On Thu, 02 Dec 1999, you wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Nov 1999, Erik Hill wrote:
>
> > And fruit, nuts, and seeds have the highest glycemic indexes of any paleo
> > food.
>
> I'd be interested to know the GI values for nuts and seeds, as
> Mendosa doesn't list them, except for peanuts, which have a very
> low GI.  Since nuts in general are low-carb, I'd expect them to
> have low GI values.
>

I'm sorry, I misspoke myself at this point.  I am not aware of the GI values of
seeds and nuts (just fruit).  From what I do know, I would expect them to be
low, but it doesn't really matter, since in my understanding, the impact of a
food on the blood sugar depends both on the amount of free carbohydrates and
the GI of those carbohydrates.  I was thinking "GI index of fruits and their
probable total free carbohydrate in a typical serving, and the probable GI
index of seeds and nuts with their probable total intake in a typical serving"
means that they are likely to have a lower impact on blood sugar that, say,
bread.  Of course if you eat enough fruit, or a small enough portion of bread,
or a dried fruit, you can get results which do not follow, but that's not the
point.  The point is, that over the course of one's life, you've battered your
body's blood-sugar-regulating mechanism around less.


 > > I seem to be able to get away
with much more fruit than nuts or seeds, which > > makes sense.
>

Sorry, I failed to mention that if I don't get at least some proteins and/or
fats in a meal, I tend to do poorly.  I'm thinking faster than I'm typing it
seems, and skipping stuff.  I have met others who do poorly (feel bad) after a
meal of just carbohydrates so I wonder if this isn't a common situation.  In
any case...

> Why does this make sense?  I don't follow your reasoning here.
>
> Todd Moody
> [log in to unmask]