|
|
| |
| Free Weekly Newsletter | Post a Question on this Site |
 |
Home |  |
About |
|
Daily Program | |
Lifestyle Tips | |
Why VRP? | |
Order Products | |
Checkout |
|
Account Information | |
Security | |
|
· · |
More discrediting of Glycemic Index Health-conscious eaters will not find much help in following the so-called "Low Glycemic Index" diet, according to a new study. In recent years, researchers have taken to rating carbohydrates based on their glycemic index -- a measure of the effects of a given food on blood sugar levels. High-GI foods, like white bread and potatoes, tend to produce a quick surge in blood sugar, and some researchers have suggested that diets high in such foods can contribute to weight gain, diabetes, and heart disease. Books and websites espousing the "low-GI" diet have muliplied like crazy. But not all studies have found associations between high-GI foods and elevated blood sugar and diabetes. One reason is that it's hard to translate lab findings on glycemic index to the much more complicated realm of everyday, real-life eating, says Dr. Elizabeth Mayer-Davis, the lead author of the new study. One problem is that a food's GI is determined under artificial conditions where a person eats the test food, by itself, immediately after a fast, then has blood sugar tests taken two hours later. But a food has different blood sugar effects when it's not eaten after a fast and not eaten by itself, she said. In addition, many factors sway blood sugar levels after a meal, said Dr. Mayer-Davis, who is a diabetes researcher at the University of South Carolina in Columbia. These include the length of time a carbohydrate is cooked, how it is cooked, the foods it is eaten with, and the workings of an individual's hormones and digestive secretions, among other things. In her team's study, published in the British Journal of Nutrition, there was absolutely no association between high-GI eating habits and elevated blood sugar among 813 adults who were followed for 5 years. The findings, Mayer-Davis said, reinforce the notion that GI is "simply not a good index of how food impacts blood sugar." The health benefits that some studies have attributed to low-GI foods may actually reflect other qualities of those foods - like their fiber content, according to the researcher. Fiber-rich foods like whole grains are often lower on the GI scale. What's more, GI is a complicated way to judge a food's value. Certain vegetables, for instance, have a fairly high GI, but actually contain very few grams of carbohydrate and very few calories. According to the GI theory, a dish of ice cream has a lower (more favorable) GI than a bowl of brown rice, which is obviously problematic. Mayer-Davis said that in her view, health-conscious consumers should not bother at all with seeking out the GI of their favorite foods. The best move, she advised, is to keep total calories in check and eat plenty of fiber-rich whole grains, fruits, vegetables and beans -and to burn calories through regular exercise. Dr. Cinque's comments: Forgive me for publishing another article about the glycemic index so soon, but this one is stated so well and so succinctly that I thought it was worth including. And there really isn't much I can add that has not already been said. However, I will point out once again that there is no correlation whatsoever between "white bread" and "white potatoes." The fact that the glycemic index theory lumps those two foods together (when they are really at opposite ends of the health spectrum) is reason enough to abandon the theory. Of course, when I speak of white potatoes as healthful, I am referring to the whole, natural, white potato, conservatively cooked, and not laden with harmful fats, such as butter, grated cheese, sour cream, etc. What's funny about this whole thing is that an average-size potato has only 85 calories. But that same potato dressed and eaten the way it commonly is at salad bars and buffets, has about 300 calories. The potato provides less than one-third of the calories of the completed "dish," yet they want to heap all the blame on the potato. And imagine if you ate 85 calories worth of potato every single day (which would be a cardinal sin according to the GI theory). If your total food intake reached the typical 2500 calories a day, that potato would represent 3.4 percent of your total consumption. Yet, according to those dietary brainiacs, it's that 3.4 percent that does you in and sets you up for diabetes, heart disease, and obesity, and not the other 96.6 percent of your calories. It's insane! E-mail to a friend Previous Article Next Article |
