I'm curious to hear what you paleo experts think about the GI of foods. For example, pumpkin is low carb, but high GI.
The Glycemic Index is useful in making a lot of money for diet gurus. It plays into the "if only I were able to exercise more control, I would be thin" blaming that dieters heap on themselves.
This:WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE GLYCEMIC INDEX (GI) AND GLYCEMIC LOAD (GL)? | Diabetes Management
is a good breakdown of the difference between GI and GL (glycemic load).
The latter is a much better metric.
Thanks for your responses!
On another note, I've been reading these forums for a while without participating, so I was pretty excited when I saw that the famous eKatherine and Paleobird responded to me!!
the GI is measured after eating 50g or 100g of the carbs contained in a given food. So you would have to eat e.g. "tons" of carrots to measure its GI ... that is why it is not exactly relevant. The glycemic load puts the GI into better perspective becuase it takes into account the real amount of carbs (not 50g or 100g regardless of the food). There is quite some uncertainty on the GI measure and you need to find volunteers who would be willing to ingest huge amounts of foods that contain moderate to little carbs ... some GI data are even missing because of that
Originally Posted by teddythecat
Unless you are diabetic, you can ignore the GI if you eat primal and don't overdo one macro or another.
GI can help illustrate why starch snacks and macaroni meals are a bad idea, but when it comes to proper unrefined meals I don't sweat it.
That is why I think one meal a day is great: you get ONE SINGLE insulin spike in 24 hours
Originally Posted by picklepete
Insulin increases in response to dozens of bodily functions.
Originally Posted by dkJames
Sent from my Nexus S using Marks Daily Apple Forum mobile app
glycemic index is useless and physiologically it has absolutely zero meaning