Absorption of carbs from pulses

[beating_my_betes]

Some people find their BG rises when they eat pulses. Some people find they don’t.
The best way to find out which group you are in is to test before and 2 hours afterwards.
This can affect lentils and chickpeas. The latter being the main ingredient in falafel and hummus.

See, this is more understandable at least. The way you originally phrased and explained very much confused the issue and sent out a very different message.

The extent to which BG rises, and as a result of what, is determined by many, many factors other than the carbs contained within. As such, such granularity in measurement/data is out of reach of all but the most rigorous home scientists.

 

[SimonP]

The extent to which BG rises, and as a result of what, is determined by many, many factors other than the carbs contained within. As such, such granularity in measurement/data is out of reach of all but the most rigorous home scientists.

Do you really think this analysis is out of reach for most people? Obviously BG response is affected by other things, but it's quite easy to work out gross effects of a given food-stuff, assuming you log what you eat (and if you keep track of exercise and illness, it's possible to work out their effects too). Perhaps this is simply down to a difference of approach - for a T1, this is the way, there is no other way than understanding what happens.

FWIW I also find that things like lentils and pulses don't generate anything like the BG rise that one might expect from the total carbs, while bread of any sort will certainly generate a fast spike. Yoghurt is good with anything in terms of slowing down carb absorption.

 

[beating_my_betes]

Do you really think this analysis is out of reach for most people? Obviously BG response is affected by other things, but it's quite easy to work out gross effects of a given food-stuff, assuming you log what you eat (and if you keep track of exercise and illness, it's possible to work out their effects too). Perhaps this is simply down to a difference of approach - for a T1, this is the way, there is no other way than understanding what happens.

There are certain concerns I have with regular home-testing, and for various reasons. That's not to say that I think it is completely useless, in certain contexts, and with an understanding of the many confounding factors that exist.

The main issue I have with it is that people use this extremely confounded data to not only make personal nutrition decisions, but also to make sweeping/overarching statements about the results and said decisions. Even in hyper-controlled metabolic ward testing we cannot rely on such granularity to make such conclusions. At home, even that amount of accuracy is unattainable.

As for T1D? I'm not an expert (not in any of this, really). However, I believe that even with constant tracking and years of experience, T1D will over or under 'shoot', and have to correct. So, even understanding the physiology, having a life's worth of accumulated data, and the experience of literally seeing, controlling, and administering the insulin, things sill go awry. Imo, and in comparison, the finger-pricking and/or cgm-wearing T2D is practically blind.

FWIW I also find that things like lentils and pulses don't generate anything like the BG rise that one might expect from the total carbs, while bread of any sort will certainly generate a fast spike. Yoghurt is good with anything in terms of slowing down carb absorption.

I don't have issues with people claiming their BG responses are other than expected, given various stimuli. But that's a very different claim than the one being made that some folk extract more carbohydrates from another food (or even that actually is contained within) than others. I'll happily change my position if such claims can be verified by science.

I'm all for euphemisms and poetic license. But when it comes to sharing information regarding our own and others' health, we need to be extremely careful and extremely clear.

 

[SimonP]

The main issue I have with it is that people use this extremely confounded data to not only make personal nutrition decisions, but also to make sweeping/overarching statements about the results and said decisions. Even in hyper-controlled metabolic ward testing we cannot rely on such granularity to make such conclusions. At home, even that amount of accuracy is unattainable.

As for T1D? I'm not an expert (not in any of this, really). However, I believe that even with constant tracking and years of experience, T1D will over or under 'shoot', and have to correct. So, even understanding the physiology, having a life's worth of accumulated data, and the experience of literally seeing, controlling, and administering the insulin, things sill go awry. Imo, and in comparison, the finger-pricking and/or cgm-wearing T2D is practically blind.

Certainly the data are confounded, but some effects are so pronounced that they can be observed even in noisy data, I don't think all hope should be lost that there's any value in doing this. It's certainly not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but even imperfect and inexactly reproducible knowledge of the historic response of a given of a food type allows one to narrow down likely outcomes and react appropriately. It certainly appears to work much better for me than simply assuming all food stuffs are identical, though I'd have to try the alternative of doing exactly that for it to be a fair comparison, perhaps there's some mileage in doing that.

YMMV though as with all things diabetes-related, and this is one of the issues you highlight regarding people reporting what works (for them) - it might not be the same for others. Though I think even this individualised reporting is valuable to build either a consensus (if everyone agrees) or a range of outcomes/approaches that characterise different groups of reactions or perhaps the range is simply too wide or variable. IMO all useful knowledge

I don't have issues with people claiming their BG responses are other than expected, given various stimuli. But that's a very different claim than the one being made that some folk extract more carbohydrates from another food (or even that actually is contained within) than others. I'll happily change my position if such claims can be verified by science.

I'm all for euphemisms and poetic license. But when it comes to sharing information regarding our own and others' health, we need to be extremely careful and extremely clear.

I don't think it's that some people can extract more carbs than are contained in a given foodstuff but rather that some people extract fewer carbs than should be contained in the foodstuff - presumably because of inefficient digestion.

