subscribe Signup for our Newsletter expand Expand Browser
Calorie Count Blog

What is the Glycemic Index?


By +Rachel Berman on Feb 23, 2013 10:00 AM in Tips & Updates

By Andrea Stewart, RD

The Glycemic Index (GI) is not new and has remained controversial among health professionals. Last month, a study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, found that a diet with a high-glycemic load - a diet low in fiber and high in processed foods - was linked to a greater risk of developing type II diabetes. While this is consistent with past research, is utilizing the Glycemic Index an appropriate and effective way of managing blood sugar or helping to ward off diabetes? Let’s take a closer look.

 

What is the Glycemic Index?

The GI is a measure of how certain foods, particularly carbohydrates, affect blood sugar levels. Foods with a higher GI ranking are said to cause a rapid increase in blood sugar, requiring more insulin secretion by your body to usher that sugar into your cells to use for energy. This is followed by a dramatic drop of blood sugar which can leave you feeling hungrier, sooner. A food with a lower GI ranking is said to slow the digestion and distribution of sugar into the blood, giving way to prolonged periods of fullness and satisfaction.

Of course, the repercussions go beyond your hunger levels. Eating too many foods that have a higher GI ranking may put too much work on your pancreas, the organ which secretes insulin, and over time that can set you up for insulin resistance. That means, your body doesn’t respond to insulin as it should, resulting in poor blood glucose control and altered fat metabolism. Insulin resistance is not only a contributing factor for type II diabetes, but also for obesity, stroke, high blood pressure and heart disease. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention shows that close to 25.8 million people, or 8.3% of the U.S. population, have diabetes, while almost 7 million people remain undiagnosed.

 

The Highs and Lows

Higher GI ranking-foods include table sugar, refined flour, many shelf stable crackers, pastries, desserts, candy, sodas, sweetened beverages, and certain low fiber fruits and vegetables.

Lower GI ranking-foods include beans, nuts, fiber rich vegetables & fruit, most dairy and cheese, meat, fish and unrefined complex carbohydrates.

Seems like a no-brainer, right? Focusing on low-GI foods seems to focus mostly on foods that are naturally higher in fiber. Doing so can help protect against insulin resistance, your risk for developing diseases, as well as promoting weight loss.

But it’s not as simple as it appears. Firstly, you’d need to remember the GI ranking for each food or combinations of foods. The ranking changes depending on these combinations as well as the ripeness of a vegetable or fruit (ie. a ripe banana contains more sugar than one that's green). In fact, some low GI foods are actually less nutritious than high GI foods. For example, one slice of a common name brand supreme pizza as well as a leading brand vanilla cake with frosting have a lower GI ranking than an average sized baked potato, small bowl of wholegrain wheat-barley cereal, or watermelon Harvard Health Publications Glycemic Index chart. There’s no reason those lower GI foods should be chosen over the latter more nutritious options. 

 

The Bottom Line

There is much more required to healthy eating and weight management than the GI ranking system alone.

While it is absolutely important to understand how certain foods affect your blood sugar, you don’t want to restrict nutrient dense foods just because they have a higher GI ranking. The emphasis must be on choosing the right types of carbohydrates and limiting simple, nonnutritive carbs, such as table sugar, high sugar granola bars, desserts, most refined flours, sodas and sweetened beverages that contribute little to zero nutrition. The best way to keep your blood sugar stable is with small frequent meals consisting of a small serving of complex carbohydrates, a lean protein and some colorful produce. The combination of these foods will help keep you feeling fuller longer and your blood sugars more stable throughout the day.  This will keep you satisfied, content and not looking for the next sugar high.

 

We want to hear from you! Do you apply the GI Index to your diet? Why or why not?

Andrea Stewart, RD is a registered dietitian who is passionate about helping others filter through the endless nutrition information available so they can be their healthiest. Andrea places a huge emphasis on eating a colorful, whole foods diet as a primary method for disease prevention and wellness. For more information go to Andrea’s website, follow her on Facebook, or Twitter

 



Comments


I don't because it has always seemed like to much work--thanks for the Harvard GI list, I saved it so maybe I can get started.  I am doing South Beach and lost 21lbs in 6 weeks but seem to have hit a plateau!!



