Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

Is a High Glycemic Index Always a Bad Thing?

s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 11:29:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
It's a big thing to conclude, that, all dietary ills stem from easily digestible carbohydrates; and, many studies have been found to support this conclusion.

Yet, does one size fit all? Is it safe to say obesity is merely determined by how quickly one's body converts food into sugar? Is it, also, possible, that, a person may gain weight by converting food into energy too slowly, creating an energy deficit for muscle fibers that require a constant feeding of glucose in order to stay active? As a person's energy levels decline, not from a lack of food but the body's inability to deliver it to the muscle quickly enough, so does one's desire to exercise, creating a sluggish, immobile person prone to weight gain.... Just a thought. Maybe I'm wrong.
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 5:48:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Everything is bad, people are bad. The whole world should be rid of the virus called people.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 6:28:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/28/2012 5:48:22 PM, sadolite wrote:
Everything is bad, people are bad. The whole world should be rid of the virus called people.

Doing so would only cause the world to reinvent it. Nature can't be too perfect.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 8:51:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Scientists use GL (Glycemic Load) to measure the glygemic index properly per serving.

"The glycemic load (GL) is a relatively new way to assess the impact of carbohydrate consumption that takes the glycemic index into account, but gives a fuller picture than does glycemic index alone. A GI value tells you only how rapidly a particular carbohydrate turns into sugar. It doesn't tell you how much of that carbohydrate is in a serving of a particular food. You need to know both things to understand a food's effect on blood sugar. That is where glycemic load comes in. The carbohydrate in watermelon, for example, has a high GI. But there isn't a lot of it, so watermelon's glycemic load is relatively low. A GL of 20 or more is high, a GL of 11 to 19 inclusive is medium, and a GL of 10 or less is low." http://www.mendosa.com...

That being said, high glycemic food isn't only increasing the risk of gaining weight, but there's also say, insulin resistance involved.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2012 11:20:22 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/24/2012 11:29:38 PM, s-anthony wrote:
It's a big thing to conclude, that, all dietary ills stem from easily digestible carbohydrates; and, many studies have been found to support this conclusion.

Yet, does one size fit all? Is it safe to say obesity is merely determined by how quickly one's body converts food into sugar? Is it, also, possible, that, a person may gain weight by converting food into energy too slowly, creating an energy deficit for muscle fibers that require a constant feeding of glucose in order to stay active? As a person's energy levels decline, not from a lack of food but the body's inability to deliver it to the muscle quickly enough, so does one's desire to exercise, creating a sluggish, immobile person prone to weight gain.... Just a thought. Maybe I'm wrong.

I think you're mistaken. The concern for high glycemic index foods is mostly the development of diabetes, not obesity.

High glycemic index foods break down into sugars very quickly, leading to huge spikes in sugar levels. Your body's response is to release insulin in order to take the sugar into the cells. If this occurs consistently on a day-to-day basis, with huge sugar fluctuations and subsequently, constant exposure to high levels of insulin, your cells will start to develop a degree of resistance to insulin release, leading to the development of diabetes.

High glycemic index foods are no better and no worse than other foods for obesity. All that matters is calorie content and exercise. All excess food eventually gets turned into fat if unused, regardless of how quickly it is broken down (Unless of course, the food takes so long to break down that it just leaves the GI tract).
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2012 11:56:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/28/2012 8:51:07 PM, Mirza wrote:
That being said, high glycemic food isn't only increasing the risk of gaining weight, but there's also say, insulin resistance involved.

Carbohydrates do not in and of themselves cause a rapid rise in serum levels of glucose, rather yet, carbohydrates and the body's ability to convert food into sugar. That is primarily the reason glycemic indices are not consistent.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2012 1:23:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/29/2012 11:20:22 AM, Kleptin wrote:
I think you're mistaken. The concern for high glycemic index foods is mostly the development of diabetes, not obesity.

Do you think, that, it's merely a coincidence there's a strong correlation between diabetes and obesity? Even though a correlation is far from being conclusive, both diabetes and obesity use complimentary mechanisms. Firstly, high levels of glucose are toxic to bodily tissues; so, either the glucose is used as energy or it's stored as glycogen in the liver or muscle or glycerol in adipose tissue; this in itself leads to adiposity, considering modern diets consist of inordinate amounts of carbohydrate consumption. Secondly, in adult-onset diabetes, as muscle fibers become insensitive to insulin, more and more glucose, in the form of glycerol, is stored in adipose tissue.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2012 9:52:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/30/2012 1:23:25 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 5/29/2012 11:20:22 AM, Kleptin wrote:
I think you're mistaken. The concern for high glycemic index foods is mostly the development of diabetes, not obesity.

Do you think, that, it's merely a coincidence there's a strong correlation between diabetes and obesity? Even though a correlation is far from being conclusive, both diabetes and obesity use complimentary mechanisms. Firstly, high levels of glucose are toxic to bodily tissues; so, either the glucose is used as energy or it's stored as glycogen in the liver or muscle or glycerol in adipose tissue; this in itself leads to adiposity, considering modern diets consist of inordinate amounts of carbohydrate consumption. Secondly, in adult-onset diabetes, as muscle fibers become insensitive to insulin, more and more glucose, in the form of glycerol, is stored in adipose tissue.

I don't consider it a coincidence, I acknowledge a correlation. It's just that the intake of large quantities of simple sugars itself has a much stronger correlation to the development of diabetes than the development of obesity.

