EatingWell's Journal

Can Understanding the Glycemic Index Help You Eat Better?
Dec 02 2009 12:00

By Rachel Johnson, Ph.D., M.P.H., R.D., EatingWell.com

There are times when I feel like I need to duck when the subject of the glycemic index (GI) comes up. This system of ranking foods according to how much they raise blood sugar (glucose) was first developed as a tool to help people with diabetes control their blood sugar. Now, it’s squarely in the public mainstream: low-GI diet books crowd bookstore shelves, many diet plans have "low-glycemic" variations and Australian supermarkets have foods labeled with their GI ratings. But a huge debate about the value of the GI is raging in the nutrition community. Some of my colleagues are staking their careers on the GI’s importance, while others disparage its value; I’ve seen their arguments come close to blows. What makes the index so controversial? And until the dust settles, is there anything we can apply to our own eating? First, a little background.

The premise (and controversy)

The glycemic index measures how much a fixed quantity of different foods raises your blood-sugar levels compared with a standard, pure glucose (GI=100). Foods with a high GI value (greater than 70) tend to cause a higher spike in blood sugar—and in insulin, the hormone that helps glucose get into cells. The spikes are especially problematic for people with diabetes, who lack an effective insulin system to clear the sugar from their blood. And, because high-GI foods are so quickly metabolized, they tend to make you hungry again sooner, says David Ludwig, M.D., Ph.D., a Harvard endocrinologist and author of Ending the Food Fight (Houghton Mifflin, 2007). Ludwig’s research found that obese teenage boys were hungrier after they’d eaten a high-GI breakfast of instant oatmeal, and ate 600 to 700 calories more at lunchtime than when they’d breakfasted on moderate- or low-GI meals like steel-cut oats or omelets.

By contrast, lower-GI foods (under 55) are metabolized more slowly, and are believed to keep your appetite on a more even keel. Some experts think that by tempering blood-sugar surges, eating low-GI foods may even help prevent the damage to cells that’s caused by high blood-glucose concentrations.

But others poke holes in the GI concept for lots of reasons. "Despite what the diet books say, the glycemic index does not measure how rapidly blood-glucose levels increase," argues Marion Franz, R.D., C.D.E., a nationally recognized diabetes expert who wrote the introduction to The EatingWell Diabetes Cookbook. "Blood glucose peaks at about the same time with most foods—and the differences between the highest and lowest glycemic responses are small."

Those in the anti-GI camp also point out another major weakness in using the system: the glucose response to foods can vary widely from person to person, and even in the same person from day to day, so the numbers don’t tell the whole story. A low GI score is no guarantee of healthy fare, either: cola (63), potato chips (54) and even some candies (a Snickers bar is 55) qualify as low or moderate GI. "But the biggest problem is that the GI looks at single foods, and the real issue is what happens with meals," says Franz. A high-GI potato becomes a low-GI meal if you add a pat of butter, because the added fat helps slow the absorption of the potato’s carbohydrates. These complexities, she says, are too confusing to make the GI useful for most people.

Ludwig, who regularly tests GI principles in his research studies, responds: "Tell that to the thousands of people who come to our clinics!" (I told you the arguments can get heated.)

The potential?

Despite these limitations, some studies suggest the GI concept holds promise. Following low-GI eating principles can help people with diabetes fine-tune their blood-sugar responses and may even help people with prediabetes lower their risk of progressing to full-blown disease. New research connects low-GI diets with lower risk of age-related macular degeneration, a major cause of blindness, and other work suggests a possible link with reducing risk for heart disease and even colorectal cancer.

And of course, there’s the tantalizing possibility that by its moderating effects on blood sugar and thus appetite, eating a low-GI diet may help people lose weight. Unfortunately, research results in this area have been mixed. Ludwig has found that low-GI diets seem to be most effective in people whose bodies secrete more insulin: more often "apple-shaped" people, who accumulate extra fat around their waists, compared to people with lower-body fat ("pear shapes"). "Apple-shaped people who have done poorly on traditional low-fat diets may do especially well on a low-glycemic-load diet," he says. And, regardless of body shape, those who followed low-glycemic diets improved their triglyceride and HDL cholesterol levels, he added; both are important risk factors for heart disease.

