[Mulletsoldier]

Hey Fellas, this is a post I created on AM. Figured BBD could use it as well.



'GI'....The term is tossed around often as we all have made low GI carbohydrates a staple of our diet. Yet, how many of the newer individuals to our lifestyle really understand what 'GI' is, how to implement or why for that matter?..Considering this I figured I'd put together this thread for info's sake

What is 'GI'?

'GI' stands for glycemic index. The Glycemic Index is a numerical Index that ranks carbohydrates based on their rate of glycemic response (i.e. their conversion to glucose within the human body). Pure glucose is given an arbitrary rating of 100 as a reference point and all other carbohydrates are rated from 0 onwards. Any carbohydrate with a rating below 55 is considered a "low GI food", and conversely any food 70 and up is generally considered a "high GI food"

Why Are Low 'GI' Foods Important?

Our bodies perform best when our blood sugar (blood-glucose) levels remain at a relatively constant level, supplying our bodies with equal amounts of fuel throughout the day. For our lifestyle choice it is important to have an equal, constant stream of glucose in order for muscle glycogen conversion. Low 'GI' foods are less rapidly absorbed by the body than foods with high 'GI' and therefore provide a more constant stream of fuel.


Is The Glycemic Index the Only Tool To Measure Carbs?

Although the Glycemic Index is our most useful tool when discerning which carbohydrates to eat, it is not our only one. Of the other branches which apply to the 'GI' the Glycemic Load is the most useful. When you intake carbohydrates it is not only important to note what the rate of glucose conversion will be, but how much total carbohydrate you are taking in, this is where GL comes into play. Glycemic load is used to determine (with GI) what your bodies total glycemic response will be. It is measured by dividing the GI by 100 and multiplying that by the net carbs (net carbs are equal to total carbs minus dietary fibre)
(GL=GI/100 x Net Carbs)

Should High GI Foods Be Completely Avoided?

Although low-GI, complex carbohydrates should be the vast majority of your caloric intake for carbs to ensure consistent glycemic response, there are times when a rapid increase in blood sugar is desirable. For this purpose some individuals choose to intake high GI foods after strenuous activity in hopes of causing an insulin spike in order to move glucose to the muscles to be converted to glycogen. Though not all agree with this method it has been utilized successfully, though the risk for adipose storage can be an issue. (in excess)

Is GI Fail-Proof

Absolutely not, as with any measuring formula the Glycemic Index is prone to some fallacies. Some of these limitations are noted below

Wide Spectrum Of Measurements

Normally, the reported GI value of a carbs is the average of many test results. Because of this there are often conflicting reports on the GI of common foods. For example the common potatoe has been reported as low as 55 and as high as 100.

Individual Glycemic Response

Each one of our bodies is unique in it's processing of the food we intake. Each individuals rate of glycemic response, and conversely, insulin response is different, so although the GI is a useful tool it should not be religiously followed. The best method of utilizing the GI is to experiment to discover what your own bodies GI response is to craft the perfect "low GI diet" for you.

Preparation

The GI of any given carbohydrate can be modified, sometimes significantly, by the method of preparartion. Any significant processing such as cooking, boiling, baking, or grinding may alter the GI of the food. Also, combination with other foods may also alter the initial GI of both carbs. When foods are combined at times a 'mixed GI rating', an average of both the foods GI's can be implemented to rate the entire meal. However, this can also be misleading as often times the foods will have a synergistic effect and cause an overall higher glycemic response than either individual part may have had.

How Should I Best Implement the GI

Quite simply by using it as a guideline, and determining what is best for you. Many factors, such as the ones listed above have to be taken into account when determining which carbohydrates will most effectively allow you to put on LBM whilst keeping fat down. Consider your roomate who eats Burger King five times a week, drinks a two litre of Cola a day, and puts in minimal effort at the gym, yet still has an equal physique to you. Obviously, your individual insulin/glycemic resonse times greatly differ from eachother, and therefore have to eat greatly differing diets to maintain the same body. As said above a specifically tailored diet, implementing low GI foods, will allow you to most effectively use the Glycemic Index..

