Glycaemic Index ...

[NoCrbs4Me]

That's no fun!

 

[pavlosn]

I guess I'm failing to see the usefulness of it. I am somewhat obtuse, though.

if you are happy with your diet and your glucose levels, I would not worry about GI or GL although having a general awareness of it does no harm.

I guess bottom line for me is that I restrict carbs to keep glycemic control and a good hbA1c but at the same time worry about any long term problems of LCHF. As far as I know this is a bit unknown.

So if I could increase my carb intake and still keep glucose under control I would be happier. By selecting/experimenting with different GL carb sources this may become possible, especially as I am currently shedding excess weight and trying to reduce my fat percentage through exercise the combination of which shouldvhopefully make me less insulin resistant.


Sent from the Diabetes Forum App

 

[pavlosn]

Guys. Do we really need to turn this thread into an argumentative one? The poster simply asked for information on a list of GI/GL products either online or book.

Should we not be pleased that he/she is interested in getting to grips with their BG rather than sniping about which method is best.

You are partly right in that the OP only asked for the GI/GL link. I am not sure that if this leads to a discussion on the merits of GI/GL that is necessarily a bad thing. I do not think we have been sniping at each other - just exchanging views.


Sent from the Diabetes Forum App

 

[Paul59]

When your first diagnosed it's very daunting knowing what you have to do to control your glucose level, that's where threads like this are so useful to. Newbies, even with the sometimes heated debates. Being diagnosed on 9th September this forum has gone along way to helping me sort out what I had to do.
I now feel that I'm doing pretty good in controlling my T2, will find out more around the 9th December when my 1st hbA1c is due.
But must say I have recently started incorporating Gi as I have no real need to lose a great deal of weight & the low Gi intake helps me balance my weight cause I get to eat more.

 

[pavlosn]

When your first diagnosed it's very daunting knowing what you have to do to control your glucose level, that's where threads like this are so useful to. Newbies, even with the sometimes heated debates. Being diagnosed on 9th September this forum has gone along way to helping me sort out what I had to do.
I now feel that I'm doing pretty good in controlling my T2, will find out more around the 9th December when my 1st hbA1c is due.
But must say I have recently started incorporating Gi as I have no real need to lose a great deal of weight & the low Gi intake helps me balance my weight cause I get to eat more.

Good luck on the 9th Paul. Good to hear you are getting on top of things. You are right that it can be confusing at first.
Personally I like the fact that people were able to control this disease using different methods. It means more things I can try if I need to improve things.



Sent from the Diabetes Forum App

 

[jack412]

No great time or effort and I've achieved good results over more than 10 years.
Isn't it great that it works well for me and others at my hospital where the education for both T1 and T2 includes a lot on the GI. I am happy that I have found it useful.
Actually, the Cochrane review also found it a useful tool http://www.aafp.org/afp/2009/1101/p941.html
I'm sorry if for some reason you found problems using it. It's clear that you don't like it from one of your earliest posts on this forum. There is though more to the GI than the ranking of Snickers and Mars bars which have quite different GIs. (though I still won't eat them)

GI is very good for T1 .. timing insulin and eating a mix of fast and slow carbs to match the insulin duration in the meal and it's protein and fat content.. which may even be a split bolus on occasion.

A T2? slow carbs..either through GI or added protein and fat ...doesn't get the high early spike but keep the BG up for longer, so I think it's a good idea to make sure it's as close to normal .... as you can get..you don't want to be at 9's for 3-8 hrs [guess]

 

[douglas99]

GI is very good for T1 .. timing insulin and eating a mix of fast and slow carbs to match the insulin duration in the meal and it's protein and fat content.. which may even be a split bolus on occasion.

A T2? slow carbs..either through GI or added protein and fat ...doesn't get the high early spike but keep the BG up for longer, so I think it's a good idea to make sure it's as close to normal .... as you can get..you don't want to be at 9's for 3-8 hrs [guess]

If you're mentioning 9's, you need to may reconsider what you're doing, if that's what you've seen if you've tried it in the past?
Or maybe you are not quite sure how low GI works, and it's a very poor guess?

I low GI/GL, and I'm happy to keep my BG levels in a normal range, checked by my own meter, and a HbA1c of 34.4.
If you think 9 is a normal result of low GI, there are probably others who could be advising better on this thread I would suggest.