I don't because like the person before me said it seemed like too much work.  But I know a woman who is 66 years old and was diagnosed as being borderline diabetic and it runs in her family.  She only eats low GI foods and without counting calories or keeping a diary has lost 20 kgs an now her glucose levels are within normal levels.  she never eats high GI food...ever.  She has researched the subject and says she doesn't feel deprived. She feels she eats normally but never has things like cake or white bread etc...she looks great for her age and has lost the weight as well.  Which is more than I can say for myself.  However I did lose 20 kgs a few years ago without eating low GI but simply by keeping a diary and eating 1200 calories a day and excersising regularly. I allowed myself an occasional treat as long as I was within my 1200 calorie limit and one day a week I ate healthy but didn't write my food down.   I'm in a slump now.  I'll get there again. :) Thanks for the great articles.



I will look into this... I know there's a book that makes the GI diet easier... My gf followed it and lost 20lbs... For myself, I find no matter what Im always hungry, get shaky etc... Thank you for the info! I will give this a try...


I've actually been reading a lot about this lately and have been trying to incorporate it into my diet. I've noticed that my blood sugar tends to dip in the afternoon and wondered if eating lower GI foods wuld help (I also added in a afternoon low GI snack). I don't obsessively check GI levels before eating something, but just follow the general trend. So far so good!



I would not consider the glycemic index "controversial."  It is a science-based eating plan rather than some fad. All of the South Beach books are based on it, as is The Zone Diet series. If you do the Paleolithic diet you will also practically be on South Beach or Zone. To make it less complicated, just eliminate the worst high GI offenders: anything with sugar or HFCS and processed grains, white bread, etc. It isn't (or doesn't have to be) complicated. (P.S. I lost 42 pounds on a hybrid of the three theories mentioned above.)



I have lost 7lbs in 2 weeks by not eating carbs/sugar, and following a low glycemic diet. I truly believe it is carbohydrates that drives fat. If you increase your fat in take and lower your carbs and sugar, you are bound to lose weight, and will feel satisfied. Instead of using carbs for energy, and storing some of it as fat, your body will burn fat! Trust me it works. CARBS=FAT!



I've gotta disagree with the whole "carbs = fat" thing. There's absolutely no evidence to support such a statement. Eating more than you burn = fat. Now that has some science to back it up. Stop demonizing entire macronutrient groups. It's so unnecessary, and it perpetuates a myth with absolutely no basis in reality.

As for Low GI dieting, it has been the key for me in getting my type 2 diabetes under control over the last year. I didn't follow any particular diet, I just chose my foods wisely, and replaced some high GI meal components with lower GI counterparts (switched white potatoes with sweet potatoes, eat apples or strawberries instead of bananas, whole wheat instead of white flour, etc.).

100lbs lost, a normal blood glucose range, and I even eat chocolate and ice cream every now and then. ;) So much for carbs = fat.



I use it as it was recommended when you have adrenal fatigue. It does help me from feeling tired and shaky hours later after I've had pancakes. It's not as much fun but I feel so much better. So when I go out to eat I stick to low glycemic foods.



I don't think that is the most important factor, although I do think it matters. I honestly believe if you look at the nutritional content of a given food it matters more. You just keep things like ripe fruit in moderation. The food that has no nutritional benefit, that is the food you eliminate. You also have to keep the calories in mind. The fact that most vegetables, are high in nutrition, low in calories and also low in the glycemic index just shows they need to be the bulk of what you eat.



 Any of these plans will get you there. It is not any more difficult than counting calories. Followed the Zone Plan for a long time and lost 25 lb. (and kept it off) and still very much keep the glycemic index in mind when choosing foods. It was the first plan where I did not feel starved all the time, quite the contrary. Lost my sweet tooth, and all cravings for sweet pastries and pasta. Have more energy and no 4 o'clock slump. But keep in mind that the carbs are not the whole story. These diet plans always have small amounts of protein and even smaller amounts of fats with all meals and snacks. It is this that mitigates the effects of the carbs and keeps you feeling energized and like you have had enough. It takes about 2 weeks for your body to adjust and cravings for white flour products to vanish. A much better eating plan than the low fat ones.



