You guys, I found pasta that's GASP....HEALTHY!
Options
Replies
-
Didn't read all the back and forth.. came here to say.. I AM OBSESSED with this pasta too! I've been eating it ~3x a week for a few months now. I enjoy it served like traditional pasta with marinara sauce, or in a variety of other/more creative ways. Right now I'm eating it plain on top of a giant salad as my protein source. I'm vegan and love the protein this packs. I understand many of you enjoy regular pasta, and it should not be demonized, but I agree that this is a great replacement because it has so much more protein! I'm surprised anyone doesn't enjoy the taste. Doesn't really taste like anything distinct, pretty plain (and very filling). Just my two cents.
Do you think it is similar to traditional pasta taste and texture-wise?
Not really.. it's chewier and not as soft. The taste is pretty plain but I guess it also has a bit of a black bean taste. The same brand makes an edamame version that has even less taste though, with very similar nutrition profile. I don't eat much traditional pasta anymore so it's hard for to compare.
Hmm. If I see it, I'll check it out. I have a chickpea one I really liked, but have had mixed results with the alternative pastas. The added protein/fiber is a perk, though, especially when I'm not adding meat.1 -
With a machine, it's actually pretty easy, IMO, in the simpler shapes (like this). Simplest: Handkerchief pasta, which is big sheets (like extra-wide uncurly lasagna). Nice with embedded fresh herbs, served a little drape-y/fold-y, maybe with some kind of veggie or meat chunky stuff to make it bumpy landscape-ish drape-y, and a light sauce so it looks pretty. I think pesto is kinda traditional.
6 -
It's really very easy. From start to the product you see drying it took me 20 minutes. If I do a better job and allow the dough to rest you have to allow for that time (usually an hour). Also, I tend to let it dry for a couple hours but on this night it was only on the rack for 30ish minutes while we made the sauce (also kinda rushed but still turned out very good).
I also have to the other style pasta attachment for my mixer. That one does take a bit longer but it is capable of making many pasta varieties.8 -
It's really very easy. From start to the product you see drying it took me 20 minutes. If I do a better job and allow the dough to rest you have to allow for that time (usually an hour). Also, I tend to let it dry for a couple hours but on this night it was only on the rack for 30ish minutes while we made the sauce (also kinda rushed but still turned out very good).
I also have to the other style pasta attachment for my mixer. That one does take a bit longer but it is capable of making many pasta varieties.
OK... but I still don't want to do it
2 -
With a machine, it's actually pretty easy, IMO, in the simpler shapes (like this). Simplest: Handkerchief pasta, which is big sheets (like extra-wide uncurly lasagna). Nice with embedded fresh herbs, served a little drape-y/fold-y, maybe with some kind of veggie or meat chunky stuff to make it bumpy landscape-ish drape-y, and a light sauce so it looks pretty. I think pesto is kinda traditional.
I've done it a few times without a machine (since I don't have one), just using a rolling pin and a knife to cut in fettucine-width long flat noodles. I purchased a rolling cutter to make the cutting quicker recently, but haven't gotten around to trying it. To me the most difficult thing was figuring out where to hang it for the drying, since I don't have one of those multi-rod contraptions. I ended up draping clean dish towels and tea towels over chair backs. It worked.5 -
snowflake954 wrote: »DedDollChance wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »What's unhealthy about traditional pasta?
Little nutritional value? OP mentions increased fiber and more protein..sounds more healthy/ nutritional to me.
Regular pasta contains a decent amount of protein (for something that's not considered a tradition protein) as well as some iron, and if you get whole whear pasta, it's very high in fiber as well. Pasta is also a good source of complex carbs. Considering plain pasta is not usually a meal by itself, there are plenty of places to make the meal complete nutritionally. his pasta, while higher in fiber and protein, isn't complete nutrition on its own either.
The pasta she is mentioning has comparable calories to regular pasta (which is 190-200 calories dry for 2 ounces). So it doesn't really facilitate weight loss any better.
This pasta is fine if you want to have it (and enjoy the taste), but traditional pasta is plenty healthy for you. I think many of us disagree that this is finally a "healthy pasta" when we've always had that from traditional pasta all along.
Regular pasta made with bleached enriched flour is flat out junk. It's not a complex carbohydrate and is nothing more than a "filler upper" that breaks down into SIMPLE SUGARS. This means you will not stay as satiated for as long. Hate on me if you'd like, I won't be posting anything else. I didn't come here to be talked down to or have things assumed about me.. Good luck everyone.
