The Resistant

Starch Report
An Australian update on health benefits,
measurement and dietary intakes

S LANDON, CGB COLYER AND H SALMAN

CONTENTS

Introduction...................................................................... 2 Sources of resistant starch in the Australian food supply ...... 8

What is resistant starch?..................................................... 3 Recommended intakes ..................................................... 11

The measurement of resistant starch .................................. 4 Estimates of dietary intakes in Australia............................ 14

Health effects of resistant starch ......................................... 6 Opportunities and needs for the future ............................. 15

INTRODUCTION

Australian health authorities agree that dietary fibre for the purpose of meeting Shane Landon is a consultant to
including fibre in the diet provides regulatory purposes such as the nutrition National Starch Ltd, one of the
positive health outcomes. This message panel information, no such direction is Ingredion group of companies, Coral
has reached both consumers and given for resistant starch. Colyer is the Nutrition & Regulatory
manufacturers, leading to a range of This report presents an overview of Affairs Manager – Baking with
products with increased fibre levels and the different types of resistant starch, the Goodman Fielder Ltd and Hayfa
types. Accurately measuring both the health benefits associated with particular Salman is the Business Manager
fibre content and fibre type in foods is forms of resistant starch and methods of – Analytical Service with Grain
critical to making substantiated benefit analysis, together with a comprehensive Growers Ltd.
claims, whether simple nutrient content table of analytical values for foods
claims or health maintenance claims. It from the Australian food supply. The Correspondence: coral.colyer@
is also critical to the accurate preparation purpose of this report is to provide a goodmanfielder.com.au.
of national food composition tables, practical resource and update for the
upon which population intakes are food industry, health and regulatory This report was produced with financial
assessed and consumption targets set authorities and health professionals to support from Goodman Fielder Ltd and
for both maintenance of health and support consistent and optimal food National Starch Ltd
prevention of chronic disease. While the labelling and the development of dietary-
Food Standards Code provides direction based strategies to encourage greater
on analytical methods to use for total resistant starch intakes.

2 THE RESISTANT STARCH REPORT – FOOD AUSTRALIA SUPPLEMENT

WHAT IS RESISTANT STARCH?

Resistant starch is defined as the total RS1 The starch is physically inaccessible various forms of resistant starch, a
amount of starch and the products of to digestion due to intact cell walls, recent review suggests these resistant
starch degradation that resists digestion e.g. grains starch classes are not strongly related
in the small intestine of healthy people RS2 Native starch granules protected to physiological function or particular
(Asp 1992). Starches that resist small from digestion by the structure of health benefits such as prebiosis (Bird
intestinal breakdown are fermented the starch granule AR & Topping D 2008), highlighting
by the resident bacteria in the large the importance of specific research
RS3 Retrograded starch – e.g. cooked
intestine, producing a variety of end- on resistant starch sources to confirm
then cooled potato, rice or pasta;
products including short chain fatty particular health effects.
RS3 forms as it cools
acids (SCFA) that in turn provide a It is noteworthy that most scientific
range of physiological benefits (Topping RS4 Chemically modified starches – do research, and specifically the fermentative
D & Clifton P 2001). not occur naturally but are created qualities of resistant starch, has focused
To support the physiological definition to be resistant to digestion on the RS2 high amylose maize starch
of resistant starch and take into account (Adapted from Topping D & Clifton P (HAMS) source. Other forms of resistant
the characteristics of the various resistant 2001) starch have been less well researched,
starches which exist, resistant starch While the above classifications are with few published human studies (Bird
categories have been developed: useful for categorising the origins of AR & Topping D 2008).

THE RESISTANT STARCH REPORT – FOOD AUSTRALIA SUPPLEMENT 3

THE MEASUREMENT
OF RESISTANT STARCH
Today there are many methods for of recovering the resistant starch pellet. of the various forms of RS. There are
measuring all types of soluble and The results of these studies have been six in-vitro methods that are of interest
insoluble fibres, resistant starches, published elsewhere (McCleary B.V. in quantifying resistant starch in foods
maltodextrins and dextrins. For nutrition & Monaghan D. 2002) and these, and the selection of the method requires
labelling purposes, Foods Standards combined with the collaborative study careful consideration of regional
Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) that followed (McCleary B.V & others labelling regulations. Note some of these
considers dietary fibre as the material 2002), lead to the acceptance of the methods are approved as fibre methods
isolated using AOAC Method 985.29, method under AOAC Official Method while others are approved as resistant
991.43 or 2001.03 (FSANZ 2012). 2002.02 and AACC Method 32-40. starch methods. Table 1 (page 5) details
While methods are stated for inulin, This method was described as a robust these six methods along with their
fructooligosccharides and polydextrose, and reliable method that reflected in vivo advantages and disadvantages. They all
no methodological direction is provided conditions and yielded values that were use enzymatic digestion steps, can be
for resistant starch. physiologically significant. complicated to run, take a full day to do,
The presence of a starch fraction The principal of the method involves have to be done in duplicate and need
resistant to enzymatic hydrolysis was first hydrolysing the starch by incubation to be carefully timed. Consequently, the
recognised by Englyst and others in 1982 with _-amylase and amyloglucosidase, skill of the laboratory performing the
during their research on the measurement extracting the hydrolysed product with assay is paramount.
of non-starch polysaccharides (Englyst 50% ethanol and discarding it. The A seventh, relatively new method
HN & others 1982). This work showed resistant starch is then solubilised with has been developed by the CSIRO
that the resistant starches measured 2N potassium hydroxide and hydrolysed Food Futures Flagship (Bird A. pers
under the conditions of these methods with amyloglucosidase. The glucose coms) and has undergone a pilot
were much higher than actual resistant is measured with a glucose oxidase/ inter laboratory study establishing the
starch confirmed by studies with healthy peroxidase (GOPOD) analysis kit. operational performance of the method.
ileostomy subjects. These studies were This is not the only method currently Several human ileostomy studies have
followed by other methods estimating available for resistant starch analysis provided resistant starch reference
resistant starch levels by subtracting the however. Most foods in the US values for establishing the accuracy of
sum of readily digested starch plus slowly containing resistant starch are analysed the laboratory assay. The method has
digested starch from total starch. Such and marketed as total dietary fibre been automated and high throughput
methods yielded good results but were (TDF), hence TDF methods like AOAC instruments for analysing for resistant
laborious and gave poor reproducibility. Method 991.43 or AOAC 985.29 have starch are due for commercial release
In this present study, the method been commonly used (Finocchiaro ET later this year.
of AOAC 2002.02 and AACC 32-40 pers coms). Newer methodology such
was used. This method has undergone as the AOAC method 2009.01 has been
a comprehensive investigation on the developed as a more accurate measure
effect of pH, enzyme concentration, the of RS but the issue of quantifying
importance of the maltose inhibition physiologically relevant amounts of
of the alpha amylase, the need for dietary resistant starch is complicated by
amyloglucosidase inclusion and problems the diverse physico-chemical properties

4 THE RESISTANT STARCH REPORT – FOOD AUSTRALIA SUPPLEMENT

TABLE 1: PRIMARY IN-VITRO ANALYTICAL METHODS FOR RESISTANT STARCH, TOTAL DIETARY
FIBRE AND RESISTANT DEXTRINS
Method Principle Advantages Disadvantages

AOAC Official Sample is hydrolysed by alpha-amylase Provides results comparable Needs to be further proven
Method 2002.02 / and amyloglucosidase (AMG) for 16hr to those in in-vivo studies with for high amylose corn
AACC Approved and the resistant starch is recovered as a ileostomates. starches.
Method 32-40 for pellet Resistant Starch (RS) present in the
Resistant Starch residue pellet is solubilised in KOH, then Good research tool Analysis shows consistently
hydrolysed to glucose with AMG. Glucose low and variable RS contents
is then quantified with a glucose oxidase/ It is primarily useful for screening in various food products.
peroxidase (GOPOD) analysis kit. ingredients.
RS result does not
Provides direct measurement of RS. Measures RS2 and RS3 starches. necessarily relate to final
dietary content of foods and
food products.

