Hey guys,
Saw this at my grocery store today, and was wondering what you guys think of this. Anyone tried it yet?
They claim that they achieved their low carb goal with no soy fillers, but instead with fiber.
There is a diabetes website (I think mendoza.com or mendosa.com) that did some testing and approved it. It seems a little too good to be true to me…but you never know.
I’ve tried that brand and a couple others. I found the low carb pastas need to be cooked a lot longer than the directions. For me, if I was craving pasta, the texture just wasn’t quite the same, but they taste OK. The elbows with cheese went well together.
Interesting products. What I just can’t figure out though, is how they are reducing the “digestable carbohydrate” grams from 42 to 5?! They say 37 grams are “protected”, yet they only label 4 grams of fiber per serving?! This sounds a bit fishy. They say the protected grams travel to the colon (large intestine) where they provide the benefits of fiber. To me this says they have chemically altered the carbohydrate similar to how olestra (Olean) was made to pass through the GI unabsorbed.
I’m not knocking their product outwardly, just very skeptical of their claims. They still claim each serving is 190 cals, which is about the same as standard pasta. How they heck can they claim this is truly a “low-carb” product, when according to their nutrition label, the calories from carbohydrates haven’t even been reduced?! I’d have to call this low-carb pasta just “smoke and mirrors” at this point.
Has anyone tried this pasta while counting cals/carbs and seen any weight loss associated with ths product?
TopSirloin
I have not tried it, but the claim is that the FDA labeling regulations are not on the same page with the technology. They claim that their digestion matrix only allows 110 of the 190 calories to be absorbed, and that the undigestable carbs function similarly to fiber, but not not recognized as such.
[quote]dermo wrote:
I have not tried it, but the claim is that the FDA labeling regulations are not on the same page with the technology. They claim that their digestion matrix only allows 110 of the 190 calories to be absorbed, and that the undigestable carbs function similarly to fiber, but not not recognized as such.[/quote]
Hummm… so they still have to claim 190 Kcals because that’s the energy per serving, yet at the same time they also are claiming that the body won’t be able to digest almost half of the Kcals of CHO?! I’d like to know more about this so-called “technology”…
TS
I think I’ll pass on that.
I like lentil pasta which tastes fine (I’m not picky) and is low glycemic index.
Found it on sale, bought the maximum amount allowed because, pasta lover that I am, I really was excited, after so many low-carb years, to finally be able to eat a decent-sized portion of pasta again.
HATED IT…Indescribably nasty texture, pasty mouth feel, odd flavor, difficult to chew. Tried preparing it many ways, but it was not palatable in any way, shape or form. Tried mind over matter, without success. No matter what you do, you can’t prepare it so that it’s tender. I don’t know any better word to describe it other than GROSS.
Was stuck with several boxes in my pantry for around six months until bugs got to it and I finally threw it away (which really goes to show you how bad it was because I’m Chinese and we never throw anything away.)
It isn’t exactly low-carb, but Barilla came out with this new pasta called “Plus” in a yellow box. It’s made with multi-grains, legumes and ground flaxseeds. 2oz has 200 calories, 1gF, 38gC, 10gP and 4g fiber. Shockingly, it actually tastes good! I’ve tried different whole wheat pastas, but they always taste terrible. Seems like a healthier choice for an occasional meal…
Ever used spaghetti squash? The texture is alot more like pasta. Good with red sauce. Turned onto it by my gluten intolerant cousin. We also made chicken noodle soup using chicken broth, spices, and julliened chicken breast lunchmeat for noodles.
Tried the spaghetti squash…wow that stuff’s delicious!!!
I think they might be oligo-polysaccharides or something. I haven’t read any thing scientific in a while. But if they use a bomb calorimeter to measure the total energy value then there will be a difference in that to the actual bioavailable calories. It all comes down to the mulecular structure of the carbohydrate. Man I am sterting to feel dumb, like Elaine in that episode of Seinfeld when she didn’t get laid in a while.
[quote]chinadoll wrote:
Found it on sale, bought the maximum amount allowed because, pasta lover that I am, I really was excited, after so many low-carb years, to finally be able to eat a decent-sized portion of pasta again.
HATED IT…Indescribably nasty texture, pasty mouth feel, odd flavor, difficult to chew. Tried preparing it many ways, but it was not palatable in any way, shape or form. Tried mind over matter, without success. No matter what you do, you can’t prepare it so that it’s tender. I don’t know any better word to describe it other than GROSS.
Was stuck with several boxes in my pantry for around six months until bugs got to it and I finally threw it away (which really goes to show you how bad it was because I’m Chinese and we never throw anything away.)[/quote]
You’re a pansy. This pasta is Yummy. I don’t know if it actually works though…