I'm not hating on you, but I live in Italy, and cook pasta everyday for the family. Everyone is very healthy and thin. Nothing wrong with regular pasta. Nothing wrong with yours. I'm sorry you're not open to learning something, and many people can't spend the money for exotic pastas. So, hope you stick around. Good luck.
I lived in Italy and we ate a lot of pasta. The difference was the portion sizes, and we walked a lot more. Why buy crazy expensive pastas that are not really pasta? If you want a good pasta and can't make it then buy a good quality one.3 -
Or, if you are like me, buy a cheap ordinary quality one, the basic no-brand cheap ones taste fine to me.
Well, fine with bolognaise sauce or similar on it. But I wouldn't be eating pasta on its own anyway, whatever the quality2 -
DedDollChance wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »What's unhealthy about traditional pasta?
Little nutritional value? OP mentions increased fiber and more protein..sounds more healthy/ nutritional to me.
Regular pasta contains a decent amount of protein (for something that's not considered a tradition protein) as well as some iron, and if you get whole whear pasta, it's very high in fiber as well. Pasta is also a good source of complex carbs. Considering plain pasta is not usually a meal by itself, there are plenty of places to make the meal complete nutritionally. his pasta, while higher in fiber and protein, isn't complete nutrition on its own either.
The pasta she is mentioning has comparable calories to regular pasta (which is 190-200 calories dry for 2 ounces). So it doesn't really facilitate weight loss any better.
This pasta is fine if you want to have it (and enjoy the taste), but traditional pasta is plenty healthy for you. I think many of us disagree that this is finally a "healthy pasta" when we've always had that from traditional pasta all along.
Regular pasta made with bleached enriched flour is flat out junk. It's not a complex carbohydrate and is nothing more than a "filler upper" that breaks down into SIMPLE SUGARS. This means you will not stay as satiated for as long. Hate on me if you'd like, I won't be posting anything else. I didn't come here to be talked down to or have things assumed about me.. Good luck everyone.
It is a complex carbohydrate.
Starches are complex carbohydrates, including highly refined starches like white flour, all the way to starches in "whole food" veggies like corn or beans.
Sugars are simple carbohydrates, whether in refined white table sugar or the dreaded high fructose corn syrup, or in a nice fresh organic apple.
Other aspects of the nutrition differ among those foods, but starches are complex carbohydrates, and sugars are simple carbohydrates. It's just chemistry, not a value judgement.
All of them, soon or later, in your body, break down into simple sugars. Whether you stay satiated depends on the composition of the whole meal or snack that's eaten together, and on personal satiation factors.
I don't hate on you at all, and don't personally eat much regular wheat pasta (white or whole wheat). My personal tastes have no influence over the definitions, though.
White pasta is a simple carb. Not a complex carb. The wheat bran and germ have been stripped away. White (bleached) flour is often enriched with vitamins to make it more nutritious. You, and all the people who liked your comment, are confused.1 -
rheddmobile wrote: »I didn’t see anyone in the thread assuming anything, so you coming out of the blue to make a non sequitur like that makes me at least assume you’re a shill for the product.
If the stats are accurate that pasta sounds useful for me, however. I’m a diabetic and regular pasta is too many carbs for me unless I have a very small portion. That is a whopping amount of protein and fiber compared to ordinary pasta.
Looking at Amazon there seem to be two catches: reviewers think it tastes like glue, and it’s absurdly expensive.
I suspect you were looking at the specific brand cited, which indeed is ridiculously expensive at Amazon. Even similar products at more reasonable prices will (likely) be more expensive than basic white pasta, because it's a specialty product vs. available as a commodity product. (Yes, I know there are premium brands of white pasta.)
For me, in brands I get locally, the bean/soy/pea pastas are reasonably priced for a moderate-to-high vegetarian-protein food, but would be expensive for a simple starch side, if that makes any sense.
Your comment made me realize that I should maybe have added that the black bean (not black soybean) pastas I've tried have tended to be more mushy or glue-y, so I don't usually buy them except to try new types (hope springs eternal!); if so, I'm more likely to toss them in a veggie stew or something where texture is less of a feature, just to augment protein and use them up. The small or skinny shapes (spaghetti, fettucine, orzo etc.) are less likely to highlight texture issues, but still . . . .
