Diet, Nutrition and SupplementationPost here for supplement reviews or nutritional advice. If you're trying to get "ripped abz" THIS is where you should be.
Long-term effects of 2 energy-restricted diets differing in glycemic load on dietary adherence, body composition, and metabolism in CALERIE: a 1-y randomized controlled trial.
Am J Clin Nutr. 2007 Apr;85(4):1023-30
SK Das et. al.
BACKGROUND: There remains no consensus about the optimal dietary composition for sustained weight loss. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to examine the effects of 2 dietary macronutrient patterns with different glycemic loads on adherence to a prescribed regimen of calorie restriction (CR), weight and fat loss, and related variables. DESIGN: A randomized controlled trial (RCT) of diets with a high glycemic load (HG) or a low glycemic load (LG) at 30% CR was conducted in 34 healthy overweight adults with a mean (+/-SD) age of 35 +/- 6 y and body mass index (kg/m(2)) of 27.6 +/- 1.4. All food was provided for 6 mo in diets controlled for confounding variables, and subjects self-administered the plans for 6 additional months. Primary and secondary outcomes included energy intake measured by doubly labeled water, body weight and fatness, hunger, satiety, and resting metabolic rate. RESULTS: All groups consumed significantly less energy during CR than at baseline (P < 0.01), but changes in energy intake, body weight, body fat, and resting metabolic rate did not differ significantly between groups. Both groups ate more energy than provided (eg, 21% and 28% CR at 3 mo and 16% and 17% CR at 6 mo with HG and LG, respectively). Percentage weight change at 12 mo was -8.04 +/- 4.1% in the HG group and -7.81 +/- 5.0% in the LG group. There was no effect of dietary composition on changes in hunger, satiety, or satisfaction with the amount and type of provided food during CR. CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide more detailed evidence to suggest that diets differing substantially in glycemic load induce comparable long-term weight loss.
Wonder what the Quack-Jobs at Nutrisystems would think of this or the mounds of other research that had similar findings. You know, Nutrisystems the people that just discovered the GI Index a few years ago and swear you can eat as much Low Gi Nutrisystems food as you would like whithout gaining weight.
Percentage weight change at 12 mo was -8.04 +/- 4.1% in the HG group and -7.81 +/- 5.0% in the LG group. There was no effect of dietary composition on changes in hunger, satiety, or satisfaction with the amount and type of provided food during CR. CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide more detailed evidence to suggest that diets differing substantially in glycemic load induce comparable long-term weight loss.
So if I interpret this part correctly, it shows that the group that ate a high GI diet lost more weight w/ less variance than the group that ate a low GI diet. Correct?
So if I interpret this part correctly, it shows that the group that ate a high GI diet lost more weight w/ less variance than the group that ate a low GI diet. Correct?
Yes.
__________________
"The strongest steel goes through the hottest fires."-Anonymous
"When you begin to believe nothing is heavy, all weights become light." -Rossbow
"Just remember, somewhere there is a little Chinese girl warming up with your max."-Jim Convroy
"It's a round hole, dammit. Everyone fits."--Anonymous Mod at Strengthmill
1. Does high GI actually cause a higher insulin spike?
2. If not, where did the concept come from...
3. If it does, then perhaps they need to look at how absorbtion rate might affect...what's the word...lipolisys?
1. Does high GI actually cause a higher insulin spike?
2. If not, where did the concept come from...
3. If it does, then perhaps they need to look at how absorbtion rate might affect...what's the word...lipolisys?
1) GI correlates with II (insulin index) in some foods, but not others. An example low-GI/high-II food is milk & milk products.
2) People like to simplify complex stuff & figure GI always is directly proportional to II, when it's not the case with all foods.
3) GI manipulation has failed at lowering bodyfat, especially in long-term trials. So, examining GI's effect on lipolysis would be redundant.
I always wondered why eating a donut or pastry gave me a headache and then put me in an energy slump. I had heard about the GI concept, but I figured since those foods have a lot of fat, the idea they were giving me an insulin spike must be wrong.
I guess the lesson is that these interactions in the body are extremely complex and not really understood yet.
Gi correlates with II in some foods but:
from mendosa.com:
There are some instances, however, where a food has a low glycemic value but a high insulin index value. This applies to dairy foods and to some highly palatable energy-dense "indulgence foods." Some foods (such as meat, fish, and eggs) that contain no carbohydrate, just protein and fat (and essentially have a GI value of zero), still stimulate significant rises in blood insulin.
I am starting to lose it on the different measures of insulin response.
So, the currents are:
1. GI - Glycemic Index.
2. GL - Glycemic Load.
3. II - Insulin Index.
Now, if I remember right, GI is measures more of an impulse or spike type affect. Glycemic load measures the total insulin affect for the lifetime of the food.
"The glycemic load
Researchers at Harvard University came up with the glycemic load (GL) concept in 1997. The glycemic load is calculated by multiplying the GI value of a food by the amount of (active) carbohydrates per serving and dividing by 100."
Insulin index
The insulin index is a ratio based on insulin levels found over two hours after consuming 1000 calories of the test food to 1000 calories of white bread."
I would recommend you purchase The Carbohydrate Files and Knowledge and Nonsense: the science of nutrition and exercise .For a further explaination of the above-mentioned.
From a diabetic point of view GI and GL are often not particularly helpful. Mendosa has liked them. Dr Bernstein says if you are using insulin whether the glucose comes in fast or slow you still have to medicate for it. And if you are trying for tight control it is just better to be very low carb.
I would recommend you purchase The Carbohydrate Files and Knowledge and Nonsense: the science of nutrition and exercise .For a further explaination of the above-mentioned.
Thanks Coach, but I really do like to hear it from a human. These books tend to be a bit...sleep inducing, if you get my meaning.
I still haven't made it 1/4 of the way through McGill's "Ultimate Back Fitness and Performance" and I've had the book for a year now. I just tend to doze off reading it.
One of the main take-away points I hope you get from this thread is that GI, GL, & II have not proven themselves as useful tools to give a crap about.
That's the problem!
I was hoping on something hard, that I can utilize. For now, I'm simply following your advice: eat sensibly, be active, moderate the non-nutritious.
Everything that was "hard-coded" is proving to be a fallacy.
Time to put on the headphones and rock out! (seriously, I'll work more toward watching what I eat).
In addition, you and Coach Hale make too much sense. It is hard to disregard your logic, but I still want to know the root cause of the affect in the experiment Coach Hale cited. Anomalies present a dare. They thumb their nose at you.
But...to both you and Coach Hale, what is your baseline? One can't make judgment w/o a baseline. A judgment requires some "frame of reference" else it is free floating opinion, regardless of the number of bull's eyes.
low GI vs High GI
Linear Mode
