On Sat, 16 Dec 2000 20:04:35 -0500, R Bartlett <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

>But worse glucagon control.  The ratio between glucagon and insulin is
>surely more relevant than insulin control alone.

Glucagon is released if blood glucose drops beyond the normal level.
to raise it again, by accessing the glucose stores (in liver and muscle) and
 by downgrading of protein.
This will happen shortly after insulin drops, anyway.
Isn't it?

>
>Sears terms pasta a "high density carbohydrate", meaning that a given rise
>in blood sugar (or insulin) from eating pasta provides relatively few
>nutrients (vitamins, minerals, phytochemicals, amino acids, co-enzymes...).

I agree strongly to the goal that nutrients should come per calorie.
Otherwise more calories would be necessary get the essential nutrients.
But did you look how astonishing good pasta is in nutrients?
At least italian style pasta (made without eggs) seems to be not so far
extracted. It has very much more nutrients as sweets have.

2400 kcal of pasta yielded 280% protein and all vitamins (except b1) between
100 and 200 %. In my protcam with vegetable sauce.

Actually it seems that pasta isn't that bad.

>
>As a result, Sears recommends "low density carbohydrates" - fruits and
>vegetables - that supply an abundance of nutrients for a given rise in
>blood
>sugar (or insulin).

Low density carbs of course are far better in that aspect.
But very high in volume.
(also not bad - i tend to eat big volumes therefore)

Amadeus S.