To me, the soy ones seem mostly chewy, most of the other pea/bean ones not dramatically different from wheat pastas in texture, though (as with wheat pastas) achieving a good al dente quality varies from brand to brand and shape to shape.
I've noticed the bean pastas are mushy if you overcook them, but if you don't, they are positively delicious.0 -
chelleedub wrote: »DedDollChance wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »What's unhealthy about traditional pasta?
Little nutritional value? OP mentions increased fiber and more protein..sounds more healthy/ nutritional to me.
Regular pasta contains a decent amount of protein (for something that's not considered a tradition protein) as well as some iron, and if you get whole whear pasta, it's very high in fiber as well. Pasta is also a good source of complex carbs. Considering plain pasta is not usually a meal by itself, there are plenty of places to make the meal complete nutritionally. his pasta, while higher in fiber and protein, isn't complete nutrition on its own either.
The pasta she is mentioning has comparable calories to regular pasta (which is 190-200 calories dry for 2 ounces). So it doesn't really facilitate weight loss any better.
This pasta is fine if you want to have it (and enjoy the taste), but traditional pasta is plenty healthy for you. I think many of us disagree that this is finally a "healthy pasta" when we've always had that from traditional pasta all along.
Regular pasta made with bleached enriched flour is flat out junk. It's not a complex carbohydrate and is nothing more than a "filler upper" that breaks down into SIMPLE SUGARS. This means you will not stay as satiated for as long. Hate on me if you'd like, I won't be posting anything else. I didn't come here to be talked down to or have things assumed about me.. Good luck everyone.
It is a complex carbohydrate.
Starches are complex carbohydrates, including highly refined starches like white flour, all the way to starches in "whole food" veggies like corn or beans.
Sugars are simple carbohydrates, whether in refined white table sugar or the dreaded high fructose corn syrup, or in a nice fresh organic apple.
Other aspects of the nutrition differ among those foods, but starches are complex carbohydrates, and sugars are simple carbohydrates. It's just chemistry, not a value judgement.
All of them, soon or later, in your body, break down into simple sugars. Whether you stay satiated depends on the composition of the whole meal or snack that's eaten together, and on personal satiation factors.
I don't hate on you at all, and don't personally eat much regular wheat pasta (white or whole wheat). My personal tastes have no influence over the definitions, though.
White pasta is a simple carb. Not a complex carb. The wheat bran and germ have been stripped away. White (bleached) flour is often enriched with vitamins to make it more nutritious. You, and all the people who liked your comment, are confused.
No. It's not.
White pasta may be considered a more processed food, or a refined food or a higher glycemic index food vs. whole grain; you may consider white pasta an unhealthier or nutritionally inferior or "bad" food . . but starches are complex carbs, and it's a starch. Sugars are simple carbs. White pasta is not predominantly sugar.
The distinction is chemical. Foods high in "simple" carbs are not inherently worse or better than foods high in "complex" carbs. Nutritional value of a food is orthogonal to the type of carbohydrate that predominates in it.15 -
Let's go with the Nemours Foundation description of carbs that's aimed at kids, because it spells the whole thing out very clearly, rather than assuming we already know a bunch of stuff:There are two major types of carbohydrates (or carbs) in foods: simple and complex.
Simple carbohydrates: These are also called simple sugars. They're found in refined sugars, like the white sugar you see in a sugar bowl. If you have a lollipop, you're eating simple carbs. But you'll also find simple sugars in more nutritious foods, such as fruit and milk. It's healthier to get your simple sugars from foods like these. Why? Because sugar isn't added to them and they also contain vitamins, fiber, and important nutrients like calcium. A lollipop has lots of added sugar and doesn't contain important nutrients.
Complex carbohydrates: These are also called starches. Starches include grain products, such as bread, crackers, pasta, and rice. As with simple sugars, some complex carbohydrate foods are better choices than others. Refined (say: ree-FIND) grains, such as white flour and white rice, have been processed, which removes nutrients and fiber. But unrefined grains still contain these vitamins and minerals. They're also rich in fiber, which helps your digestive system work well. Fiber helps you feel full, so you're less likely to overeat. A bowl of oatmeal fills you up better than sugary candy with the same amount of calories.
From: https://kidshealth.org/en/kids/carb.html16 -
Soy is not all that healthy for you depending on the form. However there are now noodles made from black beans, quinoa, adzuki beans, spelt or even miracle noodles which are 0 net carbs and made out of something called Konjac and there are others made from some type of yam.0
-
cwolfman13 wrote: »DedDollChance wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »What's unhealthy about traditional pasta?
Little nutritional value? OP mentions increased fiber and more protein..sounds more healthy/ nutritional to me.
Regular pasta contains a decent amount of protein (for something that's not considered a tradition protein) as well as some iron, and if you get whole whear pasta, it's very high in fiber as well. Pasta is also a good source of complex carbs. Considering plain pasta is not usually a meal by itself, there are plenty of places to make the meal complete nutritionally. his pasta, while higher in fiber and protein, isn't complete nutrition on its own either.
The pasta she is mentioning has comparable calories to regular pasta (which is 190-200 calories dry for 2 ounces). So it doesn't really facilitate weight loss any better.
This pasta is fine if you want to have it (and enjoy the taste), but traditional pasta is plenty healthy for you. I think many of us disagree that this is finally a "healthy pasta" when we've always had that from traditional pasta all along.
Regular pasta made with bleached enriched flour is flat out junk. It's not a complex carbohydrate and is nothing more than a "filler upper" that breaks down into SIMPLE SUGARS. This means you will not stay as satiated for as long. Hate on me if you'd like, I won't be posting anything else. I didn't come here to be talked down to or have things assumed about me.. Good luck everyone.
Traditional pasta is made with semolina. It is a staple food in places like Italy...so everyone in Italy is just eating junk then? Also, pasta is a starch...starches are complex carbohydrates. Simple carbohydrates are sugar...like fruit is namely comprised of simple carbohydrates. See how silly this demonization is?
What is widely eaten in Italy is not the same as what we have here. Probably eating some heirloom wheat while we eat wheat contaminated with glyphosate and other pesticides. So traditionally speaking Italian wheat is more healthy or was not know about now but it was the case years ago. It is why many people now are having gut issues celiac gluten sensitivity or wheat sensitivity that did not exist maybe 23 years ago0 -
angelexperiment wrote: »Soy is not all that healthy for you depending on the form. However there are now noodles made from black beans, quinoa, adzuki beans, spelt or even miracle noodles which are 0 net carbs and made out of something called Konjac and there are others made from some type of yam.
Please don't spread misinformation about soy.11 -
angelexperiment wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »DedDollChance wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »What's unhealthy about traditional pasta?
Little nutritional value? OP mentions increased fiber and more protein..sounds more healthy/ nutritional to me.
Regular pasta contains a decent amount of protein (for something that's not considered a tradition protein) as well as some iron, and if you get whole whear pasta, it's very high in fiber as well. Pasta is also a good source of complex carbs. Considering plain pasta is not usually a meal by itself, there are plenty of places to make the meal complete nutritionally. his pasta, while higher in fiber and protein, isn't complete nutrition on its own either.
The pasta she is mentioning has comparable calories to regular pasta (which is 190-200 calories dry for 2 ounces). So it doesn't really facilitate weight loss any better.
This pasta is fine if you want to have it (and enjoy the taste), but traditional pasta is plenty healthy for you. I think many of us disagree that this is finally a "healthy pasta" when we've always had that from traditional pasta all along.
Regular pasta made with bleached enriched flour is flat out junk. It's not a complex carbohydrate and is nothing more than a "filler upper" that breaks down into SIMPLE SUGARS. This means you will not stay as satiated for as long. Hate on me if you'd like, I won't be posting anything else. I didn't come here to be talked down to or have things assumed about me.. Good luck everyone.
Traditional pasta is made with semolina. It is a staple food in places like Italy...so everyone in Italy is just eating junk then? Also, pasta is a starch...starches are complex carbohydrates. Simple carbohydrates are sugar...like fruit is namely comprised of simple carbohydrates. See how silly this demonization is?
What is widely eaten in Italy is not the same as what we have here. Probably eating some heirloom wheat while we eat wheat contaminated with glyphosate and other pesticides. So traditionally speaking Italian wheat is more healthy or was not know about now but it was the case years ago. It is why many people now are having gut issues celiac gluten sensitivity or wheat sensitivity that did not exist maybe 23 years ago
Many of the most popular brands of dry pasta available in the US are made in Italy. The average person in Italy over the last 100 yrs isn't eating "heirloom wheat" pasta. Do you have any legit sources to back up any of this information?8 -
chelleedub wrote: »DedDollChance wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »What's unhealthy about traditional pasta?
