Cecil- so wrong about the GI scale!!!

Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports
1

A note:

The glucose index scale is one of the only useful ways that people with insulin resistance, hypothyroidism, polycystic ovary syndrome, or diabetes can control their blood sugar. People are all very different, and some people can’t regulate their blood sugar like others (you may have heard of “carbohydrate sensitivity” among other terms, attempting to lump these problems as one syndrome) - this often leads to overeating and weight gain, in the mildest cases. For these types of people, following the “suggested” food pyramid (basically, the standard american diet) can severely exacerbate their symptoms due to the emphasis on complex carbohydrates. It is well known that if you have PCOS you can often become fertile (after being infertile for years) by following a low GI diet- I personally know of people who have done this, and am on this diet myself because of unstable blood sugar and PCOS, and it has helped more than I thought it could have.

It is absolute bullcrap to state that “But I doubt the GI will be much help when you’re planning your next meal.” Many of us DO plan our next meals with the help of the GI scale as well as the few data that are out there on glycemic loads. Using a diet like this especially with exercise can have extremely impressive effects on lowering blood sugar, cholesterol, chance of heart failure, etc. etc. etc, all likely linked to unstable blood sugar. The link to PCOS is even more complicated.

Also, the question is additional bullcrap. On NO GI index anywhere are potato chips okay whatsoever! Potatoes are one of the most forbidden foods (sucks for Thanksgiving, I"ll tell you that). Ice cream is NOT OKAY- only sugar-free ice cream is “moderate”, because it has lactose only (see below). Toufitti, interestingly, has the HIGHEST GI of ANY FOOD LISTED. Coke is NEVER okay because of how much sugar is in it. People on a low GI diet stay away from sucrose and usually use fructose (see below) or artifical sweetner.

Basically, you can get an idea of how this works by the type of sugar in food: your body’s blood sugar levels are affected the least by the most simple sugar: fructose, then lactose, sucrose, glucose, and maltose, maltose being the worst. This is why fruit in general is okay, and why many diabetic foods are made with fructose sweetner. This means that the worst foods are: bread, beer (sob!), potatoes, pasta (double sob!),rice, corn, etc.

There are more details than that of course, which makes calculating a GI difficult. Fiber plays a role, and many people substract fiber from the overall carbo total because it is indigestible. (“All bran with extra fiber” is a cereal which is fine- it is almost all fiber, and is sweetened with nutrasweet.) The type of sugar in rice, for example, (the amaylose content) makes a big difference. The worst rice is “sticky rice” often served in asian restaruants- perhaps the reason why a lot of people have “chinese food syndrome” and get hungry again an hour after eating- a response to a blood sugar crash. In a bizarre twist, brown rice is often worse than white rice due to the sugar type overcoming the fiber content bonus, and is the only grain for which the brown version is worse. People that have their symptoms under control usually begin using stone ground whole wheat flour only- it is the type of flour that is the most slowly digested, and so isn’t as bad as whole wheat pastry or white flour.

The question was also wrong in that “pasta is the one I remember, but I suppose green vegetables and that kind of thing are in there too”. The person asking the question OBVIOUSLY didn’t research this type of diet AT ALL. Green veggies are great! The idea of how to follow a GI diet but still have it be healthy is replace the forbidden carbos with more good veggies, healthy protein, and good carbs (i.e. fruit, sugar free yogurt). Green veggies are almost always okay! Beans are too!

As a last note, I"m surprised you didn’t mention the “Atkins diet”, which is very different than a low GI diet. That diet forbids all carbs, and puts your body in a state of ketosis, which is very dangerous after even two weeks. It is an unhealthy diet, and should be cautioned against. It is disturbing to see how many “celebs” tout this damaging practice. Perhaps this diet was confusing the person asking the question.

Anyway, for questions on health topics, Cecil, I would think it behooves you to do a little more than 10 minutes of web surfing on such an important issue. Diseases like type II diabetes and obesity are huge problems in this country- being able to control these problems with something as accessible and healthy as this type of diet is really invaluable, and more widespread than you may know, but not nearly widespread enough. Ever hear of consulting a specialist or two? Or at least a larger slice of the (huge) low-GI web community out there?

-Jenny

2

Hi, Jenni, and welcome to the Straight Dope Message Board! The column you’re referencing is Is the glycemic index the new key to healthy eating?.

I would like to point out two things.

One, that Cecil isn’t writing a medical advice column. He’s not Dr. Art Ulene. He isn’t expected to cross every “T” and dot every “I” on the subject of the glycemic index. The question he was answering was, simply, “What’s the glycemic index?” And he did answer that.

Second, that Cecil has a definite and distinctive shoot-from-the-hip breezy, sarcastic, sardonic, wisecracking style. In other words, he’s a real smartass. If you read some of his other columns, you will no doubt come to realize this. And if you read some of his other columns, you will also no doubt eventually come to realize that contrary to your personal opinion, he is not an idiot, that he does consult actual specialists when the occasion demands it, that he does frequently do more research than merely “10 minutes spent surfing the Web”, and, oh, did I mention that he’s not an idiot?

I would challenge you to point out where any part of his advice in this column is “bad advice” in the sense of being “life-threatening” or “dangerous”. In what part of his column exactly is Cecil “So wrong about the GI scale”? I submit that it is NOT “absolute bullcrap” to tell someone who presumably is not a diabetic that she doesn’t need to plan her meals around her glucose consumption.

The person asking the question “didn’t research this type of diet at all”, as you so sneeringly put it, because she was merely asking Uncle Cecil if there was “anything to” this “GI Index business”.

By saying that the question itself is “bullcrap”, are you accusing Cecil of making up questions in order to answer them himself? Or are you saying that Mary Lubben is an idiot? She said:

I suggest that it’s merely that the list was going by the glucose content of the foods mentioned. Table sugar is sucrose, not glucose, and Coke is sweetened with high-fructose corn syrup. And it’s possible that “potato chips” was merely typed in the wrong list. It wouldn’t be the first time in the history of the Pink Collar Office Worker that an employee newsletter went out with a mistake on it.

Concerning pasta and low-fat ice cream not being Low GI, this list here has sugar-free ice cream under Allowed Foods as “all dairy products (no sugars)”, thus “Low GI”, and has pasta on both lists–evidently it depends on what the pasta is made out of. "Thick, large pasta shapes " are “High GI”, while pasta made from “thin st[r]ands, whole wheat pasta, bean threads” is “Low GI”.

The GI scale is focusing on glucose, not fats, so not only is presumably high-fat (but sugar-free) ice cream allowed, but also there are a number of other high-fat foods in the “Low GI” “allowed” list:

Presumably, you could have tofutti if you could find sugar-free tofutti.

3

Hi!

Hey, this is better than the Tori Amos boards- extreme amounts of defensiveness! Let me clarify some misconceptions I read in your post.

  1. I am a LONG TIME Cecil adorer. I have all the books, and have been a reader of the web site (and newsgroups on and off) for many years now. I’ve probably literally read every column he’s ever written, many multiple times. You really don’t need to tell me how cool he is. I’ve actually posted on here probably a year or two ago, but obviously my login lapsed and I need to re-register. I have converted many friends to the ways of Cecil. I wasn’t clear about not being a newbie, but you didn’t have to assume. He’s done a better job on columns involving medical themes before- I would be amiss if I didn’t call him out when he did a less than good job, as in this case.

  2. you still don’t understand what the GI scale is, at all. Read below.

One, that Cecil isn’t writing a medical advice column. He’s not Dr. Art Ulene. He isn’t expected to cross every “T” and dot every “I” on the subject of the glycemic index. The question he was answering was, simply, “What’s the glycemic index?” And he did answer that.

No, the question was:

What’s the story? Should I have been pigging on chips and ice cream all those years when I was virtuously eating rice cakes instead?

The question is more asking about the validity of the GI scale, as I read it here. That’s different. And his answer doesn’t mention the possible health conditions of the person asking the question- a crucial mistake, in my opinion. Also, pigging out on chips and ice cream is most specifically NOT following a low GI diet. And eating rice cakes, while rice does have a high GI, isn’t consuming a lot of rice by weight, similar to carrots- so, yes, it’s a high GI index, but relatively low in carbs. I would not eat them, because if I were to eat some carbs I’d want something better than a bloody rice cake! :wink: Anyway, he should have pointed out that, in fact, both of those aspects of the question were incorrect.

I would challenge you to point out where any part of his advice in this column is “bad advice” in the sense of being “life-threatening” or “dangerous”.

Very simply (which I did clearly point out):

“But I doubt the GI will be much help when you’re planning your next meal.”

If you do have a condition which leads to unstable blood sugar, which in some estimates is 1 in 5 people, the GI index type of diet, while admittedly not perfect, is the ONLY type of lifestyle management (with exercise) that can help these people. And it’s a LOT of people, especially in this country! And for them, it can be extraordinately valuable. He SHOULD have said “if you have one of these problems, it can be valuable. If you don’t have any blood sugar problems, then it’s not. If you’re worried about this, see your doc and get some blood sugar tests” or something along those lines. He usually does say that.

