GI Foods

BrookieD

Hi Guys
The wife is looking to get some GI foods but has no idea of anyone who supplies or sells so i am throwing the question here.

Please list any shops in Dublin that sell any and all GI foods

Thanks

Faith

GI? As in Glycaemic Index? That's just a rating of the rate at which food is broken down into sugars and released into your bloodstream, providing energy. High GI foods like white bread, pasta, sweets etc all release energy very quickly, and fade very quickly. Low GI foods, like porridge, release energy much more slowly and consistently, preventing your blood sugar levels from spiking and keeping you fuller for longer.

You need to read up on GI and find out what food are low, medium and high. There's no special foods, every food has a rating. You get GI foods in any food shop, basically.

EileenG

Personally, I think that GI is the politically correct way of saying "low carb". Tell someone you are eating low carb, and they'll go on about "heart attack on a plate" and why you NEED sugar for energy. Say you are eating low GI, and they'll nod approvingly, even though you are eating the same food!

Basically, a good low-gi diet is one based on fresh vegetables, eggs, fish, meat, more vegetables, cheese, nuts, fruit, wholegrains, and which cuts out processed food, including things like box breakfast cereals, fruit juice, sugar in all forms, processed foods, white flour in all forms and most forms of potato.

cozmik

There are similarities but I would not consider them the same.Eggs, fish, meat, and cheese all of which are central to a low carb diet have so little carb in them that their glycemic effect is not even measurable whereas apples, oranges, pears are all low gi but not low carb same goes for low gi wholegrains.
I've been following a low carb plan the past few weeks and I've managed to lose weight but I have been plagued by constipation and need to take a large dose of magnesium to alleviate the problem. This did not happen when I was on a low gi plan.

Khannie

cozmik wrote: »

I've managed to lose weight but I have been plagued by constipation

Would you not take this as a sign from your body that something in your diet should change?

cozmik

Khannie wrote: »

Would you not take this as a sign from your body that something in your diet should change?

I do, going low carb was a bad idea for me. I cut out healthy food from my diet purely because of the carb count and that was a big mistake. I will be going to the doctor in the morning because my stomach is in absolute bits. I have honestly never felt so bunged up and terrible in all my life.

EileenG

I've lost count of the number of people who think that low carb means low vegetable. I eat at least twice as much vegetables on my low carb diet as I did on a "balanced" one.

cozmik

My point was that you can eat healthy high carb food on a low GI diet. The problem is not that people don't eat enough veg while low carbing it's that high carb foods that are very good for your health have been unfairly demonised by the low carb crowd.

Carbohydrate-Rich Foods
in the Treatment of the
Insulin Resistance Syndrome


Studies of the Importance of the
Glycaemic Index and Dietary Fibre
BY
ANETTE JÄRVI

The glycaemic responses to various carbohydrate-rich foods are partly dependent on the
rate at which the carbohydrate is digested and absorbed. The glycaemic index (GI) is a
way of ranking foods according to their glycaemic response and is recommended as a
useful tool in identifying starch-rich foods that give the most favourable glycaemic
response. This investigation was undertaken to determine whether carbohydrate-rich
foods with a low GI and a high content of dietary fibre (DF) could have beneficial
metabolic effects in the insulin resistance syndrome. This question was addressed both
in single-meal studies and in randomised controlled clinical trials. Starch-rich foods
with low GI values incorporated into composite meals resulted in lower postprandial
responses of both glucose and insulin than foods with a high GI in meals with an
identical macronutrient and DF composition, in subjects with type 2 diabetes. After
three weeks on a diet including low GI starchy foods metabolic profile was improved in
subjects with type 2 diabetes, compared with a corresponding high GI diet. The glucose
and insulin responses throughout the day were lower, the total and low density
lipoprotein cholesterol was decreased, and the fibrinolytic activity was normalised.

There is a need for more low GI products, especially breakfast cereals and
bread. Today there is much knowledge regarding ways of optimising the GI
of foods through the choice of raw material and changes in processing
conditions, sometimes even by modest modifications [41]. Low GI foods
are valuable especially for those with diabetes, hyperlipidaemia and
obesity, but it should be stressed that such foods can probably be regarded
as healthy for most people.
As for dietary fat, dietary carbohydrates are not homogeneous with respect
to chemical structure and biological functions. Thus all carbohydrates
should not be regarded as equal, and the type of carbohydrate-rich foods
included in the diet should be considered when investigating the effects of
other nutrients. Information about the content of DF is sometimes given but
there is rarely any information about the GI of the carbohydrate-rich foods.

http://www.diva-portal.org/diva/getDocument?urn_nbn_se_uu_diva-1507-1__fulltext.pdf

ApeXaviour

cozmik wrote: »

I've been following a low carb plan the past few weeks and I've managed to lose weight but I have been plagued by constipation

Common enough complaint when one first moves to a more natural diet that's restricted in starch/sugar/grain fibre. Probably caused by your previous diet, and not necessarily indicative of anything wrong with the current:
http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/constipation.html

cozmik wrote: »

My point was that you can eat healthy high carb food on a low GI diet. The problem is not that people don't eat enough veg while low carbing it's that high carb foods that are very good for your health have been unfairly demonised by the low carb crowd.

I think that's a bit unfair, it's not like the "low carb crowd" doesn't pay attention to GI. A reasonable amount of apples/pears/oranges etc. are encouraged in the diets (e.g. the zone, protein power lifeplan or paleo diet). Whereas very sugary fruits such as grapes or bananas wouldn't be encouraged so much. To quote the simple mantra:
Lean meat, fish, vegetables, nuts, some fruit, little starch and no sugar.

cozmik wrote: »

http://www.diva-portal.org/diva/getDocument?urn_nbn_se_uu_diva-1507-1__fulltext.pdf

Good link, there definitely should be a distinction made between different carbohydrates. What you quoted only appears to be comparing hi GI with low GI though. Honestly I have to agree with Eileen here, I think low GI is just half-arsed low carb.

cozmik

ApeXaviour wrote: »

Common enough complaint when one first moves to a more natural diet that's restricted in starch/sugar/grain fibre. Probably caused by your previous diet, and not necessarily indicative of anything wrong with the current:

My previous diet was low in sugar and I do not agree that grain fibre or starchy food like red kidney beans which I used to eat everyday are unnatural food.

From the article

A diet characterised by low GI starchy foods lowers the glucose and insulin responses throughout the day and improves the lipid profile

ApeXaviour

cozmik wrote: »

My previous diet was low in sugar and I do not agree that grain fibre or starchy food like red kidney beans which I used to eat everyday are unnatural food.

We'll have to disagree there so:

wiki entry on beans wrote:

Toxicity
Before they are eaten, the raw bean seeds should be soaked in water several hours, boiled for at least ten minutes in new fresh water to degrade a toxic compound - the lectin phytohaemagglutinin - found in the bean which would otherwise cause severe gastric upset. This compound is present in many varieties (and in some other species of bean), but is especially concentrated in red kidney beans

cozmik wrote: »

From the article

A diet characterised by low GI starchy foods lowers the glucose and insulin responses throughout the day and improves the lipid profile

When compared with a high-GI diet. But also removing starch, pretty much altogether, will lower glucose and insulin responses much more significantly.

jam_mac_jam

ApeXaviour wrote: »

We'll have to disagree there so:


When compared with a high-GI diet. But also removing starch, pretty much altogether, will lower glucose and insulin responses much more significantly.

Most meat would be quite toxic in its un processed state does that make it un natural. Just because kidney beans need to be soaked and cooked does not make them an unnatural food. They are a very healthy food and it is this type of fanatisism that makes those on no low carbohydrate diets sound ridiculous by demonising whole food groups. This is exactly the same thing as demonising fats twenty years ago.

ApeXaviour

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Most meat would be quite toxic in its un processed state does that make it un natural.

Not true. Raw meat is quite a healthful thing to consume actually. It's only due to modern farming methods that have allowed disease develop and spread among concentrated populations, that necessitate the cooking of some meats.

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Just because kidney beans need to be soaked and cooked does not make them an unnatural food.

