Glycemic-load for apple & beer comparable

Quoted message said:

It seems that the glycemic load of an apple and a President'c Choice
dealcoholized red beer should not be very different. I got the
figures for an apple from http://tinyurl.com/995mp a.k.a.
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=12&url=http%3A//www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/5aday/month/pdfs/Apple.pdf&ei=O9olQ--xI7K6iwHbzN2xCQ
and the stats for the beer from the can.

Apple Beer
----- ----
Serving 138g 355g (355mL)
Calories 60 50
Total Carbs [g] 17 11 (carbs/glucides)
Dietary fiber [g] 3 ?
Sugars [g] 14 ?

Note that, even though the serving size is tabulated, it is not
relevant if the aim is to compare the eating of one apple with the
drinking of one beer.

The breakdown of carbs into fiber & simple sugars is given only for
the apple. However, if we consider the worse possible case for the
beer, assume that all of its 11g of carbs are simple sugars. This is
still less than for an apple.

Glycemic load aside, if we consider only calories, drinking 4 of those
specific beers a day yields 200 calories, which is about one tenth of
the daily need of a typical adult.

Would it be safe to say that this particular beer is a good substitute
for water, with neglegible effects on blood sugar and calorie intake?

No.

The problem is that beer has no fiber and contains mostly maltose
(disacharide of glucose) with GI 110.

Mirek

Mirek Fidler said:

Quoted message said:

Apple Beer
----- ----
Serving 138g 355g (355mL)
Calories 60 50
Total Carbs [g] 17 11 (carbs/glucides)
Dietary fiber [g] 3 ?
Sugars [g] 14 ?

Would it be safe to say that this particular beer is a good
substitute for water, with neglegible effects on blood sugar and
calorie intake?

No. The problem is that beer has no fiber and contains mostly
maltose (disacharide of glucose) with GI 110.

Hmm. True about the no fiber, since it is pure liquid (is that a
correct assumption?). The maltose content seems up for debate, at
least by perusing the web. The position taken by pro-beer people is
that it gets transformed into something else. In the worse case,
assume that all 11g of carbs is maltose. Maltose has a GI of 150,
comparable to white sugar (GI 142). Making the audacious assumption
that 11g of maltose has similar effect to 11g of white sugar, that's
like drinking a softdrink with 3~4 teaspoons of sugar (at 2.65~4 grams
of sugar per teaspoon). This isn't exactly the greatest, but way
better than the typical softdrink, which has 40g or 10~15 of
teaspoons. Ah well, something to beware of. Thanks.

Quoted message said:

Mirek Fidler said:

Quoted message said:

Apple Beer
----- ----
Serving 138g 355g (355mL)
Calories 60 50
Total Carbs [g] 17 11 (carbs/glucides)
Dietary fiber [g] 3 ?
Sugars [g] 14 ?

Would it be safe to say that this particular beer is a good
substitute for water, with neglegible effects on blood sugar and
calorie intake?

No. The problem is that beer has no fiber and contains mostly
maltose (disacharide of glucose) with GI 110.

Hmm. True about the no fiber, since it is pure liquid (is that a
correct assumption?). The maltose content seems up for debate, at
least by perusing the web. The position taken by pro-beer people is
that it gets transformed into something else. In the worse case,
assume that all 11g of carbs is maltose. Maltose has a GI of 150,
comparable to white sugar (GI 142).

You must be using other units than I do. AFAIK, glucose is rated with GI
100. White sugar - sacharose (disacharide of glucose + fructose) has GI
70. Maltose is worse than glucose with GI 110.

Quoted message said:

Making the audacious assumption
that 11g of maltose has similar effect to 11g of white sugar, that's
like drinking a softdrink with 3~4 teaspoons of sugar (at 2.65~4 grams
of sugar per teaspoon). This isn't exactly the greatest, but way
better than the typical softdrink, which has 40g or 10~15 of
teaspoons. Ah well, something to beware of. Thanks.

Well, one thing that attracted me to lowcarbing was my emprical
observation that when I used to get home from the pub, after having some
meal and five beers, I was very hungry.

Mirek

Mirek Fidler said:

Quoted message said:

Mirek Fidler said:

[email hidden] wrote:
> Apple Beer
> ----- ----
>Serving 138g 355g (355mL)
>Calories 60 50
>Total Carbs [g] 17 11 (carbs/glucides)
> Dietary fiber [g] 3 ?
> Sugars [g] 14 ?
>
>Would it be safe to say that this particular beer is a good
>substitute for water, with neglegible effects on blood sugar and
>calorie intake?

No. The problem is that beer has no fiber and contains mostly
maltose (disacharide of glucose) with GI 110.

Hmm. True about the no fiber, since it is pure liquid (is that a
correct assumption?). The maltose content seems up for debate, at
least by perusing the web. The position taken by pro-beer people is
that it gets transformed into something else. In the worse case,
assume that all 11g of carbs is maltose. Maltose has a GI of 150,
comparable to white sugar (GI 142).

You must be using other units than I do. AFAIK, glucose is rated with GI
100. White sugar - sacharose (disacharide of glucose + fructose) has GI
70. Maltose is worse than glucose with GI 110.

Oh, I pulled it from the web somewhere. As we all know, everything we
read on the web is absolutely 100% true. Though some sites may
contradict
others.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Making the audacious assumption
that 11g of maltose has similar effect to 11g of white sugar, that's
like drinking a softdrink with 3~4 teaspoons of sugar (at 2.65~4 grams
of sugar per teaspoon). This isn't exactly the greatest, but way
better than the typical softdrink, which has 40g or 10~15 of
teaspoons. Ah well, something to beware of. Thanks.

Well, one thing that attracted me to lowcarbing was my emprical
observation that when I used to get home from the pub, after having some
meal and five beers, I was very hungry.

Hmmm. Interesting. I don't often drink that much real beer. A beer
can last a long time with me.