GI diet?

Resurgam · May 4, 2018

I deliberately avoid those foods listed as low GI - bread, fruit, pasta, potatoes and other starchy veges as they simply put me over the limits I have before I start to regain weight - and I am not going that way again.
When I was first testing I found that the foods which I knew from long experience slowed stopped or reversed weightloss were exactly those which put up my BG and kept it high - starch and fructose being the obvious culprits. The amount of carbs did not seem to match the increase of BG for those foods, 'lighter' carb foods were far more consistent and kinder too.
I have recovered some ability to deal with high BG levels - by stashing it away as fat or other energy storage - not a good thing long term, and as I am pretty much determined that there will be a lot of days to come, the low GI diet has no place in my planning for them.

xfieldok · May 4, 2018

My personal view of cured/resolved is to be able to gorge on crisps, ice-cream, cake, whatever and to have my numbers return to nondiabetic numbers after two hours.

I really don't care what the medics want to label it. As far as I am concerned, no matter what my numbers are, I have a propensity to diabetes and I will continue to test so long as I can afford the strips.

When I started out, I got the gi index book and although it was helpful, I found that LCHF was easier to follow.

We are all different, I think people should be encouraged to try all sorts of methods to see what works for them.

LCHF with recipes from keto seems to work for me. I can't see me going back my old ways.

The only thing I miss is the Ambrosia apple, I used to eat one a day. Maybe in the future I may be able to tolerate one but for now my meter says "no".

I think that discussions such as this are helpful to people looking for information, we all need to know what is out there that might help us. Nothing is right or wrong, it is deeply personal.

nickm · May 4, 2018

There is no Spoon said:
There is no right way to control your diabetes just the way that is right for you.

The world is full of older T1s in poor health who managed in a way that was right for them, until it wasn’t. There are many ways of achieving short term goals like HbA1c, lipids, BP etc. But which of these ways is likely to give the best results decades down the track can only be determined by looking at others.

Guzzler · May 4, 2018

nickm said:
The world is full of older T1s in poor health who managed in a way that was right for them, until it wasn’t. There are many ways of achieving short term goals like HbA1c, lipids, BP etc. But which of these ways is likely to give the best results decades down the track can only be determined by looking at others.

The world is also full of older non Diabetic folks whose health is poor, we can only do our best with the tools and the knowledge at hand.

Lally123 · May 4, 2018

There is no Spoon said:
It was more to do with IR and emotional and physical stress during diet and weight loss which leads to raised bg and more work for the heart.
Which supports a constant GI bg level could be better than postprandial spikes but doesn't take into account any increased bg as the body frees up sugar stores during a period of diet and individual metabolic rates. And there's no way every body had the same base IR level to start with. (sorry that's off the top of my head as best as I can remember it)

But if your asking in a lower over all level of bg vs postprandial spikes give a stability in blood glucose levels thus puts less strain on the heart. I think that goes back to the rush hour traffic jam analogy. (which feels so long ago now but I think I was using it to say lessening the work load is the basic concept behind GI)

The Reverse Concept
The reverse would also have to be true with spikes and dips in bg where the dip would mean less work than GI's stability in blood glucose levels. IS it better to have longer periods of (relitive) inactivity with shorter bursts of increased activity. (before anyone jumps in here and points out that inactivity for the heart means dead)

This thinking holds true for muscles, and reducing IR in muscles, the heart is a muscle which can be Insulin Resistant just like any other.

My question would be as bg increases blood viscosity is the heart doing more work more of the time on GI it certainly seems to holds true for the microvascular model. And is that better than a short postprandial spikes IF the reverse concept holds true.

There is never a cardiologist around when you need one.

That's interesting and definitely worth having a read up on. Just illustrates that matter which road you choose those same old potholes are there waiting to trip you up!

Lally123 · May 4, 2018

Bluetit1802 said:
Thank you. So really, your diet is barely any different from someone low carbing on 60-100g a day without using the GI index.
This is what I can't understand when people say they are on a low GI diet. I would imagine the majority of us could say we are on a low GI diet. I'm sure I could. You haven't eliminated all starchy carbs, but nor have I. The only real difference between you and I is I don't eat fruit or porridge. I just portion control the potatoes, peas, carrots etc. to keep my daily amount lower than yours. It would never occur to me to class my way of eating as low GI as opposed to low carb/high fat.

To be fair I don't define my diet as low GI but if I'm going to eat carbs I would much rather have them from the lower end of the GI spectrum. But then I wouldn't define my diet as low carb either compared to what some on this forum eat! I would like to just think my diet is healthy for me and as balanced as I can get it and keeps my bgs just where I want them which I guess is what all of us want one way or another.

There is no Spoon · May 6, 2018

Lally123 said:
To be fair I don't define my diet as low GI

Strange as it is, going of the list I'm using as GI reference I could easily describe my diet as low GI, very low GI.
http://www.the-gi-diet.org/lowgifoods/

Looking at this list I eat nothing form the first 2 columns and once you get past beetroot there is nothing in the final column either. That's ultra low GI with things in my diet scoring an average of under 20 and 50 being classed as low.

I had a favourable opinion of GI, baised on 1 paper I read, even though I hadn't looked into in any detail.
When I did I had an instant "knee jerk" reaction to the carb and sugar content of foods listed with low GI's. Website which all seemed to score protein as zero GI prompted an other "knee jerk" reaction.

"Meat and poultry are not carbohydrate sources and as such do not have an effect on blood sugar. Therefore, meat and poultry are not included in the glycemic index. Consuming animal protein sources such as beef and poultry should not elevate your blood sugar."

