The glycemic index myth

[Guest guest]

> Okay ,

>

> I know you are going to a lot of trouble to make a major point

here, but

> I've never seen a glycemic index before. What I'm seeing is that

I'm better

> off having my very favorite " bad " food of white spaghetti (glycemic

index

> 41) swimming in olive oil, butter, salt and pepper than whole wheat

bread

> (glycemic index 69) or brown rice (glycemic index 55)! Is it really

true?

> I'm sure I can't be understanding this correctly........white

spaghetti is

> lower on the glycemic index than brown rice or whole wheat bread?

I have a couple points to make about that

1. White flour has no vitamin or mineral content except for what has

been added back from " enrichment " , which only accounts for some 13 of

the 60 nutrients that have been removed. That's why WAP types are

opposed to refined carbs.

2. Your example points out one of the reasons why the glycemic index

bothers me. We know from WAP that people become diabetic as modern

foods enter the diet. Yet as you point out, the glycemic index is not

as clear cut as many websites would have you believe, with refined

foods topping the list and whole foods on the bottom. This is what

set off my common sense buzzer.

3. A lot of commercial carbohydrates are made with modified food

starches for processing purposes, or with grains bred for differant

amylose/amylopectin ratios, which also results in producing less

digestible starches and therefore a lower glycemic index.

4. this relates to #1. One theory on how refined carbs cuase diabetes

is because diabetes is caused by a nutritional deficiency. For

example, copper is a required catalyst for an enzyme called

superoxide dimuntase, which is a potent freeradical scrounger. It may

be that free radical damage from excess superoxide molecules causes

the endothelial dysfunction that leads to diabetes. Just a theory,

which I may not even agree with because I think refined sugars induce

diabetes more than refined starches. But it does underscore the

complexity of the issue.

[Guest guest]

Okay ,

I know you are going to a lot of trouble to make a major point here, but

I've never seen a glycemic index before. What I'm seeing is that I'm better

off having my very favorite " bad " food of white spaghetti (glycemic index

41) swimming in olive oil, butter, salt and pepper than whole wheat bread

(glycemic index 69) or brown rice (glycemic index 55)! Is it really true?

I'm sure I can't be understanding this correctly........white spaghetti is

lower on the glycemic index than brown rice or whole wheat bread?

Carmen

http://www.dur.ac.uk/~dds8ubc/info/nutrition/glyindex1.htm

[Guest guest]

>>>1. Fiber. This is the biggie. The more fiber, the less digestible a

food is, and the lower on the glycemic index. We take this to mean

that fiber is good, but I don't think so.

>>>>>>>>>>>*****At the risk of being flamed by a few folks, , I would

have to

agree with you here. Fiber is highly overrated, even when properly

prepared. I learned this quite by accident when I first ate a largely raw

diet that contained very little fiber. Hmmm...from what I have read the

Eskimos and Masai were not suffering from constipation, which is usually

a precursor to the " diseases of civilization " . Good point. Thanks for

bringing it up.

^^^^^^Let me play devil's advocate and list some things that might indicate

fiber is a good thing.

1. The physiological effect of cleansing the colon. Even wild carnivores

consume grass and other fibrous material that result in the expulsion of

worms or other parasites (as I posted recently).

2. The production of SCFAs (short chain fatty acids) such as butyric acid

(the major fatty acid in butter and where it's name is derived), which are

produced by colonic fermentation of (mostly) moderately fermentable fibers

(examples are rice bran and beet pulp). SCFAs make up the primary energy

source for colonocytes. They have other beneficial effects on the GI tract,

but I don't have time to cover all of them. Some studies done on dogs (and

humans, I'd imagine?) have shown that gastro intestinal disease can be

managed (or improved) by using the right kind of fiber. Moderately

fermentable fiber had the greatest benefit according to " Canine and Feline

Nutrition " (2000)

3. Proper jaw formation and clean teeth. The following is an interesting

tidbit I picked up from the Cohen book ( " Health and the Rise of

Civilization " Yale University Press: 1989) Cohen discusses the *texture* and

*composition* of food that hunter/gatherers historically consumed and how

the roughness of much of the diet kept their teeth clean and developed their

jaw bones and muscles in childhood. Quote:

-----------------------------

" Although trends in dietary quality and reliability are uncertain, the

pattern of changes in the texture of food is relatively clear. Hunting and

gathering populations eat foods that are coarse and tough in two senses:

they are tough to chew, and they contain a high proportion of inert,

indigestible matter of fiber that must be processed by the intestine. In the

evolution of civilized diets, foods have gradually been altered -- first

eliminating much of the need for chewing and much more recently, eliminating

bulk. These changes produce mixed consequences, at best, for health.

The first major steps in the process are associated with sedentism and

farming. Compared to many wild vegetable foods, domestic grains and tubers

are relatively soft concentrated packages of calories. In addition,

sedentary populations with grindstones and with pottery can soften foods by

boiling, producing mush or gruel -- foods easier to chew, although they

retain their fiber. Much more recently -- particularly with the past

century -- incentives for efficient transport and storage have resulted in

further refinement of food, producing ever more concentrated packages of

calories with the indigestible fiber removed.

