Wednesday, March 15, 2006
'Glycemic index' (Article) of little use to dieters hoping to control Diabetes
'Glycemic index' of little use to dieters - Diet & Fitness - MSNBC.com
Hey, look! It's another misleading headline and article about important health matters. How refreshing. It's been almost a half-week since the last one (see below). If you go down through this article, you'll see that it essentially says, "This is all complicated stuff, and rather than worry your little brain about it, just eat less and exercise more!" OK, so glycemic index isn't perfect. That doesn't mean that it doesn't matter for people at risk for developing insulin resistance, pre-diabetes, and even full-blown Type II Diabetes.
Plus, this article completely ignores the more important glycemic load, which is a combination of how much sugar content and bulk. Here's the money quote: "What's more, GI is a complicated way to judge a food's value. Certain vegetables, for instance, have a fairly high GI, but actually contain very few grams of carbohydrate and few calories. On the other hand, a dish of ice cream may have a lower GI than a bowl of brown rice."
Well, yes, but if you take glycemic load into account, instead of just glycemic index, then the picture is entirely clear again. Ice cream = bad. Brown rice = good. Really, now, is it not possible to point this out!?
I find myself getting really frustrated with the media about this stuff. They want a good headline and some eyeballs, so they blow everything out of proportion. I wrote about this a couple of posts ago. You can scroll down to get a better idea of why I'm so mad about it. Digg This!
Hey, look! It's another misleading headline and article about important health matters. How refreshing. It's been almost a half-week since the last one (see below). If you go down through this article, you'll see that it essentially says, "This is all complicated stuff, and rather than worry your little brain about it, just eat less and exercise more!" OK, so glycemic index isn't perfect. That doesn't mean that it doesn't matter for people at risk for developing insulin resistance, pre-diabetes, and even full-blown Type II Diabetes.
Plus, this article completely ignores the more important glycemic load, which is a combination of how much sugar content and bulk. Here's the money quote: "What's more, GI is a complicated way to judge a food's value. Certain vegetables, for instance, have a fairly high GI, but actually contain very few grams of carbohydrate and few calories. On the other hand, a dish of ice cream may have a lower GI than a bowl of brown rice."
Well, yes, but if you take glycemic load into account, instead of just glycemic index, then the picture is entirely clear again. Ice cream = bad. Brown rice = good. Really, now, is it not possible to point this out!?
I find myself getting really frustrated with the media about this stuff. They want a good headline and some eyeballs, so they blow everything out of proportion. I wrote about this a couple of posts ago. You can scroll down to get a better idea of why I'm so mad about it. Digg This!
