What the glycemic load can tell us

[Guest guest]

I think this is one of the better explanations I have read about the

carb debate.

 

What the glycemic load can tell us

Higher levels may signal increased cancer risks, studies find

By Karen Collins

Updated: 3:18 p.m. ET May 21, 2004

In recent years, researchers have looked more and more at how the

type and amount of carbohydrates that we eat can affect our health. A

recent study helps build the case that the kind of carbohydrates and

the quantity in our diet can influence our risk for cancers of the

colon, uterus and stomach. But care is needed in evaluating what the

research in this area that centers around concepts called glycemic

index and glycemic load really says.

 

Glycemic index refers to how a particular food affects the body's

sugar and insulin levels. Common sense says that sugars in foods

always raise blood sugar more than starches, but glycemic index

testing shows that potatoes can raise blood sugar and insulin levels

at least as much as pure sugar. Trying to eat foods with low glycemic

index readings, however, is tricky. A food's effect on one's blood

sugar depends on what else is eaten, the portion size, and how it's

prepared.

 

advertisement

 

Glycemic load may be more significant

The term glycemic load, on the other hand, tries to calculate the

combined value of one or more foods' glycemic index readings and how

much of them a person eats. It can be used to describe the effects of

one food, a meal, a whole day's eating, or eating over many days. In

many recent studies, the glycemic load of a person's overall diet is

more significant than the glycemic index of individual foods.

 

For example, one recent report from the large national Women's Health

Study shows that women with the highest glycemic load are nearly

three times as likely to develop colorectal cancer in the next eight

years than those with the lowest glycemic load. In an earlier study,

men and women with the highest glycemic load were 80 percent more

likely to develop colon cancer compared to those with the lowest load.

 

A high glycemic load may also raise the risk of uterine and stomach

cancer by 24 to more than 100 percent, compared to those with lower

glycemic loads. Researchers think that diets that repeatedly raise

blood sugar levels cause insulin levels to soar. Insulin and insulin-

related growth factors, in turn, appear to promote the development of

some cancers.

 

Focus on healthier carbs

The positive link between low-glycemic-load eating habits and better

health helps explain why populations around the world who eat plant-

based diets that emphasize vegetables, fruits, whole grains and beans

have fewer cancers and heart disease than we have in the U.S. In

contrast to the low-carbohydrate diets popular here, these foreign

populations eat high-carbohydrate diets. Their carbohydrates,

however, are not our 24-ounce soft drinks and super-size baked goods

made with refined flour.

 

It is important to note in the connection between glycemic load and

disease that a low-glycemic diet will not in itself protect against

disease. It makes a difference whether such a diet comes from ample

portions of vegetables, fruits and unrefined whole grains or massive

amounts of meat. Either one can have a low glycemic load value.

 

Some people embrace a low-glycemic diet in an attempt to lose weight.

But selecting foods with a low glycemic load will not bring automatic

weight loss. Whether you gain or lose weight depends on the balance

between the calories you consume and the calories you burn up. It

doesn't matter if you are strict and eat only meals and snacks with a

low-glycemic load. If you overeat, you'll still gain weight if you

don't exercise more.

 

In summary, the glycemic theory offers a way for people to examine

and think about their eating habits. But it does not lay out a plan

for good nutrition. To improve what you eat and decide the

appropriate amounts of food, you should turn to a nutrition authority

like the American Institute for Cancer Research.

 

Nutrition Notes is provided by the American Institute for Cancer

Research in Washington, D.C.© 2004 MSNBC Interactive

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5016119/

[Guest guest]

My problem (and that of most nutritionists) with the glycemic index is that it

doesn't take into account the nutrients found in some high-index foods, such as

potatoes.

 

Virgil <cybergypsy1964 wrote:

I think this is one of the better explanations I have read about the

carb debate.

 

 

 

 

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Messenger

 

 

[Guest guest]

, reptile grrl

<reptilegoddess> wrote:

> My problem (and that of most nutritionists) with the glycemic index

is that it doesn't take into account the nutrients found in some high-

index foods, such as potatoes.

>

 

Well, the way I took it was that the problem is not with individual

foods on an individual day, but with the overall glycemic load. In

other words, it is fine to eat potatoes (as I certainly do), but just

not every single day. It seemed to me that the recommendations were

not for cutting out any specific foods or categories, but to eat a

variety and look at the overall load over a given period of time, as

opposed to nit-picking every single day over every single meal,

worrying about the load you get on that small of a scale. They

rightly pointed out that many people live very healthily on a high

complex carbohydrate diet that is based on plants and whole grains,

with moderate amounts of the simple sugars and such, and with none

(or at least a tiny amount) of the things like sodas. Not that you

can't eat potatoes at all, but that they must be thought of as a

moderate food, as opposed to a main one eaten extremely frequently.

Was that not your understanding of the article?

 

Virgil