Discussion Board

Don't you think that at the next Advanced Study Weekend there should be a debate over whether people should consider the Glycemic Index when selecting foods to eat (or not eat)?

The question would be: Should health conscious people use the Glycemic Index as a factor in selecting which foods are an acceptable part of ones diet?

On the Pro side:

Dr. William Willett, Harvard School of Public Health

Dr. Neal Barnard, Author of Program for Reversing Diabetes

On the Con side:

Dr. John McDougall, author of The Starch Solution

Jeff Novick, RD, author of Fast Food

Moderator, Dr. T. Colin Campbell

Would anyone besides me like to see this kind of debate, where they would discuss their experieces in treating diabetics and the peer reviewed scientific research?

That would be interesting but I know there are a lot more rabid glycemic index people than Barnard and maybe Willet.

When these guys promote the glycemic index, are they only talking about diabetics or do they think everyone should eat low on the gi?

Didi

I don't know. But I think they could also address the issue of "are glucose spikes harmful?"

I am wondering how you would test to see if glucose spikes are harmful. I read that anything over 140 causes sugar to stick to the cells forever. If this is blood cells then it isn't forever because blood cells are around only a few weeks before they die and are replaced. So have they experimented on someone like me on a plant based diet, who eats potatoes, corn, rice, oatmeal and some bread or pasta every now and then to see---what? If my HbA1c is higher? If I develop more complications than someone who is low carbing? If in the long run my sugars keep getting higher and higher so that I will end up needing meds?

Didi

I think Barnard is trying to convince people who have been lied to by the ADA and just about every other source of diabetic nutrition information, to try his way of eating (which my assumption is close to McDougall). I think that's why he somewhat demonizes white potatoes, because all diabetics already know that white potatoes are the devil. So if he can straddle and incorporate some of the bad information they already have floating around in their heads, he'll have a better chance of getting them to listen to him.

Isn't that the whole issue behind recommending paying attention to GI? But another question is "why would you focus on GI when Glycemic Load is a much more "real world" marker for glycemic impact of a food?"

Dr Barnard said at the ASW a year ago that while he used the glycemic index in his diabetes studies it was "controversial" and you "don't have to use it."

He did his studies with Dr David Jenkins, the inventor of the GI, so perhaps that is why he used it.

Also didn't Dr McD have Dr Jenkins speak at the ASW back in 2006? I thought I read that somewhere. If that was the case then perhaps they already had the GI debate.

Geoffrey, I have noticed that the spikes from my morning oatmeal and banana seem to be getting lower as I lose more weight. All other things are equal. It will be an interesting experiment to track spikes as more and more weight is lost. This possibly means that as one loses weight one becomes less and less insulin resistant so numbers won't go as high after a high carb meal. My morning sugars are on average between seventy-five and 85 and usually around 80 or lower.

Didi

Much more than a possibility, that is just a solid fact. The fat in and around your cells is what is the primary cause of insulin resistance, along with lack of active muscle tissue. Nothing is 100% but excess body fat and insulin resistance are pretty much linked.

Yes! I would like to hear a debate on this topic.

Glad I'm not the only one.

I have read that a fasting blood cholesterol number might be deceptive because a lot of the damage to ones arteries happens in the non-fasting state.

Well, what about blood sugar levels in the non-fasting state? When I get a blood panel done, it's on a 12 hour fast. So, if my glucose number comes out below 100, does that mean I am off the hook? Or is my eating those potatoes doing me damage that isn't being picked up by the fasting blood results?

Egg-zacty!!! That is why a fairly recent study I have posted on here several times in other threads found that the one hour postprandial sugar is the best predictor of future diabetes. Better even than A1c because low fasting sugar level and spread apart in time meals can hide the size of spikes.

Sometimes my one hour is lower than the two hour. I have also read that the right time to take a post prandial blood sugar is 30 minutes after you have eaten the first bite.

I would like to know why so many low carbers are on meds while I eat potatoes, bananas, oatmeal, corn etc along with lots of vegetables some fruit, beans but no meat, fats or dairy and am not on meds. I am not at my normal weight yet so while I have consistently albeit slowly been losing, my low numbers are not because I am at my normal weight. i really will have to get a blood panel done. If doctors would make house calls it would have been done long ago.

Didi

Really really, I think the one hour postprandial is a proxy for the highest spike you hit. Since that will vary with the person (and the meal contents) the best thing if you are trying to determine it is to start checking about 30-45 minutes after start of meal and every 30 min thereafter until you get a notable drop. That will be your peak even if there is a bounce at the bottom as you experienced. Some people's high can be a couple hours or even more out (gastroparesis, pizza and ice cream, etc).