As if we needed more proof that it is critical to carefully vet the sources we use for what we read… This quote, at least, is definite proof that the Reader’s Digest does not make the grade. Have a look at this:
Because pasta is extruded to make shapes, it takes longer to digest, so even though it has the same ingredients as white bread, it doesn’t cause a rapid sugar spike.”
First I would like to understand how in heaven the author of this glorious quote [Sara Baer-Sinnott, the President (!!!) of a Food and Nutrition non-profit named Oldways] decided that extruding pasta “to make shapes” makes it harder to digest. Where in the world is the logic to this?
Then I would like to understand how Sara Baer-Sinnott actually MEASURED the fact that pasta does not spike BG. Doesn’t she think that such an assertion deserves a little bit of experimental validation? I have a hard time dealing with horse crap (also extruded in shapes, by the way) of this caliber - it reminds me of Goebbels: the bigger the lie the easier it is to make people believe it. This one is a whopper!
Finally, I would like to understand how the Reader’s Digest actually fact-checks its articles. If they had spent 15 seconds on this one they would have gotten their answer, which tells me that they do not fact-check at all.
Here are my slightly more scientific conclusions to this article:
do not use the Reader’s Digest to draw any conclusions whatsoever about diet, diagnosis, or medical protocols;
take Oldways off your list of non-profits to fund;
Sara Baer-Sinnott is a horse’s a$$ whose extrusions cannot be trusted.
Interestingly, just last week I dosed for a meal using my normal I:CR, ate pasta salad, and I actually dropped - 112 pre-meal, 78 1 hr pp, 74 at 1.5 hrs, ate 10g carbs (chocolate), and that had only brought me up to 87 when I checked an hour and a half later (usually would raise me more than that). I dont know if full blown diabetics experience the effects of resistant starches (like cold or reheated pasta), but I obviously do. I ate leftovers the next day and ate 50 carbs of pasta salad, dosing for only 35 of those carbs, and I went from 89 to 103. I’m a big fan of pasta salad now.
The science behind this, is that when pasta is extruded into shapes that are extremely difficult to pick up and hold with a fork, it takes much longer to eat it. People will generally tire of trying to balance the pasta on their silverware and will give up much sooner than they will when pasta is extruded into shapes that are easier to eat. By giving up on their dinner and not eating as much, certain shapes of pasta will not lead to a rise in blood sugar.
I read another article a few months back from Reader’s Digest that was wildly uncritical of a “promising” diabetes cure. No outside sources, etc. and clearly no robust fact-checking. It’s odd because Reader’s Digest sends out a print magazine, which means they surely have a production timeline that allows for pretty decent fact-checking. It has also historically been considered the creme of the crop in terms of freelance pay rates, so you’d expect the quality of the information they provide to be, if not high (given the audience), at least vetted in some way. Of course, with so much changing in the journalism field, I’m not sure what they do nowadays.
On the other hand, I would say pasta does not raise our son’s BG nearly as much as anything else with so many carbs would. So in our case this happens, by chance, to be true.
We find regular pasta to be demanding in insulin, in particular with heavy sauces. We are able to avoid the big spikes by switching to bean pasta (or other exotic pastas). But even then we still use plenty of insulin
he uses insulin but a lot less than you’d expect. So for instance, for 37 grams of pasta, with an I:C of 1:23, he uses 0.6 units up front, and then maybe another 0.6 units over the course of a few hours after. So less than his total I:C would predict. We actually only eat whole-wheat pasta at home though.
That’s the surprising thing for me - I have celiac disease, so I generally eat corn-based pasta, and still need less insulin. I’d think the simple carbs would require at least normal dosing if not a little more, but that’s not the case.
Resistant starches are only present in cold pasta (not reheated—the heating kills them again), but they might make some difference in cold/room-temp pasta, potatoes, and rice (all of which form resistant starch after being heated and cooled, and then lose it when re-heated). I’m not convinced that for me, as a T1, they make a huge difference, but I haven’t done enough careful experimentation with those foods to be sure. Would be an interesting experiment for some of you folks who like to do those things
Plus sauce, cheese maybe milk and skip the bread on the side.
Quick and tasty and gluten free. Protein and Fat are high enough relative to the carbs that we use the total approach, ie, 100% carbs, 50% protein, 10% fat. Carbs bolus up front, and protein/fat extended bolus over 3 hrs (0%/100%).
Admittedly we did not take the shape of the pasta into account per the Reader’s Digest suggestion. Clearly our bad.
I really shouldn’t write this because I created this tag - but I must say that every time I look at the main page I have to smile at the “horsecrap” tag under the “Pasta doesn’t raise blood sugars” thread title.
hilarious. Thanks for the laugh.
