Loading…
We use essential cookies (authentication, your saved goals/stack) by default. With your permission we'll also enable privacy-respecting analytics (Vercel Web Analytics, anonymous load-time metrics) and error-replay diagnostics (Sentry — DOM snapshots only when an error fires) so we can fix bugs faster. Learn more
Head-to-head evidence comparison — which supplement is right for you?
Resistant Starch wins 1 of 3 categories. Both are solid choices — the best pick depends on your specific goals.
Verdict
Likely helps
11 of 14 studies with measurable effects showed benefit.
Top outcomes
Verdict
Likely helps
17 of 19 studies with measurable effects showed benefit.
Top outcomes
100-200mg daily
Morning with food, Can be divided into two doses
Pycnogenol (standardized extract)
15-30g daily
With meals, Divide throughout day for higher doses
Raw potato starch (unmodified) or green banana flour
4-8 weeks
6-12 weeks
4-8 weeks
Initial use
2-4 weeks
4-8 weeks
1-2 weeks
First 1-2 weeks
Phlebotonics for venous insufficiency
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews (2020) · Meta analysis · n=7690
Pooled data suggest that phlebotonics probably increase adverse events slightly, compared to placebo (RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.27; 37 studies; 5789 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).
Pine bark (Pinus spp.) extract for treating chronic disorders
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews (2020) · Meta analysis · n=1641
In a mixed group of participants with type 1 and type 2 DM we do not know whether pine bark extract decreases HbA1c (MD -0.20 %, 95% CI -1.83 to 1.43; one study; 67 participants; very low-certainty evidence).
Effect of pycnogenol supplementation on blood pressure: A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials
Phytotherapy research : PTR (2020) · Meta analysis · n=922
Pooled analysis suggested that pycnogenol supplementation can reduced systolic blood pressure (SBP) of (-3.22 mmHg; 95% CI [-5.52, -0.92]) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP; -1.91 mmHg; 95% CI [-3.64, -0.18]).
Metabolic Effects of Resistant Starch Type 2: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Nutrients (2019) · Meta analysis · n=670
However, these outcomes were heavily influenced by positive results from a small number of individual studies which contradicted the conclusions of the majority of trials.
Acute Effects of Dietary Fiber in Starchy Foods on Glycemic and Insulinemic Responses: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Crossover Trials
Nutrients (2023) · Systematic review
Data on insoluble DF and glucose metabolism are scarce.
The Effects of Resistant Starch on Biomarkers of Inflammation and Oxidative Stress: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Nutrition and cancer (2022) · Meta analysis · n=739
We used from the effect size, as estimated by the standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) to perform the random method meta-analysis, with P value ≦0.05 as statistically significant.
Based on meta-analyses showing modest reductions in systolic (-3.22 mmHg) and diastolic (-1.91 mmHg) blood pressure. Effects are clinically small and studies show heterogeneity.
Meta-analysis showed modest 3.32 mg/dL reduction in fasting glucose. Effects were heavily influenced by small number of positive studies, with majority showing mixed results. Higher doses increase GI side effects.
AI-estimated from published studies. Interpret as directional guidance.
Resistant Starch has a higher evidence score (9/10 vs 9/10) and wins in 1 of 3 categories.
For reduce inflammation, Resistant Starch has a higher relevance score (85 vs 75).
No known interactions between Pine Bark Extract and Resistant Starch have been documented in our database. However, always consult a healthcare provider before combining supplements.