In what part of his column exactly is Cecil “So wrong about the GI scale”? I submit that it is NOT “absolute bullcrap” to tell someone who presumably is not a diabetic that she doesn’t need to plan her meals around her glucose consumption.

First of all, you have no idea if that person is diabetic… or hypothyroidic… or insulin resistant… or PCOS… or whatever!!! You should NOT assume ANYTHING.

Second of all, and this I want to emphasize: the GI is NOT ABOUT GLUCOSE CONSUMPTION. Here is where your confusion lies! You are making the same error that you clam the questioner made. More on this below…

I suggest that it’s merely that the list was going by the glucose content of the foods mentioned. Table sugar is sucrose, not glucose, and Coke is sweetened with high-fructose corn syrup. And it’s possible that “potato chips” was merely typed in the wrong list. It wouldn’t be the first time in the history of the Pink Collar Office Worker that an employee newsletter went out with a mistake on it.

Okay, here’s where you really show your refusal to admit that I was right about some of this stuff (the “defensive blinders” I believe, were donned by this point). First of all, of course I know table sugar is sucrose. Second of all, high-frutcose corn syrup is one of the WORST sweetners for a low GI diet! Third, potatoes are a major component of the forbidden GI list- I would be rather surprised to find them in the wrong list. You would never see a list of foods in terms of their glucose content used as a GI index. Indeed, since maltose is the worst culprit, and really the most common type of sugar an american would ingest, this is totally missing the point- but something that the medical establishment has indeed also missed until recently. Witness “sugar free cookies”… what you really need are “wheat/corn/rice free cookies”.

Concerning pasta and low-fat ice cream not being Low GI, this list here has sugar-free ice cream under Allowed Foods as “all dairy products (no sugars)”, thus “Low GI”, and has pasta on both lists–evidently it depends on what the pasta is made out of. "Thick, large pasta shapes " are “High GI”, while pasta made from “thin st[r]ands, whole wheat pasta, bean threads” is “Low GI”.

If you read my post closely, you’ll see that I expressly said that sugar-free ice cream was one of the okay foods (moderate) because the main sugar is then lactose. However, normal ice cream is NOT okay, which was the point of my mentioning it, because of the sucrose/other sweetner content.

Pasta is more tricky. The numbers I"ve seen for pasta vary all over the place! It strongly depends on the protein content in the flour, I think, along with the fiber content. There are some places where you can get low-carb pasta- I think a major component of the flour used there is soy. This is one of the difficult aspects of the GI index- it’s expensive to test people to get actual GI numbers, and all “spaghetti” is not equal- they need to list the brands that they use! They do a bit better with cereal. I"ve stayed away from all pasta since being on this diet because I don’t know which type is okay. It’s very difficult.

The GI scale is focusing on glucose, not fats, so not only is presumably high-fat (but sugar-free) ice cream allowed, but also there are a number of other high-fat foods in the “Low GI” “allowed” list:

Wrong, wrong, wrong. The GI scale does not focus on glucose AT ALL. You’ve missed the point. The GI scale focuses on how foods affect your blood sugar levels. While the TYPE of sugar can give you an idea of how this is going to happen (my list of fuctose to maltose), it’s only a guide. Since so many other factors come into play when deciding if a food will spike your blood sugar, and how much/quickly of a spike it is, the only way to really measure the GI index is by experiment. THAT is what the GI index is- measuring blood levels over time of a large group of people. Cecil was pretty clear on that- you aren’t.

One of the things I wanted to emphasize about the GI diet is that it is easy to eat too many high-fat foods, especially because most people are used to them being forbidden on traditional low-fat, high-carb diets. This is a danger of the diet, which is why the GOAL of the GI type of diet should be healthy eating, including a healthy amount and TYPE of fat; i.e. no pork rinds, but please saute your veggies in olive oil! I’m sure people could gain weight on a low GI diet if they only ate sugar free cheescake every day! It is not a licence to eat only steak and cheese, but people who don’t understand it often make it out to be that way. It’s a very complex situation, and this is why I’m upset that Cecil didn’t put his usual effort into this column.
-Jenny

p.s.
As a side note, one of the reasons why this diet is so valuable for weight management is that many overweight people have problems with their blood sugar- it could lead them to be overweight, and then just being overweight makes it worse! So it’s a nasty circle. If you have “sugar cravings”- really strong, intense ones- and tend to fall asleep after meals/get very tired/have “food coma”- you probably have this type of blood sugar problem, which can come from a large number of sources. Once you get on a GI diet, at least from personal experience- the sugar cravings GO AWAY. It’s amazing. The sugar cravings are from when your blood sugar bottoms out after a spike- so keeping the blood sugar constant relieves this particular symptom. It doesn’t cure you from being diabetic/hypothyrodic/whatever, but it manages the disease by taking away a trigger of bad symptoms. Eventually, it can help “cure” it if you, say, go from being morbidly obese to normal, and therefore resolve your type II diabetes that way, or your restore your fertility when you have PCOS. It’s just something so valuable that so few people know about, that I feel it’s important to emphasize it correctly. It certainly does have use, and that’s where Cecil was wrong. -Jenny

4

Just wanted to add that the Idea that Ketosis is dangerous is utter and complete nonsense. The only harmful effect is bad breath. Ketosis only means that your body is producing more keytones than it can use, so it is getting rid of them through piss. It is not in any way harmfull.

A lot of people confuse ketoacidosis.

5

Actually, ketosis causes strong electrolyte imbalances after a couple of weeks, (basically, a combination of malnutrition and peeing 10 times a day due to the keotones!) and you have to eat a relatively very inhealthy (i.e. atkins) type of diet to get into that condition- probably the biggest danger. I know this thread is not about that, but it isn’t harmless, and it is very distinct from the low-GI diet, which people that benefit from Atkins would probably also benefit from.

There is an AHA advisory that warns that high-protein diets can be especially harmful for people with kidney disease, heart disease, or diabetes. Ketosis can cause bone loss, kidney disease, and heart disease over a period of time. Since many overweight people who try Atkins without exercising are often at a large risk for heart disease and diabetes, this is a very real problem. And yes, that IS ketosis, not ketoacidosis. Of course, the AHA is not necessarily correct about everything. They still advocate a high complex carb diet, without admitting that this is a bad diet for people with blood sugar problems. But they have a lot more crediblitiey than “atkins.com” or “lowcarb.com” or wherever.

Since a LARGE percentage of the stuff on the web is published either by Atkins or another commercial outfit that profits from ketosis diets, you have to be very careful what you read and believe. I think common sense needs to rule here- and a severely unbalanced diet, especially one high in animal fats- isn’t good for anyone. I don’t care if someone loses 40 pounds on atkins- if they did it by only eating steak, look at their cholesterol levels, heart condition, liver function, etc- those people are no more healthy than they were before. Ketosis isn’t the key to losing weight and becoming healthy. A healthy diet, stable blood sugar levels, and exercise make much more sense, and are much more sustainable in the long run which is the real key. (preach, preach :wink: ). No, two weeks of ketosis probably won’t hurt you if you don’t have an underlying condition. But there are healthier ways to lose weight, even if you do have blood sugar problems. It is incorrect to say “ketosis is healthy and has no problems”.

-Jenny

6

Actually, all of the problems listed are things that people predicted would happen on the Atkins. The Atkins diet has been around and has been tested for 30 years or so, and none of these things have ever happened. The Atkins and other low-carb diets are not just about losing weight, but eating healthier. You do not suffer from malnutrition, or kidney problems etc. It just doesnt happen in real life. It is a very healthy way to eat. There is absolutely no proof otherwise, just a bunch of people who say it will probably lead to this problem or that problem. I have seen them debate Atkins and others and always when Atkins asks them for what studies they have done to prove what they are saying, they cant come up with any. Atkins has plenty of data to back up his claims.

Ketosis only lasts while you have weight to lose. It is a natural product of burning fat instead of carbs for an energy source. Once you get to where you want to be wieght loss wise, you just add carbs until you stop losing. I have seen medical professionals that are absolutely bashing the atkins plan…They hate it, and yet the still say that the idea of Ketosis being harmfull is nonsense. Its a myth, an urban legend, its not real. Ketosis is not dangerous.

7

Well, Jen, if you’re so all-fired “familiar” with our website, then of course you are aware that registration names don’t “lapse” here, and that what you just did is known as “creating a sock puppet” or a “multiple user name” which is explicitly forbidden by your registration agreement.

I’m e-mailing a mod right now, specifically Tuba, and I suggest you do the same.

tubadiva@aol.com

:wink:

8

And one of the first lessons I learned here at the SDMB was never to try to argue someone out of a religion. You obviously have found a religion that works for you, Jenny, and I’m happy for you, and I wouldn’t dream of trying to argue you out of it.

All the best. :slight_smile:

9

Well, how very unpleasant. By the way, I didn’t create a new username. I am “jennygerbi” everywhere, and when I signed up on this board when it was first operative, that’s the name I used. When I tried to log in now, it said I wasn’t registered, but then let me register with the same username and password that I had used before. It’s my real name, if you care to know- the name I use on all the boards I"m on - I don’t feel the need to hide behind some fake username, on any of the boards I’m on, “ducky”.

