SuperStar(ch) -- Or does something stink here?

image link

UPDATE 8//23/2021

The company class action law suit regarding scientific claims made about this product.

UCAN Class Action Suit

I wonder if Peter Attia will get any payout?  LOL

ORIGINAL CONTENT published 11/19/2012   

How on earth did SuperStarch fly under my radar?   Thanks to Lerner, I was made aware of the connection between Jeff Volek -- of nutty ketosis and Atkins Nutritionals fame -- and the UCAN Company marketing a new type of sports drink containing SuperStarch (TM and all that near as I can tell, though the term is not unique to the company).    When I think of SuperStarch, the image of Molly Shannon's Mary Katherine Gallagher character from SNL just popped into my mind complete with her "superstar" exclamation.  Suparstarch(aching?)  Methinks so!

The bottom line of what I'll abbreviate as SS, is that it is supposedly better for performance -- presumably specifically in endurance activities -- because it effectively provides a slow release glucose source that is low GI (doesn't spike glucose much), doesn't elicit a significant insulin response, and therefore doesn't suppress fat burning.  Some of which may be true, and some of which is not supported by the evidence provided by the company.  

I'm not in the fitness business, so I'll leave the performance claims to anyone in the audience that chooses to weigh in that to tackle.  I imagine if one is burning fat -- as we all do, especially in endurance activities -- and douses their system with a high GI sugar shock, this may well have some adverse effects.  Nobody disputes that one of the functions of insulin is to signal (glucose) fuel availability thus a lesser need for fatty acids, therefore suppressing FA release from adipose tissues.  Insulin also tamps down lipid oxidation so that glucose can be preferentially "burnt off".  I imagine this can impact how the athlete feels and impact performance, etc.  I also imagine this SS glucose source might well be useful to some if not many undertaking certain competitive endurance activities.

But I'm always curious about these sorts of things, especially if something sounds a bit off.  For the most part, we are almost always burning some fat and some carb ... just more of one than the other depending largely on the availability of carbohydrate (and differently depending on the tissue/organ).  This SS purports to be a slow-release form of glucose if you will -- it is implied it delivers the same load, but in drip-drip fashion that has none of the impacts of dietary carbohydrate ingestion.   This is essentially a glycemic index argument, the same 50g carb delivered in form A vs. form B, consumed with or without protein and/or fat in a mixed food, is absorbed and impacts glucose levels differently.  The GI nay sayers will say it's a load of bunk, and it's just divvying up the poison load over a longer time frame but the glycemic load, GL, is the same.  Sugar is sugar, as Cate Shanahan likes to remind us, so just say no to your addiction!  

So what is this SS?  On the website we learn:

Generation UCAN is powered by SuperStarch, a healthy, natural, gluten-free innovation in carbohydrate nutrition. SuperStarch is a complex carbohydrate (derived from a unique, non-GMO grain) that stabilizes blood sugar and causes virtually no reaction from the fat-storing hormone insulin. It's backed by proven science. Finally there's a healthier, more efficient energy source than sugars, caffeine, or high-carb meals. Originally discovered for a child, SuperStarch is a revolutionary fuel being used for ENERGY, SPORTS, and FITNESS.

From the FAQ,we learn this "unique grain" is ... drum roll please ... corn!  More specifically:

SuperStarch is just ground up corn (non-GMO) that is cooked with a unique patent pending natural process.

Ummm ... does that make sense?  I'd say not, because I'm not aware that there are any processes that can be classified as natural cooking methods that can be patented at this point.  Sounds more like a chemically produced starch molecule, not unlike other chemically produced substances derived from corn not the least of which being the evil maltodextrin and high fructose corn syrup!!  

I love how they work the "so safe it was developed for a child" angle too.  I note also that the word "natural" used a few times.  Now armed with this information I would presume that they are using heat in some form to transform and/or isolate some "resistant starch" that may indeed be digested, albeit more slowly.  A Google Scholar search on "super starch" turns up many hits linking a superstarch called amylopectin A with obesity!  Not sure if this SS is the same as amylopectin A, but it is interesting that a superstarch that would elicit a muted insulin response might be fattening!?!

In any case, a little more detail is available in this Volek authored primer on SS.

SuperStarch was originally designed by Scottish researchers in the treatment of a rare genetic disorder called glycogen storage disease, which is characterized by an impaired ability to convert glycogen to glucose in the liver. ... Two peer-reviewed scientific studies have confirmed that ingestion of a novel heat-moisture processed cornstarch is superior to conventional treatments in preventing hypoglycemia over extended periods of time in subjects with Glycogen Storage Disease(4, 5). The patent pending proprietary method for making the starch involves a hydrothermal (heat-moisture) treatment process to the native starch which significantly alters the metabolism of the carbohydrate in the body. ...

SuperStarch is not a sugar or fiber. Chemically it is a complex carbohydrate or starch that is completely absorbed. SuperStarch is an extremely large glucose polymer with a molecular weight between 500,000 and 700,000 g/mol. ... In the intestines, SuperStarch is semi-resistant to digestion, but is eventually completely absorbed into the bloodstream, thereby giving it a slow time-released absorption profile. Because of the low glycemic impact, there is also little stimulation of the hormone insulin following ingestion.

