Re: Glycemic index of potatoes

On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 08:50:04 -0500, "Jim Bard" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It's true that potatoes are not low carb, and I have not eaten any
potatoes (of any kind) since being diagnosed T2. However, I had seen a
report about this study earlier -- and I would also be interested in
knowing *why* (if anyone knows) cold potatoes would be much lower on the
glycemic index than hot ones. Or, for that matter, what is the basis of
the study? -- has anyone seen any reports to indicate whether it is
considered a "good" study? For example, who funded the study?

Generally, the longer it takes your body to break-down the food (or at
least the sugar in the food), the lower the GI.

That's why most refined and processed foods have a high GI, while
whole foods have a lower GI. That's also why many cooked foods have a
higher GI and less-cooked or raw foods (ie. Spaghetti 'al-dente' is
lower GI than spaghetti cooked longer).

Not sure why it would take longer to digest if it was cooked first and
then reheated though...

"Renegade5" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 08:50:04 -0500, "Jim Bard" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It's true that potatoes are not low carb, and I have not eaten any
potatoes (of any kind) since being diagnosed T2. However, I had seen a
report about this study earlier -- and I would also be interested in
knowing *why* (if anyone knows) cold potatoes would be much lower on the
glycemic index than hot ones. Or, for that matter, what is the basis of
the study? -- has anyone seen any reports to indicate whether it is
considered a "good" study? For example, who funded the study?

Generally, the longer it takes your body to break-down the food (or at
least the sugar in the food), the lower the GI.

That's why most refined and processed foods have a high GI, while
whole foods have a lower GI. That's also why many cooked foods have a
higher GI and less-cooked or raw foods (ie. Spaghetti 'al-dente' is
lower GI than spaghetti cooked longer).

Not sure why it would take longer to digest if it was cooked first and
then reheated though...

I understand that, and realize that complex carbs result in less of a sugar
spike than a simple carb. My focus is on foods that are low in carbs,
period. I understand that foods that cause lower sugar spikes have a lower
GI, and that is good for diabetics. I'm not a diabetic, and I don't want
those carbs, whether it takes my body one hour or ten hours to digest them.
So I avoid them.

I'm like just about everyone else. I go with what works best for me. My
body, my system. It might be completely different for someone else, and all
I can do is offer my experiences. That's all any of us can do. I want to
thank you for your input. That's what we're here for.

On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 03:09:12 -0700, wombn >>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That's why most refined and processed foods have a high GI, while
whole foods have a lower GI. That's also why many cooked foods have a
higher GI and less-cooked or raw foods (ie. Spaghetti 'al-dente' is
lower GI than spaghetti cooked longer).

Not sure why it would take longer to digest if it was cooked first and
then reheated though...

Pasta's not cooked yet. Just dried.

Isn't it?

Yes, sorry, I was meaning the potato there (the study found if you
cooked the potato first, then re-heated it later, it had less impact
on your blood sugar). Strange. Though some fruits and vegetables
(like apples) are always 'leeching' off vapours (which is why you are
supposed to store your apples separate from other fruits) so maybe
it's something like that??