I think most of us know this but nothing like seeing it for yourself...

[Meady]

So, I always used to have cereal for breakfast, typically crunchy nut cornflakes, absolutely love them. Massive sugar spike after breakfast and a quick drop off to the point of a hypo. Had nothing until lunch. Had a bacon and egg bap (admittedly used a brioche roll) slathered in brown sauce. Bacon was the smoked medallions with virtually no fat, dog was having dribble control issues whilst cooking. Check that out for the graph after.

The spike after breakfast is the usual and just finishing the cereal box off. Will be going over to bacon and eggs in the morning but not in a bun. Will also vary with other foods too.

Appreciate a lot of you already know all this but I found it interesting when you see things for yourself.

 

[everydayupsanddowns]

I think from memory, on average (as suggested by GI), cornflakes are more rapidly absorbed than table sugar.

If I remember rightly cornflakes had a GI of 70, while table sugar was 60?

 

[rebrascora]

I think from memory, on average (as suggested by GI), cornflakes are more rapidly absorbed than table sugar.

If I remember rightly cornflakes had a GI of 70, while table sugar was 60?

That is of course assuming your gut has read the book on GI and complies with it.
Testing your own body's response is the only way to find out how your body responds to any particular food which is why testing is so empowering.

 

[everydayupsanddowns]

That is of course assuming your gut has read the book on GI and complies with it.
Testing your own body's response is the only way to find out how your body responds to any particular food which is why testing is so empowering.

Yes absolutely. GI revolves around a small sample, and eating things in isolation in 50g quantities.

It’s fallen out of favour, and I don’t find it all that helpful, especially as you say given the individual variation that GI averages out. But nevertheless I found it quite striking when looking into GI many years ago, that in a sample of 100 people, the average response was that you’d have slower absorption of 50 CHO of granulated sugar, than a popular unsweetened breakfast cereal. Ironically the sweeter Frosties (with extra sugary coating) actually had a lower GI on the tables I read at the time!

Which kinda reinforces the less-than-helpful reputation of GI as a measure.

 

[rebrascora]

I am afraid I cringe every time someone recommends low GI here on the forum. I know that it is probably NHS advice but it just isn't always helpful advice unless people are also testing (which of course the NHS often discourages) and if they are testing then test all foods rather than restrict to low GI. To me low GI is just a red herring that needs to be consigned to Room 101

 

[everydayupsanddowns]

Can’t say I disagree!

 

[Leadinglights]

It was interesting to read in Anthony Worrell Thompson's the GI diet that the GI of foods not only depends on ones individual gut flora but what the particular food is eaten with and high GI foods can be converted to lower GI by combining with other foods in particular fats.
The way the GI value is determined is empirical and does not really represent what may happen in a biological system like the gut./

 

[harbottle]

Possibly caused when the first phase insulin response is not working very well or absent. BG rises to 12 due to lack of the first phase (Which turns of gluconeogenesis and primes muscles to start receiving!) so the second phase overcompensates and can cause levels to go low. In general, levels won’t go this high in non-diabetics, and the resultant drop after a meal is curved - once levels reach around 7 the release of insulin slows to near background levels. This mechanism is broken in T2, pre-diabetes and in some people with diabetes in remission.

(My own tends to hit around 8-9 if I have a high carb meals and fall quickly to between 6 and 7 and the gently ease down into the

 

[Martin.A]

I am afraid I cringe every time someone recommends low GI here on the forum. I know that it is probably NHS advice but it just isn't always helpful advice unless people are also testing (which of course the NHS often discourages) and if they are testing then test all foods rather than restrict to low GI. To me low GI is just a red herring that needs to be consigned to Room 101

GL is part of that approach but rarely gets mentioned.

 

[everydayupsanddowns]

The way the GI value is determined is empirical and does not really represent what may happen in a biological system like the gut./

My understanding is that GI is derived from 100 people eating 50g of ‘a thing’, and then checking BG outcomes over time. The result is then compared against pure glucose, which is ranked at GI of 100.

So it’s not a theoretical measure - it is observed in the guts of 100 sample people, and then their results are averaged.

What Is Glycemic Index?

A food's glycemic index ranking only applies when a food is consumed on an empty stomach without any other type of food. As anyone who's ever eaten food knows, this isn't always how we eat.

www.eatright.org

 

[Leadinglights]

My understanding is that GI is derived from 100 people eating 50g of ‘a thing’, and then checking BG outcomes over time. The result is then compared against pure glucose, which is ranked at GI of 100.

So it’s not a theoretical measure - it is observed in the guts of 100 sample people, and then their results are averaged.

What Is Glycemic Index?

A food's glycemic index ranking only applies when a food is consumed on an empty stomach without any other type of food. As anyone who's ever eaten food knows, this isn't always how we eat.

www.eatright.org

That's good to know it has some basis on a real situation. The explanation I had was from a food science nutrition text book, which on reflexion is from the US.