcher JL, Jane JL. Effects of cooking methods and
starch structures on starch hydrolysis rates of rice. J Food Sci.
2013;78(7):H1076-H1081.
125. Sonia S, Witjaksono F, Ridwan R. Effect of cooling of cooked white
rice on resistant starch content and glycemic response. Asia Pac J
Clin Nutr. 2015;24(4):620-625.
126. Chen MH, Bergman CJ, McClung AM, Everette JD, Tabien RE.
Resistant starch: Variation among high amylose rice varieties and
its relationship with apparent amylose content, pasting properties
and cooking methods. Food Chem. 2017;234:180-189.
127. Sagum R, Arcot J. Effect of domestic processing methods on the
starch, non-starch polysaccharides and in vitro starch and protein
digestibility of three varieties of rice with varying levels of amylose.
Food Chem. 2000;70(1):107-111.
128. Maziarz MP. Role of fructans and resistant starch in diabetes care.
Diabetes Spectrum. 2013;26(1):35-39.
129. Robertson MD, Wright JW, Loizon E, et al. Insulin-sensitizing effects
on muscle and adipose tissue after dietary fiber intake in men and
women with metabolic syndrome. J Clin Endocrinol Metab.
2012;97(9):3326-3332.
130. Venkataraman A, Sieber JR, Schmidt AW, Waldron C, Theis KR,
Schmidt TM. Variable responses of human microbiomes to dietary
supplementation with resistant starch. Microbiome. 2016;4(1):33.
131. McCleary BV, Sloane N, Draga A. Determination of total dietary
fibre and available carbohydrates: A rapid integrated procedure
that simulates in vivo digestion. Starch Stärke. 2015;67(9-10):860-
883.
132. Maziarz M, Sherrard M, Juma S, Prasad C, Imrhan V, Vijayagopal P.
Sensory characteristics of high-amylose maize-resistant starch in
three food products. Food Sci Nutr. 2013;1(2):117-124.
133. Baixauli R, Salvador A, Martinez-Cervera S, Fiszman S. Distinctive
sensory features introduced by resistant starch in baked products.
LWT Food Sci Technol. 2008;41(10):1927-1933.
134. Laguna L, Varela P, Salvador A, Sanz T, Fiszman SM. Balancing
texture and other sensory features in reduced fat short-dough
biscuits. J Text Stud. 2012;43(3):235-245.
135. Fuentes-Zaragoza E, Riquelme-Navarrete M, Sánchez-Zapata E,
Pérez-Álvarez J. Resistant starch as functional ingredient: A review.
Food Res Int. 2010;43(4):931-942.
136. Parada J, Aguilera JM. In vitro digestibility and glycemic response of
potato starch is related to granule size and degree of gelatinization.
J Food Sci. 2009;74(1):E34-E38.
137. Scientific opinion on the substantiation of health claims related to
resistant starch and reduction of post-prandial glycaemic responses
(ID 681), “digestive health benefits” (ID 682) and “favours a normal
colon metabolism” (ID 783) pursuant to Article 13(1) of Regulation
(EC) No 1924/2006. EFSA J. 2011;9(4):2024.
138. Food and Drug Administration, Department of Health and Human
Services. High-Amylose Starch and Diabetes. Docket Number FDA-
2015-Q-2352. College Park, MD: Food and Drug Administration;
2015.
139. Bodinham CL, Frost GS, Robertson MD. Acute ingestion of resistant
starch reduces food intake in healthy adults. Br J Nutr. 2010;103(6):
917-922.
140. Dainty SA, Klingel SL, Pilkey SE, et al. Resistant starch bagels reduce
fasting and postprandial insulin in adults at risk of type 2 diabetes.
J Nutr. 2016;146(11):2252-2259.
141. Shi J, Sun Z, Shi YC. Improved in vitro assay of resistant starch in
cross-linked phosphorylated starch. Carbohydr Polym. 2019;210:
210-214.
RESEARCH
February 2020 Volume 120 Number 2 JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF NUTRITION AND DIETETICS 243
AUTHOR INFORMATION
M. A. Patterson is an assistant professor and M. Maiya is a research coordinator for the Office of Research and Sponsored Programs, Department
of Nutrition and Food Sciences, Texas Woman’s University, Houston. M. L. Stewart is global research and development technical director of plantbased
proteins, Ingredion Incorporated, Bridgewater, NJ.
Address correspondence to: Mindy A. Patterson, PhD, RDN, Department of Nutrition and Food Sciences, Texas Woman’s University, 6700 Fannin
St, Houston, TX 77030. E-mail: mpatterson14@twu.edu
STATEMENT OF POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST
M. L. Stewart is an employee of Ingredion Incorporated; however, the perspectives provided by the author are her own, and do not necessarily
reflect the perspectives of her employer. No potential conflict of interest was reported by the remaining authors.
FUNDING/SUPPORT
There is no funding to disclose.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
M. A. Patterson developed the idea. M. A. Patterson and M. Maiya identified and extracted the peer-reviewed articles meeting inclusion criteria.
M. A. Patterson and M. Maiya developed and contributed to the database. M. A. Patterson, M. Maiya, and M. L. Stewart wrote the initial
manuscript, revised and commented on all versions, and approved the final version of the manuscript.
RESEARCH
244 JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF NUTRITION AND DIETETICS February 2020 Volume 120 Number 2