"Net" Carbs.... "Digstible" Carbs???

x-no-archive: yes

Kitt said:

Just bought a box of "Dreamfields" macaroni elbows. The front of the
box says 5 grams of 'digestible' carbs. The carb count is 42 per half
cup dry with 4 grams of dietary fiber. No mention of sugar alcohols or
anything else that looks like it should or could be subtracted. Any
ideas on how they're justifying the 5 gram number?

They're claiming that a patentable process prevents digestion of the
starch matrix of the wheat.

Experiences show otherwise, however, for those of us who use blood
glucose meters to test the effect of foods on our bg.

Many folks can eat Dreamfields pasta (small servings, as listed on the
package) with no serious blood glucose rise. Many, however, have found
that the bg spike is merely delayed, not prevented. Testing shows that
for many of us, it happens 3-5 hours after eating instead of the usual
one hour, and it lasts far longer than the spike caused by regular pasta.

It's a YMMV product, but don't believe the 5 digestible gram label for a
second.

Susan

Thanks Susan. I kind of figured it was some kind of voodoo labeling,
but I tried it anyway right after I posted. I can't claim to a true
adherent of strict low carb, as I allow myself too many cheats. But,
it never hurts to make the cheats as low carb as possible. The
Dreamfields was quite good compared to the soy pasta and even better
than Mueller's "reduced" carb pasta which nets out at 19 grams per 2/3
cup serving. Anyhoo, I guess this is an acceptable food for my day
off. I try to stay under 75 grams total on my one cheat day per week
and under 40 the rest of the week. Now, if I could just get off my
lazy butt more and do smaller portions, I'm set for a a big whoosh. As
it is, I'm maybe losing a little and most importantly, not gaining.

I had a prove it to myself session after an injury a little over a year
ago. I've been doing some form of reduced carb eating since I first
read the original "Carbohydrate Addicts Diet" quite a few years ago,
until I sprained my ankle early last summer. I ate whatever landed in
front of me for about three months and gained nearly thirty pounds.
After a couple weeks of induction and another eight or ten months of
what I describe above, I've lost the thirty plus a couple and now I
need to get rid of the next fifty. Bottom line, I've proven the
validity of low carb eating to myself all over again. Sorry for
babbling and thanks again for the input.

Kitt

Susan said:

x-no-archive: yes

Kitt said:

Just bought a box of "Dreamfields" macaroni elbows. The front of the
box says 5 grams of 'digestible' carbs. The carb count is 42 per half
cup dry with 4 grams of dietary fiber. No mention of sugar alcohols or
anything else that looks like it should or could be subtracted. Any
ideas on how they're justifying the 5 gram number?

They're claiming that a patentable process prevents digestion of the
starch matrix of the wheat.

Experiences show otherwise, however, for those of us who use blood
glucose meters to test the effect of foods on our bg.

Many folks can eat Dreamfields pasta (small servings, as listed on the
package) with no serious blood glucose rise. Many, however, have found
that the bg spike is merely delayed, not prevented. Testing shows that
for many of us, it happens 3-5 hours after eating instead of the usual
one hour, and it lasts far longer than the spike caused by regular pasta.

It's a YMMV product, but don't believe the 5 digestible gram label for a
second.

Susan

x-no-archive: yes

Kitt said:

Thanks Susan. I kind of figured it was some kind of voodoo labeling,
but I tried it anyway right after I posted. I can't claim to a true
adherent of strict low carb, as I allow myself too many cheats. But,
it never hurts to make the cheats as low carb as possible. The
Dreamfields was quite good compared to the soy pasta and even better
than Mueller's "reduced" carb pasta which nets out at 19 grams per 2/3
cup serving.

I can't stqnd any of the soy based or enhanced products, bleah.
Dreamfields is made from semolina, IIRC, and it tastes just like regular
pasta. I do note that even though my BG rose high and stayed high
after eating it, Dreamfields did not cause the immediate post meal bloat
that normal white flour pasta would.

Quoted message said:

Anyhoo, I guess this is an acceptable food for my day
off. I try to stay under 75 grams total on my one cheat day per week
and under 40 the rest of the week. Now, if I could just get off my
lazy butt more and do smaller portions, I'm set for a a big whoosh. As
it is, I'm maybe losing a little and most importantly, not gaining.

