A carb is a carb, Cephissus destroys glycemic index myth

[Walter Sobchak]

you dont know what youre missing.

He's a Shizzo gimmick, so he craves something creamy, but a lot more salty

[SF1900]

He's a Shizzo gimmick, so he craves something creamy, but a lot more salty

lol.

Has it been confirmed its a shizzo gimmick?

OB1 needs to do the upside down cup challenge.

[Walter Sobchak]

lol.

Has it been confirmed its a shizzo gimmick?

OB1 needs to do the upside down cup challenge.

OB1 has been using penises as tongue depressors

[Mike]

OB1 has been using penises as tongue depressors

I stopped replying to his comments.  My head hurts.

[ritch]

But potatos were always known to be high glycemic, why is it such a surprise?

Sweet potatos are the best for every day eating.

[cephissus]

Second this chart doesn't take time into account.

Actually, it does.  The numbers represent "area under the curve", the curve measuring insulin or glucose as a function of time.

the glycemic chart is BS anyway, we never eat just a potato as a meal anyway. The meal with have fats and carbs redering this whole debate totally and completely useless.

"complex" or "simple", the glucose and insulin response is similar.  whether that response is altered by other foods is irrelevant.

But potatos were always known to be high glycemic, why is it such a surprise?

Sweet potatos are the best for every day eating.

why is that?  sweet potatoes are also "high glycemic"

My guess is it redlines your blood glucose and insulin because the cake sugar can be very easily assimilated, but you are right, who knows and this whole discussion is something of a demonstration of how little we know.

I'd want an implant that measures blood sugar 24/7 wirelessly hooked up to my computer to monitor this over a long period of time.

Exactly.

The more you learn and experience, the more questions you have.  Eventually you start to realize the world is full of people who need truth, and people who are willing to sell it to them.  Not many can stand to live with open questions.

[drkaje]

Actually, it does.  The numbers represent "area under the curve", the curve measuring insulin or glucose as a function of time.

"complex" or "simple", the glucose and insulin response is similar.  whether that response is altered by other foods is irrelevant.

why is that?  sweet potatoes are also "high glycemic"

Exactly.

The more you learn and experience, the more questions you have.  Eventually you start to realize the world is full of people who need truth, and people who are willing to sell it to them.  Not many can stand to live with open questions.

That first chart doesn't support your opinion. It shows clearly that a Mars Bar affects blood sugar much differently than a potato.

It's a great chart for those understanding that carbs aren't all created equal, though.

[Parker]

Actually, it does.  The numbers represent "area under the curve", the curve measuring insulin or glucose as a function of time.

"complex" or "simple", the glucose and insulin response is similar.  whether that response is altered by other foods is irrelevant.

why is that?  sweet potatoes are also "high glycemic"



Exactly.

The more you learn and experience, the more questions you have.  Eventually you start to realize the world is full of people who need truth, and people who are willing to sell it to them.  Not many can stand to live with open questions.

Because Pat Banya eats them and looks better than you
[ Invalid YouTube link ]

[ritch]

Actually, it does.  The numbers represent "area under the curve", the curve measuring insulin or glucose as a function of time.

"complex" or "simple", the glucose and insulin response is similar.  whether that response is altered by other foods is irrelevant.

why is that?  sweet potatoes are also "high glycemic"



Exactly.

The more you learn and experience, the more questions you have.  Eventually you start to realize the world is full of people who need truth, and people who are willing to sell it to them.  Not many can stand to live with open questions.

I boil them, so no, not high glycemic.

[Never1AShow]

Actually, it does.  The numbers represent "area under the curve", the curve measuring insulin or glucose as a function of time.

"complex" or "simple", the glucose and insulin response is similar.  whether that response is altered by other foods is irrelevant.

why is that?  sweet potatoes are also "high glycemic"



Exactly.

The more you learn and experience, the more questions you have.  Eventually you start to realize the world is full of people who need truth, and people who are willing to sell it to them.  Not many can stand to live with open questions.

Why would it be irrelevant if it was eaten with other things and where is the proof of that.  It seems reasonable that combining things could radically change this chart. But what proof is there beyond speculation?

[cephissus]

Why would it be irrelevant if it was eaten with other things and where is the proof of that.  It seems reasonable that combining things could radically change this chart. But what proof is there beyond speculation?

if these 'other things' could change the behavior of a candy bar, they could also change the behavior of a sweet potato.  suggesting that this experiment is 'meaningless' because 'food combining' is incorrect.  it may be the case that, for example, "complex carbs" interact with other foods in a way "simple carbs" do not, but that is unintuitive and requires further justification.

also (not that this is relevant), I've measured myself many times.  'food combining' did not magically blunt the glucose spike.

That first chart doesn't support your opinion. It shows clearly that a Mars Bar affects blood sugar much differently than a potato.

not really.  the servings were isocaloric and mars bars have a lot more fat than potatoes.

[cephissus]

by the way, a carb is not a carb:

In conclusion, lean and obese subjects had the same increase in fatty acid synthesis on eucaloric, very low fat solid food diets enriched in simple sugars. The increase in synthesis was not related to insulin, glucagon, or glucose levels. Both the linoleate dilution and MIDA methods showed that the increase in fatty acid synthesis followed two distinct 24-h patterns and was correlated with the highly variable increase in TG. As yet undefined mediators of the carbohydrate-induced stimulation of human fatty acid synthesis need to be identified. The effect of high carbohydrate diets on energy balance is small, yet the impact of de novo synthesized saturated fatty acids on the fatty acid composition and production of VLDL TG is large due to the relatively small pool of fatty acids in the plasma. The physiological consequences and potential atherogenicity of such changes must be elucidated, given the increasing public consumption of simple sugars (27). Future studies of these effects of low fat, high carbohydrate diets should lead to better dietary therapy for hypertriglyceridemia and cardiovascular disease.

http://www.jlr.org/content/41/4/595.long

simple sugars = heart disease

maybe?  maybe not?