In the meantime

Will the great GI debate end anytime soon? Knowing nutrition scientists as well as I do, I don’t think so. But I believe the concept makes some sense as long as we don’t get too hung up on the numbers. In the end, choosing low-GI foods is common sense: for the most part, they’re more natural, whole, unpolished and unprocessed. Getting more of these types of foods is smart eating, no matter which side you’re on.

Your thoughts....

Do you consider the Glycemic Index of foods?

More from EatingWell.com:

• Dinner in 20 Minutes or Less
• Quick Low Calorie Chicken Recipes
• Grab and Go Breakfast Recipes

Cream of Turkey & Wild Rice Soup
Nov 28 2009 12:00

By EatingWell Test Kitchen, EatingWell.com

This is a healthier twist on a classic creamy turkey and wild rice soup that hails from Minnesota. Serve with a crisp romaine salad and whole-grain bread.

Makes 4 servings, about 1 3/4 cups each

Prep Time: 35 minutes
Total Time: 35 minutes

Ingredients

1 tablespoon extra-virgin olive oil
2 cups sliced mushrooms, (about 4 ounces)
3/4 cup chopped celery
3/4 cup chopped carrots
1/4 cup chopped shallots
1/4 cup all-purpose flour
1/4 teaspoon salt
1/4 teaspoon freshly ground pepper
4 cups reduced-sodium chicken broth
1 cup quick-cooking or instant wild rice, (see Ingredient Note)
3 cups shredded cooked chicken, or turkey (12 ounces; see Tip)
1/2 cup reduced-fat sour cream
2 tablespoons chopped fresh parsley

Directions

1. Heat oil in a large saucepan over medium heat. Add mushrooms, celery, carrots and shallots and cook, stirring, until softened, about 5 minutes. Add flour, salt and pepper and cook, stirring, for 2 minutes more.
2. Add broth and bring to a boil, scraping up any browned bits. Add rice and reduce heat to a simmer. Cover and cook until the rice is tender, 5 to 7 minutes. Stir in turkey (or chicken), sour cream and parsley and cook until heated through, about 2 minutes more.

Nutrition Information

Per serving: 354 calories, 9g fat, 36g protein, 3g fiber, 378mg sodium

More from EatingWell.com:

• Quick Low Calorie Recipes
• Quick and Healthy Chicken Recipes
• Grab and Go Breakfast Recipes

Maple-Roasted Sweet Potatoes
Nov 21 2009 12:00

By Kathy Kingsley, EatingWell.com

Roasting sweet potatoes is even easier than boiling and mashing them. Maple syrup glaze transforms this ultra-simple dish into something sublime.

Makes 12 servings, about 1/2 cup each

Prep Time: 10 minutes
Total Time: 1 hour 10 minutes

Ingredients

2 1/2 pounds sweet potatoes, peeled and cut into 1 1/2-inch pieces (about 8 cups)
1/3 cup pure maple syrup
2 tablespoons butter, melted
1 tablespoon lemon juice
1/2 teaspoon salt
Freshly ground pepper, to taste

Directions

1. Preheat oven to 400°F.
2. Arrange sweet potatoes in an even layer in a 9-by-13-inch glass baking dish. Combine maple syrup, butter, lemon juice, salt and pepper in small bowl. Pour the mixture over the sweet potatoes; toss to coat.
3. Cover and bake the sweet potatoes for 15 minutes. Uncover, stir and cook, stirring every 15 minutes, until tender and starting to brown, 45 to 50 minutes more.

