If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Why glycemic index is not a useful concept
"Ignoramus21762" wrote An amusing fact is that sucrose has glycemic index of sucrose is 83 Do you find it surprising that pure sugar has a high glycemic index? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Ignoramus21762" wrote An amusing fact is that sucrose has glycemic index of sucrose is 83 Do you find it surprising that pure sugar has a high glycemic index? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Ignoramus24200" wrote in message ... On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 23:25:46 -0800, Daven Thrice wrote: "Ignoramus21762" wrote An amusing fact is that sucrose has glycemic index of sucrose is 83 Do you find it surprising that pure sugar has a high glycemic index? I find it surprising that it is actually relatively low. Table sugar has lower GI than, say, bread (GI of 100). That is counterintuitive to me. Really? That's very interesting. I think that bread and such is worse on my blood sugar than just eating candy. I wonder if type-1 diabetics would be better off eating bread, rather than candy, in the event of a reaction. Maybe bread is better, and nobody has tried it because it seems counter-intuitive. Daven |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"Ignoramus24200" wrote in message ... On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 20:51:37 -0800, Daven Thrice wrote: "Ignoramus24200" wrote in message ... On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 23:25:46 -0800, Daven Thrice wrote: "Ignoramus21762" wrote An amusing fact is that sucrose has glycemic index of sucrose is 83 Do you find it surprising that pure sugar has a high glycemic index? I find it surprising that it is actually relatively low. Table sugar has lower GI than, say, bread (GI of 100). That is counterintuitive to me. Really? That's very interesting. I think that bread and such is worse on my blood sugar than just eating candy. That's interesting and is along the lines of what I heard other diabetics report. I wonder if type-1 diabetics would be better off eating bread, rather than candy, in the event of a reaction. Maybe bread is better, and nobody has tried it because it seems counter-intuitive. I guess candy is just more portable and storable... But not always available. I remember taking off in the car, more than once, with my departed diabetic brother in search of candy in an emergency. He died at the age of 44 while in a diabetic coma. I'll be 44 myself, a week from Sunday. Daven |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"Ignoramus21762" wrote in message
... http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/76/1/290S This is an interesting article. It explains that glycemic index is not well reproducible, depends on what else is eaten beside the food in question, that it is not proven that high GI(as opposed to low GI) foods cause disease, or weight gain, etc. A very worthwhile read. An amusing fact is that sucrose has glycemic index of sucrose is 83 according to http://www.diabetes.ca/Section_About/glycemic.asp, which is lower than, say, "healthy" instant oatmeal (same page). According to http://www.diet-i.com/glycemic-index-sugar.htm, GI of sucrose is 65. According to www.glycemicindex.com, GI of sucrose is 58-65, which makes it lower GI than many "healthy" whole wheat breads. Here "low GI" is used to sell full of fat and/or sugar crap like Nutella and Cocopops. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"Ignoramus19295" wrote in message
... On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 18:35:21 +1100, Darkfalz wrote: "Ignoramus21762" wrote in message ... http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/76/1/290S This is an interesting article. It explains that glycemic index is not well reproducible, depends on what else is eaten beside the food in question, that it is not proven that high GI(as opposed to low GI) foods cause disease, or weight gain, etc. A very worthwhile read. An amusing fact is that sucrose has glycemic index of sucrose is 83 according to http://www.diabetes.ca/Section_About/glycemic.asp, which is lower than, say, "healthy" instant oatmeal (same page). According to http://www.diet-i.com/glycemic-index-sugar.htm, GI of sucrose is 65. According to www.glycemicindex.com, GI of sucrose is 58-65, which makes it lower GI than many "healthy" whole wheat breads. Here "low GI" is used to sell full of fat and/or sugar crap like Nutella and Cocopops. That's interesting. Those people find a way to sell products for every new diet idea. How's your dieting going? Well they sell lollies (candy) by saying they're 99.9% fat free. Like sugar ever had fat in it. I guess next we'll get ads for oil and butter saying they are sugar free. No problems so far but like I said, no scales to weigh me. Maybe that's a good thing. I'm feeling strong and fit(ter). |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Glycemic Load v. Glycemic Index (was: Study: Eat "Good" Carbs....) | Martin W. Smith | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 0 | August 30th, 2004 12:51 PM |
Glycemic Load v. Glycemic Index (was: Study: Eat "Good" Carbs....) | Bob M | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 0 | August 28th, 2004 07:40 PM |
South Beach Diet, facts, misinformation and the glycemic index | Doug Lerner | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 60 | May 7th, 2004 12:25 PM |
Checking the Glycemic Index of Food is healthier than a low Carbohydrate diet | Victoria | General Discussion | 11 | December 17th, 2003 09:05 PM |
Checking your food's Glycemic Index is healthier than a low Carb diet | Victoria | Weightwatchers | 0 | December 15th, 2003 07:02 PM |