>From:	GEOFF JOHNSTON <[log in to unmask]>:
>According to the Glycemic Index, most veggies have a
>lower rating than fruits.  However, what if the quantities
> change?  For example, I find that one banana is normally
> quite satisfying  but for veggies, I usually eat a large plate full.
>I guess my question is: does a large plate of raw veggies have
> a higher glycemic rating that one banana?

My sense of this is that you are correct, & since vegetables contain
the same sugars found in fruits (with widely differing relative
concentrations of the various sugars in both the case of fruits &
vegetables), that a huge vegetable meal (or even a rather small one
of something such as carrot juice which is very high in
rapdily-assimilated sugars) will do more damage than a small fruit
meal.  It is just a lot harder to eat all that much as far as sugars
if your meal is sprouts or lettuce or celery or cucumbers, & natural
appetite mechanisms will probably keep you out of trouble much
better than with fruits where there is a tendency to go overboard
much more readily.  Calorically restricted individuals seem to
tolerate this a lot better, i.e., they are able to damp down what
otherwise might be a spike upward in blood glucose levels.  As I
mentioned previously, this probably stems from them not having their
bodies' glycogen storage pools topped off, allowing them to soak up
the excess glucose & convert it into glycogen where it is stored for
later release.

This whole field is confusing & there are all sorts of conflicting
variables to muddy the waters.  A strong case can be made for eating
foods relatively high in fructose (such as apples or cherries) since
fructose elicits markedly lower insulin responses & blood glucose
levels than do sucrose or glucose.  On the other hand fructose can
raise blood triglycerides (something I'm not all that concerned
about) & also uric acid levels, which are probably harmful.  I just
can't figure out what the best sugar is, it is all so confusing.

Somebody asked about the GI of dates.  I don't have that per se, but
dates (& dried figs) are about half fructose (low GI) & half glucose
(high GI) with almost no sucrose, so averaged out dates must have a
medium GI.  Grapes are fairly similar, only the concentrations of
sugars are much less, and they are unusual in having absolutely no
sucrose.  All three seem to be foods humans do real well on and
berries from bushes are similarly composed, albeit with lessor
concentrations of sugars than grapes.  I just question the wisdom of
eating dried figs, dates or anything else, as they can damage tooth
enamel and often contribute to excessive caloric intake.

If anybody wants a simple explanation of what this is all about &
how it relates to aging & health, the current Time magazine
(life-extension cover story) goes into the evils of glycosylation.
Much of that article is hype to sell magazines & if read carefully
confirms there is little hope of radical life-extensions in the near
future, but the glycosylation stuff is a good brief overview.  I
would assume that fasting is probably fantastic (& probably stands
almost alone) in its ability to remove the damage caused by
glycosylation.

--Doug Schwartz
[log in to unmask]