Type 1 Experience with “Unavailable Carbohydrate”

RoughcutAU said:

I am just about to try some so will update the post in a few hours after the movie.

Click to expand...

Hopefully there will be no unexpected bathroom trips involved

I've never heard of this but am interested. Would you care to share a link to one of the food items?
Are you talking about fibre here?

Some alternative sweeteners such as erythritol are not digestible carbohydrates and so won't have any of the usual impact on glucose levels. Since you mention "unavailable carbs" as being listed as ingredients in sweets for example I wonder if this is what is meant - though I've never personally seen them identified this way. But I use erythritol and stevia on a regular basis and I don't have any issues with them raising my glucose levels.

I agree with @EllieM and @Robbity2 they’re likely to be sweeteners, which are sometimes also referred to on food (I won’t say nutrition) labels as ‘polyols’ or ‘sugar’ alcohols. They’re often excluded from the manufacturer’s carb count as they’re thought to have minimal impact on blood sugars.

Unfortunately while that’s true for some/many people it’s not true for everyone and you’ll likely need to discover for yourself how your body reacts. Personally I find erythritol and xylitol both taste fine and have no impact on my blood sugars; on the other hand maltitol has to be the world’s most effective laxative and many of the other sweeteners don’t taste good.

I’m at the point where I steer clear of ‘protein’ bars or Atkins bars or Grenade bars etc - they taste horrid (very, very sweet and synthetic) and don’t have any real nutrients. If I want something sweet (and if I could manage it I never would), then I’d rather reach for 85-90% chocolate or some raspberries. The former may have real sugar in it, but it’s far less processed.

Having made all those assumptions (and wandered off topic a bit), I’d be very interested to see the food labels you spoke about.

Per google search, so I'm assuming it might be fiber.

"Unavailable carbohydrates are what we call fiber. In the United States fiber is included in carbohydrates, so a determination of the amount of available carbohydrate requires that we subtract out the fiber. The problem is that in some other parts of the world fiber is not included in carbohydrates. This can lead to incorrect assumptions about certain imported foods.
Most countries in Africa, Asia, and North America calculate carbohydrate 'by difference'. Most countries in Europe and Oceania analyse carbohydrate directly. Values for Europe and Oceania therefore do not contain unavailable carbohydrate, while values for Africa, Asia and North America do. Method of deriving carbohydrate is rarely given"

Sugar alcohols are also listed differently in different countries. US it's listed in the total carbohydrate and then under that listed separately are sugars, sugar alcohols, fibers.

On Fundays site they say no sugar alcohols added.

https://www.fundaysweets.com/

And here's one of their ads
https://www.fundaysweets.com/products/vegan-sour-fruity-*****-bears?variant=39285600059588

Maybe it's just for Australians (though they do ship to NZ).

I will eagerly await @RoughcutAU 's review.

RoughcutAU said:

Hi All!

No bathroom trips yet! Pics and link as requested below.

View attachment 55271View attachment 55272

www.fundaysweets.com

BGLs to follow.

Click to expand...

Not sure what they’re calculating it on - looks like the sweeteners are inulin (chicory root powder) and stevia. The fibre has been calculated separately, so it’s not that.

RoughcutAU said:

Ugh it was too good to be true. Result I guess speaks for itself. Seems they were available ... well for my body anyway.

BGL before lunch was 6.1 and lunch carb count was pretty safe with usual bolus.

View attachment 55274

Click to expand...

Guess that might be with ‘soluble fibre from tapioca starch’ being the main ingredient? Rice flour also there.

Well I'm glad I didn't get my hopes up too much.

This is one of the reasons I'm a fan of meters for type 2s. Without a meter you can't even try these types of things.

VashtiB said:

Well I'm glad I didn't get my hopes up too much.

This is one of the reasons I'm a fan of meters for type 2s. Without a meter you can't even try these types of things.

Click to expand...

But maybe it's just @RoughcutAU who is sensitive to that sweetener. Surely some Australian T2s could try, for science ?

It's got to be the IMO from tapioca starch.
"Isomaltooligosaccharide (IMO) is a mixture of short-chain carbohydrates which has a digestion-resistant property. IMO is found naturally in some foods, as well as being manufactured commercially. The raw material used for manufacturing IMO is starch, which is enzymatically converted into a mixture of isomaltooligosaccharides."

On the Funday site in the FAQ they talk about unavailable carbohydrates.

"Some types of carbohydrates make it all the way to our large intestine which are either fermented by the bacteria that live there (which technically can provide your body with a small energy source) or passed through to the toilet. These types of carbohydrates are called unavailable carbohydrates."


I found this info on IMO's

"IMOs are 60 to 70% as sweet as sucrose (sugar), less viscous than maltose, and are partially digestible, containing about 2.0-2.4 calories per gram. [1][3][4] This article will discuss the benefits, downsides, food sources, and supplement sources of isomalto-oligosaccharides."

"
Isomalto-oligosaccharides are touted as a low-glycemic sweetener safe for diabetics but some studies found less than favorable results for its impact on blood sugar. When six fasted human subjects consumed 25 grams of IMO syrup under resting conditions their average blood glucose levels increased from 109mg/L to 136mg/dL and insulin levels increased from 4.8 ?U/mL to 32 ?U/mL 30 minutes post-ingestion. [11]

A 24.8% increase in blood glucose and 566.7% increase in blood insulin levels suggest that IMOs are far from low-glycemic. This was a very small study and we should not be surprised to find that nearly one ounce of a sweet carbohydrate on an empty stomach impacts blood sugar and insulin levels. In contrast a study on young healthy adults found that daily a IMO consumption of 15 grams did not negative impact lipid concentration and glucose absorption. [4]"

https://www.tigerfitness.com/blogs/supplements/isomalto-oligosaccharides-guide

Eventually they will probably have to change it. I remember when sugar alcohols first came out and they would say 0 carbs. But they do have carbs in various degrees. They are supposed to go through the system and if it elevates your BG level pass quickly enough, that they don't keep it elevated. (erythritol has almost zero) That turned out to not always be the case (especially in a type 1's case) But all sorts of people were consuming a lot and it caused enough issues it's now listed in the US separately as sugar alcohol so that people know.