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.

 

[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.

 

[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?

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[Drummer]

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

 

[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.

 

[helli]

I would guess the undigested proportion they were talking about is fibre.

If that is the case, why does it affect different people different ways?
Some people can literally see whole undigested chickpeas out “the other end”. And, no, this is not about whether they are chewed or not.

In the UK, fibre is not included in total carbs but , yet, many of us ( enough for dieticians working with people with Type 1 diabetes to take notice and warn us) still find the impact of the carbs in pulses is less than the total carbs (excluding fibre) would suggest.

The effect of pulses on some people’s blood glucose is different to the effect of the carbs in other “plant food”.

As per the title of this thread (and my comment which kicked this discussion off), the carbs in pulses behave differently to carbs in other foods, including other vegetables.

 

[trophywench]

It's clearly stated on this forum that the members are not medical experts hence any posts they make on it shouldn't be taken as medical advice, but merely as third party comments allbeit from their own experience of the subject either generally and/or whilst they also have diabetes. Therefore if someone decides 'I'll try that!' and it doesn't work like it reportedly did for whoever, no blame can be attached to them for that.

 

[Drummer]

I would not expect to see undigested or whole anything as I chew what I eat.
Perhaps that is the difference, as the digestion of carbs starts in the mouth.
There is also my stock pot. I would cook - or rather seethe - dried peas and beans in that and sieve them out when done. My cooking is very 'couple of centuries ago' - I used to do English Civil War re-enacting and used to smile at the lack of knowledge some of the women revealed when using a cauldron for cooking.

 

[helli]

Perhaps that is the difference, as the digestion of carbs starts in the mouth.

How do you explain the low BG rise some experience with hummus or dal where the pulses are broken down?

There is also my stock pot. I would cook - or rather seethe - dried peas and beans in that and sieve them out when done.

Why do you sieve them out? Have you previously found you are one of the people who consume carbs from pulses? Or is that the recipe?
My “coven” gave up with cauldron cooking so I am not familiar with seethe.

 

[Drummer]

How do you explain the low BG rise some experience with hummus or dal where the pulses are broken down?


Why do you sieve them out? Have you previously found you are one of the people who consume carbs from pulses? Or is that the recipe?
My “coven” gave up with cauldron cooking so I am not familiar with seethe.

Yes, I get around 18 gm of carbs when the listed amount should be 10gm.
I wondered if my sieving out the cooked items and consuming them without extra liquid might have some bearing - not diluting the digestive enzymes or acid.
I have not eaten hummus or dhal so have no data on how they affect me - but other people have reported they also get extra carbs from legumes - perhaps they have tried those foods.
Apparently to seethe is a fuel saving ploy, as it takes a lot more energy to get a liquid to a full rolling boil than to seethe at almost the same temperature.

 

[everydayupsanddowns]

Also, are you suggesting that when chickpeas have been properly chewed and digested to chyme, that they will reform into solid chickpeas, observed in faeces?

I read @helli ‘s comment to mean that it wasn’t the chewing (or not) that was a factor. Hence the ‘less rise than expected from hummus’ comment.

That it was the nature of the make-up of starches in pulses and they body’s (usual) inefficiency in breaking them down. Some members on the forum hardly have to count the carbs in pulses. others report seeing consistent, reproducible, and significant BG rises where pulses are involved.

I am more than happy to accept their experiences as being valid.

I read an article / paper (can’t remember which) several years ago which explained the difference in carbohydrate storage between pulses and wheat, and how they were digested. If I get a minute I’ll check back through some old bookmarks and see if I can find it.

I think it may add some light to this conversation.

 

[SimonP]

Yes, I get around 18 gm of carbs when the listed amount should be 10gm.

Following on from @everydayupsanddowns's comment about the potential for some people to have more efficient digestive enzymes, does including some proportion of the UK-reported "fibre" content "balance the books"?

Does anyone know how the proportion of fibre vs carbs vs "of which sugars" is calculated?