Speaking of Quackery, there is no science standing behind the Glycemic

[Mr-Natural]

There is no science standing behind the Glycemic Index.

Show me the proof that the Scientific Method has proved that
the Glycemic index even exists, or that there is any agreement
on what the specific rating for a specific food item actually
is or has validity to it whatsoever.

[Barry]

I heard that the glycemic index is meant for use in the lab,
not by the consumer. Something about the type of carbs not
being the whole story. The amount matters too. Some people
avoid healthy foods like carrots because of the index.

[Montygram]

You are correct, nature boy. It must be a first for you!

Seriously, the GI is an abstraction, really - "nutritional
science" at its worst. Even the glycemic load does not mean
much, if anything. As
Dr. Spindler of caloric restriction fame has noted, the
calorie resticted animals have an intense insulin spike
when they eat, whereas the control animals have moderately
high levels that "hang around" for much longer periods of
time. This seems to be the important difference. It is an
issue of dysfunction at the cellular and molecular level,
and as recent studies at those levels have indicated,
oxidative stress appears to be the underlying mechanism
(turning on what should be kept off and turning off what
should be kept on). Think of a light switch. Oxidative
stress turns the body's lights on during the day, when
they are not needed, and turns them off in the evening,
when they are needed.

[Ignoramus1]

On 23 Sep 2005 17:03:07 -0700, Mr-Natural-Health
<johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com> wrote:
> There is no science standing behind the Glycemic Index.

Correct. All bullshit and smoke and mirrors, paid for by grain
companies.

> Show me the proof that the Scientific Method has proved that
> the Glycemic index even exists, or that there is any
> agreement on what the specific rating for a specific food
> item actually is or has validity to it whatsoever.

Check out

http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/gi.pdf

--
223/174.7/180

[Simm Webb]

Mr-Natural-Health wrote:
> There is no science standing behind the Glycemic Index.
>
> Show me the proof that the Scientific Method has proved that
> the Glycemic index even exists, or that there is any
> agreement on what the specific rating for a specific food
> item actually is or has validity to it whatsoever.
>

You know the obvious answer to that. The index was developed
through reaearch. Your patter is mostly nothing, except to try
to line your pockets. Why don't you get cancer, and then have
something to really complain about?

[outsor]

"Correct. All bullshit and smoke and mirrors, paid for by
grain companies."

Na, it was the dairy and meat industry that paid for it, its
all reverse
psychology don't ya know?

[Carol Fril]

In article <5m2Ze.102019$XF3.55678@fe29.usenetserver.com>,
Ignoramus19652 <ignoramus19652@NOSPAM.19652.invalid> wrote:

> On 23 Sep 2005 17:03:07 -0700, Mr-Natural-Health
> <johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com> wrote:
> > There is no science standing behind the Glycemic Index.
>
> Correct. All bullshit and smoke and mirrors, paid for by
> grain companies.
>
> > Show me the proof that the Scientific Method has proved
> > that the Glycemic index even exists, or that there is any
> > agreement on what the specific rating for a specific food
> > item actually is or has validity to it whatsoever.

Th scientist who researched The Specific Carbohydrate Diet did
not support the Glycemic Index because it never ditinguished
between mono and disaccharide carbohydrates. On that diet
inusulin spike is not the concern, kt is digestability.

>
> Check out
>
> http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/gi.pdf

--
Diva
******
There is no substitute for the right food

[Pizza Girl]

Quackery Oats?

"Ignoramus19652" <ignoramus19652@NOSPAM.19652.invalid> wrote
in message
news:5m2Ze.102019$XF3.55678@fe29.usenetserver.com... On 23 Sep
2005 17:03:07 -0700, Mr-Natural-Health
<johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com> wrote:
> There is no science standing behind the Glycemic Index.

Correct. All bullshit and smoke and mirrors, paid for by grain
companies.

> Show me the proof that the Scientific Method has proved that
> the Glycemic index even exists, or that there is any
> agreement on what the specific rating for a specific food
> item actually is or has validity to it whatsoever.

Check out

http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/gi.pdf

--
223/174.7/180

[Ignoramus1]

On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 09:33:58 -0400, Carol Frilegh
<cma@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> In article <5m2Ze.102019$XF3.55678@fe29.usenetserver.com>,
> Ignoramus19652 <ignoramus19652@NOSPAM.19652.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 23 Sep 2005 17:03:07 -0700, Mr-Natural-Health
>> <johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com> wrote:
>> > There is no science standing behind the Glycemic Index.
>>
>> Correct. All bullshit and smoke and mirrors, paid for by
>> grain companies.
>>
>> > Show me the proof that the Scientific Method has proved
>> > that the Glycemic index even exists, or that there is any
>> > agreement on what the specific rating for a specific food
>> > item actually is or has validity to it whatsoever.
>
> Th scientist who researched The Specific Carbohydrate Diet
> did not support the Glycemic Index because it never
> ditinguished between mono and disaccharide carbohydrates. On
> that diet inusulin spike is not the concern, kt is
> digestability.

Makes sense to me.

i

>>
>> Check out
>>
>> http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/gi.pdf
>

--
223/174.7/180

[Mr-Natural]

> > Check out http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/gi.pdf

The HTML version, which I find more readable, is at:
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/76/1/290S

It provides a good overview of the topic.

Personally, I am not affected by high glycemic foods beyond
being able to experience a sugar buzz.

Nevertheless, even if it is NOT supported by the scientific
method the concept still is practical and is a very usefull
concept for the diabetic and pre-diabetic individuals.

The whole point of my THREAD is that real world experiences
and observations have real world value even if NOT supported
by stupid medical scientism.

Ergo, the Glycemic Index is NOT Quackery. But, the scientific
method is Quacked.

Just my opinion, but I am always correct.

[outsor]

"The whole point of my THREAD is that real world experiences
and observations have real world value even if NOT supported
by stupid medical scientism.

Ergo, the Glycemic Index is NOT Quackery. But, the scientific
method is Quacked."

Ergo, you don't understand that which you fear, why, because
you want to. Astrology and esp are popular also as "real
world experiences" and fare no better then homopathology in
lacking any independent evidence of support. That independent
means no one cares what you think unless and untill you
produce the meat of evidence in place of self invented
irrelevant babbling. The science for gi is sound, to show the
contrary requires equally sound evidence that finds no
salvation in babbling.

[Mr-Natural]

outsor@citynet.net wrote:
> "The whole point of my THREAD is that real world experiences
> and observations have real world value even if NOT supported
> by stupid medical scientism.
>
> Ergo, the Glycemic Index is NOT Quackery. But, the
> scientific method is Quacked."
>
> Ergo, you don't understand that which you fear, why, because
> you want to. Astrology and esp are popular also as "real
> world experiences" and fare no better then homopathology in
> lacking any independent evidence of support. That
> independent means no one cares what you think unless and
> untill you produce the meat of evidence in place of self
> invented irrelevant babbling. The science for gi is sound,
> to show the contrary requires equally sound evidence that
> finds no salvation in babbling.

See my commentary on babbling on these ngs at: http://groups.-
google.com/group/sci.med/browse_thread/thread/780e0a94077e69a-
2/a0d9c9c853239923#a0d9c9c853239923

Sorry to inform you, but YOU are NOT:

1. Practicing the scientific method, now.
2. Furthering the noble cause of the scientific method, now.

Anybody can claim to believe in science, but that is not what
counts. Nor, has it ever counted.

Only the scientific method counts, and you dear fool are NOT
presently engaging in the scientific method in any shape,
way, or form.

You have my condolences, for being just a deluded fool.

[outsor]

My observations were not claimed to be science with regard to
your babble, only common sense and observation serves. I had
many years of graduate level training in the scientific method
thank you. If we were doing science it would be about you and
your behavior and the possible character flaws by which to
make a diagnosis. But we need not bother with such a formal
approach for you have provided all the evidence such that
science is not required to identify same. Bigotry and hissy
fits and bouts of emotional hand waving and appeals to
marterdom are obvious to anyone as all the evidence we need.

You do not understand science, you have no grounds to be
critical of others who do based on your lack of same, you are
jealous and envious of it's power in the face of your pathetic
notions and how it contradicts what you hold dear and
meaningful. You are bitter and resent the hand life has delt
you and lash out in that bitterness while at the same time
desperatly seeking recognition and validation.

"Sorry to inform you, but YOU are NOT:

1. Practicing the scientific method, now. 2. Furthering the
noble cause of the scientific method, now.

Anybody can claim to believe in science, but that is not what
counts. Nor, has it ever counted.

Only the scientific method counts, and you dear fool are NOT
presently engaging in the scientific method in any shape,
way, or form."

[Mr-Natural]

out...@citynet.net wrote:

> only common sense and observation serves. I had many
> years of graduate level training in the scientific method
> thank you.