Common Food Listing

Food Glycemic Index

Breads

Bagel, white 103
Hamburger bun 87
Melba toast 100
Oat bran bread 68
Rye kernel bread 66
Pumpernickel 71
Rye flour bread 92
Linseed rye bread 78
Wheat bread, white 100
Wheat bread, high fibre 97
Wheat bread, gluten-free 129
Wheat bread, wholewheat 99
Wholewheat snack breads 105
Pita, white 82
Mixed grain bread 64

Breakfast cereals

All-bran 60
All-bran with raisins 74
Cocoapops 110
Cornflakes 119
Cream of wheat 100
Muesli 80
Oat bran 78
Oatmeal 87
Puffed wheat 105
Rice bran 27
Rice crispies 117
Shredded wheat 99
Special K 77

Cereal grains

Barley, pearled 36
Barley, cracked 72
Barley, rolled 94
Bulgur wheat 68
Couscous 93
Maize meal 97
Millet 101
Sweet corn 78
Rice, white 81
Rice, Basmati 83
Rice, brown 79
Rice, instant, boiled for 6 min. 128
Rice, instant, boiled for 1 min. 65
Rice, parboiled 68
Rice, wild 81
Rye kernels 48
Tapioca boiled with milk 115


Cakes and biscuits

Butter biscuits 79
Cake, angel food 95
Cake, banana loaf 67
Cake, sponge 66
Coffee cookies 113
Crispbead 116
Croissant 96
Crumpet 98
Digestive biscuits 84
Doughnut 108
Graham crackers 106
Maizena cookies 95
Muffins 88
Oat cookies 79
Pastry 84
Pizza base with cheese 86
Rice cakes 117
Rye crispbread 93
Shortbread 91
Waffle 109
Water biscuits 102
Wheat crackers 96

Drinks

Cold drinks, sweetened 97
Cordials 94
Gatorade (energy drinks) 136

Fruit and Fruit Juices

Apple 52
Apple juice 58
Apricots, fresh 82
Apricots, canned in syrup 91
Apricots, dried 44
Banana 76
Cherries 32
Fruit ****tail 79
Grapefruit 36
Grapefruit juice, unsweetened 69
Grapes 62
Kiwi fruit 75
Mango 80
Orange 62
Orange juice 74
Pawpaw 83
Peach, raw 40
Peach, canned 79
Pear, raw 51
Pear, canned 63
Pineapple, raw 94
Pineapple juice 66
Plum 34
Raisins 91
Spanspek 93
Sultanas 80
Watermelon 103

Legumes

Baked beans, canned 69
Beans, dry 40
Broad beans 113
Butter beans 44
Chickpeas 47
Chickpeas, canned 60
Kidney beans 42
Kidney beans, canned 74
Lentils 41
Lentils, green, canned 74
Lima beans, frozen 46
Soya beans 25
Soya milk 43
Split peas, boiled 45

Milk and dairy products

Ice cream 87
Ice cream, low-fat 71
Milk, whole 39
Milk, skim 46
Milk, chocolate 49
Milk, chocolate (artificial) 34
Custard 61
Yoghurt, low-fat, fruit, sweetened with sugar 47
Yogurt, low-fat, artificially sweetened 20
Yoghurt, plain 51

Pasta

Fettucine 46
Gnocchi 95
Instant noodles 67
Macaroni 64
Macaroni and cheese 92
Ravioli, meat filling 56
Spaghetti, protein-enriched 38
Spaghetti, white 59
Spaghetti, durum 78
Spaghetti, wholewheat 53
Vermicelli 50

Snacks and sweets

Jelly beans 114
Lifesavers 100
Chocolate 70
Chocolate bars 91
Energy bars 81
Maize snacks 105
Muesli bars 87
Popcorn 79
Potato chips 77
Peanuts 21
Pretzels 116

Soups

Bean soup 92
Green pea soup, canned 94
Lentil soup, canned 63
Split pea soup, homemade 86
Tomato soup 54

Sugars

Honey 104
Fructose 32
Glucose powder 138
Glucose tablets 146
Maltose 150
Sucrose (table sugar) 92
Lactose 65
High-fructose corn sugar 89
Maltodextrin 107

Vegetables

Beetroot 91
Carrots 101
Parsnips 139
Peas, dried 32
Peas, green 68
Potato, instant mash 118
Potato, baked 121
Potato, new 81
Potato, boiled 80
Potato, boiled, mashed 104
Potato, microwaved 117
Potato chips, deep-fried 107
Pumpkin 107
Sweet corn 78
Sweet potato 77

(List courtesy of Health24.com)

[mindstar]

ok...now i'm a bit confused as Oats, Brown Rice and Wild rice are all 'high' GI foods...and are a staple of my (and most BBr's diets) should I be switching to all bran and instant rice?

oh, and any info on Quinoa? I noticed peared barley is low, which is awesome because it rocks!

