Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Mon, 8 Nov 2010 13:55:57 -0800 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Hi Jim,
As you probably know, the glycemic index was an attempt at providing
something of a guide for people who wanted to understand how common
foods compare with sugar when inciting insulin secretion. There were
some problems with that, as foods such as raw carrots were depicted as
highly glycemic when it would actually take an enormous amount of
carrots to cause a problem. The glycemic load attempted to solve that
problem by using a standard serving size. It has its own set of
problems. Nonetheless, both systems have their uses. For instance, my
parents are in their late 80s (87 and 89). They live in a place where
two meals a day are prepared for them. They have never paid any
attention to glucose issues until the last few years. Instead of trying
to change how the institution prepares meals (where they offer a limited
set of choices at each meal) I haveI printed out a list, for my parents,
of foods that shows glycemic index and glycemic loads. I have told them
to eat only the foods that have a low rating in at least one domain. It
is far from a perfect system, especially when they have eaten carrots
that were cooked to mush, then showed me the list and said "see, carrots
are okay".
Nonetheless, the list is easier than my checking every meal they eat.
It is also a handy reference when they shop for the foods they eat for
breakfast and snacks. While I agree that both lists are not wonderful,
they do provide some guidance. A better system is definitely needed.
best wishes,
Ron
--
PK
|
|
|