laramie | Food: Glycemic Index

I've recently been reading Michel Montignac's Eat Yourself Slim, which has some very eye-opening information on the Glycemic Index and the different effects different sorts of carbohydrates can have on a body. The Glycemic Index measures the quantity of glucose that a food causes the body to produce.

The pancreas will secrete insulin to eliminate an excess of glucose in the blood and to store it elsewhere in the body (the liver and muscles.) "Under the insulin's effect, the glycemia level becomes lower until it finally returns to normal."

"In a thin person the amount of insulin secreted by the pancreas is always exactly proportional to the level of glycemia. On the other hand, for those who are overweight and especially for obese people, things happen differently."

"In overweight people, as soon as the glycemic peak is attanined, the pancreas begins to secret insulin. But instead of releasing it into the blood in the exact quantity necessary to bring glycemia to its normal level, it will secrete an excess. Hyperinsulinism is caused by a pancreas that works overtime, and in turn, causes fats to be stored."

Montignac advises eating carbs that are low on the glycemic index, and entirely banning high GI carbs (white flour, potatos, rice, corn) (just like Oprah advises!) - and eating lots of fresh fruits, vegetables, high fiber grains (whole wheat is good, barley is good). The book is inspiring me to pay a lot more attention to what kind of food I'm eating. (It's sad because I love potatos and corn - but apparently, they are only good for me if I want to gain weight and risk diabetes and heart disease.)

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

The thing to remember about the glycemic index is that it applies to meals rather than individual foods. A piece of bread with butter on it has a very different glycemic index than just a piece of bread. It's not like counting grams of fat or grams of carbohydrate, where you just take all the numbers and add them up.

That being the case, I think some of the things being written about glycemic index are nonsense. I haven't read the book you are quoting, but if it really tries to classify foods as "good" or "bad" based on their standalone glycemic index, I am deeply suspicious of the science. A plain potato may have a high glycemic index, but most people don't eat plain potatoes. Most people eat potatoes with butter or sour cream, and they eat them along with a full meal.

I think the lesson of the glycemic index is that Mom was right when she said to eat balanced meals. If you eat a bagel all by itself, it probably does make your insulin level spike. If you eat the same bagel along with a chunk of meat and one orange vegetable and one green vegetable and maybe a little butter, the glycemic index for the meal is low, and presumably your pancreas is happier.

What I posted here is a simplified rundown of the basic idea of why paying attention to the GI is a good idea; Montignac talks extensively about balancing meals, and getting all the necessary nutrients. Given that; it makes sense to me to try to avoid foods that by themselves will boost the glycemic index for a whole meal - at least until I reach a healthier weight.

Montignac outlines two plans: one for losing weight, and one for maintaining it. In the maintenance plan he goes into a lot more detail about balancing foods to make up for eating some that are higher GI. Like, eating potatoes would be okay if eaten with berries and legumes.

It was tough passing up the (white flour) scones at Becca's tea party at Peggy's place today, but I was pleased to find Agave Nectar at the coop, which is a natural, low GI sweetner; and I found whole wheat wraps to substitute for the white flour ones I'd been using, and I need no excuse to eat salmon. :)

Well, you certainly can't go wrong by passing up pastries. But before you accept that idea that you can eat any amount of nuts, take a look at the calorie count. Nuts are wonderfully nutritious, and I'm sure they have a low glycemic index, but they still have 200 calories per ounce. Same thing for dried fruit - you can gulp down enough in a single handful to use up a whole meal's worth of calories.

However, I will stop arguing with you about the glycemic index in potatoes if you give me all your frozen homemade beef stew. You're right - potatoes are poison! ;-)

Montignac claims that calories are irrelevant, since it's when the insulin level is boosted that the body makes the fat. The proof is in the pudding. I'll see soon enough whether or not I lose weight eating nuts and fruits without resraint

I don't have any beef stew, but a variety of crock pot stews made using lots of vegetables, including potatoes (and yams, parsnips, turnips, and some with soy-based 'meatballs'). And you are welcome to them - if you don't like them you can always toss them.

"Montignac claims that calories are irrelevant..."

Yeah, right. Good luck with that.

I understand your skepticism.

I'm still willing to play Guinea Pig on this; apparently a lot of people have been successful on this eating plan, and Oprah (who pays the top nutritionists) gives the same advice on avoiding 'the white stuff.'

Although I am indeed skeptical about the science, it sounds like the overall eating plan he's recommending is pretty much the consensus healthy diet: eat lots of fruits and vegetables, whole grains, and legumes; avoid empty calories and overly refined food.

I'm particularly warning you about the nuts because I'm susceptible to them. I think nuts are very good for you (me) in moderation, but I find it all too easy to overeat them, especially when I'm dieting. I could easily wolf down an entire package of those wonderful Trader Joe's pecans at a sitting (and nothing that you say is going to convince me that eating 1000 calories worth of nuts per day will have no effect on weight loss). I even went so far as to divide one of the packages into 1-oz servings and only allow myself to open one every 2 days. You may not be such a nut glutton; I'm probably just projecting.

I guess the difference for me is that I tend to hit a point with nuts when I feel I've had enough; I eat them until I stop craving them. I hit that point sooner with some than others: almonds soon, cashews & peanuts a bit later, pecans last - but it's not like with potato chips and popcorn where I could keep eating them forever if the salt didn't start to hurt my mouth. I have the feeling that I'll start to hit my pecan plateau sooner after some time of getting my fill.

I have a tendency to be suspicious of anything that says no rice. It's rice, one of the most basic foods eaten through all of history. I started ignoring diets like this when I saw my friend eat a breakfast of eggs and meat and cheese, all approved, all of it bad for you in such amounts.

Plus then Dr. Atkins had a heart attack.

According to Montignac:
Rice isn't bad for normal-weight, active people who eat it in combination with a healthy variety of vegetables, legumes and meats.

The problem is for people (see above, how overweight people generally produce too much insulin in response to a glycemic peak) who can't deal well with that degree of pure starch. Eggs and meat and cheese can be okay for some people, too, eaten according to a plan that also assures that they are getting a good combination of other foods during the day - obviously not for anyone with cholesterol issues.

I imagine there are lots of people who hear pieces of information on Montignac's diet recommendations, taken out of context and without reading the parts about balanced nutrition. That approach doesn't give a fair representation of the plans at all.

Oh; and it's just white rice I need to avoid. Brown rice and wild rice are fine. And I prefer them, anyhow.

Food: Glycemic Index

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Nuts

no subject

no subject

no subject