To whomever made this video? Why don't you let the evil Harvard School of Public Health do their evil deeds, and you meanwhile go volunteer at a food pantry and actually be productive and have a real impact on people's lives if you have this much spare time on your hands? That's where I'm going! Bye.
Thanks for reply. I think glycemic index has died a natural death anyway. Was glycemic index promoted to justify American Diabetic Association recommendation some decades ago for a high carbohydrate diet for diabetics ?
Good work ERNIE! In fact, here in the U.S., it was DR. ROBERT ATKINS who really popularized/pioneered the LOW CARB DIET which seem to parallel DR. BERNSTEIN!
Agreed wholeheartedly. I have been saying this to whomever would listen: That its the GLYCEMIC LOAD thatz the key!! Additionally, LOW CARBS was the point of DR. ROBERT ATKINS (higher Fat and Proteins too). His only FLAW was that it needed to be adjusted a little bit more for the Individual GLYCEMIC LOAD.
I have NO idea what that even is. I rarely view youtube, Your video flagged offf something else I was looking at. Then you got all nasty about my comment of it being a poor "work of art". You don't have to explain it to me...I DON"T CARE.
nice guy!!!!!!! I didn't wish anything bad on you. I still think you could have done a much better video to get your point across. I've watched it again and still couldn't read places where you changed screens to quickly. I wasn't commenting on the content of the video. I don't really care what your opinion is on GI. I was commenting on how poor you made the video. So you can have all your bad wishes back.
High sugar, high carbohydrate diets are the basis for sugar addition. High carbohydrate diets are a definite "no go" for diabetics, so must be considered a risk factor in causing diabetes. See Dr, Bernstein's site for proof
think she lacks enough formal education to qualify to be an "expert". on diets. Just being able to write is completely unsatisfactory when dealing with other people's health.
The BIG problem is very few people are suited to this high sugar, high carbohydrate diet. Essentiall,y it is dangerous to most people to go on.
High sugar, high carbohydrate diets are the basis for sugar addition. High carbohydrate diets are a definite "no go" for diabetics, so must be considered a risk factor in causing diabetes. See Dr, Bernstein's site for proof
Intake of sugared beverages is associated with increased body weight, poor nutrition, increasing consumption increases risk for obesity and diabetes; the strongest effects are seen in studies with the best methods and interventional studies show that reduced intake of soft drinks improves health.1 Studies that do not support a relationship between consumption of sugared beverages and health outcomes tend to be conducted by authors supported by the beverage industry.
Ounces of Prevention — The Public Policy Case for Taxes on Sugared Beverages
Kelly D. Brownell, Ph.D., and Thomas R. Frieden, M.D., M.P.H.
Sugar-sweetened beverages (soda sweetened with sugar, corn syrup, or other caloric sweeteners and other carbonated and uncarbonated drinks, such as sports and energy drinks) may be the single largest driver of the obesity epidemic.
Postmenopausal women with hyperinsulinemia were at least two times more likely to develop breast cancer compared with women with the lowest insulin levels. Interventions that target insulin and its signaling pathways may decrease breast cancer risk in these women.
Researchers with the multiyear WHI followed health outcomes in 93,676 postmenopausal women
n 2004, they selected a subset of more than 1,600 women without diabetes: 835 had incident breast cancer. They assessed fasting insulin levels, naturally occurring estradiol levels and BMI.
There was a positive association between insulin levels and risk for breast cancer (HR=1.46; 95% CI, 1.00-2.13 for the highest vs. lowest quartile of insulin level). Most of this effect was observed in the large subset of women from the WHI study who did not receive hormone therapy.
The message has been broadcast many times before- Its impact will be similar- little if any.
We need a far better education campaign starting with kids at school. I think it is far too late for the "baby boomers" and the Y generation. These people will only change when they develop serious health problems like diabetes. Similar things are happening with smoking.
Humans have been "processing" food for a long time. Simple cooking is processing.
A lot of processing is used just to preserve and stop food from spoilage. Most of us live in a big city where we have to rely on "processed" food. Milk needs to be sterilized is an example. Sure we can go way out and become VEGAN or RAW relying on vegetation (even RAW) and fruit. doing this we run the risk of becoming sugar dependent
Vegans are sick, and unhealthy people. I see them shaking as they stumble into the health food stores, or there are jumpy, cranky, or paranoid. Probably orm an insulin overload. Oh, and females tend to be heavy, and the males skinny.
OF course sugars are not the only problem food. ALL carbohydrates "spike" blood glucose levels some 45 to 60 minutes after eating. This is irrespective of the type of carbohydrate. This is why a low carbohydrate diet is coming into vogue.
