Speaking of Quackery, there is no science standing behind the Glycemic

I heard that the glycemic index is meant for use in the lab, not by the
consumer. Something about the type of carbs not being the whole story.
The amount matters too. Some people avoid healthy foods like carrots
because of the index.

You are correct, nature boy. It must be a first for you!

Seriously, the GI is an abstraction, really - "nutritional science" at
its worst. Even the glycemic load does not mean much, if anything. As
Dr. Spindler of caloric restriction fame has noted, the calorie
resticted animals have an intense insulin spike when they eat, whereas
the control animals have moderately high levels that "hang around" for
much longer periods of time. This seems to be the important
difference. It is an issue of dysfunction at the cellular and
molecular level, and as recent studies at those levels have indicated,
oxidative stress appears to be the underlying mechanism (turning on
what should be kept off and turning off what should be kept on). Think
of a light switch. Oxidative stress turns the body's lights on during
the day, when they are not needed, and turns them off in the evening,
when they are needed.

Mr-Natural-Health said:

There is no science standing behind the Glycemic Index.

Correct. All [censored] and smoke and mirrors, paid for by grain companies.

Quoted message said:

Show me the proof that the Scientific Method has proved that the
Glycemic index even exists, or that there is any agreement on what the
specific rating for a specific food item actually is or has validity to
it whatsoever.

Check out

http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/gi.pdf

--
223/174.7/180

Mr-Natural-Health said:

There is no science standing behind the Glycemic Index.

Show me the proof that the Scientific Method has proved that the
Glycemic index even exists, or that there is any agreement on what the
specific rating for a specific food item actually is or has validity to
it whatsoever.

You know the obvious answer to that. The index was developed through
reaearch. Your patter is mostly nothing, except to try to line your
pockets. Why don't you get cancer, and then have something to really
complain about?

In article <[email hidden]>,

Ignoramus19652 said:

Mr-Natural-Health said:

There is no science standing behind the Glycemic Index.

Correct. All [censored] and smoke and mirrors, paid for by grain companies.

Quoted message said:

Show me the proof that the Scientific Method has proved that the
Glycemic index even exists, or that there is any agreement on what the
specific rating for a specific food item actually is or has validity to
it whatsoever.

Th scientist who researched The Specific Carbohydrate Diet did not
support the Glycemic Index because it never ditinguished between mono
and disaccharide carbohydrates. On that diet inusulin spike is not the
concern, kt is digestability.

Quoted message said:

Check out

http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/gi.pdf

--
Diva
******
There is no substitute for the right food

Carol Frilegh said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Ignoramus19652 said:

Mr-Natural-Health said:

There is no science standing behind the Glycemic Index.

Correct. All [censored] and smoke and mirrors, paid for by grain companies.

Quoted message said:

Show me the proof that the Scientific Method has proved that the
Glycemic index even exists, or that there is any agreement on what the
specific rating for a specific food item actually is or has validity to
it whatsoever.

Th scientist who researched The Specific Carbohydrate Diet did not
support the Glycemic Index because it never ditinguished between mono
and disaccharide carbohydrates. On that diet inusulin spike is not the
concern, kt is digestability.

Makes sense to me.

i

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Check out

http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/gi.pdf

--
223/174.7/180

"Correct. All [censored] and smoke and mirrors, paid for by grain
companies."

Na, it was the dairy and meat industry that paid for it, its all reverse
psychology don't ya know?

Quackery Oats?

"Ignoramus19652" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Mr-Natural-Health said:

There is no science standing behind the Glycemic Index.

Correct. All [censored] and smoke and mirrors, paid for by grain companies.

Quoted message said:

Show me the proof that the Scientific Method has proved that the
Glycemic index even exists, or that there is any agreement on what the
specific rating for a specific food item actually is or has validity to
it whatsoever.

Check out

http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/gi.pdf

--
223/174.7/180

"The whole point of my THREAD is that real world experiences and
observations have real world value even if NOT supported by stupid medical
scientism.

Ergo, the Glycemic Index is NOT Quackery. But, the scientific method is
Quacked."

Ergo, you don't understand that which you fear, why, because you want to.
Astrology and esp are popular also as "real world experiences" and fare no
better then homopathology in lacking any independent evidence of support.
That independent means no one cares what you think unless and untill you
produce the meat of evidence in place of self invented irrelevant
babbling. The science for gi is sound, to show the contrary requires
equally sound evidence that finds no salvation in babbling.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Check out
http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/gi.pdf

The HTML version, which I find more readable, is at:
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/76/1/290S

It provides a good overview of the topic.

Personally, I am not affected by high glycemic foods beyond being able
to experience a sugar buzz.

Nevertheless, even if it is NOT supported by the scientific method the
concept still is practical and is a very usefull concept for the
diabetic and pre-diabetic individuals.

The whole point of my THREAD is that real world experiences and
observations have real world value even if NOT supported by stupid
medical scientism.

Ergo, the Glycemic Index is NOT Quackery. But, the scientific method
is Quacked.

Just my opinion, but I am always correct.

My observations were not claimed to be science with regard to your babble,
only common sense and observation serves. I had many years of graduate
level training in the scientific method thank you. If we were doing
science it would be about you and your behavior and the possible character
flaws by which to make a diagnosis. But we need not bother with such a
formal approach for you have provided all the evidence such that science
is not required to identify same. Bigotry and hissy fits and bouts of
emotional hand waving and appeals to marterdom are obvious to anyone as
all the evidence we need.

You do not understand science, you have no grounds to be critical of
others who do based on your lack of same, you are jealous and envious of
it's power in the face of your pathetic notions and how it contradicts
what you hold dear and meaningful. You are bitter and resent the hand
life has delt you and lash out in that bitterness while at the same time
desperatly seeking recognition and validation.

"Sorry to inform you, but YOU are NOT:

1. Practicing the scientific method, now. 2. Furthering the noble cause of
the scientific method, now.

Anybody can claim to believe in science, but that is not what counts. Nor,
has it ever counted.

Only the scientific method counts, and you dear fool are NOT presently
engaging in the scientific method in any shape, way, or form."

Quoted message said:

"The whole point of my THREAD is that real world experiences and
observations have real world value even if NOT supported by stupid medical
scientism.

Ergo, the Glycemic Index is NOT Quackery. But, the scientific method is
Quacked."

Ergo, you don't understand that which you fear, why, because you want to.
Astrology and esp are popular also as "real world experiences" and fare no
better then homopathology in lacking any independent evidence of support.
That independent means no one cares what you think unless and untill you
produce the meat of evidence in place of self invented irrelevant
babbling. The science for gi is sound, to show the contrary requires
equally sound evidence that finds no salvation in babbling.

See my commentary on babbling on these ngs at:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med/browse_thread/thread/780e0a94077e69a2/a0d9c9c853239923#a0d9c9c853239923

Sorry to inform you, but YOU are NOT:

1. Practicing the scientific method, now.
2. Furthering the noble cause of the scientific method, now.

Anybody can claim to believe in science, but that is not what counts.
Nor, has it ever counted.

Only the scientific method counts, and you dear fool are NOT presently
engaging in the scientific method in any shape, way, or form.

You have my condolences, for being just a deluded fool.

Quoted message said:

only common sense and observation serves. I had many years of graduate
level training in the scientific method thank you.

You are dumber than a door nob, thank you. 🙂

You are a Benjamin Rush of the new millennium. 🙁

While the Glycemic Index has been a real help for diabetics and for
those suffering from borderline diabetes, all you see is your blind
pursuit of science. But, NEVER do you actually follow the Scientific
Method.

The patient be damn. The public be damn. Just as long as you can
blindly pursue your beloved science, but NEVER the scientific method.

You have my condolences. And, the public has been warned: You wont
find any use of the scientific method on these ngs. No self-respecting
scientist would ever post on these ngs. They publish research. They
NEVER babble here.

Just thought that you might want to know.

Quoted message said:

only common sense and observation serves. I had many years of graduate
level training in the scientific method thank you.

You are dumber than a door nob, thank you. 🙂

You are a Benjamin Rush of the new millennium. 🙁

While the Glycemic Index has been a real help for diabetics and for
those suffering from borderline diabetes, all you see is your blind
pursuit of science. But, NEVER do you actually follow the Scientific
Method.

The patient be damn. The public be damn. Just as long as you can
blindly pursue your beloved science, but NEVER the scientific method.

You have my condolences. And, the public has been warned: You wont
find any use of the scientific method on these ngs. No self-respecting
scientist would ever post on these ngs. They publish research. They
NEVER babble here.

Just thought that you might want to know.

The Glycemic Index was arrived at empirically - which is the only way such a
table could be developed. A standard amount of each carbohydrate was
ingested, and the resulting blood glucose curve was measured over time - by
volunteers. Those curves were averaged and then put onto an arbitrary scale
(the GI) to show the effect upon blood glucose of each of the various
carbohydrates.

Only empirically was it discovered that some carbohydrates convert to blood
glucose very, very slowly (chana dal, for example). And that at least one
carb affects blood glucose even more rapidly than pure glucose
(maltodextrose, as I recall). Go figger.

I eat anything, but stay keenly aware of the GI of my intake - then use some
combination of acarbose, nateglinide, and isometrics to avoid major BG
peaks. After literally thousands of finger-sticks and careful record-keeping
to build a knowledge base that permits me to make valid predictions, I can
attest to the validity of the GI and its value in managing peaks.

I think the latest diet fad, which purports to exploit the GI as a weight
management tool, might be quackery. I have found no published bariatric
research to support the claims made by the people touting those schemes -
and my standard for "quackery" is medical claims without substantiation by
peer-reviewed research.

Ike

As mentioned before, all the evidence is here before us to make common
sense decisions of the quality of your babble and the character on which
it is formed, hissy fits and other now familiar behavior continues in
place of informative content.

"You are dumber than a door nob, thank you. 🙂
You are a Benjamin Rush of the new millennium. 🙁

While the Glycemic Index has been a real help for diabetics and for
those suffering from borderline diabetes, all you see is your blind
pursuit of science. But, NEVER do you actually follow the Scientific
Method.

The patient be damn. The public be damn. Just as long as you can
blindly pursue your beloved science, but NEVER the scientific method.

You have my condolences. And, the public has been warned: You wont
find any use of the scientific method on these ngs. No self-respecting
scientist would ever post on these ngs. They publish research. They
NEVER babble here."

In article said:

The Glycemic Index was arrived at empirically - which is the only way such a
table could be developed. A standard amount of each carbohydrate was
ingested, and the resulting blood glucose curve was measured over time - by
volunteers. Those curves were averaged and then put onto an arbitrary scale
(the GI) to show the effect upon blood glucose of each of the various
carbohydrates.

Quoted message said:

Only empirically was it discovered that some carbohydrates convert to blood
glucose very, very slowly (chana dal, for example). And that at least one
carb affects blood glucose even more rapidly than pure glucose
(maltodextrose, as I recall). Go figger.

This is not difficult. One molecule of maltose consists of
two molecules of glucose minus one molecule of water. So
a molecule of maltose masses 1.9 times that of a molecule
of glucose, but works as 2 molecules, and this conversion is
very fast.

Quoted message said:

I eat anything, but stay keenly aware of the GI of my intake - then use some
combination of acarbose, nateglinide, and isometrics to avoid major BG
peaks. After literally thousands of finger-sticks and careful record-keeping
to build a knowledge base that permits me to make valid predictions, I can
attest to the validity of the GI and its value in managing peaks.

Quoted message said:

I think the latest diet fad, which purports to exploit the GI as a weight
management tool, might be quackery. I have found no published bariatric
research to support the claims made by the people touting those schemes -
and my standard for "quackery" is medical claims without substantiation by
peer-reviewed research.

Quoted message said:

Ike

--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
[email hidden] Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Only empirically was it discovered that some carbohydrates convert to
blood
glucose very, very slowly (chana dal, for example). And that at least one
carb affects blood glucose even more rapidly than pure glucose
(maltodextrose, as I recall). Go figger.

This is not difficult. One molecule of maltose consists of
two molecules of glucose minus one molecule of water. So
a molecule of maltose masses 1.9 times that of a molecule
of glucose, but works as 2 molecules, and this conversion is
very fast.

Thanks, but the GI is generated by ingesting 50g (about 2oz) of a digestible
carb, then measuring the change in BG over time (2H). 50g of pure glucose
can't contain less glucose than 50g of maltodextrose, so....Did I fail
another Purdue IQ test??

A trade, a team, a union, a drink, a band!
Go Boilermakers!

Ike

Knocking the glycemic index?
If you aren't sure how can you be critical?