 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers WeightAdviser.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Weight Loss Forum / Low Carb / March 2008Low Fat or Low Glycemic?
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. > 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. There are also books and articles that state that in order to lose fat you must eat fat. Thank goodness, fat has a virtually zero GI, so it could be called a low GI food. On Dec 4, 11:34 am, masters1...@gmail.com wrote: > I recommend reading a book by Dr. Ray Strand called Releasing Fat. http://www.dailymuscle.com/images/ray_strand_malaysia.jpg Whatever this guy thinks he knows about releasing fat clearly isn't working for him. Would you take advice from a financial consultant who is broke? > He talks about the importance of looking at the glycemic index rather > than merely at the fat content of foods. What the glycemic index tells you is the response of your blood sugar level when you ingest a certain amount of that food under fasting conditions. This means that you eat just that food and nothing else, after not eating something for many hours. These conditions are not true when those foods are consumed as part of a normal meal. The presence of other ingredients affects your body's actual response to that food, as well as what state you are in. Thus, the GI is about as useful as tits on a f.cking bull. > What the glycemic index tells you is the response of your blood sugar > level when you ingest a certain amount of that food under fasting > conditions. No, it doesn't. What GI tells you is the average bg rise from a large bunch of people, not what *yours* is going to do. People vary a great deal. Diabetics who test their bg regularly find one food spikes one person and the same food does not spike another. > These conditions are not true when those foods are consumed as part of > a normal meal. The presence of other ingredients affects your body's > actual response to that food, as well as what state you are in. Absolutely, which is another reason people with blood glucose issues, even those who are not frankly diabetic, such as those with reactive hypoglycemia and/or metabolic syndrome, need to test in real world conditions to find out what does and doesn't work for them. > Thus, the GI is about as useful as tits on a f.cking bull. It gives you a starting place to begin as knowing what works for many gives you a clue; but I agree it doesn't tell you what works for the individual. Statistical studies are interesting in terms of finding out what works best for many, but actual decisions need to be tailored to the individual in order to optimzie health.  Signaturehttp://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/ > What the glycemic index tells you is the response of your blood sugar > level when you ingest a certain amount of that food under fasting [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Thus, the GI is about as useful as tits on a f.cking bull. No, it is definitely not. The reason that they measure it that way is that they have to have a clear definition in order for an index to make sense. Your statement is like saying that temperature has no meaning for someone walking in the open because it is measured in the shadow. If a food causes a higher pike in the blood sugar to someone on a fasting stomach, don't you think that it would raise blood sugar more than the other item also when they eat it as a part of a meal? The temperature analogy is that if it is warmer one day in the shadow than another day, then chances are pretty high that it is also warmer in the open. You can eat a huge meal dominated by high GI food and compare your blood sugar response it with eating one with low GI components. I think that you will see a clear difference. > No, it is definitely not. The reason that they measure it that way is > that they have to have a clear definition in order for an index to make [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > stomach, don't you think that it would raise blood sugar more than the > other item also when they eat it as a part of a meal? Not necessarily. For instance, fat greatly slows the absorption of carbohydrate. Insulin-using diabetics have to deal with changing the timing of their bolus insulin to deal with - Google for "pizza effect" to learn about this. > The temperature > analogy is that if it is warmer one day in the shadow than another day, > then chances are pretty high that it is also warmer in the open. You can > eat a huge meal dominated by high GI food and compare your blood sugar > response it with eating one with low GI components. I think that you > will see a clear difference. Blood glucose depends more on glycemic load than glycemic index; in short, limiting the *amount* of carb is much more important than limiting the GI of the carb. But these things vary a great deal from individual to individual. Temperature is not a good analogy; a better one would be hair color. On average, most people are brunette, but that doesn't say anything about an individual's hair color. Signaturehttp://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/ > > No, it is definitely not. The reason that they measure it that way is > > that they have to have a clear definition in order for an index to make [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > -- > http://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/ 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. Regards. >>> No, it is definitely not. The reason that they measure it that way is >>> that they have to have a clear definition in order for an index to make [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > Regards. Doesn't mean much to me. > 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. >> Doesn't mean much to me. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > 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? > 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. Signaturehttp://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/ >> 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. > 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. Signaturehttp://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/ > You are not more than partly correct. The glycemic index measures how > the average person's blood sugar responds to a certain food under [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > 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. Signaturehttp://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/ >Thus, the GI is about as useful as tits on a f.cking bull. You are obviously not diabetic. You have no clue what you're talking about. > 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. The word "merely" doesn't really make sense here, because GI and fat content are mostly unrelated. In general, higher fat content in a food will slow the absorption of the carbs it came with, making the overall meal lower in GI. So to the extent that GI and fat content are related, they're opposite, not complementary. SignatureAaron -- 285/254/200 -- aaron.baugher.biz >> I recommend reading a book by Dr. Ray Strand called Releasing Fat. He >> talks about the importance of looking at the glycemic index rather [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > meal lower in GI. So to the extent that GI and fat content are related, > they're opposite, not complementary. Hmmm. Will having carbs together with a fatty meal increase one's CCLL? I usually eat carbs by themselves, like having salad or some nuts for a meal. >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 |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.