Does the glycemic index really matter?
ninerbuff
Posts: 48,919 Member
From observation and experience, unless you're diabetic or have a high incidence of heart disease in the family, I don't think it's that important to track. There are going to be times you need fast carbs and there are a lot of healthy foods that rate poor on the glycemic index.
It still comes down calories in/out for weight gain/loss/maintenance.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
It still comes down calories in/out for weight gain/loss/maintenance.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
1
Replies
-
Me personally, no, but then again I don't track most metrics. I do have a glucose & ketone home kit that I get out once in a while just to see where I'm sitting between my 2 blood panels I get yearly. A1C is 4.6
If I for example, was obese and was diabetic, fatty liver would be a given, I would be conscience of my blood glucose, fasting insulin and would probably get a continuous glucose monitor and would definitely be on a whole food diet which removes most processed and ultra processed foods and likely a lower carb diet. The glycemic index really wouldn't even come into the mix or for weight loss for that matter. Cheers.1 -
If you are healthy, no it is not a factor in weight loss/gain.0
-
Mostly unimportant to weight loss or health, IMO, in the typical/average healthy person. GI of individual foods is especially unimportant, IMO, since a mixed meal has different effects on blood glucose than an individual food eaten in isolation.
I do think it's possible that maybe some individuals are a little more sensitive to blood sugar variability than others, even short of diabetes or the like. I have no firm evidence, though . . . just a supposition that humans tend to vary in other respects either in how they respond to or how they perceive their response to various dietary choices, so maybe similar for GI.4 -
I am not diabetic but have struggeld with overeating and obesity for my entire life. I have an office job and commute by car to work 400kms per week in heavy traffic so have little time to exercise. I follow a lot of research on GI here in Australia via these two sources:
https://glycemicindex.com/
https://www.gisymbol.com/low-gi-diabetes-guide/
GI informtion alone doesn't mean much unless you also consider Glycemic Load (GL) as well. Watermelon has a high GI but a low GL for example. In Bangladesh they developed a low GI rice and here in Australia the CSIRO helped develop a lower carb potato. Much of this was based on GI research and these products were produced with public health perspectives in mind. The cynical will say it's 'cashing in on a trend' but it works both ways. I have personally found that eating foods that burn slower and have more complex food matrices are more statisfying and keep me from wanting to eat as often. I have lost 25kgs in the last two years. On the plus side I'm getting more micronutrients as well in a lot of cases with lower GI food choices. Someone who needs the info in a different capacity like an athlete who may need fast and long burning energy for an event could also benefit from the research by finding suitable foods that combine both higher GI and GL ratings for example.1 -
From observation and experience, unless you're diabetic or have a high incidence of heart disease in the family, I don't think it's that important to track. There are going to be times you need fast carbs and there are a lot of healthy foods that rate poor on the glycemic index.
It still comes down calories in/out for weight gain/loss/maintenance.
I can't speak for anyone else, but in my experience as a morbidly obese male who was hungry all the time, using the Glycemic Index and Glycemic Loads of different foods was of great help in finding what I could eat without feeling starved, or worse - setting off cravings I had no control over. I never felt the need to track GI or GL, but as a guide it was/is an invaluable source of information that benefits me greatly.
Insulin Resistance is a real thing with 25-33% of the population estimated to be inflicted with it (unknowingly) to some degree. Neither diabetes nor CAD are qualifying ailments, though they might well be comorbidities of someone with I.R., along with a slew of other health issues. My A1c levels have always been reported in the healthy range. The only times I needed "fast carbs" at the beginning of my journey was to flatten out the wild insulin swings that had me feeling shaky and lethargic from eating the standard Western diet. Once I was sticking to low carbs, trying to eat higher glycemic healthy foods (apples, bananas, oatmeal, corn, etc.) demanded immediate consumption of the closest high carb junk I could get. It has only been lately, after 20 months of eating lower glycemic foods, that I have been able to enjoy these other types of healthy foods in limited quantities. Now a days, if I've been doing some hard physical labor, I experience fatigue that getting some healthy "fast" carbs seems to relieve fairly quickly without setting off cravings. It should go without saying that it is best not to get to the point where our bodies need those fast carbs.