I had a prove it to myself session after an injury a little over a year
ago. I've been doing some form of reduced carb eating since I first
read the original "Carbohydrate Addicts Diet" quite a few years ago,
until I sprained my ankle early last summer. I ate whatever landed in
front of me for about three months and gained nearly thirty pounds.
After a couple weeks of induction and another eight or ten months of
what I describe above, I've lost the thirty plus a couple and now I
need to get rid of the next fifty. Bottom line, I've proven the
validity of low carb eating to myself all over again. Sorry for
babbling and thanks again for the input.

Kitt

Slow and steady is better than not doing anything for yourself... keep
it up!

Susan

The BG spikes after eating Dreamfields pastas only seem to affect people
who are pre- or already diabetic, and not even to all of them. I've eaten
Dreamfields pastas for an entire week for lunch and still continued to lose
weight staying at 40g net carbs/day and that was counting only the
digestible carbs that Dreamfields claim. We have NEVER heard from anyone
who is not diabetic that they've had a problem with Dreamfields.

Susan said:

They're claiming that a patentable process prevents digestion of the
starch matrix of the wheat.

Experiences show otherwise, however, for those of us who use blood
glucose meters to test the effect of foods on our bg.

Many folks can eat Dreamfields pasta (small servings, as listed on the
package) with no serious blood glucose rise. Many, however, have found
that the bg spike is merely delayed, not prevented. Testing shows that
for many of us, it happens 3-5 hours after eating instead of the usual
one hour, and it lasts far longer than the spike caused by regular pasta.

It's a YMMV product, but don't believe the 5 digestible gram label for a
second.

-----
Bev

x-no-archive: yes

Bev-Ann said:

The BG spikes after eating Dreamfields pastas only seem to affect people
who are pre- or already diabetic, and not even to all of them.

This may be true, IME. My point is that it completely puts the lie to
the claim that 37 grams of carbohydrate are reliably undigestible.

Further, the folks looking for low carb foods are often, if not most
often, insulin resistant (approx 1/4 - 1/3 of the total population, and
most of the obese population) or diabetic. This makes the claim
especially irresponsible, IMO. Legally ctionable, even.

I've eaten

Quoted message said:

Dreamfields pastas for an entire week for lunch and still continued to lose
weight staying at 40g net carbs/day and that was counting only the
digestible carbs that Dreamfields claim. We have NEVER heard from anyone
who is not diabetic that they've had a problem with Dreamfields.

Uh, Bev-Ann? How many non-diabetics do you know who use BG meters to
test the effect of foods post-meal? I was one of those who said I had
no problem with it until I got a glucose meter, so not hearing from
anyone says nothing about whether they're digesting the carbs without
knowing it, your own weight loss notwithstanding.

Susan

I was thinking that too, Susan. Only the diabetics normally test for bg, so
they'd be the only one to know if their bg was being spiked. However, I
think what Bev-Ann probably meant was that the "normals" didn't get the
symptoms (aka problems) from Dreamfields that they'd tend to get from other
white flour products - cravings, etc.

By the way, I tend to agree with you that Dreamfields has a serious
truth-in-labeling issue. Although I love the stuff, and don't get cravings
from it (and don't test bg so have no idea about any bg spike that might or
might not occur), the fact that diabetics are getting elevated bgs from it
is pretty good evidence that their claims for it are untrue. I've stopped
using it (except for once in a blue moon) for that reason.

HG

"Susan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Uh, Bev-Ann? How many non-diabetics do you know who use BG meters to test
the effect of foods post-meal? I was one of those who said I had no
problem with it until I got a glucose meter, so not hearing from anyone
says nothing about whether they're digesting the carbs without knowing it,
your own weight loss notwithstanding.

Here's what Dreamfields says:

How is the level of digestible carbohydrate established for Dreamfields
pasta?

A clinical testing method utilizing healthy human subjects is used to
measure the levels of digestible carbohydrate contained in DREAMFIELDS
pasta. The clinical tests are designated as "in vivo" testing or
testing that utilizes a living being, as this is the only known way to
establish how the body will process a specific food to create a blood
glucose response. The shape and area under a blood glucose response
curve is used to determine the level of digestible carbohydrate in a
food and if the body is properly processing digested carbohydrates
appropriately. DREAMFIELDS clinical testing is conducted at an
independent laboratory that complies with FDA guidelines.

x-no-archive: yes

Quoted message said:

Here's what Dreamfields says:

How is the level of digestible carbohydrate established for Dreamfields
pasta?

A clinical testing method utilizing healthy human subjects is used to
measure the levels of digestible carbohydrate contained in DREAMFIELDS
pasta. The clinical tests are designated as "in vivo" testing or
testing that utilizes a living being, as this is the only known way to
establish how the body will process a specific food to create a blood
glucose response. The shape and area under a blood glucose response
curve is used to determine the level of digestible carbohydrate in a
food and if the body is properly processing digested carbohydrates
appropriately. DREAMFIELDS clinical testing is conducted at an
independent laboratory that complies with FDA guidelines.

That's the problem; Dreamfields probably tested at one and two hours.
For many folks, it's longer than that, maybe for most folks, til the spike.

They're selling something: I'm not.

Susan

You're right, most non-diabetics have no reason to test their BG. But I'm
not the only non-diabetic who eats Dreamfields on a regular basis and has
no problems with it. Trust me, if we started to gain weight, we'd stop
using their products without needing to test our BG.
Dreamfields claims are based on tests of healthy individuals. It's
possible that diabetics are digesting something in their products
differently than healthy people. It's likely similar to why a lot of
people, like me, react badly to sugar alcohols because we can't digest them
and then there are some who have no problem digesting them so should stay
away from them on an LC eating plan. That doesn't mean that SA's claims to
be LC-friendly are false.

Susan said:

Bev-Ann said:

The BG spikes after eating Dreamfields pastas only seem to affect people
who are pre- or already diabetic, and not even to all of them.

This may be true, IME. My point is that it completely puts the lie to
the claim that 37 grams of carbohydrate are reliably undigestible.

Further, the folks looking for low carb foods are often, if not most
often, insulin resistant (approx 1/4 - 1/3 of the total population, and
most of the obese population) or diabetic. This makes the claim
especially irresponsible, IMO. Legally ctionable, even.

I've eaten

Quoted message said:

Dreamfields pastas for an entire week for lunch and still continued to lose
weight staying at 40g net carbs/day and that was counting only the
digestible carbs that Dreamfields claim. We have NEVER heard from anyone
who is not diabetic that they've had a problem with Dreamfields.

Uh, Bev-Ann? How many non-diabetics do you know who use BG meters to
test the effect of foods post-meal? I was one of those who said I had
no problem with it until I got a glucose meter, so not hearing from
anyone says nothing about whether they're digesting the carbs without
knowing it, your own weight loss notwithstanding.

-----
Bev

x-no-archive: yes

Bev-Ann said:

You're right, most non-diabetics have no reason to test their BG. But I'm
not the only non-diabetic who eats Dreamfields on a regular basis and has
no problems with it. Trust me, if we started to gain weight, we'd stop
using their products without needing to test our BG.

That's fine and dandy; but it doesn't mean that it's 5 grms of
digestible carb, the point I'm disputing.

Quoted message said:

Dreamfields claims are based on tests of healthy individuals. It's
possible that diabetics are digesting something in their products
differently than healthy people.

That still doesn't mean it was only 5 grams of digestible carbs. I also
don't believe they tested beyond two hours post prandial.

It's likely similar to why a lot of

Quoted message said:

people, like me, react badly to sugar alcohols because we can't digest them
and then there are some who have no problem digesting them so should stay
away from them on an LC eating plan. That doesn't mean that SA's claims to
be LC-friendly are false.

I disagree. I believe a claim should be true, not partially true for
some people.

My only point, in answer to the first questioner is, that for many if
not most of those who have tested their bg periodically, hourly, after
eating Dreamfields, it causes a delayed spike in bg that would not be
caused by only 5 digestible carb grams. I'm not telling anyone not to
eat it, just not to necessarily buy that claim.

The more important point is that if you're overweight and low carb is
working for you where other diets haven't, you're probably insulin
resistant, and those carbs aren't going to be low for you, either. If
you're diabetic and you accept their claim and you test only til two
hours, you won't know that it's damaging your kidneys, eyes, vascular
system and peripheral nerves. Not small issues.

