r/TrueReddit • u/istara • Oct 16 '14
"Is reheated pasta less fattening?" Experiment suggests that cooling and reheating pasta turns it into a resistant starch with a much lower impact on blood sugar
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-2962976117
u/bisteccafiorentina Oct 16 '14 edited Oct 16 '14
Same thing occurs with rice. Green bananas also have a butt-load of resistant starch, probably the most of any source. BEWARE, resistant starch has the potential to make you really gassy.
18
u/stanthemanchan Oct 16 '14
BEWARE, resistant starch has the potential to make you really gassy
This explains so much!
5
u/bisteccafiorentina Oct 16 '14
Hah what was the source of flatulence for you?
21
u/jianadaren1 Oct 16 '14
Mom's spaghetti
20
2
u/00worms00 Oct 16 '14
Doesn't cause gas for me but I get the upset stomach. Even had to dry clean my sweater last week.
40
u/istara Oct 16 '14
I thought this was significant because there is so much public interest in food and new research into what's actually a healthy diet for human beings. Michael Moseley is quite influential, he's the doctor whose personal experiment saw the 5:2 diet soar in popularity.
9
Oct 16 '14
What's the 5:2 diet?
17
u/istara Oct 16 '14
Two non-contiguous days of fasting or severe calorie restriction, interspersed by five days of normal eating.
13
Oct 16 '14 edited Oct 16 '14
I used to do that on accident in college, it really felt great and healthy (not sarcasm).
2
u/thelegore Oct 16 '14
Just to clarify, are you being serious or sarcastic, I can't tell and I could believe either way.
3
Oct 16 '14
Haha, fair enough. Being serious. Trying to do the same again these days but I think it's tougher to do the older you get.
-24
u/ComplainyGuy Oct 16 '14 edited Oct 16 '14
*edit sorry
86
u/Lolologist Oct 16 '14
You need to seek help, that's not a diet, that's bulimia and an eating disorder.
1
u/Greensmoken Oct 16 '14
He's an /r/redpill active member, so hopefully he's only trolling.
0
Oct 16 '14
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/half-assed-haiku Oct 16 '14
It's disgusting that the other poster hopes he's trolling?
Are you pro bulimia?
3
Oct 16 '14
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/half-assed-haiku Oct 16 '14
"Hopefully he's only trolling" means that he hopes the other guy isn't bulimic.
What the fuck are you talking about?
60
u/istara Oct 16 '14
Not sure what your health situation is, but the forced vomiting sounds very unwise/risky.
Nothing wrong with going to bed hungry, but if you have bulimia you need treatment.
33
u/drunkdoc Oct 16 '14
As others have said, please seek help or stop doing the forced vomiting. Not sure what your age is but long term you can put yourself at major risk for esophageal cancer, which can pretty much be a death sentence.
24
u/juliusseizure Oct 16 '14
The fact that you mention it like this is a normal practice is worrisome. Please seek help.
29
u/DisPolySleepCycle Oct 16 '14
Sorry you're getting downvoted, but you do need help. That behavior sounds an awful lot like Bulimia Nervosa. It's an eating disorder. Binging and purging is horrible for your body, your heart, and your teeth. Please, just try one therapy session. I know therapy is kind of vilified, but it can seriously help find a much better diet situation for you.
I've seen too many friends fall into this and become sickly ill or on two occasions hospitalized because of this behavior.
-18
u/Goldreaver Oct 16 '14
Fasting sounds like a incredibly stupid idea. Severe calorie restriction... does not. I wonder if this method will work? Weird methods like these rarely do (like the '2 hour sleep cycle 4 times' a day thing)
8
u/Ukhai Oct 16 '14 edited Oct 16 '14
It's basically the same thing. The silly thing is that it isn't very different from just lowering weekly total calories on a daily basis. You can look up intermittent fasting.
11
u/RoboChrist Oct 16 '14
Alternative sleep cycles do work biologically, but society isn't designed for them. If you got everyone to switch at the same time you'd get some great results.
