TheDave© said:Note that this appears to be geared toward weight loss, and not
diabetic blood glucose control, but I thought some here might find it
of interest, anyway.http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070419/hl_nm/glycemic_load_dc
"Glycemic load" of diet has no effect on weight loss
By Amy Norton
1 hour, 9 minutes agoNEW YORK (Reuters Health) - When it comes to losing weight, the number
of calories you eat, rather than the type of carbohydrates, may be what
matters most, according to a new study.The findings, published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition,
suggest that diets low in "glycemic load" are no better at taking the
pounds off than more traditional -- and more carbohydrate-friendly --
approaches to calorie-cutting.The concept of glycemic load is based on the fact that different
carbohydrates have different effects on blood sugar. White bread and
potatoes, for example, have a high glycemic index, which means they
tend to cause a rapid surge in blood sugar. Other carbs, such as
high-fiber cereals or beans, create a more gradual change and are
considered to have a low glycemic index.The measurement of glycemic load takes things a step further by
considering not only an individual food's glycemic index, but its total
number of carbohydrates. A sweet juicy piece of fruit might have a high
glycemic index, but is low in calories and grams of carbohydrate.
Therefore, it can fit into a diet low in glycemic load.However, the effort of figuring out what's an allowable carb might not
be worth it, if the new study is any indication.Principal investigator Dr. Susan B. Roberts, of Tufts University,
Boston, and colleagues found that a reduced-calorie diet, whether
glycemic load was high or low, was effective in helping 34 overweight
adults shed pounds over one year.Study participants who followed a low-glycemic-load diet ended up
losing roughly 8 percent of their initial weight, as did those who
followed a high-glycemic-load diet."The bottom line is that in this study we don't see one single way to
eat that is better for weight loss on average," Roberts told Reuters
Health. Of course, that doesn't mean "anything goes" as long as you're
cutting calories."A super-sized serving of French fries won't do any dieter any good, she
noted.Both diets her team used in the study were carefully controlled. For
the first 6 months, participants were provided with all the food they
needed, and both diets were designed to cut their calories by 30
percent while providing the recommended amount of fiber, limiting fat
and encouraging healthy foods like fruits and vegetables.The comparable outcomes suggest that, among healthy diets, no single
one stands out as better, according to Roberts. So the focus should be
on calories, rather than specific foods to avoid or include."Focusing on calories is something we need more of, especially when
portion sizes are so absurd," Roberts said, referring to the portions
served at so many U.S. restaurants.This doesn't mean, however, that there's no place for diets that focus
on glycemic load, according to the researcher. Some studies, for
example, have found that low-glycemic index foods might help control
blood sugar in people with type 2 diabetes.And in their own research, Roberts said she and her colleagues have
found that low-glycemic index diets do seem more effective for
overweight people who naturally secrete high levels of the hormone
insulin, which regulates blood sugar.SOURCE: American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, April 2007.
If you are overeating, it is not what you eating but how much you are
eating that is harming you:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/overweight.asp
May GOD bless you.
Prayerfully in Jesus' awesome love,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Love/TheTruth