What's the problem with GI and fruits ?

Discussion in 'Food and nutrition' started by Niklas, Sep 30, 2003.

  1. Niklas

    Niklas Guest

    Hello to everyone I keep reading that if you have diabetes or you're trying to consume only low GI
    foods you should refrain from fruits consumption I can't understand this In fact I've always known
    that fruits don't raise neither insulin level nor glucose level dangerously or too much Fructose is
    independant from insulin and it's low in GI Even when they aknowledge that as a matter of fact
    fruits has a low GI, they keep claiming that bananas and tropical fruits have high GI and shoud be
    avoided But, isn't this completely false ? Isn't banana GI 49 and therefore still in the LOW range ?
    Isn't mango, papaya, granadilla all GI fruits ? I wonder if there's another criteria why tropical
    fruits are avoided from those following the GI dogma strctly, since GI seems to have got nothing to
    do with it...any ideas ?

    Thanks for you help Niklas
     
    Tags:


  2. Eric Bohlman

    Eric Bohlman Guest

    "Niklas" <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:

    > I keep reading that if you have diabetes or you're trying to consume only low GI foods you should
    > refrain from fruits consumption I can't understand this In fact I've always known that fruits
    > don't raise neither insulin level nor glucose level dangerously or too much Fructose is
    > independant from insulin and it's low in GI Even when they aknowledge that as a matter of fact
    > fruits has a low GI, they keep claiming that bananas and tropical fruits have high GI and shoud be
    > avoided But, isn't this completely false ? Isn't banana GI 49 and therefore still in the LOW range
    > ? Isn't mango, papaya, granadilla all GI fruits ? I wonder if there's another criteria why
    > tropical fruits are avoided from those following the GI dogma strctly, since GI seems to have got
    > nothing to do with it...any ideas ?

    The main problem is that while tropical fruits may not have particularly high glycemic *indices* (a
    measure of the effect of a given amount of carbohydrate from the food on blood sugar), they have
    rather high glycemic *loads* because one serving has quite a lot of carbohydrates (the GL is
    essentially the GI multiplied by the amount of carbohydrate per serving, with some normalizing
    factor applied).

    For example, carrots have a fairly high GI, but a serving of carrots doesn't contain a lot of
    carbohydrates, and thus unless you're pretending to be Bugs Bunny carrots don't have much effect on
    your blood sugar. A large amount of carbohydrates from low-GI sources can have as much, if not more,
    effect on blood sugar as a small amount of carbohydrates from high-GI sources.

    Comparing GIs only works if you're talking about the *same* amount of carbohydrates from different
    sources. Thus it makes sense to compare the GIs of different varieties of rice, different
    varieties or preparation styles of potatoes, etc. It doesn't make sense to directly compare the
    GIs of foods that provide substantially different amounts of carbohydrate per serving. You really
    have to use GL for that.

    Note that much of the available carbohydrate in bananas is starch, not fructose.
     
  3. Niklas

    Niklas Guest

    "Eric Bohlman" <[email protected]> ha scritto nel messaggio
    news:[email protected]...
    > "Niklas" <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
    >
    > > I keep reading that if you have diabetes or you're trying to consume only low GI foods you
    > > should refrain from fruits consumption I can't understand this In fact I've always known that
    > > fruits don't raise neither insulin level nor glucose level dangerously or too much Fructose is
    > > independant from insulin and it's low in GI Even when they aknowledge that as a matter of fact
    > > fruits has a low GI, they keep claiming that bananas and tropical fruits have high GI and shoud
    > > be avoided But, isn't this completely false ? Isn't banana GI 49 and therefore still in the LOW
    > > range ? Isn't mango, papaya, granadilla all GI fruits ? I wonder if there's another criteria why
    > > tropical fruits are avoided from those following the GI dogma strctly, since GI seems to have
    > > got nothing to do with it...any ideas ?
    >
    > The main problem is that while tropical fruits may not have particularly high glycemic *indices*
    > (a measure of the effect of a given amount of carbohydrate from the food on blood sugar), they
    > have rather high glycemic *loads* because one serving has quite a lot of carbohydrates

    Thanks for the explanation, I got it Yet, I still se no reason for avoid them since papaya, mango,
    granadilla, pineapple and many others have both low glygemic index and low glycemic load Banana has
    a low glycemic index and a low-range medium glycemic load I still, a part from dates, can't see any
    fruit that has a high glycemic index and an high glycemic load

    > For example, carrots have a fairly high GI, but a serving of carrots doesn't contain a lot of
    > carbohydrates, and thus unless you're pretending to be Bugs Bunny carrots don't have much effect
    > on your blood sugar. A large amount of carbohydrates from low-GI sources can have as much, if not
    > more, effect on blood sugar as a small amount of carbohydrates from high-GI sources.

