Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 73

Thread: Glycemic Index & A List Of Common Foods

  1. #1
    Join Date: Jul 2006
    Posts: 309
    Rep Power
    0

    Glycemic Index & A List Of Common Foods

    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)

  2. Have 1 people(s) rated R.P. Reason Pack


    Total score : R.P. 0 View Rating Log

  3. #2
    mindstar's Avatar
    mindstar is offline Cheat Meal!
    Join Date: Dec 2005
    Location: Toronto
    Age: 37
    Posts: 3,262
    Rep Power
    1249
    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.
    it's not the body which is weak, but the mind.

    I hate it when people are squatting in the curl rack

  4. Have 1 people(s) rated R.P. Reason Pack

    Total score : R.P. 0 View Rating Log

  5. #3
    Admin Guest
    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.

  6. #4
    mindstar's Avatar
    mindstar is offline Cheat Meal!
    Join Date: Dec 2005
    Location: Toronto
    Age: 37
    Posts: 3,262
    Rep Power
    1249
    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?
    Last edited by mindstar; 07-15-2006 at 02:21 AM. Reason: forgot to say thanks....where are my manners?
    it's not the body which is weak, but the mind.

    I hate it when people are squatting in the curl rack

  7. #5
    Join Date: Jul 2006
    Posts: 309
    Rep Power
    0
    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.

  8. #6
    Admin Guest
    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!

  9. #7
    Cerberus's Avatar
    Cerberus is offline NPC Lightweight
    Join Date: Apr 2005
    Location: Sweden
    Age: 44
    Posts: 120
    Rep Power
    0
    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."
    Last edited by Cerberus; 07-15-2006 at 09:48 AM.
    I want bigger muscles and more definition!

  10. #8
    Jayhawkk's Avatar
    Jayhawkk is offline NPC Lightweight
    Join Date: Jul 2006
    Posts: 775
    Rep Power
    0
    How many studies could you find on PubMed that says opposite?
    Visit our Sponsors for Great Deals!!
    ------------------------------
    Quote Originally Posted by lineman28790
    Heres my tips on it, Im weighing in at 280lbs right now and im also 16, so i guess i know how to gain weight, but my genetics suck also but anyways:
    1. eat icecream or snack foods before going to sleep.
    2. dont workout for a few days and just pig as much as possible.
    3. take some creatine, i gained over 40lbs from creatine *dam it

    Hangin's too good for 'em! BURNIN'S too good for 'em! They should be ripped into itsy-bitsy little pieces and BURIED ALIVE!

  11. #9
    Admin Guest
    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.
    Last edited by Admin; 07-15-2006 at 11:45 AM.

  12. #10
    Admin Guest
    Quote 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.

  13. #11
    Join Date: Jul 2006
    Posts: 309
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote 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

    Quote 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.

    Quote 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
    Last edited by Mulletsoldier; 07-15-2006 at 12:33 PM.

  14. #12
    Cerberus's Avatar
    Cerberus is offline NPC Lightweight
    Join Date: Apr 2005
    Location: Sweden
    Age: 44
    Posts: 120
    Rep Power
    0
    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 :)
    I want bigger muscles and more definition!

  15. #13
    Ironslave's Avatar
    Ironslave is offline IFBB Lightweight
    Join Date: Mar 2005
    Age: 29
    Posts: 1,406
    Rep Power
    56
    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

  16. #14
    Join Date: Jul 2006
    Posts: 309
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote 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.

  17. #15
    Admin Guest
    I don't have the strenght. lol

  18. #16
    FitnFirm's Avatar
    FitnFirm is offline NPC Middleweight
    Join Date: Jul 2006
    Location: Michigan
    Posts: 173
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Admin
    I don't have the strenght. lol


    Hands over ears ( LALALALALALALALLA) haha
    m

  19. #17
    Ironslave's Avatar
    Ironslave is offline IFBB Lightweight
    Join Date: Mar 2005
    Age: 29
    Posts: 1,406
    Rep Power
    56
    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.

  20. #18
    Join Date: Jul 2006
    Posts: 309
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote 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.

  21. #19
    Ironslave's Avatar
    Ironslave is offline IFBB Lightweight
    Join Date: Mar 2005
    Age: 29
    Posts: 1,406
    Rep Power
    56
    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.

  22. #20
    FitnFirm's Avatar
    FitnFirm is offline NPC Middleweight
    Join Date: Jul 2006
    Location: Michigan
    Posts: 173
    Rep Power
    0

  23. #21
    Ironslave's Avatar
    Ironslave is offline IFBB Lightweight
    Join Date: Mar 2005
    Age: 29
    Posts: 1,406
    Rep Power
    56
    hahaha, nope! Swear to god it isnt me, lol. I'm canadian.

  24. #22
    Admin Guest
    Quote 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.
    Last edited by Admin; 07-15-2006 at 09:16 PM.

  25. #23
    Admin Guest
    Quote 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.
    Last edited by Admin; 07-15-2006 at 09:17 PM.

  26. #24
    tim290280's Avatar
    tim290280 is offline NPC Lightweight
    Join Date: Dec 2005
    Location: Country, Western Australia
    Age: 36
    Posts: 992
    Rep Power
    76
    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.

  27. #25
    Jayhawkk's Avatar
    Jayhawkk is offline NPC Lightweight
    Join Date: Jul 2006
    Posts: 775
    Rep Power
    0
    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.
    Visit our Sponsors for Great Deals!!
    ------------------------------
    Quote Originally Posted by lineman28790
    Heres my tips on it, Im weighing in at 280lbs right now and im also 16, so i guess i know how to gain weight, but my genetics suck also but anyways:
    1. eat icecream or snack foods before going to sleep.
    2. dont workout for a few days and just pig as much as possible.
    3. take some creatine, i gained over 40lbs from creatine *dam it

    Hangin's too good for 'em! BURNIN'S too good for 'em! They should be ripped into itsy-bitsy little pieces and BURIED ALIVE!

  28. #26
    Join Date: Jul 2006
    Posts: 309
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote 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.

  29. #27
    Admin Guest
    Quote 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.
    Last edited by Admin; 07-16-2006 at 12:41 AM.

  30. #28
    FitnFirm's Avatar
    FitnFirm is offline NPC Middleweight
    Join Date: Jul 2006
    Location: Michigan
    Posts: 173
    Rep Power
    0
    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.
    m

  31. #29
    Cerberus's Avatar
    Cerberus is offline NPC Lightweight
    Join Date: Apr 2005
    Location: Sweden
    Age: 44
    Posts: 120
    Rep Power
    0
    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.
    I want bigger muscles and more definition!

  32. #30
    Jayhawkk's Avatar
    Jayhawkk is offline NPC Lightweight
    Join Date: Jul 2006
    Posts: 775
    Rep Power
    0
    That doesn't sound like an issue with GI as much as an issue brought on by the atkins fad.
    Visit our Sponsors for Great Deals!!
    ------------------------------
    Quote Originally Posted by lineman28790
    Heres my tips on it, Im weighing in at 280lbs right now and im also 16, so i guess i know how to gain weight, but my genetics suck also but anyways:
    1. eat icecream or snack foods before going to sleep.
    2. dont workout for a few days and just pig as much as possible.
    3. take some creatine, i gained over 40lbs from creatine *dam it

    Hangin's too good for 'em! BURNIN'S too good for 'em! They should be ripped into itsy-bitsy little pieces and BURIED ALIVE!

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •