Guest guest Posted June 25, 2005 Report Share Posted June 25, 2005 > > When we're talking about eating an apple, pear, or banana, the serving > > size in each case is one piece of fruit. > > But there are tiny apples and HUGE apples. Yes, and there are also tiny and huge pears and bananas. My notion is that such variances average out under the influence of common sense. If someone chooses to compare a tiny apple with a huge pear, the results will be skewed, certainly. But, the GL tables often provide values for various types of each fruit, which constrain the size variation to variation within type rather than across types. One might propose a GL based on weight rather than on the mythical serving. Perhaps someone has, but I'm not aware of it. I once did so by using an Excel spreadsheet, but I've long since discarded the result. As I've written elsewhere, I work capably with numbers but, given choice, don't like to organize my life around them. So far, I'm doing fine without having to resort to them except in the context of theoretical discussions <g>. Low-carb cheers, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 25, 2005 Report Share Posted June 25, 2005 I eat the smallest banana every so often and it does not seem to mess me up. I don't like them if cut in half. Same way with apples, I get the smallest ones and I prefer Granny tart apples. ml Gretchen wrote: > > > When we're talking about eating an apple, pear, or banana, the serving > > size in each case is one piece of fruit. > > But there are tiny apples and HUGE apples. > > Gretchen > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 25, 2005 Report Share Posted June 25, 2005 I don't like apples of any kind small or not--not crazy enough about bananas to bother with them either. I never even liked apple pie or banna bread etc. etc. I also only like unripe Bosc pears not the ripe ones or other kinds of pears. Now my Dad loved bannas so much, my mum had to buy them several times a week because he would eat every one that was in the house. cappie Greater Boston Area T-2 10/02 5/05 A1c: 5.3 = 111 mean glu 50-100 carb diet, walking, Metformin ALA/EPO, ALC, Vit C, Calc/mag, low dose Biotin, full spectrum E, Policosanol, fish oil cap, fresh flax seed, multi vitamin, Lovastatin 40 mg/coQ10 100mg, Enalapril 10 mg 5/05:140 lbs (highest weight 309) 5' tall /age 67, cappie@... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 26, 2005 Report Share Posted June 26, 2005 Bill wrote > For this purpose, I think that we should consider the glycemic load > (GL) of the food rather its glycemic index (GI). The GL is the GI > times the active carbs per serving. See > <http://www.mendosa.com/gilists.htm>. The Glycemic Load is the Glycemic Index times the available carbs in your particular serving divided by 100 and rounded to the nearest whole number. Bea Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 26, 2005 Report Share Posted June 26, 2005 But how does one compute a mixed meal? SulaBlue > Bill wrote > > For this purpose, I think that we should consider the glycemic load > > (GL) of the food rather its glycemic index (GI). The GL is the GI > > times the active carbs per serving. See > > <http://www.mendosa.com/gilists.htm>. > > The Glycemic Load is the Glycemic Index times the available carbs in your > particular serving divided by 100 and rounded to the nearest whole number. > > Bea Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 26, 2005 Report Share Posted June 26, 2005 > The Glycemic Load is the Glycemic Index times the available carbs in your > particular serving divided by 100 and rounded to the nearest whole number. Yes, the GL is customarily expressed as a number normalized between 0 and 100, resulting after multiplication of the GI and active (available) carbs by 100. Those of us who learned science during the reign of the slide rule prefer unnormalized numbers ranging from 0 to 1, which avoid unnecessary manual tracking of decimal places <g>. Cheers, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 27, 2005 Report Share Posted June 27, 2005 At 10:19 PM 6/26/05, Bea Pullar wrote: >The Glycemic Load is the Glycemic Index times the available carbs in your >particular serving divided by 100 and rounded to the nearest whole number. ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh..........Math!!!! sky Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 29, 2005 Report Share Posted June 29, 2005 You add up the Glycemic Loads of the ingredients/foods. I've been doing it off and on since they first published about Glycemic Load. Of course when I started in 2001 I was using just Glycemic Index. Basically I eat similar meals most of the time so it's only when I try something new that I need to calculate the Glycemic Load of a meal. Now - for 6 months - my main focus is to only have 10 percent of the energy (kJ) come from fats - so I am tolerating slightly higher GL meals - but losing weight as planned by the new endo. Bea > But how does one compute a mixed meal? > SulaBlue > >> The Glycemic Load is the Glycemic Index times the available carbs in your >> particular serving divided by 100 and rounded to the nearest whole >> number. >> >> Bea Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 29, 2005 Report Share Posted June 29, 2005 No Bill you divide by 100 not multiply! Bea Re: Fruit > > >> The Glycemic Load is the Glycemic Index times the available carbs in > your >> particular serving divided by 100 and rounded to the nearest whole > number. > > Yes, the GL is customarily expressed as a number normalized between 0 > and 100, resulting after multiplication of the GI and active > (available) carbs by 100. Those of us who learned science during the > reign of the slide rule prefer unnormalized numbers ranging from 0 to > 1, which avoid unnecessary manual tracking of decimal places <g>. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 29, 2005 Report Share Posted June 29, 2005 Hi Bea and all, > No Bill you divide by 100 not multiply! Oops! Sorry to mislead. You're right: if you use a GI based on a 0-100 scale, you need to divide. Those of us who picture the decimal point as being in front of the GI, rather than behind it, don't do it that way. But, I concede that us slide-rule types who make so little of decimal points and so capriciously reconfigure them are rather rare these days. Even rarer are slide-rule types who are taking narcotic pain relievers while recovering from kidney-stone surgery, which state is probably the better explanation for my confusing response <g>. Thanks for the correction! Cheers, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.