Nutrition Information

Per serving: 96 calories, 2g fat, 1g protein, 2g fiber, 118mg sodium

More from EatingWell.com:

• Quick Low Calorie Recipes
• Quick and Healthy Chicken Recipes
• Grab and Go Breakfast Recipes

A Nation Addicted to Food
Nov 25 2009 12:00

By Amy Ahlberg, EatingWell.com

As someone who has struggled with weight his entire life, David A. Kessler, M.D., wanted to know why chocolate chip cookies had such power over him, why he ate when he wasn’t hungry—and what he could do about it. So seven years ago the physician and former FDA commissioner set out to discover what drives us to eat too much. He talked to neurobiologists, psychologists and food-industry insiders. In a new book, The End of Overeating (Rodale), Kessler shares what he found.

Q: What contributes to Americans’ overeating?

A: The food industry creates foods that hijack our brains. They have fat, sugar and salt, which are highly stimulating. They condition us so that even the sights and smells associated with them activate your brain [in ways that make you want food]. In controlled individuals the brain activity stops when they start ingesting the food, but in some people it doesn’t shut off when the food is gone.

Q: How can we break this cycle?

A: Changing how people look at food is essential. Look at the public-health success with tobacco. We didn’t change the product. But we changed how people perceive it. Now people look at tobacco and say, "That’s really disgusting." Tobacco is easy because you can live without it, but you can’t live without food. So you have to cool down the stimulus. You have to retrain yourself to respond to food differently.

Q: Can you give a personal example?

A: It used to be that if you put a huge plate of fries in front of me, I would eat it. Now I look at that huge plate of fries and say, "I don’t want that." Sure, it will taste good, but in 20 minutes I’m going to feel lousy. For me, food has to be rewarding, it has to be pleasurable. But it also has to be nutritious, it has to satiate. It can’t just be fat on sugar on fat—that’s stimulating, but isn’t going to satiate.

Q: How can public policy make a difference?

A: Restaurants should list the calorie counts of all foods they serve. Food products should convey prominently on their labels the percentage of added sugars, refined carbohydrates and fats they contain. People also need to hear repeatedly that selling, serving and eating food layered and loaded with sugar, fat and salt has unhealthy consequences. And food marketing should be monitored and exposed.

Your thoughts....

Do you agree or disagree with Dr. Kessler?

More from EatingWell.com:

• Quick Low Calorie Recipes
• Quick and Healthy Chicken Recipes
• Grab and Go Breakfast Recipes

Call of the Night Kitchen
Nov 18 2009 12:00

By Rachel Johnson, Ph.D., M.P.H., R.D., EatingWell.com

Let's admit it—we all have little food moments the whole world doesn't need to know about. Invariably mine occur at night. Once dinner is cleaned up and I've worked my way through the dreaded bag of unfinished office work I hauled home, I begin to hear the call of the night kitchen. The other evening, after answering the call, I was lying on the sofa watching a Seinfeld rerun and spooning my way through a bowl of my favorite chocolate-mint frozen yogurt. I realized I was doing exactly what all the diet tipsters warn against. But what's wrong with nighttime eating? Is food consumed after dark really more fattening than what we eat during the day?

One theory is that our metabolism slows at night, making the calories we eat after the dinner hour more likely to be stored as fat. The data are sparse on the subject. A small study published more than a decade ago examined nine young men and found that the energy cost of digesting a snack at night was 11 percent compared to 16 percent for the same snack eaten in the morning: a difference of a whopping 10 calories for my 200-calorie portion of frozen yogurt—not exactly overwhelming. Most nutrition scientists agree that the effect is so small that it is of little practical significance in the overall control of body weight. So, if a calorie is more or less still a calorie regardless of when it's eaten, is nighttime eating a problem?

Eating at night does seem to contribute to weight gain among people who are already overweight. In an investigation of more than 2,000 Danish people, night eating was defined as having little or no food at breakfast (called "morning anorexia") along with consuming at least half the total daily calorie intake after the evening meal. This seems like a bizarre pattern, but I was surprised to learn that as many as 9 percent of the women and 7 percent of the men reported being night eaters. Over six years, the overweight women who were night eaters gained almost 10 pounds more than those who were not. Few facts exist as to why this happens; perhaps, by the light of the refrigerator in a deserted kitchen, we are more prone to letting our guard down.

