6 ms·

Carrots don't cause the same insulin spike that candy bars do. Refined and processed sugars hit your bloodstream much more quickly than unprocessed foods. Carr

by zasz 16y ago

Carrots don't cause the same insulin spike that candy bars do. Refined and processed sugars hit your bloodstream much more quickly than unprocessed foods. Carrots also don't taste as good as a chocolate bar, so it would still be an epic sacrifice.

kragen 16y ago
You are mistaken. The technical term for "hit your bloodstream much more quickly than" is "has a higher glycemic index than". Carrots and chocolate bars both supposedly have the same glycemic index, 49: http://www.carbs-information.com/glycemic-index-food-chart.htm http://www.carbs-information.com/glycemic-index-food-chart.h... while Snickers bars are down at 41. The reason carrots don't cause the same insulin spike is not that they don't hit your bloodstream as quickly, or any bullshit about refinement and processing. It's that they're mostly made of water and indigestible cellulose, so the total amount of sugar involved is much lower.
- zasz 16y ago
  Hm, good point. Kind of a shame that I got so many more upvotes than you. The OP's point about carrots being as good as junk food is still bullshit, though.
- oihujyfgthyjuik 16y ago
  So chocolate covered carrots would be just as good for you?
- SwellJoe 16y ago
  Which is why glycemic index is a loony way to determine your diet. Carrots aren't the most nutrient dense of vegetables, but they're vastly healthier than any candy bar, no matter what the glycemic index is. Insulinemic response might be a better measure, though even that is questionable, based on the preponderance of evidence.
  - kragen 16y ago
    That's interesting. How can I learn more?
    - SwellJoe 16y ago
      That's a good question. Debunking of the glycemic index as a dietary guideline isn't where most diet-focused scientists spend their time, since it's not where gains are to be found (everyone, except people pushing GI-oriented diets, knows that carrots are healthier than candy bars). I came to the conclusion that looking at GI was a loony way to determine diet while researching Gary Taubes and the Good Calories, Bad Calories theory. Taubes is a proponent of Atkins-style diets and is anti-carbohydrate with religious fervor. He, unfortunately, hasn't been thoroughly debunked in any mainstream media that I'm aware of, even though damned near every scientist he quotes and references has come out to say that he's quoted them out of context and come to conclusions that they in no way endorse or agree with. Quackwatch (though not entirely free from bias on all things) has covered the low-carb thing pretty well: http://www.quackwatch.com/06ResearchProjects/lcd.html http://www.quackwatch.com/06ResearchProjects/lcd.html Reason magazine had a good article when Taubes was first making a name for himself: http://reason.com/archives/2003/03/01/big-fat-fake http://reason.com/archives/2003/03/01/big-fat-fake The most damning portion (and most relevant to GI and low-carb diets) of which, I think, is on page three in the section titled "3,000 MIAS", which talks about the low percentage of Atkins (and other low-carb, low-GI) diet followers among the set of people who have lost 30+ lbs and kept it off. It takes a tremendous amount of will-power to overlook the preponderance of evidence that Atkins and low-carb diets are not especially effective (though any diet that reduces your caloric intake will be effective), nor is there much science to back up the belief that high GI foods, in absence of obesity and other pre-diabetic factors, would lead to diabetes (which is another claim of low-GI proponents). Any diet that claims that carrots are unhealthy is probably a diet you should throw out the window, because it flies in the face of a tremendous amount of science. That's not to say you should only eat carrots, but they certainly aren't going to make you fat, nor will they give you diabetes, and eating a bunch of Snickers bars every day very well could do both.
      - 16y ago
- neild 16y ago
  Glycemic load is a measure which attempts to address this problem. Glycemic index measures the glucose response to consuming a fixed amount of carbohydrate. Since different foods contain different amounts of carbohydrate, the amount of food consumed is not constant. To consume 50g of carbohydrate, you can eat 100g of white bread...or 600g of carrots. Glycemic load adjusts the glycemic index of a food according to portion size: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycemic_load http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycemic_load

by zasz 16y ago

kragen 16y ago

You are mistaken. The technical term for "hit your bloodstream much more quickly than" is "has a higher glycemic index than". Carrots and chocolate bars both supposedly have the same glycemic index, 49: http://www.carbs-information.com/glycemic-index-food-chart.htm http://www.carbs-information.com/glycemic-index-food-chart.h... while Snickers bars are down at 41. The reason carrots don't cause the same insulin spike is not that they don't hit your bloodstream as quickly, or any bullshit about refinement and processing. It's that they're mostly made of water and indigestible cellulose, so the total amount of sugar involved is much lower.

zasz 16y ago
Hm, good point. Kind of a shame that I got so many more upvotes than you. The OP's point about carrots being as good as junk food is still bullshit, though.
oihujyfgthyjuik 16y ago
So chocolate covered carrots would be just as good for you?
SwellJoe 16y ago
Which is why glycemic index is a loony way to determine your diet. Carrots aren't the most nutrient dense of vegetables, but they're vastly healthier than any candy bar, no matter what the glycemic index is. Insulinemic response might be a better measure, though even that is questionable, based on the preponderance of evidence.
- kragen 16y ago
  That's interesting. How can I learn more?
  - SwellJoe 16y ago
    That's a good question. Debunking of the glycemic index as a dietary guideline isn't where most diet-focused scientists spend their time, since it's not where gains are to be found (everyone, except people pushing GI-oriented diets, knows that carrots are healthier than candy bars). I came to the conclusion that looking at GI was a loony way to determine diet while researching Gary Taubes and the Good Calories, Bad Calories theory. Taubes is a proponent of Atkins-style diets and is anti-carbohydrate with religious fervor. He, unfortunately, hasn't been thoroughly debunked in any mainstream media that I'm aware of, even though damned near every scientist he quotes and references has come out to say that he's quoted them out of context and come to conclusions that they in no way endorse or agree with. Quackwatch (though not entirely free from bias on all things) has covered the low-carb thing pretty well: http://www.quackwatch.com/06ResearchProjects/lcd.html http://www.quackwatch.com/06ResearchProjects/lcd.html Reason magazine had a good article when Taubes was first making a name for himself: http://reason.com/archives/2003/03/01/big-fat-fake http://reason.com/archives/2003/03/01/big-fat-fake The most damning portion (and most relevant to GI and low-carb diets) of which, I think, is on page three in the section titled "3,000 MIAS", which talks about the low percentage of Atkins (and other low-carb, low-GI) diet followers among the set of people who have lost 30+ lbs and kept it off. It takes a tremendous amount of will-power to overlook the preponderance of evidence that Atkins and low-carb diets are not especially effective (though any diet that reduces your caloric intake will be effective), nor is there much science to back up the belief that high GI foods, in absence of obesity and other pre-diabetic factors, would lead to diabetes (which is another claim of low-GI proponents). Any diet that claims that carrots are unhealthy is probably a diet you should throw out the window, because it flies in the face of a tremendous amount of science. That's not to say you should only eat carrots, but they certainly aren't going to make you fat, nor will they give you diabetes, and eating a bunch of Snickers bars every day very well could do both.
    - 16y ago
neild 16y ago
Glycemic load is a measure which attempts to address this problem. Glycemic index measures the glucose response to consuming a fixed amount of carbohydrate. Since different foods contain different amounts of carbohydrate, the amount of food consumed is not constant. To consume 50g of carbohydrate, you can eat 100g of white bread...or 600g of carrots. Glycemic load adjusts the glycemic index of a food according to portion size: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycemic_load http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycemic_load