Comment Removed

Comment Removed

When I started my weight loss journey I was a big bread eater. I ate a lot of white bread and pasta. I quit all white bread and pasta and gave up all sweets. I did that because I was also pre-diabetic and it was really hard the first two or three weeks. At that time I was not counting calories and I ate all the fruit I wanted and ate some whole grains. I still lost a lot because of what my diet had been before. It is really tough to give up all that quick sugar, it is so addictive it isn't funny. It might be easier and the cravings less intense to go off all fruits and grains at first. Today I was watching a taped show on Dr Oz about the DASH diet and they recommended giving up all fruit, dairy and grains the first two weeks to help with that sugar craving. I just don't think there is any easy way to come off of it. I never took drugs, but it has to be similar to a addict coming off of a drug. It is really really hard at first.  After 3 years I do occasionally eat some pizza or a few bites of cake or some other small thing with refined flour or sugar, but I would never go back to the way I ate before. The way you feel off that stuff is so much better than eating it felt.



Comment Removed

I have never consciously used G.I. or G.L. but in looking at the chart, it seems that my current diet is relatively low and compared to my "before CC" diet it is quite low.  The blood readings for insulin and blood sugar were dramatically improved between May 2012 and November 2012.  The major changes were a de-emphasis on breakfasts of bagels with cream cheese and lox (and I do miss them) and much smaller portions of potatoes and rice in combination with more black, red, and pinto beans and more green leafy vegetables.



I eliminated all bread and baked goods (except an occasional slice of whole grain), all starchy foods, white rice, sugar and sweets, potatoes (occasional yam or sweet potato). I use Splenda for sweetner or dried fruit, eat plenty of legumes (lentil and pea soups are my favorites), nuts, protein (all types), eggs and dairy or dairy substitute like almond or soy milk, vegetables and fruits.  In fact, since my husband wants a vegetarian diet, I've been cooking from a vegan cookbook and find my food cravings have disappeared. Before the change in diet, I became frantic with hunger as mealtime approached and couldn't stop from stuffing myself with anything quick and at hand while I made or found something to eat. By then I was full but had a plate full of food in front of me. Now I don't feel that hungry desperation. Generally, I feel better and don't miss the omitted foods one bit. 



I lost weight some time back using the Montignac method, which is a low GI diet what has been around since the 70s.  More recently, I was put on a restricted diet due to allergies, and lost a ridiculous amount very quickly.  Since being allowed my regular diet, I have gained about 10 of the 15 lbs I lost while on the severely restricted diet.  I have and still do typically eat a low GI diet and I don't count calories.  My husband always says a calorie is a calorie, but I do not believe this.  I think if people just don't eat a lot of processed foods, they can lose weight because the food they make doesn't have HFCS, sugars (unless they're making sweets) or preservatives.  But having said all this, prior to being put on appropriate thyroid medication for my autoimmune condition, eating less than 1500 calories a day and my low GI diet and walking a lot did not make a dent into my original higher weight.



This is a great article, Andrea.  

Thanks for bringing up the subject.  The GI diet is controversial and I don't recommend it to clients for a number of reasons. 

First, there is a much easier way obtain a healthy diet: Reducing or eliminating processed foods and increasing the amount of vegetables and fruit to at least 5 servings of whole, fresh plant foods per day(3 vegetables and 2 fruit) and eat only whole grains (not only bread and cereal, but include some actual grains in the diet). This automatically increases the amount of nutrients, antioxidants, phytochemicals and fiber in one's diet, decreases the amount  of low-nutrient, high-chemical  foods, and eliminates most of the confusion around diets and which one to follow. 

These guidelines are fast becoming the popular advise given by nutrition professionals to the average population.  The GI diet, although it was useful at one time, I believe will be soon be antiquated.  Not to mention, when my students (both online and in person) arrive at this simple yet healthy way of eating, they're always surprised by the level of health obtained from following these easy rules rather than a full-blown, complicated "diet".  

Second, the reasons for controversy over the GI diet are not well-known by the public.  I'll write some of them here: 

The GI is based on how high glucose levels rise after ingesting 50g of available carbohydrates of the test food (available = that which readily absorbs into the blood).  What most people don't know is that it takes different amounts of the test food to get 50 g of available carbohydrates. For example;  it takes 4 tbsp of sugar to get 50g of available carbohydrates but it takes 317 g of a potato,  897g of a carrot (7 cups shredded), and 636g of watermelon (4.5cups) to obtain the same amount of available carbohydrates*.  When it comes to the GI, we're not talking about equal amounts of foods here.  That should be enough of a concern right there. 

 Other reasons: 

  • When any other food is eaten in combination with a high GI food, it immediately changes the score.   
  • There is a high variation within and among subjects because everyone digests and absorbs at a different rate.  For example, White bread was measured to have a GI between 35 and 72 between subjects, instant mashed potatoes' rating was between 32 and 85*. 
  • Uncooked starches have a lower GI, cooked starches have a higher GI, but starch in food that is heated and then cooled has a lower GI*. (all this has to do with the breaking down and recrystallizing of the starch chain which will make it less available to the digestive enzymes). 
  • Finely milled particles have a higher GI (because the starch is more readily available to be digested by the enzymes) whereas toasting, freezing or defrosting lowers the GI*. 

 There's lots of variability in this diet and lots to remember if one is going to follow it correctly. This is why I say: just go with lots of fresh, unprocessed, vegetables and fruits with little to no cheese or sugary toppings; eat only whole grains; eat as few processed foods as possible, and cut down on all other added sugar.  

*Reference: "Nutrition Today" Volume 47, Number 5, September/October 2012

 

 



snooglies, if you google the book "Why We Get Fat" you will find plenty of evidence on how carbs drive insulin drives fat. Gary Taubes' book is a National Best Seller. Do the research before you negate this theory. 



Original Post by: lucifit

This is a great article, Andrea.  

Thanks for bringing up the subject.  The GI diet is controversial and I don't recommend it to clients for a number of reasons. 

First, there is a much easier way obtain a healthy diet: Reducing or eliminating processed foods and increasing the amount of vegetables and fruit to at least 5 servings of whole, fresh plant foods per day(3 vegetables and 2 fruit) and eat only whole grains (not only bread and cereal, but include some actual grains in the diet). This automatically increases the amount of nutrients, antioxidants, phytochemicals and fiber in one's diet, decreases the amount  of low-nutrient, high-chemical  foods, and eliminates most of the confusion around diets and which one to follow. 

These guidelines are fast becoming the popular advise given by nutrition professionals to the average population.  The GI diet, although it was useful at one time, I believe will be soon be antiquated.  Not to mention, when my students (both online and in person) arrive at this simple yet healthy way of eating, they're always surprised by the level of health obtained from following these easy rules rather than a full-blown, complicated "diet".  

Second, the reasons for controversy over the GI diet are not well-known by the public.  I'll write some of them here: 

The GI is based on how high glucose levels rise after ingesting 50g of available carbohydrates of the test food (available = that which readily absorbs into the blood).  What most people don't know is that it takes different amounts of the test food to get 50 g of available carbohydrates. For example;  it takes 4 tbsp of sugar to get 50g of available carbohydrates but it takes 317 g of a potato,  897g of a carrot (7 cups shredded), and 636g of watermelon (4.5cups) to obtain the same amount of available carbohydrates*.  When it comes to the GI, we're not talking about equal amounts of foods here.  That should be enough of a concern right there. 

 Other reasons: 

  • When any other food is eaten in combination with a high GI food, it immediately changes the score.   
  • There is a high variation within and among subjects because everyone digests and absorbs at a different rate.  For example, White bread was measured to have a GI between 35 and 72 between subjects, instant mashed potatoes' rating was between 32 and 85*. 
  • Uncooked starches have a lower GI, cooked starches have a higher GI, but starch in food that is heated and then cooled has a lower GI*. (all this has to do with the breaking down and recrystallizing of the starch chain which will make it less available to the digestive enzymes). 
  • Finely milled particles have a higher GI (because the starch is more readily available to be digested by the enzymes) whereas toasting, freezing or defrosting lowers the GI*. 

 There's lots of variability in this diet and lots to remember if one is going to follow it correctly. This is why I say: just go with lots of fresh, unprocessed, vegetables and fruits with little to no cheese or sugary toppings; eat only whole grains; eat as few processed foods as possible, and cut down on all other added sugar.  

*Reference: "Nutrition Today" Volume 47, Number 5, September/October 2012

 

 


I really appreciate that information. I never understood this before and it really makes a lot of sense.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U36XJaETbh8&list=SPfqQ99w WPyw_p4G1xTM92avTSyNt_V3lO

http://jackkruse.com/brain-gut-6-epi-paleo-rx/

While I don't think its necessary for everyone to go grain free many people find they have issues with grains.  I think its a good idea to trial at least 30 days without them to see if any issues clear up.

There are people like snooglies that do just fine keeping grains and starchy vegetables, but for some they drive cravings and a continuance of a cycle.  Its something I think everyone who has issues with weight should try.

