On Fri, 15 Dec 2000, Ken Stuart wrote:

> I don't see too many surprises in that chart.   Most of the divergences were on
> items that normally aren't on the glycemic index chart at all (like paleo
> foods).

I think the biggest surprise is the relatively high insulin index
of protein-rich foods.  The value for fish and beef is comparable
to that of popcorn and grain bread.  And the amounts consumed for
the testing were modest: only 240 cal.

> Note that the following statement:
>
> "  Total carbohydrate (r = 0.39, P < 0.05, n = 36) and sugar (r =
>  0.36, P < 0.05,n = 36) contents were positively related to the mean
>  insulin scores, whereas fat (r = -0.27, NS, n = 36) and protein (r =
>  -0.24, NS ,n = 38) contents were negatively related. "
>
> is pretty much what Drs Eades and Sears have been saying.

Yes and no.  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.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]