Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

Fibre

  • 26-08-2009 10:35AM
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,485 ✭✭✭✭


    I've a few questions about fibre.

    Does high GI stuff + fibre = low GI? e.g. if I make normal pancakes and throw in, say, 10g of psyllium husks per 100g of white flour (plain flour from the supermarket like), is that any better or worse than using oats? (plain flour is basically devoid of fibre and oats have around 10g per 100g iirc).

    Also, let's say I'm eating porridge for breakfast and I throw some pysllium husks into it to increase the fibre content....will that be slower release = less hungry for longer?


«1

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,114 ✭✭✭corkcomp


    Khannie wrote: »
    I've a few questions about fibre.

    Does high GI stuff + fibre = low GI? e.g. if I make normal pancakes and throw in, say, 10g of psyllium husks per 100g of white flour (plain flour from the supermarket like), is that any better or worse than using oats? (plain flour is basically devoid of fibre and oats have around 10g per 100g iirc).

    Also, let's say I'm eating porridge for breakfast and I throw some pysllium husks into it to increase the fibre content....will that be slower release = less hungry for longer?

    the GI is calculated per meal normally so a meal of white bread + psylium husks would be lower GI than the bread on its own ..

    the pancakes would probably be equivalent in terms of fibre only (you would still be missing out on the other benefits of oats like the oils, iron and B vitamins etc etc)

    sometimes psyllium can be a pain in the t***s like after a hard gym session it can make meals TOO slow release e.g. I sometimes put into porridge but I find it could take two or three bowls of porridge to hit the spot, not sure if that makes sense..


  • Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 5,620 ✭✭✭El_Dangeroso


    You'd still get the same insulin response albeit a delayed one.

    I've never put much stock in the GI, given that all you have to do is add a load of fat to anything and it's low GI. mmm the icecream and crisps diet does sound nice though. :)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,114 ✭✭✭corkcomp


    You'd still get the same insulin response albeit a delayed one.



    I've never put much stock in the GI, given that all you have to do is add a load of fat to anything and it's low GI. mmm the icecream and crisps diet does sound nice though. :)

    WFT? You obviously have a poor understanding of insulin response mechanisms - anything that slows down the release of insulin is a GOOD thing - of course adding fat slows down insulin response but it also increases calories - fibre doesnt to the same extent. What do you mean you still get the same insulin response albeit a delaed one? If you re-read that sentence you will probably find it doesnt actually make any sense, you are not getting the same insulin response at all !!!!!


  • Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 5,620 ✭✭✭El_Dangeroso


    Ya feel like backing that up some references there? Cos I sure do! :D

    Study 1
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17923862
    Investigators put overweight women on a 12-week diet of either high-GI or low-GI foods with an equal amount of total carbohydrate. Both were unrestricted in calories. Body composition and total food intake were the same on both diets. They measured the subjects' glucose and insulin response to the high- and low-GI meals, and found that they were the same.

    Study 2
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17823436
    At 18 months, this is by far the longest trial I've found on the glycemic index diet. Investigators assigned 203 healthy Brazilian women to either a low-GI or high-GI energy-restricted diet. The difference in GI between the two diets was very large; the high-GI diet was double the low-GI diet. Weight loss was a whopping 1/3 pound greater in the low-GI group, a difference that was not statistically significant at 18 months. Insulin resistance and fasting insulin decreased in the high-GI group (make of that what you will!) but increased in the low-GI group, but was also not statistically significant.

    Study 3
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12600851
    This study was 4 months in length. 34 subjects with impaired glucose tolerance were divided into three diet groups. Diet #1: high-carbohydrate (60%), high-GI. Diet #2: high-carbohydrate, low-GI. Diet #3: "low-carbohydrate" (49%), "high-fat" (monounsaturated from olive and canola oil). The diet #1 group lost the most weight, followed by diet #2, while diet #3 gained weight. The differences were small but statistically significant. The insulin and triglyceride response to a test meal improved in diet group #1 but not #2. The insulin response also improved in group #3. The high-GI group came out looking pretty good!

    The GI diet was a pseudoscientific response in reaction to the success of the low carb diet in the early naughties.

    It has the scientific merit of a horoscope.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,114 ✭✭✭corkcomp


    Ya feel like backing that up some references there? Cos I sure do! :D

    Study 1
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17923862
    Investigators put overweight women on a 12-week diet of either high-GI or low-GI foods with an equal amount of total carbohydrate. Both were unrestricted in calories. Body composition and total food intake were the same on both diets. They measured the subjects' glucose and insulin response to the high- and low-GI meals, and found that they were the same.

    Study 2
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17823436
    At 18 months, this is by far the longest trial I've found on the glycemic index diet. Investigators assigned 203 healthy Brazilian women to either a low-GI or high-GI energy-restricted diet. The difference in GI between the two diets was very large; the high-GI diet was double the low-GI diet. Weight loss was a whopping 1/3 pound greater in the low-GI group, a difference that was not statistically significant at 18 months. Insulin resistance and fasting insulin decreased in the high-GI group (make of that what you will!) but increased in the low-GI group, but was also not statistically significant.

