What's the problem with GI and fruits ?



N

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
 
"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.
 
"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
 
"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
 
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. :)
 
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
 
"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
 
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. :)
 
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!
 
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
 
> 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?
 
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
 
>
> > 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?
 
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
 
"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
 
> ... 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?
 
"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