Yes, C.I.-C.O. is a real thing too. But there is a lot more to weight and health management that controls the balance of that simple equation for many of us. I'd go as far as to say that calories in - calories out is meaningless until the underlying factors that control each side of the equation are understood and balanced for the long term. Telling a deeply depressed person to eat less and exercise more isn't going to help them anymore than it does to tell someone with anorexia to have a cheeseburger. In reality, it comes down to each of us being able to manage the issues that control C.I.-C.O. for the rest of our days. Having an idea of the glycemic content of different foods is a handy tool in that context.
7 -
From observation and experience, unless you're diabetic or have a high incidence of heart disease in the family, I don't think it's that important to track. There are going to be times you need fast carbs and there are a lot of healthy foods that rate poor on the glycemic index.
It still comes down calories in/out for weight gain/loss/maintenance.
I can't speak for anyone else, but in my experience as a morbidly obese male who was hungry all the time, using the Glycemic Index and Glycemic Loads of different foods was of great help in finding what I could eat without feeling starved, or worse - setting off cravings I had no control over. I never felt the need to track GI or GL, but as a guide it was/is an invaluable source of information that benefits me greatly.
Insulin Resistance is a real thing with 25-33% of the population estimated to be inflicted with it (unknowingly) to some degree. Neither diabetes nor CAD are qualifying ailments, though they might well be comorbidities of someone with I.R., along with a slew of other health issues. My A1c levels have always been reported in the healthy range. The only times I needed "fast carbs" at the beginning of my journey was to flatten out the wild insulin swings that had me feeling shaky and lethargic from eating the standard Western diet. Once I was sticking to low carbs, trying to eat higher glycemic healthy foods (apples, bananas, oatmeal, corn, etc.) demanded immediate consumption of the closest high carb junk I could get. It has only been lately, after 20 months of eating lower glycemic foods, that I have been able to enjoy these other types of healthy foods in limited quantities. Now a days, if I've been doing some hard physical labor, I experience fatigue that getting some healthy "fast" carbs seems to relieve fairly quickly without setting off cravings. It should go without saying that it is best not to get to the point where our bodies need those fast carbs.
Yes, C.I.-C.O. is a real thing too. But there is a lot more to weight and health management that controls the balance of that simple equation for many of us. I'd go as far as to say that calories in - calories out is meaningless until the underlying factors that control each side of the equation are understood and balanced for the long term. Telling a deeply depressed person to eat less and exercise more isn't going to help them anymore than it does to tell someone with anorexia to have a cheeseburger. In reality, it comes down to each of us being able to manage the issues that control C.I.-C.O. for the rest of our days. Having an idea of the glycemic content of different foods is a handy tool in that context.
I can agree that it could be helpful for someone with IR or diabetes.... the main issue with Glycemic Load is that it is really highly unpredictable. If I eat a banana, it's GL will be different than if you eat a banana. Oh, did you eat that banana at 9 am or 7 pm? Different glycemic load. But wait... did you dip that banana in peanut butter? Different glycemic load. Did you fry that banana and make banana chips? Different glycemic load. Did you eat that banana along with dinner? Way Different glycemic load.3 -
sollyn23l2 wrote: »From observation and experience, unless you're diabetic or have a high incidence of heart disease in the family, I don't think it's that important to track. There are going to be times you need fast carbs and there are a lot of healthy foods that rate poor on the glycemic index.
It still comes down calories in/out for weight gain/loss/maintenance.
I can't speak for anyone else, but in my experience as a morbidly obese male who was hungry all the time, using the Glycemic Index and Glycemic Loads of different foods was of great help in finding what I could eat without feeling starved, or worse - setting off cravings I had no control over. I never felt the need to track GI or GL, but as a guide it was/is an invaluable source of information that benefits me greatly.
Insulin Resistance is a real thing with 25-33% of the population estimated to be inflicted with it (unknowingly) to some degree. Neither diabetes nor CAD are qualifying ailments, though they might well be comorbidities of someone with I.R., along with a slew of other health issues. My A1c levels have always been reported in the healthy range. The only times I needed "fast carbs" at the beginning of my journey was to flatten out the wild insulin swings that had me feeling shaky and lethargic from eating the standard Western diet. Once I was sticking to low carbs, trying to eat higher glycemic healthy foods (apples, bananas, oatmeal, corn, etc.) demanded immediate consumption of the closest high carb junk I could get. It has only been lately, after 20 months of eating lower glycemic foods, that I have been able to enjoy these other types of healthy foods in limited quantities. Now a days, if I've been doing some hard physical labor, I experience fatigue that getting some healthy "fast" carbs seems to relieve fairly quickly without setting off cravings. It should go without saying that it is best not to get to the point where our bodies need those fast carbs.