SO I’m assuming that at some point usernames WERE purged; obviously something happened.

Lesson: You’re assuming far too much about me.

Also, as much as I"d like it to be, science is not a religion. I know what I know about this low GI diet stuff because I researched it myself, and decided to use it myself to help with my own physical problems. I did not buy any diet book, I do not subscribe to any named diet- I educated myself about the science of blood sugar disorders and what people can do to help themselves. I have a PhD in Materials Science, an MS in Physics, have access to whatever literature I want, and have been around the block enough to know what constitutes things like a decent review of the literature (which Cecil did not do), and peer reviewed literature as opposed to corporate websites (what this Atkins dude seems to be sloppily promoting).

So, sorry, I think “Cecil is never wrong” is a bit more of a religion than the science I’m discussing here.

10

Whoa, chill, babydolls. There’s a lot of controversy about which are high vs low GI foods, as Cecil said. No need to mud wrestle about it.

11

jennygerbi, you misunderstood what I wrote. A few points:

  1. You write, “It is absolute bullcrap to state that ‘But I doubt the GI will be much help when you’re planning your next meal.’ Many of us DO plan our next meals with the help of the GI scale as well as the few data that are out there on glycemic loads.” Later you say, “If you do have a condition which leads to unstable blood sugar, which in some estimates is 1 in 5 people, the GI index type of diet, while admittedly not perfect, is the ONLY type of lifestyle management (with exercise) that can help these people.”

I wasn’t discussing the usefulness of the GI for those with medical conditions. (It remains controversial even in that respect, as you know.) I was talking about its relevance to the general population. That was the thrust of both the question and the newsletter the question-writer sent me. If she’d wanted to know about medical conditions I would have written a different column.

  1. You write, “Also, the question is additional bullcrap. On NO GI index anywhere are potato chips okay whatsoever! Potatoes are one of the most forbidden foods (sucks for Thanksgiving, I"ll tell you that). Ice cream is NOT OKAY- only sugar-free ice cream is “moderate”, because it has lactose only (see below). Toufitti, interestingly, has the HIGHEST GI of ANY FOOD LISTED. Coke is NEVER okay because of how much sugar is in it.”

Nonsense. In the health newsletter the question-asker sent me (Wellness, “published for all employees of Bank One Corporation” by the Hope Heart Institute, Seattle, WA), low-fat ice cream and potato chips are included in a list of low-glycemic foods, while Coca-Cola and table sugar are listed as intermediate-glycemic. All four have an asterisk with the note, “High in a lot of empty calories, so eat sparingly. Otherwise you’ll crowd out more nutritious foods.” The article doesn’t say “NEVER,” and it also doesn’t PUT A LOT OF WORDS IN ALL CAPS, which tends to make the writer sound hysterical.

Lest you think the Hope Heart Institute was just making all this stuff up, I looked up the book it cites as a source, The Glucose Revolution by Jennie Brand-Miller et al. Ms. Brand-Miller is one of the principal apostles of the GI movement. She writes, “Soft drinks have an intermediate G.I., so they won’t be ideal but they won’t do any harm either.” She also lists low-fat (not sugar-free) ice-cream as having a GI of 50, and potato chips as 54. That puts both these foods in the low range. If you have a problem with all this, take it up with Jennie Brand-Miller, not me.

  1. You write, “As a last note, I"m surprised you didn’t mention the ‘Atkins diet’, which is very different than a low GI diet. That diet forbids all carbs, and puts your body in a state of ketosis, which is very dangerous after even two weeks.”

Nobody asked about the Atkins diet.

  1. You write, “Anyway, for questions on health topics, Cecil, I would think it behooves you to do a little more than 10 minutes of web surfing on such an important issue. Diseases like type II diabetes and obesity are huge problems in this country- being able to control these problems with something as accessible and healthy as this type of diet is really invaluable.”

I assure you I did more than “10 minutes of web surfing.” I did what I always do - I reviewed the medical literature and read the leading popular treatments on the topic, in this case the aforementioned book. To repeat: (a) I was not writing about the GI as a tool in the management of medical conditions. (b) I remain skeptical of its usefulness as a dietary guide for the general public, partly for reasons you allude to - it may send people the wrong message about what’s OK to eat, asterisks notwithstanding. If you want to bang the drum for the GI, fine, free country. But don’t dump on me because I don’t.

12

jennygerbi said:

Perhaps Ducky came off so defensive because you came off a little offensive. (There’s some word equivocation in there somewhere. :wink: )

First off, to stave off some of the hostile infighting and accusations of sock-puppeting, I will kindly remind Ducky and inform you that some time back there was a transition from using UBB as the board software to vB. That transition required all posters to reregister. If you were a registered member prior to that conversion and didn’t manage to post at any time since then, you would now be facing the reregistration that us active participants took care of way back when. That just means you’ve been non-posting for some time. So DDG, don’t bite heads off unnecessarily, okay?

Now jennygerbi, you claim to be a longtime board lurker and once poster. I submit that you haven’t got nearly the experience with replies to Cecil’s Columns that many of us (like DDG) have, or you would recognize that your post very strongly resembles a certain type of response. This is the response of a person who has never heard of the Straight Dope until they read one column about their topic of interest, and then they promptly register here to “tear Cecil a new one” for being grossly in error on their favorite cause. Things that make your post resemble this type of post:

  1. Your very low post count (currently 5). This means you registered very recently, in response to this topic to respond in this thread only. Now you inform us that you used to post here but had to reregister, that tells me you missed the board transition to vB some time back. But can you see how we might not be aware of that?

  2. Your choice of descriptors like “It is absolute bullcrap” and accusing Cecil of not doing any research or consulting specialists on the matter. This indicates someone who is not someone familiar with Cecil, his column, and his reputation for checking his answers. Now you later state that you read him often, but if that’s the case I would think that your tone would be more of “You usually do such a wonderful job I can’t understand why you flubbed so bad in this case” rather than “you don’t know a thing about researching topics”. Your choice of accusations imply he always follows the same method of “10 minutes of web surfing” to provide answers to every question he’s asked. That is in stark contrast to your later statement:

  1. Hi, Opal! [A frequent lurker would understand, a newbie would have to ask for an explanation.]

  2. Confusing the question for part of Cecil’s response. I note you make several references to the question being bull-crap and the information being wrong. However, upon reflection I note that it appears you are not confusing the question for Cecil’s words, and that perhaps just the phrasing of your post confused the rest of us (or at least Ducky and me).

Now can you see where Ducky is coming from? Especially since posters respond thusly on topics as diverse as “The Apollo Moon Landings were hoaxes”[sup]1[/sup] to “Dung Beetle Extract is a good health supplement for scoliosis”.[sup]2[/sup] I would point out that in almost every case, Cecil is right, or at least has a cite for where he obtained his information that disagrees with said proponent.

Now, here’s a set of statements that confused me. First, you said

Then you said:

Do you see the contradiction? In one statement you say that fructose is the best sugar, and maltose is worst, and that diabetic foods use fructose a lot. Then you turn around and say that fructose is the worst sweetener. Well, which is it? Or is there some subtlety that is not at all obvious on first glance?

Since the question of ketosis vs. ketoacidosis arose, I decided to do a “10 minute” search on google and came up with the following:

From http://www.lowcarbretreat.com/ketosis.html
“Ketosis-Lipolysis is not Ketoacidosis”

This is a set of excerts from “Nutritional Biochemistry and Metabolism: with clinical applications”, Maria C. Linder. pages 87-109. Chapter Eight: Nutrition and Metabolism of Protein. It essentially describes the difference between a state of the body digesting its own protein (muscle mass) because of a lack of calories (i.e. ketoacidosis) vs. the body burning dietary protein and stored body fat (high protein, low carb diet, i.e. ketosis). It concludes:

On the other hand, I turned up this:

From http://www.nutrition.cornell.edu/nutriquest/ketosis.html

It is a slightly different description of how the body uses different types of food as fuel, and what ketosis is. Then it says

and

So apparently it’s not cut and dried. This site also refers to the United States Department of Agriculture Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion http://www.usda.gov/cnpp/

Not talk of GI scale there, but there is the transcript and audio files of “The Great Nutrition Debate”, a lengthy conference held with a number of contributors (including Dr. Atkins) discussing their particular diets or plans and why they are supposedly the best way to eat healthy, lose weight, and keep from dying. I glossed through a significant portion of it, with the somewhat expected list of people advocating different sides for diets and the reasons why. About the only thing they all seem to agree on is to reduce total calories and limit total fat intake.

http://www.usda.gov/cnpp/Seminars/GND/Proceedings.txt

Okay, that took far longer than intended, so I guess I’ll stop now.

[sup]1[/sup] Actually, this was a Staff Report, not a Cecil Column, but it was something I remembered off the top of my head. http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mmoonhoax.html

[sup]2[/sup] This is not an actual column, I just made it up, because I’m lousy with thinking of examples off the top of my head. But I would not be the least surprised to find the claim with a google search.

13

Cecil, I very much appreciate that you replied to my message! I didn’t honestly realize that you read the boards -I’m impressed.

