Glycemic Index Again

[Guest guest]

On Sunday, October 5, 2003, at 05:09 AM,

wrote:

 

> Message: 1

> Sat, 4 Oct 2003 05:38:16 -0700 (PDT)

> Amethyst Moon <ongala1

> ReThe Protein-Carb debate

>

> Just to throw my two cents worth into the debate...did the doctor mean to

> cut back on heavy carbs? Food can essentially be broken into three

> groups, protein, fats and carbs (sugars). Carbs are then divided into

> heavy and light. Potato, pasta, bread are heavy carbs and fruit and veg

> are light. Generally people fill up a lot on the heavy carbs but most of

> the nutrition comes from the light ones. Maybe the doctor meant to focus

> less on these heavy carbs and instead on protein (and lighter carbs)?

> That would make sense to me.

 

Uh, where does this unscientific term " heavy " and " light " come from?

 

In the glycemic index tests, they found that there is indeed a difference

in types of carbohydrates. Some spike the glucose, or blood sugar,

quickly and cause an insulin backlash, others raise the glucose gradually

and allow the body to adjust as designed.

 

Generally speaking, the harder a carbohydrate source is to digest, the

better type of carb it'll be for you, meaning the lower the glycemic, or

blood sugar, spike. The index shows this to be generally true for such

things as whole grains and most fruits, for example.

 

A surprise was the potato, which turns out spikes glucose higher and

faster than pure glucose administered by needle. Yeow. Deep fry them, as

we do all the time, and you compound things by adding fat and also by

blocking the insulin, increasing the damage to kidney and liver, etc.

 

Fries and chips? Not so good.

 

And switching to an emphasis on protein means more damage to liver, kidney,

and so on.

 

Whole grain, natural carbs are best for most of our food intake.

>

> Michelle

>

>

" Advances are made by answering questions. Discoveries are made by

questioning answers. "

-- Bernard Haisch, Astronomer