Yes, C.I.-C.O. is a real thing too. But there is a lot more to weight and health management that controls the balance of that simple equation for many of us. I'd go as far as to say that calories in - calories out is meaningless until the underlying factors that control each side of the equation are understood and balanced for the long term. Telling a deeply depressed person to eat less and exercise more isn't going to help them anymore than it does to tell someone with anorexia to have a cheeseburger. In reality, it comes down to each of us being able to manage the issues that control C.I.-C.O. for the rest of our days. Having an idea of the glycemic content of different foods is a handy tool in that context.
I can agree that it could be helpful for someone with IR or diabetes.... the main issue with Glycemic Load is that it is really highly unpredictable. If I eat a banana, it's GL will be different than if you eat a banana. Oh, did you eat that banana at 9 am or 7 pm? Different glycemic load. But wait... did you dip that banana in peanut butter? Different glycemic load. Did you fry that banana and make banana chips? Different glycemic load. Did you eat that banana along with dinner? Way Different glycemic load.
GI and GL is just basic information that on a population wide metric gives an idea how a particular carbohydrate might effect blood sugar. Taking the GI of a particular food then multiplying it by the total amount of carbohydrates in that food gives us the GL. When applied on an individual basis many other factors will come into play that will effect how it might effect that individuals blood sugar and understanding how they may effect a person is still important regardless of what other factors may influence them.
Personally I don't look at these metrics but when dietary recommendations are to consume 55-60% of a 2000 calorie diet that will represent around 300g's of carbs on a population like the US with the current well know data of that population and with this data rising years after year for decades it's like there's no conductor on a runaway train except medication, can't forget medication. Fortunately for some people they've decided to take this dietary advice and do their own research and like many, including myself have decided to reduce the amount of carbs they're consuming and it's looked upon like it's a crazy fad diet, which isn't really surprising and actually expected and that's how change always eventually manifests itself, but until then dogma generally rules. cheers1 -
neanderthin wrote: »sollyn23l2 wrote: »From observation and experience, unless you're diabetic or have a high incidence of heart disease in the family, I don't think it's that important to track. There are going to be times you need fast carbs and there are a lot of healthy foods that rate poor on the glycemic index.
It still comes down calories in/out for weight gain/loss/maintenance.
I can't speak for anyone else, but in my experience as a morbidly obese male who was hungry all the time, using the Glycemic Index and Glycemic Loads of different foods was of great help in finding what I could eat without feeling starved, or worse - setting off cravings I had no control over. I never felt the need to track GI or GL, but as a guide it was/is an invaluable source of information that benefits me greatly.
Insulin Resistance is a real thing with 25-33% of the population estimated to be inflicted with it (unknowingly) to some degree. Neither diabetes nor CAD are qualifying ailments, though they might well be comorbidities of someone with I.R., along with a slew of other health issues. My A1c levels have always been reported in the healthy range. The only times I needed "fast carbs" at the beginning of my journey was to flatten out the wild insulin swings that had me feeling shaky and lethargic from eating the standard Western diet. Once I was sticking to low carbs, trying to eat higher glycemic healthy foods (apples, bananas, oatmeal, corn, etc.) demanded immediate consumption of the closest high carb junk I could get. It has only been lately, after 20 months of eating lower glycemic foods, that I have been able to enjoy these other types of healthy foods in limited quantities. Now a days, if I've been doing some hard physical labor, I experience fatigue that getting some healthy "fast" carbs seems to relieve fairly quickly without setting off cravings. It should go without saying that it is best not to get to the point where our bodies need those fast carbs.