Let me clarify where I got some of my ideas from, and why I think the tone of your column didn’t come out the way you predicted in the message you just sent to me.

The original question contains the wording:
“…while high-GI ones cause a sharp spike accompanied by a rapid rise in insulin production. ‘If this happens repeatedly over time, you could be at risk for type 2 diabetes and heart disease,’ it went on.”

Medical problems were certainly apropos to discuss because they were part of the framework of the question. The question didn’t state that the writer was healthy- in fact, perhaps one reason that the writer was driven to ask the question is that (s)he may indeed have a problem. Whatever the situation, diabetes and heart disease were explicitly mentioned, and the GI diet promoted as a way to help with those diseases. The question did not specifically ask if a low GI diet was beneficial for people without any blood sugar problems- and this is what you assumed, in my opinion, incorrectly.

Also, basing a large chunk on only one reference, in this case the book, is dangerous, especially involving such a relatively new (and hotly debated) field. I think that you would agree. Since GI numbers DO vary quite a bit for some foods, it’s important to emphasize this. Every list I’ve ever looked on specifically discounts what is on this “corporate newsletter” in terms of soda and potato chips- an example of how the field evolves and how basing facts on a single reference can be misleading. Again, I think you’d agree with that.

Here is an excellent site to start from, since it includes a lot of different references (you may have seen this while surfing): “http://www.mendosa.com/gi.htm” . They include the reference you used, as well. I know you are very much pressed for space in a column, but perhaps including a link to the above website in the online column, intead of using only one book reference, may have been a better choice.

By the way, the site above lists high fructose corn syrup as higher GI (80/60, with your reference as the reference used). Considering the amount you get in one can of soda, that particular food is a definite “avoidance” food as it has a high GI load! I think it is an example of misusing the GI scale. Potato chips are also usually made out of high starch potatoes- Cape Cod makes a particularly tasty line based on this feature- again, a definite “avoidance” food. Pringles are made out of instant potatoes: a GI of 118/83! Those of us on a low GI diet can’t even eat sweet potato chips. My comment on this is certainly not nonsense- I would claim the particular examples the newsletter chose are a bit more nonsensical, and that it’s definition of “low” is not the one usually used. This underlies the complexity of the scale and the need to be very specific… and the need for more vastly more testing.

Basically, Cecil, my beef comes down to this: you assumed the writer was in good health, and you said “But I doubt the GI will be much help when you’re planning your next meal.”. Not “average healthy american” (an oxymoron?). My point being that the problems that the GI type of diet treats are so endemic in the american population that it is of interest to the general population, and you should have at least included a comment or disclaimer about what you were assuming. You usually do in columns that touch on medical issues like that, (the crazy sparkly dreams column comes to mind as one), and because of the scale of the problem I think it was especially important in this case. I hope you can see my point- thanks again for replying. -j

14

To “Irishman”:

–
Now jennygerbi, you claim to be a longtime board lurker and once poster.

Just to clarify: I didn’t say I was a long time board lurker. I was a lurker a long time ago, obvious due to my needing to re-register. This whole debaucle may make more sense knowing that. Believe me, being mistaken as some doofus newbie who uses ALL CAPS TOO MUCH is very embarassing. This is what happens when you’re Italian and can’t have pasta or bread anymore! Do you know how hard that is? Everything goes off kilter! :wink: I submit that I have low carb induced hysteria.

Then you said:

quote:

Second of all, high-frutcose corn syrup is one of the WORST sweetners for a low GI diet!

Do you see the contradiction?

You are confusing high-frutcose corn syrup with fructose. They are very much not the same thing. HFCS has quite a bit of glucose in it- one of the “worst” sugars. I should have clarified what HFCS was.

I also want to extricate myself from the rest of the quotes on your post, since they were made by the Atkins Dude (who I wholly disagree with) and not by me. I (now, really seeming the newbie here) can’t figure out how to reply and have past messages come up as quoted from the proper person, like they are in newsgroups. I’m assuming one can’t do that.

Thanks for your more levelheaded reply! I"ll try to keep the tone down (especially now that I know Cecil is watching…) -j

15

jennygerbi writes:

I did. Three paragraphs into my answer I wrote, “Now some are promoting the glycemic index as a dietary tool for the general public.” I think it’s plain to any reasonable person that from that point on that was the issue I was addressing. Your complaint, really, is that when I wrote “when you’re planning you’re next meal,” the “you” didn’t include you personally. Of course not. You’re not a member of the general public in this regard - you evidently have a medical condition that you feel the GI helps you manage. (I hope you are doing this under the supervision of a doctor, incidentally.) The usefulness of the GI in medical treatment is an entirely different subject and I didn’t have space to do more than mention it in passing.

It’s interesting that your take on good vs. bad foods is different from that of one of the more prominent authors in the field, Ms. Brand-Miller. Confusion of this sort is common in discussions of the GI and confirms my view that it’s not yet ready for prime time, at least where the general public is concerned.

16

Fist of all, I havent called you “That GI chick”, so don’t you think your being a touch rude?

No, nothing he quoted was by me(I assume you were reffering to me).
Actually, he was addressing you. He was providing you with a non-atkins source ( “Nutritional Biochemistry and Metabolism: with clinical applications”, Maria C. Linder)that states that ketosis is not dangerous.

In addition, DR. George Cahill of harvard, an authority on the subject of the brain, says that Ketones are actually a “preferred fuel”. IIRC Harvard did some testing a while back that showed the brain functioned better on Keytones than on glucose. I’m not sure about the other muscle problems Irishmans source mentioned, It hasnt been my personal experiance, but I havent really read anything that refutes it.
I am not an Atkins fanatic, I don’t really even follow the Atkins plan. I have read several books about Low carb diets, including some of Atkins stuff, and It seems to work for me.

What made me respond to your statement is that we are fighting ignorance here, not spreading it. I have heard this ketosis is dangerous stuff from a lot of people, I have read up on it, and no respectable scientist believes it is dangerous that I can find. There are many who think the Atkins diet is bad, but none of the credible ones say it is because ketosis is dangerous.

My experiance with low-carb diets has been positive, I feel better, have more energy, think clearer, and I do lose some weight(there are faster, and cheaper ways to lose weight, for sure).

17

Cecil:

Your complaint, really, is that when I wrote “when you’re planning you’re next meal,” the “you” didn’t include you personally. Of course not. You’re not a member of the

No, it’s not. It’s that you weren’t clear that you were assuming that the person writing the question didn’t have any health problems that were in any way related to the GI index. The question wasn’t clear that the person did not have any problems, but you assumed it. That is my complaint. Usually, it seems when you get questions like this the person makes some sort of statement that they are in good health, or mention what their problem is, but this didn’t happen here.

To note: a doctor suggested this type of diet to me, and then I started researching it before I went on it. (It was a GYN, incedentially).

–
It’s interesting that your take on good vs. bad foods is different from that of one of the more prominent authors in the field, Ms. Brand-Miller. Confusion of this sort is

Actually, from what I"ve seen, most people do. “Low” often means around 40 and below. She doesn’t seem to draw the lines there, and really you have to draw your own lines about what works for you individually. Other branded diets that have evolved from this (i.e. sugarbusters) seem to use the ~40 cutoff. People with moderate or severe (type II only!) diabetes also tend to use this cutoff. It may be a difference in thinking of using the diet to actually treat problems (i.e. low=40), or using the diet as a preventative way to help everyone not develop type II diabetes (i.e. low=65)?

I"ll definitely agree with you that it’s confusing and that more work needs to be done- but I don’t think that makes it useless. On the contrary, it is correcting the historically incorrect way of managing blood sugar problems with diet (i.e. no sugar but high complex carbs), and is seen as useful right now, for a surprisingly wide variety of problems (especially infertility! Esquire, of all places, recently had some letters about it.). I don’t think that there is that much dissention that it is a good treatment, (along with exercise, of course) for diabetics and the like. I think there is just ignorance. The ADA actually changed their recommendations about sugar based on this- so there is some widespread acceptance appearing.

Maybe we have a different way of thinking about the “general public”, Cecil. Most people have a health problem of one kind or another, and when those health problems are acknowledged to be particulary widespread and endemic- well, then that is the general public, and this issue is at least something to be aware of. (I would say, “to ask your doctor about”… if they kept themselves up to date, which is pretty rare, imho). I mean, what’s obesity? 1 in 4? That’s pretty general. We’re not talking about only 50,000 people here. I see your point about what you intended, and I hope you can see mine about the clarity of your assumptions. -j

18

Jenny, we have different ideas about what assumptions I’m entitled to make, so maybe we should just leave it at that, eh?

BTW, if you plan on sticking around for a while, which I hope you do, click on the “vB code” link at the bottom of the page - it explains how to do quotes.

[Edited by Cecil Adams on 11-29-2001 at 02:14 PM]

19

BTW, if you plan on sticking around for a while, which I hope you do, click on the “vB code” link at the bottom of the page - it explains how to do quotes.

Hey, thanks for mentioning this. I’ve been wondering about it myself, but I haven’t taken the time to track it down.
RR

20

That Cecil . . . fighting ignorance everywhere. :wink: