On Sat, 16 Dec 2000, R Bartlett wrote:

> <<Reading Eades and Sears, you wouldn't get the idea that, calorie for
> calorie, you achieve better insulin control eating pasta than beef or fish>>
>
> But worse glucagon control.  The ratio between glucagon and insulin is
> surely more relevant than insulin control alone.

Absolutely.  I'm not arguing for pasta as a replacement for meat,
just pointing out that this particular item is rather unexpected.
And if calories are low enough, as they are if you follow Sears,
you'll get plenty of glucagon even without much protein.

> Sears terms pasta a "high density carbohydrate", meaning that a given rise
> in blood sugar (or insulin) from eating pasta provides relatively few
> nutrients (vitamins, minerals, phytochemicals, amino acids, co-enzymes...).

Actually, I think a high-density carbohydrate is just one that
has a lot of carbs per weight unit.  Even highly nutritious carbs
such as berries and fruits are high-density carbohydrates.

> As a result, Sears recommends "low density carbohydrates" - fruits and
> vegetables - that supply an abundance of nutrients for a given rise in blood
> sugar (or insulin).

Sounds like good advice to me.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]