 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers WeightAdviser.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Weight Loss Forum / Low Carb / December 2006Dreamfield's pasta - Do they have an accepted patent?
It's been 2 years since Dreamfield filed for their patent on their pasta technology. Have they been officially granted the patent on this technology? If not, why is it taking so long? Also, they claimed they were going to use this technology for potatoes, rice and flour. Has anyone seen any such products yet? if not, again, why? i find it strange that they seem to have come to a halt in terms of taking this to the next step... > It's been 2 years since Dreamfield filed for their patent on their > pasta technology. Have they been officially granted the patent on this [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > i find it strange that they seem to have come to a halt in terms of > taking this to the next step... That's a good question... October 2004... 2 years. I'm not familiar with the patent approval process. Is 2 years a long time to obtain approval? What's the average turnaround for this type of thing? This is cutting edge technology here. Or at least that's what Dreamfields would want you to believe. For the sake of argument, assuming they are telling the truth, wouldn't advanced technology be harder to document/substantiate, and, in turn, take longer to approve? I think the answer to your potatoes and rice question is an obvious one. Because of the drop of interest in lc, the manufacturers didn't feel there was enough of a market for the new products, and, instead, focused on their existing formulations. I would wager to say that they won't be adding anything to their product line for some time. > It's been 2 years since Dreamfield filed for their patent on their > pasta technology. Have they been officially granted the patent on this [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > i find it strange that they seem to have come to a halt in terms of > taking this to the next step... Maybe they don't want to make a huge investment, now that their claims of very low net carbs have turned out not to be true for so many of us who test our blood glucose hours after eating Dreamfields? Soem folks don't digest all of the starch, but many of us do, just hours later, with a long, slow to disappear, glucose spike. Susan > Soem folks don't digest all of the starch, but many of us do, just hours > later, with a long, slow to disappear, glucose spike. I just the other day saw a full-page advertisement for Dreamfields pasta. It's advertising low GI now, rather than low net carbs. However, they are showing a blood sugar curve that goes to baseline or near at 2 hours, compared to some unspecified "high GI standard." I forgot to look to see whether thay qualified those graphed results. They really should, if your findings and those of other diabetics who find an extended bg spike after eating Dreamfields pasta are true - and I'm not doubting you at all. Since many of the folks eating that stuff will be doing so due to concerns about actual or incipient diabetes, it would seem the "atypical" experiences of diabetics would be very important. HG > I just the other day saw a full-page advertisement for Dreamfields pasta. > It's advertising low GI now, rather than low net carbs. However, they are > showing a blood sugar curve that goes to baseline or near at 2 hours, > compared to some unspecified "high GI standard." The GI thing is a red herring, too, since it shoots so many of us high and the high lasts longer than a regular portion of pasta. :-/ > I forgot to look to see whether thay qualified those graphed results. They > really should, if your findings and those of other diabetics who find an > extended bg spike after eating Dreamfields pasta are true - and I'm not > doubting you at all. Since many of the folks eating that stuff will be doing > so due to concerns about actual or incipient diabetes, it would seem the > "atypical" experiences of diabetics would be very important. DMs may not be atypical, though, we may just be the only ones with meters testing the DF pasta. The manufacturer has been notified by many of us, and so have regulators. I wonder if they tested beyond the two hour limit and chose to stick with it, as the typical post prandial standard because later results were so bad? FTR, many diabetics find no spike at all no matter how long after eating they test. Most folks have found that reheating it or eating it later in a salad, it acts just like regular pasta right away. Susan >> Soem folks don't digest all of the starch, but many of us do, just hours >> later, with a long, slow to disappear, glucose spike. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > HG I guess I'm just picky....but the term "spike" I don't think applies here. What is happening would seem to be better described as simply "delayed & elevated" BG levels for an extended period. A spike would imply a rapid change in my mind, due to glucose being dumped rapidly into the bloodstream in a body that can't produce enough insulin to counteract this. What it seems (to me) to be going on is indeed a delayed response, with for some, elevated BG levels that linger. Obviously, that's not a good thing depending on the levels. So it very well could be that a spike doesn't occur. Also, this delayed & elevated BG thing could actually be very useful for those of us to like to exercise for extended periods, as we'd avoid a more damaging spike (to very high levels) in favor of a delayed rise in BG that could then be used for muscle fuel, to replenish glycogen stores. Has anyone bothered to simply eat a few servings as a meal and then test frequently afterwards? A nice plot could be made that would be an n=1 data point. I'm not a pasta type of guy, so it's never occured to me to do this. > Has anyone bothered to simply eat a few servings as a meal and then test > frequently afterwards? Yes - or at least, a 2oz serving on several occasions, once plain, once with a dab of butter and garlic, several times with tomato sauce and cheese - but I'm one of the lucky ones who gets no rise, even 6 or 7 hours out, and no fasting rise either. A 2oz serve with a salad is a nice-sized meal, btw. Nicky.  