RE: Was Fasting Now Glucose/Insulin

[Guest guest]

>>My interest was in the effects of fasting vis a vis the insulin pathway as

reducing blood sugar should rest

the insulin system and perhaps improve insulin sensitivity.

This is the common " assumption " and the one that is always used when referring

to the glycemic index. However, they never measured insulin in the studies,

just blood sugar responses, and just assummed the 1:1 (or similar) relationship.

However, when Holt did the studies, she measured both glucose and insuling and

one thing that stood out was that there were great variations in the

relationship between the rises in glucose and the raises in insulin caused by

foods. Some foods raised insulin much less than they did glucose and some

foods raised insulin much more than they did glucose. As insulin is the real

issue, I personally think this " insulin index " is a much better reference on

choosing foods than the GI, though neither is highly accurate. In the insulin

index she used more realistic sized portions of foods at equal calories, which

again, to me, is a better standard as most of us use calories as a guide. the

GI studies used equal grams of carbs, which often related to unrealistic

servings of foods.

The most interesting finding was that " protein-rich foods ... elicited insulin

responses that were disproportionately higher than their glycemic responses. "

Also, Usually during juice fasting, the fruit juice is diluted at least 50% and

recommend to be consumed via a tablespoon or sipped slowly over time. This can

eliminate any potential rise in blood sugar.

Jeff

[Guest guest]

Insulin index also:

http://www.mendosa.com/insulin_index.htm

>From: "Jeff Novick" <jnovick@...> >Reply- >< > >Subject: RE: [ ] Was Fasting Now Glucose/Insulin >Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 13:28:21 -0400 > > >>My interest was in the effects of fasting vis a vis the insulin pathway as reducing blood sugar should rest >the insulin system and perhaps improve insulin sensitivity. > >This is the common "assumption" and the one that is always used when referring to the glycemic index. However, they never measured insulin in the studies, just blood sugar responses, and just assummed the 1:1 (or similar) relationship. > >However, when Holt did the studies, she measured both glucose and insuling and one thing that stood out was that there were great variations in the relationship between the rises in glucose and the raises in insulin caused by foods. Some foods raised insulin much less than they did glucose and some foods raised insulin much more than they did glucose. As insulin is the real issue, I personally think this "insulin index" is a much better reference on choosing foods than the GI, though neither is highly accurate. In the insulin index she used more realistic sized portions of foods at equal calories, which again, to me, is a better standard as most of us use calories as a guide. the GI studies used equal grams of carbs, which often related to unrealistic servings of foods. > >The most interesting finding was that "protein-rich foods ... elicited insulin responses that were disproportionately higher than their glycemic responses." > >Also, Usually during juice fasting, the fruit juice is diluted at least 50% and recommend to be consumed via a tablespoon or sipped slowly over time. This can eliminate any potential rise in blood sugar. > >Jeff >

[Guest guest]

the " instance " that she is talking about is not some small exception, but the

very instance why we do need an insulin index. Most books out there that use

the GI as their basis, end up promoting diets higher in high protein foods and

lower in carbs, yet, this is the very crux of the " exception " that she

minimizes. High protein foods do cause surges of insulin much higher than

blood sugar and some high carb foods dont cause a huge raise in index.

Statistically overall the difference may not have been significant, but

individually, it may matter

I think its something more to consider than just writing it off as Mendosa says

she is proposing.

[Guest guest]

Just another side thought on GI... the okinawans and the japanese have a diet

that is very high in GI. And the form of rice they eat also has a very GI. Yet

we all know the health and longevity of them. Yet, over the years, as their

diet has become more " westernized " the GI of their diet has gone down, yet the

incidence of obesity and diabetes has gone up.

Same with the Pima indians in Mexico and Arizona. Pimas in Mexico, High GI

diet, low obesity, low diabeteis. Pimas in Arizona, low GI diet, the heaviest

people in the US and the largest incidence on DB in a population.

[Guest guest]

>

> Same with the Pima indians in Mexico and Arizona. Pimas in Mexico,

High GI diet, low obesity, low diabeteis. Pimas in Arizona, low GI

diet, the heaviest people in the US and the largest incidence on DB in

a population.

Interesting article about the Pima Indians. Just shows how important

exercise is. Diet alone is not the only key to good health it seems.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/specials/pima/1102maycoba.shtml

Aequalsz

[Guest guest]

I think that makes a case for calorie control not necessarily grain calories. Grains do not cause obesity or DM.

Some think the GI bears on aging.

Regards.

----- Original Message -----

From: Jeff Novick

Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 1:18 PM

Subject: RE: [ ] Was Fasting Now Glucose/Insulin

Just another side thought on GI... the okinawans and the japanese have a diet that is very high in GI. And the form of rice they eat also has a very GI. Yet we all know the health and longevity of them. Yet, over the years, as their diet has become more "westernized" the GI of their diet has gone down, yet the incidence of obesity and diabetes has gone up. Same with the Pima indians in Mexico and Arizona. Pimas in Mexico, High GI diet, low obesity, low diabeteis. Pimas in Arizona, low GI diet, the heaviest people in the US and the largest incidence on DB in a population.

[Guest guest]

>>> I think that makes a case for calorie control not necessarily grain

calories. Grains do not cause obesity or DM.

Perhaps there is an issue with the type of grain also (ie, refined vs

unrefined). In addition, as someone mentioned, activity is an important

difference in these populations.

>> Some think the GI bears on aging.

If it does, it is probably because of the " assumed " relationship between GI and

elevated insulin with elevated insulin being the real culprit. As i pointed

out, though Mendosa may disagree, studing Insulin Index would be more important

than studying GI, expecially since we can.

What i also find interesting is that in the population studies, GI correlates

with BMI and Obesity. It doesnt seem to matter as much in those who are thin.

So, applying GI to those who are thin and eating more " whole foods " seems much

less relevant if relevant at all.