Glycemic index or carb count?

I have suspected Igor, that the body is efficient in these processes.
Barring illness, I would bet there is the same total insulin released for
the same number of digestible carbs, regardless of the GI.

A measured spike has a profound effect on the human observer's mind,
compared to the intuitive non-existence of a measured low slow long insulin
rise.

I believe the concern about the Glycemic Index is based on human bias.

"Ignoramus6455" wrote in message
...
xposted with Dr Dickie's permission...

Gives further support to JC's statement that "GI is not an issue of
how much, only when".

There was a study that said that people on a lower GI diet had their
trigs decline by more that people who ate less but higher GI. That's
how the study was reported. But was it the correct conclusion from the
study?

What was interesting about that study is that people on a lower GI
diet also ate less carbs.

If we work out the ratio of carbs to trigs, it turns out that both
groups have their trigs basically proportional to the count of carbs
that they eat.

In other words, the effect of low GI on trigs cannot really be
meaningfully identified.

My guess is that the effect of GI is next to nil. Most likely, all
that low GI does is make people eat foods that are harder to eat a lot
of, which makes them eat less of them, which in turn lowers their
trigs.

What this supports, more or less, is the idea of carb counting ("count
the grams of carbs equally") rather than GL counting ("you can afford
to eat more whole wheat bread than white bread").

See quoted messages at the bottom. I think that it's fun, but I may
have an odd idea of what's fun.

i

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 17:07:02 GMT, Ignoramus6455
wrote:
On Tue, 2 Aug 2005 09:57:17 -0400, Dr_Dickie
wrote:
Some recent work being done.




· Am J Clin Nutr. 2005 May;81(5):949-50.
Effects of an ad libitum low-glycemic load diet on cardiovascular
disease
risk factors in obese young adults.

Ebbeling CB, Leidig MM, Sinclair KB, Seger-Shippee LG, Feldman HA,
Ludwig
DS.

Division of Endocrinology, Department of Medicine, Children's Hospital,
Boston, MA 02115, USA.

BACKGROUND: The optimal nutritional approach for the prevention of
cardiovascular disease among obese persons remains a topic of intense
controversy. Available approaches range from conventional low-fat to
very-low-carbohydrate diets. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this pilot study was
to
evaluate the efficacy of an ad libitum low-glycemic load diet, without
strict limitation on carbohydrate intake, as an alternative to a
conventional low-fat diet. DESIGN: A randomized controlled trial
compared 2
dietary treatments in obese young adults (n = 23) over 12 mo. The
experimental treatment emphasized ad libitum consumption of
low-glycemic-index foods, with 45-50% of energy from carbohydrates and
30-35% from fat. The conventional treatment was restricted in energy
(250-500 kcal/d deficit) and fat (30% of energy), with 55-60% of
energy
from carbohydrate. We compared changes in study outcomes by
repeated-measures analysis of log-transformed data and expressed the
results
as mean percentage change. RESULTS: Body weight decreased significantly
over
a 6-mo intensive intervention in both the experimental and conventional
diet
groups (-8.4% and -7.8%, respectively) and remained below baseline at
12 mo
(-7.8% and -6.1%, respectively). The experimental diet group showed a
significantly greater mean decline in plasma triacylglycerols than did
the
conventional diet group (-37.2% and -19.1%, respectively; P = 0.005).
Mean
plasminogen activator inhibitor 1 concentrations decreased (-39.0%) in
the
experimental diet group but increased (33.1%) in the conventional diet
group
(P = 0.004). Changes in cholesterol concentrations, blood pressure, and
insulin sensitivity did not differ significantly between the groups.
CONCLUSION: An ad libitum low-glycemic load diet may be more
efficacious
than a conventional, energy-restricted, low-fat diet in reducing
cardiovascular disease risk.

That's a good one. But what should be the conclusion from it? Let's
make sure that I understand it right.

We have one (experimental) group who ate a diet of about 47.5% of energy
as carbs. Another (control group) ate about 57.5% of energy as
carbs.

The experimental group's trigs declined more.

In the experimentalgroup, trigs declined by 37%. In the control group,
trigs declined by 19%.

Let's say that their starting trig level was 200.

That means that the experimental group ended up with trigs of
200*(100-37) = 200*63 = 126.

The control group ended with trigs = 200*(100-19) = 200*81 = 162.

In the experimental group, ratio of carbs to trigs is

Ratio=47.5/126=0.37

In the control group, ratio of carbs to trigs

Ratio=57.5/162=0.35.

What do we see?