 

[beating_my_betes]

I don't think it's that some people can extract more carbs than are contained in a given foodstuff

And yet, unless I've misunderstood, various people here seem to be claiming that to be the case.

Happy to address the rest of the post and continue the conversation. But perhaps this thread is not the right place.

I wonder if it might be appropriate to ask for one of @everydayupsanddowns ' proverbial thread splits 😉

 

[CliffH]

And yet, unless I've misunderstood, various people here seem to be claiming that to be the case.

Happy to address the rest of the post and continue the conversation. But perhaps this thread is not the right place.

I wonder if it might be appropriate to ask for one of @everydayupsanddowns ' proverbial thread splits 😉

Isn't it more about different types of carbs having different effects (such as absorption rates) for different people?

 

[beating_my_betes]

Isn't it more about different types of carbs having different effects (such as absorption rates) for different people?

I think that's definitely the case. but you needn't go much further back than a couple of posts to find one example of someone claiming differently

 

[Satan’s little helper]

I think that's definitely the case. but you needn't go much further back than a couple of posts to find one example of someone claiming differently

The same make & model of car drink the same fuel differently. Depends on maintenance/servicing & how they are mapped. That’s just the engine. Then we can go into tyre pressure. Road conditions. Head winds, drag. Weight of passengers/luggage. And last but not least how heavy the foot is of the driver?

 

[everydayupsanddowns]

I’ve split this thread away from Gail’s discussion of her meals to prevent this discussion distracting/dominating that thread (as per User Guidelines)

 

[everydayupsanddowns]

A dietician who was involved in a project I was working on once expressed concern over the information provided to T1s about the carb content of pulses, because a significant proportion of those carbs often continue undigested through the gut (it’s why beans have a reputation for giving you wind - the bacteria in your lower intestine feasting on the undigested carbs giving off CO2). The difference between published figure and digested carbs may have been sufficient to cause an overly-high insulin dose to be given for the meal.

But

As @Docb often comments, carb values printed on packaging are really only approximate guides, and may not be 100% accurate

Plus digestion of foods is a complex and multi-factorial thing. Both in terms of speed absorption, and also efficiency. Which can mean that individual responses to eating the same mix of carbs can be very different. Members here are welcome to share their own experiences and observations - and this can include people who have noticed a pattern of higher BGs after pulses than may have been expected. Once this becomes a pattern, and repeatable by n=1 experimentation, I think it’s fair for them to use a shorthand of “I seem to get more carbs out of pulses than the published figures” even if it may just be a combination of efficient digestion and breakdown of amylose / amylopectin, and some other metabolic / hormone reaction, possibly linked to lower carb intake and other meal components.

Personally I think it’s helpful for other people arriving on the forum to see examples of personal experiences which match their own. Perhaps particularly if those experiences are slightly unusual?

 

[Satan’s little helper]

A dietician who was involved in a project I was working on once expressed concern over the information provided to T1s about the carb content of pulses, because a significant proportion of those carbs often continue undigested through the gut (it’s why beans have a reputation for giving you wind - the bacteria in your lower intestine feasting on the undigested carbs giving off CO2). The difference between published figure and digested carbs may have been sufficient to cause an overly-high insulin dose to be given for the meal.

Thanks for also reminding me about the variation of CO2 emission levels recorded from the car exhaust during an MOT, too? 🙂

 

[trophywench]

Pepsi Max - which was supposed to have as many carbs as tap water (nil) - always sent my BG up into the stratosphere. I can only think it's because it has half a ton of some artificial sweetener that my insides simply can't cope with - but food scientist or digestive system expert I certainly ain't - I only know that's what it used to do to my BG. Not just a glucometer telling me - huge wave of tiredness, raging thirst, massive need to wee etc, so really did do it to me. No point me trying to explain it - I've just never bothered attempting to drink it again. Never been very fond of the taste of Coke anyway! Far nicer flavours of other pop.

 

[beating_my_betes]

I’ve split this thread away from Gail’s discussion of her meals to prevent this discussion distracting/dominating that thread (as per User Guidelines)

Thanks!

 

[Drummer]

The legumes anomaly puzzled me at first, then I remembered about the 'wind' issue with them - something I don't get (which makes a change).
I did careful experiments and deduced that when I eat peas or beans I get around 180% of the listed value - unless they are still in the pods, runner or French beans for instance, in which case the result is fractionally high, but not so significant as almost double when eating the seeds only.

 

[beating_my_betes]

Certainly the data are confounded, but some effects are so pronounced that they can be observed even in noisy data, I don't think all hope should be lost that there's any value in doing this. It's certainly not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but even imperfect and inexactly reproducible knowledge of the historic response of a given of a food type allows one to narrow down likely outcomes and react appropriately. It certainly appears to work much better for me than simply assuming all food stuffs are identical, though I'd have to try the alternative of doing exactly that for it to be a fair comparison, perhaps there's some mileage in doing that.

