Low Glycemic Index Foods - and the promo of carbs

[memememeiii]

I am now WHOLLY CONFUSED, and I mean WHOLLY. I'm reading The New Glucose Revolution, which was updated from the 1990's to the latest in 2003, and so we're now talking 15 years old...but I was duped into thinking this is helpful...or is it?

The book is promoting slow carb eating!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Obviously against eating too much red meat, even the non-processed. I'm sure that we've moved on from this, right, but the one thing that niggles my mind is this: avoiding sugar spikes by having slow release carbohydrate foods (all very suspect to me - porridge?!?!?!) is better for you than...???

Can anyone seriously shed light for me on this? I do see the logic in understanding the difference between low carb versus low GI foods, and there IS a difference. I mean, it explains why when I had to 'slip' for a friend's engagement and have a piece of cheesecake, breaking my Newcastle Diet regime, my blood sugar did NOT spike overnight. But...what's a girl to think or do?

Please shed light, if you can.

Thank you,
MM

 

[NoCrbs4Me]

You might find this evaluation of the glycemic index useful:

http://www.phlaunt.com/diabetes/22168291.php

 

[urbanracer]

There is a theory that every time your blood sugar rises by more than 2mmol after a meal it is doing some damage inside you - especially the eyes.

So a low GI food gives you the same amount of carbs over a longer period, and smoothes out some of the bumps (spikes) in your blood glucose levels.

You need to test your own levels for each food but most would say that porridge is slower to digest than corn flakes if you have to have a cereal.

 

[memememeiii]

I think the thing is...I've had oats for breakfast and it most definitely spikes my blood sugar. It's not logical, given the way they talk about this. Or have I got this wrong?

 

[NoCrbs4Me]

I think the thing is...I've had oats for breakfast and it most definitely spikes my blood sugar. It's not logical, given the way they talk about this. Or have I got this wrong?

You're not wrong.

 

[urbanracer]

Some people can eat cereals without a big spike, some can't. One thing we often stress is that your diabetes is personal to you, there isn't a one size fits all solution so if you read advice that doesn't work for you then don't be surprised.

 

[bulkbiker]

I think the thing is...I've had oats for breakfast and it most definitely spikes my blood sugar. It's not logical, given the way they talk about this. Or have I got this wrong?

Personally I view a carb as a carb whether fast or slow or low GI or high GI. They are really just best avoided as much as possible. I know there are people here who say they "can" eat some carbs without too many problems but I fear that although they can have them the question they should ask is whether they should have them.

 

[Resurgam]

It is that sort of thinking which I believe has made it so difficult for me to even speak to doctors and nurses about the difficulty I have with their diets - carbs make me put on weight and become lethargic and dull witted.
That is all wrong as far as they are concerned - carbs are for energy, essential for the brain and muscles.
After 18 months eating low carb I know that I could cope with eating more carbs as part of my daily menu and my BG levels would remain fairly low - but it would mean gaining weight, and it would be fat, stashed away in my cells by the happy busy insulin response to eating carbs. It matters not at all if they are supposedly digested quickly or slowly - they would end up around my waist.

 

[There is no Spoon]

Please shed light, if you can.

Hi Mememe,

The simple version.
Carbohydrates are made up of Carbon and Water C-H2O
Sugar is composed entirely of Carbon, Hydrogen and Oxygen. C-H-H-O Which is why all carbs are converted/broken down as sugar in the blood stream.

Therefore the logical argument is to avoid carbs to avoid high blood sugars.

A little more complicated version.
Rice is a carb which should spike blood glucose levels.
The order the food on the plate is eaten, veg first then protein then carbohydrates, effects digestion rates. slowing the break down of the carbs from the rice causing a slow gradual increase in bg levels.

Which means you have just managed to eat a high carb meal without spiking bg levels.

The complicated Version.
Spikes in glucose cause oxidative stress.
This causes damage & inflammation to the inner lining of blood vessels.
And creates free radicals.

"Not good".

And that's about the gist of it you can eat a low GI diet and keep a stable-ish blood glucose level which helps to avoid the "not good" things from the Complicated Glucoses Spike Version, cancer, blindness, heart attack, stroke, parkinson's etc...

OR you can go the low carb version which reduces bg levels

 

[dbr10]

I think the thing is...I've had oats for breakfast and it most definitely spikes my blood sugar. It's not logical, given the way they talk about this. Or have I got this wrong?

This is the rubbish DN tells you. But oats are 60 per cent carbs. Slower digestion makes very little difference.

 

[Brunneria]

Seeing as how that book was dated 2003 I would just set it aside and ignore it.
Back then, complex carbs, wholegrains, etc.etc. were often seen as The One Twue Way.
I remember having books on the shelf advising me of exactly that.

And that way of eating DOES suit some people.

But there has always been a subversive Dark Side too (Montignac, Atkins, Banting, etc.)
- when has the field of nutrition ever been a united front?

I just know that every time I tried eating that rolled oats/chickpea/wild rice/quinoa Julian McKeath glossy TV way of eating I just felt **** and got ******* and ******* as time went by.
My body just does best in the keto zone.

 

[bulkbiker]

Seeing as how that book was dated 2003 I would just set it aside and ignore it.
Back then, complex carbs, wholegrains, etc.etc. were often seen as The One Twue Way.
I remember having books on the shelf advising me of exactly that.

And that way of eating DOES suit some people.

But there has always been a subversive Dark Side too (Montignac, Atkins, Banting, etc.)
- when has the field of nutrition ever been a united front?

I just know that every time I tried eating that rolled oats/chickpea/wild rice/quinoa Julian McKeath glossy TV way of eating I just felt **** and got ******* and ******* as time went by.
My body just does best in the keto zone.

Way too many options to fill in those blanks..!

 

[Brunneria]

Way too many options to fill in those blanks..!

 

[There is no Spoon]

Way too many options to fill in those blanks..!

Terry Wogan could do it.

 

[memememeiii]

Well. Thank you, ALL. I have skimmed and read the ENTIRE book now, and must say: what a load of rubbish. It's shocking. I actually bought this book from somewhere and now want to know where. Hmmmmm. What's even worse is that one of my favorite Functional Medicine doctors, Dr. Weil, endorsed the book. I wonder if he would today. His online info about diabetes is better than this, I'm sure. In this book even, citrus fruits were mentioned more times than berries, though eventually they mentioned that berries are extremely low GI.

It completely promotes moderate - which to a diabetic is high - carbohydrate eating. THE ONLY thing that I can see of value in this is recognizing that WHEN YOU DO SUCCUMB TO THE URGE TO BINGE ON CARBS, you can at least try to reduce the damage by choosing a Low GI food to eat, so the sugar doesn't spike.

But I am in the process of trying to get my blood sugar normalized, and at only 12 days into the Newcastle Diabetes Reversal Diet, I'm crawling the walls. Reading this just boggled my mind for a bit. I have measured my blood sugar enough to know very well...pasta, bread, rice, and lentils all cause a huge rise in my glucose numbers. We'll see if I get to the end of 8 weeks or 3 months of this, and it's the same.

I'm going to pitch the book out. The recipes in it are terrible, and it really doom-says on the idea that a high protein AND high fat diet are going to cause heart disease. OMG. I *know* better because I've been reading up on all of this for ages. But wow...talk about a moment of mental dissonance.

Your weigh-ins on this subject have been helpful. Cheers.

MM.

 

[Crocodile]

I think the thing is...I've had oats for breakfast and it most definitely spikes my blood sugar. It's not logical, given the way they talk about this. Or have I got this wrong?

That would depend on the portion size too. I'm in the minority here as I quite like the GI concept now that I understand it. We all have our own management methods and end up settling on one that works with the least inconvenience while achieving the end goal. Not rocket science but takes discipline. I'm good as long as I follow the rule that none of my meals contain more than 20g of carbs. The good thing with the low GI carbs is that it allows me to take it out to 30g with no ill effects.

The mistake some people make is to assume because something is low GI, they can have as much as want. Sorry, doesn't work that way. I have porridge between 2 and 4 time a week. I'm fine with it as long as Porridge + milk < 30g. Full fat milk of course and must be Lowan brand rolled oats. The fine instant oats are a disaster and bg ends up in the asteroids somewhere between Mars and Jupiter.

 

[memememeiii]

That would depend on the portion size too. I'm in the minority here as I quite like the GI concept now that I understand it. We all have our own management methods and end up settling on one that works with the least inconvenience while achieving the end goal. Not rocket science but takes discipline. I'm good as long as I follow the rule that none of my meals contain more than 20g of carbs. The good thing with the low GI carbs is that it allows me to take it out to 30g with no ill effects.

The mistake some people make is to assume because something is low GI, they can have as much as want. Sorry, doesn't work that way. I have porridge between 2 and 4 time a week. I'm fine with it as long as Porridge + milk < 30g. Full fat milk of course and must be Lowan brand rolled oats. The fine instant oats are a disaster and bg ends up in the asteroids somewhere between Mars and Jupiter.

That is an excellent reminder, and I agree...we have to find the way for us that allows us to LIVE comfortably. Bless you for that fine reminder. I'd love more info on lists and resources or books. Thanks. Ultimately, I don't see myself as existing on salad and meat alone, in the future, so...there's a role for this to play. Nevertheless, I still call anything grain related "poison". Maybe one day I won't.

 

[Indy51]

Another nail in the coffin of the glycemic index diet model:

"In 22 participants, the blood sugar response was low, in 23 it was medium, and in 18, it was high. This range effectively put white bread in all three GI categories. Moreover, individual responses varied by up to 60 points between tests."

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/312828.php

Possibly the controller is the gut microbiome?

 

[Crocodile]

Another nail in the coffin of the glycemic index diet model:

"In 22 participants, the blood sugar response was low, in 23 it was medium, and in 18, it was high. This range effectively put white bread in all three GI categories. Moreover, individual responses varied by up to 60 points between tests."

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/312828.php

Possibly the controller is the gut microbiome?

As with most of these things, the devil is in the detail. The tests were conducted on 63 healthy adults. Not a whole lot useful for T2s looking at moderating their carbohydrate intake. How many of us can handle 50g of white bread. Give us a break.

GI is poorly regarded because it is poorly understood. I've been through this a couple of responses back. Due attention is still required for calculating carbohydrates. There's no way around that. The article tells us nothing we don't already know in that individual responses to food types vary wildly. Without the ability to measure your responses for future references the GI concept is completely useless.

Now that I actually understand the concept it serves me well on the occasions that I need to use it. It is simply just another tool in the toolbox.

 

[Brunneria]

Without the ability to measure your responses for future references the GI concept is completely useless.

I am completely in agreement with you on this statement.

Unfortunately, the NHS actively discourages T2s from testing, and encourages them to eat lots of 'whole grains' and adopt a lower GI way of eating. With every meal.

When I was given a diet guidance sheet it told me to eat 9 portions of brown carbs a day, where a slice of brown bread was 1 portion.

9!!!

Without a glucometer, and sensible education on what those portion sizes should be, and a basic training on carb counting and how blood glucose works, the average T2 patient is just heading towards increasing HbA1cs, increased medications and eventual insulin. Lambs to the slaughter.

Add to that, my experience of low GI eating was basically that it didn't matter if I restricted my serving to a single tablespoon of wild rice, it was still too much for my body.

Thank heavens for self funded self testing, is all I can say!