We see that more carbs means higher trigs. Effect of "low glycemic
index" is not actually very prominent here.

Seen the other way,

Ratio of carbs between experimental and control group:

47.5/57.5 = 0.82

Ratio of trigs between experimental and control group:

121/162 = 0.78

In other words, trigs follow carbs. Simple as that.

I would really like to xpost this message to
alt.support.diet.low-carb, if you would not mind. Some people there
may find it interesting.

i


Publication Types:
· Clinical Trial
· Randomized Controlled Trial

PMID: 15883418 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]









Gastroenterology. 2005 Jul;129(1):105-12.
Glycemic load, glycemic index, and carbohydrate intake in relation to
risk
of cholecystectomy in women.

Tsai CJ, Leitzmann MF, Willett WC, Giovannucci EL.

Channing Laboratory, Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School and
Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.


BACKGROUND & AIMS: High-carbohydrate diets with a high glycemic
response may
exacerbate the metabolic consequences of the insulin-resistance
syndrome.
The effect on the incidence of gallstone disease is not clear. METHODS:
We
examined the associations between high-carbohydrate diets with a high
glycemic response and the risk of cholecystectomy in a cohort of women
who
were aged from 35 to 61 years in 1984 and had no history of gallstone
disease. As part of the Nurses' Health Study, the women reported on
questionnaires mailed to them every 2 years both their carbohydrate
intake
and whether they had undergone cholecystectomy. RESULTS: During 16
years of
follow-up, we ascertained 5771 new cases of cholecystectomy. After
adjusting
for age and other known or suspected risk factors in a multivariate
model,
the relative risk for the highest compared with the lowest quintile of
dietary carbohydrate was 1.35 (95% CI: 1.17-1.55, P for trend .0001).
The
relative risks for the highest compared with the lowest quintile were
1.50
for glycemic load (95% CI: 1.32-1.71, P for trend .0001) and 1.32 for
glycemic index (95% CI: 1.20-1.45, P for trend .0001). Independent
positive associations were also seen for intakes of starch and sucrose.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that a higher intake of carbohydrate,
dietary glycemic load, and glycemic index may enhance risk of
cholecystectomy in women.

PMID: 16012940 [PubMed - in process]




Am J Clin Nutr. 2005 Feb;81(2):376-9.
Influence of glycemic load on HDL cholesterol in youth.

Slyper A, Jurva J, Pleuss J, Hoffmann R, Gutterman D.

General Clinical Research Center, Medical College of Wisconsin,
Milwaukee,
Wisconsin, USA.

BACKGROUND: The influence of dietary carbohydrate glycemic index on
blood
lipids has not been well studied. Assessment of glycemic load is not
usually
included in a standard dietary analysis. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the
present study was to examine relations between diet and blood lipids in
youth with a broad range of cholesterol values and carbohydrate, fat,
and
protein intakes. DESIGN: Relations between blood lipids and dietary
constituents were examined in 32 healthy males and females aged 11-25
y.
Subjects exhibited a range of LDL-cholesterol values (1.71-6.67 mmol/L)
and
body mass index z scores (-1.18 to 2.64). Dietary constituents were
assessed
from 3-d food diaries. RESULTS: The only significant correlations
evident
were negative correlations between HDL cholesterol and glycemic load
(in
relation to white bread), percentage carbohydrate, total dietary sugar,
total carbohydrate, and fructose. On stepwise multiple regression
analysis,
glycemic load accounted for 21.1% of the variation in HDL cholesterol.
CONCLUSIONS: Glycemic load appears to be an important independent
predictor
of HDL cholesterol in youth. This relation is of concern and suggests
that
dietary restrictions without attention to a possible resulting increase
in
glycemic load may result in an unfavorable influence on blood lipids.

PMID: 15699224 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]






--
223/175.3/180

"Ignoramus6455" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 18:02:39 GMT, Cubit wrote:
I have suspected Igor, that the body is efficient in these processes.
Barring illness, I would bet there is the same total insulin released
for
the same number of digestible carbs, regardless of the GI.

I don't think anyone ever suggested otherwise.


That makes sense to me as well.

A measured spike has a profound effect on the human observer's mind,
compared to the intuitive non-existence of a measured low slow long
insulin
rise.

I believe the concern about the Glycemic Index is based on human bias.