Coarse foods have important effects on jaws and teeth. The development of

the jaws during childhood depends on the chewing force exerted. Strenuous

chewing is necessary for the development of facial muscles and bones. It may

also determine alignment of the teeth. Apparently, human jaws initially

evolved to meet in such a manner that the cutting edges of incisors met

directly. It is only since the adoption of relatively soft diets following

the rise of farming -- and the adoption of modern eating utensils -- that

human beings developed the slight overbite that we now consider normal. "

(p.70)

-----------------------------

There's other stuff, such as some anti-cancer properties of phytates, but I

think there are too many potential (or real) benefits to fit into one email!

We know that *some* primitive cultures didn't consume much (if any) plant

fiber, such as the Masai and Eskimos as was already mentioned, but what

about the rest? And, could these groups have *adapted* to a low fiber diet,

or, could the *whole* picture of their diet, lifestyle, emotional and

spiritual health and the health of the environment in which they lived, have

collectively played a part in their good health? So that, an American of

European heritage living today with a completely different heritage,

lifestyle, spiritual and emotional profile, and one living with a toxin

burden perhaps unknown to any of the primitive groups WAP studied, mimic

such a diet with equally good results?

Suze Fisher

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/

mailto:s.fisher22@...

[Guest guest]

I need to qualify something in my last post on fiber. I wrote:

>>>>So that, an American of

European heritage living today with a completely different heritage,

lifestyle, spiritual and emotional profile, and one living with a toxin

burden perhaps unknown to any of the primitive groups WAP studied, mimic

such a diet with equally good results?

***I think what holds true for dogs (sorry for all the canine

references/analogies in my posts!) holds for humans, in that true health of

a group is that which is maintained in a number of individuals over multiple

generations. I know bianca mentioned he's having success with a raw low

fiber diet, but I don't think one person's experience would necessarily

reflect how a population would do on the same diet over generations.

Suze Fisher

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/

mailto:s.fisher22@...

[Guest guest]

-

>Just talking about glycemic index frames

>nutritional debates around carbs not being inherantly wonderful.

What's wrong with that?

-

[Guest guest]

Suze-

>3. Some people (as well as carnivores) are insulin resistant, which means

>that cells don't allow the normal amount of insulin to unlock their 'doors'

>which results in the glucose staying in the blood (hyperglycemia), even when

>the person is not 'over' consuming high glycemic foods.

I'd disagree with this -- slightly. Hyperglycemia comes later in the chain

of events. First, over-consumption of carbs leads to overproduction of

insulin. Initially this overproduction of insulin causes blood sugar

drops, commonly called hypoglycemia, but it's better termed

hyperinsulinemia. In the long run, though, the overly high levels of

insulin cause cells to become insulin resistant, which leads to

hyperglycemia and full diabetes.

>For some reason I've been under the impression that insulin resistance as a

>result of natural selection in our history (as discussed in the beyondveg

>article) is the most likely suspect. Probably because I've been reading

>about the same mechanism in carnivores. Consider that it's theorized that

>cats, which are obligate carnivores, are naturally insulin resistant due to

>their historical carnivorous diet.

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that we're prone to developing

insulin resistance when we eat a diet we're not evolutionarily adapted

to. We didn't evolve to eat so many carbs, particularly refined carbs, and

to produce and have to deal with so much insulin. It leads to resistance,

but people on a healthy lower-carb diet (particularly lower in refined

carbs) have a normal insulin response and can maintain that healthy, normal

response for their entire lives -- as long as they don't switch to a modern

diet. Herbivores are obviously different.

>Is it possible that insulin resistance can be *turned on and off* (in so

>many words) in response to the amount of glucose that enters the blood

>stream? So, if an animal or human has eaten a lot of starchy foods for x

>amount of years, then suddenly switches to a low or no carb diet, insulin

>resistance might " kick in " ?

No. Insulin resistance is specifically a result of over-consumption of

carbs, particularly of starches and sugars. It sounds like your dog's low

blood sugar was due to her being in the " hypoglycemia " stage -- IOW she had

yet to develop really substantial insulin resistance. A low-carb high-fat

normalizes insulin production and response, though in many cases the damage

sustained before people switch to a healthy diet is great enough that, like

alcoholics, they must rigorously avoid starches and refined carbs for the

rest of their lives.

-

[Guest guest]

Suze-

>I know bianca mentioned he's having success with a raw low

>fiber diet, but I don't think one person's experience would necessarily

>reflect how a population would do on the same diet over generations.

A good point, but as a general rule I think it's pretty clear that anything

that improves the health of one generation will improve the health of

successive generations.

-

[Guest guest]

-

>Furthermore, sugar does *not* spike blood sugar.

You keep saying this, but it's simply not true. I'm at a loss to

understand it, unless you think that the glycemic index chart you mention

indicates actual blood sugar levels rather than just providing a relative,

unit-less metric. Sucrose being assigned a glycemic index value of 65

doesn't mean it doesn't spike blood sugar. I assure you, most sugars spike

blood sugar levels, often dramatically.

-

[Guest guest]

> -

>

> >Furthermore, sugar does *not* spike blood sugar.

>

> You keep saying this, but it's simply not true. I'm at a loss to

> understand it, unless you think that the glycemic index chart you

mention

> indicates actual blood sugar levels rather than just providing a

relative,

> unit-less metric. Sucrose being assigned a glycemic index value of

65

> doesn't mean it doesn't spike blood sugar. I assure you, most

sugars spike

> blood sugar levels, often dramatically.

No, it doesn't. The jury is in. The science is done.

Sucruse has the same glycemic response as oatmeal. Fructose is even

lower at 22 - its lower than milk and yogurt. They don't spike blood

sugar. The only way I can see you maintaining your position is if you

are full blown Dr. Atkins and think that any carb other than leafy

green vegetables is evil. And that means you have to throw out what

WAP found - that there are healthy primitives on high carb diets with

glycemic indexes at least as high as sucrose and plenty higher than

fructose.

Furthermore, as I point in my response to Suze playing devils

advocate, the next stage of the 'carbs are evil' theory is the

resulting insulin production. But white pasta stimulates less insulin

production than fish and beef.

[Guest guest]

-

>My old fructose criticism - according to the glycemic theory,

>fructose doesn't cause diabetes because it doesn't cause a lot of

>glucose to enter the bloodstream.

Not so, though to be fair plenty of people interpret it that way. The

glycemic index measures how *fast* glucose enters the bloodstream after

eating a 50g serving of a given food. It does not measure how much glucose

enters the blood stream in total as a result of that 50g serving. The

glycemic load is a better measure of that -- it's the product of a food's

glycemic index multiplied by its carb content in grams. This is a valuable

metric, though it must be remembered that the load is just the total from

that 50g serving. In the end, all that fructose gets converted to glucose

and enters the system.

>But of course high fructose corn

>syrup is not ok,

As I pointed out in my other post (sorry for the flood tonight; I've been

catching up on a lot of email) high fructose corn syrup has a substantially

higher GI than plain isolated fructose, so your point isn't valid. (By

which I mean, of course HFCS is harmful, but nobody would conclude

otherwise from the GI.)

>So we know that high carb diets do not cause diabetes. Of

>course, that says nothing about where those carbs lie on the glycemic

>and insulin indexes.

As I've said before, the more refined the carbs, the worse they are. (I

will admit that I'm in a tiny minority in counting foods like potatoes as

being essentially refined carbs, but look into what foods in the vegetable

kingdom were like before agriculture and selective breeding and you'll see

what I mean.)

>being insulin resistant would also result in a

>less muscular and therefore less healthy physique. I'm skeptical.

Given that insulin-resistant people are overweight and in terrible shape,

why are you skeptical?

>I

>think its more likely that, as WAP observed, healthy primitives are

>very insulin sensitive, and modern diets ruin that.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but this is just semantics. If you call the

insulin response of healthy primitives your baseline normal value, then

people with impaired insulin responses from modern diets are insulin resistant.

>Once you suffer from diabetes (preclinical or not), then it becomes

>important to find an alternative way to keep your blood sugars low,

>and I think low-carbing is the best option. But healthy people have

>an even better option - insulin.

Again, I don't understand what you're getting at.

-

[Guest guest]

> -

>

> >No, it doesn't. The jury is in. The science is done.

>

> Then, to borrow a page from your book, provide some sort of proof,

please,

> unless you're relying on your glycemic index figures

Your not really claiming that the glycemic index is unreferenced

science, are you? If you are then please come out and say so

specifically, I'll be happy to do some medline searches, but

otherwise I'd rather not waste my time.

> Here's a table of index values for several sugars. The first

column gives

> the value on the white bread index, the second on the glucose index.

>

> SUGARS

> Fructose 32 22

> Lactose 65 46

> Honey 83 58

> High fructose corn syrup 89 62

> Sucrose 92 64

> Glucose 137 96

> Glucose tablets 146 102

> Maltodextrin 150 105

> Maltose 150 105

>

> This is taken from http://www.mendosa.com/gilists.htm

>

> As previously noted, fructose is pretty low on the index, though if

you'd

> like I can post a pile of references documenting the many reasons

not to

> use fructose as a sweetener. However, your suggestion that putting

some

> value on the glycemic index would indicate high fructose corn syrup

as a

> healthy food and sweetener for diabetics is obviously wrong.

, for 8 millionth time, I think fructose is unhealthy and causes

diabetes. That's my whole point - a low GI food causes diabetes.

Perhaps you

> think otherwise, but 89/62 is not a low value at all.

So what is a low value? And I notice that you always discuss sucrose.

I take it you think fructose doesn't cause diabetes? That high

fructose corn syrup doesn't cause diabetes?

> >Sucruse has the same glycemic response as oatmeal.

>

> Not so:

You're nitpicking. My source was:

http://www.dur.ac.uk/~dds8ubc/info/nutrition/glyindex1.htm

From the mendosa list sucrose has the same index as cornmeal and

millet. The point still stands - sucrose has the same GI as healthy

whole foods (and is lower than some like potatoes and carrots). And

fructose is extremely low at 22 on the white bread scale.

>

> Furthermore, plain sucrose is a completely devitalized food,

What does that have to do with diabetes? If high blood sugar and

insulin causes diabetes, this has nothing to do with the issue.

> But just look into glucose tolerance tests -- their very purpose is

to

> determine just how much sugar spikes a given individual's blood

sugar!

A glucose tolerance test is a measure of how diabetic someone is.

From medline

(http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/003466.htm#howPerform

ed)

" an overnight fast, a patient drinks a solution containing a known

amount of glucose. "

Note which sugar is given: glucose - the very highest GI food there

is! They don't do fructose tolerance tests because fructose doesn't

spike blood sugar.

> >The only way I can see you maintaining your position is if you

> >are full blown Dr. Atkins and think that any carb other than leafy

> >green vegetables is evil. And that means you have to throw out what

> >WAP found - that there are healthy primitives on high carb diets

with

> >glycemic indexes at least as high as sucrose and plenty higher than

> >fructose.

