In article <
[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> So basically the ones with the high GI. Sugar is 100, wonder type bread is about 97.
Yes, if you want to look at it like that. A low carb diet is very similar to a very low GI diet,
since by nature most of the veggies/fruits consumed ARE low GI. The one major difference is that low
GI diets still generally rely on carbs for energy production while most LC diets rely on fatty acid
metabolism. They are both similar in practice, though. low GI will eat slightly more grains/fruits
while LC will eat slightly more healthy fats/fibrous veggies. The only problem is that because of
mainstream media, most people have the idea of LC, or "atkins" diets, as sitting around in front of
the TV eating lard with a spoon, which is a totally inaccurate assessment. if they would just bother
to actually research what a LC diet entails, they would see that it is a very balanced, healthy way
of eating from a metabolic point of view.
P.S.also, another thing to take into account when talking about GI is GL, or Glycemic Load. GL is
basically GI over time, ie the insulin required to metabolize a carbohydrate over a period of
time. In other words, even if something requires a high *total amount* of insulin to metabolize,
if it is spread out over a long period of time, the insulin level will never be raised that high
at any given point.
>
> StrongBad wrote:
> > In article <
[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> >
> >>Doesn't that depend on the GI of the carbohydrate? I don't think that you will get a lot of
> >>arguement about the nutritional value of wonder bread or refined sugar but what about apples and
> >>broccoli?
> >>
> >
> > It's two totally different things. The GI is in basic terms just a measure of how much insulin
> > is required to metabolize the carbohydrate. The point was that there are certain substances that
> > our bodies simply cannot function without, specifically select fats (linoleic acid and
> > Alpha-Linolenic Acid) various proteins (known as amino acids) and some vitamins and minerals.
> > None of these "essential nutrients" are carbohydrates, there are no "essential" carbohydrates
> > from a metabolic perspective. your body can function just fine without them. Now, one may GET
> > their vitamins/minerals etc... from sources that happen to contain carbohydrates as well, and
> > some of these foods are good to eat, but not because of carbohydrates per-se. Broccoli for
> > example is an excellent source of good vitamins, and very low in carbohydrates. I eat TONS of
> > broccoli on a low carb diet. however, the nutritional value has nothing to do with the
> > carbohydrate content per-se. The only specific carbohydrate one could argue has any kind of
> > nutritional value in and of itself is fiber, for its "digestive aiding" properties.
> >
> > Bottom line: low carb diets encourage TONS of veggies and moderate fruit consumption, so it's
> > not an issue. the only carbs one eschews on low-carb are starches and sugars. It boggles my mind
> > to think that people who theoretically understand the metabolic system could think that eating
> > more vegetables/healty fat and less sugar/starch is bad
>
> So basically the ones with the high GI. Sugar is 100, wonder type bread is about 97.
>
>
> >
> >
> >>Duffy Pratt wrote:
> >>
> >>>There is no essential nutrient in any carbohydrate. The body does not need them, either to
> >>>build tissue or for energy. There are entire human populations that do fine for long periods of
> >>>time without any significant carbohydrates. Its not just a theoretical idea from the
> >>>laboratory, but it is born out by observation of some Arctic tribes.
> >>>
> >>>So laugh all you want, but you are misinformed.