... as well as financial interests. "buy our low GI products, buy our
``good carbs``", etc.

i



I certainly do not disagree with finacial interests; and I agree that in
completly healthy individuals, transit spikes probably have little effect.
However, how many completly heathy individuals are there? And make no
mistake, much of disease is not what, but how much.
I work in Alzheimer's Disease research. Abeta protein naturally occurs in
the brain, too much and you are in BIG trouble--and the differences are very
small.
Also, the science is not talking about spikes that people see (I have never
seen spikes in my insulin).
Here's another Ig--there are lots more.
I have a lot of problems with this study (diary use is horrible); however,
it seems to shoot your theory down.

Like I said, this is new and must be worked out--but then look at all the
noise about LOW CARB, and what is really known about it?

Am J Epidemiol. 2005 Feb 15;161(4):359-67. Related Articles, Links


Association between dietary carbohydrates and body weight.

Ma Y, Olendzki B, Chiriboga D, Hebert JR, Li Y, Li W, Campbell M, Gendreau
K, Ockene IS.

Division of Preventive and Behavioral Medicine, University of Massachusetts
Medical School, Worcester, MA 01655, USA.

The role of dietary carbohydrates in weight loss has received considerable
attention in light of the current obesity epidemic. The authors investigated
the association of body mass index (weight (kg)/height (m)(2)) with dietary
intake of carbohydrates and with measures of the induced glycemic response,
using data from an observational study of 572 healthy adults in central
Massachusetts. Anthropometric measurements, 7-day dietary recalls, and
physical activity recalls were collected quarterly from each subject
throughout a 1-year study period. Data were collected between 1994 and 1998.
Longitudinal analyses were conducted, and results were adjusted for other
factors related to body habitus. Average body mass index was 27.4 kg/m(2)
(standard deviation, 5.5), while the average percentage of calories from
carbohydrates was 44.9 (standard deviation, 9.6). Mean daily dietary
glycemic index was 81.7 (standard deviation, 5.5), and glycemic load was
197.8 (standard deviation, 105.2). Body mass index was found to be
positively associated with glycemic index, a measure of the glycemic
response associated with ingesting different types of carbohydrates, but not
with daily carbohydrate intake, percentage of calories from carbohydrates,
or glycemic load. Results suggest that the type of carbohydrate may be
related to body weight. However, further research is required to elucidate
this association and its implications for weight management.

PMID: 15692080 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

--
Dr. Dickie
Skepticult member in good standing #394-00596-438
Poking kooks with a pointy stick.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new
discoveries,
is not 'Eureka!' ('I found it!'), but rather 'hmm....that's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov

"Dr_Dickie" wrote in message
news:1123006843.5e323aaf9f17d6e9434aeed66a2c5680@t eranews...
transit spikes probably have little effect.

You must be referring to...er...Subway?

--
Sherry
364/315/195
http://lowcarb.owly.net

In article ,
"Sherry" wrote:

"Dr_Dickie" wrote in message
news:1123006843.5e323aaf9f17d6e9434aeed66a2c5680@t eranews...
transit spikes probably have little effect.

You must be referring to...er...Subway?

Oh.... GROAN!

Priscilla

"Ignoramus6455" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 2 Aug 2005 14:20:42 -0400, Dr_Dickie
wrote:
"Ignoramus6455" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 18:02:39 GMT, Cubit wrote:
I have suspected Igor, that the body is efficient in these processes.
Barring illness, I would bet there is the same total insulin released
for
the same number of digestible carbs, regardless of the GI.

I don't think anyone ever suggested otherwise.

Yes, you did not suggest otherwise.


I did, when?

--
Dr. Dickie
Skepticult member in good standing #394-00596-438
Poking kooks with a pointy stick.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new
discoveries,
is not 'Eureka!' ('I found it!'), but rather 'hmm....that's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov

"Ignoramus20106" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 06:29:01 -0400, Dr_Dickie
wrote:



"Ignoramus6455" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 2 Aug 2005 14:20:42 -0400, Dr_Dickie
wrote:
"Ignoramus6455" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 18:02:39 GMT, Cubit wrote:
I have suspected Igor, that the body is efficient in these
processes.
Barring illness, I would bet there is the same total insulin
released
for
the same number of digestible carbs, regardless of the GI.

I don't think anyone ever suggested otherwise.

Yes, you did not suggest otherwise.


I did, when?


???

I agreed with you that you did not suggest otherwise.

i


Sorry, I am pouring the first cup of coffee right now!
What gets you up so early Ig (or is it really early where you are?)

--
Dr. Dickie
Skepticult member in good standing #394-00596-438
Poking kooks with a pointy stick.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new
discoveries,
is not 'Eureka!' ('I found it!'), but rather 'hmm....that's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov