Hello!


For awhile now, I've been following my own LC plan which combines the elements of Atkins and PP.

Lately however, I've been reading more and more about the glycemic index.

As a matter of practice, I try to eat foods low on the index....but here is my question......if all of my daily carb intake is in the form of low glycemic foods, then theoretically, I should be able to eat more carbs while still staying in ketosis - than if I ate my carbs in the form of high glycemic foods? or am I missing something here?

For example: there are certain foods that are very low on the glycemic index - like certain legumes and fruits - but traditionally forbidden on the more common LC plans........

theoretically speaking, shouldn't I be able to eat these and still remain in ketosis as long as my overall carb count for the day remains constant?

Maybe I am confused, but I thought that one maintains a state of ketosis by not tripping a rise in blood sugar - and low glycemic foods are supposed to accomplish this, no?

Thanks, Terry

It's not just studying the glycemic index factor now too that is confusing...try glycemic LOAD. This new term is worth an investigation on you own on the web. But here's a start

http://www.drmirkin.com/nutrition/9566.html

Basically people ask, what matters?
Simple answer, well it all matters.
And that's why it's not always easy.
Carrots have a high glycemic index, but carrots (per serving) actually have very few carbs)...so they have a low glycemic load.
I'm no longer afraid of a few carrots.

What I've decided is I know what foods trigger me to eat out of control...and these I know have a high glycemic load - regardless of what the glycemic index is. Sure, I wouldn't dive into sugar or starches/no way! I know those kinds of carbs will make me eat the whole loaf so to speak - but I've found that oatbran (a high fiber low glycemic index & load - in small amounts is just fine.

Read, learn and then decide for yourself. There is so much research now. Atkins is right in saying you must cut down on carbs and include fat, protein and fiber in your diet - that's healthy! But he himself never says don't eat any carbs...and that's where your concerns come in...we need fiber too, and usually (unless you are eating pure flaxseeds), fiber comes with carbs sometimes.

What I've learned is the overall glycemic load (the total result impact on your blood sugar) depends on a few things. If you eat low glycemic carbs with protein and fat, the effect on insulin is affected (in a good way)...protein and fat slow the rate at which food is absorbed into the bloodstream and insulin does not rise as quickly as carbs eaten alone...any carbs. So eating well balanced atkins meals that include some (does not have to be alot) of fat is important. I stick to carbs that have a glycemic index below 50 and then consider the glycemic load sometimes too and what I can do to lower it.

Hope that helps. Check out the web info above.

I've been doing a bit of reading lately on the glycemic index and noted that maltodextrin is a substance found to have one of the highest glycemic index values ever tested - higher than table sugar.

I then noticed that my box of granular Splenda lists maltodextrin as the primary ingredient, above the sucralose product - which tells me it may contain a bit more maltodextrin than actual Splenda.

That said *and I realize this is a YMMV issue and people still lose weight using granular Splenda* -

doesn't this seem to make granular Splenda an even less attractive alternative to sugar than say other substances such as stevia? also when agave syrup tests as one of the lowest glycemic substances?

I guess I will have to experiment more with agave and stevia to see how it affects my weight, but I wonder how significant the glycemic index issue is when it comes to low carb eating and I am having trouble finding data on this topic.

Thanks, barefoot1

Hi, Barefoot.

Firstly, let me say that each packet of Splenda (or the bulk) weighs 1g or less so is phyisically incapable of having more carbs than the equivalent weight in sugar (sucrose) or maltodextrin (a kind of sugar). So effectively a LOT less is still used and it's still less impact (glycemic index) or total count (glycemic load) than any kind of sugar by "sweetening volume".

What's possibly causing a lot of confusion is the difference between total carb load and glycemic impact. The glygemic index measures the blood sugar impact of a specific amount of any food, and not the carb count (and of course individual reactions may vary).

Any food with a LOW glycemic impact, in larger amounts (defining reactions/tolerances also depends on amount) will have a DIFFERENT and usually higher glycemic impact. For instance, a very large amount of fish, because of the high protein and low fat (fat moderates the impact) will actually have blood sugar effects, or a glycemic index.

On the other hand, fructose has a very low glycemic index because it's mostly processed in the liver rather than via the blood stream, so it's high carb but low glycemic index. It does, however, in the long term and with high usage, raise the triglycerides (NOT good).

The trick is always to find one's personal balances and tolerances, and the carb count is a good way of starting out, by avoiding the tricky carbs altogether for the most part, and lowering blood sugar responses. The glycemic index, as a tool, is more of a refinement that comes along later, when finding out WHICH carbs one deals with best... and that's usually the low glycemic carbs which tend to high fiber, high good fats and low empty-nutrition (starch, sugar) carbohydrates.

Hope this helps some?

By the way, I think this is a great discussion, but isn't really about trying to get Liquid Splenda -- so I'm retitling it and moving it to one of the Nutrition or Technical Forums, k?

Yes, great discussion. Thanks for bringing it to my attention, Jude. I found barefoot's original question about Glycemic Index, and merged the threads together to keep the discussion in one place. Everything now lives in the General Low-Carb forum.

Doreen

Yes! Thank you all!

This information has been very helpful to me.
I've obviously been doing some study on carbs and their impact on health and keep coming back to whether there is a relationship between counting them/being in ketosis/utilizing the published index/load info -

It is obvious that most low carb plans only suggest eating those carbs which are low on the index and/or have a low load factor.