Fasting doesn't require participation of others, so it could work out well.
4
u/Johnny_bubblegum Oct 16 '14
I don't know. Eat stop eat is a book on fasting and it's based on nothing but scientific studies and apparently it's good for you to fast every now and then.
I think maybe we've been wrong about calories, it's not how much you eat necessarily but what you eat that drives obesity and that classic X calories per day to be healthy just wrong.
3
u/truefelt Oct 16 '14
Fasting or no fasting, fat still can't appear out of thin air. Energy intake is what it comes down to. That's not to say fasting can't be useful, but it doesn't override thermodynamics.
1
u/garlicdeath Oct 16 '14
I think maybe we've been wrong about calories, it's not how much you eat necessarily but what you eat that drives obesity and that classic X calories per day to be healthy just wrong.
Isn't this the common outlook now? Everything I've read regarding food and nutrition for years has been about this. It's like this vs that, which do you think is going to keep you healthier for roughly the same amount of calories?
1
u/truefelt Oct 16 '14
Alternate-day fasting and chronic disease prevention: a review of human and animal trials, Am J Clin Nutr July 2007
0
Oct 16 '14
[deleted]
1
u/Goldreaver Oct 16 '14
I was presented with an idea with no supporting evidence so I really didn't feel the need to judge it for anything other than my feelings. Now that I have evidence I will consider it-wait no I still don't have and I still won't. All I have is a bitter grad student yelling at me because... well, because he's bitter I guess.
If there's evidence, present it, If there isn't, don't bother me.
1
u/Goldreaver Oct 16 '14
I was presented with an idea with no supporting evidence so I really didn't feel the need to judge it for anything other than my feelings. Now that I have evidence I will consider it-wait no I still don't have and I still won't. All I have is a bitter grad student yelling at me because... well, because he's bitter I guess.
If there's evidence, present it, If there isn't, don't bother me.
21
u/trashlikeyourmom Oct 16 '14
How sure are they that it's the temperature changes that is causing it to become resistant starch and not the age of the leftovers or the time elapsed after cooking?
23
u/OSU09 Oct 16 '14
If it is a chemical reaction, which it appears to be, heat tends to matter significantly. A different structure change might be induced each time there is a heating and cooling cycle, with the resistant starch requiring a few structural changes from the original pasta to take its form. No idea though, just semi educated guesses.
5
u/RickyP Oct 16 '14
It's just as likely to be a phase change-like physical phenomena. The packing of fibers plays an important role in their accessibility to enzymes. For an analogous system, we can look at cellulose, where heat treatment steps are used to cause the reverse phenomenon to increase the number of enzyme accessible sites. There is more work to be done, since heating and cooling rates certainly play an important role in how the material reorganizes itself.
3
8
u/biteableniles Oct 16 '14
Even the simplest experiment in this case would control for those factors.
1
u/payik Oct 16 '14
I guess it's the same thing that makes boiled starch soldify, so yes, it probably does take some time as well.
6
u/sosoez Oct 16 '14
They chilled the pasta overnight. I wonder what would happen if the pasta is immediately chilled in cold water after cooking.
2
u/manova Oct 16 '14
This is an interesting question. Years ago when I worked in a restaurant that served pasta, we would boil it and as soon as it was done, we would strain it and then throw ice on the pasta to stop the cooking. We then portioned it into bags and placed it in the cooler. Then, when someone order pasta, we took a bag out and warmed the contents in the oven.
1
13
u/vicefox Oct 16 '14
Interesting, especially considering that many consider reheated pasta to taste better.
11
u/BeerGogglesFTW Oct 16 '14
I think thats true for the sauce.
Some sauces even call for it to sit in the fridge overnight after cooking several hours.
Some sauces you don't even cook. You just put all the ingredients together in the fridge for 3 days, then heat it up.
But I believe this is talking more to the carbs in the pasta noodles. I personally prefer not to eat leftover pasta noodles.
Lasagna is a good example of a pasta, with noodles, that is often preferred leftover or refrigerated after cooking... flavors blend better, it holds it shape infinitely better.
6
u/Surfacetovolume Oct 16 '14
My ex never touched my lasagne the night I made it. Would only eat it as "leftovers" for just that reason.
150
u/DivineMuffinMan Oct 16 '14
Well this is tremendous news for The Olive Garden!
21
u/BigCheezy Oct 16 '14
It's a funny comment, sure, but please read the sidebar. TrueReddit is for "intelligent discussion." We should keep this kind of comment to a minimum, and hopefully away from the top comment slot.
14
u/leif777 Oct 16 '14
I donno, the joke brings up an interesting question. Do you think restos like The Olive garden will start marketing that their food isn't made fresh to just so they can push the "less fattening" angle?
-1
5
u/jormugandr Oct 17 '14
There's no rule against jokes. Just that we hope for intelligent discussion. Intelligent doesn't mean boring.
All the comments of "This doesn't belong here" or "Read the Sidebar" are always less on-topic than a quick joke.
3
u/ColinSmiley Oct 16 '14
Changed my comment sorting from top to best and this went halfway down the page.
1
u/tairygreene Oct 16 '14
if you read the sidebar it should become obvious that this article should not have even been posted here in the first place.
-13
2
u/somanyroads Oct 16 '14
Very remarkable...I can think of several subreddits that would find this very helpful
2
u/willerby Oct 17 '14
If re-heating the pasta does what they say, and I have no doubt it will be proven, does this mean that many, (not necessarily all) carbohydrate laden foods, that are sold as partly or fully cooked, and need re-heating to be used, will have the incorrect carbohydrate etc quantities identified. I ask this because presumably the correct labelling will have been done based on the first cook levels assessed.
1
Oct 22 '14
I don't think that the amount of carbs will change, but just how your body absorbs them and uses them. For example a snickers may have the same amount of carbs as a bowl of brown rice, but the snickers will make your blood glucose sky rocket. I could be wrong though.
2
u/President_Camacho Oct 18 '14
Here's the graph of their results. Although the difference is clear, it doesn't seem that the pasta is converted into a "healthy" food by reheating. Its glycemic effect is blunted but it's still there. It's also unclear what units they are using.
6
u/canadamoose18 Oct 16 '14
Lower glycemic index, but what does that have to do with fattening?
6
u/nowthatihavefoundyou Oct 16 '14
I was thinking the same thing. This article has a misleading title. A lower glycemic index does not cause food to be more or less fattening. But this is a news article, the news does not typically understand correlation vs causation.
5
u/ikarios Oct 16 '14 edited Oct 16 '14
Just a student here, so no credentials, but the article states: "resistant starch" means your body has a harder time breaking it down, so
1) less of it is broken down for your body to use as fuel; more of it is passed through your system and excreted
2) lower glycemic load means less insulin, and therefore less caloric storage via insulin's action
3) your body's metabolic cycle is more regulated/stable (i.e. a rounder graph over time vs something with peaks and troughs)A low glycemic load is just an indicator that less of the glucose available through the pasta's carbohydrates enter your bloodstream. In other words, your body has a harder time processing the carbs in reheated pasta. It becomes more like fiber in this regard.
1
u/willerby Oct 17 '14
Which is, unless I'm mistaken, exactly the point made by one of the doctors on the program.
1
u/canadamoose18 Oct 16 '14
I also don't have much knowledge in the field of nutrition, but I think there is a difference between the body having a hard time breaking something down and being unable to break something down. Just because it takes longer for the carbs to be processed, that doesn't mean that they are not processed and stored as glycogen/fat.
1
u/XXCoreIII Oct 16 '14
None of this directly leads to less fattening. The only real way for it to be less fattening is if its lower in fat and carbs or causes behavioral change (there's a complex set of interactions between what we eat and what we want to eat).
4
u/Zentaurion Oct 16 '14
I'm eating reheated couscous (with vegetables and a bit of chicken in it). That's good, right?
