Calorie Counter

You are currently viewing the message boards in:

James Krieger on Glycemic Index.

SideSteelSideSteel Posts: 11,012Member Member Posts: 11,012Member Member
A copy pasta from James Krieger, a brilliant man with a head that's damn near as big and misshapen as mine.

"Conclusions in science are always tentative based on the data. When presented with new data, a scientist evaluates that new data against the current body of data, and determines whether current conclusions are supported or should be modified or overturned.

As late as the mid 2000's I was a believer in the insulin hypothesis of fat gain/obesity. As I examined more and more data, it became very clear to me that the insulin hypothesis was completely wrong, so I ditched it. I was also a believer in the glycemic index and its impacts on appetite. However, further examination of data indicated that the GI had minimal impacts on appetite, so I ditched it. In fact, this falls in line with my ditching of the insulin hypothesis (where one aspect says that high carb foods create insulin spikes, leading to reactive hypoglycemia and hunger/overeating).

I wrote this as a comment in another post I made but felt it bears reposting here. It illustrates the accumulated data which overturned my thinking regarding the glycemic index and appetite.

There's been a number of studies over time that have led me away from considering GI as an important factor in appetite regulation (I used to believe it was, but there's too much data that has made me change my mind).
One of the first studies in fact was done by Jennie Brand Miller, one of the big GI proponents. They tested 38 different foods and looked at factors that predicted satiety. GI was not one of them. Rather, energy density, protein, fiber, and palatability were predictors of satiety.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7498104

In another study by the same authors, glucose responses were not predictive of satiety.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8968699

In a meta-analysis of studies, glucose responses were not predictive of satiety.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17524176

Energy density and fiber are big confounders in GI studies. When you control for these things, the impact of GI is either weak or non-existent.

For example, in this study, which controlled for energy density, macro nutrient content, and fiber, a low GI meal only had a very small effect on feelings of
fullness, and there was no impact on actual energy intake.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21775528

In this ad lib study which controlled for the same factors, there was no impact on satiety.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17923862

Another ad lib study which controlled for these factors, with no impact on satiety
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15277154

In an extremely well controlled, well designed 8-day study in the lab, which controlled for macronutrient content and palatability, GI was not related to
appetite ratings or food intake.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16123477

On top of all that, it's been found that the GI of a particular food is highly variable from one person to the next, and even highly variable from day to day within the same person, making it unreliable.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23822709
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18186950

For all of these reasons, I do not consider the GI a very useful tool in constructing high satiety diets. On top of that, being focused on GI can lead people to avoid certain high GI foods that are, in fact, very satiating and nutritious (like potatoes)."

Replies

  • queenliz99queenliz99 Posts: 15,358Member Member Posts: 15,358Member Member
  • SideSteelSideSteel Posts: 11,012Member Member Posts: 11,012Member Member
    queenliz99 wrote: »
    Thank you

    Anytime!
  • AnvilHeadAnvilHead Posts: 12,464Member Member Posts: 12,464Member Member
    Great research review by Krieger. Thanks for posting it!
  • yarwellyarwell Posts: 10,572Member Member Posts: 10,572Member Member
  • PeachyCarolPeachyCarol Posts: 8,040Member Member Posts: 8,040Member Member
    I love this so much. I did a post on GI a while back, and when I really dug into a lot of the research, my jaw dropped at how the studies were designed and what they were comparing. It's good to see some research with good controls in place giving more useful information. David Ludwig has lots to answer for.

    Thanks for posting this!
    edited November 2015
  • DeguelloTexDeguelloTex Posts: 6,658Member Member Posts: 6,658Member Member
    yarwell wrote: »
    Who ?

    It appears to be James Krieger, Clinical Professor, Medicine and Clinical Professor, Health Services at the School of Public Health at the University of Washington.

  • yarwellyarwell Posts: 10,572Member Member Posts: 10,572Member Member
    yarwell wrote: »
    Who ?

    It appears to be James Krieger, Clinical Professor, Medicine and Clinical Professor, Health Services at the School of Public Health at the University of Washington.

    aha, did I miss the link (apart from the Pubmed ones)
  • SideSteelSideSteel Posts: 11,012Member Member Posts: 11,012Member Member
    yarwell wrote: »
    yarwell wrote: »
    Who ?

    It appears to be James Krieger, Clinical Professor, Medicine and Clinical Professor, Health Services at the School of Public Health at the University of Washington.

    aha, did I miss the link (apart from the Pubmed ones)

    His main site is at www.weightology.net
  • Need2Exerc1seNeed2Exerc1se Posts: 12,894Member Member Posts: 12,894Member Member
    How can protein and fiber impact satiety without GI impacting satiety? Don't protein and fiber directly impact GI?
  • janejellyrolljanejellyroll Posts: 14,397Member Member Posts: 14,397Member Member
    How can protein and fiber impact satiety without GI impacting satiety? Don't protein and fiber directly impact GI?

