Oh My, Maggie! That's quite a spike! What a bummer. I did remember seeing something on one of the websites mentioning insulin-resistant people having blood sugar spikes with this.

__________________
"Live strong." ~ Lance Armstrong
SLEEP BE DAMNED! GET THY BUTT TO THE GYM!
Start Atkins 9.1.03
225/198/130ish

Yeah, well.

As I've said many times, my metabolism was already impaired when I started this. I'm of the school of thought (since there's no persuasive research on this) that believes that you can't really "repair" your metabolism. You can certainly adjust your diet to accommodate your status, and need never worry about high blood sugars again, but you can't really go back to square one.

c'est la vie.

__________________

dang... that sure makes ME think twice about buying it... if i dont have a way to test bs ... how would i KNOW what it does in MY system...:-(
pipedream pasta? dang..

__________________
kims SECOND journal is HERE
kims new blog
KIMS BLOG !!
SUGARFREE BLOG

???

Are you all diabetics? If not, you're likely to see about a 10-15 point range no matter what you eat.

Unfortunately, blood glucose (BG) testing won't tell you much about your insulin level at all unless you are a diabetic with impaired insulin production.

If you are not diabetic, your pancreas will automatically adjust the insulin level to keep the blood glucose in "normal" range. Thus, you won't likely see much flucuation at all no matter what you eat.

If only they had a handheld meter to test insulin levels! Now that would be useful to just about anyone interested in keeping their insulin levels in check.

Also, it's worth noting that handheld glucomters only give an approximation of the BG levels. Glucometers are generally only accurate within 15% (the Bayer Elite, aka Ascencia, claims a 5% accuracy rate). Even worse, the FDA hasn't set standards for glucometer accuracy, so whatever the manufactures wants to claim, stands.

When I had a diabetic cat, I used 2 different glucometers to test the same drop of blood. I did over 50 tests and was SHOCKED at the disparity between the two meters. The results could vary by as much as 150 points, especially at higher BG levels (see data at: http://tlb.best.vwh.net/bg_punkin/meters.html ). Subsequently, other diabetic cat caregivers did the same experiment with similar results. Scary, eh?

Anyway, my point is, don't waste money testing your blood glucose unless you are a diabetic - the real culprit is the insulin level and a BG test just won't show you that. All it shows a diabetic is that he/she needs more or less insulin supplementation for the amount of food consumed. It doesn't show what the person's insulin level actually may be.

__________________
~~~Teelbee
Back to GOAL!!!
start weight: 176/goal range: 137-134/now: 138
Reached goal in Aug. 2003 - 4rd year of maintenance.

Hmmm... at least with felines, there are cases where diabetic cats reverted to normal after a period of treatment. It's called "going on a honeymoon", LOL! Sometimes, the honeymoon is permanent, and sometimes it only lasts a few months or a year. The diabetic cats that go back to good insulin regulation without treatment are usually the ones became diabetic following a course of treatment with steriods. It's not uncommon at all for the pancreas to eventually recover normal function in steriod-induced diabetic cats.

Even some "regular" diabetic cats (not steriod induced) have "remissions", though that's much less common and usually not permanent.

FWIW - Don't know how closely this would parallel human physiology, if at all...

__________________
~~~Teelbee
Back to GOAL!!!
start weight: 176/goal range: 137-134/now: 138
Reached goal in Aug. 2003 - 4rd year of maintenance.

Actually, that's not quite true, Teel. A simplified explanation of glucose homeostasis can be found here: http://www.endocrineweb.com/insulin.html It would be a very rare person who's insulin response to a meal was as immediate and precise as you describe. The standard 3 hour GTT is instructive:

For a 75-gram oral glucose tolerance test, normal (nondiabetic) blood values are:

* fasting: 60 to 110 mg/dL
* 1 hour: less than 200 mg/dL
* 2 hours: less than 140 mg/dL.

Between 140-200 mg/dL at two hours is considered impaired glucose tolerance. There are other results, like faster rise/precipitous crash, which also demonstrate impaired glucose metabolism. These groups are at increased risk for developing diabetes. Greater than 200 mg/dL at two hours is diagnostic of diabetes mellitus.

Now, the 75 gms used in the GTT challenge was designed to be the equivalent of the carb load from a "meal", but of course without the other macronutrients that would be in real food. Those of us who do a low carb style of eating can expect much lower initial rises in BGL's since the carb load of the meal is minimal, and the breakdown of protein to blood glucose is a much slower and more complicated process. The whole "glycemic index" business is based on clinical results of BGL's of many subjects to various foods.

While what we're doing here is not as precisely controlled and the number of subjects is small, that information is not meaningless.

I'm kind of rushing here, but that's a thumbnail.

__________________

Yeah...what Maggie said!

I'd just like to add that although I am not diabetic and I don't have any insulin resistance problems, but these 'mini glucose tolerance tests' have still been a great learning experience for me. (I have access to glucometers at work, so I'd just wait till I got to work to perform my experiements)

I noticed the stuff that spiked-->crashed my blood sugar gave me the typical 'carb overload' symptoms: immediate headache, bloated feeling, lethargy/brain fog, all-day fatigue, persistent carb cravings, etc, and I knew, without a doubt, that I would avoid said stuff in the future

I also confirmed that some foods are OK for me in moderation, based on the lack of spike-->crash to my blood sugar and consistent energy levels that I sustain when my blood sugar levels stay stable (as well as lack of cravings)

Lastly, this little experiment confirmed that everybody and every body really is different. (see: my reaction to Dreamfield's pasta vs. Maggie's)

__________________
"Live strong." ~ Lance Armstrong
SLEEP BE DAMNED! GET THY BUTT TO THE GYM!
Start Atkins 9.1.03
225/198/130ish

I stand corrected on the range considered normal, though a nurse told me last year that anything over about 140 was "skirting the line". Perhaps I misunderstood her. My blood glucose seems to stay about between 90 and 110 - even after Xmas dinner.

I did read somewhere recently that 1 in 3 people have some level of blood glucose-related dysfunction, which shocked me. I'm still somewhat dubious that blood glucose testing would be significant for people with a well-working pancreas.

A tip:

For those of you who want to test, but whose supplies are not covered by insurance, this place has great prices on test strips - e.g., 150 individually wrapped Ascensia (aka Bayer Elite) teststrips for $79. There are cheaper ones, too; but I always favored the Bayer products for having a better reputation for accuracy.

www.hocks.com

When I was treating my diabetic cat, I looked all over for the place with the best deals. Hocks.com was my favorite source - they had very good customer service and very good prices, too. (note: I have no interest in Hocks other than as a satisfied customer).

__________________
~~~Teelbee
Back to GOAL!!!
start weight: 176/goal range: 137-134/now: 138
Reached goal in Aug. 2003 - 4rd year of maintenance.

has anyone other than the two of you tried testing the DREAMFIELD pasta? just curious... i seemed to notice on other sites that the results were about the same.. either it didnt spike.. or it did.. depending on the person...

__________________
kims SECOND journal is HERE
kims new blog
KIMS BLOG !!
SUGARFREE BLOG

This is such a cool thread! Everyone but me is a diabetic in my family. I am low carbing and I think that is the only thing that saved me.

I thought I would be the only one eating then measuring blood glucose. I use my mother as a tester too. Of course, she cannot eat a big amount (she doesn't have to to get a spike any ways). It's great since that way I find out what really is ok for her and it turns out that what's ok for her is ok for me. I suppose it's genetic. I learned that maltitol is almost as bad as sugar for us so my whole family eats maltitol-free. Erythritol, lo han kuo, and stevia (though not as good as erythritol) are best for us. And I see earlier in the thread that erythritol works for other people too.

Ah-ha - a fellow scientist!

Feel free to post your results from anything you found interesting. This is all about information sharing, since the more information one has, the easier it is to make rational choices.

We can always use another set of observations!

__________________

I don't test my blood but I just wanted to record my experience with dreamfields pasta. Had a 2 ounce portion last week and ended up craving carbs the rest of the night. Even though I tried to limit the damage with low carb foods I still ended up eating over 100 net carbs (without counting Dreamfields 37 voodoo carbs). That is far and away the most carbs I have eaten in the past 17 months of low carbing. Anyone want a used box of pasta?

__________________

my blog

Hello everybody. My name is Irina and I am new to this forum but not new to low-carbing, I belong to another forum but I think this forum is very good too. For those living in US, Walgreens sells a chocolate bar called Zero that is sweetened with erythrol. They have milk chocolate and dark chocolate with macademia nuts. It soooooo good. I would have to say it is the best tasting LC chocolate bar I have tried. The manufacturer claims 0 impact carbs but I calculated that 7g of carbs contribute to total calories and to me that means 7g of impact carbs even if there is no spike in blood sugar level. On my other forum, several people tried it and no one notice any side effects such as laxative effect, bloating, headaches, etc. associated with other LC chocolate.

Polydextrose. This newcomer on the scene is of interest in baking and other cooking applications. It is said to be primarily fiber and some folks have said it has no glycemic effect. It has some. My testing is as follows:

2:15 96 (not a fasting blood sugar, about 2 hrs from last eating)
(drank a solution of 1/4 cup - about 50 gms - polyd and ate the little "candies"
that didn't dissolve.)
2:30 127
2:45 133
3:00 124
3:15 119
3:45 108
4:15 91

I wasn't sure how much to use, since we've pretty much stuck with 50 gms or the sweetening equivalent of 1/4 cup sugar. Since this product doesn't have much sweetening power, I just stuck with the 50 gms, which turns out to be 1/4 cup. If I subtract the fiber from 1 cup, I get about 18 gms net carbs. So a 1/4 cup portion ought to have 4.5 net gms of carbs.

This is NOT the reaction I get from 4.5 net gms of carbs in other forms. For instance, my BGL reaction to one of my flax/bran muffins which use liquid splenda as a sweetener and a bit of erythritol for "structure" (4.5 net gms each) is practically nothing.

(please read all my previous disclaimers about my admittedly less than perfect metabolism, but keep in mind that a great many of us on this board probably have some degree of glucose/insulin problems, whether or not we've had a 3 hour GTT to demonstrate it.)

It's interesting that my BGL went up so quickly, from which I conclude that it has a high glycemic effect. However, it was a pretty hefty portion. I mean, few recipes are going to result in that much polyd in a serving - on the other hand, there will be other ingredients which, depending on their nature, might slow the effect ... or make it worse. I'll note that the Mini-carb chocolate chips, which have a lot of poly d in them, test out ok for me in a "portion" (but a portion is 2 TB of chips, and there are other ingredients involved, so that's a lot less poly d per portion than what I just tested.)

So how do I view this product? Useful, perhaps, as an ingredient in somethings, but only where a serving would wind up with a relatively small amount of it. Where erythritol will accomplish the same thing, I'd favor it, since it's "friendlier" to me.

__________________

Very interesting indeed!

I hope you don't suffer - ahem - gasseous distress - too much poly-d seems to have that affect on me, and of course I ONLY use it as an ingredient, never just by itself!

Thanks again Maggie for offering up your bod as a temple of science....

Char

__________________
Veni, vidi, velcro. I came, I saw, I stuck around.

Save the Earth - it's the only planet with CHOCOLATE!