General fitness, health and nutrition · Public discussion

gi vs. gl

Started by Stinky · · Last activity · 24 posts · 1,271 views

This thread is locked and is currently read-only.

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
General fitness, health and nutrition
Published
14 September 2005
Last activity
2 October 2005
Original author
Stinky
Posts
24
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
1,271
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–20 of 24
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. Hi, I have a question about the glycemic index and load. I have
    purchased the book "Glycemic Revolution" and have read most of it, but
    I am confused about what to use -- the GI or GL.

    At first the GI seemed the easiest to use, but then I read about how
    even if a food has a high GI, if it has low carb count, then it has a
    small impact on our insulin levels.

    Therefore, to me, the GL seems to be the way to go. Now, am I supposed
    to choose low GL foods with moderate-to-high carbohydrate count (and a
    low GI), or a food that has low carbs and a low GL?

  2. "Stinky" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    Hi, I have a question about the glycemic index and load. I have
    purchased the book "Glycemic Revolution" and have read most of it, but
    I am confused about what to use -- the GI or GL.

    At first the GI seemed the easiest to use, but then I read about how
    even if a food has a high GI, if it has low carb count, then it has a
    small impact on our insulin levels.

    Therefore, to me, the GL seems to be the way to go. Now, am I supposed
    to choose low GL foods with moderate-to-high carbohydrate count (and a
    low GI), or a food that has low carbs and a low GL?


    that's entirely up to what works best for you. The version of the GI diet
    book I have indicates that you can chose either, but not combine them, so
    you are either having a protein based Low carb meal, or a carbohydrate based
    meal from the acceptable foods list. It also prescribes that the observe the
    correct ammount of hours between changing from one to the other to ensure
    that your system has had time to process the other first.

  3. I feel GI is useless, since it does not take quantity into account. GL is
    the way to go, but if you look at it, they make assumptions on quantity to
    determine a GL. Thus, even using GL numbers, the actual quantity is going
    to change the actual load. IMHO: The bottom line is that if the total net
    carbs are low, then the effective GL is low.

    I just count net carbs, and I don't worry about the rest....

    "Stinky" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    Hi, I have a question about the glycemic index and load. I have
    purchased the book "Glycemic Revolution" and have read most of it, but
    I am confused about what to use -- the GI or GL.

    At first the GI seemed the easiest to use, but then I read about how
    even if a food has a high GI, if it has low carb count, then it has a
    small impact on our insulin levels.

    Therefore, to me, the GL seems to be the way to go. Now, am I supposed
    to choose low GL foods with moderate-to-high carbohydrate count (and a
    low GI), or a food that has low carbs and a low GL?

  4. Stinky said:

    Hi, I have a question about the glycemic index and load. I have
    purchased the book "Glycemic Revolution" and have read most of it, but
    I am confused about what to use -- the GI or GL.

    At first the GI seemed the easiest to use, but then I read about how
    even if a food has a high GI, if it has low carb count, then it has a
    small impact on our insulin levels.

    Therefore, to me, the GL seems to be the way to go. Now, am I supposed
    to choose low GL foods with moderate-to-high carbohydrate count (and a
    low GI), or a food that has low carbs and a low GL?

    The glycemic index is easiest to use. You decide to avoid all
    carbohydrates that have potential (if eaten alone and in a specified
    amount) to rapidly spike blood sugars, if eaten in the amount that does
    spike blood sugars.

    If you say,,,,, maybe just a little amount of something blood sugar
    spiky would work..... and then you are involved with how much your blood
    sugar gets LOADED by the amount of food you ate.

    Then the glycemic load is better.

    If you have read the book and don't understand the difference, throw the
    book away and get a different book to see if it explains it better for you.

    It would be hard to explain it in a short posting if a full book by an
    "expert" had failed to be explanatory to you.

    Good luck in finding an explanation that is clear to you.

    Jim

    --
    1) Eat Till SATISFIED, Not STUFFED... Atkins repeated 9 times in the book
    2) Exercise: It's Non-Negotiable..... Chapter 22 title, Atkins book
    3) Don't Diet Without Supplimental Nutrients... Chapter 23 title, Atkins
    book
    4) A sensible eating plan, and follow it. (Atkins, Self Made or Other)

  5. Thanx for the replies. This has had me confused for the better part of
    two months. So while you can use either the GI or the GL, the latter
    is more accurate.