    Could you please explain this, please ? I thought that the blood-sugar raising effect of a food
    can't be enhanced by a larger consumed amount of it After all, the amount of food that can pass
    through the stomach is limited If we eat food that are slow to digest then no other food will be
    processed, if we eat food that digest quickly, then what we ate has already been processed and any
    addition will just no raise the blood sugar more than the amount eaten before For example: if I ate
    2 bananas they raise my blood sugar to a specific level but if I eat 5 bananas, then when I going to
    swallow the last three, the first two have already been digested and the blood sugar level has
    already come back to its normal level so that the other three don't raise the blood sugar more but
    just in the same way the first two did (hope you understand what I mean, sorry for my english)

    Anyway, it seems to me that what's more important is the amount of insulin required by a food to be
    processed It seems that the GI is not reliable in predicting the insulin output It's believed that
    only carbohydrates can cause insulin to be secrete, but it seems that fat and protein need insulin
    too for the storage or their energy So, probably it's not only carbohydrates that is controlled by
    insulin If that were true then consuming too much fat could be dangerous for diabetics as well as or
    ever more than consuming high GI and GL foods, isn't it? What do you think about this article,
    written by a nutritionist and Ph.D. ? http://www.foodandhealth.com/cpecourses/giobesity.php

    > Note that much of the available carbohydrate in bananas is starch, not fructose.

    Where can I find the exact percentage of complex carbs in banana ? Thanks for your help
     
  4. Tcomeau

    Tcomeau Guest

    "Niklas" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > Hello to everyone I keep reading that if you have diabetes or you're trying to consume only low GI
    > foods you should refrain from fruits consumption I can't understand this In fact I've always known
    > that fruits don't raise neither insulin level nor glucose level dangerously or too much Fructose
    > is independant from insulin and it's low in GI Even when they aknowledge that as a matter of fact
    > fruits has a low GI, they keep claiming that bananas and tropical fruits have high GI and shoud be
    > avoided But, isn't this completely false ? Isn't banana GI 49 and therefore still in the LOW range
    > ? Isn't mango, papaya, granadilla all GI fruits ? I wonder if there's another criteria why
    > tropical fruits are avoided from those following the GI dogma strctly, since GI seems to have got
    > nothing to do with it...any ideas ?
    >
    > Thanks for you help Niklas

    I would avoid those fruits and veggies that are very sweet and/or very starchy. Otherwise, go
    nuts on 'em.

    TC
     
  5. Once upon a time, our fellow tcomeau rambled on about "Re: What's the problem with GI and fruits ?."
    Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

    >I would avoid those fruits and veggies that are very sweet and/or very starchy. Otherwise, go
    >nuts on 'em.

    Again, .... sci.med.nutrition is *not* a diabetes support forum.

    Just thought that you might want to know. :)
     
  6. Mattlb

    Mattlb Guest

    Niklas wrote:

    > Thanks for the explanation, I got it Yet, I still se no reason for avoid them since papaya, mango,
    > granadilla, pineapple and many others have both low glygemic index and low glycemic load Banana
    > has a low glycemic index

    Depending on where the bana comes from the GI ranges from about 50-70. Since white bread is about
    70, bananas definitely aren't low GI.

    > and a low-range medium glycemic load I still, a part from dates, can't see any fruit that has a
    > high glycemic index and an high glycemic load
    >
    > > For example, carrots have a fairly high GI, but a serving of carrots doesn't contain a lot of
    > > carbohydrates, and thus unless you're pretending to be Bugs Bunny carrots don't have much effect
    > > on your blood sugar. A large amount of carbohydrates from low-GI sources can have as much, if
    > > not more, effect on blood sugar as a small amount of carbohydrates from high-GI sources.
    >
    > Could you please explain this, please ? I thought that the blood-sugar raising effect of a food
    > can't be enhanced by a larger consumed amount of it

    The more you eat the more glucose will be released. It is that simple. Digestion isn't a conveyor
    belt process, where food travels through at the same rate it's eaten. There are delays, storage
    points and mixing involved.

    > After all, the amount of food that can pass through the stomach is limited If we eat food that are
    > slow to digest then no other food will be processed, if we eat food that digest quickly, then what
    > we ate has already been processed and any addition will just no raise the blood sugar more than
    > the amount eaten before For example: if I ate 2 bananas they raise my blood sugar to a specific
    > level but if I eat 5 bananas, then when I going to swallow the last three, the first two have
    > already been digested and the blood sugar level has already come back to its normal level so that
    > the other three don't raise the blood sugar more but just in the same way the first two did (hope
    > you understand what I mean, sorry for my english)

    While bananas are quickly digested compared to many foods, they're not digested as quickly as you
    suggest. Firstly, no food is absorbed through the stomach - it is really only the start of the
    digestive process. Its major function is churning up the food into a mush that is more easily
    attacked by the digestive enzymes. Once the food's liquid enough it leaves the stomach (a little bit
    at a time) and enters the duodenum where the real digestion occurs. After this the digested food
    enters the small intestine where mixing and absorption occurs.

    Even if you ate pure glucose (which requires no actual digestion), it will have to go through the
    stomach and duodenum before it will be absorbed. With food there is plenty of opportunity for food
    eaten later to catch up with food eaten sooner. I don't know precise times, but with your example of
    bananas you would probably have to leave more than half an hour between the first two and the last
    three to see two separate glucose peaks.

    > Anyway, it seems to me that what's more important is the amount of insulin required by a food to
    > be processed It seems that the GI is not reliable in predicting the insulin output

    For the same quantity of food, a high GI food will cause more insulin to be released than a low GI,
    although there may be exceptions if the protein content is very different. You might be interested
    in this page: http://www.mendosa.com/wolever.htm

    > > Note that much of the available carbohydrate in bananas is starch, not fructose.
    >
    > Where can I find the exact percentage of complex carbs in banana ?

    http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/cgi-bin/measure.pl?09040xyz0900xyzBananas%2c%20rawxyzMusa%20X%20p-
    aradisiaca

    MattLB
     
  7. Niklas

    Niklas Guest

    "MattLB" <[email protected]> ha scritto nel messaggio
    news:[email protected]...
    > Niklas wrote:
    >

    > I don't know precise times, but with your example of bananas you would probably have to leave more
    > than half an hour between the first two and the last three to see two separate glucose peaks.

    I whish I could find information about the precise time

    >
    > > Anyway, it seems to me that what's more important is the amount of
    insulin
    > > required by a food to be processed It seems that the GI is not reliable in predicting the
    > > insulin output
    >
    > For the same quantity of food, a high GI food will cause more insulin to be released than a low
    > GI, although there may be exceptions if the protein content is very different. You might be
    > interested in this page: http://www.mendosa.com/wolever.htm

    Thanks for the explanation But what about the fact that both fat and protein require insulin for
    their energy to be stored ? Because of this it seems to me that eating a food with little carb would
    create a greater insulin response Doesn't the insulin index support this, showing that beef although
    0 in GI is quite high in insulin response ?

    Niklas
     
  8. markd

    markd Guest

    While there are ng groups devoted to diabetes, this question is important for those millions who
    have symptons of syndrom-x, who have similar interests as do diabetics; this includes many if
    not most folk who have an above normal bmi, are sedentary, etc. and are unaware of their status.
    When these folk go about trying to avoid heart problems, high blood pressure, and diabetes, they
    can equally benefit from considering gi and gl of foods as a part of a health plan and weight
    loss program.

    >>I would avoid those fruits and veggies that are very sweet and/or very starchy. Otherwise, go
    >>nuts on 'em.
    >
    >Again, .... sci.med.nutrition is *not* a diabetes support forum.
    >
    >Just thought that you might want to know. :)
     
  9. Once upon a time, our fellow [email protected] rambled on about "Re: What's the problem with GI
    and fruits ?." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

    >While there are ng groups devoted to diabetes, this question is important for those millions who
    >have symptons of syndrom-x, who have similar interests as do diabetics; this includes many if
    >not most folk who have an above normal bmi, are sedentary, etc. and are unaware of their status.
    >When these folk go about trying to avoid heart problems, high blood pressure, and diabetes, they
    >can equally benefit from considering gi and gl of foods as a part of a health plan and weight
    >loss program.

    Actually, FatSo's post on the health ngs rather than on the diet support ngs because they like to
    lie to themselves. Posting here makes them feel healthy.

    Sorry, but you FatSo's are still fat and full of it. :)

    Ha, ... Hah, Ha!
    --
    Just my opinion. But, I am *right* as usual!
     
