I admit it. I’m pretty lucky. Many people my age (and who enjoy wine) often mainfest prediabetic indices or type II diabetes.
So, I don’t pay a lot of attention to some of the labels that are placed on foods. (OK. I also admit that when I saw a single serve apple pie at Aldi’s recently for 19 cents apiece, I bought it. After all, it was labeled kosher and pareve. [That meant I could enjoy the apple pie with a meat or dairy meal!] Until my friend also showed me that the label indicated this delectable involved 340 calories. Whoosh!)
But, a lot of my friends examine food labels for the glycemic index (GI) values. Theoretically, the glycemic index is supposed to indicate how quickly ingesting this food will raise one’s glucose levels. The trick- according to the index adherents- is to choose foods that are labeled 55 or lower. That means they increase one’s blood sugar levels pretty slowly. (Should the food manifest a GI of 70 or more, that means the glucose levels rise rapidly.)
Except…
As was found in a study done by Tufts researchers (Nirupa R Matthan, Lynne M Ausman, Huicui Meng, Hocine Tighiouar, and Alice H Lichtenstein) and published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, the GI is not very accurate. 63 folks ingested bread labeled with GI ranging from 35 to 103- and their blood sugar responses varied by 20%
Further research tended to indicate that what we eat during our last meal- or if we eat bread alone or in concert with protein- changes our responses dramatically. Which brings up even newer research presented at the American Society for Nutrition conference. Dr. NR Matthan (still at Tufts) and Dr. Mindy Patterson (Texas Women’s University) presented “The Glycemic Index 40 Years Later: A Fresh Look at Its Reliability, Utility and Value .
The research they did indicates that the GI is at best an unreliable predictor of how a food will affect one’s blood sugar levels. The study participants were all prediabetic (not yet manifesting Type II Diabetes). For week 1 of the study, the participants had an identical diet, high in resistant starches (the kind that regulates one blood sugar levels)- typically comprised of oats and beans. Blood sugar levels were tested at the start and end of the regime. Even at the end of the 1 week regime, the participants manifestly wildly different glucose levels. The same was true if a glass of chocolate milk were added to their diets.
However, according to Dr. David Jenkins (U Toronto; the progenitor of the glycemic index), that doesn’t mean we should scrap the GI. After all, GI is only one attribute of food.
Jenkins, Matthan, and Patterson all recommend subjects elect to follow a health, diverse diet- one comprised of whole grains, vegetables, and fish. Limited, of course, by the amount of red meat and sugary drinks.
So much for simple schemes to afford us perfect health.
Thought provoking.
It makes sense to me. I suppose it must be very difficult to product the effect of one food in a person when there are just so many other factors at play. What other food/how much you’re eating in the same timeframe would alter the results. As would activity level immediately after. But cortisol from stress also plays with your BG levels, as do other hormones and metabolism. Some people simply don’t react to sugar how others do. Even time of day can factor in.
Just a good example of how, no matter how precisely we try to quantify science, the human factor always pops in and shakes things up.
Thanks for sharing this.
Blessings to you!
Laurie
We just need to be more aware of how our body reacts. Too bad there is no “one size fits all”. Thanks for the visit and the comment, Laurie.
Blood sugar issues are so hard to deal with. So many variables. Interesting post.
Hopefully, I shed some light on the situation for you, Jean.
Many nutrition facts labels are too confusing for me. Let’s start with “serving”. I have not analyzed it further, but I’m pretty sure that a serving is a random measurement to make consumers feel less guilty. A serving of apple pie may be super tiny to make you think you can afford to eat it.
Secondly, they use all these different names for sugar: Dextrose, Fructose, you name it.
What does that tell us: steer clear of processed food and make your own.
There is a difference between sugar (sucrose) and sugars (which is an organic chemical designation).
I, too, wonder how “servings” have been derived. As a great example, pop used to be packaged in 12 ounce containers and one serving. Now, they are sold in 6.
Good article Roy.GI and infact most indicators cannot be used in isolation. Smart food choice is crucial.
Thanks so much for your visit and comment, Dr. A.
Every six months, I have my fasting blood glucose tested as part of routine blood work. I have also had my A1c tested for years by my doctor, because my father was Type 2 diabetic starting in his 40’s. It’s interesting that my fasting blood glucose is always above 100 but my A1c is always comfortably low. I asked him once why that happens and he said that people’s bodies differ in reaction to food and the fasting blood glucose is only a snapshot. Snapshots are never the best thing.
That’s why those new continous glucose monitors are gaining marketshare, Alana.
That is very interesting, but what you said towards the end about limiting red meat is a good start. Once I started eating closer to an Ayurveda diet If I am going to have a piece of fruit, I enjoy it about half an hour before my main meal.
That is a superb plan, Chef William. How we stage our meals clearly sets caloric intake- and digestive capabilities.
You have the most interesting blogs Roy! I read labels and I must be doing something right because I eat lots of vegetables and fish almost with some grains.
Sounds like a great diet, there, Martha. Keep it up.