Fast Tract Diet for SIBO Forum Fast Tract Diet Q&A GI values are difficult (science paper cf.)

Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • AndreaS
    Participant
    Post count: 51

    Hi fellow FTD’ers,
    You probably know this: You eat something like cornflakes every now and then. One day, your symptoms are worse. You have no idea why. Then you remember the cornflakes, and you start wondering. According to the FTD book the GI is 93. Wait, 93? That’s pretty high … and then you continue your research … and so on 😉
    Anyway, 93 is indeed one of the more recent findings according to http://www.glycemicindex.com/foodSearch.php?num=762&ak=detail (note however the high SEM error value of +/- 14, i.e., don’t be surprised if cornflakes don’t work too well for you).

    Thanks to the great database of U.o.Sydney, I found a very interesting paper:
    Schenk S et al: Different glycemic indexes of breakfast cereals are not due to glucose entry into blood but to glucose removal by tissue. Am J Clin Nutr 2003, 78: 742-8. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14522732

    I think it’s quite interesting and explains well why it’s difficult to gain glycemic indices. If I interpret it correctly, in the context of FTD, it means that some foods with moderate GIs might actually be better tolerated, at least by some. Not that this is anything new, but for those scientifically inclined I found it worth mentioning here.

    AndreaS
    Participant
    Post count: 51

    Correction: I meant “moderately high” when I wrote “moderate” 🙂

    cmcuk
    Participant
    Post count: 40

    Thanks for this. Very interesting – though have not worked out what it measn fro my eating habits yet!
    Years ago when I got GI interested, I cam across a line of research and discussion (sue Holt & colleagues) that it should not be the GI, but the insulin response that we measure, as GI is seen as unhelpful in relation to the need for the body to produce insulin (with diabetes type two being related to insulin resistance). The researcher looking at this said that the II (I think they called it- Insulin index) did not map onto GI predictably (just as GI and glycemic load may vary with the mix of foods ingested (e.g. vinegar supposedly lowers GI I have read)). They now appear to be looking at satiety as well (e.g. http://www.mendosa.com/satiety.htm). Does anyone know of or have any thoughts on this?

    Norm Robillard
    Keymaster
    Post count: 438

    Indeed, very interesting post AndreaS. This work reminds me of the dilemma posed by measuring the GI or fructose. You are really measuring fructose that has been converted to glucose and released into the blood. I don’t know a lot about this work or if it’s been reproduced with the same or other foods, but it certainly shows that we still have a lot to learn. Thanks for sharing this.

    AndreaS
    Participant
    Post count: 51

    @cmcuk: I was asking myself the same question. My answer was that I wanted to test how much I tolerate some food with non-super-high GIs, once I’ve followed FTD long enough to be confident to do some more tests (I plan to write about my full story in a few weeks).

    @Norm: If I may say so, as ingenious as it was of you to link FTD to the GI, we should not forget that the GI is only an auxiliary means. As you have also pointed out in your book, the whole story is about as complicated as there are different types of bacteria 😉 However, even if the GI is only a pretty rough tool, difficult to obtain and partly debatable, it seems to work rather well. Including us FTD folks. Thanks to you!

    Norm Robillard
    Keymaster
    Post count: 438

    Well put AndreaS. I just follow the science. I like to figure stuff out. There will always be the next idea on the horizon – if you’re open to it.

Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.