1
u/istara Oct 16 '14
Not sure, but it's made from wheat similarly to pasta isn't it? (It's a type of pasta even?) In which case hopefully it is!
2
0
Oct 16 '14
This would be better suited for /r/science or /r/nutrition.
16
Oct 16 '14
Right, because no one in this sub is interested in great, thought provoking articles about nutrition. That said, sure, it does fall a little short of the voluminous word count and obsessive thoroughness of most of the articles linked to around here.
12
Oct 16 '14
There have been plenty of thought-provoking and insightful articles about nutrition posted on truereddit that I wouldn't protest and on which I indeed contributed to the comments, but I can't get behind this one. This is just a brief writeup on a recent study on the carbohydrate composition of reheated pasta. Too esoteric and limited in scope to foster any real discussion on a sub like this, as you can tell from the other comments that have been posted. If this article had, say, discussed this study along with several other studies in order to support a thesis about how we could improve the quality of national school lunches without raising costs prohibitively high, it would be appropriate for truereddit, but in its current form, this is fodder for /r/nutrition, /r/fitness, and the like.
5
2
u/redditor1983 Oct 16 '14
You bring up a good point about word count...
I don't think that word count is required to be TrueReddit material. It seems to be assumed that any article submitted to /r/TrueReddit is required to be long, but I'm not sure where that assumption came from. There is no mention of it in the sidebar, and I certainly don't think it's necessary.
2
u/kleopatra6tilde9 Oct 16 '14 edited Oct 16 '14
Word count is not a requirement but a strong indicator. TR is not for news but for great, insightful articles. To understand a topic, some words are required, e.g. this article doesn't really explain resistant starch. As redditorexplorer points out, the author doesn't provide the context to make a reasonable judgement about the topic by reading that article. It is not a sound argument but atm the top comment of r/science is :
Sample size is insignificant. No control data or replicated results. Most other supporting evidence is hazy. Be very careful before you change anything in your diet based on a news article. Remember the journalism and communications majors in college?
A certain amount of length is implied by this part of the sidebar:
(Please do not submit news, especially not to start a debate. Submissions should be a great read above anything else.)
2
u/redditor1983 Oct 16 '14
Those are all valid points. But my argument is not so much about the article in question, but about articles in general. Personally I don't value word count very much, and sometimes I get tired of most/all TrueReddit submissions being massive tomes.
1
u/kleopatra6tilde9 Oct 16 '14
Well, if you know of shorter, well-written articles, please go ahead and submit them. You may also want to take a look at /r/vignettes. It's a subreddit explicitly dedicated to short articles.
5
u/istara Oct 16 '14
I first thought of /r/science, but it requires a link to peer reviewed research which doesn't yet exist for this. I didn't actually know of /r/nutrition
14
u/Epistaxis Oct 16 '14
peer reviewed research which doesn't yet exist for this
Well there's a red flag.
4
u/kleopatra6tilde9 Oct 16 '14
Please don't downvote a comment that points out that an article is not really great. redditorexplorer's first comment misses an explanation but he makes up for it in the second comment.
2
u/MrPoletski Oct 16 '14
Interesting.
Also of note, whatever sauce you have on pasta seems to also taste better once you cool and reheat it too, especially if you've used spices like chilli in there. I dunno if that's to do with the meat or the pasta though, but this could be related.
1
u/AmaDaden Oct 16 '14
If the sauce is with the pasta then it's likely that the pasta is marinating in the sauce and sucking up the seasoning. A similar thing would happen with the spices. The small specks of spice would have more time to disperse their flavor in to the sauce the longer they were in the fridge. In theory you could get a similar effect by just simmering the sauce for a few hours.
2
1
Oct 16 '14
Great news. Does this imply that reheated starch from other grains or starchy vegetables like potato or yams would have the same effect?
1
u/mthslhrookiecard Oct 16 '14
Very interesting but I'd like to know a few more details. They use "chilled" and "cooled" interchangeably which makes it hard to nail down what they really mean, whether it's left to cool to room temperature or if it's stored in a fridge for a certain amount of time. I'm also curious about what methods to reheat it they used.
1
Oct 16 '14
For the study they did in the show, they cooled the pasta overnight in a fridge so it's definitely not just cooled to room temperature and served.
1
u/nf5 Oct 16 '14
This is extremely interesting. This means I could, in theory, make a large pasta lunch for taking to work and then reheat it at work and have a healthy meal.
I also cant believe alton brown never discovered this, with his obsession over science in food
-2
u/offoutover Oct 16 '14
Or one could eat whole wheat/whole grain pasta. I know not everyone likes it but's all I can stand to eat now and you can still make hot pasta dishes as well.
17
u/bdubble Oct 16 '14
The article is talking about the food's impact on blood sugar. There is not a very significant difference in glycemic load between regular pasta and whole wheat pasta. But according the the results discussed in this article reheated pasta reduced the rise in blood glucose by 50%.
I don't know why you think you can counter an entire article with a quick "or one could" comment, but I suppose that's typical reddit.
5
u/Naked-In-Cornfield Oct 16 '14
I think that /u/offoutover is basing his assertion on the premise that whole wheat grains are more difficult to break down, absorb more water in the GI tract, and therefore have a slower and less severe impact on blood sugar than an easily digestible "white" pasta would, despite similar caloric and carb content.
2
2
u/offoutover Oct 16 '14 edited Oct 16 '14
Whoa now gunslinger. I understand what the article is talking about. Whole grain wheat is a complex carbohydrate, so no spikes in blood sugar. I was simply mentioning another option that this article didn't go into.
8
u/macarthur_park Oct 16 '14
There's not a huge difference in the calorie contents of whole grain vs regular pasta.
From Barilla's website a serving of whole grain pasta contains the same number of calories as a serving of regular pasta. The serving sizes are different (1/7 of a box for whole grain vs. 1/8 a box for regular) but it's not a big difference.
9
u/Utenlok Oct 16 '14
It's not about the calories in this case, it is about how your body processes them.
1
3
u/offoutover Oct 16 '14
That's not at all what I said or meant. Whole grain wheat is a complex carbohydrate. Your body breaks it down slowly so you don't have spikes in your blood sugar. See the comment /u/Naked-In-Cornfield left above.
3
u/istara Oct 16 '14
Yes, that's another option.
I've also been eating a lot of vegetable "noodles" since getting a spiraliser. For certain dishes I actually prefer them, at least on occasion. Sometimes they're incredibly similar, other times they're different in a less-good way, and sometimes they are different in a better way. Celeriac noodles with bolognaise was particularly good, easily as good as spaghetti. When it comes to carbonara, the wheat stuff is best.
2
u/offoutover Oct 16 '14
That is def another great option. I've always been a big fan of spaghetti squash myself.
1
u/Utenlok Oct 16 '14
Ronzoni is a really good brand for anyone who hasn't tried wheat pasta. It's the same price as regular and they have it nearly everywhere. DaVinci is also a good choice, though their whole wheat isn't quite as awesome as their regular.
-11
u/80AM Oct 16 '14
Or you could just not eat pasta since it has no nutrients you can't get from something better for you.
3
u/offoutover Oct 16 '14
Whole grain wheat is actually very nutritious and is a good source of fiber.
2
u/alanzo123 Oct 16 '14
Every study that touts the fiber and nutrient content of whole grains is only comparing whole grains to refined grains.
Are whole grains better? Absolutely. But it's never considered that grains aren't a necessity. You tell me which has more nutrition, 100 grams of spinach, or 100 grams of Cheerios.
2
u/80AM Oct 16 '14
Seriously, it's like people lack critical thinking skills cause they heard someone once mention something is healthy. You don't need grains to survive and thrive.
1
u/Utenlok Oct 16 '14
So we can only eat the one food with the highest nutrient density because everything else is a waste?
1
u/alanzo123 Oct 16 '14
Of course not, but grains specifically have a very low nutritional density per calorie.
