Low GI diet

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

AngieG150

Member
Relationship to Diabetes
Type 2
Does anybody use the low GI diet? I used it years ago when I had gestational diabetes and it kept my blood sugars in check, but I stopped it after my baby was born. I read an article recently that said this diet doesn't prevent developing diabetes, and in fact it can lead to a lowered sensitivity to insulin. However it didn't say anything about keeping diabetes in check. I would like to hear of other people's experiences with this diet please.

(I have recently been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, and I am looking for ways to improve my diet)

Thanks

Angie x
 
Looked at the idea of low GI because it looked at first sight to be sensible but I eventually came to the conclusion it was a bit of an artificial thing. Yes, some carbs will absorbed at a different rate to others but I could not see how anybody could work out what the differences were, how they sensibly could be quantified and especially how the concept could account for variability between individuals. Most of the stuff I read seemed to come from people with an angle - just another way of promoting something or other.

Sorting out how any of it might sensibly apply to me looked like it could lead to a lot of brain hurt and I came to the conclusion that the simpler thing was to think only about carbs in total and not worry too much about what the carbs were. Reducing carbs in general and using my trusty meter to find out which carbs hit me hardest was far simpler than trusting to somebody's opinion about absorption rates.

That route worked well for me and, most importantly, kept the brain strain to a minimum.
 
Yes, I did a low GI diet when I was diagnosed.
It certainly helped.
The "all carbs are bad" thing seems a bit nonsensical to me.
Obviously if there is increased insulin resistance, or a reduced insulin output, a low GI food, which releases sugar slowly, would work better than a fast sugar hit, which would require a rapid insulin response.
I checked with my meter, and yes, I could avoid peaks.
Having said that, I went on to reduce my weight dramatically, with the Newcastle diet, which reversed my diabetes, and I eat normally anyway now.
 
GI or Glycaemic Index is an average guide to how quickly or slowly foods might break down in the digestive system and release glucose into your blood stream. The problem is that this is highly individual depending upon your digestive system, metabolism, gut biome, genetics and probably a hundred other factors.
Even between products there can be an array of differences, so porridge is generally considered to be reasonably low GI but the likes of instant porridge where you just add boiling water or hot milk will usually break down a lot faster than steel cut/ jumbo oats which are less floury and processed. What I find amazing is that the glucose from jumbo oats porridge can get from my mouth to the tip of my finger in 20 mins!! OK, pure glucose/dextrose tablets can do it in 10mins but I don't see that extra 10mins as a significant benefit compared to an egg which will start to release it's glucose 2 hours later and release it over a period of 4 hours after that.... so to me a 2 egg omelette will be far slower release than a bowl of porridge.
If you were to do some testing with a BG meter you might find that your body doesn't break down porridge as quickly as mine and allows your body to cope better than maybe a slice or 2 of wholemeal bread for breakfast, but it is very individual and GI index is just a very rough guide. A BG meter will show you how your body responds not how a table of values tells you that the average of 100 people responded. Hope that makes sense. The GI thing is just an average. Same as an average height for a woman might be 5'5 but is that any help to you if you are 4'8 or 6'2!
 
Docb said:
Looked at the idea of low GI because it looked at first sight to be sensible but I eventually came to the conclusion it was a bit of an artificial thing. Yes, some carbs will absorbed at a different rate to others but I could not see how anybody could work out what the differences were, how they sensibly could be quantified and especially how the concept could account for variability between individuals. Most of the stuff I read seemed to come from people with an angle - just another way of promoting something or other.

Sorting out how any of it might sensibly apply to me looked like it could lead to a lot of brain hurt and I came to the conclusion that the simpler thing was to think only about carbs in total and not worry too much about what the carbs were. Reducing carbs in general and using my trusty meter to find out which carbs hit me hardest was far simpler than trusting to somebody's opinion about absorption rates.

That route worked well for me and, most importantly, kept the brain strain to a minimum.
Click to expand...
That's true, we are all a bit different with different metabolisms. I used a book that listed foods according to their GI (low, medium and high) so all the working out was done for me. At the time (10 years ago) it kept my glucose levels within an acceptable range. I no longer have a meter so I have no way of knowing how individual foods will affect me. Thanks for your reply.
 
travellor said:
Yes, I did a low GI diet when I was diagnosed.
It certainly helped.
The "all carbs are bad" thing seems a bit nonsensical to me.
Obviously if there is increased insulin resistance, or a reduced insulin output, a low GI food, which releases sugar slowly, would work better than a fast sugar hit, which would require a rapid insulin response.
I checked with my meter, and yes, I could avoid peaks.
Having said that, I went on to reduce my weight dramatically, with the Newcastle diet, which reversed my diabetes, and I eat normally anyway now.
Click to expand...
The book I have doesn't say all carbs are bad, just that some are worse than others. Interestingly pasta is rated as medium. I haven't heard of the Newcastle diet, I will need to look that up! Thanks x
 
AngieG150 said:
That's true, we are all a bit different with different metabolisms. I used a book that listed foods according to their GI (low, medium and high) so all the working out was done for me. At the time (10 years ago) it kept my glucose levels within an acceptable range. I no longer have a meter so I have no way of knowing how individual foods will affect me. Thanks for your reply.
Click to expand...
There is a general lack of understanding of how low GI foods affect us it seems. Yes maybe jumbo oats as above can start to slowly raise BG in ten minutes, and a dextrose tablet can raise it in ten.
That is completely immaterial. If the oats raise it by one, for two hours as a low GI food, it's way better then the dextrose tablet taking it up by ten in a fast spike even if only for twelve minutes, which is the entire point of a low GI diet.
 
rebrascora said:
GI or Glycaemic Index is an average guide to how quickly or slowly foods might break down in the digestive system and release glucose into your blood stream. The problem is that this is highly individual depending upon your digestive system, metabolism, gut biome, genetics and probably a hundred other factors.
Even between products there can be an array of differences, so porridge is generally considered to be reasonably low GI but the likes of instant porridge where you just add boiling water or hot milk will usually break down a lot faster than steel cut/ jumbo oats which are less floury and processed. What I find amazing is that the glucose from jumbo oats porridge can get from my mouth to the tip of my finger in 20 mins!! OK, pure glucose/dextrose tablets can do it in 10mins but I don't see that extra 10mins as a significant benefit compared to an egg which will start to release it's glucose 2 hours later and release it over a period of 4 hours after that.... so to me a 2 egg omelette will be far slower release than a bowl of porridge.
If you were to do some testing with a BG meter you might find that your body doesn't break down porridge as quickly as mine and allows your body to cope better than maybe a slice or 2 of wholemeal bread for breakfast, but it is very individual and GI index is just a very rough guide. A BG meter will show you how your body responds not how a table of values tells you that the average of 100 people responded. Hope that makes sense. The GI thing is just an average. Same as an average height for a woman might be 5'5 but is that any help to you if you are 4'8 or 6'2!
Click to expand...
Thanks, that's interesting! I'm only just over the threshold, so I don't have a meter.
 
travellor said:
There is a general lack of understanding of how low GI foods affect us it seems. Yes maybe jumbo oats as above can start to slowly raise BG in ten minutes, and a dextrose tablet can raise it in ten.
That is completely immaterial. If the oats raise it by one, for two hours as a low GI food, it's way better then the dextrose tablet taking it up by ten in a fast spike even if only for twelve minutes, which is the entire point of a low GI diet.
Click to expand...
Yes that was my understanding, better to have a low long curve than a short sharp spike.
 
AngieG150 said:
The book I have doesn't say all carbs are bad, just that some are worse than others. Interestingly pasta is rated as medium. I haven't heard of the Newcastle diet, I will need to look that up! Thanks x
Click to expand...
It does follow a general rule, based on basically how digestible the starch or sugars are. The more fibre, the harder it is to break down so the longer it takes to release the sugar. So wholemeal pasta is a lower GI than a refined flour white pasta. It also seems that reheating some starches can again delay the process even further.
Mixing a fat or protein into the meal slows down digestion even more.
 
The glycemic index of a food is determined experimentally, subjects consume an amount of food that contains 50g of carbohydrate and blood glucose response is measured and compared with the response of pure glucose, the method is flawed as it takes no account of a normal portion size of the food and can only be an average anyway. I suspect these days it is done by some machine or simulation.
The intro in Anthony Worrell Thompson's book the GI diet says there are 'no bad foods just a bad diet'
As you see from reading on here people are very different in their response to carbohydrates, high GI, low GI or whatever.
Just being in the prediabetes zone puts you in a good position to make so changes which will be successful but having a blood glucose monitor will give you the tools to make that happen.
Would you drive your car without a working speedometer, I suspect not.
 
I tried out low GI and could see no benefit when doing two hour after eating testing.
 
Leadinglights said:
The glycemic index of a food is determined experimentally, subjects consume an amount of food that contains 50g of carbohydrate and blood glucose response is measured and compared with the response of pure glucose, the method is flawed as it takes no account of a normal portion size of the food and can only be an average anyway. I suspect these days it is done by some machine or simulation.
The intro in Anthony Worrell Thompson's book the GI diet says there are 'no bad foods just a bad diet'
As you see from reading on here people are very different in their response to carbohydrates, high GI, low GI or whatever.
Just being in the prediabetes zone puts you in a good position to make so changes which will be successful but having a blood glucose monitor will give you the tools to make that happen.
Would you drive your car without a working speedometer, I suspect not.
Click to expand...
I'm going to start looking into blood glucose meters. Thanks x
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top