Please read my references properly and stop putting your uninformed opinions in this video.
Did you read my references in INFO column on right ?
Explanation in-
Wikipedpa
Talk: Glycemic Index
Fructose, no matter what source has a very wide band of glycemic response. The apparent "glycemic index " can vary from the quoted under 20 to 75 depending on subject and nature of other sugars consumed concurrently.
This means that fructose- any source, cannot be recommended as a "safe" sweetener for diabetics.
The source DOES matter, ESPECIALLY as u try to isolate whole/natural food components without fiber.
"has a very wide band of glycemic response" So it is easier to throw all the fruit out with the refined food instead of accessing tables of specific index/load #s?
"glycemic index can vary"
Especially since the "concurent" sugars have HIGHER GI! That was my point. While you're at it consider impaired insulin response from "foods" containing no fructose.
Insulin response is based on glucose levels. Fructose is converted partly to glucose in a controlled/regulated/gradual manner. The glycemic index shouldn't be altered to account for high fructose corn syrup, people should recognize that's not real food anyway. Real fructose in fruit/peel and all, is healthy.
Sorry, you don't or can't understand there is NO difference between fructose in fruit and honey and that in HFCS. Fructose is fructose no matter what the source is !
Honey has 17% water & no fiber but fruit is mostly water & optimal fiber to modulate absorption/insulin spike & crash. Honey, an oligosaccharides contains glucose, maltose & sucrose (all have higher GI than fructose). Fructose is gradually split into glucose delaying absorption.
Apple Glycemic load= 3
Honey Glycemic load= 169 USDA
"no difference"? Bring #s
HFCS is GMOs/contains high glucose, largely unbound to nutrients. HFCS does not suppress the production of ghrelin, so increases hunger.
Another video failing to differentiate between fructose & high fructose corn syrup... There is nothing wrong w/fructose eaten with the whole food/skin and all.
While it is true GI is not the only measure- glycemic load & insulin response are other measurements of diabetes risk.
You can't control blood glucose levels with a high carbohydrate diet. When you overeat carbohydrates, all you do is overload the body with unwanted glucose. With diabetes, the body is already struggling to keep a stable sugar level. Logic says this is crazy.
Unwanted hunger and cravings are caused by overeating carbohydrates, in particular sugars. Some 45 minutes after eating a high carbohydrate food, the blood sugar level "spikes". The body responds by releasing insulin into the bloodstream. The insulin lowers blood sugar but tends to lower it too much. This results in hunger and cravings. So, we eat more high carb foods to satisfy the apparent need for food. A vicious cycle sets in and we overeat.
Loaded with fat and sugar, Nutella combines the worst aspects of peanut butter (too much fat) and jam (too much sugar) in one product. But it contains nutritious hazelnuts and has a low GI, so does that take the curse off it?
No. Hazelnuts are well down the list of ingredients at only 13%, and a low GI doesn't necessarily mean a food is healthy; chocolate cake with chocolate frosting has much the same GI as Nutella. Sliced banana or even jam make healthier spreads for toast — and they have low GIs too.
Well I am sorry, but I can't do anymore than tell you the TRUE science behind the GI myth.
You have got to realize that misinforming diabetics about the apparent advantages of rating food by GI is very dangerous. Diabetics have an enormous problem controlling their blood sugar levels. To "prescribe" to them high sugary foods with apparent low GI is a fraud and needs to be treated as such.
The way it is presented as a scientific miracle to diets is the problem. Sure i sounds very scientific- so it must be RIGHT ?
Sorry, this is not the case. The number of foods that don't give consistent Glycemic Index values far outweigh the number that do. Even when the researchers test glucose itself, they get variable results with the same subject when tested at differentt times. Anyway, the use of GI for rating food has, thank goodness, gone out the window.
With the Glycemic Load varying from 18 to 29, this gives a error of about 10 in 26 or 38%. Sorry, there is no correlation. Glycemic Load for rice is meaningless.
Since the majority of the world population rely on rice as their stable food. what use is Glycemic Index or Load to them ?
It works all people have to do is show u proof! lol As an individual, I know it works. It might not for u or some others but it works differently for each and everyone!
To whomever made this video? Why don't you let the evil Harvard School of Public Health do their evil deeds, and you meanwhile go volunteer at a food pantry and actually be productive and have a real impact on people's lives if you have this much spare time on your hands? That's where I'm going! Bye.
tasha122277 1 year ago
hi carbs are not bad for diabetics if the carbs are complex and the diet is low fat
Stonewalljackson7 2 years ago
Thanks for reply. I think glycemic index has died a natural death anyway. Was glycemic index promoted to justify American Diabetic Association recommendation some decades ago for a high carbohydrate diet for diabetics ?