    Study 3
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12600851
    This study was 4 months in length. 34 subjects with impaired glucose tolerance were divided into three diet groups. Diet #1: high-carbohydrate (60%), high-GI. Diet #2: high-carbohydrate, low-GI. Diet #3: "low-carbohydrate" (49%), "high-fat" (monounsaturated from olive and canola oil). The diet #1 group lost the most weight, followed by diet #2, while diet #3 gained weight. The differences were small but statistically significant. The insulin and triglyceride response to a test meal improved in diet group #1 but not #2. The insulin response also improved in group #3. The high-GI group came out looking pretty good!

    The GI diet was a pseudoscientific response in reaction to the success of the low carb diet in the early naughties.

    It has the scientific merit of a horoscope.

    your missing the ENTIRE point of the GI principal - its VERY simple - if I eat 100g of carbs via of porridge now, I am unlikely to be hungry again for at least 4 hours .. if I eat the same cals in chocie biscuits I WILL need to eat again in an hour - hell maybe 30 minutes .. I can tell you this from personal experience and I dont need to use google or any studies to back it up!!

    ps: the studies you posted above dont really disprove anything I was saying earlier so no joy there, sorry - what i was trying to point out is that low and high GI DO NOT give the same insulin response where as your studies are based on weight lost or gained - no body mentioned weight here, the discussion was on fibre and its effect on insulin response and feelings of fullness etc :D


  • Advertisement
  • Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 5,620 ✭✭✭El_Dangeroso


    corkcomp wrote: »
    your missing the ENTIRE point of the GI principal - its VERY simple - if I eat 100g of carbs via of porridge now, I am unlikely to be hungry again for at least 4 hours .. if I eat the same cals in chocie biscuits I WILL need to eat again in an hour - hell maybe 30 minutes .. I can tell you this from personal experience and I dont need to use google or any studies to back it up!!

    Hang on a second, two posts up you were saying it reduced the insulin response but it doesn't.

    Now the goal posts are getting shifted to the fact that eating less frequently automatically means you eat less calories and are healthier? I could ask you to provide proof of this but anecdotal studies of one don't really interest me.

    Also, check out the last line of study no. 1:

    They measured the subjects' glucose and insulin response to the high- and low-GI meals, and found that they were the same.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,114 ✭✭✭corkcomp


    Hang on a second, two posts up you were saying it reduced the insulin response but it doesn't.

    Now the goal posts are getting shifted to the fact that eating less frequently automatically means you eat less calories and are healthier? I could ask you to provide proof of this but anecdotal studies of one don't really interest me.

    Also, check out the last line of study no. 1:

    They measured the subjects' glucose and insulin response to the high- and low-GI meals, and found that they were the same.


    I'm not sure what the obsession with studies is about, you can find plenty via googe to back up any argument. Anyway to get back ot high gi foods DO produce a greater insulin response and I don't care if the study disagrees! you can't b seriously saying table sugar would produce the same response as porridge or sweet potato etc?? And of course feeling full for a few hours rather than constantly riding a simple carb coaster is better!


  • Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 5,620 ✭✭✭El_Dangeroso


    Well I use the studies to back up my point because otherwise you are left with personal bias and dogmatic belief, which a lot of the time is incorrect. Good science is objective, personal opinions are not.

    ALL of the studies quoted started out trying to prove the efficacy of the low GI diet so the researchers started out with the notion that they were better than high GI. But the results said otherwise.

    And yes the meal with more than double the GI of the low GI meal had a very similar blood glucose AND insulin response.

    From study 1:

    Blood sugar

    0803717a-1.jpg

    Insulin

    0803717a-2.jpg

    We can argue personal experience and personal opinions all night but the whole point of good science is to take bias out of the equation.

    People vehemently believe all sorts of snake oil treatments work because is it a belief based on dogma rather than the scientific facts.

    Overall, the studies I quoted do not support the idea that lowering the glycemic index of carbohydrate foods is useful for weight loss, insulin or glucose control, or anything else besides complicating your life.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,114 ✭✭✭corkcomp


    At the risk of getting banned, you really have no idea what you are talking about, try telling a type 2 diabetic or a weight lifter after a heavy workout that something like a sweet potato or oats will produce the same insulin response as table sugar or some other refined carb, don't get me wrong I am not an advocate of lowcarb diets but it is nonsense to say all carbs will have the same effect on insulin and glucose and in fact you are the first low carber I have ever come across with such beliefs !!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,536 ✭✭✭✭Mellor


    To be hoenst, I can't believe a word eiter of you have said in this thread. You are each taking about different things.


    Temple - low/high GI doesn't have a huge effect on blood insulin

    corkcomp - low GI makes you full for longer

    You aren't comparing similar things. So its all pointless
    Foods simply can't be group into hi/lo anything.

    corkcomp, I agree that oats and similar food will keep you full for longer. But this isn't related to GI. Carbs and fats are both low GI, but don't fill us the same. Example, I had a 200-220 cal breakfast this morning, oats and an egg. I was full for hours. There is no way i would of been this full on a fatty lo gi diet.

    Temple, controled diets in studys mean little. A high GI diet of all sugars is not going to be good. A low GI diet of mostly fats is not going to be good either. Oh no we have a study that shows that both hi and low GI are bad, so what now, we don't eat.


  • Advertisement
  • Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 5,620 ✭✭✭El_Dangeroso


    Corkcomp, ask a diabetic who injects insulin how they calculate the amount to use. They base it on grams of carbohydrate. The GI of the food doesn't come into it.

    I am not for a second suggesting that table sugar is good for you, but the glycemic index rates table sugar rates "healthier" than a slice of watermelon, a baked potato, or a bowl of rice. Now do you think that it's correct?