Little nutritional value? OP mentions increased fiber and more protein..sounds more healthy/ nutritional to me.
Regular pasta contains a decent amount of protein (for something that's not considered a tradition protein) as well as some iron, and if you get whole whear pasta, it's very high in fiber as well. Pasta is also a good source of complex carbs. Considering plain pasta is not usually a meal by itself, there are plenty of places to make the meal complete nutritionally. his pasta, while higher in fiber and protein, isn't complete nutrition on its own either.
The pasta she is mentioning has comparable calories to regular pasta (which is 190-200 calories dry for 2 ounces). So it doesn't really facilitate weight loss any better.
This pasta is fine if you want to have it (and enjoy the taste), but traditional pasta is plenty healthy for you. I think many of us disagree that this is finally a "healthy pasta" when we've always had that from traditional pasta all along.
Regular pasta made with bleached enriched flour is flat out junk. It's not a complex carbohydrate and is nothing more than a "filler upper" that breaks down into SIMPLE SUGARS. This means you will not stay as satiated for as long. Hate on me if you'd like, I won't be posting anything else. I didn't come here to be talked down to or have things assumed about me.. Good luck everyone.
It is a complex carbohydrate.
Starches are complex carbohydrates, including highly refined starches like white flour, all the way to starches in "whole food" veggies like corn or beans.
Sugars are simple carbohydrates, whether in refined white table sugar or the dreaded high fructose corn syrup, or in a nice fresh organic apple.
Other aspects of the nutrition differ among those foods, but starches are complex carbohydrates, and sugars are simple carbohydrates. It's just chemistry, not a value judgement.
All of them, soon or later, in your body, break down into simple sugars. Whether you stay satiated depends on the composition of the whole meal or snack that's eaten together, and on personal satiation factors.
I don't hate on you at all, and don't personally eat much regular wheat pasta (white or whole wheat). My personal tastes have no influence over the definitions, though.
White pasta is a simple carb. Not a complex carb. The wheat bran and germ have been stripped away. White (bleached) flour is often enriched with vitamins to make it more nutritious. You, and all the people who liked your comment, are confused.
Dude...you need to brush up on your nutritional knowledge. Simple carbs are sugar, period. Complex carbs are starches (pasta) and fiber.8 -
angelexperiment wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »DedDollChance wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »What's unhealthy about traditional pasta?
Little nutritional value? OP mentions increased fiber and more protein..sounds more healthy/ nutritional to me.
Regular pasta contains a decent amount of protein (for something that's not considered a tradition protein) as well as some iron, and if you get whole whear pasta, it's very high in fiber as well. Pasta is also a good source of complex carbs. Considering plain pasta is not usually a meal by itself, there are plenty of places to make the meal complete nutritionally. his pasta, while higher in fiber and protein, isn't complete nutrition on its own either.
The pasta she is mentioning has comparable calories to regular pasta (which is 190-200 calories dry for 2 ounces). So it doesn't really facilitate weight loss any better.
This pasta is fine if you want to have it (and enjoy the taste), but traditional pasta is plenty healthy for you. I think many of us disagree that this is finally a "healthy pasta" when we've always had that from traditional pasta all along.
Regular pasta made with bleached enriched flour is flat out junk. It's not a complex carbohydrate and is nothing more than a "filler upper" that breaks down into SIMPLE SUGARS. This means you will not stay as satiated for as long. Hate on me if you'd like, I won't be posting anything else. I didn't come here to be talked down to or have things assumed about me.. Good luck everyone.
Traditional pasta is made with semolina. It is a staple food in places like Italy...so everyone in Italy is just eating junk then? Also, pasta is a starch...starches are complex carbohydrates. Simple carbohydrates are sugar...like fruit is namely comprised of simple carbohydrates. See how silly this demonization is?
What is widely eaten in Italy is not the same as what we have here. Probably eating some heirloom wheat while we eat wheat contaminated with glyphosate and other pesticides. So traditionally speaking Italian wheat is more healthy or was not know about now but it was the case years ago. It is why many people now are having gut issues celiac gluten sensitivity or wheat sensitivity that did not exist maybe 23 years ago
Uh...no. The pasta in my pantry is from Italy. They aren't using some fancy heirloom wheat. They're using semolina flower just like any pasta.11 -
I like the black beans pasta and edemame pasta from Aldi, also Barilla has an inexpensive red lentil pasta that is good. They are all also gluten free if you need it.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 931 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions