Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Glycemic Load

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

  • Glycemic Load

    I'm a little confused about the GL. Is it important that each individual item you eat stay under 10-20, or should the meal as a whole be under 10-20?


    Sent from my iPhone using Marks Daily Apple Forum

  • #2
    IIRC if a healthy person's starches are (a) unprocessed and (b) in a mixed meal it's very difficult to break >150 BG so I wouldn't sweat it.

    If a person it not healthy they should use a blood meter and not guess.
    37//6'3"/185

    My peculiar nutrition glossary and shopping list

    Comment


    • #3
      are you diabetic?
      As I ate the oysters with their strong taste of the sea and their faint metallic taste that the cold white wine washed away, leaving only the sea taste and the succulent texture, and as I drank their cold liquid from each shell and washed it down with the crisp taste of the wine, I lost the empty feeling and began to be happy and to make plans.

      Ernest Hemingway

      Comment


      • #4
        No, not diabetic


        Sent from my iPhone using Marks Daily Apple Forum

        Comment


        • #5
          I don't think the glycemic load is especially important. It's related to the glycemic index, which has been studied heavily, but never seems to matter. Example:
          No difference in body weight decrease between a low-glycemic-index and a high-glycemic-index diet but reduced LDL cholesterol after 10-wk ad libitum intake of the low-glycemic-index diet
          Results: Energy intake, mean ( SEM) body weight (LGI diet: −1.9 0.5 kg; HGI diet: −1.3 0.3 kg), and fat mass (LGI diet: −1.0 0.4 kg; HGI diet: −0.4 0.3 kg) decreased over time, but the differences between groups were not significant. No significant differences were observed between groups in fasting serum insulin, homeostasis model assessment for relative insulin resistance, homeostasis model assessment for β cell function, triacylglycerol, nonesterified fatty acids, or HDL cholesterol. However, a 10% decrease in LDL cholesterol (P < 0.05) and a tendency to a larger decrease in total cholesterol (P = 0.06) were observed with consumption of the LGI diet as compared with the HGI diet.
          My opinions and some justification

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by smerchant@plusd.org View Post
            I'm a little confused about the GL. Is it important that each individual item you eat stay under 10-20, or should the meal as a whole be under 10-20?
            I'm not sure the numbers mean very much. Glycemic Load is an attempt to try to make the Glycemic Index system more workable. But any system of this sort seems to be vitiated by the fact that adding one type of food to another -- buttering a slice of bread, say -- changes its glycemic index.

            I think it's a lot of unnecessary fuss for people. I think it's better just to get a feel for which foods to avoid -- or merely minimise if your needs, or preferences, are less stringent -- and which to eat. Simple as that.


            If you want to quantify anything, it's grams of carbs that is the one to measure.

            You start by getting a (very rough) handle on how much protein to eat for your lean bodymass, for which Mark provides an equation ... And you then forget that! … In other words, don't worry about it -- just get a feel for what portion size of a high-protein food (fish, meat, eggs, cheese, etc.) equates to that and eat very roughly at around that.

            Then the only number you ever have to pay attention to is number of grams of carbohydrate a day, eating at wherever it is you want to be on Mark's Carbohydrate Curve for your purposes:

            How many carbs should I eat each day? | Mark&#039;s Daily Apple

            But, again, once you have a feel for what that means in terms of foodstuffs on a plate, you don't really need to measure.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Elliot View Post
              I don't think the glycemic load is especially important. It's related to the glycemic index, which has been studied heavily, but never seems to matter. Example:
              No difference in body weight decrease between a low-glycemic-index and a high-glycemic-index diet but reduced LDL cholesterol after 10-wk ad libitum intake of the low-glycemic-index diet
              Except, of course, the noted reduction in LDL cholesterol. And, without reading the study, I predict lowered Triglycerides as well.

              For people who are concerned about their cardio vascular health and the potential to eventually develop metabolic syndrome it is, IMO, beneficial to at least understand the glycemic load of what they eat. Particularly as one passes through middle age.

              Sure people who are young and active thrive on good many carbs - but that isn't likely to last forever for most people.
              What have you done today to make you feel Proud?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by gdot View Post
                Except, of course, the noted reduction in LDL cholesterol. And, without reading the study, I predict lowered Triglycerides as well.
                Nope.
                No significant differences were observed between groups in fasting serum insulin, homeostasis model assessment for relative insulin resistance, homeostasis model assessment for β cell function, triacylglycerol, nonesterified fatty acids, or HDL cholesterol.
                I really doubt the 10% change in LDL means anything, either. They're just hanging on to the one thing that changed because they don't want to admit their idea is pointless.
                My opinions and some justification

                Comment


                • #9
                  So what does this mean? We should all go back to eating our refined, high gi foods if we prefer them?
                  What have you done today to make you feel Proud?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Elliot View Post
                    I don't think the glycemic load is especially important. It's related to the glycemic index, which has been studied heavily, but never seems to matter. Example:
                    No difference in body weight decrease between a low-glycemic-index and a high-glycemic-index diet but reduced LDL cholesterol after 10-wk ad libitum intake of the low-glycemic-index diet
                    Objective: The objective of the study was to investigate the long-term effects of a low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet with either low glycemic index (LGI) or high glycemic index (HGI) on ad libitum energy intake, body weight, and composition, as well as on risk factors for type 2 diabetes and ischemic heart disease in overweight healthy subjects.

                    Design: The study was a 10-wk

                    <<snip>>
                    10-weeks is long-term?
                    As I ate the oysters with their strong taste of the sea and their faint metallic taste that the cold white wine washed away, leaving only the sea taste and the succulent texture, and as I drank their cold liquid from each shell and washed it down with the crisp taste of the wine, I lost the empty feeling and began to be happy and to make plans.

                    Ernest Hemingway

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by gdot View Post
                      So what does this mean? We should all go back to eating our refined, high gi foods if we prefer them?
                      I don't like the idea of refined foods, but I don't see an issue with high GI.

                      Sucrose and fructose have lower glycemic indices than starch and glucose.
                      Eating smaller, more frequent meals, as opposed to large infrequent meals (i.e. intermittent fasting) would also minimize blood sugar spikes.

                      So if you really worry about the glycemic index, you should eat small amounts of sugar throughout the day. I don't think that's consistent with the type of eating you promote.

                      People worry too much about blood sugar. It's a risk factor, not disease. Risk factors are correlations. The entire purpose of the LOOK AHEAD trial was to lower diabetics' blood sugar by eating less and exercising more. This successfully lowered blood sugar levels, but the trial was stopped early due to a futility analysis. Despite the improvement in risk factors, rates of heart disease did not differ significantly.
                      http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1212914

                      Blood sugar is not equivalent to heart disease.

                      Originally posted by noodletoy
                      10-weeks is long-term?
                      Do you have a longer trial that refutes this?
                      Last edited by Elliot; 12-07-2014, 04:35 PM.
                      My opinions and some justification

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Elliot,

                        I find that everything you propose is contrary to my personal experience as well as that of my hubby. Both in regards to my family and personal history of cardovascular disease and the hubbies higher blood sugar.
                        What have you done today to make you feel Proud?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Elliot View Post
                          Do you have a longer trial that refutes this?
                          the google-fu war can be never-ending, but you seem to have limitless energy for digging up any sort of study. you're not a dumb guy, so it gets tiresome to see you post links to which a modicum of critical thinking might suggest don't really support your argument, i.e., 10-weeks is certainly not long-term, so the study refuted itself before it even started and that other one you frequently trot out that studied 6 people. a sample size that small isn't worth a spit.
                          As I ate the oysters with their strong taste of the sea and their faint metallic taste that the cold white wine washed away, leaving only the sea taste and the succulent texture, and as I drank their cold liquid from each shell and washed it down with the crisp taste of the wine, I lost the empty feeling and began to be happy and to make plans.

                          Ernest Hemingway

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by noodletoy View Post
                            the google-fu war can be never-ending, but you seem to have limitless energy for digging up any sort of study. you're not a dumb guy, so it gets tiresome to see you post links to which a modicum of critical thinking might suggest don't really support your argument, i.e., 10-weeks is certainly not long-term, so the study refuted itself before it even started and that other one you frequently trot out that studied 6 people. a sample size that small isn't worth a spit.
                            EDIT: I wrote something long. Here is a better way to put it:

                            The randomized trials are the best evidence we have. You might think they're invalid because they're too short or too small, but they show actual results in people.

                            Randomized trials show the glycemic index to be insignificant. If you choose to believe the opposite, i.e. that the glycemic index is important, then you are choosing to believe a hypothesis with even less justification.
                            Last edited by Elliot; 12-09-2014, 09:10 AM.
                            My opinions and some justification

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              this has nothing to do with what i believe, lol. we are not discussing santa or the tooth fairy.

                              let's use that study you like that uses "6 obese but healthy women". it's a sample size that is smaller than any acceptable margin of error in a trial of ANYTHING, and, by definition? those women are not "healthy". obesity deranges hormones which leads to a cascade of physiological events in women. OR deranged hormones may cause obesity, lol, but either way? the women are not "healthy" by any true definition of the word.

                              if that other study you brought up had used 2 years as "long-term" it would have validity. get what i am saying? 10 weeks isn't even a semester and is barely longer than the probationary period at most jobs.

                              using the interwebs with your determination you will always find some study that looks like it may justify your personal pov. i don't always even disagree with the point you may be trying to make. however, peel away the pubmed gobbley-gook and it's silly to bring up samples so fucking small or that are poorly conceived. it's crap and proves nothing really.

                              As I ate the oysters with their strong taste of the sea and their faint metallic taste that the cold white wine washed away, leaving only the sea taste and the succulent texture, and as I drank their cold liquid from each shell and washed it down with the crisp taste of the wine, I lost the empty feeling and began to be happy and to make plans.

                              Ernest Hemingway

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X