5 ms·

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 p

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.
  - herdrick 16y ago
    Well said.
  - wendroid 16y ago
    > - meal GI can be lowered by simply consuming more protein/fat based foods, or high grain foods alongside the food. I'm not refuting your GI point but the combination of foods does have an impact on how they are digested. E.g. want to fatten a cow? Give it plenty of water with its food. Other combinations such as wholemeal bread & fats are better than fats without wholemeal. Denatured flour will re-absorb vitamins & minerals from the other foods on the plate. I'm not advocating the Shang-ri-la but http://www.sethroberts.net/ http://www.sethroberts.net/ has some good reading on the subject, particularly "What Makes Food Fattening? A Pavlovian Theory of Weight Control" - http://www.sethroberts.net/about/whatmakesfoodfattening.pdf http://www.sethroberts.net/about/whatmakesfoodfattening.pdf
    - corruption 16y ago
      Color me skeptical of fattening cows via water. Got any references? I'm guessing you mean simply storing more water with every gram of glucose in the muscle rather than fattening.
      - wendroid 16y ago
        The references are in that document. They found that giving water and pellet feed increased body mass more than pellet feed alone.

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.
- herdrick 16y ago
  Well said.
- wendroid 16y ago
  > - meal GI can be lowered by simply consuming more protein/fat based foods, or high grain foods alongside the food. I'm not refuting your GI point but the combination of foods does have an impact on how they are digested. E.g. want to fatten a cow? Give it plenty of water with its food. Other combinations such as wholemeal bread & fats are better than fats without wholemeal. Denatured flour will re-absorb vitamins & minerals from the other foods on the plate. I'm not advocating the Shang-ri-la but http://www.sethroberts.net/ http://www.sethroberts.net/ has some good reading on the subject, particularly "What Makes Food Fattening? A Pavlovian Theory of Weight Control" - http://www.sethroberts.net/about/whatmakesfoodfattening.pdf http://www.sethroberts.net/about/whatmakesfoodfattening.pdf
  - corruption 16y ago
    Color me skeptical of fattening cows via water. Got any references? I'm guessing you mean simply storing more water with every gram of glucose in the muscle rather than fattening.
    - wendroid 16y ago
      The references are in that document. They found that giving water and pellet feed increased body mass more than pellet feed alone.