Englyst Method Sample is hydrolysed with pancreatic Provides results comparable Has not been validated
for Resistant amylase, pepsin and AMG and the amount to those in in-vivo studies with through collaborative study.
Starch of glucose released is measured with ileostomates.
glucose oxidase. Rapidly digested Starch Can be difficult to perform.
(RDS) is the amount of starch converted Adapted to a variety of substrates,
into glucose within 20 minutes of enzyme such as minced or fresh samples.
digestion and slowly digested starch
(SDS) is the amount of glucose after an Good research tool.
additional 100 min. Resistant Starch is
calculated as the amount of starch not Measures digestion profiles
digested after 120 min. or the difference Shows higher results for RS
between the total amount of starch and the with more consistent RS data vs.
sum of RDS and SDS. 2002.02 method (Modified Englyst
method using currently available
Provides indirect measurement of RS. enzyme sources)

AOAC Official Sample is hydrolysed by alpha amylase, Early version of TDF method Does not recover all fibre
Method 985.29 protease and AMG, followed by 78% sources as defined in the
/ AACC 32-05 ethanol precipitation. Residue-filtered, Food Standards Code.
for Total Dietary dried and corrected for ash and protein.
Fibre (TDF)

AOAC Official Sample is hydrolysed by alpha amylase, Updated version of AOAC 985.29 Does not recover all of RS
Method 991.43/ protease and AMG, followed by 78% (organic buffer system) and NDOs.
AACC 32-07 for ethanol precipitation. Residue-filtered, Simple and easy to run.
Total Dietary dried and corrected for ash and protein.
Fibre (soluble Recovers all non-starch
and insoluble) polysaccharides and lignin and
part of RS and non-digestible
oligosaccharides (NDOs).

Most precise and accurate in food

products.

AOAC Official Sample is hydrolysed by alpha-amylase, Provides NDO values in addition Time consuming.
Method 2001.03 protease and AMG followed by 78% to conventional total dietary fibre
for Resistant ethanol precipitation. Supernatant is values. Requires highly trained
Dextrins analysed for oligosaccharides by HPLC. personnel.
Residue filtered, dried and corrected for
ash and protein. Does not recover all of RS
components.

Tends to give higher TDF

than actual due to buffer
interactions.

AOAC Official Sample is hydrolysed by alpha-amylase Integrated method modelled on Expensive to run
Method 2009.01 and amyloglucosidase (AMG) for 16hr, AOAC methods 2002.02, 991.43
for Total Dietary followed by protease digestion. Alcohol and 2001.03 May not capture all forms
Fibre precipitation, filtration and HPLC steps of RS.
yields total dietary fibre which includes RS
and NDO.

Reproduced with permission from Finocchiaro.

THE RESISTANT STARCH REPORT – FOOD AUSTRALIA SUPPLEMENT 5

HEALTH EFFECTS
OF RESISTANT STARCH
A significant body of research has been a favoured energy source of colon cells A recent review investigating the
developed demonstrating digestive and (Schwiertz A & others 2002), butyrate potential for resistant starches to act as
colonic health benefits of High Amylose has also been shown to facilitate other prebiotics revealed that not all resistant
Maize Starch (HAMS) resistant starch important physiological changes starches function as prebiotics and
as well as research showing metabolic including: that the second and third points from
advantages (Nugent AP, 2005). s 4HE CAPACITY TO REVERSE NEOPLASTIC the previous paragraph can be difficult
changes in vitro (Ferguson L & for some forms of resistant starch to
Resistant Starch others 2000). demonstrate (Bird AR & Topping D
and Digestive Health s .UTRITIVE EFFECTS ON THE COLONIC 2008).
When resistant starch reaches the bowel, epithelium (Mentschel J & Claus The review concluded that HAMS are
it is broken down (fermented) by the R 2003). capable of modulating the composition
resident bacteria, generating a range of s )NDUCING APOPTOSIS PROGRAMMED CELL of the colonic microbiota in ways
beneficial changes. These can impact death) of damaged cells (Mentschel J considered conducive to host health
digestive health in a number of ways: & Claus R 2003). (Bird AR & Topping D 2008) thereby
satisfying the prebiotic criteria.
s "ENElCIALLY INCREASING STOOL BULK GIVING Importantly, resistant starch is one of
a mild laxative effect which promotes the best substrates for the production of
Resistant Starch and
‘regularity’ (Phillips J & others 1995). butyrate – producing levels twice that of
Colon Cancer
s %NCOURAGING THE GROWTH OF HEALTHY wheat fibre and four times that of pectin
bacteria in the bowel – the ‘prebiotic (Champ MJ 2004). Understanding the factors that may lead
effect’ (Topping D & others 2003). to or prevent colon cancer is a complex
s 0RODUCING SHORT CHAIN FATTY ACIDS Resistant Starch as a Prebiotic and as yet unresolved field of science.
(in particular butyrate) which promote However, there is growing recognition of
The researchers responsible for originally
intestinal health (Weaver GA and the important connection between diet
developing the term prebiotic have
others 1992). and bacterial metabolism in the colon
updated the definition such that a
s 2EDUCING INTESTINAL P( AND THE and specifically how the interaction
prebiotic is now defined as “a selectively
production of potentially harmful can impact diseases like colon cancer
fermented ingredient that allows specific
secondary bile acids, ammonia and (Ridlon JM & Hylemon PB 2006).
changes, both in the composition and/or
phenols (Birkett A & others 1996). Research with dietary components,
activity in the gastrointestinal microflora
s 0REVENTING THE DEGRADATION OF THE such as resistant starch, supports a direct
that confers benefits upon host well-being
mucous layer within the colon. The link between diet, colonic bacteria and
and health” (Gibson & others 2004).
mucous layer is believed to protect colon cancer, with recent animal studies
Thus, to qualify as a prebiotic, a food
colon cells (Toden S & others 2006). indicating high resistant starch diets may
ingredient must be shown to: escape
prevent colon carcinogenesis (Ridlon JM
digestion and absorption in the small
Short Chain Fatty Acids & Hylemon PB 2006).
intestine, where reaching the large bowel
Scientific interest has focused on the it changes the composition or activity of
benefits of short chain fatty acids and in the microbiota selectively, which results
particular, butyrate. In addition to being in demonstrable health benefits for the
consumer (Gibson & others 2004).