I suppose it depends on your interpretation of such an ambiguous term as natural. You could probably also boil wood mulch down, then add various enzymes and chemicals until it became edible. Cooking is a relatively recent addition to how humanity eats.

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

They are a very healthy food

They're not the worst, but I personally would never call them healthy. Lectins and starch, no thanks.

and it is this type of fanatisism that makes those on no low carbohydrate diets sound ridiculous by demonising whole food groups. This is exactly the same thing as demonising fats twenty years ago.

Fanaticism is a bit harsh, I prefer it called science. A science in its infancy yes, but it's the best we have to go on. I'm don't care that due to your prejudgements, it should sound "ridiculous" to you, I'm not in marketing. This is much more likely to be at least close to correct than anything the USDA (at the behest of their lobbyists) are going to spout at you.

jam_mac_jam

ApeXaviour wrote: »

Not true. Raw meat is quite a healthful thing to consume actually. It's only due to modern farming methods that have allowed disease develop and spread among concentrated populations, that necessitate the cooking of some meats.

I suppose it depends on your interpretation of such an ambiguous term as natural. You could probably also boil wood mulch down, then add various enzymes and chemicals until it became edible. Cooking is a relatively recent addition to how humanity eats.

They're not the worst, but I personally would never call them healthy. Lectins and starch, no thanks.

Fanaticism is a bit harsh, I prefer it called science. A science in its infancy yes, but it's the best we have to go on. I'm don't care that due to your prejudgements, it should sound "ridiculous" to you, I'm not in marketing. This is much more likely to be at least close to correct than anything the USDA (at the behest of their lobbyists) are going to spout at you.

ok, you stick to eating raw meat and I will have my cooked kidney beans. Thanks. It is extremly difficult to digest raw meat, that's why we cook it. Bacteria grows very fast in meat and you will get sick quite quickly. I think you will find that in the past people also died of food poisioning a lot more also. We have been cooking for thousands of years, since before the bronze age, if you would like to go back to before that stage good luck to you. If that's your arguement its a fairly weak one.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with eating pulses, much of the world get their protien from them. They are a very healthy food and if you think they only contain starch you need to do a little more reading on the subject. what
sounds ridiculous to me is demonising whole food groups,not the points about eating less carbs or that fats are not as bad as they are painted which I would agree with.

EileenG

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Most meat would be quite toxic in its un processed state does that make it un natural.

I've eaten raw meat (steak tartare) and fish (sushi) and had no ill effects. I enjoyed them too.

I tend to concentrate on foods that I could prepare and cook easily if I had to hunt or forage for them. So definitely lots of fish, meat, eggs etc, and lots of greens (I still pick nettles, wild garlic and dandelions) but try to avoid stuff that needs a factory to help make it edible.

jam_mac_jam

EileenG wrote: »

I've eaten raw meat (steak tartare) and fish (sushi) and had no ill effects. I enjoyed them too.

I tend to concentrate on foods that I could prepare and cook easily if I had to hunt or forage for them. So definitely lots of fish, meat, eggs etc, and lots of greens (I still pick nettles, wild garlic and dandelions) but try to avoid stuff that needs a factory to help make it edible.

I have eaten steak tartare and sushi myself with no ill effects either. Yes, you can eat steak tartare and sushi which are the best parts of the animal and clearly ideal for it, try liver raw or most of the muscle tissue and you would have serious problems eating it or digesting it. Steak tartare is the absolute best cut of meat you can get from the cow and is marinated before you eat it, I stated most meat. My point is that because kidney beans need to be cooked before eating does not make them a bad food. I think my point is being missed or I didnt explain properly.

The way you are saying you eat is very healthy but some people need fibre in thier diet, we do not all have the same digestive systems.

What I am disagreeing with the demonising of whole food groups, such as pulses not the essential idea of high protien which I think works very well for many people.

EileenG

I've never demonised whole food groups (well, maybe transfats). Most foods, even sugar, have a place in a good diet. It's just that we've been led to believe that high carb processed foods are not only useful, they are essential. If you ask the average person what wholegrains they eat, chances are it will be Cheerios or something similar.

jam_mac_jam

EileenG wrote: »

I've never demonised whole food groups (well, maybe transfats). Most foods, even sugar, have a place in a good diet. It's just that we've been led to believe that high carb processed foods are not only useful, they are essential. If you ask the average person what wholegrains they eat, chances are it will be Cheerios or something similar.

it was the kidney beans coment earlier i was refering to, sorry didnt mean you, just a generalisation of people I talk to who low carb in demonising. I agree with you though on the whole grain and processed carbs.

