PlainPill

Resistant Starch

People mainly take Resistant Starch for digestion, memory, anxiety. Based on 7 first-hand reports and 44 meta-analyses & systematic reviews in the medical literature. Ranked #1321 of 1,974 overall.

14
User score
Mixed
14% positive14% mixed0% negative71% unclear

Of reports that state an outcome, 50% are positive.

Clinical research
AStrong research base
44
meta-analyses
219
RCTs
4,054
papers

What Resistant Starch does, according to users

Of the people who reported each effect, the share who said it got better.

What the research says

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses from PubMed, with their published conclusions.

AStrong research base

3+ meta-analyses or systematic reviews and 10+ randomized controlled trials in humans. The grade measures how much human research exists — read the conclusions below for what it found.

Br J Nutr · 2021 · Meta-analysis / systematic review
Effects of resistant starch on glycaemic control: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Conclusion: However, the effects on other insulin-related endpoints were not significant, including fasting plasma insulin, four endpoints from the frequently sampled intravenous glucose tolerance test (insulin sensitivity index, acute insulin response, disposition index and glucose effectiveness) and HOMA-β. The current study indicated moderate effects of resistant starch on improving glycaemic control.

PubMed 32959735 ↗
Nutr Diabetes · 2019 · Meta-analysis / systematic review
Effects of the resistant starch on glucose, insulin, insulin resistance, and lipid parameters in overweight or obese adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Conclusion: This meta-analysis has provided evidence that RS supplementation can improve fasting glucose, fasting insulin, insulin resistance and sensitivity, especially for diabetic with overweight or obesity. However, owing to potential sophistication, individual difference and composition of intestinal microbiota, this result should be carefully taken into account.

PubMed 31168050 ↗
Eur J Nutr · 2018 · Meta-analysis / systematic review
Systematic review of the effects of the intestinal microbiota on selected nutrients and non-nutrients

Conclusion: The systematic review demonstrates that the IM plays a major role in the breakdown and transformation of the dietary substrates examined. However, recent human data are limited with the exception of data from studies examining fibres and polyphenols. Results observed in relation with dietary substrates were not always consistent or coherent across studies and methodological limitations and differences in IM analyses made comparisons difficult. Moreover, non-digestible components likely to reach the colon are often not well defined or characterised in studies making comparisons between studies

PubMed 29086061 ↗

Dosage people report

As stated by users — not a recommendation. Follow the label or your doctor.

after high-fiber mealsas reported
4 tbspas reported

Reported side effects

How often each side effect came up across all reports.

gastrointestinal distress ×1

What users say

Verbatim quotes, shortened only — each links to the original discussion.

Other options for digestion

User data from public discussions; research from PubMed. Information only, not medical advice — talk to a doctor before starting, stopping or combining anything. Data updated October 2, 2026. How we rate