6 THE RESISTANT STARCH REPORT – FOOD AUSTRALIA SUPPLEMENT

 Some of the evidence pointing to a & others 1989, vanAmelsvoort JMM PYY and proglucagon gene expression
potential role for resistant starch in colon & Westrate 1992, Hospers JJ & others (Zhou J. & others 2008).
cancer risk reduction is includes: 1994, Behall KM & Howe JC 1995) have Up-regulation of GLP-1 by short
demonstrated the capacity for resistant chain fatty acids has been previously
Population Studies - an international starch to dampen insulin response. documented in response to dietary fibre
comparison of dietary consumption The European Food Safety Authority intake in animal studies (Reimer RA,
and colorectal cancer incidence found a substantiated a health claim relating to McBurney MI 1996, Cani PD & others
linear correlation between starch intake the ability for resistant starch to reduce 2005). Additional studies are needed to
(and thus resistant starch) and reduced postprandial glycemic responses when confirm this mechanism and to validate
risk of colorectal cancer but did not replacing digestible starch in high this response in humans.
find a correlation between dietary fibre carbohydrate foods (EFSA 2011). The evidence that resistant starch
intake and colorectal cancer (Cassidy A A body of evidence is also developing and specifically RS2 High Amylose
& others 1994). for RS2 High Amylose Maize Starch Maize Starch (HAMS) makes a positive
A South African population consuming (HAMS) to improve insulin sensitivity contribution to a variety of important
high levels of cooked and cooled corn in (Robertson MD & others 2003, health markers is considerable and
the form of a maize porridge, containing Robertson MD & others 2005, Johnston developing. Emerging areas of interest
high levels of retrograded RS3 and low KI & others 2010, Maki & others 2012) for resistant starch and the product
levels of dietary fibre had significantly with the most recent study indicating a of resistant starch fermentation, short
lower levels of colorectal cancer 72% improvement in insulin sensitivity chain fatty acids, include inflammatory
compared to another South African when 30g of RS2 HAMS was added to conditions and immune function
population consuming higher levels of the diets of men at risk of pre-diabetes. (Maslowski KM & Mackay C 2011).
dietary fibre, but lower levels of resistant An improvement of 56% in insulin The potential for resistant starch to also
starch. The authors suggested that the sensitivity was also observed when 15g play a role in enhancing the effectiveness
fermentation of resistant starch (RS3) of RS2 HAMS was added to the diet of oral rehydration therapy is attracting
could be responsible for the observed (Maki & others 2012). scientific interest.
protection (Ahmed R & others 2000).
Resistant Starch The Australian Paradox
Clinical Studies - resistant starch and Satiety In Australia, attention is now being given
consumption increases short chain fatty Recent studies indicate resistant starch to the mix of dietary fibres currently
acid production in the colon (Topping D may have a role in enhancing both short consumed, specifically the low intake of
& Clifton P 2001). While mechanisms term (Willis & others 2009, Anderson resistant starch relative to the two other
for the anti-neoplastic effects of & others 2010) and long-term satiety major forms of dietary fibre, non-starch
butyrate have not been fully established, (Nilsson & others 2008, Bodinham & polysaccharides (NSP) and soluble fibre.
butyrate has been demonstrated to others 2010), with the most recent study Despite the fact that Australian dietary
affect many processes that are critical (Anderson & others 2010) demonstrating fibre intakes are approaching the levels
to tumorigenesis (Williams EA & others a dose response relationship between advised by the National Health and
2003). In addition, ammonia and other resistant starch content and satiety. The Medical Research Council (around
nitrogen-containing compounds related highest resistant starch ingredient (66% 27g per day for men and 21g per day
to increased colon cancer risk (Visek WJ RS2 HAMS) reduced cumulative food for women), conditions such as bowel
1978, Bingham SA, 1988) are decreased intake by 15% (Anderson & others 2010). cancer, the second most common form
by resistant starch consumption (Birkett Whilst the mechanism behind these of cancer in Australian men and women,
A & others 1996, Muir JG & others 2004). findings is not fully understood, it is remains stubbornly high. It has been
postulated that colonic fermentation may postulated (Bird AR & others 2010) that
Resistant Starch and play a role. Animal studies show that the the mix of fibres consumed may need to
Glycemic Control expression of satiety hormones PYY and change in order to increase the resistant
The ability for resistant starch to reduce GLP-1 is influenced by resistant starch starch component towards the 20 grams
glycemic response has been extensively consumption (Keenan MJ & others per day level thought to be required for
examined and although investigation 2006, Zhou J & others 2006, Zhou J. & optimal bowel health (Baghurst K &
methods vary, the evidence supports others 2008). Both gene expression and others 1996).
the ability for resistant starch to reduce plasma protein levels of these hormones Public health nutrition messages that
glycemic response (Behall KM & others were increased in response to dietary not only advocate higher fibre intakes but
1988, vanAmelsvoort JMM & Westrate resistant starch and remained elevated emphasise resistant starch may facilitate
1992, Noakes & others 1996, Behall for 24 hours. The authors postulate improved public health outcomes.
KM & Hallfrisch 2002, Nilsson AC & that fermentation of resistant starch is
others 2008). responsible for the hormone regulation
In addition, a number of other studies as short chain fatty acid production in
(Behall KM & others 1988, Behall KM the large intestine was associated with

THE RESISTANT STARCH REPORT 7

SOURCES OF RESISTANT
STARCH IN THE AUSTRALIAN
FOOD SUPPLY

In 2004 (Roberts JR & others 2004) the the NNS95, with the addition of green International, Bray, Ireland) was used.
resistant starch intake was approximated bananas (1651-G) to the testing to All foods were analysed as eaten, so
in the Australian diet using the 1995 illustrate the impact of ripeness on some preparation was required to
National Nutrition Survey (NNS95). resistant starch levels. Where the NNS95 replicate typical consumer consumption
This work, acknowledging the limitations description contained multiple food practices. A 1550W microwave was used
of resistant starch methodologies, types, a single food was selected and when cooking instruction indicated.
focused on compiling a set of maximum noted in Table 2 (page 12). For example, Microwave cooking was the method
and minimum values for starchy foods chickpeas were selected for mature of choice if available over any other
from in vitro methods published in the legumes and pulses – lentil, soy, spilt instructions. A fan forced oven at 180°C
literature from 1986 to 2000 based on peas (2411) and hummus (a dip that was used for baking potatoes and cooking
the Australian and international food is based on chick peas) was tested as pizzas and hash browns.
supply. the sample for product of legumes and The duplicates of each sample were
The authors concluded that when the pulses (2421) to explore the impact of tested either on the same day or on
maximum values were used, potatoes further processing on the resistant starch separate days, depending on the nature
and bananas accounted for nearly levels. Noting that the nature of the food of the sample and preparation required.
half the total resistant starch intake supply has changed from 1995 when this Samples requiring preparation and
in Australia, whereas when minimum list of foods high in starch was compiled, testing of freshly prepared samples were
values were used, bananas and white breakfast bars (1277) no longer exist as analysed on the same day, while samples
bread accounted for nearly one third of a defined category and cereal bars (other that required drying were analysed on
the intake.These findings were consistent than muesli bars) were selected. These separate days.
with earlier estimates (Baghurst KI & bars consist of puffed grains and/or co- Samples were grouped according to
others 1996) where the top three sources extrusion. the nature of pre-analysis treatment
of resistant starch in the Australian food Foods were purchased in triplicate required:
supply were listed as vegetables (26.1%), based on market share as published
breads/crackers (24.7%) and fruit/fruit by Retail World (2011) with analysis Breads and baked goods
juice (22.3%). conducted in duplicate on composite This included bread (1221-5), Lebanese
The present investigation has taken samples. Where market share data bread (1243), croissant (1341), English
the table of foods originally examined by was not available, common varieties muffins (1241), crumpets (1242),
Roberts JR & others (2004) and produced were purchased, for example, Sebago cheese and bacon rolls (1244), pancakes
a new set of resistant starch values based potatoes. Data relating to price, pack (1361), pizza (1351), doughnut (1332)
on analysis of foods purchased during weight, serve size, ingredients and and cakes (1331). These samples were
April–May 2012 in Sydney, NSW. As nutrition information was also collected dried in a commercial dryer at 40°C
such, the 2012 research provides data to allow further analysis at a later point. overnight then ground using Van Gelder
using a single analytical method on the grinder with a 0.5 mm sieve. Samples
resistant starch content of foods in the Materials and Methods were defatted when fat content of the
Australian food supply that are currently Analysis of 52 foods was conducted by fresh samples was higher than 6.5 % or
being consumed. Grain Growers Ltd using the AOAC when fat content of dried samples was
The actual food selection was based 2002.02 method. Megazyme’s Resistant >10% (food categories 1244, 1331,
on the description of the food from Starch kit (K-RSTAR, Megazyme 1332,1341 and 1351).