"small impact on energy balance"

"substantial de novo fatty acid synthesis"

"but... no correlation to bmi" -- hmm, what about fatty acid storage?

are you confused yet?

[Never1AShow]

by the way, a carb is not a carb:

http://www.jlr.org/content/41/4/595.long

simple sugars = heart disease

maybe?  maybe not?

"small impact on energy balance"

"substantial de novo fatty acid synthesis"

"but... no correlation to bmi" -- hmm, what about fatty acid storage?

are you confused yet?

Further studies needed it says. It also seems to be focusing on disease not athletics.

[ritch]

Further studies needed it says. It also seems to be focusing on disease not athletics.

No studies are needed to know what a bunch of hogwash is being discussed here...

[Never1AShow]

if these 'other things' could change the behavior of a candy bar, they could also change the behavior of a sweet potato.  suggesting that this experiment is 'meaningless' because 'food combining' is incorrect.  it may be the case that, for example, "complex carbs" interact with other foods in a way "simple carbs" do not, but that is unintuitive and requires further justification.

also (not that this is relevant), I've measured myself many times.  'food combining' did not magically blunt the glucose spike.

not really.  the servings were isocaloric and mars bars have a lot more fat than potatoes.

This sounds like you are relying on a study of one to rebut the food combining, which isn't very scientific.

[Never1AShow]

No studies are needed to know what a bunch of hogwash is being discussed here...

That actually kinda blows my mind that boiling v. Baking can have such an impact.  Any info on microwaving?  Ever notice any difference comparing the two, boiled v. baked in how they affect your physique or performance?

[ritch]

That actually kinda blows my mind that boiling v. Baking can have such an impact.  Any info on microwaving?  Ever notice any difference comparing the two, boiled v. baked in how they affect your physique or performance?

Microwave is bad, period, lol! And yeah it increases the glycemic index (almost certain of this) I read this from Dan Duchaine a long, long time ago.

But eating protein and fats does stabalize the blood sugar levels. Don't care what the stupid trolls here say.

[cephissus]

This sounds like you are relying on a study of one to rebut the food combining, which isn't very scientific.

the point is that "simple" and "complex" carbs can have similar effects on blood glucose.  if eating a steak with wild rice lowers the glucose response (not me experience, but again, NOT RELEVANT), then you may suspect that eating a steak with your pile of white rice might ellicit a similar reduction in glucose response.  to suggest that food combining effects the glucose response of some carbs differently than others goes, to me, against intuition.  and not only that, but my personal experience.

i advise testing these things for yourself.  it's cheap and easy, and you may find that glucose response does not "play by the rules."

but then again, you're right.  i'm not very scientific and "protein and fats does stabalize the blood sugar levels", so don't worry about eating a sweet potato because that's completely, 100% different from a bowl of cookie crisp.



just to be clear, i don't really have a stake in this debate.  i just find it hilarious that so many people (on a bodybuilding forum, of all places), continue to recite nutritional dogma on the basis of claims that don't stand up to the slightest scrutiny.

by the way, want to hear some more anti-science bullshit?

Just take a look at how amylase, a salivary enzyme found in highly variable levels (DNA-dependent) has on those complex starchy carbs:

We found that following starch ingestion, HA individuals had significantly lower postprandial blood glucose concentrations at 45, 60, and 75 min, as well as significantly lower AUC and peak blood glucose concentrations than the LA individuals. Plasma insulin concentrations in the HA group were significantly higher than baseline early in the testing session, whereas insulin concentrations in the LA group did not increase at this time. Following ingestion of the glucose solution, however, blood glucose and insulin concentrations did not differ between the groups. These observations are interpreted to suggest that HA individuals may be better adapted to ingest starches, whereas LA individuals may be at greater risk for insulin resistance and diabetes if chronically ingesting starch-rich diets.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3327743/

More amylase = more breakdown of starch to sugar IN THE MOUTH = signficantly LOWER peak and total glucose

IS YOUR HEAD SPINNING?

[cephissus]

That actually kinda blows my mind that boiling v. Baking can have such an impact.  Any info on microwaving?  Ever notice any difference comparing the two, boiled v. baked in how they affect your physique or performance?

What blows my mind is that these seem like reasonable questions.  Like, do you imagine ritch wakes up one day thinks, "wow, i feel like shit after that workout -- must be because i microwaved my potato instead of boiling it!"

or "wow, i'm starting look like shit, better ditch the microwave and start boiling my potatoes again"

well, actually now that i think about it, he probably does...  

[SF1900]

Piece of advice to all getbiggers:

Do not take any advice from Cessiphus.

[ritch]

Re read the last sentence of my last post stick boy.

[Yamcha]

Piece of advice to all getbiggers:

Do not take any advice from Cessiphus.

amen

[Never1AShow]

What blows my mind is that these seem like reasonable questions.  Like, do you imagine ritch wakes up one day thinks, "wow, i feel like shit after that workout -- must be because i microwaved my potato instead of boiling it!"

or "wow, i'm starting look like shit, better ditch the microwave and start boiling my potatoes again"

well, actually now that i think about it, he probably does...  

I don't think I called you non scientific other than pointing out that sample size of one thing.  I appreciate what you've posted in this thread.  Basically you are saying almost all bodybuilding nutrition claims are bro science.  Heck not just bodybuilding, pretty much all athletic nutrition claims.