You are dumber than a door nob, thank you. :)

You are a Benjamin Rush of the new millennium. :(

While the Glycemic Index has been a real help for diabetics
and for those suffering from borderline diabetes, all you see
is your blind pursuit of science. But, NEVER do you actually
follow the Scientific Method.

The patient be damn. The public be damn. Just as long as you
can blindly pursue your beloved science, but NEVER the
scientific method.

You have my condolences. And, the public has been warned: You
wont find any use of the scientific method on these ngs. No
self-respecting scientist would ever post on these ngs. They
publish research. They NEVER babble here.

Just thought that you might want to know.

[Mr-Natural]

out...@citynet.net wrote:

> only common sense and observation serves. I had many
> years of graduate level training in the scientific method
> thank you.

You are dumber than a door nob, thank you. :)

You are a Benjamin Rush of the new millennium. :(

While the Glycemic Index has been a real help for diabetics
and for those suffering from borderline diabetes, all you see
is your blind pursuit of science. But, NEVER do you actually
follow the Scientific Method.

The patient be damn. The public be damn. Just as long as you
can blindly pursue your beloved science, but NEVER the
scientific method.

You have my condolences. And, the public has been warned: You
wont find any use of the scientific method on these ngs. No
self-respecting scientist would ever post on these ngs. They
publish research. They NEVER babble here.

Just thought that you might want to know.

[outsor]

As mentioned before, all the evidence is here before us to
make common sense decisions of the quality of your babble and
the character on which it is formed, hissy fits and other now
familiar behavior continues in place of informative content.

"You are dumber than a door nob, thank you. :) You are a
Benjamin Rush of the new millennium. :(

While the Glycemic Index has been a real help for diabetics
and for those suffering from borderline diabetes, all you see
is your blind pursuit of science. But, NEVER do you actually
follow the Scientific Method.

The patient be damn. The public be damn. Just as long as you
can blindly pursue your beloved science, but NEVER the
scientific method.

You have my condolences. And, the public has been warned: You
wont find any use of the scientific method on these ngs. No
self-respecting scientist would ever post on these ngs. They
publish research. They NEVER babble here."

[Ike]

The Glycemic Index was arrived at empirically - which is the
only way such a table could be developed. A standard amount of
each carbohydrate was ingested, and the resulting blood
glucose curve was measured over time - by volunteers. Those
curves were averaged and then put onto an arbitrary scale (the
GI) to show the effect upon blood glucose of each of the
various carbohydrates.

Only empirically was it discovered that some carbohydrates
convert to blood glucose very, very slowly (chana dal, for
example). And that at least one carb affects blood glucose
even more rapidly than pure glucose (maltodextrose, as I
recall). Go figger.

I eat anything, but stay keenly aware of the GI of my intake
- then use some combination of acarbose, nateglinide, and
isometrics to avoid major BG peaks. After literally thousands
of finger-sticks and careful record-keeping to build a
knowledge base that permits me to make valid predictions, I
can attest to the validity of the GI and its value in
managing peaks.

I think the latest diet fad, which purports to exploit the GI
as a weight management tool, might be quackery. I have found
no published bariatric research to support the claims made by
the people touting those schemes - and my standard for
"quackery" is medical claims without substantiation by
peer-reviewed research.

Ike

[Herman Rub]

In article <oHpZe.2$qI1.0@fe17.lga>, Ike
<Retired@last.com> wrote:
>The Glycemic Index was arrived at empirically - which is the
>only way such a table could be developed. A standard amount
>of each carbohydrate was ingested, and the resulting blood
>glucose curve was measured over time - by volunteers. Those
>curves were averaged and then put onto an arbitrary scale
>(the GI) to show the effect upon blood glucose of each of the
>various carbohydrates.

>Only empirically was it discovered that some carbohydrates
>convert to blood glucose very, very slowly (chana dal, for
>example). And that at least one carb affects blood glucose
>even more rapidly than pure glucose (maltodextrose, as I
>recall). Go figger.

This is not difficult. One molecule of maltose consists of
two molecules of glucose minus one molecule of water. So a
molecule of maltose masses 1.9 times that of a molecule of
glucose, but works as 2 molecules, and this conversion is
very fast.

>I eat anything, but stay keenly aware of the GI of my intake
>- then use some combination of acarbose, nateglinide, and
>isometrics to avoid major BG peaks. After literally thousands
>of finger-sticks and careful record-keeping to build a
>knowledge base that permits me to make valid predictions, I
>can attest to the validity of the GI and its value in
>managing peaks.