8 THE RESISTANT STARCH REPORT – FOOD AUSTRALIA SUPPLEMENT

Biscuits, cereals bars and the parsnip and carrots were peeled, cut 2.10g per 100g) were; bread - unspecified
savoury snacks and boiled with water for 10.5 and 16.5 (1226), chickpeas (2411), bread - white
This included biscuits (1311-4, 1321-4), minutes respectively, whilst the sweet fibre increased (1225), breakfast cereal
muesli bars (2721), breakfast/cereal bars potatoes were dry baked. The composite – single grain (1233), taco shells (1245),
(1277), other snacks (2542), pretzels was then prepared from 100g samples baked beans (2422), bread - rye (1224),
(2541), potato crips (2511), corn chips of each and tested. All vegetables were breakfast/cereal bars (1277), breakfast
(2521) and popcorn (2522); all were tested with minimal cooling. cereal – bran (1232), breakfast cereal –
defatted prior to testing. wheat based (1234), hash browns (2312)
Other and English muffins (1241).
Grains Potato dishes (2313), banana (1651, The 2012 values are more closely
Barley (1211), rice (1261), pasta (1251) 1651-G) and chickpeas (2411) were aligned with the lower resistant starch
and noodles (1253) were cooked mashed using a high speed homogeniser values that Roberts J & others (2004)
according to instructions provided on and analysed. determined, with over half of the 2012
packages. For barley, 100g of three Relevant correction factors were taken values near or below the minimum
different brands were cooked separately into account in the preparation of the estimate range.
according to cooking instructions to final reported values, shown in Table 2 The impact of repeated cooking
make a porridge like product, then 100g along with the 2004 values (Roberts J & and cooling on RS3 formation is
of each cooked sample was combined to others 2004). illustrated with the rice and potato based
one sample that was tested, with minimal Green bananas (1651-G) contained samples. White rice (1261) cooked and
cooling, for resistant starch. the highest amount of resistant starch, immediately tested reported a value
with 8.5g per 100g. This is in contrast to of 0.37g of resistant starch per 100g,
Vegetables a ripened banana, as is typically compared to rice based noodles (1253)
Potatoes (2311) were washed and boiled consumed (1651), with 1.23g of at 0.77g per 100g which have undergone
(covered with water, lid on, for 23 resistant starch per 100g. Looking at the cycles of cooking and cooling during
minutes) or dry baked (fan forced oven at remaining foods, those with at least 1g of the manufacturing process prior to
180°C for 75 minutes). For sample 2331, resistant starch per 100g (range 1.01 to final consumption. Potatoes (2311)

THE RESISTANT STARCH REPORT – FOOD AUSTRALIA SUPPLEMENT 9

cooked and immediately tested reported (Hi-Maize starch) were introduced While green bananas (1651-G)
a value of 0.59g of resistant starch per into the Australian market in 1994 and provide the highest amount of resistant
100g, compared to hash browns (2312) held 8% of the entire bread market in starch with 12.75g per standard banana
at 1.07g per 100g that are parcooked, 2003 (Roberts J & others 2004), which (approximately 150g), the resistant
frozen and cooked in the home prior to is consistent with current market share starch drops by 85% to 1.84g when
consumption. (personal communications Goodman the banana is ripe, emphasising the
The impact of further processing Fielder Baking 2012). Despite the fact importance of the degree of ripeness on
on resistant starch levels is evident in that in the years since the NNS95, RS2 the level of RS2 present. Considering
chickpeas (2411) where the resistant HAMS (Hi-Maize starch) has been the remaining foods in terms of resistant
starch value decreased from 2.08g introduced to additional foods, such as starch content per serve, only a limited
resistant starch per 100g for chickpeas baked goods like crumpets and English number provide at least 1g per standard
to 0.66g per 100g in hummus (2421). It muffins, the sale volumes are small serve (range 1.06 to 1.84g). It is evident
is anticipated the reduction in resistant relative to breads fortified with RS2 that the number of foods providing at
starch content occurs as a result of HAMS. least 1g of resistant starch is considerably
dilution brought about by the presence Roberts J & others (2004) estimated less when viewed on a per serving basis.
of other ingredients in hummus, such as that in 1995 such foods (food category Further, the profile also changes when
olive oil and tahini. 1225 fibre increased white bread and resistant starch per serve is considered.
In order to more accurately assess rolls) provided less than 2% of the Foods providing at least 1g of resistant
the relative merits of one food versus total resistant starch intakes, suggesting starch per serve include: grains - barley
another as a source of resistant starch in this food category would be unlikely (1211), chickpeas (2411), pasta/egg
the food supply, the 2012 results should to increase butyrate excretion to any noodles (1251), noodles (1253), bread –
be considered in the context of national significant extent. Such estimates need unspecified (1226), baked beans (2422)
consumption data as per Roberts J & to be revised once new data from the and bread – white fibre increased (1225).
others 2004. However, it is of little value 2011/2013 Australian Health Survey is The values for barley, pasta and
to undertake such an analysis at this released, noting that only one brand in noodles indicate these foods can make
time given the NNS95 is nearly two this category (1225) utilises RS2 HAMS a valuable contribution to resistant starch
decades old. It is proposed this analysis (Hi-Maize starch) in the Australian intake based on standard serves. As
be initiated when new data from the market. Other high fibre white bread and the analysis was carried out on the
2011/2013 Australian Health Survey is rolls make use of soy fibre, oat fibre or cooked hot sample, values could
released. In the absence of contemporary RS4 chemically modified maize starch to be expected to increase due to RS3
dietary intake data, the authors have substantiate their fibre status. formation if allowed to cool prior to
considered relative sales as a crude Another way to consider the foods consumption, for example pasta salad.
surrogate for dietary consumption data. shown in Table 2 as a source of resistant To what degree the RS3 content may
In doing so, the billion dollar categories starch in the food supply is to view increase cannot be estimated, as the
of biscuits, bread and breakfast cereals their resistant starch content on the increase in RS3 observed for cooked
contrast sharply with significantly basis of serve size, reflecting how they potato (2311) to potato salad (2131) was
smaller categories of legumes, fruit and are typically consumed. The data from smaller than anticipated.
vegetables, highlighting the importance Table 2 has been represented in Table 3
of the higher selling categories as sources (page 16) on per serve basis, using the
of resistant starch in the Australian food current Australian Guide to Healthy
supply. For example, the bread category Eating (Commonwealth of Australia
is valued at $2.2 billion, compared to 2008) as a guide to serve sizes. Where
bananas at $400 million or canned these were not possible, such as with
legumes at $50 million (Retail World mixed meals for the pizza (1351-8) then
2011, ABGC 2008). the serve size was based on the sample
Breads fortified with RS2 HAMS foods purchased.