PROFLOP1 2 years ago
Good work ERNIE! In fact, here in the U.S., it was DR. ROBERT ATKINS who really popularized/pioneered the LOW CARB DIET which seem to parallel DR. BERNSTEIN!
Mutwasze 2 years ago
Agreed wholeheartedly. I have been saying this to whomever would listen: That its the GLYCEMIC LOAD thatz the key!! Additionally, LOW CARBS was the point of DR. ROBERT ATKINS (higher Fat and Proteins too). His only FLAW was that it needed to be adjusted a little bit more for the Individual GLYCEMIC LOAD.
Dr. Moo-Twahz, N.D.
Mutwasze 2 years ago
I have NO idea what that even is. I rarely view youtube, Your video flagged offf something else I was looking at. Then you got all nasty about my comment of it being a poor "work of art". You don't have to explain it to me...I DON"T CARE.
debwa1wok 2 years ago
nice guy!!!!!!! I didn't wish anything bad on you. I still think you could have done a much better video to get your point across. I've watched it again and still couldn't read places where you changed screens to quickly. I wasn't commenting on the content of the video. I don't really care what your opinion is on GI. I was commenting on how poor you made the video. So you can have all your bad wishes back.
debwa1wok 2 years ago
Did you watch it in HQ ?
ERNIEMAC2 2 years ago
I think the video was worse then the message. Probably because you couldn't read 1/2 of it.
debwa1wok 2 years ago
If you are at all interested, then read the references.
If you can't understand it, bad luck !
ERNIEMAC2 2 years ago
High sugar, high carbohydrate diets are the basis for sugar addition. High carbohydrate diets are a definite "no go" for diabetics, so must be considered a risk factor in causing diabetes. See Dr, Bernstein's site for proof
diabetes-book(dot)com/
ernietube1 2 years ago
think she lacks enough formal education to qualify to be an "expert". on diets. Just being able to write is completely unsatisfactory when dealing with other people's health.
Just a repost to negate down thumb nonsense !
ernietube1 2 years ago
The BIG problem is very few people are suited to this high sugar, high carbohydrate diet. Essentiall,y it is dangerous to most people to go on.
High sugar, high carbohydrate diets are the basis for sugar addition. High carbohydrate diets are a definite "no go" for diabetics, so must be considered a risk factor in causing diabetes. See Dr, Bernstein's site for proof
diabetes-book(dot)com/
ernietube1 2 years ago
Intake of sugared beverages is associated with increased body weight, poor nutrition, increasing consumption increases risk for obesity and diabetes; the strongest effects are seen in studies with the best methods and interventional studies show that reduced intake of soft drinks improves health.1 Studies that do not support a relationship between consumption of sugared beverages and health outcomes tend to be conducted by authors supported by the beverage industry.
ernietube1 2 years ago
April 8, 2009 (10.1056/NEJMp0902392)
Ounces of Prevention — The Public Policy Case for Taxes on Sugared Beverages
Kelly D. Brownell, Ph.D., and Thomas R. Frieden, M.D., M.P.H.
Sugar-sweetened beverages (soda sweetened with sugar, corn syrup, or other caloric sweeteners and other carbonated and uncarbonated drinks, such as sports and energy drinks) may be the single largest driver of the obesity epidemic.
ernietube1 2 years ago
A FEAR report may do the trick-
A HIGH CARBOHYDRATE DIET DOES THIS-
High Insulin Levels Increase Breast Cancer Risk
Postmenopausal women with hyperinsulinemia were at least two times more likely to develop breast cancer compared with women with the lowest insulin levels. Interventions that target insulin and its signaling pathways may decrease breast cancer risk in these women.
Researchers with the multiyear WHI followed health outcomes in 93,676 postmenopausal women
ernietube1 3 years ago
n 2004, they selected a subset of more than 1,600 women without diabetes: 835 had incident breast cancer. They assessed fasting insulin levels, naturally occurring estradiol levels and BMI.
There was a positive association between insulin levels and risk for breast cancer (HR=1.46; 95% CI, 1.00-2.13 for the highest vs. lowest quartile of insulin level). Most of this effect was observed in the large subset of women from the WHI study who did not receive hormone therapy.
ernietube1 3 years ago
Very similar to Supersize Me.
The message has been broadcast many times before- Its impact will be similar- little if any.