Thanks for the great post.

Jorn, seriously, I wish I knew half as much about anything as you think you know about everything. Your attitude is pedantic and childish.

[Admin]

Although a guide it doesn't tell the whole truth.

Oats (as in rolled, not instant) is the low-mod category and also has a very low score on the GL (glycemic load).

Certain grains with rice have a high GI buty also a very low GL. You safe with Basmanti rice.

Quinoa is good, All Bran is great.

What you have to look past is just teh GI score as you want to take into consideration the response (GI) and amount (GL). Another positive effects of whole grain foods is they are mod-high in fiber which also controls and stabilize blood glucose over the long haul.

[mindstar]

Thanks Admin.

my breakfast meal (post wake up shake to stop catabolism) is:

about .5 cup rolled oats, 1 cup egg whites and 1/2 cup no fat cottage cheese. is this alright or should I switch to all bran and something...(i'm off milk right now due to it's relatively high sugar content)

I won't pretend I understand this stuff...is there a place I can read something which will make sense to me?

[Mulletsoldier]

Like Admin said, the GI rating is not the only thing to consider. GL takes into account the entire digestable content of the carbohydrate portion of your food. As he said, oats have high fibre which plays a part in stable glucose release because of it's positive effects on gastric uptake.

For example.

X brand Bread is 24g of carbohydrates per serving but has 6 grams of fibre, with a GI of 75.

So

Glycemic Load = 75/100 x 18 (total digestable carbs) = 13.5

So, though it's GI was relatively high it's GL is superlow, meaning the glucose response in your body is going to be fairly stable.

As said above, it's not a steadfast rulebook, just something to guage what kind of carbs you are using. The Glycemic Load is a VERY important part to the equation though.

[Admin]

The food items sound great, the calories depend on your overall maintenance.

Its tough to tell you where to go especially on the internet because much of the information is incorrect (or just plain marketing) but if you want the most compehensive material then look towards college texts.

If you don't want to do that, then just ask in the forum. :) Thats why we're here!

[Cerberus]

GI is totally irrelevant.

In a normal, mixed diet you won't have any benefits at all from GI cause research have resulted in no benefits at all in a mixed diet. As long as you arent eating loads of white bread alone with nothin on it, they won't affect body composition.

There are too many factors in insulin-release to rely on GI as a holy bible.

That is totally dependant on kcal-balance.

"Diabetes Care 28:2832-2838, 2005, Dietary Glycemic Index and Glycemic Load, Carbohydrate and Fiber Intake, and Measures of Insulin Sensitivity, Secretion, and Adiposity in the Insulin Resistance Atherosclerosis Study

"We studied the association of digestible carbohydrates, fiber intake, glycemic index, and glycemic load with insulin sensitivity (SI), fasting insulin, acute insulin response (AIR), disposition index, BMI, and waist circumference.

Data on 979 adults with normal (67%) and impaired (33%) glucose tolerance... were analyzed.

No association was observed between glycemic index and SI, fasting insulin, AIR, disposition index, BMI, or waist circumference after adjustment for demographic characteristics or family history of diabetes, energy expenditure, and smoking.

Associations observed for digestible carbohydrates and glycemic load, respectively, with SI, insulin secretion, and adiposity (adjusted for demographics and main confounders) were entirely explained by energy intake.

Carbohydrates as reflected in glycemic index and glycemic load may not be related to measures of insulin sensitivity, insulin secretion, and adiposity."

J Nutr. 2005 Oct;135(10):2387-91. Reduced glycemic index and glycemic load diets do not increase the effects of energy restriction on weight loss and insulin sensitivity in obese men and women.

"Reducing the dietary glycemic load and the glycemic index was proposed as a novel approach to weight reduction. A parallel-design, randomized 12-wk controlled feeding trial with a 24-wk follow-up phase was conducted to test the hypothesis that a hypocaloric diet designed to reduce the glycemic load and the glycemic index would result in greater sustained weight loss than other hypocaloric diets.

At 12 wk, weight changes from baseline were significant in all groups but not different among groups (-9.3 +/- 1.3 kg for the HGI diet, -9.9 +/- 1.4 kg for the LGI diet, and -8.4 +/- 1.5 kg for the HF diet). All groups improved in insulin sensitivity at the end of the feeding phase of the study. During the free-living phase, all groups maintained their initial weight loss and their improved insulin sensitivity.