    Another question about the GL: In my book it says that a GL of <10 is
    low, 11-19 is moderate and 20+ is high. Is this a measurement of
    individual food portions within a meal or the meal as a whole?

    IOW, say I eat a meal with individual 3 food portions that, by
    themselves, are about 10 GL. Is that how it is supposed to be measured,
    or is it 30 GL (10 GL x 3 portions) for the entire meal, thus putting
    me over the 20 benchmark for a high GL meal.

    Sorry if I have confused anyone with my questions!

  6. GI and GL are both useless.

    --
    Most people are dumb as bricks; some people are dumber than that. -- MFW

    "Stinky" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    Hi, I have a question about the glycemic index and load. I have
    purchased the book "Glycemic Revolution" and have read most of it, but
    I am confused about what to use -- the GI or GL.

    At first the GI seemed the easiest to use, but then I read about how
    even if a food has a high GI, if it has low carb count, then it has a
    small impact on our insulin levels.

    Therefore, to me, the GL seems to be the way to go. Now, am I supposed
    to choose low GL foods with moderate-to-high carbohydrate count (and a
    low GI), or a food that has low carbs and a low GL?

  7. GL is better than GI because it takes quantity
    into account. However, in my opinion, both are
    basically useless for the reason that your
    confusion brings to the forefront--mixed meals.
    You'd be better served to simply count net carbs
    (total carbohydrate in grams minus fiber in grams)
    and set per meal and/or per day limits that suit
    your goals
    --

    Stinky said:

    Thanx for the replies. This has had me confused for the better part of
    two months. So while you can use either the GI or the GL, the latter
    is more accurate.

    Another question about the GL: In my book it says that a GL of <10 is
    low, 11-19 is moderate and 20+ is high. Is this a measurement of
    individual food portions within a meal or the meal as a whole?

    IOW, say I eat a meal with individual 3 food portions that, by
    themselves, are about 10 GL. Is that how it is supposed to be measured,
    or is it 30 GL (10 GL x 3 portions) for the entire meal, thus putting
    me over the 20 benchmark for a high GL meal.

    Sorry if I have confused anyone with my questions!

  8. Stinky said:


    Hi, I have a question about the glycemic index and load. I have
    purchased the book "Glycemic Revolution" and have read most of it, but
    I am confused about what to use -- the GI or GL.

    There ideas are inexact enough that I only take their
    foods as relative rankings. If you're surprised that
    the list goes something like broccoli, carrots, white
    bread then the lists will be very useful to you. If
    you think my list above has a natural, then a much
    longer list that places less popular foods in order
    will tell you when to try what, what risk what will
    give you of a blood sugar swing binge and so on.

    So I think if you're worrying about the difference
    between GI and GL you're trying to get more exact than
    the numbers can really get. Too much like stepping on
    the scale more than once a day and fussing over the
    variations.

  9. Stinky said:

    Hi, I have a question about the glycemic index and load. I have
    purchased the book "Glycemic Revolution" and have read most of it, but
    I am confused about what to use -- the GI or GL.

    At first the GI seemed the easiest to use, but then I read about how
    even if a food has a high GI, if it has low carb count, then it has a
    small impact on our insulin levels.

    Therefore, to me, the GL seems to be the way to go. Now, am I supposed
    to choose low GL foods with moderate-to-high carbohydrate count (and a
    low GI), or a food that has low carbs and a low GL?

    I've been following a low GI diet for about a month now. So far, I've
    lost 20 pounds. The diet's easy to follow, and we choose from a wide
    variety of foods, all in moderation. The only stipulation is that they
    be "green light" foods. I haven't been exercising very much due to a
    painful sciatic nerve inflammation, but have been much more active
    than I was a few months ago. I've slowly been iincreasing my physical
    activity, but I have to be careful not to aggravate the nerve.

    As for the diet, I don't have the inclination to count carbs or get
    into the numbers, so I stick to the types of food I can eat. It's been
    working very well so far, with improvements in the way clothes fit, my
    energy level, focus, and even sexual health. We (my wife and I) even
    have a cheat meal once a week. Tonight it was veggie pizza with a bit
    of ground beef on whole wheat crust, with an Italian salad.

    Kevin

  10. Stinky wrote:
    || Hi, I have a question about the glycemic index and load. I have
    || purchased the book "Glycemic Revolution" and have read most of it,
    || but I am confused about what to use -- the GI or GL.
    ||
    || At first the GI seemed the easiest to use, but then I read about how
    || even if a food has a high GI, if it has low carb count, then it has a
    || small impact on our insulin levels.
    ||
    || Therefore, to me, the GL seems to be the way to go. Now, am I
    || supposed to choose low GL foods with moderate-to-high carbohydrate
    || count (and a low GI), or a food that has low carbs and a low GL?

    If this confuses you, why not choose an eating plan --such as Atkins --
    where glycemic values are not counted?
    --
    Peter
    ~~~~
    THE BUSHES IN NEW ORLEANS: THE PICTURE FOX NEWS WOULDN'T LET US SEE:
    http://users.thelink.net/marengo/bush

  11. Marengo said:

    Stinky wrote:

    || Hi, I have a question about the glycemic index and load. I have
    || purchased the book "Glycemic Revolution" and have read most of it,
    || but I am confused about what to use -- the GI or GL.

    || At first the GI seemed the easiest to use, but then I read about how
    || even if a food has a high GI, if it has low carb count, then it has a
    || small impact on our insulin levels.

    || Therefore, to me, the GL seems to be the way to go. Now, am I
    || supposed to choose low GL foods with moderate-to-high carbohydrate
    || count (and a low GI), or a food that has low carbs and a low GL?

    If this confuses you, why not choose an eating plan --such as Atkins --
    where glycemic values are not counted?

    Atkins takes glycemic values into account, which is less exacting
    than counting them. The carb ladder is sorted both by glycemic
    values and by odds of triggering intolerance reactions, so
    following the core process does have you start with low glycemic
    foods and then gradually try higher glycemic foods until you
    start running into ones that cause you problems.

  12. Doug Freyburger wrote:
    || Marengo wrote:
    ||| Stinky wrote:
    |||
    ||||| Hi, I have a question about the glycemic index and load. I have
    ||||| purchased the book "Glycemic Revolution" and have read most of it,
    ||||| but I am confused about what to use -- the GI or GL.
    |||
    ||||| At first the GI seemed the easiest to use, but then I read about
    ||||| how even if a food has a high GI, if it has low carb count, then
    ||||| it has a small impact on our insulin levels.
    |||
    ||||| Therefore, to me, the GL seems to be the way to go. Now, am I
    ||||| supposed to choose low GL foods with moderate-to-high carbohydrate
    ||||| count (and a low GI), or a food that has low carbs and a low GL?
    |||
    ||| If this confuses you, why not choose an eating plan --such as
    ||| Atkins -- where glycemic values are not counted?
    ||
    || Atkins takes glycemic values into account, which is less exacting
    || than counting them. The carb ladder is sorted both by glycemic
    || values and by odds of triggering intolerance reactions, so
    || following the core process does have you start with low glycemic
    || foods and then gradually try higher glycemic foods until you
    || start running into ones that cause you problems.

    I repeat, on Atkins you do not have to worry about counting glycemic values.
    You cound carbs, and eat from recommende lists of foods for various phases.
    It's much less complicated.
    --
    Peter
    ~~~~
    THE BUSHES IN NEW ORLEANS: THE PICTURE FOX NEWS WOULDN'T LET US SEE:

    http://users.thelink.net/marengo/bush

  13. Stinky said:

    Hi, I have a question about the glycemic index and load. I have
    purchased the book "Glycemic Revolution" and have read most of it, but
    I am confused about what to use -- the GI or GL.

    At first the GI seemed the easiest to use, but then I read about how
    even if a food has a high GI, if it has low carb count, then it has a
    small impact on our insulin levels.

    Therefore, to me, the GL seems to be the way to go. Now, am I supposed
    to choose low GL foods with moderate-to-high carbohydrate count (and a
    low GI), or a food that has low carbs and a low GL?

    Yep, ignore the GI for now and just use the GL. Forget about carb
    counts for now too. Just focus on GL, and nutritional value (vitamins
    and minerals).

    Later, once you've mastered the GL, you can do more advanced stuff if
    you like (lower the amount of carbs, combine foods to moderate the GL
    value of a meal, etc.)

  14. "Mars Observer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

    Quoted message said:

    Yep, ignore the GI for now and just use the GL. Forget about carb
    counts for now too. Just focus on GL, and nutritional value (vitamins
    and minerals).

    Later, once you've mastered the GL, you can do more advanced stuff if
    you like (lower the amount of carbs, combine foods to moderate the GL
    value of a meal, etc.)

    Ummm... I'd have to say that the GL is more complicated for most people to
    use than just a simple carb count. And it's not clear that GL is as
    effective in mitigating effects of insulin resistance as is controlling
    overall carb intake. There's nothing *wrong* with using GL, but from what
    I've seen, it's not as sure a way of effecting positive health changes
    related to insulin resistance as is controlling total carb intake.

    Depending on what you eat and how much, using GL you can still end up eating
    a boatload of carbohydrate, and your body will need to release an
    accordingly high amount of insulin over the course of the day. What keeping
    GL load does is keep spikes down, so you are less apt to get "spikes" of
    insulin, which are sometimes excessive, probably leading to insulin
    resistance (and the need for yet more insulin next time). So GL use is more
    effective at preventing or slowing onset of insulin resistance.

    The amount of insulin released by the body over the course of a day is a
    function of overall carb intake - the type of carbs is a secondary factor.
    So, for anyone who is already significantly insulin resistant, controlling
    total carbs will probably provide a quicker, surer method for lowering
    excess insulin secretion and stabilizing blood glucose levels. And those
    changes are likely to lead to easier, faster weight loss, also.

  15. Hannah Gruen wrote:
    :: "Mars Observer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    ::
    ::: Yep, ignore the GI for now and just use the GL. Forget about carb
    ::: counts for now too. Just focus on GL, and nutritional value
    ::: (vitamins and minerals).
    :::
    ::: Later, once you've mastered the GL, you can do more advanced stuff
    ::: if you like (lower the amount of carbs, combine foods to moderate
    ::: the GL value of a meal, etc.)
    ::
    :: Ummm... I'd have to say that the GL is more complicated for most
    :: people to use than just a simple carb count. And it's not clear that
    :: GL is as effective in mitigating effects of insulin resistance as is
    :: controlling overall carb intake. There's nothing *wrong* with using
    :: GL, but from what I've seen, it's not as sure a way of effecting
    :: positive health changes related to insulin resistance as is
    :: controlling total carb intake.
    ::
    :: Depending on what you eat and how much, using GL you can still end
    :: up eating a boatload of carbohydrate, and your body will need to
    :: release an accordingly high amount of insulin over the course of the
    :: day. What keeping GL load does is keep spikes down, so you are less
    :: apt to get "spikes" of insulin, which are sometimes excessive,
    :: probably leading to insulin resistance (and the need for yet more
    :: insulin next time). So GL use is more effective at preventing or
    :: slowing onset of insulin resistance.

    More effective than what? Using GI? I ask because everywhere else you're
    comparing GL to simple carb count and I fail to see how even GL could be
    better than maintaining sufficiently low total carbs. In fact, since it can
    be more compliciated, it seems mostly less effective in actual use.

    ::
    :: The amount of insulin released by the body over the course of a day
    :: is a function of overall carb intake - the type of carbs is a
    :: secondary factor. So, for anyone who is already significantly
    :: insulin resistant, controlling total carbs will probably provide a
    :: quicker, surer method for lowering excess insulin secretion and
    :: stabilizing blood glucose levels. And those changes are likely to
    :: lead to easier, faster weight loss, also.

  16. Hannah Gruen said:

    Ummm... I'd have to say that the GL is more complicated for most people to
    use than just a simple carb count.


    Most defenitely... though that's not to say that it isn't worth the
    extra effort...

    Quoted message said:

    And it's not clear that GL is as
    effective in mitigating effects of insulin resistance as is controlling
    overall carb intake.


    True, it's still somewhat on an emerging science... however many
    people would argue that eating low-carb is unhealthy. I'm not taking
    a stance on that here (maybe the subject of another post) but for the
    people who *do* want to eat moderate (not *low*) carbs, the GI diet is
    a very good choice IMHO.

    Quoted message said:

    There's nothing *wrong* with using GL, but from what
    I've seen, it's not as sure a way of effecting positive health changes
    related to insulin resistance as is controlling total carb intake.


    Well... I'd have to disagree with that. In fact, there is some
    evidence that eating low-carb can contribute to insulin resistence (in
    sort of a 'use it or lose it' type scenario with respect to insulin
    and the processing of glucose). Ref: Miller-Brand.

    Quoted message said:

    Depending on what you eat and how much, using GL you can still end up eating
    a boatload of carbohydrate, and your body will need to release an


    Very true. In fact, many GI diets are HIGH carb diets... or at the
    very least MODERATE carb diets.

    Quoted message said:

    accordingly high amount of insulin over the course of the day. What keeping
    GL load does is keep spikes down, so you are less apt to get "spikes" of
    insulin, which are sometimes excessive, probably leading to insulin
    resistance (and the need for yet more insulin next time). So GL use is more
    effective at preventing or slowing onset of insulin resistance.


    Exactly... The point of the GI/GL is to avoid the *spikes*. This
    isn't necessarily the only factor in insulin resistence, but is
    probably the major one.

    Think of an insulin spike as a torrent of water flooding the land
    (like New Orleans) and regular insulin secretion as a 'gentle rain
    fall' that soaks into the ground and is easily absorbed.

    Quoted message said:

    The amount of insulin released by the body over the course of a day is a
    function of overall carb intake - the type of carbs is a secondary factor.
    So, for anyone who is already significantly insulin resistant, controlling
    total carbs will probably provide a quicker, surer method for lowering
    excess insulin secretion and stabilizing blood glucose levels. And those
    changes are likely to lead to easier, faster weight loss, also.

  17. "Roger Zoul" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

    Quoted message said:

    More effective than what? Using GI? I ask because everywhere else you're
    comparing GL to simple carb count and I fail to see how even GL could be
    better than maintaining sufficiently low total carbs. In fact, since it
    can be more compliciated, it seems mostly less effective in actual use.

    What I meant, and sorry because I obviously didn't make myself clear, was
    that using GL is more effective for slowing or preventing onset of insulin
    resistance than it is for correcting it once it's developed. I wasn't
    comparing it with GI.

    There is quite a bit of evidence that even if people eat a high carb diet,
    it is not very likely to trigger significant insulin resistance so long as
    the diet is made up of high-fiber, unrefined or minimally processed
    high-carb foods. It is also helpful if the diet isn't hypercaloric on a
    regular basis. And a relatively low fat intake, especially saturated fat,
    appears to help avoid insulin resistance. This is the kind of high carb diet
    many people in less developed parts of the world eat, and they seem to do
    rather well on it, despite the high carb content. If we'd all eaten like
    that since childhood, most of us wouldn't need to be here on asdl-c.

    The problem is that instead of brown rice and beans and vegetables, with a
    little fish or chicken or an egg occasionally, we grew up eating a lot of
    refined sugar and grain products, often ate a lot of fat along with it, and
    not so much in the way of high fiber foods, including vegetables. That's a
    recipe for creating insulin resistance, especially when it is hypercaloric
    and there's not a lot of exercise.

    The mistake a lot of high-carb proponents make is not understanding that
    because third-worlders do well on their version of a high-carb diet, which
    by definition has a relatively low glycemic load, adoption of such a diet
    will not necessarily be an effective "cure" for those who have already
    developed significant insulin resistance on a high-GL SAD diet.

    There are several reasons why it doesn't work very well. One is compliance.
    People who have developed insulin resistance/hyperinsulimia will tend to
    overeat starches even on low-GL foods. Their excess insulin release
    continues to be triggered by even the low-GL foods, and that makes them
    hungry and they also will tend to have problems even sticking with those
    foods, because the insulin makes them crave the sweet refined foods. The
    result is often periodic binging that (1) keeps the insulin resistance level
    high, and (2) inhibits weight loss and regain of insulin sensitivity.
    Reduced carb diets do a much more effective job of getting off the
    destructive eat carbs - excess insulin - hunger - eat more carbs - excess
    insulin - hunger merry-go-round, allowing some degree of endocrine function
    to occur.

    Secondly, most third-worlders are doing well to get *enough* calories, so
    that habitual overeating is less of an issue than it is for us.
    Third-worlders who become affluent enough to overeat tend to add refined
    foods and more meat and fat, rather than just more unrefined carbs and
    veggies. And they get fat and sick, just like we do when their diet becomes
    more like the SAD.

    Third, most third-worlders tend to get a *lot* more exercise than most of
    us. And even with higher GL diets, getting a lot of exercise and not eating
    hypercalorically tends to greatly lower the chance of developing insulin
    resistance.

    [Note: I should mention that is is not *impossible* to increase insulin
    sensitivity via a high-carb low-GL diet, even in persons with severe insulin
    resistance. If the person can stick to it for several weeks, keeping fat
    very low, and resisting all the impulses to overeat starches and to binge on
    "forbidden" high fat and/or refined and/or simple sugar-laden foods, then it
    may insulin levels often do drop, and hunger also, leading to easier
    compliance. There are lots of websites that do record successes for people
    who have adopted high carb-low fat-low GL diets, including individuals with
    PCOS who have dramatically lowered measured insulin levels. But I tried it,
    as I believe you did also Roger, and it didn't work for me over the long
    run, and I personally never felt really well on that kind of diet. I think
    it's a lot harder than lc, and not as effective for people with really
    entrenched insulin resistance. However, we lc'ers would be in denial if we
    tried to claim the high carb-low fat-low GL method doesn't sometimes work,
    for some people.]

    HG

  18. Hannah Gruen said:
    Mars Observer said:

    however many
    people would argue that eating low-carb is unhealthy. I'm not taking
    a stance on that here (maybe the subject of another post) but for the
    people who *do* want to eat moderate (not *low*) carbs, the GI diet is
    a very good choice IMHO.

    Well, I'd agree that eating very low-carb on a long-term basis is definitely
    unhealthy. But that's why virtually all lc proponents recommend gradually
    adding back in plenty of low-starch vegetables, a modest amount of the
    lower-sugar fruits, and even a limited amount of higher-starch foods if your
    system will tolerate it. My point was, however, not that a low-carb diet is
    inherently more or less healthy than a low-GI diet, but that the low-carb
    diet may be more effective in reversing insulin resistance.

    My point is that people who claim low carb eating is unhealthy
    haven't read the book, any book, on the topic or they would
    know that no plan stays very low for long.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Well... I'd have to disagree with that. In fact, there is some
    evidence that eating low-carb can contribute to insulin resistence (in
    sort of a 'use it or lose it' type scenario with respect to insulin
    and the processing of glucose). Ref: Miller-Brand.

    The reason I say that is that humans existed for long periods of time in
    northern latitudes, where the diet would have been mainly what could be
    hunted (i.e., meat and fat) for months on end. Veggies and fruit and very
    limited grains would have been available during the warm parts of the year
    only, and prior to agriculture, it would certainly have been unusual for
    hunter-gatherers to have large supplies of dried grain, fruit, or stored
    root veggies. So they likely adapted well to being on a more-or-less
    ketogenic diet for a good portion of the year.

    We don't even need to have a lot of genetic history in near
    arctic zones. Enter wild speculation mode - What if our
    ancestors spent about a million years on the shoreline as
    fishers? We would have gradually evolved better swimming
    skills compared to other apes, lost a lot of hair, moved
    feet towards flippers, developed a taste for seafood so
    strong you could find lobster flown daily to Denver. Heck,
    we might have evolved so far long that path that our kidneys
    started excreting so much sodium we would need table salt.
    Oh wait, all that did happen, it's just that there is no
    good proof that they all add together to shoreline evolution.

    But take it as a working mobel and think what the diet
    would have been. Lot's of seafood. Invertibrate, vertibrate.
    Not all that much seaweed (hey, just how nutitrious is kelp
    again?). A hereditary need for fish oil (in genetic lines
    more wide than just Kelts and Pacific NW Amerinds). And
    an ability to bounce into ketogenic mode while on the shore
    and back into glucose based metabolism while back on the
    plane digging up roots and fruits - Exit wild speculation
    mode.

    Quoted message said:

    If this permanently harmed
    their endocrine system function, then they would not have survived in
    reasonably good health. But skeletal remains suggest they were in quite good
    health, more so on average than more recent human remains from early
    agricultural communities.

    Folks who cite a 30-year lifespan and then picture sick
    people miss this point. The few skeletons out there tend
    to show someone generally healthy who got struck down by
    a predator or accident or sudden disease. Lingering
    illnesses are rare enough that skeletons showing it are
    using as a size of advanced culture capable of caring for
    the sick.

    Quoted message said:

    Therefore, since these were our distant ancestors,
    most of us probably share their ability to cycle back and forth between
    relatively low carb and higher carb diets, without any permanent disruption
    of endocrine system function.

    Repairing metabolic damage can require knowledge and/or
    an environment no longer common. Staying far too low in
    carb for far too long can result in a person falling out
    of ketosis no matter how low their dietary carbs are
    driven. I call it "Inuit or Eskimo mode" because the
    few Inuits or Eskimos who still live the traditional
    hunting lifestyle on the ice aren't in ketosis.

    In an environment that cycles between harsh winter and
    plush summer typical of northern temperate like Scandanavia,
    a stone age hunter-gatherer would have a very high carb,
    low fat summer and a very low carb, high fat winter. In
    fact, that kind of cycle will repair any "Inuit or
    Eskimo mode" disruption. Today, folks who drive
    themselves into that state often do so because they
    think: If low carb is good for loss, then lower carb
    should be better and lowest carb should be best. So
    they drive themselves lower and lower in this simplistic
    belief.

    Quoted message said:

    If someone is already having to secrete a boatload of insulin just to deal
    with a relatively modest amount of CHO intake, their spikes may well be near
    or past the point where they are inadequate to deal with the CHO, resulting
    in temporary abnormal elevation of bg levels. When this happens, using
    lower GI foods to lower the spikes may be much less effective at lowering
    insulin requirements (and sometimes elevated bg, too) than just lowering the
    insulin requirement more directly, by cutting back on the overall
    carbohydrate content of the diet (i.e., low carb). And many insulin
    resistant folks may be near that tipping point, but not realize it because
    their bg levels have always been in the normal range when measured. For
    them, playing around with lowering GI or GL may slow down the progression of
    their IR, but it may not reverse it, particularly if the IR is causing
    excess hunger & cravings, and thus frequent noncompliance with the low GI or
    GL diet.

  19. Mars Observer <[email hidden]> wrote:

    :> I think it's the old 'plant based' vs. 'animal based' issue. I'm not
    :> taking sides, though I think most LC diets are animal based... while
    :> the GI diet is plant based (with some exceptions, granted).

    What makes the GI diet plant based? What makes a low-carb diet animal
    based?

    Geez....

  20. Roger Zoul said:

    Mars Observer wrote:

    :> I think it's the old 'plant based' vs. 'animal based' issue. I'm not
    :> taking sides, though I think most LC diets are animal based... while
    :> the GI diet is plant based (with some exceptions, granted).

    By "plant based" do you mean some variation on vegitarian?

    Quoted message said:

    What makes the GI diet plant based?

    All meat is cut from animals and is therefore very low GI.
    Few animals store detectable carbs except in their livers.
    Molluscs at roughly 1 gm per oz, crustaceacns at roughly
    0.1 gm per oz of flesh.

    Quoted message said:

    What makes a low-carb diet animal based?

    Desire for meat and/or lack of imagination and/or lack of
    willingness to search for enough variety to pull it off
    and/or propaganda from vegan activist groups.

    Quoted message said:

    Geez....

    Agreed.

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.