YMMV though as with all things diabetes-related, and this is one of the issues you highlight regarding people reporting what works (for them) - it might not be the same for others. Though I think even this individualised reporting is valuable to build either a consensus (if everyone agrees) or a range of outcomes/approaches that characterise different groups of reactions or perhaps the range is simply too wide or variable. IMO all useful knowledge

I think there is value to testing, in certain cases. And I agree that more data would be useful, but for the false narratives. AS such, I think it becomes very much a case of 'a little knowledge is a dangerous thing'.

 

[Drummer]

Once you eliminate the impossible whatever is left, no matter how improbable, is the truth.
Thank you Holmes - or should that be Doyle?

 

[beating_my_betes]

A dietician who was involved in a project I was working on once expressed concern over the information provided to T1s about the carb content of pulses, because a significant proportion of those carbs often continue undigested through the gut (it’s why beans have a reputation for giving you wind - the bacteria in your lower intestine feasting on the undigested carbs giving off CO2).

I would guess the undigested proportion they were talking about is fibre. If that's the case, this is no different to any other whole plant-food. And the issue of gas now seems pretty well understood (the emerging science of the microbiome), doesn't affect everyone, and those it does affect usually find that with continued exposure such problems subside or disappear completely,

The difference between published figure and digested carbs may have been sufficient to cause an overly-high insulin dose to be given for the meal.

Well, it's more understandable that the total carbs are less than stated, hence the above effects, than the other way 'round

But

As @Docb often comments, carb values printed on packaging are really only approximate guides, and may not be 100% accurate

It can't ever be 100% accurate, especially when dealing with carbs and water, but it can be averaged out to as close as possible.

Plus digestion of foods is a complex and multi-factorial thing. Both in terms of speed absorption, and also efficiency. Which can mean that individual responses to eating the same mix of carbs can be very different. Members here are welcome to share their own experiences and observations - and this can include people who have noticed a pattern of higher BGs after pulses than may have been expected. Once this becomes a pattern, and repeatable by n=1 experimentation, I think it’s fair for them to use a shorthand of “I seem to get more carbs out of pulses than the published figures”

Indeed! Could there be a more elusive (at least in terms of home testing) and confounding variable than digestion?

I don't have an issue with people sharing experiences, and certainly if they use language like "seem" or "believe". The main issue I have, however, is i have yet to see an example of anyone testing with even the slightest amount of rigour ecessary to make the claims often being made. I test in a specific way to try to eliminate big ticet variables, but I know that even that doesnt come close to the kind of granularity that would lead me to be able to make claims similar to those I see everyday in the diabetes space(s).

even if it may just be a combination of efficient digestion and breakdown of amylose / amylopectin, and some other metabolic / hormone reaction, possibly linked to lower carb intake and other meal components.

Thia is really the crux of my argument, although I'm sure we could add another twenty confounding variable to your list

Personally I think it’s helpful for other people arriving on the forum to see examples of personal experiences which match their own. Perhaps particularly if those experiences are slightly unusual?

I agree that the sharing of personal experiences is important. But again, it all depends on the context, how the information is presented, and the caveats and disclaimers used. In my experience n=1 fall very short on said caveats/disclaimers.

 

[beating_my_betes]

Once you eliminate the impossible whatever is left, no matter how improbable, is the truth.

This presumes you know what is and isn't (im)possible. But I'd be curious to see how you managed to do so, in your given example of 180% overage in legumes.

 

[Drummer]

I'm very sensitive to carbs in a meal, so I simply compared the two hour blood glucose readings for different carb sources when eaten with a couple of chicken thighs or pork steaks etc - just about every meal gave the expected reading - close to 8mmol/l at that time, except when peas or beans were involved.
It was fairly elementary to calculate the amount required to reduce my response to 8mmol/l and deduce that there was an error in the reported amount of carbs when I ate them as opposed to accepted values.

 

[SimonP]

I think there is value to testing, in certain cases. And I agree that more data would be useful, but for the false narratives. AS such, I think it becomes very much a case of 'a little knowledge is a dangerous thing'.

Agreed that people drawing conclusions with insufficient data is not good, even less so when pronouncements are then made which seem to say that a theory is a fact and that it applies to all.

However, I am happy to theorise about what works for me (both to myself and in public), and in the light of new evidence will re-evaluate my theories. I also try to always state that it's just me, and it's just my theory of why something happens.

I am also very interested to see what happens for other people, and potentially why they think it happens - mainly to rule out questions I might have about the "test" conditions. I'll then draw my own conclusions, which may or may not agree.

The issue I've seen with diabetes (and specifically the reason I joined this forum and first started to specifically talk to others with diabetes - understanding the effects of endurance exercise) is that because there is so much inter-person variability, personal variability over time and in-exactitude of test conditions/recording, no-one was typically willing to state anything at all in any forum that was easy to find about what happens or how to deal with doing endurance exercise.

I really do think it's very helpful to see a range of behaviours presented in a matter of fact way and if the person wants to provide some theory then fine by me - I may not agree with it, but then it might make me think. I may equally not agree that the data they recorded is the full record/accurate/etc, but with enough reporting one can build a picture of things that might work, and that might happen, which I think is useful.

I suppose it does require potentially quite a lot of experience of evaluating evidence and determining whether theories are even vaguely viable, but it works for me.