http://my.webmd.com/content/Article/105/107941.htm?printing=t-
rue/content/Articl

calypso47~voyager.net wrote: http://my.webmd.com/content/Arti-
cle/105/107941.htm?printing=true/content/Articl

I posted apart of the link you provided. See below for
my comments.

---link---

Foods have a higher or lower glycemic index (GI) depending on
how much of them you eat, how you cook them, and what you eat
them with.

This can quickly get complicated -- especially as it's not
always easy to tell which foods are low-GI and which are
high-GI. Ludwig's team came up with a simple plan. They
created a low-glycemic-load food pyramid:

* At the bottom -- the basis of the diet -- are fruits and
vegetables, cooked or served with healthful oils.

+My comment: Fruits and vegetables provide more nutrients
in raw form.

* Next come reduced-fat dairy foods, lean meats and fish,
nuts, and beans.
* Higher up -- and meant to be eaten less frequently --
come whole grains, unrefined grains and pastas.

+My comments: I hate when they lump whole grain with refined
grain and refined grain products. It's like lumping in a Big
Mac with a lean cut of beef/meat, or Fruit Chews with a fresh
pomegranate.

* At the top -- to be eaten sparingly if at all -- come
refined grains, potatoes, and sweets.

+My comments: Potatoes included with refined grains and
sweets.... potatoes being scorned like eggs were back in the
80's... what a travesty! The fact is potatoes are awesome, and
sweet potatoes are spectacular! They are packed full of
nutrients. Potatoes themselves are *not* contributing to
America's obesity problem. It's what we often do to those
potatoes before we eat them that is part of the problem.

Obese participants in the study were instructed to eat
nonstarchy vegetables, fruits, beans, nuts, and dairy
products. They were told to eat carbs with protein and
healthful fat at every meal and snack. And they were told to
eat until they were full and to snack when hungry.

Other obese study subjects were put on a traditional,
low-fat/low-calorie diet. Both groups were asked to exercise
regularly and were given lifestyle counseling.

"Those in the low-glycemic-diet group were told to eat as much
as they wanted and to snack when hungry," Ludwig says. "Yet
after a year, they lost fully as much weight as those told to
cut back on fat and to cut back on calories. But they did
better in terms of heart disease risk reduction."

---end of link---

+The magic bullet here is regular exercise. The glycemic thing
is just a distraction. If you're eating a good varied diet you
don't eat just one single food at a time anyway, you eat a
couple. For example, you want a slice of toast. You just
select a whole grain bread, slap on a little olive oil and
some All Fruit and you're good to go. Example two: You want
some yogurt for a snack. Select a plain yogurt, sprinkle in
some quinoa flakes, raisens and a few almonds or walnuts and
you're set. Both examples supply a nice mix of fast burn,
medium burn and slow burning energy sources.

Patrick

On 31 May 2005 20:01:38 -0700, NoOption5L~aol.com wrote in
<news:1117593892.422851.132610~g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
on sci.med.nutrition :

  > * Higher up -- and meant to be eaten less frequently --
  > come whole grains, unrefined grains and pastas.
  >
  > +My comments: I hate when they lump whole grain with refined
  > grain and refined grain products. It's like lumping in a Big
  > Mac with a lean cut of beef/meat, or Fruit Chews with a
  > fresh pomegranate.

Well, I agree that whole grains are generally to prefer, as
they are rich in fiber and minerals and vitamins, while
refined grains are not...

There are also unrefined pastas, if you like...

Yet, if you speak of Glycemic Index, /al dente/ pasta is not
one of the top villains, AFAIK

http://www.glycemicindex.com/faq.htm
Q: Why does pasta have a low GI?
R: Pasta has a low GI because of the physical entrapment of
ungelatinised starch granules in a sponge-like network of
protein (gluten) molecules in the pasta dough. Pasta is
unique in this regard. As a result, pastas of any shape and
size have a fairly low GI (30 to 60). Asian noodles such as
hokkein, udon and rice vermicelli also have low to
intermediate GI values.

--
Enrico C
==================================

On 31 May 2005 20:01:38 -0700, NoOption5L~aol.com wrote in
<news:1117593892.422851.132610~g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
on sci.med.nutrition :

  > +My comments: Potatoes included with refined grains and
  > sweets.... potatoes being scorned like eggs were back in the
  > 80's... what a travesty! The fact is potatoes are awesome,
  > and sweet potatoes are spectacular! They are packed full of
  > nutrients.

Actually they recommmend sweet potatoes, on page number 2....

" Here's Brand-Miller's advice:" [...] "Replace white potatoes
with sweet potatoes"

http://my.webmd.com/content/Article/105/107941.htm?pagenumber-
=2

On 31 May 2005 20:01:38 -0700, NoOption5L~aol.com wrote in
<news:1117593892.422851.132610~g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
on sci.med.nutrition :

[...]

  > +The magic bullet here is regular exercise.

That's true in all diets.

  > The glycemic thing is just a distraction.

I believe the "glycemic thing" is *one* of the parameters
to keep an eye on in a healthy diet, not "the" only
parameter though.

French fries have a lower GI than baked potatoes, yet they are
not healthier!

  > If you're eating a good varied diet you don't eat just one
  > single food at a time anyway, you eat a couple. For example,
  > you want a slice of toast. You just select a whole grain
  > bread, slap on a little olive oil and some All Fruit and
  > you're good to go. Example two: You want some yogurt for a
  > snack. Select a plain yogurt, sprinkle in some quinoa
  > flakes, raisens and a few almonds or walnuts and you're set.
  > Both examples supply a nice mix of fast burn, medium burn
  > and slow burning energy sources.

A nice mix makes sense to me. Here is something I read on
a web site:

http://www.annecollins.com/diets/glycemic-index.htm "GI
Ratings are for Individual Foods - not Combinations of Foods"
"As pointed out by the American Diabetes Association (ADA),
the differences in rates of digestion ranked by the Glycemic
Index are not as great as they appear. The ADA says that
differences in the GI ratings of many foods are less accurate
when foods are eaten together at mealtimes. For example,
jelly/jam is a food with a high GI rating. But when eaten with
(say) wholemeal bread as part of a meal or snack - the
combination of the jelly + bread is digested more slowly and
should therefore merit a lower GI rating."

--
Enrico C
==================================

Enrico C wrote:
  > On 31 May 2005 20:01:38 -0700, NoOption5L~aol.com wrote in
  > <news:1117593892.422851.132610~g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
  > on sci.med.nutrition :

     > > +My comments: Potatoes included with refined grains and
     > > sweets.... potatoes being scorned like eggs were back in
     > > the 80's... what a travesty! The fact is potatoes are
     > > awesome, and sweet potatoes are spectacular! They are
     > > packed full of nutrients.

  > Actually they recommmend sweet potatoes, on page
  > number 2....

  > " Here's Brand-Miller's advice:" [...] "Replace white
  > potatoes with sweet potatoes"

  > http://my.webmd.com/content/Article/105/107941.htm?page-
  > number=2

I still say eat your white potatoes. If you're worried about
GI, just add a little olive oil, plain yogurt, or maybe some
chili over the top and enjoy a whole bunch of nutrients.

Check out:
http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=foodspice&dbid=48

Patrick

Enrico C wrote:
  > On 31 May 2005 20:01:38 -0700, NoOption5L~aol.com wrote in
  > <news:1117593892.422851.132610~g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
  > on sci.med.nutrition :

  > French fries have a lower GI than baked potatoes, yet they
  > are not healthier!

It be the fat. That's why I say just add a little olive oil
and the high GI potato becomes a middle-of-the-road GI food.

Patrick