Which is best a relatively short lived spike where BG raises to point and falls back to normal in a short time or a rise to that point over a longer period and a longer time to recover to normal levels?
neither? or do you mean which is less harmful?Which is best a relatively short lived spike where BG raises to point and falls back to normal in a short time or a rise to that point over a longer period and a longer time to recover to normal levels?
neither? or do you mean which is less harmful?
I mean as a comparison between two scenarios which of the two would be preferred as with consuming carbs you are going in all probability to get one or the other And yes which would do the less harm
I beg to differ.
If it's the same point, higher for longer has to be worse. More particularly for us to consider is what happens in the body if you compare a short peak and a reasonably rapid fall back, with a shallower peak which takes longer to fall back to normal - in a situation where the area under both curves was the same. Are we equally screwed in either senerio?Which is best a relatively short lived spike where BG raises to point and falls back to normal in a short time or a rise to that point over a longer period and a longer time to recover to normal levels?
Oops sorry.It's the area under the curve that matters most.
I agree with you on LOADS of things.I'm just glad someone agrees with me.
Wouldn't that just be awesome!!!That whole Resistant Starch Thing seems to work much better for some of us than for others.
Inevitably i am in the group where it doesn't make the slightest difference.
So i suggest that everyone does some very careful self testing before they let rip with potato and pasta salad.
I can remember someone once posting that toast was the perfect resistant starch food - baked as bread, cooled, then reheated as toast, then cooled again on the plate.
Yeah, right. Dream on.
Soon after I first joined the forum I remember seeing a post from someone about an example their their doctor gave regarding this: look at graph of your glucose levels, and imagine this as a kinked piece of string which is then stretched out flat - this way strings with longish lower spikes are likely to be "shorter" in length than those with short sharp high ones, so overall they're liable to have less impact This made sense to me so is what I tend to work with -for what it's worth!I mean as a comparison between two scenarios which of the two would be preferred as with consuming carbs you are going in all probability to get one or the other And yes which would do the less harm
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?