>

> There are several issues here. First of all, on the matter of carb

> consumption I do agree with Atkins, at least in the broad

outlines.

Then you disagree with WAP

Second, none of the

> peoples WAP found ate diets that even remotely resemble today's

high-carb

> regimen.

Except for how they score on the glycemic index! WAP found people

with higher glycemic loads than sucrose and way, way, way higher than

fructose.

Furthermore, those

> peoples were careful to get as much fat as they could, eating

>Furthermore, as I point in my response to Suze playing devils

> >advocate, the next stage of the 'carbs are evil' theory is the

> >resulting insulin production. But white pasta stimulates less

insulin

> >production than fish and beef.

>

> As you noted elsewhere, insulin serves many functions.

> Anyway, you keep saying that sugar consumption doesn't lead to a

surge in

> blood sugar, but if not, where does the sugar go?

The same place as from soybeans. Into the body, just slowly over a

long period of time.

> Furthermore, I find it telling that you picked white pasta as your

> example. On the table of the 38 tested foods at

>

> http://www.low-carbdiet.co.uk/insulin.htm

>

> white pasta is the sole exception among refined carb foods in

causing less

> of an insulin surge,

So? If high insulin causes diabetes, then meat causes diabetes more

than the other foods. That's the point. A theory must fit all the

data, not most of the data.

> Jellybeans are the most alarming, 120 for glucose and 160 for

insulin, but

> potatoes, which I take it you defend, come in at 140 for glucose

and 120

> for insulin. Based on this, I can't imagine how anyone could

defend either

> food as a staple.

I would never defend a refined food as being healthy because I

believe that the nutritional deficiencies caused by eating them

causes diabetes. Potatoes are a healthy food because high glycemic

foods do not causes diabetes.

[Guest guest]

> then my disagreement with you is on your

> interpretation of the index.

>

Now we're getting somewhere

> At what point would you say a food *doesn't* boost blood sugar

levels?

*shrugs*

Who cares? Since high blood sugar doesn't cause diabetes, I have no

need to draw a line.

> >, for 8 millionth time, I think fructose is unhealthy and

causes

> >diabetes. That's my whole point - a low GI food causes diabetes.

>

> And for the 8 millionth time, I'm not arguing that the glycemic

index is

> the be-all and end-all of diabetes causation! I've said otherwise

> countless times now!

I was hoping you weren't going to say that. Its just like the

cholesterol sceintists - they claim heart disease has multiple causes

because the data for cholesterol doesn't fit. It lets them discard

the data they don't like.

But there aren't very many multifactorial diseases in life. They only

multifactorial before you find the true cause because its easy to get

confuse by spurious correlations.

> As I've said before, I consider fructose very harmful because

regardless of

> the fact that it's lower on the GI

True, but the GI theory states that fructose is actually protective

of diabetes because its so low on the index.

>(Furthermore, HFCS is much higher on

> the GI than fructose due to its mixture of sugars -- it's not all

fructose

> -- so it's inaccurate to equate it with pure fructose.)

True, but that has nothing to do with my point. Fructose shows the

limitations of the GI theory - I think we'd all agree that sucrose is

less likely to cause diabetes than fructose, and potatoes and carrots

still less likely.

The quantity of

> sugar consumed is also an issue. 25 million Americans get a fifth

of their

> total calories from fructose! That's insane!

Yup, fructose is nasty stuff, at least in quantities beyond a little

fruit as a snack.

> >You're nitpicking.

>

> A 22-percent difference isn't nitpicking.

My point is that there are plenty of healthy whole foods that have

the same glycemic index as sucrose. That point still stands, as

cornmeal and millet have the same glycemic index on the list that you

posted.

> >The point still stands - sucrose has the same GI as healthy

> >whole foods (and is lower than some like potatoes and carrots).

>

> Potatoes and carrots are not healthy whole foods for many reasons,

not just

> their carb content. Would you like some references from _Breaking

The

> Vicious Cycle_ and other sources?

Please do, but if it has nothing to do with insulin resistance and

diabetes could you split it off into a seperate thread to avoid

clutter? I think the idea that potatoes and carrots and unhealthy is

as absurd as the idea that butter and lard are unhealthy.

>

> >A glucose tolerance test is a measure of how diabetic someone is.

>

> Not so. It's a measure of how well they handle glucose.

ok, fine. It can also measure pre-clinical forms of diabetes to see

if you are heading down that road. You point was that glucose

tolerance tests prove that sugar does indeed spike the blood sugar,

but they are done with glucose (140 GI) not fructose (22 GI).

> (BTW, the GI of sucrose is virtually identical to that of HFCS.)

That's because it has some pure glucose mixed in. Its the fructose

part that worries me.

> Since the GI is a relative measure, I'm not sure how you can

demonstrate

> that any sugar -- including glucose -- doesn't cause blood sugar to

spike

> based simply on the index.

Blood sugar spikes are red herring. No reason to worry about it

unless you're insulin resistant. True, that does include an awful lot

of people these days, but it still doesn't address the actual cause

of insulin resistance.

The inception of the index, though, is

> revealing: scientists wanted to measure how fast various foods and

food

> ingredients caused blood sugar to spike relative to glucose (and

then later

> relative to white bread).

Its a great tool for insulin resistant people to find external ways

to regulate their blood sugar. Go soy!