You may continue to lose weight if it fits into your overall eating
plan, and that's just fine with me. :-)

Susan

Their claim appears to be true for the majority of the population. A lot
of products will specifically say that they should be used with caution by
diabetics, and maybe that's where the problem lies. It still doesn't make
their claim false. It only means that diabetics react differently. And no
one said that Dreamfields was targeting overweight people, only people in
general on LC eating plans. Not everyone who follows LC is or was
overweight or diabetic. LC is recommended for a lot of health reasons.
Weight-loss is only a side-effect, not the focus of it.

Susan said:

x-no-archive: yes

Bev-Ann said:

You're right, most non-diabetics have no reason to test their BG. But I'm
not the only non-diabetic who eats Dreamfields on a regular basis and has
no problems with it. Trust me, if we started to gain weight, we'd stop
using their products without needing to test our BG.

That's fine and dandy; but it doesn't mean that it's 5 grms of
digestible carb, the point I'm disputing.

Quoted message said:

Dreamfields claims are based on tests of healthy individuals. It's
possible that diabetics are digesting something in their products
differently than healthy people.

That still doesn't mean it was only 5 grams of digestible carbs. I also
don't believe they tested beyond two hours post prandial.

It's likely similar to why a lot of

Quoted message said:

people, like me, react badly to sugar alcohols because we can't digest them
and then there are some who have no problem digesting them so should stay
away from them on an LC eating plan. That doesn't mean that SA's claims to
be LC-friendly are false.

I disagree. I believe a claim should be true, not partially true for
some people.

My only point, in answer to the first questioner is, that for many if
not most of those who have tested their bg periodically, hourly, after
eating Dreamfields, it causes a delayed spike in bg that would not be
caused by only 5 digestible carb grams. I'm not telling anyone not to
eat it, just not to necessarily buy that claim.

The more important point is that if you're overweight and low carb is
working for you where other diets haven't, you're probably insulin
resistant, and those carbs aren't going to be low for you, either. If
you're diabetic and you accept their claim and you test only til two
hours, you won't know that it's damaging your kidneys, eyes, vascular
system and peripheral nerves. Not small issues.

You may continue to lose weight if it fits into your overall eating
plan, and that's just fine with me. :-)

-----
Bev

x-no-archive: yes

Bev-Ann said:

Their claim appears to be true for the majority of the population.

We have absolutely zero proof that a majority of the population digests
only 5 grams of carbs.

A lot

Quoted message said:

of products will specifically say that they should be used with caution by
diabetics, and maybe that's where the problem lies.

Dreamfields doesn't make that cautionary statement.

It still doesn't make

Quoted message said:

their claim false.

Yes, it does. The carbs are either digestible or they're not. But
Dreamfields has plans to patent the alleged starch matrix technology and
to produce other foods with it. Cautioning their biggest potential
market, those who must limit carbs, would be bad for business.

Quoted message said:

It only means that diabetics react differently.

Bev-Ann, please show me where Dreamfields has proven that no one else
digests more than 5 grams of carbs, or where they've tested for several
hours post prandial.

And no

Quoted message said:

one said that Dreamfields was targeting overweight people, only people in
general on LC eating plans. Not everyone who follows LC is or was
overweight or diabetic. LC is recommended for a lot of health reasons.
Weight-loss is only a side-effect, not the focus of it.

What other health reasons, not involving obesity or the metabolic
syndrome, is low carb recommended for?

I'm scratching my head over your suggestion that Dreamfields isn't
targeting overweight folks or those who are IR... I mean, that's most
of the U.S. population.

Susan

Pasta is not low carb.

--
Most people are dumb as bricks; some people are dumber than that. -- MFW

"Kitt" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Just bought a box of "Dreamfields" macaroni elbows. The front of the
box says 5 grams of 'digestible' carbs. The carb count is 42 per half
cup dry with 4 grams of dietary fiber. No mention of sugar alcohols or
anything else that looks like it should or could be subtracted. Any
ideas on how they're justifying the 5 gram number?

Read the books by Drs. Eades on the Protein Power Plan. They are metabolic
physicians. Their focus is the health aspects of LC, namely heart disease,
high blood pressure and many types of cancer. They do mention type 2
diabetes and obesity but again, that's not the focus as it is with Atkins.