    Table sugar isn't better for you than porridge but that has nothing to do with it's GI.

    Being a low-carber of course I used to take the GI seriously, but I as I study in the field of evidence based medicine, I don't just take these things as written. I did the research and lo and behold, the theory just doesn't hold water.

    Also, I am really surprised at the anti-scientific attitude on this thread. Saying well designed controlled studies don't prove anything is the strangest thing I have ever heard on boards, go to the medical forum and say that, they'll laugh you out of there.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,114 ✭✭✭corkcomp


    Corkcomp, ask a diabetic who injects insulin how they calculate the amount to use. They base it on grams of carbohydrate. The GI of the food doesn't come into it.


    I am not for a second suggesting that table sugar is good for you, but the glycemic index rates table sugar rates "healthier" than a slice of watermelon, a baked potato, or a bowl of rice. Now do you think that it's correct?

    Table sugar isn't better for you than porridge but that has nothing to do with it's GI.

    Being a low-carber of course I used to take the GI seriously, but I as I study in the field of evidence based medicine, I don't just take these things as written. I did the research and lo and behold, the theory just doesn't hold water.

    Also, I am really surprised at the anti-scientific attitude on this thread. Saying well designed controlled studies don't prove anything is the strangest thing I have ever heard on boards, go to the medical forum and say that, they'll laugh you out of there.


    try asking a type 2 diabetic whether table sugar or oats would have the same effect on their blood sugar?


    As mentioned previously you can find studies to back up almost any view point. Why dont you go and post in the medical forum that low GI foods like porridge vs high GI like sugar will have the same effect on insulin levels?


  • Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 5,620 ✭✭✭El_Dangeroso


    Ah, now I feel silly, you've offered absolutely no proof whatsoever for your point of view and the best counterpoint that has been offered was an ad-hominem attack.

    Yes, you're right, all scientific studies are meaningless and all those silly scientists should just go back to being farmers or shopkeepers or whatever.

    Seriously this is like having a debate with a creationist!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,114 ✭✭✭corkcomp


    Ah, now I feel silly, you've offered absolutely no proof whatsoever for your point of view and the best counterpoint that has been offered was an ad-hominem attack.

    Yes, you're right, all scientific studies are meaningless and all those silly scientists should just go back to being farmers or shopkeepers or whatever.

    Seriously this is like having a debate with a creationist!

    rather than try to de-rail the thread with silly OT rantings have you gone to the medical forum to ask if they believe that simple carbs and complex carbs have the same effect on blood sugar and insulin response?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,485 ✭✭✭✭Khannie


    Ok....something doesn't compute here.....

    GI = Glycemic index. According to wikipedia that is
    a measure of the effects of carbohydrates on blood sugar levels

    Now I take the point that a carb is a carb to an extent and that eventually they all end up as blood sugars. Following on from that it makes sense that the TOTAL amount of insulin required to process a gram of low GI or high GI foods is equivalent.

    BUT

    If the effect of a low GI food is to illicit the same insulin response as a high GI food, how can that be a low GI food? The blood sugar level is lower for a low GI food (at least initially), that's its definition, no?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,386 ✭✭✭✭rubadub


    Yes, you're right, all scientific studies are meaningless
    I don't think they are, but they are very often misguided or can hear one thing and make a faulty assumption/hypothesis themselves. i.e. they can try and tell you what some people are allegedly saying, and "prove them wrong", while the people they are trying to prove wrong might full agree with them! since it is not what they meant at all.

    In this instance it could be trying to disprove a hypothesis such as A. "A low GI diet will result in more weight loss", but I am not sure if many people have specifically said that, people might interpret what others say wrongly. e.g. if I was to say B. "eating low GI foods could aid you in your weight loss", it is not the same thing as A.

    For A. I expect if the people ate 2500kcal per day high or low GI they might be the same weight, so their dietary calories are the same ("diet" meaning calories). But in B. it is really suggesting that eating low GI would be helpful in people avoiding snacking and so make it easier to stick to a lower calorie diet- in A. they are essential lab rats being fed who have no complaint of hunger.
    The meal with more than double the GI of the low GI meal had a very similar blood glucose AND insulin response.

    From study 1:

    Blood sugar

    0803717a-1.jpg

    Insulin

    0803717a-2.jpg
    Just to be clear, in study 1 the meal was not "more than double". Those charts do not surprise me at all, the difference in GI was not very significant (GI 52 vs 64) in a laboratory setting. RESULTS: Free-living diets differed in GI by 8.4 units (55.5 vs 63.9)
    I'm wondering why they even bothered...


    Study 2 had the bigger variance in GI, it mentioned hunger in it, but left it out in the conclusions- what was the conclusion on hunger? Also in all studies did they have fixed calorie intakes?

    Khannie wrote: »
    If the effect of a low GI food is to illicit the same insulin response as a high GI food, how can that be a low GI food?
    The way I read it is that the same amount of insulin is released/created over the entire day. Then it depends on your definition of response, it responds making the same amount, but I always read reponse to infer response time, so you get an insulin spike and then a big drop after which I always though led to cravings for more sugar.


  • Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 5,620 ✭✭✭El_Dangeroso


    rubadub wrote: »
    I don't think they are, but they are very often misguided or can hear one thing and make a faulty assumption/hypothesis themselves. i.e. they can try and tell you what some people are allegedly saying, and "prove them wrong", while the people they are trying to prove wrong might full agree with them! since it is not what they meant at all.

    In this instance it could be trying to disprove a hypothesis such as A. "A low GI diet will result in more weight loss", but I am not sure if many people have specifically said that, people might interpret what others say wrongly. e.g. if I was to say B. "eating low GI foods could aid you in your weight loss", it is not the same thing as A.

    For A. I expect if the people ate 2500kcal per day high or low GI they might be the same weight, so their dietary calories are the same ("diet" meaning calories). But in B. it is really suggesting that eating low GI would be helpful in people avoiding snacking and so make it easier to stick to a lower calorie diet- in A. they are essential lab rats being fed who have no complaint of hunger.



    Just to be clear, in study 1 the meal was not "more than double". Those charts do not surprise me at all, the difference in GI was not very significant (GI 52 vs 64) in a laboratory setting. RESULTS: Free-living diets differed in GI by 8.4 units (55.5 vs 63.9)
    I'm wondering why they even bothered...


    Study 2 had the bigger variance in GI, it mentioned hunger in it, but left it out in the conclusions- what was the conclusion on hunger? Also in all studies did they have fixed calorie intakes?



    The way I read it is that the same amount of insulin is released/created over the entire day. Then it depends on your definition of response, it responds making the same amount, but I always read reponse to infer response time, so you get an insulin spike and then a big drop after which I always though led to cravings for more sugar.

    I made my position clear from the get go. The glycemic index is a flawed method of controlling blood sugar. It has very little scientific basis and is easily disproven. For example:

    1. Adding fat to a meal lowers GI, does that make it "healthier"?

    2. Rice, potatoes and watermelon have a higher GI than table sugar, which is crazy, considering the long term of effect on HA1c of table sugar is much worse.

    3. For people with diabetes, it is more important to regulate how much carbohydrate, rather than which type of carbohydrate, is eaten per meal. For this reason, the American diabetes association does not recommend basing food choices on the glycemic index: http://www.diabetes.org/glycemic-index.jsp

    4. A food’s effect on blood sugar levels differ with a food’s ripeness, cooking time, amount eaten, GI of other foods in the meal, fiber content, time of day, a person’s blood insulin levels, and recent activity so glycemic index values are not absolute and therefore not a reliable or useful metric.

    By insulin response I meant IU/mL as do all scientific studies when they refer to insulin response. There is no scientific validity to the statement that prolonging insulin response over time is any way beneficial.

    This is not a debate on the healthfulness of simple vs. complex carbs, this is a debate on whether eating foods that score low on the GI scale lessen the insulin response. Some healthy foods have a high GI, some have a low GI

    The GI is not just not valid tool for determining glucose response of foods. It is the total amount of carbohydrate eaten, not the carbohydrate source, is the critical factor affecting blood glucose levels and every single study I have read on the subject bears this out.

    Trust me, I didn't come to this conclusion lightly. You'll see my previous posts advocating a lower GI option. But when I read evidence to the contrary I take it seriously, as my opinions here aren't based on belief, they're based on evidence.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,536 ✭✭✭✭Mellor


    I
    2. Rice, potatoes and watermelon have a higher GI than table sugar, which is crazy, considering the long term of effect on HA1c of table sugar is much worse.
    I am not for a second suggesting that table sugar is good for you, but the glycemic index rates table sugar rates "healthier" than a slice of watermelon, a baked potato, or a bowl of rice. Now do you think that it's correct?
    Wrong.
    The GI is not a rating of how healthy a food item is. You can't seam to grasp this dispite it being stated many times. This is not complicated, how can you not understand. Anyone who has read anything on GI should know its not a health rating. The simple fact that oil is low is a pretty big giveaway.

    Once again the GI is a measure of how quickly the food ends up as glucose in your blood stream.

    Potatoes or rice are simple carbs and so become glucose quickly, hense the high rating.

    glucose (a type of sugar), is glucose so it goes straight in, G1 100

    Table sugar is made up of glucose and fructose (a complex carb/sugar) and reaches our blood stream in the form of glucose slower than rice etc.

    some sugars are low GI


    By insulin response I meant IU/mL as do all scientific studies when they refer to insulin response. There is no scientific validity to the statement that prolonging insulin response over time is any way beneficial.
    I already pointed out that you were talking about something else. The same insulin is used, but everyone else was refering to insulin spikes.
    Again, there is no point refering to these studies if you don't understand them or can't apply them.

    You are right that the studies show that there are no benefits to low GI and slow response. But you are also oblivious to the fact that these people in the study were on a controlled diets. The first group were given equal carbs (one hi one lo) and equal food intake. This was a control to test the effects on GI on weight loss. The fact is they were eating the same calories, so lover a long time span, anybody with half a brain should expect identical results.
    But it fails to mention the main reason behind GI. The fact that the low GI will make you feel full for longer.

    The thinking behind the benefit, is that low GI, takes longer to peak in the blood, and longer to return, so therefore, you won't be likely to eat again so soon.
    Two people in a house, one on lo GI and one on Hi GI. Both can eat as much as they want, and as often as they want (as long as they stick to their GI). Chances are that the hi GI person will snack more often between meals, and on average take in more calories over a long period of time.

    Calories being equal, then sure its the same. But thats not what happens in real life.


    Btw, I'm not a big fan of the GI system. I take what I need and apply it to my diet, mainly to avoid simple carbs . The rest is maintaining a deficit and getting lots of protein.
    The reason I don't rate the GI system is because it clases oil as low GI (which it is), the problem is that people make idiotic statements like;
    given that all you have to do is add a load of fat to anything and it's low GI
    Which is obvious stupid as you fail to quantify the fact that you've just increased the calories and you can no longer compare them


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,114 ✭✭✭corkcomp


    Mellor wrote: »
    Wrong.
    The GI is not a rating of how healthy a food item is. You can't seam to grasp this dispite it being stated many times. This is not complicated, how can you not understand. Anyone who has read anything on GI should know its not a health rating. The simple fact that oil is low is a pretty big giveaway.

    Once again the GI is a measure of how quickly the food ends up as glucose in your blood stream.

    Potatoes or rice are simple carbs and so become glucose quickly, hense the high rating.

    glucose (a type of sugar), is glucose so it goes straight in, G1 100

    Table sugar is made up of glucose and fructose (a complex carb/sugar) and reaches our blood stream in the form of glucose slower than rice etc.

    some sugars are low GI




    I already pointed out that you were talking about something else. The same insulin is used, but everyone else was refering to insulin spikes.
    Again, there is no point refering to these studies if you don't understand them or can't apply them.

    You are right that the studies show that there are no benefits to low GI and slow response. But you are also oblivious to the fact that these people in the study were on a controlled diets. The first group were given equal carbs (one hi one lo) and equal food intake. This was a control to test the effects on GI on weight loss. The fact is they were eating the same calories, so lover a long time span, anybody with half a brain should expect identical results.
    But it fails to mention the main reason behind GI. The fact that the low GI will make you feel full for longer.

    The thinking behind the benefit, is that low GI, takes longer to peak in the blood, and longer to return, so therefore, you won't be likely to eat again so soon.
    Two people in a house, one on lo GI and one on Hi GI. Both can eat as much as they want, and as often as they want (as long as they stick to their GI). Chances are that the hi GI person will snack more often between meals, and on average take in more calories over a long period of time.

    Calories being equal, then sure its the same. But thats not what happens in real life.


    Btw, I'm not a big fan of the GI system. I take what I need and apply it to my diet, mainly to avoid simple carbs . The rest is maintaining a deficit and getting lots of protein.
    The reason I don't rate the GI system is because it clases oil as low GI (which it is), the problem is that people make idiotic statements like;

    Which is obvious stupid as you fail to quantify the fact that you've just increased the calories and you can no longer compare them

    This post pretty much sums it up TBH but the problem is that some people will still try to tell you that table sugar and porridge oats will both have the same effect on blood sugar. as mentioned, the studies kept people in x ammount of calories, this doesnt happen (most of the time) in real life so eating something that will keep you full for longer because of high fibre content etc obviously makes sense


  • Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 5,620 ✭✭✭El_Dangeroso


    Mellor wrote: »
    Wrong.
    The GI is not a rating of how healthy a food item is. You can't seam to grasp this dispite it being stated many times. This is not complicated, how can you not understand. Anyone who has read anything on GI should know its not a health rating. The simple fact that oil is low is a pretty big giveaway.

    Once again the GI is a measure of how quickly the food ends up as glucose in your blood stream.

    Potatoes or rice are simple carbs and so become glucose quickly, hense the high rating.

    glucose (a type of sugar), is glucose so it goes straight in, G1 100

    Table sugar is made up of glucose and fructose (a complex carb/sugar) and reaches our blood stream in the form of glucose slower than rice etc.

    some sugars are low GI




    I already pointed out that you were talking about something else. The same insulin is used, but everyone else was refering to insulin spikes.
    Again, there is no point refering to these studies if you don't understand them or can't apply them.

    You are right that the studies show that there are no benefits to low GI and slow response. But you are also oblivious to the fact that these people in the study were on a controlled diets. The first group were given equal carbs (one hi one lo) and equal food intake. This was a control to test the effects on GI on weight loss. The fact is they were eating the same calories, so lover a long time span, anybody with half a brain should expect identical results.
    But it fails to mention the main reason behind GI. The fact that the low GI will make you feel full for longer.

    The thinking behind the benefit, is that low GI, takes longer to peak in the blood, and longer to return, so therefore, you won't be likely to eat again so soon.
    Two people in a house, one on lo GI and one on Hi GI. Both can eat as much as they want, and as often as they want (as long as they stick to their GI). Chances are that the hi GI person will snack more often between meals, and on average take in more calories over a long period of time.

    Calories being equal, then sure its the same. But thats not what happens in real life.


    Btw, I'm not a big fan of the GI system. I take what I need and apply it to my diet, mainly to avoid simple carbs . The rest is maintaining a deficit and getting lots of protein.
    The reason I don't rate the GI system is because it clases oil as low GI (which it is), the problem is that people make idiotic statements like;

    Which is obvious stupid as you fail to quantify the fact that you've just increased the calories and you can no longer compare them

    OK, this is getting more and more convoluted!

    Fibre and complex carbs keep you fuller for longer than simple carbs - I have never said any different.

    Insulin is the hormone that causes you to gain fat and to regulate blood sugar. Blood-sugar increases cause insulin increases. The GI is not an effective method of keeping blood sugar normal.

    Re: you example that someone eating low GI foods will naturally consume less calories, lets do a thought experiment:

    As I mentioned before Table sugar is lower GI than watermelon, rice and potatoes.