Whole grains do indeed spike blood sugar and insulin less, but even most whole wheat bread is actually very refined and many contain HCFCs.  If you want to try and keep a low GI while still eating some starchy vegetables/grains than try the foods and measure your blood sugar.  Its really the only way to tell how your system reacts.

Some people have their blood sugar spike more and insulin spike more because their systems work differently.  For others they can eat larger amounts and they tend to have more activity/burn more calories and they don't end up fat.

The point of the Slim is Simple video is that the hormonal environment created by INSANE foods as described in the video leads to fat storage.  Its a bit simplified...there are certainly foods on the INSANE list that some people can eat more of without getting fat and that is in part based on their metabolic systems not being effected the same way as other people who do get fat.

There are other reasons for avoiding grains besides the GI such as the lectins that bind to minerals so you can't absorb them and such, but some grains as part of an otherwise nutrient dense diet shouldn't produce deficiencies and barring a really large spike in blood sugar and insulin may not be an issue for some people.

Sadly everyone has to figure out for themselves what foods do and do not cause issues.  There are numerous potential problems with various foods and people can't know whether a food causes issues without going without it for awhile.  There are people like Snooglies which have no issues with grains and people who do.  There are people who can't eat Seafood and people that can.   Same with eggs, nuts, etc... many of these food intolerances and issues are related to gut flora issues which is why GAPs and programs related to healing the gut help many people.  Sadly it isn't an easy thing to figure out whats best since it varies based on many different things.

I've covered many issues and I'm sure there will be some disagreement with some of it, but I hope someone found it useful. 



Raiken 37 I know you are right. I have a very good friend who's son after years of problems has just got diagnosed with some very strange food allergies that have affected his esophagus. He can't eat wheat, rye, corn, peanuts and that is just some of what they have figured out he is allergic to. It had almost closed off his esophagus. It is so true that we are all different. I know that wheat and milk are both fine for me and I am doing well with my blood sugar. My last A1C is 5.7. But you are right, we are all so different and just have to figure out our own bodies.



A much larger glycemic index database than the Harvard chart is at:

http://dietgrail.com/gid/ .



Original Post by: sotangerine

snooglies, if you google the book "Why We Get Fat" you will find plenty of evidence on how carbs drive insulin drives fat. Gary Taubes' book is a National Best Seller. Do the research before you negate this theory. 


"While it is true that insulin does helps store calories into our fat cells, it is not the only one. The most common mistake low-carbers make when they hit a fat loss stall is eating too much fat due to its neutral relationship with insulin.

Dietary fat and serum fatty acids can be repackaged and stored back into our fat cells via acylation-stimulating-protein (ASP) 1, 2, 3. ASP is produced by our adipocytes (fat cells) to serve as a plasma triglyceride clearance hormone removing excess lipids from our blood into our fat cells. This hormone is more potent at fat synthesis than insulin and can even augment insulin secretion.

This metabolic pathway requires no carbs to be ingested (independent of insulin) and is very efficient at keeping calories inside fat cells 1, 2, 3. In fact, dietary fat is the least energy taxing nutrient for fat storage compared to other macronutrients."

Quoted for ease of delivery and clarity.

Thanks for playing.



Original Post by: snooglies

Original Post by: sotangerine

snooglies, if you google the book "Why We Get Fat" you will find plenty of evidence on how carbs drive insulin drives fat. Gary Taubes' book is a National Best Seller. Do the research before you negate this theory. 


"While it is true that insulin does helps store calories into our fat cells, it is not the only one. The most common mistake low-carbers make when they hit a fat loss stall is eating too much fat due to its neutral relationship with insulin.

Dietary fat and serum fatty acids can be repackaged and stored back into our fat cells via acylation-stimulating-protein (ASP) 1, 2, 3. ASP is produced by our adipocytes (fat cells) to serve as a plasma triglyceride clearance hormone removing excess lipids from our blood into our fat cells. This hormone is more potent at fat synthesis than insulin and can even augment insulin secretion.

This metabolic pathway requires no carbs to be ingested (independent of insulin) and is very efficient at keeping calories inside fat cells 1, 2, 3. In fact, dietary fat is the least energy taxing nutrient for fat storage compared to other macronutrients."

Quoted for ease of delivery and clarity.

Thanks for playing.


