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?
> 
>