Archive for Active No-Carber Forums A veggie-free zone
 


       Active No-Carber Forums Forum Index -> The real human diet is a totally carnivorous one: The Support Forum
jager

What's the difference between low GI and Low Carb?

I am totally confused about the difference between the two. I know that meat is zero carb, but how does the Glycemic Index (GI) apply to meat?
Could someone please explain this in laymen's terms. Thanks.
Viking Dan

Low GI will cause a slower release of insulin and slower rise in blood sugar as these are foods that digest slowly for whatever reason. However, how much insulin you release in totall is determined by the total amount of carbohydrates you consume(and protein and fat, to a lesser extent.)

The ultimate goal is to minimize the release of insulin.

If you want a really good overview of the whole horomonal system and low carb, read Protein Power (and, if you really want a challenge: Life Without Bread.)
WesleyT

Low gi is rubbish
a recent study showed that low gi foods did nothing for ppl with diabetis

its the ammount of carbs that counts, the lower the better
http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/gi-blues.html
Rob21370

The difference is that Dana Carpender is hoping she can sell more books using the newly preferred ambiguous term.

I use the smoking analogy on the low GI arguement. Does it really matter in the long run if you smoke 1 pack of cigarettes over the course of 10 hours vs smoking a pack in 15 hours? In the end you're still smoking a pack of cigarettes.
Scout Finch

Quote:
I use the smoking analogy on the low GI argument. Does it really matter in the long run if you smoke 1 pack of cigarettes over the course of 10 hours v. smoking a pack in 15 hours? In the end you're still smoking a pack of cigarettes


This is pretty much the point-of-view of the docs who contribute to thincs.org, the cholesterol skeptics website. For folks who haven't been there, it's pretty informative. They've always got some good discussions going on:

http://www.thincs.org/

Eating a low-GI diet is still not as protective as eating low-carb because, ultimately, it is about the insulin.
jager

Well all that was as clear as MUD! I don't even know what the glycemic index is, so I certainly am in no position to weigh in on it pro OR con. I just wanted a simple explanation as to what the term means. What makes a food high or low on the glycemic index and is it only talking about carbs?
ReddyMcMeaty

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycemic_index
elenarose

Glycemic index is used to determine whether a food releases sugar quickly or slowly. A high gi food is digested faster and releases sugar faster than a low gi one. Therefore it increases your blood sugar higher than a food which releases sugar steadily.

Glycemic Load is more accurate than Glycemic index in that it takes into account how much of that particular food you are eating. For example a teaspoon of honey (despite being high gi) will release less sugar than a whole pound of oats (low gi food) so the oats will have a high glycemic load.

For no carb, the glycemic index does not apply since all meat has a gi rating of 0. There is no affect on blood sugar. Gi only applies to carbohydrate, not fats.

Hope that is clearer.
LCforevah

Thank goodness for the Internet! If it weren't for this forum and the Drs Eades, I'd be going nuts! Bonkers

As much as I like Dana Carpendar -- I did meet her at a book signing in Orange Country a few years ago -- she's given in to her publisher's request to drop the "low carb" label, and go with this new fantasy of low gly indie whatever! I believe also,(stated in her ezine) that B & N told her that they would no longer be pushing low carb -- in other words, they are going to influence the market by avoiding the very use of the low carb phrase. Roll Eyes

This is just one more way that the mainstream media and ad agencies jockey to influence the consumer without letting him know that he's being manipulated. This has to be to please other ad clients like Big Pharma and Big Agra-- otherwise, why bother? Confused If a genre becomes very popular, why try to suppress it? It feels like bigger money/influence is in play.

I once emailed the Eades questioning why I never see them on SoCal tv stations, as I know they are often invited on interviews in the midwest. They weren't too sure, except to say that SoCal is always on to the latest fad. It's not about real information around here! Embarassed It's about making money regardless of who gets hurt. I no longer watch what passes for consumer news, preferring reputable websites for my info.
adwred

Yes, if you're going to go by an 'index', the glycemic load index and the insulin index (a quick wikipedia search or googling will reveal lots of information on these) are much more valuable. I don't bother looking at any indices, anymore. That's the beauty of zero-carb - you don't have to check up on the values of your foods, as long as your macronutrient ratio is good (80% fat, 20% protein, 0% carb - or as close to zero carb as possible).
arc

The glycemic index has several problems. One is that it is an average of the response of healthy individuals. What may not cause a rise in someone with a "normal" system may cause a large spike in someone with diabetes or who is insulin resistant.

It's also based on the BS rise after three hours. Some foods may cause a rise almost immediately and some foods may cause that rise after 4-5 hours.

Also, as Rob mentioned, you still have to do something with the carbs you ingest. A low GI food that is carby will still need insulin to take care of the carbs, which can lead to IR and fat storage.
jager

ReddyMcMeaty wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycemic_index


Thanks for the link. For some reason Yahoo isn't working for me today. Can't even get it to find google. Very frustrating!
jager

elenarose wrote:
Glycemic index is used to determine whether a food releases sugar quickly or slowly. A high gi food is digested faster and releases sugar faster than a low gi one. Therefore it increases your blood sugar higher than a food which releases sugar steadily.

Glycemic Load is more accurate than Glycemic index in that it takes into account how much of that particular food you are eating. For example a teaspoon of honey (despite being high gi) will release less sugar than a whole pound of oats (low gi food) so the oats will have a high glycemic load.

For no carb, the glycemic index does not apply since all meat has a gi rating of 0. There is no affect on blood sugar. Gi only applies to carbohydrate, not fats.

Hope that is clearer.


Yes that helps explain it. Thanks.
LCforevah

I know this is an old thread, but Dr Mike Eades has a recent post on the glycemic index versus ol fashion low carb.

www.proteinpower.com/drmike/?m=20061107

Unlike so many other "diet" doctors, he takes the time to ferret out and interpret the research on low carb vs high carb, and I really respect his opinion.
Cavemate K

Here's an essay that you might find helpful.

http://www.tbkfitness.org/Glycemicload.html

K
koch900

Here's what Konstantin Monastyrsky says in Fiber Menace:

Quote:
For healthy people, low-glycemic foods are even more harmful than sugar, because they force the pancreas to secrete insulin for much longer periods of time, and are the primary culprits behind chronically high levels of insulin.


Quote:
There isn't such a thing as "less offensive" or "healthier" carbs. After all kinds of carbs get digested, the blood "sees" nothing but glocose, and it doesn't care in the least what the name of its original source was---sugar or barley."


Also, along the same lines as Rob's comment (can't find the exact quote), Monanstrsky compares "fast carbs" to "slow carbs" with an analogy: running a diesel engine for 10 minutes a day at high speeds (fast carbs) or running an engine all day long at moderate speeds (slow carbs). Which, he asks, will last longer?
Dave

koch900 wrote:
Here's what Konstantin Monastyrsky says in Fiber Menace:

Quote:
For healthy people, low-glycemic foods are even more harmful than sugar, because they force the pancreas to secrete insulin for much longer periods of time, and are the primary culprits behind chronically high levels of insulin.


Quote:
There isn't such a thing as "less offensive" or "healthier" carbs. After all kinds of carbs get digested, the blood "sees" nothing but glocose, and it doesn't care in the least what the name of its original source was---sugar or barley."


Also, along the same lines as Rob's comment (can't find the exact quote), Monanstrsky compares "fast carbs" to "slow carbs" with an analogy: running a diesel engine for 10 minutes a day at high speeds (fast carbs) or running an engine all day long at moderate speeds (slow carbs). Which, he asks, will last longer?


Thanks Mate!

Yeah I have been suspect of so-called low gi crap for so long.

Sugar alcohols are another thing that is dodgey!

At least with pure sugar - you know what you have there. Bad mofos!
LCforevah

Wow, thanks for the info and analogies Cavemate K and koch900. Yup
Cavemate K

No problem! Happy

It seems to be getting clearer that much of today's focus on "low GI eating" is a new marketing direction for companies of various sorts looking to generate interest in a new "diet du jour." Low glycemic load, on the other hand, will at least give you a clearer idea of what kind of a pounding one's system will take form the carb-meal one might be eating. Of course, for us No-carbers this won't be an issue! Yup

K
LCforevah

You only have to look upthread to my Sept post to see what B & N is doing to the low carb label. Without the internet and word of mouth, low carb, very low, and zero carb would have no voice whatsoever. Some things need to be left out of the profit equation, and the health of American citizens is one of them. Mad
jager

Cavemate K wrote:
Here's an essay that you might find helpful.

http://www.tbkfitness.org/Glycemicload.html

K


Thanks---- interesting reading.
Jeff726

Dana Carpender.....meh. Another appeaser who hasn't truly let go of her fat phobia.
Scout Finch

Quote:
Some things need to be left out of the profit equation, and the health of American citizens is one of them


Yup

       Active No-Carber Forums Forum Index -> The real human diet is a totally carnivorous one: The Support Forum
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum