Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Install the app
Install
Reply to Thread
Guest, we'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the
Diabetes Forum Survey 2024 »
Home
Forums
Food and Nutrition
Low-carb Diet Forum
Petition: Reinstate Dr David Unwin's sugar infographics as a NICE endorsed resource
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pdmjoker" data-source="post: 2299027" data-attributes="member: 468524"><p>I gather the infographics came out of <a href="https://insulinresistance.org/index.php/jir/article/view/8/11" target="_blank">https://insulinresistance.org/index.php/jir/article/view/8/11</a> which says</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">The GI is calculated as 100 times the 2-h post-prandial blood glucose response (incremental area under the curve) to a food containing 50 g of carbohydrate divided by the 2-h post-prandial blood glucose response to 50 g glucose, each in 10 persons of normal health.</p><p></p><p>and some quarters disagree that "incremental area under the curve" is right (subtracts any negative response), claim it "unscientific" and say that total positive area is the right approach.</p><p></p><p>With Michelle's rice vs sugar graph in MoS I got rice had 85% glycaemic response of sugar if incremental, 79% is just positive values and 91% when correcting for the 0.6 initial dip in rice graph. Of course, the amount the rice is cooked affects how much starch is released when it is eaten.</p><p></p><p>The graphics are designed to be an accessible communication tool/guide and were never claimed to represent a totally accurate expression of how the body functions, as mentioned in the paper I cite above.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pdmjoker, post: 2299027, member: 468524"] I gather the infographics came out of [URL]https://insulinresistance.org/index.php/jir/article/view/8/11[/URL] which says [INDENT]The GI is calculated as 100 times the 2-h post-prandial blood glucose response (incremental area under the curve) to a food containing 50 g of carbohydrate divided by the 2-h post-prandial blood glucose response to 50 g glucose, each in 10 persons of normal health.[/INDENT] and some quarters disagree that "incremental area under the curve" is right (subtracts any negative response), claim it "unscientific" and say that total positive area is the right approach. With Michelle's rice vs sugar graph in MoS I got rice had 85% glycaemic response of sugar if incremental, 79% is just positive values and 91% when correcting for the 0.6 initial dip in rice graph. Of course, the amount the rice is cooked affects how much starch is released when it is eaten. The graphics are designed to be an accessible communication tool/guide and were never claimed to represent a totally accurate expression of how the body functions, as mentioned in the paper I cite above. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post Reply
Home
Forums
Food and Nutrition
Low-carb Diet Forum
Petition: Reinstate Dr David Unwin's sugar infographics as a NICE endorsed resource
Top
Bottom
Find support, ask questions and share your experiences. Ad free.
Join the community »
This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn More.…