Weight loss and improved insulin sensitivity scores were independent of diet composition.

In summary, lowering the glycemic load and glycemic index of weight reduction diets does not provide any added benefit to energy restriction in promoting weight loss in obese subjects."

Diabetes Care. 2005 Sep;28(9):2123-9. Influence of glycemic index/load on glycemic response, appetite, and food intake in healthy humans.

High glycemic index (GI)/load (GL) diets reportedly enhance appetite and promote positive energy balance. Support for this hypothesis stems largely from acute feeding trials and longer-term studies lacking control over the macronutrient composition and palatability of test foods. This study evaluated the effects of consuming high- and low-GI/GL meals, matched on macronutrient composition and palatability, plasma glucose and insulin, appetite, and food intake.

Thirty-nine healthy adults consumed only low- or only high-GI foods ad libitum in the laboratory for 8 days in either high (three foods per meal)- or low (one food per meal)-variety conditions. Glucose and insulin concentrations as well as appetitive sensations were determined before and for 2 h following breakfast and lunch on days 1 and 8. Energy intake was monitored daily.

There were no significant differences in plasma glucose or insulin responses, appetitive ratings, or food intake between treatments.

These data indicate that the differential glycemic response of foods tested in isolation under fixed time are not preserved under conditions of chronic ad libitum consumption of mixed meals."

[Jayhawkk]

How many studies could you find on PubMed that says opposite?

[Admin]

I got about 100.

Lets just say the phyciological response is much different in normal people than it is in diabetic, obese and sedentary people on a hypocaloric diet.

Saying the GI is useless based on research from obese, diabetic and sedentary people is ridiculous.

Influence of training status on glycemic index.

Mettler S, Wenk C, Colombani PC.

INW Nutrition Biology, Department of Agriculture and Food Science, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich, CH-8092 Zurich, Switzerland.

The glycemic index (GI) represents the relative postprandial blood glucose response to the ingestion of a food containing carbohydrate. Although regular physical exercise may influence glucose metabolism, it is not yet known if chronically performed exercise also affects the GI. The objective of this study was, therefore, to determine the GI of common meals (three breakfast cereals: B, C, D) in healthy, nonsmoking young males 2 who were either endurance-trained (n = 12) or sedentary (n = 11). Glucose was used as the reference food. The GI value between the endurance-trained and sedentary subjects differed significantly (p < 0.01). Pair-wise comparisons between endurance-trained and sedentary subjects within the different test meals were significant for test meal D (p = 0.002), marginally non-significant for meal C (p = 0.052) and not significant for meal B (p = 0.204). These results suggest that the GI of some complex foods may depend on the training status of healthy young subjects.


Thats just the tip of the iceberg.

[Admin]

Originally Posted by Cerberus

There are too many factors in insulin-release to rely on GI as a holy bible.

Most people understand this concept ever since the development of the insulin index years back but to say its irrelevant is absurb.

[Mulletsoldier]

Originally Posted by Cerberus

GI is totally irrelevant.

In a normal, mixed diet you won't have any benefits at all from GI cause research have resulted in no benefits at all in a mixed diet. As long as you arent eating loads of white bread alone with nothin on it, they won't affect body composition.

There are too many factors in insulin-release to rely on GI as a holy bible.

That is totally dependant on kcal-balance.

"Diabetes Care 28:2832-2838, 2005, Dietary Glycemic Index and Glycemic Load, Carbohydrate and Fiber Intake, and Measures of Insulin Sensitivity, Secretion, and Adiposity in the Insulin Resistance Atherosclerosis Study

"We studied the association of digestible carbohydrates, fiber intake, glycemic index, and glycemic load with insulin sensitivity (SI), fasting insulin, acute insulin response (AIR), disposition index, BMI, and waist circumference.

Data on 979 adults with normal (67%) and impaired (33%) glucose tolerance... were analyzed.

No association was observed between glycemic index and SI, fasting insulin, AIR, disposition index, BMI, or waist circumference after adjustment for demographic characteristics or family history of diabetes, energy expenditure, and smoking.

Associations observed for digestible carbohydrates and glycemic load, respectively, with SI, insulin secretion, and adiposity (adjusted for demographics and main confounders) were entirely explained by energy intake.

Carbohydrates as reflected in glycemic index and glycemic load may not be related to measures of insulin sensitivity, insulin secretion, and adiposity."

J Nutr. 2005 Oct;135(10):2387-91. Reduced glycemic index and glycemic load diets do not increase the effects of energy restriction on weight loss and insulin sensitivity in obese men and women.

"Reducing the dietary glycemic load and the glycemic index was proposed as a novel approach to weight reduction. A parallel-design, randomized 12-wk controlled feeding trial with a 24-wk follow-up phase was conducted to test the hypothesis that a hypocaloric diet designed to reduce the glycemic load and the glycemic index would result in greater sustained weight loss than other hypocaloric diets.

At 12 wk, weight changes from baseline were significant in all groups but not different among groups (-9.3 +/- 1.3 kg for the HGI diet, -9.9 +/- 1.4 kg for the LGI diet, and -8.4 +/- 1.5 kg for the HF diet). All groups improved in insulin sensitivity at the end of the feeding phase of the study. During the free-living phase, all groups maintained their initial weight loss and their improved insulin sensitivity.

Weight loss and improved insulin sensitivity scores were independent of diet composition.

In summary, lowering the glycemic load and glycemic index of weight reduction diets does not provide any added benefit to energy restriction in promoting weight loss in obese subjects."

Diabetes Care. 2005 Sep;28(9):2123-9. Influence of glycemic index/load on glycemic response, appetite, and food intake in healthy humans.[/B]

High glycemic index (GI)/load (GL) diets reportedly enhance appetite and promote positive energy balance. Support for this hypothesis stems largely from acute feeding trials and longer-term studies lacking control over the macronutrient composition and palatability of test foods. This study evaluated the effects of consuming high- and low-GI/GL meals, matched on macronutrient composition and palatability, plasma glucose and insulin, appetite, and food intake.

Thirty-nine healthy adults consumed only low- or only high-GI foods ad libitum in the laboratory for 8 days in either high (three foods per meal)- or low (one food per meal)-variety conditions. Glucose and insulin concentrations as well as appetitive sensations were determined before and for 2 h following breakfast and lunch on days 1 and 8. Energy intake was monitored daily.

There were no significant differences in plasma glucose or insulin responses, appetitive ratings, or food intake between treatments.

These data indicate that the differential glycemic response of foods tested in isolation under fixed time are not preserved under conditions of chronic ad libitum consumption of mixed meals."

Cerberus,

I love a healthy debate, however debate is not copying and pasting Pubdmed studies that refute my view, without taking the time to understand the content. NONE of these studies were done on trained individuals. As I am sure you know resistance training raise the ability of an athlete's cells to absorb glycogen, and amino acids i.e, our insulin sensitivity has been shown to be higher than the untrained individual. Therefore, GI is not irrelevant as a reduction in insulin release and a higher sensitivity to it means a more anabolic environment.

I have had nothing but negative replies to this post, which is acceptable, not everyone invests that much stock in GI. However, neither of the people that replyed seem to read my original post. I said that this is ONLY A GUIDE, it is not fail proof, and even listed individual glycemic resonse as a reason

Originally Posted by Cerberus

There are too many factors in insulin-release to rely on GI as a holy bible.

It is funny you said that, because it really shows you did not take the time to actually read my posts before you googled Glycemic response to copy and paste studies. I know you did not read my post, because I actually said the exact same thing in my post, with similar wording in fact.

Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier

Each one of our bodies is unique in it's processing of the food we intake. Each individuals rate of glycemic response, and conversely, insulin response is different, so although the GI is a useful tool it should not be religiously followed

[Cerberus]

lol sorry I was too lazy to read everything.

I agree that some parts of GI is good, but to only look for low numbers would be misdirecting. Some high GI-foods like carrots would be excluded cause of the high GI but it's still nutrient rich, and you'd have to eat a ALOT of carrots to get to those 50g carbs all those studies are based on.

I've read that a system called NNR(Naturally Nutrient Rich) is under development and is alot better choice when people want to eat healthy.

I apologize for the rough post back there :)

[Ironslave]

I dont agree with Cerebrus that he will be Mr. O in 2020 ( i believe Ronnie will be going for his 23'rd straight Olympia).

But i do agree with him that glycemic index doesnt matter, and calories IS the deciding factor. Now, i think the benefit of low GI carbs lies way more in the low nutrient density of foods, theres a ton less calories per volume. It's obvious, eating 500 calories from oatmeal is pretty hard, but it's a joke if you want to eat 500 calories from candy or something else. Also, low GI foods tend to be more rich in appitite supressant nutrients, such as fiber, the end result, is you eat less calories. I obviously would prefer low GI foods for health reasons due to their nutrent make up, but for physique recomp, i think calories is the defining factor. But look at a food like Baked potatoes, super high GI, but its gonna be tough to eat a lot of them. I think benefits for GI are merely a bi-product of most foods leading you to eat less calories.

Some reference, both full texts.


Last AR, Wilson SA. Low-carbohydrate diets. Am Fam Physician. 2006 Jun 1;73(11):1942-8.

Low-Carbohydrate Diets - June 1, 2006 -- American Family Physician


Sloth B, Krog-Mikkelsen I, Flint A, Tetens I, Bjorck I, Vinoy S, Elmstahl H, Astrup A, Lang V, Raben A.No difference in body weight decrease between a low-glycemic-index and a high-glycemic-index diet but reduced LDL cholesterol after 10-wk ad libitum intake of the low-glycemic-index diet.Am J Clin Nutr. 2004 Aug;80(2):337-47

No difference in body weight decrease between a low-glycemic-index and a high-glycemic-index diet but reduced LDL cholesterol after 10-wk ad libitum intake of the low-glycemic-index diet -- Sloth et al. 80 (2): 337 -- American Journal of Clinical Nutrition

[Mulletsoldier]

Originally Posted by Ironslave

I dont agree with Cerebrus that he will be Mr. O in 2020 ( i believe Ronnie will be going for his 23'rd straight Olympia).

But i do agree with him that glycemic index doesnt matter, and calories IS the deciding factor. Now, i think the benefit of low GI carbs lies way more in the low nutrient density of foods, theres a ton less calories per volume. It's obvious, eating 500 calories from oatmeal is pretty hard, but it's a joke if you want to eat 500 calories from candy or something else. Also, low GI foods tend to be more rich in appitite supressant nutrients, such as fiber, the end result, is you eat less calories. I obviously would prefer low GI foods for health reasons due to their nutrent make up, but for physique recomp, i think calories is the defining factor. But look at a food like Baked potatoes, super high GI, but its gonna be tough to eat a lot of them. I think benefits for GI are merely a bi-product of most foods leading you to eat less calories.

Some reference, both full texts.


Last AR, Wilson SA. Low-carbohydrate diets. Am Fam Physician. 2006 Jun 1;73(11):1942-8.

Low-Carbohydrate Diets - June 1, 2006 -- American Family Physician


Sloth B, Krog-Mikkelsen I, Flint A, Tetens I, Bjorck I, Vinoy S, Elmstahl H, Astrup A, Lang V, Raben A.No difference in body weight decrease between a low-glycemic-index and a high-glycemic-index diet but reduced LDL cholesterol after 10-wk ad libitum intake of the low-glycemic-index diet.Am J Clin Nutr. 2004 Aug;80(2):337-47

No difference in body weight decrease between a low-glycemic-index and a high-glycemic-index diet but reduced LDL cholesterol after 10-wk ad libitum intake of the low-glycemic-index diet -- Sloth et al. 80 (2): 337 -- American Journal of Clinical Nutrition

Those were both interesting reads, however, once again do not have application to the physiology of a highly trained individual. The first was done on overweight individuals who could have a myriad of factors contributing to an inneffecient use of insulin. The second on untrained individuals specifically citing they were not going to engage in physical activity.

As I stated earlier resistance training induces quite a few physiological responses within the body that effect insulin sensitivity and stable insulin release. When talking about insulin/glucose response one cannot compare untrained to trained individuals.

Also, I am not sure where I said that an excess, or a defecit depending on your goals was not the defining factor in changing body composition. Low GI or not if your intakes are not tailored to your expenditures you will not achieve your goal.

[Admin]

I don't have the strenght. lol

[FitnFirm]

Originally Posted by Admin

I don't have the strenght. lol

Hands over ears ( LALALALALALALALLA) haha

[Ironslave]

Not trying to be difficult, but im not a slouch when it comes to training and nutrition. I know for sure resistance training of course changes physiological responses, and yes, resistance trained athletes do respond differently than sedentary people in regards to post prandal glucose levels, but that's not the issue, the issue is physique composition. To my knowledge, i havent seen any study that shows with equal caloric intakes, GI of carbohydrates makes any difference in physique composition.

[Mulletsoldier]

Originally Posted by Ironslave

Not trying to be difficult, but im not a slouch when it comes to training and nutrition. I know for sure resistance training of course changes physiological responses, and yes, resistance trained athletes do respond differently than sedentary people in regards to post prandal glucose levels, but that's not the issue, the issue is physique composition. To my knowledge, i havent seen any study that shows with equal caloric intakes, GI of carbohydrates makes any difference in physique composition.

Definitely not being difficult bro, just stating your opinion in a very respectful manner. Before we delve any further into this subject I would like to say two things.

The first is that I really did not want to start a huge controversy with this thread, I had just noticed there was not too much info regarding the Glycemic Index in the nutrition forum and thought this could be used as a quick reference. If any of the original Mods feel I overstepped my boundaries by making this a sticky without consultation, then I will not take offense to it's removal. Though I welcome the debate, as Low GI vs. High GI has always been and will most likely continue to be a hot topic, it was not my intention.

To address your question towards body composition, are you looknig for studies that deal with overall adipose storage as it pertains to Pre/Post WO specifically, or just long-term mediated glucose response? If it is the Pre/Post WO, I would rather not debate that for the simple fact that they are both effective, just that adipose storage is a risk when going high GI.

[Ironslave]

No worries bro, ur a mod now, you can do as you please :). Maybe we can make the debate stuff into a new thread and close the original?

Just any study really indicating the GI is relevant in lipogenesis in two distinct isocaloric diets.

[FitnFirm]

Ironslave is this you?



ironslave - bellevue, Nebraska Personals | Free Online Dating Service

[Ironslave]

hahaha, nope! Swear to god it isnt me, lol. I'm canadian.

[Admin]

Originally Posted by Ironslave

Ni havent seen any study that shows with equal caloric intakes, GI of carbohydrates makes any difference in physique composition.

That's because its not a subject in which generous amounts of money would be used to fund such study unless it concerns obesity, weight loss with hypocaloric diets and/or diabetics.

The simple difference in leptin expression in a normal and obese/diabetic subject throws up a red flag already.

Its the same reason you don't use studies on mice to associate results on humans. It simply isn't the same. If it were clenbuterol would be as anabolic as testosterone.

Do a search on insulin mimickers and you will see the drastic difference in effects on blood/glucose control between diabetic and normal subjects.

[Admin]

Originally Posted by Ironslave

I dont agree with Cerebrus that he will be Mr. O in 2020 ( i believe Ronnie will be going for his 23'rd straight Olympia).

But i do agree with him that glycemic index doesnt matter, and calories IS the deciding factor. Now, i think the benefit of low GI carbs lies way more in the low nutrient density of foods, theres a ton less calories per volume. It's obvious, eating 500 calories from oatmeal is pretty hard, but it's a joke if you want to eat 500 calories from candy or something else. Also, low GI foods tend to be more rich in appitite supressant nutrients, such as fiber, the end result, is you eat less calories. I obviously would prefer low GI foods for health reasons due to their nutrent make up, but for physique recomp, i think calories is the defining factor. But look at a food like Baked potatoes, super high GI, but its gonna be tough to eat a lot of them. I think benefits for GI are merely a bi-product of most foods leading you to eat less calories.

Some reference, both full texts.


Last AR, Wilson SA. Low-carbohydrate diets. Am Fam Physician. 2006 Jun 1;73(11):1942-8.

Low-Carbohydrate Diets - June 1, 2006 -- American Family Physician


Sloth B, Krog-Mikkelsen I, Flint A, Tetens I, Bjorck I, Vinoy S, Elmstahl H, Astrup A, Lang V, Raben A.No difference in body weight decrease between a low-glycemic-index and a high-glycemic-index diet but reduced LDL cholesterol after 10-wk ad libitum intake of the low-glycemic-index diet.Am J Clin Nutr. 2004 Aug;80(2):337-47

No difference in body weight decrease between a low-glycemic-index and a high-glycemic-index diet but reduced LDL cholesterol after 10-wk ad libitum intake of the low-glycemic-index diet -- Sloth et al. 80 (2): 337 -- American Journal of Clinical Nutrition

Just because there are inaccuracies with a given concept does not make it irrelevant. Its also the sole reason the Insulin Index and the measure of glycemic load came about. The response (GI) isn't the sole factor. People knew there weren't absolutes but give the choice of 2 foods with a high GI and high GL vs. a food with Low GI yet high GL the one that is high in both categories is going to have more of an effect on adipose storage simply because of insulin's capacity to increase LPL activity. That in itself shows the GI has SOME importance.

Posting studies comparing GI's isn't accurate because it doesnt even measure the glycemic load of each individual food item and stating a concept is irrelevant simply because it doesnt work for 100% of the foods we choose is absurd.

[tim290280]

Just because there are inaccuracies with a given concept does not make it irrelevant. Its also the sole reason the Insulin Index and the measure of glycemic load came about. The response (GI) isn't the sole factor.

Which is a good reason why you can't place an over-emphasis on GI in diet selection. This isn't disregarding, but it does lower the importance of GI in diet.

People knew there weren't absolutes but give the choice of 2 foods with a high GI and high GL vs. a food with Low GI yet high GL the one that is high in both categories is going to have more of an effect on adipose storage simply because of insulin's capacity to increase LPL activity. That in itself shows the GI has SOME importance.

Agreed. Irrelevant is a harsh term, but was probably more to emphasise the point.

Posting studies comparing GI's isn't accurate because it doesnt even measure the glycemic load of each individual food item and stating a concept is irrelevant simply because it doesnt work for 100% of the foods we choose is absurd.

But by that very statement it supports the idea stated by Ironslave. GI can only be part of the basis of food choices. Placing stock in any one method can be an undoing. Much better to be aware of GI (so good original post!) but not be whoely swayed by it.

[Jayhawkk]

GI can only be part of the basis of food choices. Placing stock in any one method can be an undoing. Much better to be aware of GI (so good original post!) but not be whoely swayed by it.

I think that is the proper attitude to approach most theories/methods in this sport. Being able to adapt and adjust to reach maximum potential is key to success.

[Mulletsoldier]

Originally Posted by tim290280

Which is a good reason why you can't place an over-emphasis on GI in diet selection. This isn't disregarding, but it does lower the importance of GI in diet.

Agreed. Irrelevant is a harsh term, but was probably more to emphasise the point.

But by that very statement it supports the idea stated by Ironslave. GI can only be part of the basis of food choices. Placing stock in any one method can be an undoing. Much better to be aware of GI (so good original post!) but not be whoely swayed by it.

For sure man, that is one thing I think got lost in my original post. I did not state anywhere that it the end-all-and-be-all of diet. I stated a few times it should be a guide not a rulebook, and even pointed out some of the fallacies myself.

I also appreciate you taking the time to read my post and realize that is what I was trying to say, I think it showed your true character. You seem like a knowledgeable cat and I am looking forward to reading your future contributions.

[Admin]

Originally Posted by tim290280

Which is a good reason why you can't place an over-emphasis on GI in diet selection. This isn't disregarding, but it does lower the importance of GI in diet.

Agreed. Irrelevant is a harsh term, but was probably more to emphasise the point.

But by that very statement it supports the idea stated by Ironslave. GI can only be part of the basis of food choices. Placing stock in any one method can be an undoing. Much better to be aware of GI (so good original post!) but not be whoely swayed by it.

Which was emphasized by Mullet as a "guide" and later on by myself when I mentioned the GL of food items.

Saying its irrelevant is very harsh and also very inaccurate.

[FitnFirm]

That GUIDE is meant as useful information, Members can chose to use it or not to use it, its not meant for a debate, If your bored go wash your car and mess with your neighbor.

[Cerberus]

A new thread for the debate would be useful. I see no reason why NOT to debate the importance of GI because this is a discussion-forum and that's what we do here.

GI can be used as a "guide" but it's only misleading most of the mainstream people. At least that's how it is in Sweden. "Low GI-foods! Eat bacon and lots of fat and be healthy!", that's what our newspapers say here. Of course it's possible to be healthy with such foods but eatin loads of it(with little or no exercise) is just plain stupid and that's why I am no longer a GI-"fantatic" as I was before. Not that I was eatin crap like that before but I do watch my calories more now..

In the right context GI can be useful for example filling up glycogen alot faster or what not. For example during a long endurance-exercise as marathon maltodextrine-drink would be alot better choice than oatmeal, or a bunch of peanuts.

[Jayhawkk]

That doesn't sound like an issue with GI as much as an issue brought on by the atkins fad.