Susan said:

What other health reasons, not involving obesity or the metabolic
syndrome, is low carb recommended for?

-----
Bev

It's got something to do with the xanthan gum, guar gum, etc. I don't know
how it works, but my wife has diabetes and she can eat Dreamfield's pasta
without having it adversely affect her blood sugar.

Larry Dow

"Kitt" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Just bought a box of "Dreamfields" macaroni elbows. The front of the
box says 5 grams of 'digestible' carbs. The carb count is 42 per half
cup dry with 4 grams of dietary fiber. No mention of sugar alcohols or
anything else that looks like it should or could be subtracted. Any
ideas on how they're justifying the 5 gram number?

x-no-archive: yes

Bev-Ann said:

Read the books by Drs. Eades on the Protein Power Plan.

I did, years ago.

They are metabolic

Quoted message said:

physicians. Their focus is the health aspects of LC, namely heart disease,
high blood pressure and many types of cancer. They do mention type 2
diabetes and obesity but again, that's not the focus as it is with Atkins.

All of those are related to metabolic syndrome, insulin resistance.

They also maintain a very tight focus, for the most part, on weight
loss, as do all the other LC plans.

Susan

x-no-archive: yes

Larry Dow said:

It's got something to do with the xanthan gum, guar gum, etc. I don't know
how it works, but my wife has diabetes and she can eat Dreamfield's pasta
without having it adversely affect her blood sugar.

Larry Dow

How many hours after eating it does she test?

I thought I had no problem til I tested for more than 3 hours.

Susan

x-no-archive: yes

Hannah Gruen said:

I was thinking that too, Susan. Only the diabetics normally test for bg, so
they'd be the only one to know if their bg was being spiked. However, I
think what Bev-Ann probably meant was that the "normals" didn't get the
symptoms (aka problems) from Dreamfields that they'd tend to get from other
white flour products - cravings, etc.

Here's the thing; I'm a diabetic, and the slowness of digestion of
Dreamfields keeps me from getting the symptoms, too.

BevAnn is clearly arguing that Dreamfields only has 5 grams digestible
carbs, and we've established that's not true by testting longer than 2
hours post meal.

Quoted message said:

By the way, I tend to agree with you that Dreamfields has a serious
truth-in-labeling issue. Although I love the stuff, and don't get cravings
from it (and don't test bg so have no idea about any bg spike that might or
might not occur), the fact that diabetics are getting elevated bgs from it
is pretty good evidence that their claims for it are untrue. I've stopped
using it (except for once in a blue moon) for that reason.

I haven't got a position on whether folks should eat it or not; I still
buy it for my family, but I eat it only rarely, and in small quanities.
I plan a two hour post meal walk to deal with the BG spike, which is
very tenacious, unlike with other foods.

Clearly, the labeling is deceitful.

Susan

Bev-Ann said:

You're right, most non-diabetics have no reason to test their BG. But I'm
not the only non-diabetic who eats Dreamfields on a regular basis and has
no problems with it. Trust me, if we started to gain weight, we'd stop
using their products without needing to test our BG.
Dreamfields claims are based on tests of healthy individuals. It's
possible that diabetics are digesting something in their products
differently than healthy people. It's likely similar to why a lot of
people, like me, react badly to sugar alcohols because we can't digest them
and then there are some who have no problem digesting them so should stay
away from them on an LC eating plan. That doesn't mean that SA's claims to
be LC-friendly are false.

I concur, both with logic and experience.

I am a non-diabetic. I will shoot any sugar alcohol when I have more
than 10 grams. I enjoy Dreamfields and do not have any of the problems
I had with carbs before. I am not BG monitoring (not a problem I have
presently, and one I don't wish to have in the future), but with
regular pasta (and breads, etc) I get hunger pangs (later), tired
(sooner), lethargic (immediately), etc. Not so with Dreamfield's.

I am not selling anything either. Though I bought a bunch of DF because
it was on sale through Sunday.

FWIW, I made a really good Mac and Cheese (baked with 4 cheeses) that I
proceeded to eat over the next 5 days (8 servings from a box, per
directions, DW had one) as dinner sides or lunches, and felt just as
good as I usually do on LC.

Definitely, mileage variance exists. No doubt.

-Hollywood