We need a far better education campaign starting with kids at school. I think it is far too late for the "baby boomers" and the Y generation. These people will only change when they develop serious health problems like diabetes. Similar things are happening with smoking.
ERNIEMAC2 3 years ago
It looks too simplistic to me !
Humans have been "processing" food for a long time. Simple cooking is processing.
A lot of processing is used just to preserve and stop food from spoilage. Most of us live in a big city where we have to rely on "processed" food. Milk needs to be sterilized is an example. Sure we can go way out and become VEGAN or RAW relying on vegetation (even RAW) and fruit. doing this we run the risk of becoming sugar dependent
ERNIEMAC2 3 years ago
Hm, I think you should watch the film Processed People at processedpeople daht com.
MostlyMagicTV 3 years ago
If you are a VEGAN nut, please refrain from commenting on this video. You will be blocked as being irrelevant and trivial.
Sorry about that. This is a very serious matter and VEGANS with their high sugary, high carbohydrate diet are of no use to a diabetic.
PROFLOP1 3 years ago
Vegans are sick, and unhealthy people. I see them shaking as they stumble into the health food stores, or there are jumpy, cranky, or paranoid. Probably orm an insulin overload. Oh, and females tend to be heavy, and the males skinny.
AfroSchmuck 3 years ago
No they do not you idiot, im not even a vegan and i see many healthy looking Vegans..Most vegans are slim but NOT all of them are!
miaangel247 2 years ago
OF course sugars are not the only problem food. ALL carbohydrates "spike" blood glucose levels some 45 to 60 minutes after eating. This is irrespective of the type of carbohydrate. This is why a low carbohydrate diet is coming into vogue.
Please read my references properly and stop putting your uninformed opinions in this video.
REFERENCES ARE REQUIRED !!
PROFLOP1 3 years ago
Did you read my references in INFO column on right ?
Explanation in-
Wikipedpa
Talk: Glycemic Index
Fructose, no matter what source has a very wide band of glycemic response. The apparent "glycemic index " can vary from the quoted under 20 to 75 depending on subject and nature of other sugars consumed concurrently.
This means that fructose- any source, cannot be recommended as a "safe" sweetener for diabetics.
PROFLOP1 3 years ago
"Fructose, no matter what source"
The source DOES matter, ESPECIALLY as u try to isolate whole/natural food components without fiber.
"has a very wide band of glycemic response" So it is easier to throw all the fruit out with the refined food instead of accessing tables of specific index/load #s?
"glycemic index can vary"
Especially since the "concurent" sugars have HIGHER GI! That was my point. While you're at it consider impaired insulin response from "foods" containing no fructose.
Chrisisms 3 years ago
Insulin response is based on glucose levels. Fructose is converted partly to glucose in a controlled/regulated/gradual manner. The glycemic index shouldn't be altered to account for high fructose corn syrup, people should recognize that's not real food anyway. Real fructose in fruit/peel and all, is healthy.
Chrisisms 3 years ago
Sorry, you don't or can't understand there is NO difference between fructose in fruit and honey and that in HFCS. Fructose is fructose no matter what the source is !
PROFLOP1 3 years ago
Honey has 17% water & no fiber but fruit is mostly water & optimal fiber to modulate absorption/insulin spike & crash. Honey, an oligosaccharides contains glucose, maltose & sucrose (all have higher GI than fructose). Fructose is gradually split into glucose delaying absorption.
Apple Glycemic load= 3
Honey Glycemic load= 169 USDA
"no difference"? Bring #s
HFCS is GMOs/contains high glucose, largely unbound to nutrients. HFCS does not suppress the production of ghrelin, so increases hunger.
Chrisisms 3 years ago
Another video failing to differentiate between fructose & high fructose corn syrup... There is nothing wrong w/fructose eaten with the whole food/skin and all.
While it is true GI is not the only measure- glycemic load & insulin response are other measurements of diabetes risk.
Chrisisms 3 years ago
i am not sure if u are right but this would explain why i am so hungry all the time i have been eating fast food alot and haven't gained a pound
pimpedpope 3 years ago
You can't control blood glucose levels with a high carbohydrate diet. When you overeat carbohydrates, all you do is overload the body with unwanted glucose. With diabetes, the body is already struggling to keep a stable sugar level. Logic says this is crazy.
ernietube1 3 years ago
Sounds a bit complex to me.
Unwanted hunger and cravings are caused by overeating carbohydrates, in particular sugars. Some 45 minutes after eating a high carbohydrate food, the blood sugar level "spikes". The body responds by releasing insulin into the bloodstream. The insulin lowers blood sugar but tends to lower it too much. This results in hunger and cravings. So, we eat more high carb foods to satisfy the apparent need for food. A vicious cycle sets in and we overeat.
ernietube1 3 years ago
A recent study just released may be of interest
The New England Journal of Medicine
Volume 359:229-241 July 17, 2008 Number 3
Weight Loss with a Low-Carbohydrate, Mediterranean, or Low-Fat Diet
ernietube1
ernietube1 3 years ago
It is very interesting to see that a very vocal "expert" on diabetic diets has gone "low catb". See Mendossa-
Diabetes Update Number 114: Low-Carb of January 1, 2008.
Also he recommends Dr. Bernstein
Dr. Bernstein's next LIVE Tele-Seminar is Wednesday, July 30, at 8:00 PM EST, 7:00 PM CST, 6:00 PM MST, and 5:00 PM PST.
Hope for diabetics yet
ernietube1 3 years ago
I am just putting my replies in one place-
ust a bit on RAW potatoes-
Discarded potatoes are used to lot feed animals. Pigs can't digest RAW potatoes. Only cattle and sheep can.
If pigs can't digest RAW potatoes, neither can humans.
Cattle have difficulty even with their multi stomachs containing the right bacteria and cud chewing.
Maybe RAWS chew their CUD ? Come on, own up ! tell us your secret !
ernietube1 3 years ago
See my reference about Choice in my INFO BOX
The point Choice make is-
Ferrero Nutella
Energy density: 2175 kJ/100 g
Energy per serve: 435 kJ
Loaded with fat and sugar, Nutella combines the worst aspects of peanut butter (too much fat) and jam (too much sugar) in one product. But it contains nutritious hazelnuts and has a low GI, so does that take the curse off it?
ernietube1 3 years ago
No. Hazelnuts are well down the list of ingredients at only 13%, and a low GI doesn't necessarily mean a food is healthy; chocolate cake with chocolate frosting has much the same GI as Nutella. Sliced banana or even jam make healthier spreads for toast — and they have low GIs too.
ernietube1 3 years ago
Well I am sorry, but I can't do anymore than tell you the TRUE science behind the GI myth.
You have got to realize that misinforming diabetics about the apparent advantages of rating food by GI is very dangerous. Diabetics have an enormous problem controlling their blood sugar levels. To "prescribe" to them high sugary foods with apparent low GI is a fraud and needs to be treated as such.
ernietube1 3 years ago
nvm im not commenting on ehre anymore
delicate026 3 years ago
GI diet does work maybe not for eveyone but most i would say!!!!
delicate026 3 years ago
The way it is presented as a scientific miracle to diets is the problem. Sure i sounds very scientific- so it must be RIGHT ?
Sorry, this is not the case. The number of foods that don't give consistent Glycemic Index values far outweigh the number that do. Even when the researchers test glucose itself, they get variable results with the same subject when tested at differentt times. Anyway, the use of GI for rating food has, thank goodness, gone out the window.
I am just trying o alert people.
ernietube1 3 years ago
Maybe a good example is rice. From GI Testing
Arborio risotto rice, boiled 69 29
White rice (Oryza sativa), boiled (India) 69 29
White rice, type not specified, boiled LK.,, 18.9
White rice, type not specified, boiled (India) 48 20.2
White rice, type not specified, boiled (Canada) 51 21.4
White rice, type not specified, boiled (France) 52 21.8
White rice, type not specified, boiled (Canada) 56 23.5
White rice, type not specified, boiled (Pakistan) 69 29
ernietube1 3 years ago
With the Glycemic Load varying from 18 to 29, this gives a error of about 10 in 26 or 38%. Sorry, there is no correlation. Glycemic Load for rice is meaningless.
Since the majority of the world population rely on rice as their stable food. what use is Glycemic Index or Load to them ?
ernietube1 3 years ago
It works all people have to do is show u proof! lol As an individual, I know it works. It might not for u or some others but it works differently for each and everyone!
delicate026 3 years ago
The researchers have been trying to show that is "works" for the last 20 odd years. Unfortunately, this has not been the case.
If you think it works, how do you explain the huge variation in the measured values given for rice ?
ernietube1 3 years ago
It is very interesting to see that a very vocal "expert" on diabetic diets has gone "low catb". See Mendossa-
Diabetes Update Number 114: Low-Carb of January 1, 2008.
Also he recommends Dr. Bernstein
Dr. Bernstein's next LIVE Tele-Seminar is Wednesday, July 30, at 8:00 PM EST, 7:00 PM CST, 6:00 PM MST, and 5:00 PM PST.
Hope for diabetics yet
ernietube1 3 years ago