>I think the latest diet fad, which purports to exploit the GI
>as a weight management tool, might be quackery. I have found
>no published bariatric research to support the claims made by
>the people touting those schemes - and my standard for
>"quackery" is medical claims without substantiation by
>peer-reviewed research.

>Ike

--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that
these views are those of the Statistics Department or of
Purdue University. Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics,
Purdue University hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054
FAX: (765)494-0558

[Nick]

Knocking the glycemic index? If you aren't sure how can you
be critical?

[Ike]

"Herman Rubin" <hrubin@odds.stat.purdue.edu> wrote in message
news:dh6s1o$4cos@odds.stat.purdue.edu...

>>Only empirically was it discovered that some carbohydrates
>>convert to blood glucose very, very slowly (chana dal, for
>>example). And that at least one carb affects blood glucose
>>even more rapidly than pure glucose (maltodextrose, as I
>>recall). Go figger.
>
> This is not difficult. One molecule of maltose consists of
> two molecules of glucose minus one molecule of water. So a
> molecule of maltose masses 1.9 times that of a molecule of
> glucose, but works as 2 molecules, and this conversion is
> very fast.

Thanks, but the GI is generated by ingesting 50g (about
2oz) of a digestible carb, then measuring the change in BG
over time (2H). 50g of pure glucose can't contain less
glucose than 50g of maltodextrose, so....Did I fail another
Purdue IQ test??

A trade, a team, a union, a drink, a band! Go Boilermakers!

Ike

[Nick]

Half of what doctors have been taught is wrong; the other half
right. The problem is they don't know which is which.

I don't believe the people here that knock everything for the
sake of their authority. I say reserve the right to fire your
doctor if you see fit!

Good luck.

[Ike]

Actually, in medicine it's the other way around - you must be
sure before making claims, and I think those who published the
GI information had solid and reproducible evidence supporting
their arguments. Regarding the GI, I've done enough of the
experiments on myself to be satisfied that the ~300 GIs that I
carry around on my Palm PDA are valid and applicable, and I
control my diet accordingly. My postprandial BGs are evidence
that the GI works well with my particular biochemistry.

Ike

"Nick" <macromitch@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1127711510.495394.303970@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Knocking the glycemic index? If you aren't sure how can you
> be critical?

[Herman Rub]

In article <SKFZe.1330$97.272@fe15.lga>, Ike
<Retired@last.com> wrote:
>"Herman Rubin" <hrubin@odds.stat.purdue.edu> wrote in message
>news:dh6s1o$4cos@odds.stat.purdue.edu...

>>>Only empirically was it discovered that some carbohydrates
>>>convert to blood glucose very, very slowly (chana dal, for
>>>example). And that at least one carb affects blood glucose
>>>even more rapidly than pure glucose (maltodextrose, as I
>>>recall). Go figger.

>> This is not difficult. One molecule of maltose consists of
>> two molecules of glucose minus one molecule of water. So a
>> molecule of maltose masses 1.9 times that of a molecule of
>> glucose, but works as 2 molecules, and this conversion is
>> very fast.

>Thanks, but the GI is generated by ingesting 50g (about 2oz)
>of a digestible carb, then measuring the change in BG over
>time (2H). 50g of pure glucose can't contain less glucose
>than 50g of maltodextrose, so....Did I fail another Purdue
>IQ test??

Yes it can. 50g of maltose plus about 3g water gives about 53g
glucose. One molecule of maltose is formed from two molecules
of glucose, with a molecule of water subtracted. The reaction
reverses easily. There is no shortage of water in the
digestive system.

--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that
these views are those of the Statistics Department or of
Purdue University. Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics,
Purdue University hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054
FAX: (765)494-0558

[Pizza Girl]

If I fire my doctor here I won't have one at all for at least
3-5 years. I have no choice.

"Nick" <macromitch@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1127879020.290406.16240@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Half of what doctors have been taught is wrong; the other half
right. The problem is they don't know which is which.

I don't believe the people here that knock everything for the
sake of their authority. I say reserve the right to fire your
doctor if you see fit!

Good luck.

[Nick]

Robbed of freedom by the medical matrix? Too bad.

That's why you should know how to keep yourself well.