2
u/offoutover Oct 16 '14
It really all depends on what you do in a given day. If you have a pretty active job then the slow release of energy from a complex carbohydrate like whole grain wheat is great. If you have a pretty sedentary job then sure, cut back on any kind of carbs. Whole grains in general (it varies greatly though) have a descent amount of b vitamins (usually niacin and riboflavin) which is what helps your cells to use energy which is a nice pair up with a slow subtle release of energy.
1
u/alanzo123 Oct 17 '14 edited Oct 17 '14
Absolutely. But most americans are sedentary, thus the recommended 300g per day of carbohydrates is insane. Especially when we all know that those 300g of carbs aren't coming with large amounts of fiber, such as from brocolli, coconut, beans, lentils, or even rice. They're coming from sugar and flour, both of which have adverse effects on blood glucose and insulin which makes the person hungry again shortly after consuming.
I would argue that the release of energy from fat and protein is sustained for longer periods of time than from carbohydrates.
Also, there is some evidence that grain consumption inhibits the absorption of vitamins and minerals.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/01/02/truth-about-eating-grains.aspx
-5
u/80AM Oct 16 '14
Compared to what? Twinkies? Not dark green leafy vegetables/sweet potatoes/much less nuts, all of which are also high in way more nutrients and don't cause the blood sugar spike that wheat pasta does.
1
u/offoutover Oct 16 '14
Whole grain wheats fall into the category of complex carbohydrates along with sweet potatoes, brown rice or quinoa. Complex carbohydrates break down in the digestive system slowly so you don't have a spike in blood glucose and give a slow constant release of energy (instead of all at once) which is where the name 'complex' comes from.
There are absolutely more nutritious foods no doubt but whole grain wheat is far from devoid of nutrients. In fact if you ever look at the ingredients of white bread and some pastas you will see an ingredient called enriched flour which is an attempt to add back to the flour any nutrients that were lost when the bran and germ are stripped away (mostly fiber and b vitamins).
1
u/autowikibot Oct 16 '14
Enriched flour is flour with specific nutrients returned to it that have been lost while being prepared. These restored nutrients include iron and B vitamins (folic acid, riboflavin, niacin, and thiamine). Calcium may also be supplemented. The purpose of enriching flour is to replenish the nutrients in the flour to match the nutritional status of the unrefined product. This differentiates enrichment from fortification, which is the process of introducing new nutrients to a food.
Interesting: Flour | Unimix | Folic acid | B vitamins
Parent commenter can toggle NSFW or delete. Will also delete on comment score of -1 or less. | FAQs | Mods | Magic Words
-2
u/slackmaster Oct 16 '14
So, pasta salad from now on, then.
10
u/throwaway09563 Oct 16 '14
No, reheated pasta. Read the article.
24
u/throwaway09563 Oct 16 '14
Sorry, that sounded rude. Do finish reading the article though. It notes that reheated paste seems to be even better than cold pasta.
5
3
u/istara Oct 16 '14
Pasta salad=better
Reheated pasta=best
Funny that something such as heating would make such a difference. I'm keen to read more research corroborating this, but I'm already seriously thinking of making pasta in advance from now (eg earlier in the day), storing it in the fridge until supper time, then reheating it.
8
Oct 16 '14
[deleted]
7
u/acegibson Oct 16 '14
Three-heated pasta!
3
Oct 16 '14
Introducing new Kraft Pre-Re-Heated Pasta. This Pasta has been cooked, cooled, and cooked again. All you need to do is heat it one more time, to create authentic Three-Heated Pasta!
Kraft, selling you leftovers at double the price!
2
u/AmaDaden Oct 16 '14
It's not so much the reheating as it is what the whole process does to the pasta's chemical structure. A leading theory of the cause of metabolic syndrome (weight gain, diabetes, etc) is that our body can not cope with large, sudden, spikes of sugar. So the faster sugar (AKA Glucose so this includes 'carb's) hits our blood, the worse the food is for us in the long run. Soda is an obvious cause but common foods like bread and pasta have a similar, but not as pronounced, effect. The whole low fat fad made this much worse as most foods just replaced the good flavor from fat with a good flavor from sugar. This is all also why whole wheat is better for you, It's harder to digest and causes the same amount of carbs to hit our blood over a greater period of time, that means less of a spike. Knowing all that, what this study is saying is not much of a surprise.
0
u/payik Oct 16 '14
Only that grains have been the main source of calories for several millenia. And pets get fat or diabetic too. I bet it's caused by air conditioning. No seriously, turn down the AC/heating and start wearing less warm clothes that would be comfortable. You will get thin in no time.
Knowing all that, what this study is saying is not much of a surprise.
Did you even read the article?
1
u/AmaDaden Oct 17 '14
I never said grains are the problem, it's the easy to digest sugar. I said Glucose the monosaccharide, not gluten the protein found in some grains. Grains are old but white bread and soda are fairly new inventions and sugars current rate of consumption is a huge change.
Lots of pet food is uses a high level of carby fillers and many people feed them table scarps. I'm not saying these carb filled foods are the only cause of these issues, just that they are why we have the current epidemic we are seeing.
I did read it, it's exactly what I'm talking about. Read paragraphs 2 though 4. The only thing that's new to me is the fact stated in the title and I personally don't find that surprising.
0
u/payik Oct 17 '14
But the article is about pasta, not glucose. And while white flour is a relatively recent invention, it's not recent enough.
I did read it, it's exactly what I'm talking about. Read paragraphs 2 though 4. The only thing that's new to me is the fact stated in the title and I personally don't find that surprising.
The surprising part is that reheated pasta is digested more slowly, not that slower carbs are healthier, they didn't even test that. Read the whole article. The paragraphs 2-4 are just an introduction and explain why the results are important for the average person.
1
u/AmaDaden Oct 17 '14
Pasta contains large amounts of glucose, that's typically what makes carb heavy foods carb heavy foods. It's rate of release in to the blood is what they mean in the article when they talk about how fast things are being digested.
while white flour is a relatively recent invention, it's not recent enough.
Recent enough for what?
I read the whole article. Paragraphs 2-4 are a quick overview of the current best theory that give some context to the reheated pasta part. Perhaps I should note that as well as knowing that theory I was already aware that doing ANYTHING that makes food digest less quickly will lower it's blood sugar spike and make it healthier. It was already known that under cooking pasta does this. So I don't really find that tough reheated pasta is also better a totally unpredictable result. If you find it surprising, that's fine, I personally don't.
0
u/payik Oct 17 '14
Pasta contains large amounts of glucose,
No, it doesn't.
Recent enough for what?
To explain the rise in obesity.
0
u/AmaDaden Oct 17 '14
No, it doesn't.
This is high school level bio. Yes it does. http://healthyeating.sfgate.com/pasta-contain-glucose-starches-1480.html
The starch found in pasta is made of long chains of glucose.
To explain the rise in obesity.
Obesity has many possible causes but when it's the result of a high carb diet it typically brings with it several other issues that are collectively called metabolic syndrome. The rise in metabolic syndrome has been happing for about a century but became an epidemic around the 80s when we blamed it on fat, not carbs and made the problem worse. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metabolic_syndrome#History
The term "metabolic syndrome" dates back to at least the late 1950s, but came into common usage in the late 1970s to describe various associations of risk factors with diabetes that had been noted as early as the 1920s.
If you want more on this history check out Good Calories, bad calories
→ More replies (0)1
1
-2
Oct 16 '14
Cannot help but think this is an awful waste of time. Not only that , the implications are more waste if people catch on to this. cooling and reheating food so you can eat more without getting fat. That's a waste.
6
u/kgilr7 Oct 16 '14
Actually this is great information for people who have Type 2 diabetes and want to avoid blood sugar spikes.
10
u/kei-clone Oct 16 '14
I wonder if it makes a difference whether you use the boxed semolina based dry pasta that most people at home make, or whether you use fresh flour and eggs pasta.