I started OP by " asking if there were subtleties and complexities I was missing?"
Obviously the answer was yes.
The simplest being GI in conjunction with GL and putting either rating in to a real world context.
Essentially different things on your plate digest at different rates effecting how much bg is elevated over how long a period it takes to do so.

Using a system to calculate GI/GL and carb amounts to ascertain how much pasta or potatoes you can put on your plate with out it elevating bg "too much" seems unnecessary convoluted. And ultimately flawed as it scores protein as zero GI.

My opinion: (and its simply that an opinion)
Any diet that says protein dose not have an effect on elevating bg and supports eating things with "added sugar". Is just wrong.

There is no Spoon · May 6, 2018

Lally123 said:
But then I wouldn't define my diet as low carb either compared to what some on this forum eat! I would like to just think my diet is healthy for me and as balanced as I can get it and keeps my bgs just where I want them which I guess is what all of us want one way or another.

One of the very first things I learned reading posts on here is everybody is different there is no "absolute way that is right" and you're way sound like it's working just fine for you.

You don't have to defend or justifie that.
I'm just happy that your doing well.

kokhongw · May 7, 2018

For T2D, it may be well worth exploring the insulin index rather than the glucose index. Simply because many of us are highly insulin resistant and would need 2-3x the normal levels of insulin for the same amount of carbs/proteins. So a low insulin lifestyle will give our exhausted pancreas some chance of recovery...

https://optimisingnutrition.com/2015/03/26/food-insulin-index/

Mr_Pot · May 7, 2018

kokhongw said:
For T2D, it may be well worth exploring the insulin index rather than the glucose index. Simply because many of us are highly insulin resistant and would need 2-3x the normal levels of insulin for the same amount of carbs/proteins. So a low insulin lifestyle will give our exhausted pancreas some chance of recovery...

https://optimisingnutrition.com/2015/03/26/food-insulin-index/

You may well be right but I am not sure that I trust the index. I have only seen the Susanne Holt study from 1997, you would have thought there would have been several other studies during the intervening 20 years. Where are the peer reviews that are normally needed before we believe research findings?

There is no Spoon · May 7, 2018

kokhongw said:
For T2D, it may be well worth exploring the insulin index r

Interesting concept and I would be happy to give it a look. IF I could find it.

GI and GL tables are easy to find just google it and they are all over the place.
But trying to find a DII table is and other matter.

If anyone's got a link to one , preferably 2 lists so I can compare associated values, I would appreciate it.
(wikipedia does not count.)

Mr_Pot · May 7, 2018

There is no Spoon said:
Interesting concept and I would be happy to give it a look. IF I could find it.

GI and GL tables are easy to find just google it and they are all over the place.
But trying to find a DII table is and other matter.

If anyone's got a link to one , preferably 2 lists so I can compare associated values, I would appreciate it.
(wikipedia does not count.)

Googling "food insulin index" yields a lot of results but all the articles I have read seem to use the data from the same study just differently presented.

Indy51 · May 7, 2018

See @martykendall 's site for the Insulin Index produced by a Sydney Uni PhD student in the past couple of years:

https://optimisingnutrition.com/food-insulin-index/

There is no Spoon · May 7, 2018

Indy51 said:
See @martykendall 's site for the Insulin Index

Thanks Indy & @Mr_Pot.
As usual it was just a case of me not knowing what I was looking for. I assumed there would be a table of 100 foods and here is there DII score, as you would find with GI or GL but there doesn't seem to be one table optimisingnutrition.com has a plethora of tables scattered through out many of the pages.

Wiki apears to have a "list" as I imagined it to look like, but can one ever trust Wiki.

Bluetit1802 · May 7, 2018

This is the clearest one I have found, but the food items are limited. 9 groups of foods.

https://public.tableau.com/profile/christoffer.green#!/vizhome/InsulinogenicFoodData/Dashboard1

Mr_Pot · May 7, 2018

Looking though this information, it still seems to depend on the work of Susanne Holt and Jenny Brand-Miller at the University of Sydney. Marty Kendall's site references a PHD thesis, by Kirstine Bell who is at Sydney University and her work is supervised by surprise, surprise Jennie Brand-Miller. Kirstine Bell has added another 26 foods to the original 121. Where Christoffer Green's data comes from I can't work out.

There is no Spoon · May 7, 2018

Mr_Pot said:
Kirstine Bell

Ohhh I just loved her in the Good Place.

Sorry @Mr_Pot you mention Jennie Brand-Miller & Kirstine Bell, I have no context where either is concerned.
Can you fill in the blanks.

Cliff notes version.

Mr_Pot · May 7, 2018

There is no Spoon said:
Ohhh I just loved her in the Good Place.

Sorry @Mr_Pot you mention Jennie Brand-Miller & Kirstine Bell, I have no context where either is concerned.
Can you fill in the blanks.

Cliff notes version.

See @Indy51 's post #113

Mr_Pot · May 7, 2018

http://sydney.edu.au/science/people/jennie.brandmiller.php

It would just be nice to see some research from someone else.

There is no Spoon · May 7, 2018

Mr_Pot said:
It would just be nice to see some research from someone else.

It seems like you think I am barred from google.

I did quickly look at GI Jennie but, as I said I have no context.
The impression I got from your last post is that she or both had an agenda to promote. And considering the amount of books GI Jennie Brand-Miller has published on GI diets. That seems like a fair assumption to make on my part.

But its the first time I have heard of her. Though you might have some incite to share.
But thanks anyway.

GI diet?

Master

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Master

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Expert

Well-Known Member

Legend

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency