Glycemic Index... I don't buy it

Fergy · medicine forum beginner Joined: 30 Apr 2005 Posts: 1

I want to believe, because the hypsters made it sound so cool. It
sounded so plausible in theory, and sensible in lifestyle, and
responsible in providing nutrients, that I really would like to believe.

But until two conditions are met, I put GI diets in the no zone:

1. Multiple studies (not sponsored someone to gain profit or income)
must prove viability.

2. Food labels support consumer decisions

Some GI hype doesn't make sense. Like, how can whole wheat flours be so
much better than white flour? My understanding is that wheat flour is
just flour that hasn't been milled as long as white, and has not been
bleached. Seems to me, that at the molecular level wheat and white have
got to be pretty similar. If the diff between the two is duration of
milling time and some bleaching. I acknowledge the neg impact of
bleaching, and the benefit pf added nutirents from leaving hulls in
wheat. But to the GI folks, wheat has some magic bullet properties
where it doesn't induce insulin response to the same level as white
flour. It doesn't add up, I'm not buying it.

Or the pasta angle... all the sudden, pasta is OK again. Poor Dr,
Atkin must be apopletic.

You know, the wheat thing and the pasta thing "might" be true. But
someone has to prove it to me. I'm not taking the word of some dude
selling a book.

Here's is the take of someone who Nutrition 101 in 1980: It's all about
freaking calories. Look at all the fad diets, and in the initial stages
they are successful, not because of the gimmicks, but because they are
low cal. Low Fat, Low Carb, No carb, Sugar-busters etc... cut through
the crap and they're all low cal.

For goodness sake, even on Atkin, how much pork loin can you eat in a
day. I'd say about 1500 cals.

Who cares if WHO likes glycemic index? The UN is bunch of crooks anyway.

I'm going to count my own calories.. gonna eat what I want, within
calorie limits. Protein, Fats, Carb, I ain't even gonna read that part
of the label.

Does someone have some hard science to steer me back to GI? I'll
listen, but with a critical ear.

montygram · medicine forum Guru Joined: 30 Apr 2005 Posts: 825

I remember a bunch of the "gurus" pushing brown rice pasta a few years
back, but it's very high on this glycemic index. One said that you
want to eat whole wheat pasta in a fairly uncooked state - great,
damage your GI tract. These guys are idiots, no doubt, but where's the
kernel of truth? If you eat a large amount of calories, and those
calories are easily broken down, you put a lot of stress on your body
and you also get fat. If you eat food that is easily broken down, like
fruit, and also a biochemically stable fat, like coconut oil, you get
plenty of energy, but you won't get a sugar dip, and you don't stress
your body in any way (unless you eat a ridiculous amount of calories,
but you won't because it's satisfying). Also, eating slowly helps.
Stay away from low GI foods that are difficult to digest. You can read
some of Ray Peat's newsletters free over the internet, if you want to
get a sense of what's really going on in the body. Also, consider that
plenty of Asians eat very high saturated fatty acid diets and all kinds
of high GI foods, and yet diabetes, heart disease, cancer, etc., are
very rare. This is the biggest experiment in human history, and yet
our "experts" never mention it.

Alf Christophersen · medicine forum Guru Joined: 01 May 2005 Posts: 738

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 19:54:45 -0400, Fergy <pfergy@fakemail.org> wrote:

Guest

Fergy wrote:

montygram · medicine forum Guru Joined: 30 Apr 2005 Posts: 825

I'm feeling good, actually, that they took out the iron and linoleic
acid, and wheat protein is nothing to get excited about. Of course, if
most of your calories come from any grain, you're not eating very
healthy in general. I buy unbleached, unfortified, organic, pastry
flour. Whole wheat tastes awful (I know, I ate it for many years until
my body couldn't digest food any longer), but if you want to be sure
you're getting the trace minerals, eat a bit of nutritional yeast with
each meal.

webgangsta · medicine forum beginner Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 1

I was of the understanding the glycemic index indicated how quickly foods
could be broken down into their constituent sugars, digested and absorbed
causing a raise in blood sugar levels and the knock on effects this has on
insulin production and the control glucose/glycogen/fat storage within the
body. If this is the case then whole wheat breads, pasta's etc would be
more beneficial than processed alternatives as it would obviously take
longer for the digestion of the starches as they would be effectively be
intermingled with the husks and the other un-digestible components of whole
wheat. Also therefore would the enzyme/substrate concentration between
digestible and non digestible carbohydrate be altered further hindering the
digestion process, all this allowing for a slower more controlled intake of
sugar? I also thought that low GI foods increased colonic fermentation
(high nsp ratios) and increased production and absorption of short chain
fatty acids in the colon.

"montygram" <nazztrader@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:1115006537.542748.226320@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

Mark · medicine forum addict Joined: 03 May 2005 Posts: 62

On 1 May 2005 21:02:17 -0700, "montygram" <nazztrader@lycos.com>
wrote:

Wayne Bryan · medicine forum beginner Joined: 03 May 2005 Posts: 5

That's my understanding as well. The faster the sugar can be
metabolized and absorbed into the blood, the higher the glycemic index.
Glycemic load is quantity dependent. A low glycemic food can be made
high glycemic if you eat enough of it (in other words, just because a
food is low glycemic doesn't mean you can eat as much as you want). To
distinguish this type of glycemic response, it is referred to as
glycemic load.

Wayne Bryan

webgangsta wrote:

Enrico C · medicine forum Guru Joined: 18 May 2005 Posts: 558

On Mon, 02 May 2005 03:11:15 +0200, Alf Christophersen wrote in
<news:36va7112ofmii66598hjqguisknfp8c7e4@4ax.com> on sci.med.nutrition :

Enrico C · medicine forum Guru Joined: 18 May 2005 Posts: 558

On 30 Apr 2005 23:05:39 -0700, montygram wrote in
<news:1114927539.688749.69480@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> on
sci.med.nutrition :

[...]

Enrico C · medicine forum Guru Joined: 18 May 2005 Posts: 558

On Mon, 02 May 2005 03:11:15 +0200, Alf Christophersen wrote in
<news:36va7112ofmii66598hjqguisknfp8c7e4@4ax.com> on sci.med.nutrition :

Google