  10. Tcomeau

    Tcomeau Guest

    John 'the Man' <<DeMan[104]@hotmail.com>> wrote in message
    news:<[email protected]>...
    > Once upon a time, our fellow tcomeau rambled on about "Re: What's the problem with GI and fruits
    > ?." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...
    >
    > >I would avoid those fruits and veggies that are very sweet and/or very starchy. Otherwise, go
    > >nuts on 'em.
    >
    > Again, .... sci.med.nutrition is *not* a diabetes support forum.
    >
    > Just thought that you might want to know. :)

    What the frig are you rambling on about now? What has your comment got to do with my post? Do you
    have problems with the english language?

    TC
     
  11. Jaym1212

    Jaym1212 Guest

    > What do you think about this article, written by a nutritionist and Ph.D. ?
    > http://www.foodandhealth.com/cpecourses/giobesity.php

    The author says "fat magnifies the insulin output to a given rise in blood sugar". Based on meter
    readings, I know that ingestion of fat does not affect glucose readings significantly, but I do not
    know for certain the impact on insulin levels as the meter doesn't measure insulin. Does the
    consumption of fat (and/or protein) cause an increase of insulin in the blood?
     
  12. Mattlb

    Mattlb Guest

    Niklas wrote:
    >
    > "MattLB" <[email protected]> ha scritto nel messaggio
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > Niklas wrote:
    > >
    >
    > > I don't know precise times, but with your example of bananas you would probably have to leave
    > > more than half an hour between the first two and the last three to see two separate glucose
    > > peaks.
    >
    > I whish I could find information about the precise time
    >
    > >
    > > > Anyway, it seems to me that what's more important is the amount of
    > insulin
    > > > required by a food to be processed It seems that the GI is not reliable in predicting the
    > > > insulin output
    > >
    > > For the same quantity of food, a high GI food will cause more insulin to be released than a low
    > > GI, although there may be exceptions if the protein content is very different. You might be
    > > interested in this page: http://www.mendosa.com/wolever.htm
    >
    > Thanks for the explanation But what about the fact that both fat and protein require insulin for
    > their energy to be stored ?

    Fat uptake into fat tissue is independent of insulin (although fat release FROM fat tissue is
    prevented by insulin). The amino acids released from protein by digestion aren't stored as such.
    Insulin has the effect of increasing protein synthesis in some tissues, so more amino acids are
    removed from the blood and converted to protein, but it's not really a store - you can't put on
    lean weight in the same way you can put on fat weight. The most likely fate of any excess amino
    acids is being converted to glucose.

    > Because of this it seems to me that eating a food with little carb would create a greater insulin
    > response Doesn't the insulin index support this, showing that beef although 0 in GI is quite high
    > in insulin response ?

    Some amino acids stimulate insulin release. Others stimulate glucagon release which does the
    opposite of insulin in terms of blood glucose levels.

    MattLB
     
  13. >
    > > Because of this it seems to me that eating a food with little carb would create a greater
    > > insulin response Doesn't the insulin index support this, showing that beef although 0 in
    GI
    > > is quite high in insulin response ?
    >
    > Some amino acids stimulate insulin release. Others stimulate glucagon release which does the
    > opposite of insulin in terms of blood glucose levels

    What are the names of these amino acids?
     
  14. Mattlb

    Mattlb Guest

    merlijn spinnewijn wrote:
    >
    > >
    > >
    > > > Because of this it seems to me that eating a food with little carb would create a greater
    > > > insulin response Doesn't the insulin index support this, showing that beef although 0 in
    > GI
    > > > is quite high in insulin response ?
    > >
    > > Some amino acids stimulate insulin release. Others stimulate glucagon release which does the
    > > opposite of insulin in terms of blood glucose levels
    >
    > What are the names of these amino acids?

    Leucine and arginine are the main insulin stimulators and the glucogenic amino acids (alanine,
    serine, glycine, cysteine and threonine) are the main glucagon stimulators.

    Things are made more complicated because certain amino acids can also influence the effect of
    insulin on its target cells. Raising the insulin level by eating steak, therefore doesn't
    necessarily produce the same degree of insulin action as if glucose had caused the insulin increase.

    http://www.jci.org/cgi/content/abstract/101/7/1519?ijkey=59f28a837e0d799bf1a711a67330de39d3ffa5a7&k-
    eytype2=tf_ipsecsha

    MattLB
     
  15. Niklas

    Niklas Guest

    "jaym1212" <[email protected]> ha scritto nel messaggio
    news:[email protected]...
    > > What do you think about this article, written by a nutritionist and
    Ph.D. ?
    > > http://www.foodandhealth.com/cpecourses/giobesity.php
    >
    > The author says "fat magnifies the insulin output to a given rise in blood sugar". Based on meter
    > readings, I know that ingestion of fat does not affect glucose readings significantly, but I do
    > not know for certain the impact on insulin levels as the meter doesn't measure insulin. Does the
    > consumption of fat (and/or protein) cause an increase of insulin in the blood?

    Protein and carbohydrates both stimulate insulin response High GI carbohydrates cause an high
    insulin response while low GI carbohydrates cause a low insulin response Now, low GI high protein
    food still cause a middle/high insulin response Fat alone doesn't cause any insulin response
    Nevertheless, fat increases the insulin response given rise to protein and carbohydrates This means
    that in "the real world" fat does effect insulin Since no one eat pure fat, fat is always combined
    with protein and carbohydrates (as a matter of fact every food contain carbohydrates, proteins and
    fats) and fat increase the amount of insulin secreted

    Bottom line, unless you eat pure fat, pure carbohydrates and pure proteins; every food will affect
    your insulin secretion It seems that in order not to get too high levels of insulin you should
    (during the day) eat few high GI carbohydrates and not too much fat that would triple the amount of
    insulin secreted by ingestion of protein and carbohydrates

    Niklas
     
  16. Jaym1212

    Jaym1212 Guest

    > ... fat increases the insulin response given rise to protein and carbohydrates.

    Except for the above, all of your information matches that in lastest edition of Protein
    Power by Eades:

    TYPE______________ INSULIN ___ GLUCAGON Carb______________ +++++ _____ 0 Protien___________ ++
    ________ ++ Fat_______________ 0 _________ 0 Carb & Fat________ ++++ ______ 0 Prot & Fat _______ ++
    ________ ++ Hi Prot & Lo Car__ ++ ________ + Hi Carb & Lo Prot_ +++++++++ _ +

    Where did you get your info about insulin when fats are taken with protein and carbs?
     
  17. Niklas

    Niklas Guest

    "jaym1212" <[email protected]> ha scritto nel messaggio
    news:[email protected]...
    > > ... fat increases the insulin response given rise to protein and carbohydrates.
    >
    > Except for the above, all of your information matches that in lastest edition of Protein Power
    > by Eades:
    >
    > TYPE______________ INSULIN ___ GLUCAGON Carb______________ +++++ _____ 0 Protien___________ ++
    > ________ ++ Fat_______________ 0 _________ 0 Carb & Fat________ ++++ ______ 0 Prot & Fat _______
    > ++ ________ ++ Hi Prot & Lo Car__ ++ ________ + Hi Carb & Lo Prot_ +++++++++ _ +
    >
    > Where did you get your info about insulin when fats are taken with protein and carbs?

    It seems that it is basic physiology science Fat mixed with protein and carbohydrates low the GI and
    triple the insulin response I think that Eades are pretty confused The fact that adding fat to
    carbohydrates does lower the GI doesn't mean that it also lowers the insulin response What they show
    in this table is just a matching glycemic index and insulin response when it's a well known fact
    that glycemic index and insulin response don't match each other Do they say that they got these data
    from insulin reading or that they just extrapolated glycemic data into a "guessed" insulin response
    ? I'll ask Dr Kennedy if he has some reliable data on insulin response a part from basic physiology
    and biochemistry knowledge

    This would also show why a meal with 40% carbohydrates, 27% protein and 31% fat did caused the
    highest insulin response in the whole group, whereas without mixing fat with carbohydrates and
    proteins (of course, we're talking about massive doses, since actually every food in this world is a
    combination of fat /carbohydrates and protein) the insulin response is much lower (Lancet
    II:454-57,1966)

    Amino acids as carbohydrates are controlled by insulin, but it seems that fat impede insulin to do
    its job, so that more insulin it's needed That seems the primary reason why fat increases insulin
    secretion and why Eades just guessed the effect basing their assumption on glycemic index alone I've
    to find more information about this

    "Most notably, ingested protein produces virtually no glucose increase but does produce a
    substantial insulin response. Therefore it is quite plausible that bread+meat would produce a lower
    glycemic index but greater insulin index than bread alone."

    Niklas
     
Loading...