Pasta discovery

[Guest]

Dieters and particularly pasta-loving type II diabetics will be thrilled to discover a study that shows that if pasta is cooked, cooled and then reheated, it is transformed from a meal that will set your blood sugar indicators a-whirling to one in which this effect is halved.

http://www.medicaldaily.com/healthy-meal-cooking-and-cooling-pasta-changes-starch-quality-cut-calories-fat-307300

This experiment involved only 10 people so we're not talking proof here but the findings are certainly interesting.

[LeMartinPecheur]

ams: I saw this announced somewhere online recently. As a Type I diabetic I hope I may be permitted to post here?

I'm now wondering what this means for, dare I mention it, bought chilled ready meals like macaroni cheese. (Not of course that I eat these very often, but I've had a couple in the last few weeks while my wife was away.) Presumably this means that the carbohydrate figures in the on-pack Nutritional Info need reducing by roughly half? I was a little surprised that some apparently rather hefty meals didn't seem to need the insulin I'd allowed for (so a good excuse for some sweeties later in the evening, ahem!)

I've only recently fully grasped that the quoted carbohydrate figures for (eg) apple juice are perilous because most of an apple's sugar content is fructose which doesn't need insulin to be absorbed from the bloodstream. This is an issue, albeit to a lesser extent, with many other fruits.

I'd always wondered why my blood sugar often went perilously low after eating fruit salad or even apple crumble, having allowed for the quoted total carbohydrate!

[mercia]

yes I think this was a BBC experiment/discovery wasn't it ?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29629761

perhaps it might also help prevent all the weight-loss surgery apparently being needed

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-29953082

[Flay]

perhaps it might also help prevent all the weight-loss surgery apparently being needed

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-29953082

Walking into the local Asda last week the whole of the first aisle was lined with mountains of tins of chocolates, and at the end was a huge pile of bottles of Lucozade at £1 per litre (containing 175g sugar = 6oz)

Herein lies the problem. Taxing sugar in a similar way to petrol is the only way to go

[cloughie]

Walking into the local Asda last week the whole of the first aisle was lined with mountains of tins of chocolates, and at the end was a huge pile of bottles of Lucozade at £1 per litre (containing 175g sugar = 6oz)

Herein lies the problem. Taxing sugar in a similar way to petrol is the only way to go

Or even instead of petrol?

[Flay]

a huge pile of bottles of Lucozade at £1 per litre (containing 175g sugar = 6oz)

In case anyone is confused... I mean 175g in each bottle!

[amateur51]

Meanwhile, back OT (ahem!) ...

Any thoughts about the experiment's findings, their validity & usefulness, Dr Flay?

[Bryn]

It's a pretty well known caterers' trick to prepare pasta to al dente condition, then plunge it in to cold water for temporary storage. Later it can be tossed in olive oil (or oil and butter) before serving. I was taught the trick by a sous chef when I had to prepare spaghetti for 20 a few decades ago. I wonder if the caterers know of the health benefits of their convenience trick?

[Flay]

I would want to know a little more. "Resistant starch" that takes longer to break down is an appealing idea. The so-called trial used only a small number of people. I would like to see it replicated, and also like to be given a biochemical reason for it. Has it been done with pasta alone or is it only when served with a sauce?

Perhaps an interaction with fat in the sauce delayed its absorption.

But the number of calories in the meal remains the same no matter how rapidly it is absorbed, or how old it is, so this cannot be an excuse for eating more.

[amateur51]

I would want to know a little more. "Resistant starch" that takes longer to break down is an appealing idea. The so-called trial used only a small number of people. I would like to see it replicated, and also like to be given a biochemical reason for it. Has it been done with pasta alone or is it only when served with a sauce?

Perhaps an interaction with fat in the sauce delayed its absorption.

But the number of calories in the meal remains the same no matter how rapidly it is absorbed, or how old it is, so this cannot be an excuse for eating more.

Interesting observations and questions, thank you.

I think there is also the question of how the pasta is served. Canny Italians and their acolytes reserve some of the pasta cooking water to make the sauce, and this must be laden with some form of starch, surely.

If the pasta is rinsed in the act of cooling it in this experiment, this starch will have been largely washed off. However this does not explain the observed result on reheating the pasta.

[hedgehog]

not eating more in terms of calories, sure, but for diabetics the possibility of avoiding a nasty peak in blood sugars is appealing. Diabetes is rife in my family and I'll likely get it despite keeping weight down, exercising regularly and trying to avoid too many carbohydrates, let alone sugar. I wouldn't trust the results as they appear now, but it's certainly worth extra investigation!

[Bryn]

I would want to know a little more. "Resistant starch" that takes longer to break down is an appealing idea. The so-called trial used only a small number of people. I would like to see it replicated, and also like to be given a biochemical reason for it. Has it been done with pasta alone or is it only when served with a sauce?

Perhaps an interaction with fat in the sauce delayed its absorption.

But the number of calories in the meal remains the same no matter how rapidly it is absorbed, or how old it is, so this cannot be an excuse for eating more.

Ah, but what proportion of those calories is actually metabolised in the different preparation schemes?

[Flay]

Ah, but what proportion of those calories is actually metabolised in the different preparation schemes?

I am sure all are, but just a little more slowly.