4 ms·

Sigh. Glycemic index doesn't really tell the story. Eat whole foods, avoid sugar.

by herdrick 16y ago

pizza 16y ago
It's kinda like BMI. It tells you what you probably knew already just by looking at the subject.
- carbocation 16y ago
  Would you have expected that people who are slightly overweight have a lower mortality than those who are of normal weight? Though BMI is imperfect, it does allow for interesting observations such as that. I would be very enthusiastic about a noninvasive, cheap, rapid, and accurate way of measuring whole-body (and especially abdominal) fat, of course!
- herdrick 16y ago
  You're more right than you know. BMI and GI have exactly the same problem: they aren't used because they measure the right things very well but because they are easy to calculate.
  - lukesandberg 16y ago
    Exactly GI tells at most one fact about a food, and food is more than just its sugar density or its fat content. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutritionism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutritionism
carbocation 16y ago
While the glycemic index doesn't tell the whole story, it is more actionable in today's environment than "eat whole foods, avoid sugar." There are plenty of whole foods that are little better than sugar, and some processed foods that are not horrible. Plus, if you don't have the luxury of eating whole foods for each meal, the glycemic index can help you choose the lesser among evil alternatives. That something is imperfect does not make it useless.
- herdrick 16y ago
  When you focus on a flawed measurement you get distorted results, proportionate to the amount of flaw. GI is only moderately correlated with "good foods". I predict focusing on it will end up causing more harm than good. When you can pour oil onto a food to improve it's rating, that's an easy rating to game.
  - carbocation 16y ago
    I don't think I'm correctly understanding your argument. To me, it seems that you are saying that ignorance of the effect that a food has on your blood glucose levels is superior to knowledge of that effect. That seems silly to me, so I assume I must be interpreting your position uncharitably. Can you help me understand your stance on this information a little better?
    - herdrick 16y ago
      The problem is that this is yet another revolution which reverses the conclusions and advice of the previous one. It's not a revolution like modern physics, which qualified and re-explained classical mechanics. It's more like the French revolution. Off with the heads of the anti-fatists, salute the anti-carb flag... until the next reversal which will surely reject the conclusions of the current one. The situation is much like with artifical intelligence in the early days - trying to boil the problem down to a few simple rules. Until we are willing to accept the huge complexity involved in the problem we do more harm than good. There is no single useful scale on which to judge foods. (See lukesandberg's comment and link below.) In the meantime I recommend you eat like a caveman.
    - corruption 16y ago
      Glycemic index is not all it's cracked up to be: - meal GI can be lowered by simply consuming more protein/fat based foods, or high grain foods alongside the food. - Studies of GI look at each food in isolation - GI ignores the insulin index which surprisingly is not correlated that well with glycemic index, meaning there is more biologically at play than simply GI - Lower GI is not correlated that well with healthier choices Like everything else, it's not a silver bullet. "Eat unprocessed food that runs, swims, flies or grows" is a simpler diet plan and more likely to be good for us because that's what we evolved to eat, not how quickly does one food in isolation get metabolised compared to 100grams of dextrose.

Sigh. Glycemic index doesn't really tell the story. Eat whole foods, avoid sugar.

pizza 16y ago

It's kinda like BMI. It tells you what you probably knew already just by looking at the subject.

carbocation 16y ago
Would you have expected that people who are slightly overweight have a lower mortality than those who are of normal weight? Though BMI is imperfect, it does allow for interesting observations such as that. I would be very enthusiastic about a noninvasive, cheap, rapid, and accurate way of measuring whole-body (and especially abdominal) fat, of course!
herdrick 16y ago
You're more right than you know. BMI and GI have exactly the same problem: they aren't used because they measure the right things very well but because they are easy to calculate.
- lukesandberg 16y ago
  Exactly GI tells at most one fact about a food, and food is more than just its sugar density or its fat content. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutritionism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutritionism

carbocation 16y ago

While the glycemic index doesn't tell the whole story, it is more actionable in today's environment than "eat whole foods, avoid sugar." There are plenty of whole foods that are little better than sugar, and some processed foods that are not horrible. Plus, if you don't have the luxury of eating whole foods for each meal, the glycemic index can help you choose the lesser among evil alternatives. That something is imperfect does not make it useless.

herdrick 16y ago
When you focus on a flawed measurement you get distorted results, proportionate to the amount of flaw. GI is only moderately correlated with "good foods". I predict focusing on it will end up causing more harm than good. When you can pour oil onto a food to improve it's rating, that's an easy rating to game.
- carbocation 16y ago
  I don't think I'm correctly understanding your argument. To me, it seems that you are saying that ignorance of the effect that a food has on your blood glucose levels is superior to knowledge of that effect. That seems silly to me, so I assume I must be interpreting your position uncharitably. Can you help me understand your stance on this information a little better?
  - herdrick 16y ago
    The problem is that this is yet another revolution which reverses the conclusions and advice of the previous one. It's not a revolution like modern physics, which qualified and re-explained classical mechanics. It's more like the French revolution. Off with the heads of the anti-fatists, salute the anti-carb flag... until the next reversal which will surely reject the conclusions of the current one. The situation is much like with artifical intelligence in the early days - trying to boil the problem down to a few simple rules. Until we are willing to accept the huge complexity involved in the problem we do more harm than good. There is no single useful scale on which to judge foods. (See lukesandberg's comment and link below.) In the meantime I recommend you eat like a caveman.
  - corruption 16y ago
    Glycemic index is not all it's cracked up to be: - meal GI can be lowered by simply consuming more protein/fat based foods, or high grain foods alongside the food. - Studies of GI look at each food in isolation - GI ignores the insulin index which surprisingly is not correlated that well with glycemic index, meaning there is more biologically at play than simply GI - Lower GI is not correlated that well with healthier choices Like everything else, it's not a silver bullet. "Eat unprocessed food that runs, swims, flies or grows" is a simpler diet plan and more likely to be good for us because that's what we evolved to eat, not how quickly does one food in isolation get metabolised compared to 100grams of dextrose.