Quote:
Originally Posted by scott123
So are you telling me that for very low glycemic foods, once 3 hours have passed, digestion just stops?
|
I am suggesting that the 33 grams of carbs in this product act like fiber - the body lacks the necessary enzymes to deal with them and they pass through unassimilated.
Quote:
That a BG reduced to pre-prandial levels is proof that a food has simply ceased digesting?
|
Well, if they had only eaten 1 or 2 grams of very low glycemic food, it may produce but a blip on their meters and yes, it wouldn't be strong enough evidence to show that gram per gram dreamfields pasta has virtually no sugar energy and therefore no metabolic impact.
However, 40+ grams of digestable carbohydrate, regardless of glycemic index and type, should produce a noticable glycemic load with half hour tests. This is what the sugar alcohol tests show... a typical serving (15 grams) yeilds noticable net glycemic/metabolic impact. Even fructose (a sugar so low GI that it is considered "safe" for diabetics) would produce a glycemic load half that of a serving of white bread at a consumption level of 40 grams.
This is not what the dreamfield pasta tests show - and let it be known that the amount of carbohydrate consumed in a serving of pasta is usually twice as large as the amount eaten in a typical LC candy bar (20 grms maltitol vs 40 grams of this "special" starch).
This leads to one obvious conclusion. The starch in dreamfields pasta contains little to no assimilatable/useable energy, so that it produces an extremely low glycemic load/metabolic impact, even at very high consumption levels. You can think of this type of starch as xylitol or erythritol if it helps your understanding. These sugar alcohols contain so little sugar energy (like .02 gram), that their GI is near 0. So little of it is used as energy, that even when they are being consumed in high carbohydrate quantities (20 grams in a candy bar for example) the glycemic load is
still negligable as your body isn't getting any sugar from them. They pass through almost completely unabsorbed.
It seems to me that the processing dreamfields does to its starch makes it unassimilatable, like xylitol and erythritol. There is really no other explanation other than this -- dreamfields pasta acts like fiber. It would be a miracle of science if they were able to make a digestable starch product break down so slowly to the point where it has no obserable impact on blood glucose after 3 hours, even at 40 gram consumption levels. Frankly, it would be impossible.
Quote:
I haven't seen anyone take readings past 3 hours because the next meal is usually consumed by that time. Also, won't BG be affected by not eating for 4 and 5 hours straight?
I have no evidence to the contrary, because, being a low glycemic food, this pasta acts accordingly. Just because I can't show you evidence of starches being digested 5 or 6 hours past eating, it doesn't mean that it's not occuring, though.
Glycemic impact is not irrefutable proof of non digestion.
|
You are absolutely right, just because we haven't seen the evidence doesn't mean the evidence doesn't exist.
But, based on what I know about the way the body works and sugar metabolism, I am sufficiently convinced by these tests. Even the lowest glycemic index sugar will yeild a considerably hefty glycemic load when eaten the quantities of 40 and 80 grams (1 or 2 cups of dreamfields pasta, which many diabetics have consumed and reported no blip on the meters 3 hours post-prandial).
So one of two things must be going on. Either gram for gram dreamfields pasta has a glycemic idex signifigantly lower than any known completely digestable food on earth which makes it unable to be measured by standard tests,
or the body isn't able to break it down into sugar and it is acting as fiber. Personally, I think the latter is
much more likely. But hey, I do recognize the possibility that anything is possible and it is your choice to believe what you want.