It's odd that no patented process shows up on Google Scholar (help me out here if I'm missing something), but it sure sounds to me like it is produced by some process involving moist heat.  If so, it's about as natural as maltodextrin.   Maltodextrin is often touted as natural because it can be derived from corn and other starches through enzymatic and other processes not involving synthetic "unnatural"chemicals.  I'll leave it to you to decide if it is then worthy of the term natural.  The other option is that this process is merely isolating existing high molecular weight starches already present in corn.  In which case it's already a load of bunk that SS comes from some "unique grain", but they've compounded the bunkitude by presenting SS as any sort of innovative, unique or any manner other "wow-factor" adjective carbohydrate.  I'm thinking it may well be mostly the latter with a bit of the former for reasons I'll get to in a bit.  If, indeed, it is simply isolated, then it is natural indeed, but the other adjectives like "healthy" are not necessarily implied.  After all, good old table sugar, sucrose, is natural ...  In any case, it is listed as "modified corn starch" on the "food" label.

Can we get to the science please?  Certainly!

Again, it is interesting what is and is not presented on the main website pages vs. the more detailed paper.   On the "proof" page (edit 8/23/21 to Web Archive saved page), we have some data from an independent study UCAN commissioned out to University of Oklahoma. They chose to report just the insulin findings on the website, without information as to the dose of the carbohydrate.  From the additional materials we learn this is for 10 highly trained male cyclists (avg. 30 y.o.) after consuming 1g/kg = 79g carb on average.  Although they collected lots of information, not so much is reported, including the glucose levels that were merely described as being more steady and avoiding a spike.

Fair enough. But here's the graphic for the glucose response from an internally conducted study involving four subjects consuming a sports drink contained 5g fructose and other additives with either 28g maltodextrin or 25g SS (why not totally equal, but it's likely inconsequential). 

I've altered the original curves to assess the glucose exposure -- or area under the curve, AUC.

For the maltodextrin (blue curve, approximated gray triangle), the AUC = 0.5(base)(height) = 0.5(67)(1.25)  = approximately 42 mg/dL*hr, while for the SS (red curve, approximated yellow triangle), the AUC = 0.5(20)(1.75) = 17.5 mg/dL*hr.  Huh??  The subjects were given (nominally) more SS, yet their blood glucose exposure is less than half that of maltodextrin.  Yep ... something is stinking a bit here!  UCAN claims that SS is completely absorbed (something they could probably verify with a relatively simple experiment using radiolabels), yet the GL says otherwise.  Somewhere along the line either it isn't all absorbed, or what is absorbed is not all metabolized.  Where's the missing glucose otherwise??  In any case, both the lower postprandial glucose levels and muted insulin response indicate the body is probably utilizing this carbohydrate at about a 50% rate.

But the next stuff is the familiar "fat burning" smoke and mirrors we've come to expect from the perpetually disingenuous low carb community.  The equating of lipolysis (breakdown and release) with oxidation (actual fat "burning") is so prevalent and so easily distinguished and discussed, that the continual conflation of the two is simply downright dishonest.  They're LYING to you.  In that OK study, for all it's rigor, double-blindedness, placebo control and all that jazz, here's what you're told to impress you:

Before and after exercise, participants ingested 1g/kg (average 79 g) of either SuperStarch or Maltodextrin while providing blood and expired gas samples every 15 and 30 min, respectively, before, during, and following exercise. The major outcome variables were glucose, insulin, fatty acids, glycerol, and fat oxidation during and after exercise. ... 

Ingested before exercise, SuperStarch:

• Blunted initial spike in blood glucose and insulin
• Enhanced breakdown of fat during exercise
• Enhanced fat oxidation (carbohydrate sparing) during exercise

Ingested after exercise, SuperStarch:

• Blunted glucose and insulin spike
• Enhanced breakdown and use of fat during recovery

But here's what they actually divulge,  in Volek's white paper, and the diagram from the website.

SuperStarch was associated with greater fat breakdown [lipolysis] during exercise and recovery as indicated by significantly increased serum non-esterified fatty acids and glycerol levels. There was also a trend for lower respiratory exchange ratios during in the SuperStarch trial compared to Maltodextrin indicating [a trend towards but not statistically significant] increased oxidation of fat.  

The diagram at right is for NEFA levels in the serum, in other words, due to lack of insulin response, fatty acids are released (inappropriately?) from adipose tissue.   But as I've pointed out many times here before, lipolysis is NOT fat burning.  See, for example: The Myth of Starving Cells II ~ Lipolysis is not rate limiting.  They don't show the "trending data", most likely because there's no difference.  They have the data! The respiratory quotients were measured, the lower ratio would indicate a bit more fat burning, but likely because they didn't consume quite as much glucose than they thought.   You are not burning more fat, unless you're actually burning more fat.  All excessive fat breakdown accomplishes is higher NEFA levels in the blood and delivery to your muscles.  This might be a good thing, but it can also -- as we know in diabetes -- be detrimental.