10 THE RESISTANT STARCH REPORT – FOOD AUSTRALIA SUPPLEMENT

RECOMMENDED INTAKES
The current Nutrient Reference Values composition databases at the time. Such from a public health perspective, there
(NRVs) for dietary fibre were set in databases were analysed by methods that was support for maintaining fibre levels of
2006 by the NHMRC (NHMRC do not fully measure resistant starch and at least 30g and possibly 33g per day, e.g.
2006) for both adequacy and chronic therefore do not fully account for the the midpoint between the SDT for men
disease prevention. These specifically resistant starch in the diet. NHMRC and women. Submitters recommended
included a resistant starch component, attempted to address this at the time by that approved method(s) of analysis for
acknowledging the science supporting its including an allowance of slightly more resistant starch should be determined
positive impact on health. An Adequate than 4g per day for men and slightly less separately from any proposal to revise
Intake (AI) was set at 30g/day for men that 3g per day for women in the AI figure. the NRVs. Several relevant methods were
and 25g/day for women. An AI is the Specific consideration of resistant starch, suggested (AACC, AOAC 2005 and
average daily intake level based on however, was not made in setting the McCleary), along with the recognition
observed or experimentally-determined SDT for fibre. These targets were based that if the preferred approach indicated
approximations or estimates of intake by on levels present in the diet of prominent by FSANZ was ultimately adopted there
a group (or groups) of apparently healthy cardiovascular risk studies of the time that would be a requirement to update food
people that are assumed to be adequate, had brought about major improvements composition databases for fibre to provide
i.e. it represents the average amount in cardiovascular risk. These were 29g accurate information.
required for adequate laxation and and 35g per day for men and 23g per The review of the NRVs is currently on
gastrointestinal function. However, recent day for women. The values from these hold as FSANZ is now considering how
evidence suggests a significant proportion studies were then related to intakes of the to progress this work in light of the release
of the Australian population suffers from Australian and New Zealand population of the Australian Government’s Labelling
disrupted laxation regularity (Peppas G at the time and the median intake of the Logic - Review of Food Labelling Law
& others 2008). In addition, the AI does highest quintile used; 38g per day for men and Policy in January 2011, review of
not take into account the other potential and 28g per day for women. It therefore the Dietary Guidelines for Australians
benefits of fibre such as blood glucose appears that no direct consideration was (underway at time of writing) and the
control and cholesterol lowering, which given to the benefit of fibre, especially progress on P293 – Nutrition, Health
are specifically included in the current resistant starch, in relation to a lower risk and related claims. Based on the current
FSANZ definition of fibre (FSANZ or potentially the prevention of chronic status of official recommended intakes
2012). A suggested dietary target (SDT) disease relating to the gastrointestinal for dietary fibre and noting the current
for dietary fibre was also set. This is 38g/ system. NRVs do not adequately or consistently
day for men and 28g/day for women, The way in which resistant starch is reflect dietary targets for resistant starch,
reinforcing the need for substantial considered within the NRVs and dietary the authors revert to the 1996 target for
increases in fibre consumption. Unlike fibre analysis was raised by FSANZ in a resistant starch set by Baghurst KA &
the AI, a SDT is based on the upper 90th consultation paper during 2010 looking others (1996). Baghurst KA and others
percentile of intake that may help prevent at NRVs overall (FSANZ 2011). While (1996) suggest, “intakes in the order
or lower the risk of chronic disease. most of the responses to the consultation of 20g per day resistant starch may be
Both the AI and SDT figures were paper supported a review of the current needed to obtain some of the bowel
derived from national nutrition surveys NRV, submitters’ views were wide ranging related benefits”.
(FSANZ 2010) and as such, are on the selection of a suitable test method
dependent on the data within food for resistant starch. Based on concern

THE RESISTANT STARCH REPORT – FOOD AUSTRALIA SUPPLEMENT 11

TABLE 2: ANALYSED RESISTANT STARCH CONTENT (G PER 100G AS EATEN) OF STARCH RICH FOODS
Food
Food name Food detail Roberts et ala g/100g
Code 2012
RS/100g
Highest RS Lowest RS

1211 Grains (other than rice) e.g. millet, barley, raw oats Barley 16.1 1.6 0.81

1221 Bread, rolls, white 0.91 0.55 0.87

1222 Bread, rolls, mixed grain 0.9 0.9 0.97

1223 Bread, rolls, wholemeal 1.5 0.52 0.87

1224 Bread, rolls, rye, black, pumpernickel Rye 4.5 3.2 1.35

1225 Breads, rolls, white, fibre increased 2.7 0.9 1.77

1226 Breads, rolls, major flour not stated 1.7 1.7 1.17

1232 Breakfast cereal, bran, processed 1.1 0.6 1.22

Breakfast cereal, low sugar, puffed, flakes, extruded

1233 3.1 2.3 1.53
single cereal

Breakfast cereal, wheat based biscuits and shredded

1234 2.3 1.6 1.12
wheat

Breakfast cereal, wheat, low added sugar, puffed,

1235 6.2 1 0.85
flakes

1241 English style muffins 1 1 1.01

1242 Crumpets 1 1 0.99

Lebanese bread,
1243 Flat breads: lavish, naan, chapati, pitta 1.6 1.6 0.40
white

Cheese and bacon

1244 Fancy breads; focaccia with cheese, fruit, veg 1.2 1.2 0.43
roll

1245 Tortilla, taco shells, corn bread Taco shell 0.85 0.85 1.44

1251 Pasta and egg noodles Dry 1.5 0.9 0.88

1253 Noodles, Asian style Shelf stable, rice 0.45 0.45 0.77

1261 Rice White, plain 3.1 0 0.37

1262 Rice flavoured, puffed, crackers Plain flavour 0.96 0.7 0.32

Almond and
1271 Breakfast cereal, muesli, untoasted 4.3 4.3 0.47
apricot variety

1274 Breakfast cereal, grain mixtures 0.9 0.9 0.72

1275 Breakfast cereal, grain/fruit/nut mixtures 0.8 0.8 0.83

Cereal bar other

1277 Breakfast/cereal bars 0.2 0.2 1.29
than muesli

1281 Breakfast cereal, hot porridge type 0.37 0.1 0.17

1311 Sweet biscuits, plain or flavoured 1.3 0.96 0.42

12 THE RESISTANT STARCH REPORT – FOOD AUSTRALIA SUPPLEMENT

 Fruit paste filled,
1312 Sweet biscuits, plain with fruit, nut laminated or 1.9 0.94 0.35
co-extruded

1314 Cream filled biscuit 0.86 0.63 0.32

1321 Savoury biscuits, plain, low-med fat <16g fat 0.6 0.6 0.50

1322 Savoury biscuits, plain, high fat >16g fat 0.4 0.4 0.58

1323 Savoury biscuits, fibre increased or bran 4.3 2.8 0.79

1324 Savoury biscuits, flavoured Chicken flavoured 0.55 0.55 0.50

1331 Cakes, cake mixes, buns, scones, slices Madeira style cake 0.7 0.4 0.30

Yeast doughnut -
1332 Buns and yeast products 0.7 0.4 0.52
iced/glazed

1341-5 Pastry, croissant, pie crust Croissant 0.7 0.4 0.71

Margherita style
1351-8 Pizza, sandwich, rolls, pasta, rice dishes 0.7 0.4 0.68
pizza

1361-5 Pancakes, crepes 0.7 0.4 0.61

1651 Banana raw, average ripe 5.4 2.4 1.23

1651-G Banana raw, average green 8.50

Sebago-boiled
2311 Potatoes - baked, boiled, mashed, instant, fries (hot) nothing added or 2.7 0.16 0.59
baked dry

Potato products - gems, wedges, hash browns, patty Hash brown, oven
2312 0.8 0.17 1.07
(cold/reheated) baked

Potato dishes - salads, canned, scallops (cold/re-

2313 Potato salad 2.4 0.46 0.63
heated)

Sweet potato
2331 Sweet potato, root vegetables (orange)/carrot/ 2.1 1.1 0.08
parsnip

2351 Peas and edible-podded peas 2.1 0.92 0.77

2352 Beans - butter, broad Green/broad 2.6 1.2 0.14

2411 Mature legumes and pulses - lentil, soy, split peas Chickpeas 6.6 2.3 2.08

2421 Product of legumes and pulse Hummus 4.1 4.1 0.66

2422 Dishes with legumes - baked beans Baked beans 5.6 1.5 1.40

2511 Potato crisps Plain flavour 4.5 4.5 0.21

2521 Corn chips Original flavour 0.7 0.7 0.87

2522 Popcorn 0.3 0.3 0.39

2541 Pretzels 1 1 0.74

Extruded salty
2542 Other snacks 0.53 0.53 0.39
snacks

2721 Muesli bars Apricot flavour 0.2 0.2 0.35

(a) Data from Roberts J & others 2004

THE RESISTANT STARCH REPORT – FOOD AUSTRALIA SUPPLEMENT 13

ESTIMATES OF DIETARY
INTAKES IN AUSTRALIA
In the late 1990s, estimates (Baghurst
KA & others 1996) of resistant starch
intake in the Australian and New Zealand
populations were made based on national
nutrition surveys from 1988 and 1993.
These showed an mean figure of 5.3g per
day for men and 5.0g per day for women
in 1993, rising from 4.9g per day for men
and 4.4g for women in 1988.
In early 2000 revised estimates were
made (Roberts J & others 2004), again
based on the national nutrition survey
current at the time. Their daily resistant
starch intakes ranged from 3.8± 0.04g
to 10.7± 0.11g for men and 3.0±0.03 to
8.2±0.08 for women, with the population
estimate from 3.4±0.03g up to 9.4±0.07
per day.
The 2012 values reported in this study
(Table 2) give the impression of dietary
intakes that are more in keeping with the
conservative minimum estimates made
in 2004 (Roberts J & others 2004), with
over half of the 2012 values near or
below the lowest estimate range. Based
on a daily target of 20g of resistant resistant starch content of everyday foods, “excellent source” or to be “very high”
starch, the 2012 figures suggest an in combination with scientific evidence in fibre.
estimated Australian dietary intake of supporting the health advantages of that Following this model, and considering
resistant starch between 17% and 47% form of resistant starch, could then be the levels of resistant starch indicated in
of that required, leaving considerable applied in the form of simple content Table 2, it is suggested that foods with
scope for an increase in resistant starch statements on packaged foods, indicating at least 1.0g per serve of resistant starch
consumption across the population. that a food “contains” or is “high” in should claim they “contain” or are a
One way to support increased resistant resistant starch. “source” of resistant starch, while those
starch intake through education is to Foods providing at least 5% of the AI foods with at least 2.0g of resistant starch
ensure consumers and health professionals (1.5g) in a serve are able to claim to be a per serve may claim to be “high” in
have access to information on the benefits “source” of fibre, while those with at least resistant starch, thus representing 5% and
associated with a combination of fibres 10% of the AI (3g) in a serve can claim 10% of the 20g of resistant starch per day
in the diet, optimal levels of intake and to be “good source” or to be “high” in considered by Baghurst & others (1996)
which foods provide good sources of fibre. Finally, those with at least 20% of as beneficial.
resistant starch. Published data on the the AI (6g) in a serve can claim to be an

14 THE RESISTANT STARCH REPORT – FOOD AUSTRALIA SUPPLEMENT

OPPORTUNITIES AND
NEEDS FOR THE FUTURE

This report provides a practical resource Similarly, the ability for resistant limitation, however, is that it needs to be
to enable the food industry, health starch to improve glycemic control is further proven for HAMS.
and regulatory authorities and health well documented and is supported by a Regulators have an opportunity to:
professionals to develop dietary-based positive opinion from the European Food s 5PDATE THE NATIONAL FOOD TABLES TO
strategies that encourage greater resistant Safety Authority. include data on resistant starch content
starch intakes and support optimal food Emerging science is now demonstrating produced from analysis of Australian
labelling initiatives. With new dietary data the ability for particular forms of resistant foods via AOAC 2002.02.
from the 2011/2013 Australian Health starch (RS2 HAMS) to enhance satiety, s !MEND 3TANDARD  TO CITE !/!#
Survey soon to be released, key groups increase insulin sensitivity and potentially 2002.02/AACC 32-40 as the required
have an opportunity to facilitate the to mediate inflammatory-related immune method for the determination of
following steps to promote better health responses via short chain fatty acid resistant starch for food labelling
outcomes for Australians. production, therefore reinforcing the value purposes.
of resistant starch in the Australian diet. s 0ROVIDE SCOPE FOR THE INCLUSION OF
Industry and plant breeders Health authorities now have an additional resistant starch measurement
s %NSURE RESISTANT STARCH ANALYSIS METHOD opportunity to: techniques once accreditation is
or methods meet all needs, to satisfy s 0REPARE ESTIMATES OF RESISTANT STARCH satisfied.
regulatory compliance or substantiation intake of the Australian population by
of structure/function claims from analysing the new national nutrition Health Professionals
clinical trials. survey and revising the AI to reflect Health Professionals are encouraged to:
s Develop more products with useful levels these findings. s %DUCATE AND SUPPORT PATIENTS TO
of resistant starch, including published s %XPAND THE .26S TO LOOK BEYOND increase their awareness of the health
substantiation for the health benefits of cardiovascular health in the revision benefits of resistant starch.
the form of resistant starch used. of the SDT for fibre and consider s %NSURE SPECIlC FOOD CHOICE ADVICE IS
s 3ELECTIVE BREEDING OF STRAINS NATURALLY gastrointestinal health and the specific based on analytical values of foods from
high in amylose. contribution of resistant starch. the Australian food supply, using the
s $EVELOP CONSUMER PROMOTIONS TO RAISE s %NSURE THE CONSUMER TOOLS SUPPORTING most appropriate method.
awareness of RS benefits and increase the revised AGTHE address sources of
consumption. Credible science supporting the health
resistant starch in the diet.
benefits of resistant starch has developed
Health Authorities significantly over the past decades. The
Regulatory Bodies
The capacity for resistant starch to improve opportunity now exists to translate
AOAC Official Method 2002.02/AACC
colonic health is now established. The this body of evidence into practical
Approved Method 32-40 is currently the
National Health and Medical Research measures designed to facilitate higher
most widely used and approved method
Council (NHMRC 2006, NHMRC resistant starch intakes. Public health
for resistant starch analysis and should
2011) has specifically included resistant messages, in tandem with food regulatory
be readily cited as such within Australia.
starch in the dietary fibre advice and frameworks encouraging resistant starch
Although time consuming, it provides a
recognised it as part of the mechanism by intake that are underpinned by credible
direct measurement of resistant starch
which grain (cereal) foods improve health scientific substantiation, are worthy of
and results that are comparable to in-vivo
outcomes via the provision of a more consideration.
studies with ileostomates. Its most notable
protective environment in the colon.

