So much for the 'eat whole grains instead of refined grains' theory.

Carbs of any sort seem to be a problem when eaten in recommended amounts.

"In fact, among those eating the high-carb diets, those consuming low-glycemic-index foods had worse insulin response and higher LDL cholesterol. Among dieters eating the low-carb diets, the high v. low glycemic index foods did not make a difference in insulin response, blood pressure, LDL or HDL cholesterol levels."

Here is the actual study.

The study contradicts Dr. Oz's statement in his column in today's newspaper.

"The researchers didn't insist that the carbs were 100 percent whole grain. Whole grains help lower bad cholesterol levels and control blood fats, while refined carbs increase inflammation and your risk for heart disease, diabetes and cancer. "

Maybe the problem is the inherent flaws with the Glycemic Index itself? http://intensivedietarymanagement.c...-index-idm-2-2/

I think whole grains would shoot my blood sugar through the roof just as quick or pretty close as their refined friends. Picture that couple or whatever grams of fiber in whole grain that's supposed to slow your absorption of the carbs like some character on a railroad track waving frantically trying to slow down an oncoming freight train. That fiber's gonna just get run right down by the oncoming load of carbs. Some fat and protein with the carbs may help slow absorption, but for me the best thing is just don't load the train with carbs and see what nutritional damage it does to begin with.

Don't worry Oz will contradict himself again tomorrow

For me, the glycemic index concepts have proven to be very useful in helping me figure out how I need to eat. I've come to believe that I am particularly efficient at digesting carbohydrates and it does not take much to spike and then crash my blood glucose levels - leaving me craving carbs shortly after consuming them. Learning which foods hit my BG hard and fast -- and which ones don't is important. The combination of foods is not a drawback to the Glycemic Index -- in fact, I count on it to eat in such a way that dampens the BG impact of a high GI food that might otherwise spike my BG if eaten by itself. If I keep my BG within normal ranges, I do not crave food between meals and I end up eating less.

This study may be spot on as far as cardiovascular risk is concerned. A lot of carby foods contain fructose. While the fructose may not affect BG levels like glucose, it appears that it does do bad things to your cholesterol numbers. But I'm not trying to use GI data to figure out how to eat more carbs. It does not take many carbs to set me off. I'm using it with the short term goal of eating right for me -- keeping my BG more stable between meals so that I don't crave food when I should not be hungry.

Everyone is reporting this as:

Health News: Low-Carb Diets Don't Automatically Lower Risk Of Heart Problems
Low-Glycemic Diets Might Not Improve Heart Health or Prevent Diabetes After All
'Low-GI' Diet May Not Benefit Blood Sugar

They're not distinguishing that it is low GI carbs that aren't making a difference. At least, not in the article titles.

The actual study DOES make that distinction: Effects of High vs Low Glycemic Index of Dietary Carbohydrate on Cardiovascular Disease Risk Factors and Insulin Sensitivity

Also, 40% of calories from carb doesn't sound very low carb to me (250g!?!). But, in fact, even that resulted in lower triglyceride levels.

It is a craptastic study in terms of proving anything about low carb, but at least it proves that "whole grains" and low gi carbs are utter nonsense.

This is from the beginning of supplement 1 of the study;



The study is so poorly designed to achieve the stated objective. Is the real objective just to generate a headline, spin-off articles bad-mouthing carbohydrate restriction? Or am I being too cynical? I don't usually go in for conspiracy theories. But I don't see how anybody in the scientific community could possibly think that this adds any useful information to the debate. In the court of public and political opinion, where headlines, soundbites, carry more weight than they should--that's another story.

Or they're just working at a model of carb-restriction--40 percent carbs vs 58 percent carbs--that's as silly and ineffective as the push to get people who were eating 35 percent fat (and call it a high fat diet) to eat 30 percent fat (and call it a low fat diet).

2/19/14 science friday on npr radio dr. Sacs of harvard said glycemic index doesnt matter as much as we thought. Made assumption it is because we can process glucose so well. That made no sense. Also said even though glycemic index is higher on bananas than apples that did not mean eat less bananas and more apples, thereby forming no conclusion.
He said a sweet potato raises blood glucose more than stewed carrots. Here is my question.

Blood glucose raises according to the number of carb/glucose calories to be processed regardless of the fiber/protein/fat eaten with it. Thats why whole wheat bread would be no different than white bread in glucose response.

Certain foods have been genetically modified in ways that either stimulate dysfunctional reponses or are not recognized by the body and therefore provoke allergic and autoimmune disease. This intensifies the blood glucose response as with modern wheat.
What do you think?
Leslie

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article...ticleid=2040224
Conclusions and Relevance In this 5-week controlled feeding study, diets with low glycemic index of dietary carbohydrate, compared with high glycemic index of dietary carbohydrate, did not result in improvements in insulin sensitivity, lipid levels, or systolic blood pressure. In the context of an overall DASH-type diet, using glycemic index to select specific foods may not improve cardiovascular risk factors or insulin resistance.

Stewed carrots? Yuck! If the only way I could eat carrots was to stew them, I'd never eat them again. I wonder how raw or lightly steamed carrots affect BG. Probably not good for me to experiment.

Generally raw is lower than cooked on th GI scale. Cooked=predigested which means it gets into the blood stream faster, not as much need for digestive enzymes.

One problem I have with the glycemic index was found here:
Most of the values on the glycemic index do not show the impact on glucose levels after two hours. Some people with diabetes may have elevated levels after four hours.[5]
From Wikipedia. If it doesn't measure total rise in bg, what good is it?

It's much more complicated than just the amount of glucose consumed. It's also to do with the insulin response, and this has to do with cellular receptors for insulin. So for example, lots of insulin receptors, so high ability to receive insulin, so high ability to dispose of glucose when it enters the bloodstream. This is why the OGTT is used to determine insulin resistance.

The point is that a food could contain substances which could affect insulin receptors independently of the amount of glucose this food contains, which then confounds the results with regard to the glycemic index of this food. This is probably what happens with wheat. And this is probably why we can expect an exact BG and insulin response from pure glucose, there's nothing else in there that could affect insulin receptors or any other cellular function. In other words, we can metabolize glucose perfectly, if that's how you want to see it.

Now if you see it as I do, BG/insulin/insulin receptors/glycemic index, none of that matters a priori. What really matters is the disruptive potential of foods with regard to overall energy metabolism. It begins with my paradigm. So let's say food 1 disrupts overall energy metabolism for 12 hours and food 2 does it for 24 hours, then food 2 is worse than food 1, regardless of their initial glycemic index. Of course this is just my idea and it's not exactly on-topic.

For me, the Glycemic Index is an incomplete concept. As Jey says, it does not take into consideration amount. GI when combined with common amounts eaten, gives rise to the concept "Glycemic Load."

Whoever ate 1/3 C of pasta? Or 1 piece of toast? How about pan cakes (flap jacks)? What is the usual size and quantity.

I find the companies trying to sell a low carb food, advertise it as low glycemic, ignoring the effect of the glycemic load.

Glycemic Index was a good start but not the complete answer. IMO