And then I couldn't help but notice the really important information that's not on the "mass media" side of the website.  You recall, the part that talks of the "unique grain" from which this mysterious SS is obtained through a proprietary "natural" process.  You recall, the part that talks about how it's so healthy it was developed for a child!  Yeah, that part.  With all it's promises about performance, and whatnot.  If this were Monsanto, or Body by Vi trying to sell you something like this, the ever skeptical, knowledgeable and astute low carbers would be all over this scam!   Because it gets worse folks.   This stuff is listed on the ingredients as "modified corn starch", and in the white paper, there was an internal study done comparing SS to good old fashioned, run-of-the-mill, unmodified corn starch, in the form of the brand Argo.    Here's that study:

In order to determine the glycemic impact of SuperStarch, 16 subjects completed 3 trials in a random order. The trials involved consuming 75 g of carbohydrate in the form of SuperStarch, Argo starch, or glucose followed by serial blood glucose measurements for 7 hours.  All testing occurred after an overnight fast and a standardized diet the day before.  

Comparing just SS to Argo:

• Compared to consumption of Argo, SuperStarch decreased the acute glycemic impact by 13%.
• Glucose levels were maintained closer to baseline 7 hours after ingestion of SuperStarch (-4% from fasting) compared to Argo (-13%).  

The doses are different, but let's try to put some numbers in context with the Maltodextrin.  Recall that glucose levels rose roughly 20 points from ~100 -- or increased 20% at peak for SS, vs. about 65 points for MD or 65%.  Thus the glycemic impact measured by peak response was decreased by ~70% for SS vs. MD, and using my approximate AUC's the load impact was roughly 50% or decreased by 50%, same difference.  What those "salient points" above translate to, for an average 79g dose (just a bit more than a standard OGTT), is that for a glucose exposure of 100 mg/dL*hr for Argo, the exposure for SS was a "mere" 87 mg/dL*hr.    Furthermore, if the starting glucose level was 100 mg/dL, then the rebound "hypo" at 7 hours was 96 mg/dL for SS vs. 87 mg/dL for Argo.  

I don't know about you, but these are not that impressive to me.  The comparisons to maltodextrin are a bit more impressive, and compared to glucose (with decreased glycemic impact of 57%), sure.  Actually what is curiously impressive, is the performance of corn starch.  Corn is considered to be medium to low GI.  Considering that these glucose gels endurance athletes use come in roughly 25g/100 cal doses, and they aren't waiting 7 hours between doses, I would be rather surprised to see any significant differences if one tweaked the doses/timing of the two.  

But I guess this guy thinks it is worth experimenting with.

I consume more overall carbohydrates, though still virtually zero sugar or refined carbohydrates. Most of this additional carbohydrate is in the form of nuts and SuperStarch.

Newsflash, SuperStarch IS refined carbohydrate, make no mistake about it.  This SuperStarch thing sure is a tangled web.  Peter Attia, aka Boy Wonder Glucagon around these parts, a relic from his days of his War on Insulin, has been using it for a couple of years now.  Gee, that's an interesting revelation.  Dr. Uber Nutty Ketotic himself, Dr. half kilo of fat a day, has been using SS! OH THE CARBS!!!!!!!   Next thing you know, the other boy wonder Gatewing will be fighting the good fight with SuperStarch pool noodles.  Can the LLVLC sponsorship be far behind?   Here's the gang -- it's been a while since they've made appearances here!

In Part II Attia interviews a sports trainer he introduced to SS:

I was introduced to Generation UCAN by you, (Peter Attia). I had actually never heard of it prior to you giving me some to try on my own last year. At the time I was struggling in my own personal training after making the switch to a higher fat, low carb, no sugar lifestyle and it made a big difference for me personally.

SAY WHAT???   Yet another person who has struggled going high fat low carb.  Remind me again please, why do these folks make this nutritional switch again?

Here's the real bottom line folks.  This is UCAN. 

(image stolen from Attia)

No, it is not paleo, primal (I'll save Mark Sisson the post on that), real food, whole food, low carb, whatever.   At $2.75/serving (SS only) or $3.75/serving (with protein) -- a roughly 30g = 120 calorie serving is some pretty pricey glucose!!  Let's compare with Argo corn starch.  A one pound box goes for under $2 (under $1 if you're lucky or buy in bulk or buy generic) and would contain 13 or so  servings of 30g each.  We're talking 20 cents here if you're anywhere near thrifty, less if you're moreso, and you can pick some up at just about any store.

Why does anyone need SuperStarch?  Eat a freakin corn on the cob every now and then.  Most of your ancestors did for thousands of years.

More importantly, if it's all about the insulin, why did not Atkins Nutritionals, benefactor of LC research, jump on this goldmine?  Well, it's not a fiber so they can't play smoke and mirror LIES games like Vole & company played in The New Atkins with sugar alcohols.  They can't play the same games with glycerin, aka glycerol, trying to get it classed as a fiber so they could subtract the carbs and get an acceptable net to put on the label.  Nope, there would be carbs and carbs galore.

But Peter Attia has been eating the stuff.  How many more low carbers have too?  And how many still believe insulin is the bad guy in all of this??