THE RESISTANT STARCH REPORT – FOOD AUSTRALIA SUPPLEMENT 15

TABLE 3: ANALYSED RESISTANT STARCH CONTENT (G PER SERVE AS EATEN) OF STARCH RICH FOODS
2012 values
Serve size as
Food for RS g/
Food name Food detail per AGTHE
Code serve as
(grams)
eaten
1651-G Banana raw, average green 150 12.75

1211 Grains (other than rice) e.g. millet, barley, raw oats Barley 230 1.86

1651 Banana raw, average ripe 150 1.84

2411 Mature legumes and pulses - lentil, soy, split peas Chickpeas 80 1.66
1251 Pasta and egg noodles Dry 180 1.58
1253 Noodles, Asian style Shelf stable, rice 180 1.38
1226 Breads, rolls, major flour not stated 60 0.70
2422 Dishes with legumes - baked beans Baked beans 80 1.12
1225 Breads, rolls, white, fibre increased 60 1.06
1224 Bread, rolls, rye, black, pumpernickel Rye 60 0.81
1351-8 Pizza, sandwich, rolls, pasta, rice dishes Margherita style pizza 100 0.68
1261 Rice White, plain 180 0.67

Potato products - gems, wedges, hash browns, patty (cold/

2312 Hash brown, oven baked 60 0.64
reheated)

Breakfast cereal, low sugar, puffed, flakes, extruded single

1233 40 0.61
cereal
1241 English style muffins 60 0.61
1242 Crumpets 60 0.60
1222 Bread, rolls, mixed grain 60 0.58
2351 Peas and edible - podded peas 75 0.57
1223 Bread, rolls, wholemeal 60 0.52
1221 Bread, rolls, white 60 0.52
1232 Breakfast cereal, bran, processed 40 0.49
1323 Savoury biscuits, fibre increased or bran 60 0.48
2313 Potato dishes - salads, canned, scallops (cold/reheated) Potato salad 75 0.47
1234 Breakfast cereal, wheat based biscuits and shredded wheat 40 0.45

Sebago-boiled nothing
2311 Potatoes - baked, boiled, mashed, instant, fries (hot) 75 0.44
added or baked dry

1245 Tortilla, taco shells, corn bread Taco shell 30 0.43

1281 Breakfast cereal, hot porridge type 230 0.39
Cereal bar other than
1277 Breakfast/cereal bars 30 0.39
muesli
1243 Flat breads: lavish, naan, chapati, pitta Lebanese bread, white 89 0.36
1235 Breakfast cereal, wheat, low added sugar, puffed, flakes 40 0.34
1275 Breakfast cereal, grain/fruit/nut mixtures 40 0.33
1361-5 Pancakes, crepes 50 0.30

16 THE RESISTANT STARCH REPORT – FOOD AUSTRALIA SUPPLEMENT

 2012 values
Serve size as
Food for RS g/
Food name Food detail per AGTHE
Code serve as
(grams)
eaten
Almond and apricot
1271 Breakfast cereal, muesli, untoasted 65 0.30
variety
1274 Breakfast cereal, grain mixtures 40 0.29
1341-5 Pastry, croissant, pie crust Croissant 40 0.28
2421 Product of legumes and pulse Hummus 40 0.26
2521 Corn chips Original flavour 30 0.26
1244 Fancy breads; focaccia with cheese, fruit, veg Cheese and bacon roll 60 0.26
2541 Pretzels 30 0.22
Yeast doughnut - iced/
1332 Buns and yeast products 40 0.21
glazed
1322 Savoury biscuits, plain, high fat >16g fat 35 0.20
1324 Savoury biscuits, flavoured Chicken flavoured 35 0.18

1321 Savoury biscuits, plain, low-med fat <16g fat 35 0.17

1311 Sweet biscuits, plain or flavoured 35 0.15
1331 Cakes, cake mixes, buns, scones, slices Maderia style cake 40 0.12
Fruit paste filled, lami-
1312 Sweet biscuits, plain with fruit, nut 35 0.12
nated or co-extruded
2542 Other snacks Extruded salty snacks 30 0.12
2522 Popcorn 30 0.12
1314 Cream filled biscuit 35 0.11
2721 Muesli bars Apricot flavour 30 0.11
2352 Beans - butter, broad Green/broad 75 0.10
1262 Rice flavoured, puffed, crackers Plain flavour 25 0.08
2511 Potato crisps Plain flavour 30 0.06
Sweet potato (orange)/
2331 Sweet potato, root vegetables 75 0.06
carrot/parsnip

