IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Glycemic Index, glycemic index /American Diet Associatio
CRYSTAL
post Apr 17 2006, 01:53 PM
Post #1


Expert
****

Group: Members
Posts: 300
Joined: 5-February 04
From: Ellenboro, NC
Member No.: 2,340



I was looking around on internet under American Dietetic Association and found a topic on Glyemic index. It was stating that the Glycemic index has recently gained attention as a possible tool for controlling appetite and managing weight/blood glucose levels.

It stated-" The Gi does not measure how rapidly blood glucose levels increase as is claimed by some popular diet books. Research has found that blood glucose levels peak at about the same time regardless of the carbohydrate source. Also, the body's insulin response to a specific food is not directly related to the carbohydrate content of the food or the GI value."

The major appeal of grouping food by GI is the potential for making meal planning easier, especially for people with diabet4s. But it's not that simple. Here's why:
. A food can have different GI values as a result of how ripe it is, its variety, how it is cooked and how it has been processed, and from country to country.
. The GI of a food varies significantly from person to person. For some individuals, it can even vary from day to day.
. The GI of a food eaten alone is different than when it is eaten with another food. For example, if a high GI food is eaten in combination with a low GI food, the GI response is moderate.
. Standard test portions of foods used for determing GI are not the usual portion sizes that individuals consume.
. The GI is not a reliabel guide for healthy food choices. Although many healthy foods have a low GI, there are also foods of questionble nutritional value with low or moderate GI values such as soft drinks, candies, sugars and high fat foods.

Bottom Line- At this time, research does not support the claim that a low GI diet causes significant weight loss or helps control appetite. Fore people with diabetes, monitoring total grams of carbohydrate remains the key strategy. However, some individuals with diabetes may be able to use the GI concept, along with blood glucose monitoring, to "fine-tune" their food choices to produce a modest improvement in postmeal blood glucose levels.

But as a fact I can say this type of eating does work, I have done it before with this woe. Just thought you might find this interesting also.

Sorry its so long.

Crystal (IMG:http://www.sugarbustersforum.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
unsweetened
post Apr 17 2006, 06:23 PM
Post #2


Regular
***

Group: Members
Posts: 170
Joined: 10-April 06
From: colorado
Member No.: 4,914



QUOTE (CRYSTAL @ Apr 17 2006, 07:53 AM)
I was looking around on internet under American Dietetic Association and found a topic on Glyemic index.  It was stating that the Glycemic index has recently gained attention as a possible tool for controlling appetite and managing weight/blood glucose levels. 

It stated-" The Gi does not measure how rapidly blood glucose levels increase as is claimed by some popular diet books.  Research has found that blood glucose levels peak at about the same time regardless of the carbohydrate source.  Also, the body's insulin response to a specific food is not directly related to the carbohydrate content of the food or the GI value."

The major appeal of grouping food by GI is the potential for making meal planning easier, especially for people with diabet4s. But it's not that simple. Here's why:
. A food can have different GI values as a result of how ripe it is, its variety, how it is cooked and how it has been processed, and from country to country.
. The GI of a food varies significantly from person to person. For some individuals, it can even vary from day to day.
. The GI of a food eaten alone is different than when it is eaten with another food. For example, if a high GI food is eaten in combination with a low GI food, the GI response is moderate.
. Standard test portions of foods used for determing GI are not the usual portion sizes that individuals consume.
. The GI is not a reliabel guide for healthy food choices.  Although many healthy foods have a low GI, there are also foods of questionble nutritional value with low or moderate GI values such as soft drinks, candies, sugars and high fat foods.

Bottom Line- At this time, research does not support the claim that a low GI diet causes significant weight loss or helps control appetite. Fore people with diabetes, monitoring total grams of carbohydrate remains the key strategy.  However, some individuals with diabetes may be able to use the GI concept, along with blood glucose monitoring, to "fine-tune" their food choices to produce a modest improvement in postmeal blood glucose levels. 

But as a fact I can say this type of  eating does work, I have done it before with this woe.  Just thought you might find this interesting also.

Sorry its so long.

Crystal (IMG:http://www.sugarbustersforum.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)
*

Oh crystal dont apoligize this was very informative and your right this woe does work ive been on this woe for over 2 weeks now and to date i lost another 10 pounds on top of the 15 i lost from the low-fat diet i started out with..This woe is so much better im actually not starveing anymore (IMG:http://www.sugarbustersforum.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif) Take Care Rose
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CRYSTAL
post Apr 18 2006, 09:53 PM
Post #3


Expert
****

Group: Members
Posts: 300
Joined: 5-February 04
From: Ellenboro, NC
Member No.: 2,340



YOU ARE DOING GOOD ON THIS WOE ROSE. KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK.
tHANKS FOR THE COMENTS.
CRYSTAL
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
easyecm
post Apr 19 2006, 12:53 AM
Post #4


Master
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 568
Joined: 25-June 05
From: Philippines
Member No.: 3,903



I would say the "studies" are "misinformative".

I have not seen a study that was done for any long time, double blind, or any of the industry guidelines used in studies. Remember a study has to be able to by duplicated to be considered valid.

Remember also, a study can be interpreted to suit the beliefs of the person conducting the study.

The study I cite that is a good example of this is the "Denmark Study" which concluded that alcoholism is hereditary. The study showed that 14% of children of alcoholics became alcoholics. Let's look at this, if 14% did become alcoholice, then 86% did not. I would conclude that this study shows that alcoholism is not hereditary, as 86% is a much larger number than 14%. I do think there may be a learned behavior involed in the children that do become alcoholics. But, this I think is due to being in the same household and thus a learned behavior in some people.

That said, we know this woe works. I have been doing it for more than 10 years. Many of the "experts" said that Atkins was a fad and really does not work. A fad doesn't last more than 30 years! I am not advocating Atkins, as I think it is not as easy to follow as this woe. But, my point is that Atkins works as well, due to a reduction in carbs, including low glycemic carbs.

Also, the American Diabetes Association is not the end all on this subject. They say that pasta is ok! Most diabetics I have known that follow thier guidelines have a hard time controling blood sugar levels. Whereas, diabetics who follow the LG woe can at times eliminate the need for medicines to control the levels and just do it (and with lower levels) than with the medicines and the ADA guidelines.

I just think that people and that includes the ones doing studies, have thier own belief in low fat eating and perform studies that conclude thier beliefs are valid. The way a study should be done is with no pre-concieved ideas and let the study go where it goes!

Anyway, that is a brief view of how I look at it,

Also, this woe works!

Take care,

Ed

This post has been edited by easyecm: Apr 19 2006, 12:59 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
unsweetened
post Apr 19 2006, 01:40 PM
Post #5


Regular
***

Group: Members
Posts: 170
Joined: 10-April 06
From: colorado
Member No.: 4,914



QUOTE (easyecm @ Apr 18 2006, 06:53 PM)
I would say the "studies" are "misinformative".

I have not seen a study that was done for any long time, double blind, or any of the industry guidelines used in studies. Remember a study has to be able to by duplicated to be considered valid.

Remember also, a study can be interpreted to suit the beliefs of the person conducting the study.

The study I cite that is a good example of this is the "Denmark Study" which concluded that alcoholism is hereditary. The study showed that 14% of children of alcoholics became alcoholics. Let's look at this, if 14% did become alcoholice, then 86% did not. I would conclude that this study shows that alcoholism is not hereditary, as 86% is a much larger number than 14%. I do think there may be a learned behavior involed in the children that do become alcoholics. But, this I think is due to being in the same household and thus a learned behavior in some people.

That said, we know this woe works. I have been doing it for more than 10 years. Many of the "experts" said that Atkins was a fad and really does not work. A fad doesn't last more than 30 years! I am not advocating Atkins, as I think it is not as easy to follow as this woe. But, my point is that Atkins works as well, due to a reduction in carbs, including low glycemic carbs.

Also, the American Diabetes Association is not the end all on this subject. They say that pasta is ok! Most diabetics I have known that follow thier guidelines have a hard time controling blood sugar levels. Whereas, diabetics who follow the LG woe can at times eliminate the need for medicines to control the levels and just do it (and with lower levels) than with the medicines and the ADA guidelines.

I just think that people and that includes the ones doing studies, have thier own belief in low fat eating and perform studies that conclude thier beliefs are valid. The way a study should be done is with no pre-concieved ideas and let the study go where it goes!

Anyway, that is a brief view of how I look at it,

Also, this woe works!

Take care,

Ed
*

Ed, i think this woe is working but i was wondering ..How long did it take you to lose your unwanted weight , i mean did you lose it rapidily or like 10 pounds a month ..Does it take a long time to lose on this woe and i know it took a longtime to put it on but im just curious on how it works for different people because i feel like im getting smaller but i dont wanna weigh myself anymore its too depressing if i didnt lose ....I was also wondering does anyone out there feel that coffee causes you to plataeu because i heard from other diets that it might but anyways ty in advance ..Have a good day Rose
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
easyecm
post Apr 20 2006, 12:45 AM
Post #6


Master
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 568
Joined: 25-June 05
From: Philippines
Member No.: 3,903



Rose,

Everyone is an individual and men (due to more muscle mass) to drop weight faster than women. Doesn't seem fair, huh?

I hesitate to say how long it took, so as not to discourage others.

Let me first say that when I started this woe I look at sugar in all it's forms as poison, and even a little bit is not good! I was obsessive about it!

Anyway, it took 6 months to drop 85 pounds. I do not think that is the norm, but that was me. The big amount came off in the first few months, then slowed down, but continued.

Until about 2 years ago I stayed within 10 pounds of the weight. This year I am trying to gain weight, but doing it with LG foods!

I tossed my scale many years ago, and have not even thought about getting a new one. If I am in a doctors office, I will weigh myself on that scale. But, I do not go to the doctor often.

If you work this woe, you will do fine. I know that to be true. You are getting smaller, and maybe just changing fat weight to muscle weight. Which that is a good thing.

Don't get discouraged, you can always come here for support, and any questions that you may have.

Take care,

Ed

This post has been edited by easyecm: Apr 20 2006, 11:12 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
davew
post Apr 20 2006, 03:19 AM
Post #7


Master
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 911
Joined: 26-January 03
From: Spokane, WA
Member No.: 90



Crystal, and Rose,

I don't have too much to add here, and I generally agree with Ed's observations.

I would point to Kate's post where she follows ADA but makes sure the carbs are SB legal. This seems like the strongest diabetic diet within reason. [I say I'd point to the post, but I just remember it, and don't have the pointer.]

My own experience is that I lost slowly but steadily, and it took about 6 months to lose 30 lbs, from about 230 to 200. That works out to just over 1 lb per week. Doesn't seem very fast, but I took several years to make that gain. Didn't seem like much then, either.

As Ed said, each person is different and needs to learn how their body reacts to food and this WOE. We've heard that (I think it is Molly) can't lose weight unless the carbs are kept to two legal (OK, small) servings daily. More than that will stop the loss.

So, along with moderation, I would suggest patience. Seems like the story of my (shoud have been) life.


Dave
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kate
post Apr 20 2006, 11:00 AM
Post #8


Master
*****

Group: Moderators
Posts: 605
Joined: 8-March 03
From: Lowcountry of South Carolina
Member No.: 388



Hi Crystal and Rose,

Ed and Dave both have good points. When I first started SB, I was also newly diagnosed with diabetes. Although my tests showed that I was on the low end of the scale, with a very long history of insulin dependent type 2 diabetes in my family, I was scared about what was in store for me if I didn't make major changes.

So, although I needed to loose weight, my main SB goal has always been to eat smart and feel better. I went to the ADA education classes, learned what they recommended and figured out what works best for me. One thing I noticed years ago, even before I found SB, is that for me, if I limit breads I decrease my waist circumference. Breads have always seemed to "fluff" up my tummy, which makes me feel thick and sluggish. So, at first I was very strict about the kinds of starchy carbs and the frequency eating them. Because I need to have a way to deal with and track what foods do to my glucose levels, the ADA carbs per meal guidelines + the SB woe make perfect sense - with my starchy (breads/pastas) carb twist. I get the roughage and carbohydrates I need from alternate sources - fruits, nuts, seeds and veggies - rather than lots of grains. I've found a good bread that is mainly made from seed flours for sandwiches and I take a good multi vitamin daily. If I get slack for a while and eat more than one or two pieces of WW bread in a week, I notice I don't feel so trim anymore. Clothes start to feel tight around the waist, I have achy joints, and trouble getting up in the morning.

After detoxing from all kinds sugars, I kept a chart of what I ate for a few weeks. I incorporated the good foods I would normally eat, wrote down everything I ate and the carb content and counted the carbs per meal according to the ADA recommendations. (Any good cookbook will have a nutrient content food list and the info is available on line also). By the time I let the charting slide, I had a long list of things that I knew I could eat without thinking about it anymore.

I guess this post is a long way of saying that paying attention to what your particular body is telling you and then adjusting SB to fit your goals is easy.

I think this is the post Dave mentioned

(IMG:http://www.sugarbustersforum.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
unsweetened
post Apr 20 2006, 01:24 PM
Post #9


Regular
***

Group: Members
Posts: 170
Joined: 10-April 06
From: colorado
Member No.: 4,914



QUOTE (Kate @ Apr 20 2006, 05:00 AM)
Hi Crystal and Rose,

Ed and Dave both have good points. When I first started SB, I was also newly diagnosed with diabetes. Although my tests showed that I was on the low end of the scale, with a very long history of insulin dependent type 2 diabetes in my family, I was scared about what was in store for me if I didn't make major changes.

So, although I needed to loose weight, my main SB goal has always been to eat smart and feel better. I went to the ADA education classes, learned what they recommended and figured out what works best for me.  One thing I noticed years ago, even before I found SB, is that for me, if I limit breads I decrease my waist circumference. Breads have always seemed to "fluff" up my tummy, which makes me feel thick and sluggish. So, at first I was very strict about the kinds of starchy carbs and the frequency eating them. Because I need to have a way to deal with and track what foods do to my glucose levels, the ADA carbs per meal guidelines + the SB woe make perfect sense - with my starchy (breads/pastas) carb twist. I get the roughage and carbohydrates I need from alternate sources - fruits, nuts, seeds and veggies - rather than lots of grains. I've found a good bread that is mainly made from seed flours for sandwiches and I take a good multi vitamin daily. If I get slack for a while and eat more than one or two pieces of WW bread in a week, I notice I don't feel so trim anymore. Clothes start to feel tight around the waist, I have achy joints, and trouble getting up in the morning.

After detoxing from all kinds sugars, I kept a chart of what I ate for a few weeks. I incorporated the good foods I would normally eat, wrote down everything I ate and the carb content and counted the carbs per meal according to the ADA recommendations. (Any good cookbook will have a nutrient content food list and the info is available on line also). By the time I let the charting slide, I had a long list of things that I knew I could eat without thinking about it anymore.

I guess this post is a long way of saying that paying attention to what your particular body is telling you and then adjusting SB to fit your goals is easy.

I think this is the post Dave mentioned

(IMG:http://www.sugarbustersforum.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)
*

Oh yes kate that is a great post good recapping (IMG:http://www.sugarbustersforum.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif) ..I think u just have to be patient because who wants a woe that lets you lose weight temporarily..I don't so what ever it takes this is the end of the line for me all do SB for the rest of my live because nothing makes me feel better than to actually shop in the womens not the mens sections at the store ..Rose
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CRYSTAL
post Apr 20 2006, 09:42 PM
Post #10


Expert
****

Group: Members
Posts: 300
Joined: 5-February 04
From: Ellenboro, NC
Member No.: 2,340



Thanks to all that replied. I will take all in. I just want to lose this weight, like blink my eyes and it be gone, HA !!!! but I know I didn't put on overnight. I just have to learnnnnnnn patients, cause it is better to lose slowly. Thank you all for your guideance and encouragements.!!!!! (IMG:http://www.sugarbustersforum.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) (IMG:http://www.sugarbustersforum.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/blink.gif) (IMG:http://www.sugarbustersforum.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/blink.gif) (IMG:http://www.sugarbustersforum.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/blink.gif)
Crystal
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 16th January 2018 - 11:37 PM