SignatureA1c 10.5/5.5/<6 T2 DX 05/2004 100ug Thyroxine 95/72/72Kg >> Has anyone bothered to simply eat a few servings as a meal and then test >> frequently afterwards? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Nicky. Ok....one data point. I wonder if anyone who gets a "spike" has done so and if so, if they have some numbers vs time out. It would be nice to know one way or the other. Upon further thinking, even a delayed spike could have some advantage for a T2 who knew that an extended exercise period would come some time after eating. >>>Has anyone bothered to simply eat a few servings as a meal and then test >>>frequently afterwards? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > some advantage for a T2 who knew that an extended exercise period would come > some time after eating. Sort of an advanced form of "carb loading" but now called "carb (glucose) availability peak". Nice positive thinking about the subject. Signature1) Eat Till SATISFIED, Not STUFFED... Atkins repeated 9 times in the book 2) Exercise: It's Non-Negotiable..... Chapter 22 title, Atkins book 3) Don't Diet Without Supplemental Nutrients... Chapter 23 title, Atkins book 4) A sensible eating plan, and follow it. (Atkins, Self Made or Other) my daughters boyfriend is a diabetic, and he swears by barilla (yellow box) it tastes great too! >>> Soem folks don't digest all of the starch, but many of us do, just hours >>> later, with a long, slow to disappear, glucose spike. [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > data point. I'm not a pasta type of guy, so it's never occured to me to > do this. > I guess I'm just picky....but the term "spike" I don't think applies here. > What is happening would seem to be better described as simply "delayed & [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > depending on the levels. So it very well could be that a spike doesn't > occur. Strictly, literally speaking you may be right. OTOH, some of us think of a large increase in bg after a meal as a spike. The fact that it lasts and lasts makes it look less like a spike on a graph, but it's damaging to eyes, kidneys, nerves, nonetheless. > Also, this delayed & elevated BG thing could actually be very useful for > those of us to like to exercise for extended periods, as we'd avoid a more > damaging spike (to very high levels) in favor of a delayed rise in BG that > could then be used for muscle fuel, to replenish glycogen stores. I don't believe that this is optimal, but your body, your science experiment. > Has anyone bothered to simply eat a few servings as a meal and then test > frequently afterwards? A nice plot could be made that would be an n=1 data > point. I'm not a pasta type of guy, so it's never occured to me to do this. Yes, as I recall, some folks did, early on. Susan > I guess I'm just picky....but the term "spike" I don't think applies here. Good point, Roger. From what I've read in the past, some of those who have tested have found more of an extended elevated bg curve, rather than a sharp peak. The surprise was that it lasted several hours - quite a bit longer than the 120-min testing period used by the Dreamfields manufacturer. I understand that is also the standard used by most diabetics for post-prandial testing. What's interesting is that the graph shown in the Dreamfields ad showed a moderate spike shortly after eating, but with bg falling off to baseline by 120 min., which would not be the delayed bg response Susan is describing. > Also, this delayed & elevated BG thing could actually be very useful for > those of us to like to exercise for extended periods, as we'd avoid a more > damaging spike (to very high levels) in favor of a delayed rise in BG that > could then be used for muscle fuel, to replenish glycogen stores. Interesting idea. > Has anyone bothered to simply eat a few servings as a meal and then test > frequently afterwards? A nice plot could be made that would be an n=1 > data point. I'm not a pasta type of guy, so it's never occured to me to > do this. I believe that Susan has reported in the past that there has been quite a bit of such testing in the past, over on a diabetes ng, involving Dreamfields pasta. As I recall, there were quite a few diabetics who experienced the extended rise in bg, but others did not - just as Nicky just reported for herself. Also the fact that some get the extended rise only with leftover/cooked-stored pasta, not the freshly cooked. I wonder if cooking time would also affect this. I guess each person would have to do this testing for him/herself, using both freshly-cooked and leftover pasta. HG I recall reading, perhaps on their website, perhaps on the box, perhaps on another board, that the company does not certify their claims for people with highly eroded insulin sensitivity or something along those lines. The phrase might have been highly damaged insulin metabolism, but since I can't find it at this moment, it's from my memory. I also recall reading that someone made a pasta dish where the pasta was added to a hot sauce in a fry pan and tossed like that. They saw a spike in BG. Company suggested boiling pasta per instructions, making sauce per instructions, but only combining at the moment of serving, rather than cooking pasta with sauce in shallow pan on a burner. Apparently the acid from the tomatoes combined with prolonged heating tends to unstructure the carbs or something. >From my observation, I have not made such a dish, but did make a carbonara dish, which involved finishing pasta with the sauce in the pasta pot. I do not monitor BG, but did not gain weight despite a large serving (plus a cheese plate) for dinner and two large microwaved servings on subsequent days. This isn't science, but I have made several dishes which involved recooking the pasta (baked mac and cheese or carbonara) and have yet to see an adverse effect on my weightloss. >From what I have read, I would tread very carefully with this product if I were diabetic and controlling through diet. But the website and the box say as much. >From http://www.dreamfieldsfoods.com/diabetes-diet.html "*As with all food and meals eaten by consumers with diabetes of any type and using medication of any type, careful and frequent monitoring of blood glucose is necessary and frequent contact with a physician is mandatory for good health." It might not be the 100% righteous thing to do, claim wise, but as a still small portion of the population, and the folks with the most risk, a diabetic should pretty much always read the fine print. -Hollywood, who could ditch DF tomorrow, but why when it's not problematic for me? > x-no-archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Susan > It's been 2 years since Dreamfield filed for their patent on their > pasta technology. Have they been officially granted the patent on this [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > i find it strange that they seem to have come to a halt in terms of > taking this to the next step... It can take several years to get patent approval. Two years doesn't sound unreasonable at all. They don't need to wait for patent approval to develop products. As to why no new products, if so, ask them. Maybe they found out it was all bogus to begin with and decided to cut their losses. >> Also, they claimed they were going to use this technology for potatoes, >> rice and flour. Has anyone seen any such products yet? if not, again, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > As to why no new products, if so, ask them. Maybe they found out it was > all bogus to begin with and decided to cut their losses. Hard to tell if the website is current or out of date (old news postings) and nothing right away on patent standings... I've only seen a couple of the products in stores - the rest mail-order and don't order it that often... http://www.dreamfieldsfoods.com/low-carb-pasta.html Steve > It's been 2 years since Dreamfield filed for their patent on their > pasta technology. Have they been officially granted the patent on this [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > i find it strange that they seem to have come to a halt in terms of > taking this to the next step... The patent application is dated by the US Patent and Trademark Office (www.uspto.gov)as June 5, 2005, and is listed as being filed October 18, 2004. http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fneta html%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=3&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=Anfinsen.IN.&OS=IN/ Anfinsen&RS=IN/Anfinsen http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20050118326.pdf The current status is still an application, and therefore no patent has yet been issued, evidently. The freepatentsonline.com link gives you a PDF that is pretty viewable, if you like reading a 39 page legal document. It does have some photos of the microstructure of the stuff. > BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE FIGURES > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > [0033] FIG. 6 shows a scanning electron microscopic image of the pasta made according to the present invention. The USPTO has been underfunded for years, and nearly a billion dollars in patent application fees have been spent elsewhere in the US government. ----------------------------- Citation --------------------------- http://news.com.com/The+looming+threat+to+U.S.+high+techs+future/2010-1028_3-547 1673.html Congressional diversion of money away from the USPTO is a big problem. Since 1992, approximately $700 million in USPTO user fees have been diverted to unrelated government programs. That is almost three-quarters of a billion dollars that could have gone to speed up patent approval and spur investment. It could also have gone toward improving patent quality that would reduce litigation costs. The USPTO clearly has not had the resources to do its job. According to its own executives, if current USPTO resource levels are not improved, "more than 140,000 patents will not issue over the next five years." The time it takes to obtain a patent approval--a period that should be about 18 months--is now approaching four years for some technologies and could double to eight years by 2008. At recent budget levels, the backlog of initial reviews by qualified patent examiners could grow from the current level of 475,000 to 1 million. In sum, the system is overwhelmed, underfunded and grinding to a halt. ------------------- End --------------------------- Signature1) Eat Till SATISFIED, Not STUFFED... Atkins repeated 9 times in the book 2) Exercise: It's Non-Negotiable..... Chapter 22 title, Atkins book 3) Don't Diet Without Supplemental Nutrients... Chapter 23 title, Atkins book 4) A sensible eating plan, and follow it. (Atkins, Self Made or Other) |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.