    So by that logic say we give one group table sugar to eat. We give the other group watermelon, rice and potatoes.

    Who do you think is going to be hungrier and consume more calories?

    By the way they have done this experiment in reality (well not with the foods I mentioned, they'd never get that past an ethics committee :)). Over 8 days, one group were given ONLY low GI foods to eat, and another group were given ONLY high GI foods to eat. Both groups were allowed to eat as much as they wanted. There was no difference in food intake between the two groups.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16123477

    So the GI is a lovely, neat idea that makes perfect common sense. But as HL Menken said:

    "For every problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong."

    The GI can be coincidentally be a predicator of blood sugar response, but not always, and for that reason it is scientifically unsound method of controlling blood sugar and therefore an unsound method of controlling appetite.

    If a system works, it should work ALL the time otherwise it's effectively useless.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,386 ✭✭✭✭rubadub


    If a system works, it should work ALL the time otherwise it's effectively useless.
    I would completely disagree with that, don't have time to post all my points now but almost every system I have come across has anomalies (like your table sugar example) so you would call almost all these systems "useless" while I find them very useful (e.g. by your logic Newtons laws of physics are "effectively usless"). You have to fundamentally understand the system and know exactly how to spot and counter or adjust for such anomalies.
    The GI is not a rating of how healthy a food item is.
    Yes, as an engineer I come up against this all the time. I remember a sales guy talking complete nonsense about energy efficiency to a customer at a trade show, I took him aside asking where he had come up with this nonsense and he told me that I had told him it! He had completely twisted what I had originally said and came up with his own "laws of physics". This is very common, I have had customers ask very obscure questions, one liners without the reasons they want to know them, many time I can think and see what their actual question REALLY is, they tried to dumb it down using completely faulty logic.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,485 ✭✭✭✭Khannie


    If a system works, it should work ALL the time otherwise it's effectively useless.

    Like rubadub I disagree with this and newtons laws immediately sprang to mind. The world isn't black and white, it's grey, and I make decisions accordingly. I try to eat slow release carbohydrates because I believe I'll feel better and probably eat less by doing so. Calories aside, do I think a bowl of porridge is better than a bowl of rice krispies for my youngfella in the morning? You bet your ass I do. Do I think that a bowl of white rice is much better than table sugar? Not really to be honest.


  • Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 5,620 ✭✭✭El_Dangeroso


    rubadub wrote: »
    I would completely disagree with that, don't have time to post all my points now but almost every system I have come across has anomalies (like your table sugar example) so you would call almost all these systems "useless" while I find them very useful (e.g. by your logic Newtons laws of physics are "effectively usless"). You have to fundamentally understand the system and know exactly how to spot and counter or adjust for such anomalies.

    I believe a system that purports to control blood sugar (and it does) should do so on a consistent basis, of course there will be anomalies on an individual basis but that's not what I'm referring to. Your reference to Newton laws of physics made me giggle, as if the GI came anywhere near that level of accuracy! That is inductive reasoning on the basis that because the Newtons law of physics has some anolomies, that the deep gaping flaws in the GI system are acceptable.

    I'm referring to deep inconsistencies on the very basic level of the system. Why use a system like GI when total carbohydrate is a much stronger predicator for satiety and blood sugar control? Get a blood glucose meter and test post-prandial glucose levels for 50g carbs of brown rice and 50g carbs of white rice, which I have done. The blood sugar will be exactly the same for over 90% of people, can you really call that an anomaly?

    Edited to say: notice I did not say 50g of brown rice and 50g of white rice? That's because the brown rice would be lower in carbohydrate and therefore would have a lower blood glucose reaction.

    Also, yet another inconsistancy, Fructose has a low GI despite promoting the accumulation of visceral fat and increasing leptin resistance (leptin being a major player in appetite control)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,114 ✭✭✭corkcomp


    I believe a system that purports to control blood sugar (and it does) should do so on a consistent basis, of course there will be anomalies on an individual basis but that's not what I'm referring to. Your reference to Newton laws of physics made me giggle, as if the GI came anywhere near that level of accuracy! That is inductive reasoning on the basis that because the Newtons law of physics has some anolomies, that the deep gaping flaws in the GI system are acceptable.

    I'm referring to deep inconsistencies on the very basic level of the system. Why use a system like GI when total carbohydrate is a much stronger predicator for satiety and blood sugar control?


    Get a blood glucose meter and test post-prandial glucose levels for 50g carbs of brown rice and 50g carbs of white rice, which I have done. The blood sugar will be exactly the same for over 90% of people, can you really call that an anomaly?

    Edited to say: notice I did not say 50g of brown rice and 50g of white rice? That's because the brown rice would be lower in carbohydrate and therefore would have a lower blood glucose reaction.

    Also, yet another inconsistancy, Fructose has a low GI despite promoting the accumulation of visceral fat and increasing leptin resistance (leptin being a major player in appetite control)

    but it ISNT - carbs like fruit and veg and wholegrains will have a different effect on satiety and blood sugar levels

    I have tried something ismilar but not using while + brown rice - rather porridge vs white bread - there is a difference, the porridge may release a similar ammount of carbs but it will do it over a longer period so blood sugar will NOT rise as rapidly.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,386 ✭✭✭✭rubadub


    Your reference to Newton laws of physics made me giggle,
    Well do you consider them to be useless?

    You already said
    The GI can be coincidentally be a predicator of blood sugar response, but not always,
    In the same way Newtonian laws are not always applicable. Those educated in the matter will realise where they apply and where they don't.
    as if the GI came anywhere near that level of accuracy!
    Well you study seemed to think of it as being fairly "accurate".
    (GI 52 vs 64) in a laboratory setting. RESULTS: Free-living diets differed in GI by 8.4 units (55.5 vs 63.9)
    I did not expect to see much difference between those 2, I expect different brands of food could vary that much, or ripeness etc.

    You have already inferred that people use GI as a guide to how "healthy" a food is, I expect people do use it roughly like this as one of many criteria. They would take other things into account in the foods they choose to eat, like taste, calorie density, nutritional value.

    This is especially true with trying to "rate" food, calories counting certainly has pitfalls, calories are calculated with industrial machines in mind, not humans. And words similar to your own calories can be coincidentally be a predicator of energy supplied to humans, but it is not always equal. I can say the same about weightwatcher points.

    As mentioned a few times the studies miss the point entirely, most people are eating it to lower hunger and lose weight by being able to resist snacking easier. I don't know why these scientists cannot at least run their hypotheses past people to see if they got the right end of the stick. Many times studies are led by a vested interest, and the scientific terminology confuses the lay person, I can easily, and have easily tweaked figures/stats to skew results on studies.

    I would be far more interested in a study where the people or rats etc were given free rein over how much they ate.
    Edited to say: notice I did not say 50g of brown rice and 50g of white rice? That's because the brown rice would be lower in carbohydrate and therefore would have a lower blood glucose reaction.
    There is not very much difference in carbs per 100g, the brown rice is stripped of its outer layer which is mainly fibre. So as the fibre from 100g is removed then the weight will drop so the % of carbs in the white rice will increase accordingly. So say you get 100g of brown rice and strip out the fibre and get 93g of white rice and 7g of fibre. Going back to the OP
    Khannie wrote: »
    I've a few questions about fibre.

    Does high GI stuff + fibre = low GI? e.g. if I make normal pancakes and throw in, say, 10g of psyllium husks per 100g of white flour (plain flour from the supermarket like), is that any better or worse than using oats?
    It would seem he might have to just account for the increase in carbs due to the removal of fibre. e.g. to be the equivalent GI and carb amount of 100g of oats, it might be 90g (not 100g) of white flour and 10g of husks. This mixture might mimic the same responses as the 100g of oats, which is what I think the OP wanted to know.
    Also, yet another inconsistancy, Fructose has a low GI despite promoting the accumulation of visceral fat and increasing leptin resistance (leptin being a major player in appetite control)
    Yes, and one I have read about, like I was saying it is very complex how the body uses foods. On sites with guidlines for a "GI diet", I have seen warnings against fructose. Just like I have seen WW pages saying "although they are the same points you are better off eating XYZ", and same with calorie counting advice. I expect very few people treat it like an exact science like you seem to think they do, trying to catch out every flaw & loophole to try and "beat" the system. Most are aware of the flaws/loopholes and want the system to work, not try and catch it out.
    Get a blood glucose meter and test post-prandial glucose levels for 50g carbs of brown rice and 50g carbs of white rice, which I have done. The blood sugar will be exactly the same for over 90% of people, can you really call that an anomaly?
    I don't even know what that means, but this perfectly illustrates one of the points I am making. I would call it an anomaly in the sense that although you have said */insert scientific speak/* will be identical between brown & white rice that people doing WW, calorie counting or GI "diets" would probably know brown rice is a better choice for their goals. They are not trying to pedantically show up flaws and cheat themselves & the system. You can see this in the sticky WW thread people knowing a banana & bar might have the same points but common sense tells them the banana is probably a better choice.


  • Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 5,620 ✭✭✭El_Dangeroso


    corkcomp wrote: »
    but it ISNT - carbs like fruit and veg and wholegrains will have a different effect on satiety and blood sugar levels

    They might, but it has NOTHING to do with the glycemic index. It's an arbitrary subjective measurement. I think you still don't understand what I'm saying.
    corkcomp wrote: »
    I have tried something ismilar but not using while + brown rice - rather porridge vs white bread - there is a difference, the porridge may release a similar ammount of carbs but it will do it over a longer period so blood sugar will NOT rise as rapidly.

    Really? What were the blood glucose levels you got at two and four hours? I'm always interested in the results of experiments. Was it the exact same amount of carbohydrate? If so how much?


  • Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 5,620 ✭✭✭El_Dangeroso


    rubadub wrote: »
    Well do you consider them to be useless?

    You already said

    In the same way Newtonian laws are not always applicable. Those educated in the matter will realise where they apply and where they don't.

    Well you study seemed to think of it as being fairly "accurate".
    I did not expect to see much difference between those 2, I expect different brands of food could vary that much, or ripeness etc.

    You have already inferred that people use GI as a guide to how "healthy" a food is, I expect people do use it roughly like this as one of many criteria. They would take other things into account in the foods they choose to eat, like taste, calorie density, nutritional value.

    This is especially true with trying to "rate" food, calories counting certainly has pitfalls, calories are calculated with industrial machines in mind, not humans. And words similar to your own calories can be coincidentally be a predicator of energy supplied to humans, but it is not always equal. I can say the same about weightwatcher points.

    As mentioned a few times the studies miss the point entirely, most people are eating it to lower hunger and lose weight by being able to resist snacking easier. I don't know why these scientists cannot at least run their hypotheses past people to see if they got the right end of the stick. Many times studies are led by a vested interest, and the scientific terminology confuses the lay person, I can easily, and have easily tweaked figures/stats to skew results on studies.

    I would be far more interested in a study where the people or rats etc were given free rein over how much they ate.


    There is not very much difference in carbs per 100g, the brown rice is stripped of its outer layer which is mainly fibre. So as the fibre from 100g is removed then the weight will drop so the % of carbs in the white rice will increase accordingly. So say you get 100g of brown rice and strip out the fibre and get 93g of white rice and 7g of fibre. Going back to the OP


    It would seem he might have to just account for the increase in carbs due to the removal of fibre. e.g. to be the equivalent GI and carb amount of 100g of oats, it might be 90g (not 100g) of white flour and 10g of husks. This mixture might mimic the same responses as the 100g of oats, which is what I think the OP wanted to know.

    Yes, and one I have read about, like I was saying it is very complex how the body uses foods. On sites with guidlines for a "GI diet", I have seen warnings against fructose. Just like I have seen WW pages saying "although they are the same points you are better off eating XYZ", and same with calorie counting advice. I expect very few people treat it like an exact science like you seem to think they do, trying to catch out every flaw & loophole to try and "beat" the system. Most are aware of the flaws/loopholes and want the system to work, not try and catch it out.

    I don't even know what that means, but this perfectly illustrates one of the points I am making. I would call it an anomaly in the sense that although you have said */insert scientific speak/* will be identical between brown & white rice that people doing WW, calorie counting or GI "diets" would probably know brown rice is a better choice for their goals. They are not trying to pedantically show up flaws and cheat themselves & the system. You can see this in the sticky WW thread people knowing a banana & bar might have the same points but common sense tells them the banana is probably a better choice.

    So, the GI for losing weight is useful if:

    1. You count calories
    2. Avoid excess fructose
    3. Eat unprocessed foods
    4. Keep overall carb intake moderate (to keep healthy blood sugar)

    Wait, wouldn't you lose weight and be healthy if you did all four and and just ignored GI? Of course you would. This really reminds me of the story of the stone soup, where more and more ingredients are needed to make the soup tasty.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,114 ✭✭✭corkcomp


    So, the GI for losing weight is useful if:

    1. You count calories
    2. Avoid excess fructose
    3. Eat unprocessed foods
    4. Keep overall carb intake moderate (to keep healthy blood sugar)

    Wait, wouldn't you lose weight and be healthy if you did all four and and just ignored GI? Of course you would. This really reminds me of the story of the stone soup, where more and more ingredients are needed to make the soup tasty.

    most people have to keep an eye on calories to some extent, even if not "counting

    excess of anything isnt going to help, even by its very definition!

    that is a good starting point for most diets but it doesnt mean one can eat what they want as long as its unprocessed.

    you can lose weight while taking 70% of your cals from carbs as long as they are slow releasing.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,386 ✭✭✭✭rubadub


    1. You count calories
    2. Avoid excess fructose
    3. Eat unprocessed foods
    4. Keep overall carb intake moderate (to keep healthy blood sugar)

    Wait, wouldn't you lose weight and be healthy if you did all four and and just ignored GI? Of course you would.
    You're just at it again, missing the entire point of what the OP was asking and what people are saying, just trying to go "catch out" the system. I ask again do you really see no use in Newtons physics? his system doesn't work all the time, many do not, when I did experiments in college I was usually commended most for my "sources of error" section I cannot think of any system that is not flawed in some way.

    Wait, wouldn't you lose weight and be healthy if you did all four and and just ignored GI?
    You could well be, but a GI "diet system" probably takes them into account, though it might not specifically point it out in exact terms. Just like WW or other systems might take GI into account but might never actually use that term. You would probably get along fine just doing those 4, but probably do even better reaching your goals by doing all 4 and taking GI into accout. Very few other posters seem to be as cut & dry, black & white as you seem to be.


  • Advertisement
  • Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 5,620 ✭✭✭El_Dangeroso


    rubadub wrote: »
    You're just at it again, missing the entire point of what the OP was asking and what people are saying, just trying to go "catch out" the system. I ask again do you really see no use in Newtons physics? his system doesn't work all the time, many do not, when I did experiments in college I was usually commended most for my "sources of error" section I cannot think of any system that is not flawed in some way.

    You could well be, but a GI "diet system" probably takes them into account, though it might not specifically point it out in exact terms. Just like WW or other systems might take GI into account but might never actually use that term. You would probably get along fine just doing those 4, but probably do even better reaching your goals by doing all 4 and taking GI into accout. Very few other posters seem to be as cut & dry, black & white as you seem to be.


    Newton's physics apply to 99% of scenario's, the GI control doesn't even come near. You are trying to construct an argument on a relative fallacy. The GI is a fad that may be dear in many people's hearts but is functionally quite redundant considering that the addendums you have to add to it are sufficient in themselves to cause weight loss and better health.

    Also, many many studies have taken place that show that people in fact get on exactly the same when doing the four whether they pay attention to GI or not, so you are unnecessarily complicating your life for no extra benefit.

    I'm not cut and dry, there's always shades of grey, but that's exactly what the GI system does, assigns an irrelevant number to every food thus labelling it 'good' 'ok' or 'bad'. Isn't that very black and white?


Advertisement