 

[phoenix]

Sorry @jack412 another screed. GiI isn't just influenced by the speed of absorption, it also depends on the degree of digestion.
Undoubtedly fat slows absorption so does the particular carbohydrate source.
In the case of slower absorption. If you produce some insulin , by reducing the quick rise in glucose levels caused by a high GI food you will not have to produce so much initial insulin,There will actually be lower overall amount of glucose in the circulation even if released over a longer period of time (personally as someone with LADA this worked well with a reducing insulin production for three years, even when everything went downhill quickly my HbA1c was not that high and that is what is really important)
Sydney University puts it quite poetically

Many people make the assumption that since the amount of carbohydrate in the foods is the same, then the areas under the curve will finally be the same. This is not the case because the body is not only absorbing glucose from the gut into the bloodstream, it is also extracting glucose from the blood. Just as a gentle rain can be utilised better by the garden than a sudden deluge, the body can metabolise slowly digested food better than quickly digested carbohydrate. Fast-release carbohydrate causes "flooding" of the system and the body cannot extract the glucose from the blood fast enough. Just as water levels rise quickly after torrential rain, so do glucose levels in the blood. But the same amount of rain falling over a long period can be absorbed into the ground and water levels do not rise

.But it is more than that. It is to do with the digestibility of the specific form carbohydrates. I'm sure that you realise that fructose is processed differently to glucose (and that when packaged in the quantities present in fruit not normally a problem) The glucose in fruit obviously is more readily available
However , starch also behaves very differently according to type. Some starch escapes digestion in the small intestine to be fermented in the large intestine or indeed to be excreted. The starch that escapes digestion is obviously not converted to glucose. The amount depends upon the type of starch (and degree of processing) (increase the font if you want to read the details!)
Amylopectin, one of the types of starches can be easily broken down into small glucose units and absorbed by the body. This is particularly true if the 'digestion process has already been given a start by finely chopping, milling or by high heat or cooking in water. It is readily soluble , think of cornflower in cold water or a flour thickening a sauce, the starch grains 'burst' and are easily digested. This type of starch does indeed mainly turn to sugar and does it quickly. Foods containing a lot of this will be higher GI
But amylopectin comes in different forms in different plants, A (cereal) B(tuber) and C (pulses) .It is packaged in different ways (ie the crystals are of different shapes) B and particularly C structures are apparently less readily broken down
Amylose, the other type of starch has a structure which is not soluble in cold water and resists breakdown for much longer. Because it's form is straight, it can infiltrate between the amylopectin crystals and delay/reduce their swelling and breaking up. High proportions of amylose reduce overall digestibility. This means that not only do foods containing high amounts of amylose take longer to breakdown within the small intestine there is also a higher percentage that escapes digestion completely some of which is then fermented in the gut.
The starch in legumes consists of C type amylopectin and also a third or more of the starch is amylose hence their low GI
Jasmin rice is high in cereal amylopectin and usually cooked until sticky hence high GI, Basmati has far more amylose, if cooked al dente it resists breakdown and hence its lower GI (keep the outside bran as brown rice and you may reduce it further) .
This is indeed resistant starch but in it's naturally occurring form(R1 and R2) , rather than that produced by heating and cooling.(R3)

 

[jack412]

I thought I acknowledged the low and high GI "GI is very good for T1 .. timing insulin and eating a mix of fast and slow carbs to match the insulin duration/ profile/ in the meal and it's protein and fat content.


T2's are another story with an impaired insulin response both in the fast and slow carbs

 

[phoenix]

I thought I acknowledged the low and high GI "GI is very good for T1 .. timing insulin and eating a mix of fast and slow carbs to match the insulin duration/ profile/ in the meal and it's protein and fat content.


T2's are another story with an impaired insulin response both in the fast and slow carbs

Jack, And as I said I didn't use any insulin for 3 years during which time I was losing insulin production so just like a type 2 in not having sufficient insulin. .
It's a tool, people who learn and are motivated to use it can have success whether T1 or T2. I also tried to explain that it isn't just about fast and slow carbs. This is a misunderstanding about how it works maybe Montignac can do it better

Here's a good success story, believe it or not , as you will.
I meant to find the ones on GI news. There are quite a few but these 2, came up first on a search http://www.gisymbol.com/your-success-stories-28/
My own experience and the good results I've seen from the British T2 s at my hospital show to me that it's not just appropriate for people with T1 (actually insulin speeds are not controllable so some people think it's less appropriate!). Its a small community here so I have met several and helped some of them out with interpretation at apppointments/coursse. )

 

[Paul59]

Good luck on the 9th Paul. Good to hear you are getting on top of things. You are right that it can be confusing at first.
Personally I like the fact that people were able to control this disease using different methods. It means more things I can try if I need to improve things.


Thanks, confusing isn't the word for it, it's scary not knowing what you can & can't eat, but as time passes things start to become clear, mainly with the info on this forum. The NHS are a waste of space, I'm still waiting to go on the group sessions, then may be the wife will understand more about it & stop moaning it's costing more with a fag in hand, a bit of a contradiction if you ask me. She's always moaning about the shortage of money, while burning 200 quid a month.

 

[douglas99]

I thought I acknowledged the low and high GI "GI is very good for T1 .. timing insulin and eating a mix of fast and slow carbs to match the insulin duration/ profile/ in the meal and it's protein and fat content.


T2's are another story with an impaired insulin response both in the fast and slow carbs

Well, if it's another story, it's not the one you seem to wrongly be telling.
BG of 3.9 after a day out, so low GI seems to be successful for T2's.

 

[Brunneria]

I'm currently reading The Art and Science of Low Carbohydrate Living by Phinney and Volek.

Fascinating book.

There are chapters on insulin resistance and low GI. Their very clear explanation and evidence shows that the effectiveness of low GI eating depends largely on the amount of insulin resistance the individual has. This is backed up by my personal experience.

While I agree that low GI eating may help type 2s, this is not always the case, and depends on other contributing factors.
So please do not make sweeping statements.

 

[douglas99]

Very true.
Saying it's not good for T2 without trying it first is very bad advice.
Everyone should find a diet that suits them, and the op certainly should be given the information they requested, and allowed to try their own way.

As I said, I'm T2, it works for me, that's my own story.

 

[jack412]

Jack, And as I said I didn't use any insulin for 3 years during which time I was losing insulin production so just like a type 2 in not having sufficient insulin. .
It's a tool, people who learn and are motivated to use it can have success whether T1 or T2. I also tried to explain that it isn't just about fast and slow carbs. This is a misunderstanding about how it works maybe Montignac can do it better

Here's a good success story, believe it or not , as you will.
I meant to find the ones on GI news. There are quite a few but these 2, came up first on a search http://www.gisymbol.com/your-success-stories-28/
My own experience and the good results I've seen from the British T2 s at my hospital show to me that it's not just appropriate for people with T1 (actually insulin speeds are not controllable so some people think it's less appropriate!). Its a small community here so I have met several and helped some of them out with interpretation at apppointments/coursse. )

does montignac count all the carbs including the non digestible carbs? if he does I agree with him and with low GI you don't digest all the carbs..if he's talking about digestible carbs and that LGI aren't digested as much as HGI..then I disagree..because a digestible carb is digested or it doesn't make sense...either that or I'm not getting it

 

[phoenix]

The labels on food in France are the same as in the UK. and I think in Australia. Carbohydrates are analysed and certain types of fibre are classified on the label . It depends on the method of analysis used as to what actually constitutes fibre. (methods aren't universal and regulations aren't )

Beyond that, what is left ie the dietary carbohydrates are not all equally digestible for all the reasons I've mention(processing, cooking, molecular structure etc) Some of the 'resistant' starch may be fermented in the gut which may be beneficial, other parts may be excreted.

Think of sweetcorn, do you digest it all? Probably not ,unless each individual corn seed is chewed very carefully you won't. The outside fibrous coating protects some of the inside starch from digestion. In this case it is not accessible in the gut and most is excreted. If you ate the same amount of carbs from puréed sweetcorn then far more would be digested.. That's what is also happening on a molecular level, some structures resisting breakdown.
The type of rice used for a rice pudding is highly soluble, all the starch grains will burst open in the milk This forms a soft easy to digest and thus high GI carb, even with no sugar!. In the 'old days' it was served to invalids and children because of this . Almost all of it will 'turn to glucose' and be digested.
Not so much so with low GI rices with a different starch structure, as long as you don't boil them until they are soft and fluffy. They only resist so much.
Both packets though would have a similar amount of carbohydrates on the label.
Finely milled flour is almost all digested but 30% less is digested when grain is coarsely ground .This is ,in part, why most modern breads have such a high GI. This won't be reflected in the carb count.

Incidentally, processing effects the digestibility of all foods not just carbohydrates. . eg only 51% of the protein from raw eggs was digested by illeostomy patients, if the eggs were cooked then 91-94% was digested. (lots of the early digestion observations were made on such patients) They have found similar results using healthy people using isotopes tracked in the breath in this case cooking increased the protein digested by 40%. (the old body builders were wasting their money eating so many raw!) There are lots more similar observations with different foods and methods of processing (they actually date back to the 1820s with observations of a poor man with a hole in his abdomen and stomach wall . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexis_St._Martin
This increased availability of calories through modern highly processed foods, might be one of the reasons for the increase in obesity but that is another subject !

 

[Cloudlesssky]

Hi once again!
Well, I'm just happy that I now have some websites, smart phone apps and books that I can look at if I want to!!
Thank you for that advice and if anyone is interested ....
I'd still prefer a Mars Bar to a Snickers - but I'm not intending to have either at the moment!
BeeGee

 

[douglas99]

Only thing that works, is eat to your meter, if it works for me, it doesn't mean it'll give you the results you want to see.
And never stop trying either!!

 

[noblehead]

I'd still prefer a Mars Bar to a Snickers - but I'm not intending to have either at the moment!

It will always be a Marathon Bar, why did they ever change it to Snickers

 

[Cloudlesssky]

Oh yes, Noblehead, I so agree.

Why did Jif become "Cif"
Oil of Ulay become "Oil of Olay"
Dime bar to Daim bar - to keep the UK in line with the rest of Europe (!)

and so the list could go on!