is the Glycemic Index overrated? Here’s some of the post:Personally, I don’t know much about the Glycemic Index—just seems like another gimmick to me. But Diet-Blog wants to know,
Tufts University have just completed the first phase of a study comparing low-glycemic-load and high-glycemic-load diets.Like I said, the Glycemic Index isn’t really my bag, and, it doesn’t impress Dr. Fuhrman all that much either. Check out some of his thoughts on it:
The results show no significant difference after one year of weight loss.
The research used 34 overweight men and women. Calorie intake was restricted by 30%.
The Low GL diet consisted of 40% carbohydrate, 30% protein, 30% fat.
The High GL diet consisted of 60% carbohydrate, 20% protein, 20% fat.
There are reasons why high glycemic foods may be harmful but just explaining they are high glycemic is not one of them. It is true that a high glycemic response is one of the many features that is present in unhealthy processed foods, but that response is not a significant reason that explains the problem with those foods. There is no reason the glucose and insulin curve must stay blunted for good health. In diabetes research the glycemic index (GI) of carbohydrates has long been recognized as a favorable aid for diabetics to control blood sugar. The same is now often the case in lipid research as it has been demonstrated that high glycemic diets, rich in white flour, refined sweets and processed foods are unfavorable to both glucose levels and lipid parameters. The glycemic index of these foods is not the main reason they are dangerous foods, the main reason is because they are missing nutritional value.The rest of Dr. Fuhrman’s opinions on the Glycemic Index are in Processed Carbohydrates, Dr. Atkins, and the Fallacy of Merely Measuring Food on the Glycemic Index.