Glycemic Load v. Glycemic Index (was: Study: Eat "Good" Carbs....)

[cut]


Really foolish .... the 1990's and 2000's Atkins books describe the
Glycemic index and cite foods high in glycemic index as the
carbohydrates to avoid.

Actually Atkins has a Glycemic loading index which combines the rate at
which blood sugar is increased along wtih the amount of drive to
increase the blood sugar.

So far, my reading hasn't uncovered a simple clear discussion of this
loading index...... but I assume Atkins wasn't really stupid.

Oh, now I see the viewpoint of some of these new "Researchers" or
"so-called researchers".

I found in metallurgy that you could find equally incompetent "so-called
researchers", so the diet field doesn't have a special monopoly.

Jim


Glycemic load is much, much better than glycemic index. For instance, I
starting looking into eating low carb because of eating brown rice, pasta
cooked al dente, and grapefruit, each of which is low on the glycemic
index. Nonetheless, they caused my blood sugar to skyrocket.

Anyone know how they calculate glycemic load? I assume it would be
something like:

(glycemic index/100) * grams per serving of carbs,

where "100" is the glycemic index for glucose (not white bread, which some
scales use). Obviously, the nebulous "serving" comes into play here as
well. Perhaps it should be done on 100g of product?

--
Bob M
remove ".x" to reply