[Yukon Cornelius]

Originally Posted by Nabeshin

Ah, ok, you meant the ratio of the GL to the serving size. (Gee, so that's why he kept mentioning quantities...) Well, that makes sense, in that malto is much more calorically dense than a potato, so if you eat equal volumes of each, the malto will cause a larger insulin spike than the potato. But bodybuilders don't eat for volume, they eat for mass --- calories in particular. What's important is not how much a particular volume of food affects insulin, but how, say, 50g of it does. Which would give you the GI of a food. And you know how I feel about that.


I take it you consider the GL to be a good indicator of lipogenesis, then?

I don't disagree with the rest of your post.

Umm...That is WHY the GL exists because it determines the difference in portion size. That is why they created the Insulin Index in the first place.

No you are wrong again. The GL is BASED on the load that is release pertaining to portion size. 5oz. is 35-45g of carbohydrates (depending onf the type) where 1 Tablpsoon of Malto is 10g. So if matched the same amounts of carbs the GL of Malto would be 34-45 compared to 26 for the potato. The difference is significant.


The GI AND GL are good indicators. As I said in the beginning both are good factors. For the most part the higher the GI the higher the GL. There are exceptions to the rule and WHY teh GL was created but that doesn't invalidate the concept of GI and for the majority of foods its STILL a good indicator.

[wheystation]

One of the things that I love about this board is the raw honesty. I have been copying this thread for the owner for a while and he is learning something, too and this guy is scary smart already.......Thanks for keeping me in the loop.

Now, damn it - get back at it.

Laura

[Nabeshin]

Originally Posted by exnihilo

It does take time for glucose molecules to be cleaved - but from a physical standpoint it's a lot like having a stack of legos, and proceeding to pull lego after lego off the end in rapid succession. The time it takes is negligible.

Oh. Well then. I just got served.

Ice cream's GI is irrelevant, I referenced it because it's a food that you can use as a "weight gainer" that's 10,000 times more palatable than maltodextrin, with an effect on the body that's marginally worse in most cases (this really depends on the saturated fat content). The issue is not how fast sucrose is broken down (it's a disaccharide) but the fact that the fructose molecule must be converted to glucose by the liver. If you're an ecto, and you honestly feel that not eating enough is the source of your problems, ice cream and oreo cookies will fix that problem in a most enjoyable manner. Some people like olive oil or peanut butter, those are healthier options, but you said that you didn't notice any change in leanness with maltose over oats, so I thought I'd suggest that you take advantage of that and have some fun

Fructose in ice cream? Hmm, maybe if you get that fruity stuff. Or the cheap "high fructose corn syrup" variety. Have to get tactical about my ice cream purchases...

All seriousness aside, I actually don't eat ice cream. I have no desire to eat sugary stuff, and my only unhealthy urge is sated in my weekly cheesesteak. I used malto because I thought it was better than sugar, and I wouldn't have to blend **** every morning --- my health-conscience since caught up with me and I don't use it anymore.

I still think you can't beat a malto-based gainer for convenience. During an 8 hour work shift, you probably aren't gonna get 3 meal breaks. So, two shaker cups full of gainer, and a tub full of chicken and rice, and you're good to go. That's what I view the gainer's purpose to be --- an easy on the road source of cals for ectos (and mesos, but **** them) which requires almost no prep work. And Supermass looks to fill that role nicely.

[Yukon Cornelius]

Here is my bottom line. The GI is still a good indicator but its not the most important. The GL is another great indicatorand they both are interralated for the most part.

Just because there are exceptions to the rule does not invalidate the whole concept and saying its not a good indicator is not accurate at all.

In a caloric excess the negatives of high insulin response/load is magnified.

[Yukon Cornelius]

Originally Posted by Nabeshin

I still think you can't beat a malto-based gainer for convenience. During an 8 hour work shift, you probably aren't gonna get 3 meal breaks. So, two shaker cups full of gainer, and a tub full of chicken and rice, and you're good to go. That's what I view the gainer's purpose to be --- an easy on the road source of cals for ectos (and mesos, but **** them) which requires almost no prep work. And Supermass looks to fill that role nicely.

THere are several weight gainers out there with better carb sources and if Supermass had Barley, Brown Rice or Hydrolyzed Oat Flour I bet their sales would go up by a very LARGE margin.

[Nabeshin]

Originally Posted by Bobo

That is YOU, not the majority of people out there. I have trained over 400 people and I can tell you first hand the majority respond better to LOWER GI diets.

And there are other people like ME, who might not get anything other than a throbbing pain in the ass from a LOWER GI diet.

When I was 20 I could eat anything and everything but does that make the nutritonal advice invalid? NO.

Great, but that's NOT what I'm suggesting.

For the majority of people the GI has a VERY significant impact on lipogenesis.

Look, in a nutshell, you argue that for most people and for most foods, a high GI equals greater lipogenesis. Well, I'm not gonna argue with that. But I do think it's akin to saying that for most feathers in most places, the acceleration of a feather will be less than that of a billiard. Both proposals are right. They both ignore some pretty severe contradictions, though. A potato is a high GI food, and plenty of 30 year old (and older) body builders eat them right up to the day of competition --- and get down into low single digit body fat percentages. Likewise, a feather dropped in a vaccuum is going to accelerate at 9.80 m/s^2, just like a billiard.

But there is a crucial difference between the GI and the acceleration scenario. And that is that, while both can be used a rule of thumb, one is crappy rule of thumb, whereas the other is really good.

Calculating the actual rate of acceleration of a feather in atmosphere is damn difficult, and it can't really be wrapped up in one neat equation, much less a tidy paragraph. Surface area, the deformation of such with increasing velocity, angle of descent, path of descent... it all works out to a migraine. So, we acknowledge that feathers, and other feathery type things, tend to accelerate slower than "solid" things.

The GI, on the other hand, is a solution without a problem --- at least for bodybuilders. You wanna minimize fat gain and maximize health? EAT. WHOLE. FOODS. You don't need to sit around fretting your GI/GL, just eat the brown rice and the oats and be done with it.

Because there are exceptions to the rule its a bad rule? That is ridiculous.

No, it is because there is a more accurate rule that is easier to employ that using the GI as your guiding light is ricockulous.

You OTOH seem to think that since their is an exception that you throw the whole concept out the window. That is absurb.

You seem to have read something I didn't write --- I never said the GI wasn't a factor. I just think it's relatively unimportant, and unwieldy vis-a-vis the whole foods rule. If it suits you fine, well... uh... fine. Have it. Now I'm gonna go have some tuna, potato, and carrots.

[Nabeshin]

Originally Posted by Bobo

So if matched the same amounts of carbs the GL of Malto would be 34-45 compared to 26 for the potato.

Hmmm...

85 / 26 * 34 ~= 111
85 / 26 = 111 / 34
GIp / GLp = GIm / GLm
GI / GL = k
GI = k * GL

In other words, the GI is directly proportional the GL, and vice versa. When quantity of carbs are normalized, a high GI food will be a proportionately high GL food. There is no extra significance to be found in the GL when we are assuming an equivalent intake of carbohydrate. A potato would still be a "worse" choice than fructose.

[Nabeshin]

Originally Posted by Bobo

And you are completely wrong.

They would be practically equivalent in terms of lipogenesis in the context of a weight gainer from a macroscopic perspective over the long run for a young ectomorphic subject?

[Nabeshin]

Originally Posted by Bobo

Here is my bottom line. The GI is still a good indicator but its not the most important. The GL is another great indicatorand they both are interralated for the most part.

They are completely interrelated. It is a simple mathematical procedure to get the GL form the GI, or vice-versa. Each value is just a different way of interpreting the same data set, and neither one is more or less significant than the other than index 1 vs. index 2 GI values are.

Just because there are exceptions to the rule does not invalidate the whole concept and saying its not a good indicator is not accurate at all.

The 386 is not a piece of crap. It's a triumph of engineering. But the Opteron still pwns it.

[Yukon Cornelius]

Originally Posted by Nabeshin

And there are other people like ME, who might not get anything other than a throbbing pain in the ass from a LOWER GI diet.


Great, but that's NOT what I'm suggesting.


Look, in a nutshell, you argue that for most people and for most foods, a high GI equals greater lipogenesis. Well, I'm not gonna argue with that. But I do think it's akin to saying that for most feathers in most places, the acceleration of a feather will be less than that of a billiard. Both proposals are right. They both ignore some pretty severe contradictions, though. A potato is a high GI food, and plenty of 30 year old (and older) body builders eat them right up to the day of competition --- and get down into low single digit body fat percentages. Likewise, a feather dropped in a vaccuum is going to accelerate at 9.80 m/s^2, just like a billiard.

But there is a crucial difference between the GI and the acceleration scenario. And that is that, while both can be used a rule of thumb, one is crappy rule of thumb, whereas the other is really good.

Calculating the actual rate of acceleration of a feather in atmosphere is damn difficult, and it can't really be wrapped up in one neat equation, much less a tidy paragraph. Surface area, the deformation of such with increasing velocity, angle of descent, path of descent... it all works out to a migraine. So, we acknowledge that feathers, and other feathery type things, tend to accelerate slower than "solid" things.

The GI, on the other hand, is a solution without a problem --- at least for bodybuilders. You wanna minimize fat gain and maximize health? EAT. WHOLE. FOODS. You don't need to sit around fretting your GI/GL, just eat the brown rice and the oats and be done with it.


No, it is because there is a more accurate rule that is easier to employ that using the GI as your guiding light is ricockulous.


You seem to have read something I didn't write --- I never said the GI wasn't a factor. I just think it's relatively unimportant, and unwieldy vis-a-vis the whole foods rule. If it suits you fine, well... uh... fine. Have it. Now I'm gonna go have some tuna, potato, and carrots.

1. How do you know its the GI causing your GI stress? There are others like you who have GREAT results with a lower GI as well. I train them. Do you? Do you have experience in the field other than yourself or do you abse everything of your own experience and disregard everyone esle when you make your arguements?

2. What a ridiculous comparison.

3. You want to maximize muscle gain and limit fat loss? EAT WHOLE FOODS THAT HAVE A LOW GLYCAEMIC LOAD!

4. Really? Waht is the rule because up until this thread you have shown that you didn't even understand the the correlation between GI and completely ignored the effect of insulin on LPL. Thank god I let you know or you would be posting those false and compeltely ridiculous statements.

5. If its relatively unimportant then its it wouldn't be much of a factor would it? We have already established that it has and you can search the enormous amount of reseach which confirms this.

[Yukon Cornelius]

Originally Posted by Nabeshin

Hmmm...

85 / 26 * 34 ~= 111
85 / 26 = 111 / 34
GIp / GLp = GIm / GLm
GI / GL = k
GI = k * GL

In other words, the GI is directly proportional the GL, and vice versa. When quantity of carbs are normalized, a high GI food will be a proportionately high GL food. There is no extra significance to be found in the GL when we are assuming an equivalent intake of carbohydrate. A potato would still be a "worse" choice than fructose.

Wrong again. The GI is NOT directly proportional because the inclusion of fat, amino acid content of certain high protein foods and digestion rates has a significnat influence on the GL. The above was a comparison of JUST maltodextrin and and a baked potato. If you want a comparison of a potato to fructose I can do that as well.

[Yukon Cornelius]

Originally Posted by Nabeshin

They are completely interrelated. It is a simple mathematical procedure to get the GL form the GI, or vice-versa. Each value is just a different way of interpreting the same data set, and neither one is more or less significant than the other than index 1 vs. index 2 GI values are.

Read above. You obvisouly don't know what you are talking about when it comes to the GL.

I would make the guess that your area of study is defiently NOT nutrition.

[Nabeshin]

Originally Posted by Bobo

1. How do you know its the GI causing your GI stress?

404 - Funny not found.

I meant that it's just plain easier to focus on the wholeness of foods, rather than their GI.

Oh man, you really thought I was suggesting a low GI diet gave me, like, anal fissure or something?

2. What a ridiculous comparison.

What a convincing rebuttal.

3. You want to maximize muscle gain and limit fat loss? EAT WHOLE FOODS THAT HAVE A LOW GLYCAEMIC LOAD!

Well, in that case I'll be upping my potato intake.

4. Really? Waht is the rule because up until this thread you have shown that you didn't even understand the the correlation between GI

... and what?

and completely ignored the effect of insulin on LPL. Thank god I let you know or you would be posting those false and compeltely ridiculous statements.

Of course. Please, take all the credit for the things I never wrote --- I don't need it.

5. If its relatively unimportant then its it wouldn't be much of a factor would it? We have already estblaished that it has and you can search the enormous amount of reseach which comfimrs this.

Not sure what you're saying here. The GI rule has notable contradictions, the GI itself is measured in a very contrived environment, the GI of a meal is determined by more than the carbs in it, and in light of the existence of an easier rule, there's not much reason to consider the GI when choosing carbs. That's what I'm saying here.

[Yukon Cornelius]

Originally Posted by Nabeshin

404 - Funny not found.

I meant that it's just plain easier to focus on the wholeness of foods, rather than their GI.

Oh man, you really thought I was suggesting a low GI diet gave me, like, anal fissure or something?


What a convincing rebuttal.


Well, in that case I'll be upping my potato intake.


... and what?


Of course. Please, take all the credit for the things I never wrote --- I don't need it.


Not sure what you're saying here. The GI rule has notable contradictions, the GI itself is measured in a very contrived environment, the GI of a meal is determined by more than the carbs in it, and i