Low Fat or Low Glycemic?

Doesn't mean much to me.

Let me put it plainly. Your blood sugar rises when you eat. This effect
is worse with certain foods. It may eventually affect your health
negatively. The impact of each type of food is quantified by the
glycemic index. The value has no meaning in itself, but it is used to
compare different food groups. A food with a higher glycemic index will
cause a sharper pike in the blood sugar level than one with a lower
glycemic index. Do you want to avoid this effect? If it does not matter
to you, than it has no important meaning, but the vast majority of
posters to this newsgroup try to control their health by avoiding blood
sugar going up when they eat. Please go to a group that suits your
interests.

H.L wrote:
Doesn't mean much to me.

Let me put it plainly. Your blood sugar rises when you eat. This effect
is worse with certain foods. It may eventually affect your health
negatively. The impact of each type of food is quantified by the
glycemic index. The value has no meaning in itself, but it is used to
compare different food groups. A food with a higher glycemic index will
cause a sharper pike in the blood sugar level than one with a lower
glycemic index. Do you want to avoid this effect? If it does not matter
to you, than it has no important meaning, but the vast majority of
posters to this newsgroup try to control their health by avoiding blood
sugar going up when they eat. Please go to a group that suits your
interests.


I am in a group that suits my interests. Low Carb.

You and your Glycemic Index talk should follow your own advice and go to
a group that suits your interests.... rather than a group you seek to
CONVERT TO YOUR INTERESTS.

Glycemic index doesn't mean much to me. Even though I have known about
it for several years.

I am in a group that suits my interests. Low Carb.


Then glycemic index should have a meaning to you. See it as a tool to
identify which foods are suitable for a low carb diets and which are
not. Do you see the relation between foods recommended in the Atkins
food and those low in the GI tables as just a coincidence?

H.L wrote:
You are not more than partly correct. The glycemic index measures how
the average person's blood sugar responds to a certain food under
fasting conditions. The genetic variation is not that great. The
overwhelming majority will experience a sharper rise in their levels
when eating a donut as compared to a steak regardless of what conditions
they are in or what they are combining it with. Imagine an alcoholic
index measuring how drunk you get by drinking different liquors. They
would then have to define it under a certain test state, and it would
apply to the average, but vodka would score much higher than cider.
Would you be able to say that you would get more drunk on a cider than
an vodka just because those conditions don't apply to you? That is the
analogy that the original poster stated. The index is definitely
meaningful to all.

If I tested my own personal blood alcohol level after ingesting various
types and amounts of alcohol, I'd no longer find estimates of what
alcohol does meaningful.

Since I have a huge database of blood glucose readings after various
meals, the GI index is utterly irrelevant to me.

My point is not that the GI is stupid, my point is that it is an
*average*. People do much better dealing with their *specific*
biochemistry than hypothetical based on averages.

Some foods that are supposed to be low GI spike some diabetics; some
foods that are not high GI do not spike some diabetics. It's not nearly
as simple as you want to make it out to be as biochemistry varies.

--
http://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/

H.L wrote:

Then glycemic index should have a meaning to you. See it as a tool to
identify which foods are suitable for a low carb diets and which are
not. Do you see the relation between foods recommended in the Atkins
food and those low in the GI tables as just a coincidence?

Glycemic Load is much more significant for both weight loss and blood
glucose control than Glycemic Index is.

GL is made up of both GI and the amount of carb. The amount is more
significant than the GI overall, so low-carbing accomplishes a low-GL
diet without ever thinking about it.

There's only so much carb I can eat in order to control my bg. So
personally, I find the more interesting way to measure carbs than either
GI or GL to be the amount of vitamins, minerals and phytochemicals per
gram of carb.

For me, this means non-starchy veggies are the primary source of carb.
Low-sugar fruits give a lot of nutritional bang for the carb buck also.
And of the whole grains, barley and buckwheat are preferable to most
others.

--
http://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/

H.L wrote:
I am in a group that suits my interests. Low Carb.


Then glycemic index should have a meaning to you. See it as a tool to
identify which foods are suitable for a low carb diets and which are
not. Do you see the relation between foods recommended in the Atkins
food and those low in the GI tables as just a coincidence?


You're still selling to a guy who ain't buying.

I heartily recommend your own advice, and have you seek a group where
your ideas aren't selling.

Bye.

You're still selling to a guy who ain't buying.

I heartily recommend your own advice, and have you seek a group where
your ideas aren't selling.

Bye.

First of all, I'm not selling anything here. The glycemic index is a
well established frame for people wanting to achieve better health with
a low carb diet. Even Dr. Atkins himself called it "a beautiful tool" .
That's quite enough as a reference. If someone who wanted to start a low
carb programme asked how to know what foods to eat, the glycemic index
would be a great way to separate "bad" items from good ones. I don't
stand to gain anything from pointing this out.

If you have any objections to the definition of the glycemic index such
as Jackie's, please state them in an objective way. I also ask you to
speak only for yourself and not refer to what the rest of the groups are
thinking unless you have asked each of them. My guess is that the
glycemic index enjoys a good reputation. You don't want to use it, it is
certainly up to you. It still has a meaning.

The GI is not perfect, but is one of the best ways to guidance between
"carby" and "non-carby foods" for low-carb dieters that there is.

Answering Jackie: I understand that there is a difference between the
average and the individual. However, you can't stretch this argument
into completely renouncing all scientific trials by stating that they
don't apply to you, because you are not the average. Then virtually all
discussions in this newsgroup would ultimately be pointless. Our bodies
are all different anyway, so why bother trying to agree on a diet that
works? While you are welcome to post the results of your own
experiments, I have an extremely hard time believing that your blood
sugar goes up more from olive oil than from Pepsi with the added sugar.

I hope that I have answered your respective points. Again, the values
presented on the GI has little or no meaning in themselves, but eating
foods with lower GI has helped a very high number of people and has even
named one of the more popular diets of today. It is used as a reference
in many studies.

H.L wrote:

Answering Jackie: I understand that there is a difference between the
average and the individual. However, you can't stretch this argument
into completely renouncing all scientific trials by stating that they
don't apply to you, because you are not the average.

It'd be silly to just declare yourself non-average if you don't know.

My point is you *can* know pretty damned easily since bg meters are
widely available.


Then virtually all
discussions in this newsgroup would ultimately be pointless. Our bodies
are all different anyway, so why bother trying to agree on a diet that
works? While you are welcome to post the results of your own
experiments, I have an extremely hard time believing that your blood
sugar goes up more from olive oil than from Pepsi with the added sugar.

You're dealing with extremes of the GI there. I'd pretty much have to
go on an all-fat diet to get olive oil to raise my bg enough to measure;
gluconeogenesis is a slow process.

Still, experience does vary.


I hope that I have answered your respective points. Again, the values
presented on the GI has little or no meaning in themselves, but eating
foods with lower GI has helped a very high number of people and has even
named one of the more popular diets of today. It is used as a reference
in many studies.

I think GL is much more significant if you're gonna look at an index at
all instead of testing yourself.

--
http://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/

On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 11:34:43 -0800 (PST), wrote:

I recommend reading a book by Dr. Ray Strand called Releasing Fat. He
talks about the importance of looking at the glycemic index rather
than merely at the fat content of foods.

No need to read yet anther rehash of what South Beach Diet so clearly
states.
---
Peter
270/220/180