Well if BG isn't proof enough for you, think about this. I ate 4 servings of this pasta yesterday, in one meal and checked keto sticks every hour after the meal (4 p.m.) until midnight. there was no change in my ketosis level. period. with regular pasta it would have kicked me out of ketosis after 1 serving.

I think of this issue using the analogy of throughput vs. bandwidth.

Throughput is a measure of total data transferred - i.e., ECC in this analogy. Bandwidth is the rate of transfer over time, absorption rate, and while can't be measured exactly, could be inferred from glycemic index.

It's my understanding that insulin is released when our blood sugar increases above a certain threshold, telling our insulin receptors to store fat. So, if I eat 50g carbs, and it's all absorbed immediately no matter what food choice I eat, then the blood sugar spike and insulin production is the same for any food choice with a like carb content.

However, the key to me is absorption over time. Consider one of highest glycemic index foods (and I use the term "food" liberally here ), sugar. Using glycemic index theory, consuming 100g ECC would be all absorbed almost immediately, creating quite an insulin release.

However, an equivalent 100g ECC of a a lower glycemic index food, say, whole milk, would have much slower absorption over time because of the fat content, limiting the blood sugar impact at any point in time and triggering a lesser insulin release.

This all hinges upon two points: 1) blood sugar threshold for insulin release, and 2) carbs absorbed over time have a lesser impact on blood sugar at any given point in time than carbs absorbed almost immediately.

It seems to me that all carbs are NOT created equal in that regard - and that both total throughput (ECC) and bandwidth (absorption rate as indicated by glycemic index) are useful tools.

Barefoot - don't remember what my original point was!

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.

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 isstill 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.

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.

ItsTheWooo...


I want to make sure I understand you correctly.

Are you saying that the human digestive system "sees" the Dreamfields pasta in the same way it "sees" a bowl of flax meal? - in essence, just one big 'ole serving of undigestible fiber? Not to be too indelicate, but isn't this noticeable when exiting the body (produce the same effects as a large serviing of fiber?)

If this is all true and yet the product tastes like and has the texture of regular pasta, it may be time to call my stockbroker - ( I wonder if it's even a publicly traded company?)

Barefoot

My children had walked in the kitchen when I was making it for them and said," Mommys making sketti?" I just had to snicker. They really enjoyed it.It was at the local grocery, Winn Dixie.

Well, that's the only conclusion I can come to based on the evidence given - the body regards the dreamfields treated starch as it would cellulose or erythritol. Since there is such a high volume of it (40 grams), I imagine it would work like fiber does too (in that it would increase stool volume).

I was thinking the same thing

If they can do this with rice and other starches, and if there are no undesirable side effects they are going to be huge.

This stuf is soooo good. I can't get enough!

I am near Valencia, CA. Tried Albertsons, Kroger/Ralphs, Vons/Pavilions, etc. No one has it. I am dying to try it!!! Please help. Thanks.

you can buy it online, see the link earlier in this thread. Also it will tell you what stores you can find it at.

I bought some today. it tastes so much better than the low-carb pastas I've tried before! I was at the point of re-introducing limited amounts of grains again, so this fits just fine in my plan. Admittedly, I'm hedging my bets that it ISN'T exactly as promised, but hey... it's made in North Dakota

This stuff is amazing. It tastes just like the real thing. After potatoes and rice I hope they do corn!!! (just kidding)

Chris

Is it with the regular pasta? Or in the health section? I'd like to try this because I like to cook for my boyfriend, stuff we will both eat, and we have had enough burgers. I miss making fettucine alfredo!

I found it and made some of the linguine tonight! I posted this elsewhere but anyway, I made it with some homemade pesto, diced fresh tomatoes, garlic and some Trader Joe's yummy Spicy Italian chicken sausage. I felt like I was cheating big time!! It's fabulous. I won't buy any of that other stuff again!! Made it for my family too and they couldn't tell the difference! Thanks so much for the info! Yummmmmmm

I found it today at super Wal-Mart. They were in the same section as all the other pastas. The Wal-Mart I shop at has put all their Lo-Carb foods in the same sections as the regular foods. Therefore I found the Heinz 1 carb ketchup right next to the regular Heinz ketchup. Once I get used to this it will make shopping a lot easier. Right now I keep trying to find the LC section. Can't wait to try the pasta's. Blessings, Karen

So does this mean that it has less calories than stated on the box????