Most veggies don't even appear on the index/load tables - so presumably the only carb foods we need to watch out for are the ones listed?

Also, I haven't come across any web articles that compare the results of those following Atkins, Protein Power etc. to those following SugarBusters and Montignac, etc.

In any event, I find all of this info interesting and worthy of continued study and discussion.

Thanks again, barefoot

Yes, lets continue the discussion.

I feel that this consideration of all these factors "raises the intellectual bar" so to speak on low carb eating. We're talking about more than how many carbs did you eat today and can I have peanuts or not now...we're talking how food works in our digestion, why and the physiological impact of consumption altogether.
Now I believe that if you were previously a junk-food-junkie (and we all know what that is) or existed on primary boxes or bags or processed carbs/foods before starting low carbing, then yes, almost any positive change to eating lower (not even low) carb foods, adding healthy fats and consuming no refined sugars will definately improve your health and without a doubt lower your weight (less calories possibly, but definately controlled insulin levels) and this is why low carbing gives great success to some very overweight people. Maybe the first taste of any real success they've ever had - and this is wonderful.
Then there's us. Perhaps we were very overweight or perhaps just a few pounds to lose, and we did Atkins and we lost our weight or some of it. Then comes the tweaking and research and fasination of how this really worked and what will keep it working, maybe even better for us once we have long long stopped even thinking of eating high carb foods and are in this "okay there's more to it" phase.
Fasinating. We keep reading and learning and more research continues. I believe that lowering carbs is step one. It's the first thing and easiest part to understand in the beginning when it all seems relatively new and overwhelming. Then we start looking at all the individual components of WHY this is working - usually starts at our first major stall and we start asking lots of questions. Unfortunately alot of the answers are YMMV and that can be frustrating. Then off the stall we feel a surge of success and are motivated to learn even more.

It's wonderful. I'm on this trip with you. It all matters. But together, not separately. Certain foods effect the results of other foods in combination, it all depends on how YOUR body processes certain foods (metabolism, allergy, sensitivities) and
the conditions of the foods themselves, meaning the manner in which it was cooked, processed or not and finally the component of environmental factors (like exercise, stress and lifestyle)....
...so it all matters. And to be able to conceptualize it all at once is for most (for me!) impossible. I just take one decision at a time, try to be as healthy as I can be and make MY OWN RULES - what works for me may not work for others and vice versa.

I predict there will be a GREAT DEAL about glycemic load/index/lowcarbing - a huge boom in research. I think low carbing is just about to explode mainstream...perhaps the major food producers in the country are discussing their own low carb versions of current products as we speak - wouldn't that be wonderful?

Yes, in my world maltodextrin is a no no food. Maltodextrin is high in glycemic index and well, that's what I believe. I became accustomed to using liquid sweetnlow for years now and it's fine with me. No carbs, but I know most people just hate the stuff and you can't cook with it.

Peace.

Oh yeah! This is SO where I'm at right now! I went on Atkins this past summer and lost 22# and felt great, then went on a 4-month STALL. Very frustrating, because I followed the woe faithfully. In the past month, I've read 5 different LC books by different authors. Each presents its "case" a bit differently... Many concepts the same across the board (ie. controlled, limited carbs, insulin response, glycemic index/load, etc.); other things quite different (ie. one says you should "link" proteins with carbs, another says to allow a certain number of hours between consuming proteins and carbs, etc...) At first it was confusing, but the more I read, the more of the pieces fall into place. There are definately a lot of things I have yet to fully understand, but I'm looking at this like a Science experiment! After the 4-month stall, I'm now combining what I've learned from ALL the authors, and advice/experience from people, and put together a plan that seems to be working for me. I'm still fine tuning, but I'm getting there... I'm down 2 lbs. this morning from a week ago--finally broke the 4 month stall! Of course I'm motivated to read/learn more. I'm developing my own hypothesis about why I stalled--but it's definately based on hunches and educated guesses, not facts. But it's a challenging and motivating process to try to "outsmart" those nasty fat cells!

One thing for sure--I know that Low Carb will be my woe for life. As my body adapts and changes, I anticipate more "tweaking", as you say. This has been a good thread...thanks!

This is my understanding of why we should count both total carbohydrates and glycemic load. Someone out there, please let me know if I have this wrong.

If we eat over a certain number of total carbohydrates per day (varies by person and level of activity), we will start burning glucose as our primary energy source, not fat, even if all the carbohydrates we eat are low on the glycemic index and low in glycemic load. In other words, if we want to stay in ketosis we need to eat under whatever level of carbohydrates we have determined keeps us there.

However, even though the glycemic load of a food does not affect the number of carbohydrates we can eat in a day, eating low glycemic foods will keep our blood sugar more stable and therefore we will have fewer cravings for foods that are loaded with carbohydrates. In other words, eating low on the glycemic index will help us stay on our low carbohydrate eating plan but will not change the rate at which we lose weight. Only cutting the number of carbohydrates we eat can do that.

Does this make sense?

Thank you thank you........ I don't know the answers.......but these are the thoughts that have been swirling about my head - only you all have worded them more cogently than I did.

Thank you......maybe these are riddles yet to be solved.

I definitely think that for now, I will look up the glycemic index and load factors for the various foods I eat and make note of them until more is known about this.

It just seems there must be some relationship between keeping an overall low carb count while eating low glyemic foods


barefoot!