If the consequences of nighttime eating can be troublesome, particularly for people who are overweight, can eating earlier in the day make a difference? Certainly, the diet gurus advise us not to skip breakfast. Among American women, breakfast eaters are more likely to have a healthy weight than women who don't eat a morning meal. Champion breakfasters (in comparison to breakfast avoiders) have better nutrient profiles, tend to exercise more and are more apt to report that they try to control their weight.

Consider the possibility that breakfast might influence the rest of the day's eating choices. A psychologist at the University of Texas recently found, in a study of 867 normal-weight volunteers, that as the day progressed, the time between eating got shorter while the calories per eating session increased. Interestingly, people who ate the most in the morning consumed fewer calories overall compared with those who did most of their eating in the evening.

I'm starting to better understand the pitfalls of my own evening munchies. While a small bowl of frozen yogurt is a perfectly reasonable nighttime snack, during particularly stressful times (including the very holidays I love) I'm more likely to pop a few extra treats, like some of that delectable fudge a colleague has given me, without really thinking about it.

So far nighttime noshing hasn't been a weight issue for me. In general I read labels, choose smart snacks like fruit or low-fat frozen yogurts, and I'm a long way from eating most of my calories after 8 p.m. But on those nights that the yogurt just doesn't do it, I am more vulnerable. If you suspect that your own nighttime eating pattern may be a problem, consider your snack choices carefully and, if you don't already do so, eat a hearty breakfast. I could certainly benefit from eating less at night, which would probably help me wake up hungrier. But I wonder if my Seinfeld reruns would be as fun without the frozen yogurt.

Your thoughts....

Is night eating a problem for you?   What have you done about it?

More from EatingWell.com:

• Quick Low Calorie Recipes
• Quick and Healthy Chicken Recipes
• Grab and Go Breakfast Recipes

Get a (Nonfood) Life and Overcome Weight-Loss Challenges
Nov 04 2009 12:00

By Dr. Jean Harvey-Berino, Ph.D., R.D., Joyce Hendley, EatingWell, EatingWell.com

For many of us, food and drink are the context around our social get-togethers. Some social rituals are indelibly intertwined with food: imagine a family reunion without a potluck or a birthday without a cake. Many of us use restaurants and bars as our places to connect with friends, so if you opt out of the eating and drinking, you’ll miss out on the bonding. Even if the social occasion isn’t about eating, food is almost always offered—or it hovers temptingly in the background, like the concession stand at the movie or ballgame or the snack bar at the golf course.

Socializing without food, then, requires some thinking outside the box. Instead of reserving a table at a restaurant, try scheduling your next get-together with your friends at a place you can walk around, like a museum or an outdoor event like a fair. Consider activities that allow you to chat while you move, like a bike ride, a lake or beachside stroll, or a shopping excursion in a very spread-out mall. And if the gang insists on ordering something to eat, sip a coffee drink instead (nonfat cappuccino is a great way to add a daily milk serving, and it feels like a splurge).

With family get-togethers, try adding some nonfood-oriented elements to the mix. Try a post-meal family walk (rather than family flop-out-in-front-of-the-TV), play charades or start a family story-sharing or scrapbooking session. Yes, it might be awkward at first, but family traditions have to start somehow. And eventually someone—perhaps even your eye-rolling teenage nephew—will thank you for it.

You thoughts....

How do you socialize without using food?

More from EatingWell.com:

• Quick Low Calorie Recipes
• Quick and Healthy Chicken Recipes
• Grab and Go Breakfast Recipes
  

The EatingWell Diet. Copyright 2007 by Eating Well, Inc. Published by The Countryman Press, P.O. Box 748, Woodstock, VT 05091. It is prohibited to copy, redistribute or transmit this work for any purpose, commercial or otherwise, without the express written permission of the publisher.