Posted by FredPotter on July 17, 2007, at 22:54:15
In reply to Re: Nardil sugar cravings, posted by FredPotter on July 17, 2007, at 20:18:56
Something I found (glucose is possibly classified as GI=100 or it might be more as there are 2 different GI scales)
And there is a last problem as far as diabetics are concerned. The GI of fructose (fruit sugar) is 22, very much lower than sucrose (table sugar) at 64, yet fructose is far more damaging to a diabetic's health than sugar.(2-4) To sum up, the Glycaemic Index is a very weak index which is over simplified, over hyped, and over sold. While it may have some use in a clinical setting, it is really of very limited use to the general public.
What matters as far as your body is concerned is not the GI of a carbohydrate, but the total amount. A hundred grams of carbohydrate is a hundred grams of carbohydrate whatever its GI is.
By the way, as I mentioned, the GI diet was billed on the magazine's cover as a 'low-carb' diet, and so it should be, of course, as all the truly low-GI foods have little if any carb in them. However, in the recipes section, under the heading 'Putting it all into practice', readers were told to eat 6 portions of carb, 5 portions of fruit and veg (which are also carbs, of course, even though they are listed separately), 2-3 servings of protein and 3 portions of low-fat diary food. In other words it's the same dreary, old 'healthy' low-calorie, low-fat, high-carb diet that has consistently failed dieters and ruined their health for more than a century.
poster:FredPotter
thread:770022
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20070710/msgs/770251.html