In regards to Glycemic Index
-
11-28-2007 12:42 PM
Registered User
In regards to Glycemic Index
I was under the assumption for the longest time since I've been lifting that fruits have high levels of sugar and are used quite quickly in the body. But after reviewing the glycemic index, it shows that apples actually have a level of a good ten points lower than oat bran. Anyone care to comment?
-
11-28-2007 12:47 PM
PES Rep
There is a lot of variance in the GI of fruits, but they should be included in everyones diet. There are a myriad of reasons why this is, so I will just say that they are yummy.
-
11-28-2007 04:12 PM
Board Supporter
It is because there is more than one type of sugar and some are lower on the GI than others. In fact, most natural complex carbs (ie starches) are higher GI than fruit sugar (fructose).
You can thank the usual incomplete mainstream nutrition information for the confusion.
-
11-28-2007 04:38 PM
Registered User
Ah. Gotcha. Most of their knowledge is either skewed or incomplete on things like steroids so I shouldn't be surprised if something as simple as diet seemed to slip under their radar as well lol.
-
11-29-2007 03:57 AM
Registered User
The GI is pretty much of no use anymore. Lookup the glycemic load of the food of study and you'll notice a much different value. Take into consideration the water content of the food, the fiber content, and maybe other factors. Some foods require a lot of energy to assimilate the nutrients and some complex carbs require a lot of energy to break them down into useable, simpler carbs.
ANDROFACTORY official representative - CEO (non-profit) Believer Castle believer-castle (dot) com Charity Project 'Monsanto Movement' Admin/Web Designer MonsantoMovement (dot) com
-
11-29-2007 03:59 AM
Registered User
Take into consideration 'food combining' as well, which shouldn't be followed verbatim (unless you want to live a neurotic life). Different competing enzymes change the rate of digestion for certain other macronutrients and when combining certain types of macros with others, one can potentially negate digestion altogether.
ANDROFACTORY official representative - CEO (non-profit) Believer Castle believer-castle (dot) com Charity Project 'Monsanto Movement' Admin/Web Designer MonsantoMovement (dot) com
-
11-29-2007 11:40 AM
Board Supporter
Originally Posted by
Force of Green
The GI is pretty much of no use anymore. Lookup the glycemic load of the food of study and you'll notice a much different value. Take into consideration the water content of the food, the fiber content, and maybe other factors. Some foods require a lot of energy to assimilate the nutrients and some complex carbs require a lot of energy to break them down into useable, simpler carbs.
I wouldn't go so far as to say the GI is of no use, just limited use. It is just another tool that one can use for making food selections but it should hardly be the only parameter. Ironically if you eat a balanced, whole food diet, at an appropriate calorie level the GI's usefulness DOES approach zero IMO.
Similar Forum Threads
-
By MAxximal in forum Supplements
Replies: 0
Last Post: 07-01-2009, 02:25 PM
-
By Aggravated in forum Nutrition / Health
Replies: 0
Last Post: 01-13-2009, 08:39 AM
-
By T-Bone in forum Weight Loss
Replies: 2
Last Post: 04-22-2007, 01:15 PM
-
By jjohn in forum Nutrition / Health
Replies: 3
Last Post: 06-16-2006, 12:33 PM
-
By Timbo in forum Weight Loss
Replies: 0
Last Post: 03-16-2003, 02:18 PM