THE RESISTANT STARCH REPORT – FOOD AUSTRALIA SUPPLEMENT 17

References Finocchiaro E. T (2012) Director of Nutrition R&D at
National Starch Food Innovation, Bridgewater N.J, US,
Retail World. 2011. Annual Report. December 2011.
Ridlon JM & Hylemon PB. 2006. A Potential Role for
Ahmed R & others. 2000. Fermentation of dietary starch pers coms. Resistant Starch Fermentation in Modulating Colonic
in humans. Am J Gastroenterol 95(4):1017-20.
Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ). Bacterial Metabolism and Colon Cancer Risk. Cancer
Anderson GH & others. 2010. Relation between 2010. Nutrient Reference Values in the Australia New Biology & Therapy Vol 5:issue 3, 273-4.
estimates of cornstarch digestibility by the Englyst in Zealand Food Standards Code – Potential Revision Roberts J & others. 2004. Resistant starch in the
vitro method and glycemic response, subjective appetite, Consultation Paper. Australian diet. Nutri & Diet 61:2, 98-104.
and short-term food intake in young men. American
Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ). Robertson MD & others. 2003. Prior short-term
Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 91(4):932-939.
2011. Report of Consultation on Nutrient Reference consumption of resistant starch enhances postprandial
Australian Banana Growers Council (ABGC). 2008. Values in the Australia New Zealand Food Standards insulin sensitivity in healthy subjects. Diabetologia 46(5):
Australian Bananas Media Release. Code – a potential revision. pp 659-65.
Asp NG. 1992. Resistant starch – proceedings from Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ). Robertson MD & others. 2005. Insulin-sensitizing
the second plenary meeting of EURESTA: European 2012. Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code, effects of dietary resistant starch and effects on skeletal
FLAIR Concerted Action, 11 on physiological Standard 1.2.8. Issue 124. muscle and adipose tissue metabolism. Am J Clin Nutr
implications of the consumption of resistant starch in
Gibson G.R. & others. 2004. Dietary modulation of 82:559-67.
man. Preface. European J Clin. Nutr. 46: S1.
the human colonic microbiota: updating the concept of Schwiertz A & others. 2002. Influence of resistant starch
Baghurst KI & others. 1996. Dietary fibre, non-starch prebioticis. Nutr. Res. Rev. 17:259-275. on the SCFA production and cell counts of butyrate-
polysaccharides and resistant starch – a review. Food
Hospers JJ & others. 1994. Amylose-to-amylopectin producing Eubacterium spp. in the human intestine.
Aust; 48 (Suppl):S3–S35.
ratio in pastas affects postprandial glucose and insulin Journal of Applied Microbiology 93 (1):157-62.
Behall KM & Hallfrisch J. 2002. Plasma glucose and responses and satiety in males. J Food Sci 59(5): Toden S & others. 2006. Resistant Starch Prevents
insulin reduction after consumption of breads varying in 1144-1149. Colonic DNA Damage Induced by High Dietary
amylose content. Eur J Clin Nutr 56(9):913-20.
Johnson KL & others. 2010. Resistant starch improves Cooked Red Meat or Casein in Rats Cancer Biology &
Behall KM & Howe JC. 1995. Effect of long-term insulin sensitivity in metabolic syndrome. Diabetic Therapy 5:3, 267- 272.
consumption of amylose vs amylopectin starch on Medicine:27(4):391-397. Topping D & Clifton P. 2001. Short-Chain Fatty Acids
metabolic variables in human subjects. Am J Clin Nutr
Keenan MJ & others. 2006. Effects of resistant starch, a and Human Colonic Function: Roles of Resistant Starch
61(3):334-340.
non-digestible fermentable fiber, on reducing body fat. and Non-starch Polysaccharides, Physiological Reviews
Behall KM & others. 1988. Effect of starch structure on Obesity. 14:1523-1534. Vol 81, 1031-1064.
glucose and insulin responses in adults. Am J Clin Nutr
Maki K & others. 2012. J. Nutr. doi: 10.3945/ Topping D & others. 2003. Resistant starch as a prebiotic
47(3):428-32.
jn.111.152975. and synbiotic: state of the art. Proceedings of the Nutrition
Behall KM & others. 1989. Diets containing high Society 62,171-176.
Maslowski KM & Mackay, C. 2012. Diet, gut
amylose vs amylopectin starch: effects on metabolic
microbiota and immune responses. Nature Immunology van Amelsvoort JMM & Westrate JA. 1992. Amylose-
variables in human subjects. Am J Clin Nutr 49
Vol 12, No. 1 January. amylopectin ratio in a meal affects postprandial variables
(2):337-44.
McCleary B. V. 2002: Journal of AOAC International, in male volunteers. Am J Clin Nutr 55:712-8.
Bingham SA. 1988. Meat, starch, and nonstarch
volume 85, no. 5;1103 Visek WJ. 1978. Diet and cell growth modulation by
polysaccharides and large bowel cancer. Am J Clin Nutr
McCleary B.V. & Monaghan D. 2002: Journal of AOAC ammonia. Am J Clin Nutr 32(suppl):S216-20.
48:762-767.
International Vol. 85, No. 3. Weaver GA & others. 1992. Cornstarch fermentation
Bird, A. R. & Topping, D. 2008. Resistant starch as a
Mentschel J & Claus R. 2003. Increased butyrate by the colonic microbial community yields more
prebiotic. In: Therapeutic Microbiology: Probiotics and
formation in the pig colon by feeding raw potato starch butyrate than does cabbage fibre fermentation;
Related Strategies. Editors: J. Versalovic and M. Wilson,
leads to a reduction of colonocyte apoptosis and a shift cornstarch fermentation rates correlate negatively with
159-73.Washington: ASM Press.
to stem cell compartment. Metabolism 52(11):1400-5. methanogenesis. Am J Clin Nutr 55, 70–77.
Bird, A. R. & others. 2010. Resistant Starch, large bowel
Muir JG & others. 2004. Combining wheat bran with Williams EA & others. 2003. Anti-cancer effects of
fermentation and a broader perspective of prebiotics and
resistant starch has more beneficial effects on fecal butyrate: use of micro-array technology to investigate
probiotics. Beneficial Microbes,1: 423-431.
indexes than does wheat bran alone. Am J Clin Nutr mechanisms. Proc Nutr Soc 62:107-15.
Bird. A.R. 2012. Principle Research Scientist, CSIRO
79:1020-1028. Willis HJ & others. 2009. Greater satiety response
Human Nutrition, Adelaide, Australia. Pers coms.
National Health and Medical Research Council. 2006. with resistant starch and corn bran in human subjects.
Birkett A & others. 1996. Resistant starch lowers fecal Nutr Res 29(2):100-5.
Nutrient Reference Values for Australia and New
concentrations of ammonia and phenols in humans. The
Zealand including Recommended Dietary Intakes. Zhang & others. 2007. Effects of resistant starch on
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition; 63(5):766-72.
National Health and Medical Research Council. insulin resistance of type 2 diabetes mellitus patients.
Bodinham CL & others. 2010. Acute ingestion of Chinese Journal of Preventive Medicine 41:101-104.
2011. Australian Dietary Guidelines Incorporating the
resistant starch reduces food intake in healthy adults, (Based on abstract, in Chinese).
Australian Guide to Healthy Eating. Draft for Public
British Journal of Nutrition 103(6):917-22. Epub
Consultation. Zhou J & other. 2006. Peptide YY and proglucagon
2009 Oct.
Nilsson AC & others. 2008. Including indigestible mRNA expression patterns and regulation in the gut.
Cani PD & others. 2005. Involvement of endogenous Obesity. 14:683-689.
carbohydrates in the evening meal of healthy subjects
glucagon-like peptide-1(7–36) amide on glycaemia-
improves glucose tolerance, lowers inflammatory Zhou J. & others. 2008. Dietary resistant starch
lowering effect of oligofructose in streptozotocin-treated
markers, and increases satiety after a subsequent upregulates total GLP-1 and PYY in a sustained day-
rats. J Endocrinol. 185:457–65.
standardized breakfast. J Nutr 138:732-739. long manner through fermentation in rodents. Am J
Cassidy A & others. 1994. Starch intake and colorectal Physiol Endocrinol Metab. Nov;295(5):E1160-6.
Noakes M & others. 1996. Effect of high-amylose starch
cancer risk: an international comparison. British Journal
and oat bran on metabolic variables and bowel function
of Cancer 69:937-42.
in subjects with hypertriglyceridemia. Am J Clin Nutr
Champ MJ. 2004. Adapted from Physiological effects 64(6):944-51.
of resistant starch and in vivo measurements. Journal of
Nugent AP. 2005. Health properties of Resistant Starch,
the Association of Official Analytical Chemists International
British Nutrition Foundation, Nutrition Bulletin, 30, 27-
87(3):749-55.
54.
Commonwealth of Australia. 2008. The Australian Guide
Peppas G. & others. 2008. Epidemiology of constipation
to Healthy Eating. Background information for nutrition
in Europe and Ocenia; a systematic review. BMC
educators.
Gatroenterol. 2008;8:5.
Englyst, HN & others. 1982. Analyst 107, 307-318
Phillips, J & others. 1995. Effect of resistant starch
European Food Safety Authority, EFSA. 2011. Journal on fecal bulk and fermentation-dependent events in
2011;9(4):2024. humans. Am J Clin Nutr 62(1):121-130.
Ferguson LR & others. 2000. Comparative effects of Reimer RA & McBurney MI. 1996. Dietary fiber
three resistant starch preparations on transit time and modulates intestinal proglucagon messenger ribonucleic
short-chain fatty acid production in rats. Nutrition and acid and postprandial secretion of glucagon-like
Cancer 36 (2):230-7. peptide-1 and insulin in rats. Endocrinology. 137:3948–
56.

18 THE RESISTANT STARCH REPORT – FOOD AUSTRALIA SUPPLEMENT