Glycemic Response to Ingested Dreamfields Pasta Compared With Traditional Pasta

Our research group has developed diets we refer to as Low Biologically Available Glucose (LoBAG) diets. These diets, in short-term studies (5–10 weeks), result in a decrease in glycated hemoglobin that is similar to or greater than that typically obtained with oral medications in patients with type 2 diabetes (1–3). The diet is lower in carbohydrates (CHOs) and higher in protein and fat than that recommended by the American Heart Association (4) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (5). It is not ketogenic and does not require weight loss. The diets are designated by the CHO content, which is given as a subscript; for example, if the CHO content is 30% of food energy, the diet would be termed as a LoBAG30 diet. In the diets we have designed, pasta and other cereal grain products are limited. That is, we de-emphasize starchcontaining foods. This is because starch is composed entirely of glucose, and the glucose generally is readily available after digestion. Thus, we were particularly interested in the commercially available Deamfields pasta. In its advertisements, Dreamfields states that the product has a “taste like traditional pasta, but contains twice the fiber, only 5 grams of digestible carbohydrate per serving and has a 65% lower glycemic index (GI 13 vs. 38)” (Dreamfields informational material, http://www.dreamfieldsfoods.com). Therefore, from our perspective, it could be a useful addition to our LoBAG diet menus. After numerous attempts to obtain the data upon which the company based the observation of a dramatically lower glycemic index than that observed with traditional pasta was based, we decided to conduct our own simple, single meal study. In this study, we have compared the glucose response over 3 h after ingestion of a 50-g CHO portion of the Dreamfields product with the same dry weight CHO of a traditional commercially available pasta. A crossover design was used. Two groups of five subjects each, i.e., 10 subjects total without known diabetes, were recruited for the study. They were not aware of which pasta product was being served. Regarding taste as well as mouth feel, our results confirmed the Dreamfields company claim. All subjects agreed that they could not detect a difference between theDreamfields product and the traditional pasta. Both were considered to be highly acceptable. When the first five subjects were studied using the same cooking method for both products, the Dreamfields pasta did not result in a smaller glucose rise. To our surprise the mean postmeal glucose curves were essentially identical. Therefore, we studied five different subjects. The result was the same; that is, the curves were essentially identical (Fig. 1). In 10 people without diabetes, the Dreamfields pasta product we purchased did not result in an improved glucose excursion when compared with a commercially available traditional pasta product as would have been expected based upon the company’s claim. Because we did not test several different batches of Dreamfields pasta or other commercially available pasta products for comparison, it is possible that