Dreamfields Pasta claims it has only 5 digestible carbs per serving and tastes exactly like pasta. An enticing, if not brazen advertisement. A quick examination of the nutrition facts shows tons of calories and non-fiber carbohydrate. Further inspection of the ingredients show it uses regular flour. Surely suspicion of this claim is justifiable. However, my research leads me to believe Dreamfields Pasta works as advertised. Dreamfields Pasta utilizes "insoluble starch" technology, a proprietary method of making starches indigestible in the stomach/small intestine. This is where starch carbohydrate is typically broken down in humans and assimilated as blood sugar. Preventing the digestion prevents the complete assimilation of the starch's potential sugar energy. The implications of this is huge for dieters, LCers, and diabetics as it means we may be able to eat these starch products. Though the method is mostly a secret at this time (and understandably so since patents are pending), something about this process makes the molecules "protected" and resistant to digestion. The question which begs answering is does it really work?

The majority of diabetics report Dreamfields Pasta has no surprising effect on blood glucose levels 1 2 or 3 hours post prandial, even at enormous consumption levels. This shows it is unlikely Dreamfields spikes, but does the pasta really only contain 5 grams of digestible carbs - a mere 20 calories of sugar energy?

The evidence I've seen seems to show that Dreamfields really does only contain 5 grams of digestible carbohydrate. When the evidence is examined, it is simply impossible for the starch to merely be low glycemic. It must be at least partially indigestible. Even when massive 6 ounce portions are consumed - 120 grams of starch - blood sugar never rises more than would be expected for 15 grams of carbs in most diabetic individuals*. It is impossible for a completely digestible carbohydrate to produce virtually zero glycemic load at such a high consumption level. Glycemic load is a measure of glycemic index (potential impact on blood sugar - gram for gram) times quantity (total consumed energy in grams) divided by 100 (the "control" from which relativity is established)... this formula tells us the net metabolic effect a carbohydrate may have. Even the lowest glycemic index carbs can have a high glycemic load in large quantities. For example, maltitol. Maltitol is a relatively low glycemic index caloric sweetener. Due to its difficult/incomplete digestion it is slower released & has reduced caloric properties, making it a popular substitute for sugar in low carbohydrate snacks. If one were to consume 120 grams of maltitol (assuming it were possible to do w/o keeling over in pain ), this would result in a total glycemic load of about 45 (GI of 38). A glycemic load of 45 is greater than 2 servings of pasta and is almost three servings of white bread! Even fructose, with its super low GI of 25 produces a considerable blood sugar impact at 120 grams. Diabetic tests of maltitol at even moderate consumption levels (say a typical serving in a candy bar, 15 grams) show that it elevates glucose 2 or 3 hours post prandial. Dreamfields pasta, even when consumed in quantities x10s greater, does not.

As I see it, one of two things must be going on. Either A) the majority of the starch in this pasta really isn't being digested in the stomach and absorbed in the small intestine as sugar, or B) it takes so incredibly long to do that it has a glycemic index lower than any known digestable substance on earth . Needless to say, B isn't likely. It would be eliminated from the body before that were possible. What is likely is the manufacturers claim that the "protected starch" escapes digestion and passes through into the large intestine. There it is regarded similarly to other indigestible carbohydrates (polysaccharides - i.e. cellulose fiber), and can work like fiber.

However, this doesn't mean the protected starch is completely energy free. Even cellulose isn't completely energy free. Bacterial fermentation yields some usable energy from indigestible carbohydrate. The bacteria which colonize our large intestine break down carbohydrates which escape digestion in the stomach/small intestine.
The good news is bacterial fermentation does not produce sugar-energy from carbohydrate, but instead it is metabolized by the bacteria into short-chain fatty acids. These SCFAs can then be metabolized by the host organism just as any other fatty acid would be (into ketones, and therefore pose no detrimental impact to a LC lifestyle).

Fortunately we are omnivorous beings with a marked carnivorous bend, so bacterial fermentation of carbohydrate is extremely inefficient method of deriving energy. Our relatively short intestine results in the undigested carbohydrate passing through too quickly before it can be broken down much at all. Therefore, the protected starch has some - although reduced - caloric value. Dreamfields nutritionists estimate the protected starch actually has only about 1.6 net calories per gram (not 4 as it otherwise would have had should it have been digested & absorbed as sugar in the small intestine). In a way, the Dreamfields magic boils down to essentially turning 33 grams of sugar starch into the metabolic equivalent of a much smaller quantity of fat + colon-friendly fiber.

It seems Dreamfields pasta actually has the following nutritional properties:
42 total grams of carbohydrate eaten becomes
...23.8 grams of true fiber (0 sugar calories)
...5 grams of true starch (20 sugar calories)
...and 13.2 grams of fermented indigestible carbohydrate (resulting in the energy equivalent of about 52.8 consumed fat calories, or 5.9 grams of fat)
*plus*
1 gram of fat (9 cals)
7 grams of protein (28 cals)

This makes the total nutritional value of Dreamfields pasta about 110 calories per serving and 5 net carbs. The nutrients are actually in fairly good balance for a LC lifestyle (18.2/56.3/25.5 carb/fat/protein). The reason they cannot label the pasta as such is because US labeling laws have not caught up with the insoluble starch technology. So the nutritional information they are legally able to put on their box reflects that of regular pasta.

Well, there's the lowdown on Dreamfields as I see it. Personally, I am sufficiently convinced that this pasta is not another "net carb" gimmick like maltitol (which IS metabolized into sugar, albeit at a slower rate & slightly reduced amount). I hope the information provided here can help you decide whether or not to include Dreamfields Pasta into your life. I know that I will definitely be enjoying pasta again, and I eagerly anticipate the development of an insoluble starch rice product
.


*Some diabetics have reported strange blood sugar patterns when eating the pasta. However, it should be noticed that because of the nature of disease and the effect lifestyle can have on it, this may or may not be attributable to the pasta alone or at all. For example, delaying eating too long can cause a liver dump of glycogen, which in some very IR diabetics could cause extremely high BGS. Then in other diabetics, even small amounts of digestible carbohydrate could cause a high spike. Generally speaking, the majority of diabetics report no significant deviations between blood sugar levels & manufacturers claims.

Thanks for such an informative post. I've conducted blood glucometer tests with Dreamfield's and it doesn't affect my blood sugar at all. This product has revitalized my interest in low-carb as a life-long way of eating.

WOW!! You said it all, and explained it beautifully. Thanks!

Thank you ItstheWoooo for your thoughtful analysis and explanation.

It is very much appreciated.


If I'm understanding it all correctly, it would appear that eating a bowl of Dreamfields pasta is more analogous to eating a bowl of pure flaxmeal (most of the substance is indigestible in the small intestine) than eating a bowl of chana dal (a bean found to have one of the lowest glycemic values of all foods known to mankind).

In other words, its not the rate of impact, its the fact that there is little overall impact.

I'm just trying to get this square in my mind.

Thanks, barefoot

I have some Dreamfields in the cupboard, awaiting some alfredo sauce

Thank you for this great analysis! I just found Dreamfields at Jewell today and it will be nice to increase the variety in my diet (whch is already pretty varied actually!)

I have been reading and reading about this (yes, the Mendosa site, too) and I am curious as to why when people reported a BS spike after eating it there was no mention of how they cooked it. I think that is a critical variable. If those people cooked it too long or ate it as a leftover, the "protection" on the carbohydrates was no longer intact and it would act just like regular pasta. So if you eat if -- don't cook it too long and if you don't finish it at the meal, give it to non-LCers (becasue it'll turn into regular pasta in the fridge).

I can't wait to try it for dinner! Pasta Primavera here I come!

Thank you Grlygrl. You just solved my last keto drop out. I didn't realize that refrigeration would kill the carb blocking whoosit thingies. I had frozen blocks of mac n cheese for treats. Rats!

So if I refrigerate the unused portion in the box it is no longer good?

No, refrigeration itself isn't a problem. It's re-heating of already cooked pasta that appears to break down carb-blocking properties. Overcooking (during an initial heating) can do the same thing. Also, possibly just letting cooked pasta sit (refrigerated or unrefrigerated) might do this. But, if you have an uncooked portion in the box it is still good irregardless of how you store it.

I have made pasta salad with the elbows twice. I am a Type 2 diabetic so I can see how it affects me by the blood sugar number I get after eating it. It seems that if you make it into a salad and eat it the same day it still blocks the carbs, but the longer it sits in the fridge the more the carb blockers wear off. It didn't make me high the first day but it did when I tried to eat it again after it had been in the fridge a couple of days. I have not tried reheating it but I would think it would have the same effect. So I would agree with whoever said it probably wears off more the longer it's around after having been cooked.

I couldn't agree more.
I was very skeptical as well. I am very carb sensitive type 2 but I have checked my blood sugar after 2 hrs, 3 hrs and believe me even with a load of serving it does not have any negative affect.

I have emailed them in the past and was told that they are going to come with Rice and potatoe having similar LC characteristics.

I can't wait for that.

The Dreamfields folks say they've done some initial testing via a variety of preparation, heating & reuse methods that leads them to believe the level of digestible cards won't be affected by reheating... suggest folks keep after them to dig deeper.

Richard / Allentown, PA

How long do you guys boil the pasta, like how long is "overcook"?
My tummy hates undercooked anything.....

I can attest to the fact that I have eaten this pasta and not had any gains...as a matter of fact I still lost!!!

It'sthewoo....

Thank you for you research and posting in regards to this...it was due to another post of yours that even made me try this stuff out!!