> >>

> >>While this may be an oversimplification, there is growing

evidence to

> >>support a relationship between GI and non- insulin dependent

diabetes

> >>(NIDDM), and obesity. In a prospective study of 65,000 US women,

> >>researchers were able to demonstrate that the dietary GI was

positively

> >>associated with the risk of NIDDM.

Sure, I've got a good literature review article about from a

colleague of mine about that. I'll email it to you if you like. There

is no doubt that insulin resistant people benifit from eating low

glycemic foods. There is also no doubt that people with broken legs

shouldn't do weight bearing activities.

> >Then you disagree with WAP

>

> Not the way you're suggesting, but it's a complicated issue. You

and I are

> apparently in agreement that diabetics should go on low-carb diets,

at

> least provided the diet is otherwise in accordance with WAP/NT

principles

> (grassfed, raw dairy, nutrient-dense, high-fat, etc.). However,

I'd argue

> that virtually everyone in America has some degree of difficulty

handling

> dietary sugar and other dietary carbs.

Virtually everyone in america eats " the displacing foods of modern

commerce " , which is the real cause of insulin resistance and diabetes.

> Furthermore, the FOODS they (and we) eat don't resemble the foods

those

> healthy natives ate -- and this, IMO, is one of the most important

points

> to be made. On the GI, there's an entry for wheat bread, but modern

wheat

> bread is made with modern wheat -- which is VERY DIFFERENT from the

wheat

> eaten by those healthy natives.

If anything the heirloom grains are more digestible (IIRC, GMO grains

produce more allergies), therefore are *higher* on the GI. And of

course, they ate them properly soaked which I think we'd agree will

further raise the GI.

However you are right that they were grown in better soil, which

would predict a better resistance to diabetes from the nutritional

deficiency/superoxide reductase/endothelial dysfunction theory. But

the same goes for fat and protein, not just carbs.

> >So? If high insulin causes diabetes, then meat causes diabetes more

> >than the other foods.

>

> That statement isn't supported by the graph. Most of the foods are

higher

> than beef.

>

> >That's the point. A theory must fit all the

> >data, not most of the data.

>

> Of course, but no single-factor theory exists in a vacuum, and FOR

THE LAST

> TIME, my theory is NOT that the glycemic index is the sole

determinant of

> diabetes causation. Not even close.

I wish you'd ditch the multifactorial argument. Its highly unlikely

that diabetes is caused by two completely distinct and unrelated

mechanisms.

> Anyway, do you believe that diabetes could occur on an extremely

low-carb

> diet due solely to nutritional deficiencies?

Perhaps if lived on protein powders (refined protein) and vegetable

oils (refined fat), you could. But at least you'd be managing the

symptoms well.

This doesn't square with the

> available evidence. Many people eat low-carb diets that are

nonetheless

> not very nutritious (lean meat, fake foods, etc.) but which

nonetheless

> roll back and prevent diabetes.

Two points:

1. It will manage the symptoms

2. even lean meat is not a protein powder - it has the vitamins

3. I'll bet the overall animal fat content of the average atkins

dieter is a higher percentage than the average person, so I'd expect

their intake of fat soluble vitamins to be higher as well.

4. Atkins dieters are also losing weight - a effective way to treat

diabetes and insulin resistance.

[Guest guest]

-

>I was hoping you weren't going to say that. Its just like the

>cholesterol sceintists - they claim heart disease has multiple causes

>because the data for cholesterol doesn't fit. It lets them discard

>the data they don't like.

You apparently want to argue with someone who is a strict GI-theory

advocate. I am not that person, I have never been that person, and I have

never made any such statements on this list, but you continue to act as

though I am and I have. So find someone else to be your straw man. I am

not going to let you waste any more of my time.

-

[Guest guest]

There are a lot of things that affect the glycemic index reading - how the

food is prepared (cooking, mechanical state), what other foods it's eaten

with. I think is it more complicated than just aiming for something with

index of 40 vs something that is 60.

Kris , gardening in northwest Ohio

----- Original Message -----

From: Carmen <ctn@...>

< >

Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 6:17 PM

Subject: RE: The glycemic index myth

> Okay ,

>

> I know you are going to a lot of trouble to make a major point here, but

> I've never seen a glycemic index before. What I'm seeing is that I'm

better

> off having my very favorite " bad " food of white spaghetti (glycemic index

> 41) swimming in olive oil, butter, salt and pepper than whole wheat bread

> (glycemic index 69) or brown rice (glycemic index 55)! Is it really true?

> I'm sure I can't be understanding this correctly........white spaghetti is

> lower on the glycemic index than brown rice or whole wheat bread?

>

> Carmen

>

>

> http://www.dur.ac.uk/~dds8ubc/info/nutrition/glyindex1.htm

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

> (sorry for the flood tonight; I've been

> catching up on a lot of email)

So am I, I missed this post completely.

>high fructose corn syrup has a substantially

> higher GI than plain isolated fructose, so your point isn't valid.

(By

> which I mean, of course HFCS is harmful, but nobody would conclude

> otherwise from the GI.)

A GI in the mid 60s is not high. Besides, its safe to say that

refined fructose is just as likely to cause diabetes as refined

sucrose and HFCS.

> >being insulin resistant would also result in a

> >less muscular and therefore less healthy physique. I'm skeptical.

>

> Given that insulin-resistant people are overweight and in terrible

shape,

> why are you skeptical?

I believe I was adressing the health of hunter-gatherers at this

point. I don't think they were overweight, but every bit as fit as

the hunter-gatherers that WAP found. .

