Is re-heated pasta less fattening?

JenniDaisy
JenniDaisy Posts: 526 Member
in Food and Nutrition
Article from the BBC this morning http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29629761

Discuss.

Replies

  • TJP_
    TJP_ Posts: 49 Member
    It would certainly seem so. More resistant starch = less calories (hard to say how much though). More relevant IMO is the significantly reduced impact on blood glucose (and therefore insulin)
  • JenniDaisy
    JenniDaisy Posts: 526 Member
    Agreed, I think the important thing is the effect on insulin, and if it helps weightloss then that's a bonus.
  • stuffinmuffin
    stuffinmuffin Posts: 985 Member
    That's quite interesting, I'll often take pasta cooked the night before into the office to eat.

    Thanks for sharing.
  • Fizz500d
    Fizz500d Posts: 9 Member
    edited October 2014
    I saw that on TV last night and thought it was interesting. I do make a lot of pasta in advance for office lunches both salad and reheated. If not eating fresh cooked pasta is better for blood glucose levels that's good news.
  • RSEC75
    RSEC75 Posts: 45 Member
    Really interesting.
  • acpgee
    acpgee Posts: 8,000 Member
    Wow. Thanks for the info OP.
  • WolverhamptonFitness
    WolverhamptonFitness Posts: 233 Member
    I looked at this thread title and thought "OH noooooooooo".

    but I have now read, it is interesting, but It is probally so MINIMAL that is not worth the time finding it out...
  • lorib642
    lorib642 Posts: 1,942 Member
    50% decrease in glucose spike for re-heated pasta sounds good. I don't know where that would place it on the glycemic index.
  • JenniDaisy
    JenniDaisy Posts: 526 Member
    WolverhamptonFitness wrote: »
    I looked at this thread title and thought "OH noooooooooo".

    but I have now read, it is interesting, but It is probally so MINIMAL that is not worth the time finding it out...

    Ha, I couldn't resist the clickbait title :wink:
  • CarolinaAcorn
    CarolinaAcorn Posts: 418 Member
    WolverhamptonFitness wrote: »
    I looked at this thread title and thought "OH noooooooooo".

    but I have now read, it is interesting, but It is probally so MINIMAL that is not worth the time finding it out...

    I thought the same.
  • TJP_
    TJP_ Posts: 49 Member
    WolverhamptonFitness wrote: »
    I looked at this thread title and thought "OH noooooooooo".

    but I have now read, it is interesting, but It is probally so MINIMAL that is not worth the time finding it out...

    A 50% reduction in bllod glucose is hardly minimal, especially for those with poor insulin sensitivity

  • mcibty
    mcibty Posts: 1,252 Member
    I was like the others, I saw this on the news this morning and rolled my eyes, but I would be interested to know the figures. Seems promising and we all love to meal prep, so we've probably been doing it for a while now!
  • amyhoss
    amyhoss Posts: 414 Member
    Interesting. I'm sure it's not much and not worth calculating. I actually prefer pasta the next day.
  • icck
    icck Posts: 197 Member
    Ah how cool, that's really interesting, seeing as I'm sat here eating rehated pasta and all. ;)
  • _Terrapin_
    _Terrapin_ Posts: 4,301 Member
    And the same for other starchy foods? Like potatoes? Interesting.
  • tessaleonie
    tessaleonie Posts: 13 Member
    I just boiled some spaghetti for tonight as a taste test. If the reheating doesn't make the texture much worse I'll be doing it again. Not just for the whole glucose thing, but more colon friendly fiber would be awesome.
  • KristinaB83
    KristinaB83 Posts: 440 Member
    Nifty!
  • errorist
    errorist Posts: 142 Member
    But how to log it?
  • wkwebby
    wkwebby Posts: 807 Member
    Less fattening...no. Less likely to spike blood sugar and make us more hungry later...evidently yes.

    There are still the same number of calories in the cold pasta vs. freshly cooked pasta. If there is a loss of carbs by reheating it, then less calories in the reheated version. Calories are calculated by burning the food and seeing how much energy was released. But I would think there are almost as many calories even in the reheated food unless you plan on burning the pasta (then the energy has already been released prior to going into your body).
  • NoelFigart1
    NoelFigart1 Posts: 1,276 Member
    You know, crap like this drives me up a wall. It's just a hand-wave to try to get people to microtweak things so they'll keep buying products. Unless you're cutting for a bodybuilding competition or are a professional actor, solving the macro problem of appropriate portions is plenty good enough.
  • LeonCX
    LeonCX Posts: 862 Member
    edited October 2014
    Supposedly, it's refrigerated resistant starch that is less absorbed by the body, but I doubt it. A few years ago 2 women wrote a resistant starch diet book. Naturally, they laughed all the way to the bank.
  • chivalryder
    chivalryder Posts: 4,391 Member
    Does microwaving food really change it caloric content? I don't think so. Not a significant amount, at the very least. Does it change how your body digests it? Possibly. Does that make a difference as to how much weight you will lose? No.
  • raysputin
    raysputin Posts: 142 Member
    One study on its own is not enough but the results of this one are heartening. Thank you JenniDaisy for drawing it to our attention.
    I wonder if the same happens to the starch in bread when it is made into toast seeing as how it has already been heated during baking.
  • NK1112
    NK1112 Posts: 781 Member
    There were no loss in carbs in the reheated pasta, that I read in the linked article. What they found is that the pasta became a resitant starch and therefor didn't raise blood sugar as high .... like 50% less for the pasta that was cooled and then reheated.

    Back about 55 years ago, I worked in a restaurant that served spaghetti as one of it's featured dishes ... We cooked the #9 pasta very al-dente and portioned it out onto a stainless steel try by weight. Then the tray would be covered with saran and refrigerated. When an order for spaghetti would come in later that day, a portion would be plunged back into a cooker of boiling water and brought to proper doneness and heat, sauced and served. Who knew, we were improving the nutritional value of spaghetti with our cook-cool-warm up method!
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    edited October 2014
    There's nothing in the article to justify the "less fattening" tag, all they're really describing is a lowering of the pasta's GI index.

Categories