I'll never take their antibiotics again. Keflex messed me up
for years; all over a mild skin infection. I told my doctor
beforehand I didn't want to mess up my intestinal flora. He
told me it would come back in three weeks.

Yeah right. I fired him.

And for those who will knock me for saying I won't use their
antibiotics. I don't plan on contracting anything that
requires that. The only way I'd catch anything requiring their
antibiotics is if I was in one of their hospitals!!!

[Ike]

"Herman Rubin" <hrubin@odds.stat.purdue.edu> wrote in message
news:dhcsfj$2mjg@odds.stat.purdue.edu...
> In article <SKFZe.1330$97.272@fe15.lga>, Ike
> <Retired@last.com> wrote:
>>"Herman Rubin" <hrubin@odds.stat.purdue.edu> wrote in
>>message news:dh6s1o$4cos@odds.stat.purdue.edu...
>
>>>>Only empirically was it discovered that some carbohydrates
>>>>convert to blood glucose very, very slowly (chana dal, for
>>>>example). And that at least one carb affects blood glucose
>>>>even more rapidly than pure glucose (maltodextrose, as I
>>>>recall). Go figger.
>
>>> This is not difficult. One molecule of maltose consists of
>>> two molecules of glucose minus one molecule of water. So a
>>> molecule of maltose masses 1.9 times that of a molecule of
>>> glucose, but works as 2 molecules, and this conversion is
>>> very fast.
>
>
>>Thanks, but the GI is generated by ingesting 50g (about 2oz)
>>of a digestible carb, then measuring the change in BG over
>>time (2H). 50g of pure glucose can't contain less glucose
>>than 50g of maltodextrose, so....Did I fail another Purdue
>>IQ test??
>
> Yes it can. 50g of maltose plus about 3g water gives about
> 53g glucose. One molecule of maltose is formed from two
> molecules of glucose, with a molecule of water subtracted.
> The reaction reverses easily. There is no shortage of water
> in the digestive system.
>

Well... you cheated by adding 3g of H20, but you're
sufficiently correct and have resolved a troubling paradox.
Perhaps a shot plus a beer produces a headache because
boilermakers pack a punch!!

Thanks -- can you tell I'm in the physical sciences?

Ike

[Jefferson]

Ike wrote:
> "Herman Rubin" <hrubin@odds.stat.purdue.edu> wrote in
> message news:dh6s1o$4cos@odds.stat.purdue.edu...
>
>
>>>Only empirically was it discovered that some carbohydrates
>>>convert to blood glucose very, very slowly (chana dal, for
>>>example). And that at least one carb affects blood glucose
>>>even more rapidly than pure glucose (maltodextrose, as I
>>>recall). Go figger.
>>
>>This is not difficult. One molecule of maltose consists of
>>two molecules of glucose minus one molecule of water. So a
>>molecule of maltose masses 1.9 times that of a molecule of
>>glucose, but works as 2 molecules, and this conversion is
>>very fast.
>
>
>
> Thanks, but the GI is generated by ingesting 50g (about 2oz)
> of a digestible carb, then measuring the change in BG over
> time (2H). 50g of pure glucose can't contain less glucose
> than 50g of maltodextrose, so....Did I fail another Purdue
> IQ test??
>

What you have said is not quite correct since 50 grams is all
of the composition of a particular food, i.e., chana dal
would include carbohydrate (including nondigestible fiber),
protein, and fat.

Frank

[Johngohde@]

Ma=A2k wrote:
> On 24 Sep 2005 15:40:38 -0700, "Mr-Natural-Health"
> <johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com> Huffed and Puffed
> the following into the madness of usenet:
>
> >> > Check out http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/gi.pdf
> >
> >The HTML version, which I find more readable, is at:
> >http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/76/1/290S
> >
> >It provides a good overview of the topic.
> >
> >Personally, I am not affected by high glycemic foods beyond
> >being able to experience a sugar buzz.
> >
> >Just my opinion, but I am always correct.
>
>
> based on what testing methods?

based on testing methods used on what?

[Ma¢K]

On 24 Sep 2005 15:40:38 -0700, "Mr-Natural-Health"
<johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com> Huffed and Puffed the
following into the madness of usenet:

>> > Check out http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/gi.pdf
>
>The HTML version, which I find more readable, is at:
>http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/76/1/290S
>
>It provides a good overview of the topic.
>
>Personally, I am not affected by high glycemic foods beyond
>being able to experience a sugar buzz.
>
>Just my opinion, but I am always correct.

based on what testing methods?