 |  |
 |  |  | |||||||
|
--- Speaking of Quackery, there is no science standing behind the Glycemic
I heard that the glycemic index is meant for use in the lab, not by the consumer. Something about the type of carbs not being the whole story. The amount matters too. Some people avoid healthy foods like carrots because of the index.
You are correct, nature boy. It must be a first for you! Seriously, the GI is an abstraction, really - "nutritional science" at its worst. Even the glycemic load does not mean much, if anything. As Dr. Spindler of caloric restriction fame has noted, the calorie resticted animals have an intense insulin spike when they eat, whereas the control animals have moderately high levels that "hang around" for much longer periods of time. This seems to be the important difference. It is an issue of dysfunction at the cellular and molecular level, and as recent studies at those levels have indicated, oxidative stress appears to be the underlying mechanism (turning on what should be kept off and turning off what should be kept on). Think of a light switch. Oxidative stress turns the body's lights on during the day, when they are not needed, and turns them off in the evening, when they are needed.
On 23 Sep 2005 17:03:07 -0700, Mr-Natural-Health > There is no science standing behind the Glycemic Index. Correct. All bullshit and smoke and mirrors, paid for by grain companies. > Show me the proof that the Scientific Method has proved that the > Glycemic index even exists, or that there is any agreement on what the > specific rating for a specific food item actually is or has validity to > it whatsoever. Check out http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/gi.pdf -- 223/174.7/180
In article <5m2Ze.102019$XF3.55678@fe29.usenetserver.com>, Ignoramus19652 > On 23 Sep 2005 17:03:07 -0700, Mr-Natural-Health > > > There is no science standing behind the Glycemic Index. > > Correct. All bullshit and smoke and mirrors, paid for by grain companies. > > > Show me the proof that the Scientific Method has proved that the > > Glycemic index even exists, or that there is any agreement on what the > > specific rating for a specific food item actually is or has validity to > > it whatsoever. Th scientist who researched The Specific Carbohydrate Diet did not support the Glycemic Index because it never ditinguished between mono and disaccharide carbohydrates. On that diet inusulin spike is not the concern, kt is digestability. > > Check out > > http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/gi.pdf -- Diva ****** There is no substitute for the right food
On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 09:33:58 -0400, Carol Frilegh > In article <5m2Ze.102019$XF3.55678@fe29.usenetserver.com>, > Ignoramus19652 > >> On 23 Sep 2005 17:03:07 -0700, Mr-Natural-Health >> >> > There is no science standing behind the Glycemic Index. >> >> Correct. All bullshit and smoke and mirrors, paid for by grain companies. >> >> > Show me the proof that the Scientific Method has proved that the >> > Glycemic index even exists, or that there is any agreement on what the >> > specific rating for a specific food item actually is or has validity to >> > it whatsoever. > > Th scientist who researched The Specific Carbohydrate Diet did not > support the Glycemic Index because it never ditinguished between mono > and disaccharide carbohydrates. On that diet inusulin spike is not the > concern, kt is digestability. Makes sense to me. i >> >> Check out >> >> http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/gi.pdf > -- 223/174.7/180 1 2 3 Next » Related Discussion: Re: A diabetic trying to get private medical insurance (3 posts) USA and other countries should ban importation of Ayurvedic medications that pose health risk (1 posts) Is Your Home a Healthy Home? (2 posts) Diet Coke with Splenda!!!! A WINNER!!!! (19 posts) Top Discussions From Our Archives Health, financial freedom-Free DVD - Don't miss out on pre-ground level Other Discussion Categories Diabetes Symptoms
|
| ||||||||
 |  |
