PDA

View Full Version : Dieters go for low GI, nutritionists still wary


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums

Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!



Demi
Thu, May-26-05, 11:23
26/05/2005 - The glycaemic index (GI) is emerging as a new weight loss regime, despite the belief of some nutritionists that there is not enough science to demonstrate it can effectively control weight, writes Lorraine Heller.


The glycaemic index ranks the speed at which the body breaks down carbohydrates and converts them into blood glucose. Low GI foods, such as nuts, vegetables and bran-based cereals, are considered healthier for the heart than high GI foods like biscuits, white bread and sugar drinks as they are digested more slowly and as a result have a smaller impact on the body’s peak blood glucose concentration.

Most of the research conducted into the glycaemic index has therefore concentrated on its effect on insulin sensitivity as a means to reduce the risk or control the management of diseases such as diabetes and heart disease.

But as the popularity of low-carbohydrate diets wanes, consumers in the UK are turning to the glycaemic index as a weight loss method. And with sweet and savoury pastries together with the large majority of bread types on the market ranked as high GI, the bakery industry may well be facing a new threat.

Unlike previously fashionable diets, use of the glycaemic index for weight loss has been led by retailers and the media rather than dieticians and food manufacturers. The promotion of the glycaemic index relies on a small but increasing collection of studies on the role of low-GI foods for weight management.

Some studies have revealed a significant effect on satiety and reduced body fat.

The UK’s leading supermarket Tesco promotes a ‘Tesco GI diet’ on its website, providing information to consumers on how to “banish cravings, lose weight and improve health”. Tesco also sells a booklet explaining GI, and has included ‘low-GI’ or ‘medium-GI’ labels on some of its products.

The consumer media has also compared a low GI diet favourably with Atkins, suggesting that it has sound scientific backing and proven benefits.

But Professor Tom Sanders from King’s College London believes that while there is scope for the development of a GI diet, more research needs to be undertaken before its potential benefits can be confirmed.

“I remain skeptical for the broader use of the GI as a weight-loss diet label. A low GI diet is extremely hard to adhere to, and there have not been sufficiently large or controlled studies in free living individuals in order to promote its use,” he told BakeryAndSnacks.com.

Dr Tamara de Grassi, nutritionist and head of communications at the UK’s Flour Advisory Bureau (FAB), adds that the hype surrounding low GI foods “is all about making money.”

“The people marketing GI are very canny. If we hadn’t had Atkins and the whole debate on no-carb and low-carb, we wouldn’t now be talking about right-carb, ” she said.

Furthermore the glycaemic index is difficult for consumers to understand and can be misleading as GI levels can change depending on what combinations food is eaten in, how much it is chewed and how fast it is eaten. “Consumers don’t have enough information or background knowledge to understand the complexities and the real facts about GI… without the right understanding they could end up with a disproportionate diet,” added Dr de Grassi.

Research carried out by Leatherhead Food confirms that although one third of consumers are aware of the GI system, most are unable to interpret the often complicated labeling on products.

Yet a number of food manufacturers are now forging ahead with new marketing initiatives to promote and explain the benefits of their low-GI products.

Danone has labeled a number of its products on the Dutch and French markets with the label ‘longer lasting energy’, using charts to show the effects on blood sugar. Meanwhile ingredient makers Danisco, Sensus and Tate & Lyle are positioning products around this new market.

If new science continues to support the role of the glycaemic index in weight loss, the bakery sector may need to follow Warburton’s lead. The UK firm has been one of the first to anticipate the impact of this emerging trend by developing a white bread with a low GI, backed by a £2m advertising campaign.

http://www.bakeryandsnacks.com/news/news-ng.asp?n=60267-dieters-go-for

Angeline
Thu, May-26-05, 12:53
26/05/2005 - [B]
Dr Tamara de Grassi, nutritionist and head of communications at the UK’s Flour Advisory Bureau (FAB), adds that the hype surrounding low GI foods “is all about making money.”

Anyone else see the irony in this statement ? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black LOL

Demi
Thu, May-26-05, 13:21
Originally posted by Angeline ...
Anyone else see the irony in this statement ? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black LOL
Yes LOL, it's one of the reasons I posted the article!

TBoneMitch
Sat, May-28-05, 21:28
Do nutritionists have any science to back up THEIR dietary approach?

ProfGumby
Sat, May-28-05, 21:53
Do nutritionists have any science to back up THEIR dietary approach?

Not that I have ever been told of. They need no license, no bar exam nothing. If you took the test and passed it, bang! Your a nutritionalist.

Someone correct me if I am wrong........

And no, I am not dissing nutritionalists, or dieticians for that matter........

And as to the flour board, ironic yes. Surprising, no. This is no different than the Physicians for responsible Medicine coming out against Atkins and the rest. These guys are rabid vegitarians and animal rightists, of course they are going to attack the typical Low Carb lifestyle.........

CindySue48
Sun, May-29-05, 15:44
Do nutritionists have any science to back up THEIR dietary approach?

Oh but EVERYONE knows that their approach is right! They don't need no silly "science" and "research" to back them up! :lol: