Guest viewing limit reached
  • You have reached the maximum number of guest views allowed
  • Please register below to remove this limitation

Re-investigating the GI index and relation to body comp

JudoJosh

JudoJosh

Pro Virili Parte
Carbohydrate intake and glycemic index affect substrate oxidation during a controlled weight cycle in healthy men.

Abstract

Background/objectives: Because both, glycemic index (GI) and carbohydrate content of the diet increase insulin levels and could thus impair fat oxidation, we hypothesized that refeeding a low GI, moderate-carbohydrate diet facilitates weight maintenance.

Subjects/methods: Healthy men (n=32, age 26.0±3.9 years; BMI 23.4±2.0 kg/m2) followed 1 week of controlled overfeeding, 3 weeks of caloric restriction and 2 weeks of hypercaloric refeeding (+50, -50 and +50% energy requirement) with low vs high GI (41 vs 74) and moderate vs high CHO intake (50% vs 65% energy). We measured adaptation of fasting macronutrient oxidation and the capacity to supress fat oxidation during an oral glucose tolerance test. Changes in fat mass were measured by quantitative magnetic resonance.

Results: During overfeeding, participants gained 1.9±1.2 kg body weight, followed by a weight loss of -6.3±0.6 kg and weight regain of 2.8±1.0 kg. Subjects with 65% CHO gained more body weight compared with 50% CHO diet (P<0.05) particularly with HGI meals (P<0.01). Refeeding a high-GI diet led to an impaired basal fat oxidation when compared with a low-GI diet (P<0.02), especially at 65% CHO intake. Postprandial metabolic flexibility was unaffected by refeeding at 50% CHO but clearly impaired by 65% CHO diet (P<0.05). Impairment in fasting fat oxidation was associated with regain in fat mass (r=0.43, P<0.05) and body weight (r=0.35; P=0.051).

Conclusions: Both higher GI and higher carbohydrate content affect substrate oxidation and thus the regain in body weight in healthy men. These results argue in favor of a lower glycemic load diet for weight maintenance after weight loss
Click to expand...

working on trying to get the full text, but it does appear to challenge the recent change in thought that GI doesn't matter

ping ZiR RED Rodja
 
Definitely would need the FT to see more details on the subjects themselves in addition to their parameters.

My initial thoughts are that 50% is not what I would call moderate and 65% is nothing anyone would recommend to anyone outside of endurance athletes.
 
The Solution said:
Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...
Thats cool for some background info on GI and previous thoughts on it but this is a study that has been recently and must be viewed objectively without previous bias. As in, we have to read the data open to the idea not just dismiss it based off previous ideas (not that im suggesting that was your intention by sharing that link)
 
JudoJosh said:
Thats cool for some background info on GI and previous thoughts on it but this is a study that has been recently and must be viewed objectively without previous bias. As in, we have to read the data open to the idea not just dismiss it based off previous ideas (not that im suggesting that was your intention by sharing that link)
Click to expand...

An idea is an idea
Research is Research
Subjectivity is Subjectivity in the research and real world results we see in studies and also what some people swear by (Research) all of it plays a part into the big picture. Even if it is a bit older, it is still quality info. Alan has more up to date info on his AARR (which you have to pay for) so you cannot copy and paste it in here or else i would. haha
 
Full text - Invalid Link Removed

Calories were controlled, which makes this very intriguing.

Why is it that when both groups are overfed by the same amount, the high GI experienced more weight gain than the low GI group?

Are we to really accept that high GI calories are more fattening than low GI calories?
 
JudoJosh said:
Full text - Invalid Link Removed

Calories were controlled, which makes this very intriguing.

Why is it that when both groups are overfed by the same amount, the high GI experienced more weight gain than the low GI group?

Are we to really accept that high GI calories are more fattening than low GI calories?
Click to expand...

Another reason why Gainers are a waste IMO, eat more kcals right?
 
saggy321 said:
So I wonder what happens to the excess energy when one over eats on low GI foods?
Click to expand...

Just like what happens when one over eats on high gi carbs, or excess calories
Anything in excess is stored over the individuals maintenance.

Same would happen with protein or fat sources. Anything in excess is stored. Basic cals in vs cals out.
 
The Solution said:
Just like what happens when one over eats on high gi carbs, or excess calories
Anything in excess is stored over the individuals maintenance.

Same would happen with protein or fat sources. Anything in excess is stored. Basic cals in vs cals out.
Click to expand...

Yes. So what's the deal with different GIs. Why is it important?
 
The Solution said:
Just like what happens when one over eats on high gi carbs, or excess calories
Anything in excess is stored over the individuals maintenance.

Same would happen with protein or fat sources. Anything in excess is stored. Basic cals in vs cals out.
Click to expand...

The above study directly refutes this.
 
Kcals in v kcals out works only on paper. What studies like these demonstrate is that it is much more complicated than that, which I've tried to explain to you multiple times. Total kcals expended is going to vary day by day depending on a myriad of factors and, unless you're hooked to a metabolic cart for the entire duration, nobody truly knows their TDEE.

You love to babble on and on about random things that noted guys say, but it only makes you look like a zealot instead of proving a point. There's two things that this study demonstrates: the role on insulin in the equation and how TEF balances out. I've told you this several times and you've avoided the issue each time. You'll babble on and on about tangential points, but have never addressed this one simple fact: TEF changes and varies immensely depending on the macros consumed. Having a 15% change in macros in and of itself will change the true amount of TDEI and will subsequently change the TDEE. Throw in the variable that is insulin and it gets even more complicated.
 
The Solution said:
if you need 2500 kcals to maintain
and eat 3000 kcals
you will not lose weight if you continue to eat that caloric intake for weeks

If you can magically surplus 3500 kcals in excess and somehow lose weight from an abundance of calories then your defying the total caloric energy balance.
Click to expand...

Have you seen Antonios protein overfeeding paper?
 
The Solution said:
The paper is great. i want to see real life experience of this... I am not trying to zealot you. While one paper is awesome and a study is awesome. i want to see this in real life experience over a prolonged period of time.Talking like 4-8 weeks like most studies are ran. Someone eating 3000 kcals and someone 2500 which would be say 500 above what they maintain and see them lose weight.

I
Click to expand...
Did you read the paper?
 
The Solution said:
An idea is an idea
Research is Research
Subjectivity is Subjectivity in the research and real world results we see in studies and also what some people swear by (Research) all of it plays a part into the big picture. Even if it is a bit older, it is still quality info. Alan has more up to date info on his AARR (which you have to pay for) so you cannot copy and paste it in here or else i would. haha
Click to expand...

You really pay $10 a month for that thing? I love Alan and would get it if it was like $3 a month or something maybe but $10 is way too much
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top