8 ms·
Is reheated pasta less fattening?
- sinaa 12y agoDid they use a sample size of 5?! Has there been any relevant publications on this topic?
- tucosan 12y agoUsing such a small sample size to draw any relevant conclusions is indeed a weird methodology. If their findings were to be true, I would surely try it out. For now this rather looks like one of those nutrition recommendations that have no real foundation in research. Sadly.
- hawkice 12y agoI see a lot of posts by the author curious as to why people downvoted -- is it okay if I ask? This seems like _the_ comment I would want to read if I had the option of selecting a tl;dr or general reaction. He's not even saying they're wrong, he's just saying that without using a larger sample size the recommendation isn't founded in research. This appears true -- it's primarily built from induction over other ideas.
- geon 12y agoAlso, all of them had the variations in the same order, and the two ho ones were not blind-test. And no control group were given the same dish the whole time.
- lingben 12y agoit was actually a sample size of 10, at least according to the program, for those outside, here's a youtube link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=_r9WfXtDOHA#t=567 https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=_r... (jump to the results portion of program) the first 15 minutes are about this experiment
- DanBC 12y agoScience has known about the different response to cold pasta for many years. The programme got ten people to try an experiment with reheated pasta. You're right that it's a tiny sample size (and all the other flaws - no randomisation, no blinding, self testing, etc etc) but it's unusual to have such a strong result across every participant and so it should prompt someone to do some proper science on it. Sadly, tv has a lot of this kind of "we tested this thing on 20 unblinded non randomised poorly controlled volunteers - and now we're saying THIS IS TRUTH".
- cjf4 12y agoIf fitness culture has "broscience", than this is its "highbrowscience" counterpart.
- plg 12y agowait ... pasta is fattening? I eat pasta ALL THE TIME and I am far from "fat"
- lingben 12y agoit is the effect of carbs: carbs->sugar->insulin-> fat insulin is a powerful hormone which, among other things, sends a message to the body to store more fat instead of burning it a sample size of 1 is hardly significant but you could be far from fat because of a number of reasons: you are young and/or have a high metabolism, you are active, your genes, you eat other foods which counter the carbs in pasta (fats and fiber), etc. there are a lot of variables the ideal diet is one where your blood sugar is more or less constant throughout the day the worst diet is one where your blood sugar spikes, forcing your pancreas to release insulin again and again
- XzetaU8 12y agoMyth #1 http://examine.com/blog/10-awful-myths-perpetuated-by-the-media/ http://examine.com/blog/10-awful-myths-perpetuated-by-the-me...
- monitron 12y agoThe entry on the carbohydrate myth doesn't actually address insulin resistance but instead veers off on a tangent about gluten. It also cites no references. Can you provide a better source?
- aaxe 12y agoThe site is full of references. Try clicking around. And insulin resistance is an issue if you're overweight. For a normal person it's a non-issue.
- monitron 12y agoI did click around, a lot. There are indeed many references, especially on the supplements pages, but I couldn't find any external links about carbohydrates and insulin. And, regarding "for a normal person it's a non-issue" – How do you think those overweight people got overweight? I was once at a healthy weight, but my terrible diet got me where I am today. If I'd eaten differently, I wouldn't be in this mess to begin with.
- jbb555 12y agoThe article appears to not answer the question. It makes claims that reheated pasta raises blood sugar more slowly, but seems to say nothing about if it's more fattening.
- mef 12y agoAccording to the article if your blood sugar does not spike, you stay full longer, reducing the overall amount of food you eat.
- xorcist 12y agoWhich is no less than two testable statements, of which zero have any conclusive scientific evidence.
- nitrogen 12y agoThere's no need to reestablish all of science every time someone runs an informal experiment. Previously demonstrated results can be assumed to be valid.
- xorcist 12y agoThat is not what I'm saying. These statements are formulated in a way to make them sound reasonable. But there are no (scientifically) previously demonstrated results. None at all. If you were to make specific statements, you would at least open the questions to further research.
- autism_hurts 12y agoBlood sugar spike = insulin response = insulin is a fat storage hormone = fat
- DanBC 12y agoThe reason it raises blood sugar more slowly is because some of the carbohydrate is converted into, effectively, dietary fibre. That means you get fewer calories for the same serving size.
- resca79 12y agoWhen I was at school and University I was agnostic waterpolo player. It's a very intensive sport with 3 hours of workout per day, and some days double session. A intensive sport like this can totally change your relation with the food because you can eat everything you want. The problems arrived when I got my degree and I ended to play as agonistic. My body started to inflate like a ball, in few years I have gained 20-25 kilos. That was a big deal because I'm little and I have good muscle mass with broad shoulders, in other words I had look like a cubic. Loss weight is pretty simple, just go to a dietician and many kilos go away , but the hardest thing is after you finish the diet. During all my diets I was hungry and at the end I always got the my initial weight. I read a book about proteic diet and I tried it . Well I have lose 18 kg and it looks like I done an Fdisk on my body. Now I do not like pizza , pasta , because they do not give me the satisfaction as before. Also I discovered oat bran , that is great because it catchs the eaten fat and it deletes the your hungry. Just my experience
- rsync 12y agoOne possible takeaway here is that vigorous exercise for 2 to 3 hours, 5 or 6 days per week is a decent strategy. There's a lot of petty optimization going on in the world of fitness and weight loss ... in reality you don't need a diet or a fitbit or a fashionable caveman lifestyle if you're just outside moving a lot.
- autism_hurts 12y agoMost people don't have the time to move. If you want to change your body composition, you can do it entirely with the time you already use - eating - without having to do anything else. I find fixing people's diet habits -- then pushing them into fitness once they have clean eating down pat as a habit, is much better than "just run it off"
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- georgemcbay 12y ago
- booruguru 12y agoWhy is everyone being downvoted for asking simple, inoffensive questions?
- taternuts 12y agoI've pretty much cut out sugar and most carbs for 4-5 years now. I was never fat, but I wanted to lose those 5 extra pounds around my hips that just seemed impossible to shed for me doing a standard, less caloric diet and lots of exercise. Cutting out sugars/breads worked wonders for me personally, and at stretches in life when I'm feeling really lazy and don't want to work out, it's way easier to regulate my body weight using a low-carb regimen and still be able to eat large, satisfying meals.
- autism_hurts 12y agoAgreed. The Four Hour Body's "Slow Carb Diet" completely changed my life. I was insulin insensitive and game from an Italian background of low-protein high carb. I lost 30-35lbs in 3.5 months. It was unreal. The weight came off, without exercise, every day. When I plateaued, I cut diet soda as a treat and the weightloss continued. I got to 150lbs at 6'0 -- too skinny. Now I eat more Paleo, but still low carb and still eat some legumes (lentils!) I don't subscribe to the calories in calories out model at all. Everyone seems to discount body composition. Someone eating 2,000calories of carbs is going to look AND feel a lot different than eating 2,000 calories of protein and carbs bound with fiber. I hate the crowd here that subscribes to some sort of human body perfect thermodynamic engine. It's complete bullshit.
- uaygsfdbzf 12y agoI often try to argue with a few friends that modeling the human body as a perfect thermodynamic engine (the idea that your energy output being the same, the consumed calorie count is all that matters WRT weight gain). I haven't been able to get any interesting discussion about nutrition started because of this fundamental disconnect -- if you do treat the human body as converting calories to energy regardless of how you take in the calories, a lot of very interesting research (e.g. the importance of gut flora) becomes practically irrelevant if you're talking about weight loss/weight gain. Does anyone have any pointers on research or well-supported arguments that clearly show that this model (only calories matter) doesn't do the real world justice? If you have research/pointers suggesting that the model is actually good enough, I'd be interested too.
- 12y ago
- norswap 12y agoLooks like this violates Betteridge's law of headlines!
- kolev 12y agoRefined carbs may not have an immediately negative effect on your health, but they should be avoided if you want to live long and healthily. A lot of people look at carbs only from the perspective of diabetes, weight gain, and taxing your pancreas, but there's more - don't ignore glycation, which has harmful effects way beyond diabetes, which is considered to be "accelerated aging" due to AGEs [1]. My supplementation is specifically targeting AGEs and try to reduce fast carbs as much as possible. I love yams, cold potatoes with vinegar and cold rice (to get resistant starch), and raw fruits, so, I'm not saying carbs should be avoided at all, but definitely should be reduced to a bare minimum and in forms where you get more than just carbs - loads of phytochemicals. Commercial pasta and bread are terrible not only because of the carbs, but also because of the fortification - folic acid should be avoided as roughly 30% cannot metabolize it and free folic acid is without a doubt harmful - especially to Mexicans due to wide-spread methylation issues. If you have 23andMe, go check your methylation and detox profile here [2] (it's a free service). It was an eye-opening subject to me and explained much of the evidence why blindly (over)supplementing could be harmful! [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_glycation_end-product https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_glycation_end-product [2] https://geneticgenie.org/methylation-analysis/ https://geneticgenie.org/methylation-analysis/
- kolev 12y agoI'm sure I got downvoted by a carbhead.
- penguindev 12y agoSo low tar cigarettes are not as deadly as regular. Let's all have low tar cigarettes, because they're healthy. Yeah, that's shamelessly ripped from Dr. William Davis, but it shows the logic problem. I have to shake my head at people trying to run around the problem of carbohydrate intolerance by insisting theres a 'healthy way' to consume them. Any other food would have people advising you to stay the hell away from it if you're intolerant. But you know why carbs are different? Because they're so cheap, and governments for whatever reasons seem to want a large population (in more ways than one) rather than smaller, healthier ones. Anywho, good luck to everyone doing the exact opposite of what the government funded "science" and corporate "health care" tell you what to do. It would be hard to do any worse...