In other words: Yes, a match can either fire a cannon or set fire to a building. However, what's the use saying that a match can set fire to a building when someone is shooting a flamethrower at your couch?

If you were to speak about the development of obesity, it would be more prudent to focus (as I said previously) on the fact that people are simply consuming foods with high calorie content and refusing to exercise.

The fact remains that if the discussion is on the dangers of a high glycemic index food, the consequence of interest should be diabetes, not obesity.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2012 10:02:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/29/2012 11:56:38 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 5/28/2012 8:51:07 PM, Mirza wrote:
That being said, high glycemic food isn't only increasing the risk of gaining weight, but there's also say, insulin resistance involved.

Carbohydrates do not in and of themselves cause a rapid rise in serum levels of glucose, rather yet, carbohydrates and the body's ability to convert food into sugar. That is primarily the reason glycemic indices are not consistent.

Actually, I think it is more accurate to say that the primary reason why glycemic indices are not consistent from person to person has to do with the innate ability to take existing blood sugar into the cells.

Glycemic index is measured by taking the AUC of sugar levels within 2 hours. Most people start breaking down carbs within half an hour and produce insulin within seconds to minutes of the sugars being detected in the bloodstream.

By the nature of the GI calculation, the rapidity with which the body digests the food plays a big role at the beginning of the graph whereas insulin resistance can significantly increase the latter end of the graph (where the values are highest). The AUC would be more significantly impacted by a 10% increase in a person's insulin resistance than a 10% increase in the rapidity of carbohydrate breakdown.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 8:25:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/30/2012 9:52:22 PM, Kleptin wrote:
If you were to speak about the development of obesity, it would be more prudent to focus (as I said previously) on the fact that people are simply consuming foods with high calorie content and refusing to exercise.

Considering all calories as equal, carbohydrates, alone, promote over-consumption (at the rate at which they're digested, gastric emptying occurs much sooner;) and, over-consumption would increase the incidence of obesity.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2012 12:59:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/31/2012 8:25:00 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 5/30/2012 9:52:22 PM, Kleptin wrote:
If you were to speak about the development of obesity, it would be more prudent to focus (as I said previously) on the fact that people are simply consuming foods with high calorie content and refusing to exercise.

Considering all calories as equal, carbohydrates, alone, promote over-consumption (at the rate at which they're digested, gastric emptying occurs much sooner;) and, over-consumption would increase the incidence of obesity.

That's untrue. Carbohydrates themselves do not cause over-consumption, that is a decision on the part of the one consuming them. I grant you that simple carbohydrates are both emptied and digested quicker, leading to a lessened sense of satiety and fulfillment, and the subsequent *want* to consume more, however, to say that they ALONE are responsible for over-consumption is a bit of a stretch.

If we're going by the nature of the food type alone, however, I still don't think that's true. Fats, while they do digest slower, empty at the same rate, especially oils. This leads to the same lessened sense of satiety. Combine this with the facts that A) Fats contain 9 kC per gram vs 4kC per gram for carbohydrates, and the fact that the biological mind considers fats far more "delicious" than simple carbohydrates, and you have a recipe for disaster.

Furthermore, understand that most "addictive" carbohydrate foods are usually a combination of both fats and carbs.

I maintain that the view that high-glycemic carbs are solely responsible for obesity is far too myopic, and that the cause of obesity is much more general: Overeating and underactivity.

I also maintain that if we are looking to blame something exclusively on high-glycemic carbs, it should be Diabetes.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2012 11:41:29 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/2/2012 12:59:27 PM, Kleptin wrote:
That's untrue. Carbohydrates themselves do not cause over-consumption, that is a decision on the part of the one consuming them. I grant you that simple carbohydrates are both emptied and digested quicker, leading to a lessened sense of satiety and fulfillment, and the subsequent *want* to consume more, however, to say that they ALONE are responsible for over-consumption is a bit of a stretch.

I agree in saying carbohydrates, alone, encourage over-consumption is a bit of a stretch; but, if taken in context, I said "considering all calories as equal." I have no disagreement with a person's will power over-riding one's desire to eat, but the comparison was not made between carbohydrates and one's will power but, rather yet, the inability for carbohydrates to satiate in comparison with fats and proteins.

If we're going by the nature of the food type alone, however, I still don't think that's true. Fats, while they do digest slower, empty at the same rate, especially oils. This leads to the same lessened sense of satiety. Combine this with the facts that A) Fats contain 9 kC per gram vs 4kC per gram for carbohydrates, and the fact that the biological mind considers fats far more "delicious" than simple carbohydrates, and you have a recipe for disaster.

This is not something I've pulled out of my hat. It's common dietary knowledge: fats and proteins take much longer to digest than do carbohydrates, delaying gastric emptying. On average, when carbohydrates are consumed they pass through the stomach in around thirty minutes; as to where, fats and proteins average at least two hours, if not longer.

Yet, to say fats tend to be more palatable is merely a matter for debate, with most evolutionary anthropologists theorizing the reason carbohydrates stimulate the reward centers of our brains is they are more efficient at providing immediate energy.

I maintain that the view that high-glycemic carbs are solely responsible for obesity is far too myopic, and that the cause of obesity is much more general: Overeating and underactivity.

I do not suppose high glycemic carbohydrate is a lone player in the incidence of obesity but only one out of many.