ApeXaviour

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

ok, you stick to eating raw meat and I will have my cooked kidney beans. Thanks. It is extremly difficult to digest raw meat, that's why we cook it. Bacteria grows very fast in meat and you will get sick quite quickly. I think you will find that in the past people also died of food poisioning a lot more also. We have been cooking for thousands of years, since before the bronze age, if you would like to go back to before that stage good luck to you. If that's your arguement its a fairly weak one.

You're very much missing the point.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with eating pulses, much of the world get their protien from them. They are a very healthy food and if you think they only contain starch you need to do a little more reading on the subject.

This is getting tiresome and cyclical very fast. Do you mind if I abbreviate to a few main points:

Red Kidney beans. Let's just agree to disagree.
I say nay, they're full of starch and lectin anti-nutrients. I say unnatural because we didn't evolve eating them, and they are toxic in their unprocessed state (semantics no doubt). I don't think it's wrong to eat them, I just say there are far healthier options out there.
You say yay, healthy because much of the world gets their protein from them. Much of the world also lives off white rice...

The ridiculous demonising of "whole food groups"
I don't see this I'll be honest. Are you referring to the beans again? I'm not demonising, just saying there are much better options out there. Are boiled sweets a food group? How about glazed pastry/margarine confectionary items? I'll happily demonise them.

Raw meat
I'm both curious and baffled as to where you're acquiring your information on this. Maybe you could provide me with a reference where eating "most meat" raw is fundamentally toxic and difficult to digest (parasites from agriculture and such aside), as I don't believe it. Any steak I get, from what ever part of animal, I barely cook, leaving much of it raw. Carpaccio isn't marinated.

cozmik

ApeXaviour wrote: »

Honestly I have to agree with Eileen here, I think low GI is just half-arsed low carb.

Well You're both mistaken. sorry.

Low-GI Diet Plans Tackle the Real Issue

A low-GI eating plan does not seek to improve your health and weight by restricting how much carbohydrate you should eat. Instead, it advises what type of carbohydrate to eat. It recommends lower-GI carbs that boost health and therefore weight reduction. Unlike the low-carb method, the low-GI dietary method is backed by a wide range of clinical studies, conducted all over the world, that demonstrate it is good for long term health.

http://www.annecollins.com/low-carb-or-low-gi-diet.htm

regards

cozmik

jam_mac_jam

ApeXaviour wrote: »

You're very much missing the point.



This is getting tiresome and cyclical very fast. Do you mind if I abbreviate to a few main points:

Red Kidney beans. Let's just agree to disagree.
I say nay, they're full of starch and lectin anti-nutrients. I say unnatural because we didn't evolve eating them, and they are toxic in their unprocessed state (semantics no doubt). I don't think it's wrong to eat them, I just say there are far healthier options out there.
You say yay, healthy because much of the world gets their protein from them. Much of the world also lives off white rice...

The ridiculous demonising of "whole food groups"
I don't see this I'll be honest. Are you referring to the beans again? I'm not demonising, just saying there are much better options out there. Are boiled sweets a food group? How about glazed pastry/margarine confectionary items? I'll happily demonise them.

Raw meat
I'm both curious and baffled as to where you're acquiring your information on this. Maybe you could provide me with a reference where eating "most meat" raw is fundamentally toxic and difficult to digest (parasites from agriculture and such aside), as I don't believe it. Any steak I get, from what ever part of animal, I barely cook, leaving much of it raw. Carpaccio isn't marinated.

Best agree to disagree, the point about the meat was a passing example contrary to the red kidney beans saying that it doesnt make it an unatural food just as meat is not an unnatural food, I should have said some instead of most, I see nothing wrong with eating meat and that wasnt my point at all. I think we are going into this in way too much detail here and both missing each others points.