Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=us-ascii |
Date: |
Mon, 8 Nov 2010 16:29:39 -0500 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Message-ID: |
|
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
quoted-printable |
Sender: |
|
From: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
I think we'd need a program that you could punch in all the data in
the whole meal, and get a combined glycemic number.
THAT might be useful.
Or a chart of common meals...
Chuck
Healthy is merely the slowest possible rate at which one can die.
On 11/8/2010 11:49:19 AM, [log in to unmask] wrote:
> This kind of thing has been brought up on this list before, but
> I'd like
> to resuscitate it.
>
> I was studying a chart in one of Dr. Cordain's
> reviews
> ("Glycemic Loads of
> Western Refined and Unrefined Traditional Foods"),
> and it occurred to me
> that the glycemic load index is only marginally helpful at best as an
> indicator of insulinemic foods.
>
> Glycemic load is defined as glycemic index times carb content in 100 gram
> portions. Two problems leap immediately to mind. The first has to do
> with
> actual portion size. And the second has to do with the fact that
> many
> foods are not consumed alone, but with other foods that affect how
> quickly
> the nonfiber carbs reach the bloodstream.
>
> So for instance, highest on this list is Rice Krispies, with a glycemic
> load of 77.3. (Table sugar is 64.9). Much lower down, amazingly, are
> doughnuts at 37.8. But 100 grams of doughnuts give you about two
> doughnuts. 100 grams of Rice Krispies is three servings! And you
> generally eat the Rice Krispies with milk, which will lower the rate at
> which the carbs are absorbed by the gut.
>
> Can someone explain how this index is helpful?
>
>
|
|
|