xpost sci.med.nutrition,misc.health.diabetes
What do you make of this?
http://www.adaevidencelibrary.com/template.cfm?template=guide_summary&key=626
(American Dietetic Association)
| AWM R.11a Low Glycemic Index Diets
| R.11a A low glycemic index diet is *not* recommended for weight loss or
| weight maintenance as part of a comprehensive weight management program,
| since it has not been shown to be effective in these areas.
| Eight RCTs (5 positive-quality and 3 neutral-quality) report no
| significant differences in energy intake or body weight after the
| consumption of low-glycemic-index foods, however, some of these studies
| report significant improvements in other parameters, such as hunger and
| body fat mass (Alfenas and Mattes, 2005; Bouche et al, 2002; Carels et
| al, 2005; Ebbeling et al, 2005; Frost et al, 2004; Pereira et al, 2004;
| Sloth et al, 2004; Thompson et al, 2005) One neutral-quality cohort
| study showed significant differences in weight loss and abdominal
| obesity after following a low-glycemic load diet (LaHaye et al, 2005)
| Conclusion statement is Grade I
| Consensus reached.
And this...?
http://www.diabetes.org/glycemic-index.jsp
(American Diabetes Association)
[...]
| believe it or not, many high-fat foods, such as candy bars and pizza,
| have a low GI. If food manufacturers begin lowering the GI of processed
| foods by adding high-fat ingredients or high-fructose corn syrup (which
| has a low GI), we'll have the same dilemma we had when low-carb products
| began inundating the market: junk foods that have been altered and
| labeled as healthy.
|
| Some studies show small improvements in A1Cs among people who are
| attentive to the glycemic index. But reducing calories, weight loss, and
| basic carbohydrate counting have been shown to be more effective in
| improving A1Cs among people with type 2 diabetes than basing diet
| decisions on the GI.
|
| I don't suggest eliminating "high GI" foods in favor of "low GI" foods
| to gain better blood glucose levels for two reasons. First, there is not
| enough evidence yet to show that such an action actually will improve
| your blood glucose levels; and second, choosing foods based solely on GI
| will compromise healthy eating.
|
| I suggest basing your food choices on a nutritionally balanced diet,
| while controlling total carbohydrates, as a first measure. Then, if you
| find that your after-meal blood glucose is much higher after eating
| certain foods, you can either choose to eat smaller portions of those
| foods or adjust your mealtime diabetes medication.
[...]
Enrico C - 02 Jan 2007 20:42 GMT
> What do you make of this?
[...]
On the other hand...
http://www.mendosa.com/wolever.htm
The Glycemic Index: Flogging a Dead Horse?
By Thomas M.S. Wolever, MD, PHD
SUMMARY:
The glycemic index (GI) is a classification of foods based on their blood
glucose-raising potential. The American Diabetes Association (ADA) has
questioned the clinical utility of the GI and recommends that priority
should be given to the amount rather than the source of carbohydrate. Some
have interpreted this to mean that all carbohydrates have a nearly equal
impact on blood sugar, and some feel that the GI is now a dead issue.
‘The horse is alive and well.’
Nevertheless, the reasons for questioning the clinical utility of the GI
are unfounded because of the following: 1) they are based on studies of
single test meals, which provide insufficient evidence on which to base
dietary recommendations; 2) they are based on a faulty interpretation of
the studies actually cited as evidence; 3) they take no account of better
designed studies showing that the GI does apply in mixed meals; and 4) they
take no account of studies showing that a low-GI diet improves overall
blood glucose control in persons with diabetes. The GI is a valid and
potentially useful concept, but is also deceptively complex. There are a
number of unresolved problems and unanswered questions, and the appropriate
place for the GI in patient education is not known. However, progress
cannot be made without balance and objectivity.
[...]
Alan Moorman@visi.com - 10 Jan 2007 02:15 GMT
>> What do you make of this?
>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>The glycemic index (GI) is a classification of foods based on their blood
>glucose-raising potential.
No. This is a misconception.
The GI index tells you how FAST or SLOWLY a given food will
raise one's blood glucose.
The GI has LITTLE or NOTHING to do with how MUCH the food
raises one's blood glucose levels.
This is where so many people treat the GI incorrectly.
Alan
==
It's not that I think stupidity should be punishable by death.
I just think we should take the warning labels off of everything
and let the problem take care of itself.
--------------------------------------------------------
Enrico C - 20 Jan 2007 20:53 GMT
On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 20:15:44 -0600, Alan wrote:
>>> What do you make of this?
>>
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> The GI has LITTLE or NOTHING to do with how MUCH the food
> raises one's blood glucose levels.
[...]
I beg to differ...
http://www.glycemicindex.com/aboutGI.htm
Measuring the GI
To determine a food's GI rating, measured portions of the food containing
10 - 50 grams of carbohydrate are fed to 10 healthy people after an
overnight fast. Finger-prick blood samples are taken at 15-30 minute
intervals over the next two hours. These blood samples are used to
construct a blood sugar response curve for the two hour period. The area
under the curve (AUC) is calculated to reflect the total rise in blood
glucose levels after eating the test food. The GI rating (%) is calculated
by dividing the AUC for the test food by the AUC for the reference food
(same amount of glucose) and multiplying by 100 (see Figure 1). The use of
a standard food is essential for reducing the confounding influence of
differences in the physical characteristics of the subjects. The average of
the GI ratings from all ten subjects is published as the GI of that food.
Jefferson - 20 Jan 2007 23:53 GMT
> On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 20:15:44 -0600, Alan wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 39 lines]
> differences in the physical characteristics of the subjects. The average of
> the GI ratings from all ten subjects is published as the GI of that food.
Take a look at Google Group archives and come back -
http://groups.google.com/groups?lnk=hpsg&q=glycemic+index+load.
Enrico C - 21 Jan 2007 00:50 GMT
>> On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 20:15:44 -0600, Alan wrote:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 39 lines]
>> differences in the physical characteristics of the subjects. The average of
>> the GI ratings from all ten subjects is published as the GI of that food.
For instance, here are two glycemic curves after two different meals, "A"
and "B", with the same amount of carbohydrate.
Which food would have the higher GI in your opinion, A or B?
http://snipurl.com/glycemiccurveexample
> Take a look at Google Group archives and come back -
Sorry, "Google Groups" is not an authoritative source of information. ;-)
Published studies are more useful in our case.
For instance,
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstra
ctPlus&list_uids=15523541&query_hl=7&itool=pubmed_docsum
Determination of the glycaemic index of selected foods (white bread and
cereal bars) in healthy persons.
[...]
METHODS: To determine the GI, measured portions of food containing 50 g of
carbohydrates were eaten by 11 healthy volunteers. B-glucose curves were
constructed from B-glucose values at time 0, 15, 30, 45, 60, 90, 120 min
after the meal. The GI was calculated by dividing the incremental area
under the curve (IAUC) for the tested food by that for the standard food
(IAUCS).
[...]
Full text
http://publib.upol.cz/~obd/fulltext/Biomed/2004/1/17.pdf
Of course, it can be said that
"Carbohydrates that breakdown quickly during digestion have a high GI
because their B-glucose response is fast and high. Carbohydrates that
breakdown slowly have a low GI".
Still,
"The GI is a measure of the food power to
raise B-glucose concentration after a meal."
and GI is defined as
"relation of the incremental area under the B-glu-
cose response curve (IAUC) of a tested meal containing
50 g of digestible carbohydrates and the incremental area
under the B-glucose response curve of the standard food,
i.e. 50 g pure glucose (IAUCS)."
Here is how they determine the GI of a food in detail :
Determination of the glycaemic index
a) Getting basic data
To determine the GI, measured portions of tested food
containing 50 g of carbohydrates were eaten by each of the
11 healthy volunteers (Table 1) after an overnight fast; the
same approach was used after an afternoon fast. Finger-
prick blood samples were investigated at 15–30 minute
intervals over the next two hours after the meal (at times
0, 15, 30, 45, 60, 90, 120 min; the beginning of the food
intake was time 0).
Each volunteer measured his/her B-glucose concentra-
tions by means of a glucometer Optium. At the end of the
one-week test period the B-glucose values were transferred
from the memory of the glucometer into a PC for further
analysis.
b) Construction of B-glucose response curves.
The averages of the respective B-glucose concentra-
tions after the meal were used to draw a B-glucose re-
sponse curve for the two-hour period. The values at times
75 and 105 min were obtained by extrapolation.
c) Exclusion of disturbed tests.
For the purpose of statistical evaluation, all tests that
were not complete and all tests where the first (i.e. fast-
ing) B-glucose concentration was 7.0 mmol/l or higher
were excluded.
d) Calculations of individual GI values in every vol-
unteer.
The incremental area under the curve (IAUC) was
calculated for each meal in every volunteer separately (as
the sum of the surface of triangles and trapezoids between
the B-glucose curve and horizontal baseline going parallel
to x-axis from the beginning of B-glucose curve at time 0
to the point at time 120 min) to reflect the total rise in
B-glucose concentration after eating the tested food.
The IAUCS for the standard reference food (i.e. 50 g
of pure glucose) was obtained similarly to the mean from
the first three independent IAUCS1 , IAUCS2 IAUCS3
in the same volunteer.
In the IAUC/IAUCS calculations, all B-glucose val-
ues in the course of the test lower than the first value (at
time 0) were equalized to the respective first value.
In each volunteer, the GI (%) was calculated by di-
viding the IAUC for the tested food by the IAUCS for
the standard food and multiplying by 100. The following
formula was used:
[...]
IAUC – Incremental Area Under the blood glucose
response curve for the tested meal
IAUCS – Incremental Area Under the blood glucose
curve for the standard meal
e) Working out the average of GI’s for tested food in
each volunteer.
In each volunteer each food item was tested 5 times
so that 5 GI’s was obtained and (after the exclusion of
disturbed tests) the average was calculated.
f) Final calculation of the GI for each tested food.
The GI for each tested food was calculated as the mean
from the respective average GI’s of the 11 volunteers.
g) The variability of GI for each tested food was
assessed according to standard deviation of the mean;
histograms of GI values demontrated the frequency and
range of results.
==============================================
Jefferson - 21 Jan 2007 19:35 GMT
>>Take a look at Google Group archives and come back -
>
> Sorry, "Google Groups" is not an authoritative source of information. ;-)
>
> Published studies are more useful in our case.
In our case you do not have a case since you are not diabetic. The
point is you are beating a dead horse. There are too many diabetics
that have found glycemic index not useful. The general theme in
diabetic newsgroups is YMMV - your mileage may vary.
Frank
Enrico C - 21 Jan 2007 20:42 GMT
[...]
> In our case you do not have a case since you are not diabetic. The
> point is you are beating a dead horse.
I am not. I asked your opinion on the topic.
Then, I just replied about GI definition, what it is and how it is tested.
> There are too many diabetics
> that have found glycemic index not useful.
That's precisely what I asked about, in my original post.
Thank you for answering. :)
> The general theme in
> diabetic newsgroups is YMMV - your mileage may vary.
So, it may be useful for some?