> >I

> >think its more likely that, as WAP observed, healthy primitives are

> >very insulin sensitive, and modern diets ruin that.

>

> Perhaps I'm missing something, but this is just semantics. If you

call the

> insulin response of healthy primitives your baseline normal value,

then

> people with impaired insulin responses from modern diets are

insulin resistant.

Right. I think we both agree on that point. Where we differ is on the

cause. I don't think that modern diets cause insulin resistance via

their actions on the blood sugar level, but rather by how they damage

endothelial function.

> >Once you suffer from diabetes (preclinical or not), then it becomes

> >important to find an alternative way to keep your blood sugars low,

> >and I think low-carbing is the best option. But healthy people have

> >an even better option - insulin.

>

> Again, I don't understand what you're getting at.

My analogy is breaking your leg. Once you've done that, you have to

treat the injury by not doing an weight bearing exercise. A lifestyle

low on the 'weight bearing index' would be a good idea for such a

person. However, weight bearing activity does not cause broken bones -

in fact its protective.

Similarly, endothelial damage causes insulin resistance. That means

that no longer can the body regulate blood sugar efficiently. So the

best way to treat your endothelial injury is by cutting back on carbs

as well as sticking to the low glycemic ones. But if your endothelium

isn't injured, then enjoy those potatoes. They are a good and healthy

food.

[Guest guest]

>>>>

> >

> This is my understanding. Could someone please correct errors...

>>>On this list?

****Ha Ha! I might as well request corrections because I know I'm going to

get them anyway

>>>>I think that's a great post you wrote about nutritional deficiencies

and superoxide dimuntase So don't think I'm nitpicking you, I'm

just blaming the messenger

***Yeh, stroke me first before you nitpick...is that the gentle approach to

nitpicking? <bg>

>>>>I have some criticisms at this point:

***Ah...the fun begins!

Me:

> Here is an interesting article on the carnivore connection from the

beyond

> veg site: http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-

7k.shtml

> Has anyone read this? Does the selection for insulin resistant

genes during

> the ice age make sense to anyone?

J:

I don't get much into paleodiet research, because its an inherantly

unrigorous form of science.

****Maybe, but unrigorous does not equate with " wrong. " There may be

something to the Carnivore Connection theory that bears looking at, whether

it's supported by rigorous studies or not. I've provided some info on one

carnivorous species that *may* have insulin resistance as an adaptive

mechanism to a carnivorous diet. I have read other data that *might* suggest

this in another carnivorous species. I believe it's still just a hypothesis,

but it makes sense to me, which means I'm not ruling it out at this point.

Does it not make sense to you? Why would humans who may have consumed low/no

carb diets historically NOT have an adaptive mechanism to allow them to

maintain normal blood glucose? How else could they do it? Where they better

at converting gluconeogenic amino acids and glycerol to glucose than we are?

Consider this part of my last post on this:

" Therefore, peripheral resistance to insulin may represent an adaptive

mechanism that allows the

delivery of protein and fat to tissue while conserving blood glucose

levels. "

(from Canine and Feline Nutrition 2000 edition)

Would this not explain how an animal/human could be muscular while still

being insulin resistant?

>>>>But that does not mean I'm going to dodge the question. Knowing what

we know about insulin, being insulin resistant would also result in a

less muscular and therefore less healthy physique. I'm skeptical.

***How do you think carnivores deal with a no or very low carb diet?

>>>>I

think its more likely that, as WAP observed, healthy primitives are

very insulin sensitive, and modern diets ruin that.

***Did he state that specifically in NAPD? Sorry for asking, I still haven't

read it cover to cover. It's competing with about 20 other books on my

bedside

>>>>Once you suffer from diabetes (preclinical or not), then it becomes

important to find an alternative way to keep your blood sugars low,

and I think low-carbing is the best option. But healthy people have

an even better option - insulin. Take a glucose challenge test and

see how you do! hmm, I should make a glucose challenge test results

poll and we can all have them done!

***Hmmm...interesting thought, for some reason about a month or so ago, I

thought it was possible that I could be diabetic. I had a blood glucose test

done and it came back OK. Then it occurred to me that I was taking lipoic

acid regularly - duh! If I did have preclinical or even clinical diabetes,

it's quite possible the lipoic acid was keeping it under control. It is

actually used for this since it helps regulate blood glucose and is also

used to reduce or reverse diabetic induced neuropathies.

I'm not sure my insurance would cover an insulin challenge test just because

I want one, but it would be interesting to know the results!

Suze Fisher

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/

mailto:s.fisher22@...

[Guest guest]

At 09:19 PM 4/5/02 -0500, you wrote:

>There are a lot of things that affect the glycemic index reading - how the

>food is prepared (cooking, mechanical state), what other foods it's eaten

>with. I think is it more complicated than just aiming for something with

>index of 40 vs something that is 60.

>

>Kris , gardening in northwest Ohio

I agree from my own body's reactions since going more raw with higher protein

and fat. Cravings for carbs are nearly gone. Going along with the book Lights

Out's grease your carbs to lower the glycemia in your body. A potato with

butter is fine but pasta and bread do not grow on trees. Its the refining of

sugar and grain in any form that is my enemy. Took me 13 years to figure it

out. Eliminating the sugar and grain didn't do it without the protein and fat

increase to balance.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

>>>>I agree from my own body's reactions since going more raw with higher

protein

and fat. Cravings for carbs are nearly gone. Going along with the book

Lights

Out's grease your carbs to lower the glycemia in your body. A potato with

butter is fine but pasta and bread do not grow on trees. Its the refining of

sugar and grain in any form that is my enemy. Took me 13 years to figure it

out. Eliminating the sugar and grain didn't do it without the protein and

fat

increase to balance.