    Protein and fiber content are part of what helps determine the GI of a food, but others things are also a factor. The point, I think, is that protein and fiber content are linked to satiety, while GI isn't.
  • Need2Exerc1seNeed2Exerc1se Posts: 12,894Member Member Posts: 12,894Member Member
    How can protein and fiber impact satiety without GI impacting satiety? Don't protein and fiber directly impact GI?

    Protein and fiber content are part of what helps determine the GI of a food, but others things are also a factor. The point, I think, is that protein and fiber content are linked to satiety, while GI isn't.

    I understand what they are saying. I'm just not understanding how it works when they are linked to each other? Maybe if I weren't too lazy to read the links I'd know. :#
  • janejellyrolljanejellyroll Posts: 14,397Member Member Posts: 14,397Member Member
    How can protein and fiber impact satiety without GI impacting satiety? Don't protein and fiber directly impact GI?

    Protein and fiber content are part of what helps determine the GI of a food, but others things are also a factor. The point, I think, is that protein and fiber content are linked to satiety, while GI isn't.

    I understand what they are saying. I'm just not understanding how it works when they are linked to each other? Maybe if I weren't too lazy to read the links I'd know. :#

    I think (someone jump in if I'm wrong) is that there are many other factors involved and the protein and fiber content of a food may not be the strongest factors in determining the GI content of a given food. For example, ice cream and pure fructose are low GI foods (which isn't what you'd expect if protein and fiber were the main factors used to determine GI). There's a connection, but it isn't as strong as some would lead us to believe.

    If protein and fiber are what we want, it's much better to look at those directly instead of GI, which is linked to those and many other things.
  • Need2Exerc1seNeed2Exerc1se Posts: 12,894Member Member Posts: 12,894Member Member
    How can protein and fiber impact satiety without GI impacting satiety? Don't protein and fiber directly impact GI?

    Protein and fiber content are part of what helps determine the GI of a food, but others things are also a factor. The point, I think, is that protein and fiber content are linked to satiety, while GI isn't.

    I understand what they are saying. I'm just not understanding how it works when they are linked to each other? Maybe if I weren't too lazy to read the links I'd know. :#

    I think (someone jump in if I'm wrong) is that there are many other factors involved and the protein and fiber content of a food may not be the strongest factors in determining the GI content of a given food. For example, ice cream and pure fructose are low GI foods (which isn't what you'd expect if protein and fiber were the main factors used to determine GI). There's a connection, but it isn't as strong as some would lead us to believe.

    If protein and fiber are what we want, it's much better to look at those directly instead of GI, which is linked to those and many other things.

    Ah got it.
  • cafeaulait7cafeaulait7 Posts: 2,483Member Member Posts: 2,483Member Member
    And the controlling for fiber was just done by making sure that the control meals had the same amount of fiber but at a higher GI/GL. So that checks to see if it was the fiber causing it, not GI itself.

    I agree that you can't (and shouldn't try to) separate fiber from GI, because it's usually key in why some foods are low :)

    At least one of those studies did show a significant result on satiety, so I don't know that I would have included it in here. Maybe it's in here because in the real world, the size of the effect matters! :) In the reasoning of studying these things, though, it might be an important finding. If they can understand why it works (even a little but significant bit), that finding could be manipulated as a drug target or similar.
  • lemurcat12lemurcat12 Posts: 29,010Member Member Posts: 29,010Member Member
    Interesting, thanks!
  • richlnrichln Posts: 791Member Member Posts: 791Member Member
    SideSteel wrote: »
    A copy pasta from James Krieger, a brilliant man with a head that's damn near as big and misshapen as mine.
    ...
    As late as the mid 2000's I was a believer in the insulin hypothesis of fat gain/obesity. As I examined more and more data, it became very clear to me that the insulin hypothesis was completely wrong, so I ditched it. I was also a believer in the glycemic index and its impacts on appetite. However, further examination of data indicated that the GI had minimal impacts on appetite, so I ditched it. In fact, this falls in line with my ditching of the insulin hypothesis (where one aspect says that high carb foods create insulin spikes, leading to reactive hypoglycemia and hunger/overeating).
    ...

    I had never read Krieger's work on insulin hypothesis, but I found an article here:
    http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/index.php/free-content/free-content/volume-1-issue-7-insulin-and-thinking-better/insulin-an-undeserved-bad-reputation/
    Great stuff, thanks.
  • ninerbuffninerbuff Posts: 41,085Member, Greeter MFP Greeter Posts: 41,085Member, Greeter MFP Greeter
    Another good post by SS. Thanks bro.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png
  • psuLemonpsuLemon Posts: 30,228Member, MFP Moderator, Greeter, Premium MFP Moderator Posts: 30,228Member, MFP Moderator, Greeter, Premium MFP Moderator
Sign In or Register to comment.