Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

GI index on primal blueprint

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • GI index on primal blueprint

    The higher the GI number the higher the insulin response and vice versa. Its also true that you can lower the GI of a meal by adding fats and proteins or even things like lemon juice/vinegar, thus lowering the total insulin response. If you can lower the insulin response/oxidation from the meal then why should whole grains be excluded? Their insulin response can be droped, and they contain good amounts of some nutrients along with the dietary fiber.

  • #2
    Go to pubmed and look up wheat agglutinin, leptin resistance, carbohydrate and fat metabolism as associated with insulin, phytic acid and anti nutrients, then come back and report on what you've found.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Bisous View Post
      Go to pubmed and look up wheat agglutinin, leptin resistance, carbohydrate and fat metabolism as associated with insulin, phytic acid and anti nutrients, then come back and report on what you've found.
      What she said.



      Nice username by the way...
      .`.><((((> .`.><((((>.`.><((((>.`.><(( ((>
      ><((((> .`.><((((>.`.><((((>.`.><(( ((>

      Comment


      • #4
        These factors only come into play when you eat grains in excess; If you have a moderate amount of grains in your diet their are no noticable health effects and also potential interactions of many of the antinutrients present in grains are not well researched. So when you have a moderate amount of whole grains in the diet, and you can curve the insulin response through adding fats and proteins to the meal then why is whole grain so bad?

        Comment


        • #5
          You could plausibly just do a little cocaine and be perfectly "fine" too. We have an 80/20 rule but we treat grains like the junk that they are. They're not in any way health-promoting, they're junk food and to be treated as such. Munch at thy own discretion and peril.

          "Excess" is also kind of arbitrary. For those who have awakened to the ill-effects of gluten grains and eschewed them, any at all is considered excess. For anyone who feels any irritation after completely eschewing grains for weeks and then eating some, that is excess. Or for anyone who wants optimal health, any junk is excess. Depends on your goals but we tend to categorize grains as junk and categorize junk as undesirable. They aren't good nutrition compared to meat or vegetables. They're completely superfluous and sub-optimal.

          Then the question arises: why? Aren't meat and vegetables good enough or is the grain addiction still present? Wheat contains opioid-like peptides and other grains have similar effects. Mark had a good post on this recently.
          Stabbing conventional wisdom in its face.

          Anyone who wants to talk nutrition should PM me!

          Comment


          • #6
            If no real negative effects can be seen in a moderate grain diet then whats the problem, and one of the main problems the PB has with grains is its effect on insulin levels and the resulting oxidation. Like I said earlier through the correct combination of fats and proteins with the whole grains this problem is solved. So let me add this all together, no adverse effect from anti-nutrients and no continuous insulin spikes that can cause heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and etc on a diet of moderate whole grains with correct use of the glycemic index. That doesnt sound like such a bad thing, and also less than one percent of the population has celiac disease. So becoming sick from it is very uncommon. The anti-gluten campaign is just a fad and excluding it from your diet not only is unrealistic but unneccessary.

            Comment


            • #7
              Define "moderate". And define it liberally at your own peril. In my experience moderate is like half a cup of properly soaked quinoa every other day. You are using arbitrary and meaningless terms to try and rationalize a category of food that is intrinsically unhealthy. Go ahead and eat grains. Make them part of your 20% if you opt for a 20%. Mark's position is that using them as a significant source of calories is detrimental, and that is what the entire world does and look at how sickly and weak the human population has become compared with our hunter-gatherer ancestors. There is tons of paleo-anthropology to substantiate that. Like I said, a bit of cocaine may be permissible, a little heroine, a little candy and a little bit of a nutrient deficiency. it all depends on your arbitrary definition of "fine" and whatever your goals are. Some of us do eat some grains here and there, it's not a dogma, it's a blueprint. The point is that it's not a healthy food and while you may not keel over and die from it that doesn't mean that it should be considered to be health-promoting, which much of the world believes it to be.

              edit: to be honest I think the whole blood sugar spike, insulin spike, de novo lipogenesis, hyperinsulemia, hypoglycaemia thing is a little overblown, but grains are grass seeds. Seeds don't like to be eaten so they poison people. If it was sweet potato in the absence of insulin resistance I would say go for it, you would even get significant nutrition, but eating the young of plants is not a wise thing for a human to do.
              Last edited by Stabby; 06-11-2010, 10:19 PM.
              Stabbing conventional wisdom in its face.

              Anyone who wants to talk nutrition should PM me!

              Comment


              • #8
                The glycemic index is a very outdated concept anyway. Glycemic load is far more important, and stretching out a glycemic response coupled with eating every 2-3 hours as one is more likely to do with a grain-based diet will piggyback glycemic load upon glycemic load, leading to chronic insulin secretion.

                Show me a healthy society that eats a moderate amount of wheat. Give me the name of one. By healthy, I mean no diabetes, no obesity, no heart disease, low rates of cancer, no alzheimers, no hashimotos, no osteoporosis or other diseases caused by vitamin and nutrient deficiencies.

                In my mind, I don't really need to prove that grains (particularly wheat) are bad. (I like to look up the reasons and postulate, because I find that sort of thing interesting). I know healthy societies that don't eat grains. Someone needs to prove to me that grains are healthy before I will feed them to my family on any sort of regular basis.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Copy and pasted from the other troll thread.

                  I am feeding the troll a bit... sorry guys and gals.

                  It is not just GI thats an issues it is also the glycogen load. Even Mark's fruit post recently made me think a little more on this when he talked about the high sugars in watermelon but left out that load was acutally low. I think both GI and GL are needed to make a proper judgement of blood sugar spikes. GI is how much a certain amount of carbs in a food will raise you blood sugar and GL is how much grams of carbs are in that particular food.

                  Now nature seems to have been pretty smart about this. Usually most fruits either have a high GI or a high GL but very seldomly do they have both. Watermelon has a high GI of 72 but a low GL of 4. That means that watermelon sugar has a strong effect on blood sugar but there is very little sugar per serving. Now look at apples, low GI of 39 but a slightly higher GL of 6. Then blueberries in the middle with a GI of 53 and a GL of 5. Overall fruit are pretty balanced and you would be hard pressed to find a high GI, high GL fruit. Now to compare.

                  Lets get the worst culprit out of the way, a bagel has a GI of 72 and a GL of 25 which must have a mind boggiling effect on blood sugar. Wholegrain pasta is at GI 37 and GL 8 which isn't so bad at first glance. Most whole grain breads are around GI 60 and GL 7.

                  So the whole grain stuff is not as bad as the white refined breads but still worst than the fruits (veggies are even better). But there are a couple other factors.

                  1. The grains don't provide nearly as much satiety thus you eat much more.

                  2. The grains usually are eaten in much larger servings thus you eat much more.

                  3. There is little nutrition even in whole grains compared to fruits and veggies.
                  It is sad that the measuring stick of our progress is the speed by which we distance ourselves from the natural world. Even sadder is that we will only see this when there is no nature left to save.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I'm hopeful it's a representative from Monsanto.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Helen in Oz
                      y'all know that 'troll' means it's a timewaster who really doesn't give a rat's arse about your reply, but just wants to bait you into arguing?

                      Useful if it makes you think about this issue for next time you need to argue with a mate I guess. Don't encourage the little suckers though.
                      Actually this has been a good read and will answer a lot of questions for newer people who are not as far a long on the path.

                      The Troll is mistakenly helping to clarify and inform people...... ;-)
                      Last edited by dacec; 06-12-2010, 06:53 AM. Reason: typos

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        GI and GLoad are misleading because the effect of carbohydrates on individuals varies to quite a wide degree. Also, the GI of one apple can be vastly different from another apple, or one that is riper for example. I think people latch on to GI because there is resistance from certain quarters about the concept of cutting back on a food group seen as essential. Therefore for some people using GI is a legitimate way of saying 'cut your carbs' without sounding like an Atkins supporter. Sad but true. It will be discredited in time, but it serves a purpose at the moment in that at least it identifies carbs as a problem which is a move in the right direction.
                        My website: http://www.shoppinganywhere.net/

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Regarding fruit, glycemic index and load are kind of irrelevant anyway. Half of it is fructose which doesn't raise blood sugar. It goes into the liver and gets turned to liver glycogen or triglycerides. Lots of it with full glycogen or hitting the liver too quickly=de novo lipogenesis and fatty liver. It also glycates stuff on the way in like mad whereas glucose is less likely to glycate proteins (although it's constantly circulating so we get a fair bit of glucose-formed AGEs regardless). Completely different molecules.

                          I really do think that too many carbs are sub-optimal, it's just hard to pin that down. I would almost opt for a somewhat higher GI so I can get it all into the brain quickly and get the insulin down efficiently, however someone who is insulin resistant to a degree (most people) would be the opposite, but then again they should probably be at least semi-ketogenic for a time until they can heal everything.That's kind of Mark's point regarding the carb thing. Most people are not good candidates for carbs upon starting the blueprint and becoming healthy often requires axing the carbs, at least for a little bit. But then again PB is necessarily low-ish carb. Unless you're a vegetarian or a religious follower of CW nutrition there isn't a whole lot of room for them. Some vegetables, a little fruit, a cup or two of sweet potato; that doesn't even bring me to the 150g mark.
                          Last edited by Stabby; 06-12-2010, 08:17 AM.
                          Stabbing conventional wisdom in its face.

                          Anyone who wants to talk nutrition should PM me!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Stabby View Post
                            Regarding fruit, glycemic index and load are kind of irrelevant anyway. Half of it is fructose which doesn't raise blood sugar. It goes into the liver and gets turned to liver glycogen or triglycerides. Lots of it with full glycogen or hitting the liver too quickly=de novo lipogenesis and fatty liver. It also glycates stuff on the way in like mad whereas glucose is less likely to glycate proteins (although it's constantly circulating so we get a fair bit of glucose-formed AGEs regardless). Completely different molecules.

                            I really do think that too many carbs are sub-optimal, it's just hard to pin that down. I would almost opt for a somewhat higher GI so I can get it all into the brain quickly and get the insulin down efficiently, however someone who is insulin resistant to a degree (most people) That's kind of Mark's point regarding the carb thing. Most people are not good candidates for carbs upon starting the blueprint and becoming healthy often requires axing the carbs, at least for a little bit. But then again PB is necessarily low-ish carb. Unless you're a vegetarian or a religious follower of CW nutrition there isn't a whole lot of room for them. Some vegetables, a little fruit, a cup or two of sweet potato; that doesn't even bring me to the 150g mark.
                            Much agreed. I am sure even with a total binge on the higher carbish primal foods that I would be hard pressed to come close to the 300+ grams of carbs that some people eat on SAD. It actually makes me wonder if I was to eat only fruit, veggies and primal tubulers in a day, what my carb count would be. You would be consuming so much more fiber and water that you would be hard pressed to come close to SAD carb values. Got me wondering now.
                            It is sad that the measuring stick of our progress is the speed by which we distance ourselves from the natural world. Even sadder is that we will only see this when there is no nature left to save.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X