17 replies to this topic

[opales]

Some of the earlier (not consistently) positive results may be due some other qualities that roughly correlate with GI index, such as fiber content.

http://news.yahoo.co...HNlYwN5bmNhdA--

Edited by opales, 16 March 2006 - 09:48 AM.

[Shepard]

No kidding.

[opales]

No kidding.

Are you referring to the overall subject or my specific comment on correlates of GI? I don't think that any of this has been self evident to any degree. Anyway, if it is the fiber comment you refer to, I specifically noted that there was a rough correlation, meaning there are many outliers. I mean if it is the fiber that matters, why the hell would we need GI in the first place? Also, my comment included that previous results have not been consistently positive, this has been most notable in predicting development of type 2 diabetes.

Edited by opales, 16 March 2006 - 11:36 AM.

[syr_]

I think this is a good suggestion:
"The best move, she advised, is to keep calories in check and eat plenty of fiber-rich whole grains, fruits, vegetables and beans - and to burn calories through regular exercise."

Now my question would be, what about Glicemic Load that someone advocate to use in place of GI? There is much truth in that?

[opales]

I think this is a good suggestion:
"The best move, she advised, is to keep calories in check and eat plenty of fiber-rich whole grains, fruits, vegetables and beans - and to burn calories through regular exercise."

Now my question would be, what about Glicemic Load that someone advocate to use in place of GI? There is much truth in that?

No results apply to both glycemic load and glycemic index. A quote from the abstract:

http://www.ncbi.nlm....l=pubmed_docsum

The present results call into question the utility of GI and GL to reflect glycaemic response to food adequately, when used in the context of usual diet.

[scottl]

Let's take a step back...

Opales,

Given that non-enzymatic glycation is one of the mechanisms of aging (I trust you would not disagree) then it is helpful to choose food to minimize glucose spikes. I'm not a diabetic but I do have a glucometer and from time to time I measure my blood sugar after a meal. Short of doing this, it is helpful to have some clues for people to go by. What would you suggest if you advocate throwing out glycemic index/load?? (Shepard is correct obviously index alone is insufficient given what else may be in the meal and relative portions).

Oh and grains are a very mixed bag and not at all suitable for all people even if 100% unrefined.

[Shepard]

Are you referring to the overall subject or my specific comment on correlates of GI?

I was referring to the overall subject. Like scottl said, there are quite a few more things to consider other than GI.

[JonesGuy]

I really wish there was a way to measure the Insulin Index of meals. I often standardize my meals (set portions, set makeup) and I would easily benefit from a baseline.

I always thought the GI was a pretty good system. I know insulin was the bastard, but I thought GI would be a good indicator of blood sugar (if nothing else).

During my weightlifting days, I was a big fan of glucose load (if it refers to the amount of glycogen in your liver and muscle cells at different times of the day)

[DukeNukem]

The GI has always been suspect, but the GL has some merit. Most important, by far, would be something called the NL (Nutrient Load). In other words, you always want to eat foods with high nutrient ratios (vitamins + minerals + polyphenols) versus calorie load. Foods like berries, cocoa, green tea, beans and spinach have a very high NL, while grains (even whole grains), sodas, bananas, potatoes, iceberg lettuce, and even fruit juices have a low NL (to varying degrees).

Nutrient Load is what really matters.

[opales]

Let's take a step back...

Opales,

Given that non-enzymatic glycation is one of the mechanisms of aging (I trust you would not disagree) then it is helpful to choose food to minimize glucose spikes.  I'm not a diabetic but I do have a glucometer and from time to time I measure my blood sugar after a meal.  Short of doing this, it is helpful to have some clues for people to go by.  What would you suggest if you advocate throwing out glycemic index/load?? (Shepard is correct obviously index alone is insufficient given what else may be in the meal and relative portions).

Oh and grains are a very mixed bag and not at all suitable for all people even if 100% unrefined.

I am not sure what is your argument, the whole point of the article was that GI AND GL eating habits did not predict blood sugar values one bit (more specifically, average fasting glucose (two measures at each examination) and 2 h post-75 g glucose load plasma glucose, and glycated haemoglobin). Why would I use this measure to achieve something (low glycation) that it has been specifically shown not to achieve?

[syr_]

The GI has always been suspect, but the GL has some merit.  Most important, by far, would be something called the NL (Nutrient Load).  In other words, you always want to eat foods with high nutrient ratios (vitamins + minerals + polyphenols) versus calorie load.  Foods like berries, cocoa, green tea, beans and spinach have a very high NL, while grains (even whole grains), sodas, bananas, potatoes, iceberg lettuce, and even fruit juices have a low NL (to varying degrees).

Nutrient Load is what really matters.

This seems good advice to me.
Do you have any tables? I have never heard of NL, and also GL tables are often very uncomplete.

[JonesGuy]

How did they get GI, if not by measuring the amount of glucose in the blood after eating?

[opales]

How did they get GI, if not by measuring the amount of glucose in the blood after eating?

They used standard tables. Part of the criticism was that the artificially derived table values do not necessarily reflect how things work out with real diets and real people. The point however was to study how overall diet GI or GL (calculated from those table values) effects blood sugar values in general (the standard measures which are biomarkers of insulin resistance and diabetes for example), not how a specific meal affects blood sugar.

Edited by opales, 17 March 2006 - 05:30 PM.

[scottl]

Opales,

I don't have time to...really reply properly to your posts just now, but answer this: what diet/foods would you advise people to eat for health purposes and to minimize glycation?

[scottl]

How did they get GI, if not by measuring the amount of glucose in the blood after eating?

They used standard tables. sugar[/i].

Standardized tables obtained by feeding fasting people a standard amount of whatever food--right?

[opales]

Standardized tables obtained by feeding fasting people a standard amount of whatever food--right?

To my understanding yes.

[xanadu]

For a proper diet I would avoid all foods high in simple sugars and those with any sort of refined hydrocarbates. That would include all milled flour products such as bread, pasta, rolls and so on. Wheat is a poor grain to consume but oatmeal is a good one. Provided of course that you don't eat it with sugar. By staying on this diet I was able to lose a lot of weight over time without starving myself one bit. That was before I learned about glycation and the negative effects of sugar and insulin. I recommend vegetables, some fruit and grains. I avoid meat but it doesn't have lots of sugar in it so from that point of view, it would be ok. I also avoid processed foods but that gets into another discussion.

[alexoverhere]

there's a section under About GI that explains its measurement: http://www.glycemicindex.com/. Standardization is done by giving the same group an amount of glucosesugar equal to the digestible carbohydrate content in the test food (and taking the ratio of the test to reference AUCs).