Some stuff on GI

[Tossman]

Hey Folks,

Just in case any of you were interested on what I stumbled across:
http://www.usyd.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=2190
It's some fairly solid evidence on the downside of high GI foods.

A lot won't be news to you, but I didn't know about high GI foods increasing risk of cancer.

[compleks]

I didn't read any further than the heading, but I wouldn't be too quick to pin it all on the GI of foods. I think the bigger problem is in the 'Refined carbs'. Sure, they are high on the GI, but so are alot of fruit.

Like I said, I didn't read the article, so I could be way off. But I think people should be more concerned wit the quality of food they are eating, as opposed to focusing on the GI of foods.

[Tossman]

fruits r supposed to be low in GI

but yes, i do agree with you in regards to being too focused on one thing. but having said that, when u know a lot about the supposed harm of individual group types, it leaves only the good. ahh...does that make sense..?

edit:
also, i find this kinda research interesting, not necessarily from a healthy living POV, but rather it's good to know some of the mechanisms under which certain thing operate. just knowing the end result isn't enough

[NightHunter]

Generally, the closer food is to coming directly from an animal or a plant, the better, i.e. I agree with compleks.

[Rahf]

Quite interesting since other studies, as always, contradict those made.

That chronically elevated insulin levels lead to diabetes is a stapled fact it seems. I think one of the problems is that they don't seem to have looked at amounts of food consumed, just the glycemic index. High GI consumption is commonly associated with a high energy intake and that in turn contributes to susceptibility for CHD and diabetes.

It is possible that high-glycemic-load diets, through their hyperinsulinemic effects, can increase the risk of colorectal cancer.

We analyzed data from a cancer screening study to determine whether persons with high-glycemic-load diets would be at an increased risk of distal adenomas.

We included subjects with no prior adenoma or cancer from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian screening trial and whose results from flexible sigmoidoscopy exams indicated either no lesions (n = 34 817) or >/=1 distal adenoma (n = 3696). We used a 137-item food-frequency questionnaire to assess usual dietary intake over the preceding 12 mo. Using logistic regression analysis, we calculated, separately for men and women, prevalence odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs of sigmoidoscopy-detected, distal adenomas for quintiles of energy-adjusted dietary carbohydrate, glycemic index, and glycemic load.

ORs decreased with increasing intakes of carbohydrate for both the men and the women in unadjusted models, but these associations were attenuated in multivariate-adjusted models. Among the men, the association remained significant after adjustment (OR: 0.71; 95% CI 0.60, 0.84; P for trend < 0.0001), but in the women it did not (OR: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.73, 1.10; P for trend = 0.30). The results for glycemic index showed no associations in either men or women. Results for glycemic load closely mirrored those for carbohydrate.

Despite expectations that increasing glycemic load and glycemic index would increase the risk of adenoma, we observed no association in women and even an inverse association in men.

Carbohydrate, glycemic index, and glycemic load and colorectal adenomas in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Screening Study. Am J Clin Nutr. 2006 Nov;84(5):1184-1192.

[rock_10]

This article explains some problems with the concept of GI.

http://www.ironaddicts.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12494

[Rahf]

This article explains some problems with the concept of GI.

http://www.ironaddicts.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12494

The fact is still that GI is a measurement commonly used by the top experts in the field and as thus it is identified as a viable source of calculation. The problem with this meta study is that no one has access to the full paper :worry:

[rock_10]

Which study? I can try to get the full text

[triplex_trenx]

Well I lost 20kg following a pretty loose LGI diet. I think the main effect that I experienced was that I was alot more likely to eat better foods, and have less cravings for those bad habit foods. I wasn't intentionally on it, my parents were. I enjoyed the food so much, that i ate that instead.

[Kitosho]

glycemic load relative to index is a more applicable standard although it's really not hard

if you're eating "healthy" you're avoiding all of the high gi / gl foods anyways


decreased insulin + diet higher in protein, fiber and fat (necessitated by reduction in carb load) = decreased hunger


That chronically elevated insulin levels lead to diabetes is a stapled fact it seems.

chronically elevated insulin = massively increased insulin resistance = type II diabetes



as an aside, most high gi foods (refined grains and sugar) are damaging to intestinal flora counts and thus damaging to the colon's local immune system

thus, increased risk of colorectal cancer

[Lobo]

I once ate a carb.

[Versus]

Was it scrumptious?

[Lobo]

Yes.