****Wanita, I imagine it's because protein, and particularly fat is needed

to provide energy when your diet is low or no carb. There are some amino

acids that can be converted to glucose, although I believe it's not as

efficient as fat or carbs for energy. Especially short-chain fats from

animal sources and the more saturated plant oils such as coconut (and palm?

i think).

Suze Fisher

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/

mailto:s.fisher22@...

[Guest guest]

On Thu, 04 Apr 2002 20:05:19 -0000 " justinbond " <justin_bond@...>

writes:

>

>

> On Thu, 04 Apr 2002 17:53:48 -0000 " justinbond " <justin_bond@h...>

> writes:

>

> 1. Fiber. This is the biggie. The more fiber, the less digestible a

> food is, and the lower on the glycemic index. We take this to mean

> that fiber is good, but I don't think so.

>

>

Bianca,

*****At the risk of being flamed by a few folks, , I would

have to

> agree with you here. Fiber is highly overrated, even when properly

> prepared. I learned this quite by accident when I first ate a

largely raw

> diet that contained very little fiber. Hmmm...from what I have read

the

> Eskimos and Masai were not suffering from constipation, which is

usually

> a precursor to the " diseases of civilization " . Good point. Thanks

for

> bringing it up.

>,

>well thanks for the support. I know most of the glycemic index people

>are on " our side " (i.e. that fat is good), so I'm kind of loathe to

>bring these points up. Just talking about glycemic index frames

>nutritional debates around carbs not being inherantly wonderful.

++++++++++Bianca again,

You are welcome. Over and over again I saw people who followed a diet

similar to mine and did just fine. And the healthiest groups that Dr.

Price referred to were not the ones with the highest intake of fiber but

rather animal foods.

<snip>

>,

>I'm getting very curious about differant cultures cultures

>(*groans*). How do the Masai's cultures differ from kefir etc...

+++++++++++Bianca,

I too would be interested in this topic.

> ,

6. Gelatinization. When foods are cooked the starches gelatinize

and

> this makes them more digestible because the enzymes have easier

> access.

>

>

> ****This is true of starches, it is not true of cooked animal foods,

> where the opposite effect occurs.

I'd be interested to do some reading about that. Does heat denature

proteins in a way that makes them harder to digest, or is it just

that some of the enzymes like the lipases are being destroyed?

++++++++Bianca,

My understanding is that both occur. Maybe I should stop being lazy and

do a little research here :-)

[Guest guest]

On Thu, 4 Apr 2002 21:59:39 -0500 " Suze Fisher " <s.fisher22@...>

writes:

^^^^^^Let me play devil's advocate and list some things that might

indicate

fiber is a good thing.

1. The physiological effect of cleansing the colon. Even wild carnivores

consume grass and other fibrous material that result in the expulsion of

worms or other parasites (as I posted recently).

++++++Alright I'll bite :-) In my post I referred to a *low* fiber diet,

not a *no* fiber diet. Unless I've misread, wild carnivores, while eating

some fiber, by no stretch of the imagination have a high fiber diet.

2. The production of SCFAs (short chain fatty acids) such as butyric acid

(the major fatty acid in butter and where it's name is derived), which

are

produced by colonic fermentation of (mostly) moderately fermentable

fibers

(examples are rice bran and beet pulp). SCFAs make up the primary energy

source for colonocytes. They have other beneficial effects on the GI

tract,

but I don't have time to cover all of them.

******easily achievable with a *small* amount of fiber in the diet. As

for me, I eat a cup of berries daily and raw coconut meat.

Some studies done on dogs (and

humans, I'd imagine?) have shown that gastro intestinal disease can be

managed (or improved) by using the right kind of fiber. Moderately

fermentable fiber had the greatest benefit according to " Canine and

Feline

Nutrition " (2000)

******can't speak from the studies on this one but I would not

automatically assume that the studies have been done on humans. Same goes

for the managing or improving of gastro intestinal disease. Can you point

to any human studies? As to my own clinical experience, intestinal

disorders were routinely *cured* with low fiber diets.

3. Proper jaw formation and clean teeth. The following is an interesting

tidbit I picked up from the Cohen book ( " Health and the Rise of

Civilization " Yale University Press: 1989) Cohen discusses the *texture*

and

*composition* of food that hunter/gatherers historically consumed and how

the roughness of much of the diet kept their teeth clean and developed

their

jaw bones and muscles in childhood.

******Hmmmm.....I specifically remember Dr. Price making the opposite

observation, that unclean teeth were nevertheless quite healthy. Besides,

what about groups who had low fiber diets and great teeth?

<snip>

-----------------------------

There's other stuff, such as some anti-cancer properties of phytates, but

I

think there are too many potential (or real) benefits to fit into one

email!

*********There are many foods that have anti-cancer properties with very

little or any fiber. Raw milk, raw meat, garlic, red clover, even crude

echinacea extract. It is not necessary to ingest lots of fiber to enjoy

this benefit.

We know that *some* primitive cultures didn't consume much (if any) plant

fiber, such as the Masai and Eskimos as was already mentioned, but what

about the rest? And, could these groups have *adapted* to a low fiber

diet,

or, could the *whole* picture of their diet, lifestyle, emotional and

spiritual health and the health of the environment in which they lived,

have

collectively played a part in their good health? So that, an American of

European heritage living today with a completely different heritage,

lifestyle, spiritual and emotional profile, and one living with a toxin

burden perhaps unknown to any of the primitive groups WAP studied, mimic

such a diet with equally good results?

*******It would appear so - though we don't have a body of evidence such

as NAPD available. On the other hand, the body of evidence for the high

fiber folks seems to be a bit on the negative side.

Further, Dr. Price observed that the groups with the highest amounts of

fiber in their diet enjoyed less health than the other groups *even in

that day and age*. I see no reason why it would be any different today

even if we grant the argument that today's situation is a lot less ideal

than Dr. Price's day. If in the *ideal* conditions high fiber diets did

not produce optimal health it would seem that would be more so the case

today.

Even leaving out the Eskimos (very low fiber) and the Masai (no fiber) we

still have nothing that approaches what is going on today, and the NT

groups who did consume a lot of fiber are not the paragons of health as

Price pointed out, although certainly far healthier than people today.

Bianca

[Guest guest]

>>>>And the healthiest groups that Dr.

Price referred to were not the ones with the highest intake of fiber but

rather animal foods.

****Not necessarily, according to this quote from the WAPF web site:

" The healthiest tribe that Price studied was the Dinkas, a Sudanese tribe on

the western bank of the Nile. They were not as tall as the cattle-herding

Neurs groups but they were physically better proportioned and had greater

strength. Their diet consisted mainly of fish and cereal grains. "

http://www.westonaprice.org/traditional_diets/out_of_africa.html

(Same diet as a Gaelic group he studied on the Isle of , BTW)

Even though they may have prepared the grains via soaking, sprouting, or

whatever, there certainly would still be quite a bit of fiber, although

perhaps not the " highest intake " as you mentioned.

Suze Fisher

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/

mailto:s.fisher22@...

[Guest guest]

On Mon, 8 Apr 2002 17:14:53 -0400 " Suze Fisher " <s.fisher22@...>

writes:

>>>>And the healthiest groups that Dr.

Price referred to were not the ones with the highest intake of fiber but

rather animal foods.

****Not necessarily, according to this quote from the WAPF web site:

" The healthiest tribe that Price studied was the Dinkas, a Sudanese tribe

on

the western bank of the Nile. They were not as tall as the cattle-herding

Neurs groups but they were physically better proportioned and had greater

strength. Their diet consisted mainly of fish and cereal grains. "

http://www.westonaprice.org/traditional_diets/out_of_africa.html

(Same diet as a Gaelic group he studied on the Isle of , BTW)

Even though they may have prepared the grains via soaking, sprouting, or

whatever, there certainly would still be quite a bit of fiber, although

perhaps not the " highest intake " as you mentioned.

*******Suze,

No I don't believe they qualify as the " highest intake " as you say. Dr.

Price specifically mentions these grouos in his book and he does not

include the Dinkas.

This does raise an interesting point. I'm with Dr. Price when he speaks

of the health of various groups, but I have always been perplexed by

statements like the one above on the WAPF site. It seems to me that the

" proportion " comments are rather subjective in nature and don't really

amount to much of anything. Anyone else have any thoughts about this?

Bianca

[Guest guest]

>

>

> On Mon, 8 Apr 2002 17:14:53 -0400 " Suze Fisher " <s.fisher22@v...>

> writes:

> >>>>And the healthiest groups that Dr.

> Price referred to were not the ones with the highest intake of

fiber but

> rather animal foods.

>

>

> ****Not necessarily, according to this quote from the WAPF web site:

>

> " The healthiest tribe that Price studied was the Dinkas, a Sudanese

tribe

> on

> the western bank of the Nile. They were not as tall as the cattle-

herding

> Neurs groups but they were physically better proportioned and had

greater

> strength. Their diet consisted mainly of fish and cereal grains. "

> http://www.westonaprice.org/traditional_diets/out_of_africa.html

>

> (Same diet as a Gaelic group he studied on the Isle of , BTW)

>

> Even though they may have prepared the grains via soaking,

sprouting, or

> whatever, there certainly would still be quite a bit of fiber,

although

> perhaps not the " highest intake " as you mentioned.

>

> *******Suze,

> No I don't believe they qualify as the " highest intake " as you say.

Dr.

> Price specifically mentions these grouos in his book and he does not

> include the Dinkas.

Yes he does, page 150 on the softcover 6th edition: " Dinkas,

Jebelein, Dudan. This tribe lives on the Nile. Its members are not as

tall as the Neurs. They are physically better proportioned and have

greater strength. They use fish from the Nile and cereals for their

chief diet. They decorate their bodies profusely with scars. "

I feel like some hebrew scholar poring over the Talmud!

[Guest guest]

> " The healthiest tribe that Price studied was the Dinkas, a Sudanese tribe

on

> the western bank of the Nile. They were not as tall as the cattle-herding

> Neurs groups but they were physically better proportioned and had greater

> strength. Their diet consisted mainly of fish and cereal grains. "

> http://www.westonaprice.org/traditional_diets/out_of_africa.html

Strange, very strange. I just watched a documentary on the Dinka tribe a

couple of weeks ago, and they were heavily dairy focused. I wonder if they

changed in the intervening period or what's going on...?