I could probably find more...but at least according to this source your wrong.

http://josefbrandenburg.com/what-if-low-carb-is-wrong-does-a sp-prove-that-insulin-doesn%E2%80%99t-matter-and-that-its-ca lories-that-really-count/

ASP amount seems to be related to insulin levels.  If the insulin levels remain low which would be the case on a low carbohydrate diet the ASP levels would remain low.  Sure ASP works to put Triglycerides into storage...but it sounds like ASP is meant to get rid of excess Triglycerides.  It doesn't package them all into fat cells...only extras.

My Triglycerides on a low carbohydrate diet are around 50-70 which I'm pretty sure isn't excess.  This actually readily explains why when someone eats like crap after being on a diet they gain the weight back very fast.  The ASP working together with insulin create fat very fast.

Anyway ASP does very interesting, but I don't think its the big deal you are making it.



I tried to go low gi last month and the first week was great, I lost 5lbs. In the second week however I lost nothing although this was the least of my problems. I suffer from IBS and what no article or book I read mentioned is that a low gi diet would kick off my IBS symptoms so badly that I nearly passed out in pain. High fibre and low carb is not a good idea for IBS and just wanted to me to mention it in case another sufferer was thinking about this kind of diet.


Thats interesting as I've actually read of many people with IBS type issues being helped by low carbohydrate diets.  There are various issues that can pop up temporarily with low carbohydrate diets.

Its generally called low carb flu/atkins flu etc...Those issues are unrelated to IBS though..they are just general feelings of sickness because the body needs time to adapt to having less carbohydrates.

The body also excretes sodium and other electrolytes so you need to add some back in through a good bone broth.  Home made bone broth from grass-fed pastured bones being ideal or possibly meat broth first.  I've heard some people have issues with bone broth at first due to certain issues.

http://www.lovingourguts.com/gaps-basics-meat-broth-and-gaps -pate/

http://www.lovingourguts.com/the-difference-between-bone-bro th-and-meat-broth-or-stock/

A good meat or bone broth works or using unrefined sea salt like Real Salt, Himalayan Salt, and/or Celtic sea salt.

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/grain-pain/#axzz2Lq9eu0cD

http://www.eat-real-food-paleodietitian.com/paleo-diet-and-i bs.html

The second one seems to have a large amount of information on potential issues related to IBS and Paleo.  Apparently some people switching to Paleo eat large amounts of nuts which cause issues or large amounts of FODMAPs.  Article has details on FODMAPs.  Apparently its something else that aggravates IBS symptoms.

http://www.eat-real-food-paleodietitian.com/paleo-diet-and-f odmap.html

Apparently healing the gut is priority number one. 



http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/from- vegetarian-to-confirmed-carnivore-8505787.html

This is an interesting one.  Apparently this guy dealt with IBS by going complete carnivore.  Organ meats are important if you want to try that though.

Its certainly not necessary to go to that extreme though.  I haven't looked into it that much.



Original Post by: raiken3712

Original Post by: snooglies

Original Post by: sotangerine

snooglies, if you google the book "Why We Get Fat" you will find plenty of evidence on how carbs drive insulin drives fat. Gary Taubes' book is a National Best Seller. Do the research before you negate this theory. 


"While it is true that insulin does helps store calories into our fat cells, it is not the only one. The most common mistake low-carbers make when they hit a fat loss stall is eating too much fat due to its neutral relationship with insulin.

Dietary fat and serum fatty acids can be repackaged and stored back into our fat cells via acylation-stimulating-protein (ASP) 1, 2, 3. ASP is produced by our adipocytes (fat cells) to serve as a plasma triglyceride clearance hormone removing excess lipids from our blood into our fat cells. This hormone is more potent at fat synthesis than insulin and can even augment insulin secretion.

This metabolic pathway requires no carbs to be ingested (independent of insulin) and is very efficient at keeping calories inside fat cells 1, 2, 3. In fact, dietary fat is the least energy taxing nutrient for fat storage compared to other macronutrients."

Quoted for ease of delivery and clarity.

Thanks for playing.


I could probably find more...but at least according to this source your wrong.

http://josefbrandenburg.com/what-if-low-carb-is-wrong-does-a sp-prove-that-insulin-doesn%E2%80%99t-matter-and-that-its-ca lories-that-really-count/

ASP amount seems to be related to insulin levels.  If the insulin levels remain low which would be the case on a low carbohydrate diet the ASP levels would remain low.  Sure ASP works to put Triglycerides into storage...but it sounds like ASP is meant to get rid of excess Triglycerides.  It doesn't package them all into fat cells...only extras.

My Triglycerides on a low carbohydrate diet are around 50-70 which I'm pretty sure isn't excess.  This actually readily explains why when someone eats like crap after being on a diet they gain the weight back very fast.  The ASP working together with insulin create fat very fast.

Anyway ASP does very interesting, but I don't think its the big deal you are making it.


I wasn't making ASP into a "big deal". I was offering it as yet another hormone besides insulin that contributes to the effect of fat storage. There are plenty of others --

Hormone-sensitive lipase is just another example. Eating an abundance of fats will inhibit fat loss in the same way insulin inhibits fat loss during the brief post-prandial time periods.

And never mind the fact that protein stimulates the production of insulin just as readily as carbohydrates do.

If one were to really keep insulin levels low, they would have to abide by a low-protein, low-carb, high fat diet. I don't see anyone jumping on that bandwagon any time soon. And why should they? Insulin isn't the issue. Eating more calories than you burn is the issue.

The statement "carbs = fat" is a myth, it is untrue, and there is absolutely zero evidence to support that a diet that is not "low-carb" will cause weight gain.





There isn't evidence to support a diet that is not low carb will cause weight gain...I'll agree with that.  There is plenty of evidence to support the fact that many people find it easier to keep calories down with the combination of fat and protein providing satiety as opposed to using eating carbohydrates and low fat and protein to provide it.

Even one of the studies you posted before said the same.  Low carbohydrate diets with high fat produce better satiety results.  Higher satiety makes it easier to eat less calories automatically.  Low carb high fat moderate protein diets are not for everyone, but neither are high carb low fat diets.

There are a wide variety of diet macro nutrient ratios that work for various groups of people and sadly there isn't an easy way to know which set of food works best for you unless you try different kinds of foods.

You seem to have found the right combination for you.  I'm curious if protein drives insulin independent of the amount because I've heard excess protein beyond those needed for building muscle and the other uses of protein gets turned into glucose...is that what drives insulin?  If so than a moderate amount of protein wouldn't produce an insulin response...I'll look it up...I've probably read about this before, but I don't remember reading about that specific thing.

I suppose by saying protein stimulates insulin prodcution as readily as carbohydrates is saying that its not just the fact that excess gets turned into glucose...because that wouldn't be even close to the same...I'll look it up I guess..anyway interesting topic.



I could be way off base...I might be misunderstanding what you linked...but it sounds like what its saying is that after given fat that the body doesn't release fat to use for energy from fat stores.

It sounds like all its saying is that while the body is dealing with fat you just consumed it won't mobilize fat stores and use it.  In effect in order to burn fat stores you first have to use the fat you consumed.  So if you eat a high fat meal you won't burn any fat stores while your using that energy, but after your fat has been used your body will start to mobilize those stores.

This makes sense at least to me.  Lets say for example you go to sleep and haven't eaten since dinner.  When you wake up assuming all the energy you got at dinner was used up during sleep you will be in a fasted state.  If you eat something with carbohydrates and fats than the body will use carbohydrates than fats and if after that correct hormone environment is there than your body will mobilize fat stores and start using them.

This basically says the same thing as calories in calories out.  If you have something to burn besides fat stored in your fat tissue than you won't burn fat.  Its basically the last place to burn.  The body burns carbohydrates, followed by MCTs(Medium Chain Triglycerides), protein in certain cases, and than fat from fat stores. 

That's pretty much how I thought it worked anyway.  It doesn't really make low carb sound like a bad thing to do though.  Considering if your eating the right foods you should end up without overeating fat to that level....of course if you do you won't burn your own fat. 

Its pretty much the same thing with carbohydrates though.  If you use carbohydrates mainly for energy you have to burn through the carbohydrates before you can burn the fat(excluding MCTs...which I think happen at the same time...).

If I got anything horribly wrong...let me know I'm not sure I got any reasonable understanding from that research you posted...I might have thought of something that was perhaps correct, but completely unrelated to what that was saying...anyway.



Comment Removed

Post Your Comment

Join Calorie Count - it's easy and free!
CREATE FREE ACCOUNT
Advertisement
Advertisement
Allergy Remedies
Is It Possible to Go Natural?
The side effects of allergy medications keep some people from using them. Natural remedies can be a great alternative, but some are more effective than others.