Yes, C.I.-C.O. is a real thing too. But there is a lot more to weight and health management that controls the balance of that simple equation for many of us. I'd go as far as to say that calories in - calories out is meaningless until the underlying factors that control each side of the equation are understood and balanced for the long term. Telling a deeply depressed person to eat less and exercise more isn't going to help them anymore than it does to tell someone with anorexia to have a cheeseburger. In reality, it comes down to each of us being able to manage the issues that control C.I.-C.O. for the rest of our days. Having an idea of the glycemic content of different foods is a handy tool in that context.
I can agree that it could be helpful for someone with IR or diabetes.... the main issue with Glycemic Load is that it is really highly unpredictable. If I eat a banana, it's GL will be different than if you eat a banana. Oh, did you eat that banana at 9 am or 7 pm? Different glycemic load. But wait... did you dip that banana in peanut butter? Different glycemic load. Did you fry that banana and make banana chips? Different glycemic load. Did you eat that banana along with dinner? Way Different glycemic load.
GI and GL is just basic information that on a population wide metric gives an idea how a particular carbohydrate might effect blood sugar. Taking the GI of a particular food then multiplying it by the total amount of carbohydrates in that food gives us the GL. When applied on an individual basis many other factors will come into play that will effect how it might effect that individuals blood sugar and understanding how they may effect a person is still important regardless of what other factors may influence them.
Personally I don't look at these metrics but when dietary recommendations are to consume 55-60% of a 2000 calorie diet that will represent around 300g's of carbs on a population like the US with the current well know data of that population and with this data rising years after year for decades it's like there's no conductor on a runaway train except medication, can't forget medication. Fortunately for some people they've decided to take this dietary advice and do their own research and like many, including myself have decided to reduce the amount of carbs they're consuming and it's looked upon like it's a crazy fad diet, which isn't really surprising and actually expected and that's how change always eventually manifests itself, but until then dogma generally rules. cheers
Sure. But reducing carbs is not equivalent to tracking the glycemic load of foods, which, as you point out, is a random number they've affixed to a food to show how it *may* affect you. There's nothing wrong with tracking glycemic load per say, it's just a ish ton of work for really very little payoff, as it doesn't truly represent the real effect the food will actually have on you in a real world context.1 -
you’re getting into the area of non healthy population when everyone has stated that GI doesn’t matter to a HEALTHY population. And CICO is never meaningless.From observation and experience, unless you're diabetic or have a high incidence of heart disease in the family, I don't think it's that important to track. There are going to be times you need fast carbs and there are a lot of healthy foods that rate poor on the glycemic index.
It still comes down calories in/out for weight gain/loss/maintenance.
I can't speak for anyone else, but in my experience as a morbidly obese male who was hungry all the time, using the Glycemic Index and Glycemic Loads of different foods was of great help in finding what I could eat without feeling starved, or worse - setting off cravings I had no control over. I never felt the need to track GI or GL, but as a guide it was/is an invaluable source of information that benefits me greatly.
Insulin Resistance is a real thing with 25-33% of the population estimated to be inflicted with it (unknowingly) to some degree. Neither diabetes nor CAD are qualifying ailments, though they might well be comorbidities of someone with I.R., along with a slew of other health issues. My A1c levels have always been reported in the healthy range. The only times I needed "fast carbs" at the beginning of my journey was to flatten out the wild insulin swings that had me feeling shaky and lethargic from eating the standard Western diet. Once I was sticking to low carbs, trying to eat higher glycemic healthy foods (apples, bananas, oatmeal, corn, etc.) demanded immediate consumption of the closest high carb junk I could get. It has only been lately, after 20 months of eating lower glycemic foods, that I have been able to enjoy these other types of healthy foods in limited quantities. Now a days, if I've been doing some hard physical labor, I experience fatigue that getting some healthy "fast" carbs seems to relieve fairly quickly without setting off cravings. It should go without saying that it is best not to get to the point where our bodies need those fast carbs.
Yes, C.I.-C.O. is a real thing too. But there is a lot more to weight and health management that controls the balance of that simple equation for many of us. I'd go as far as to say that calories in - calories out is meaningless until the underlying factors that control each side of the equation are understood and balanced for the long term. Telling a deeply depressed person to eat less and exercise more isn't going to help them anymore than it does to tell someone with anorexia to have a cheeseburger. In reality, it comes down to each of us being able to manage the issues that control C.I.-C.O. for the rest of our days. Having an idea of the glycemic content of different foods is a handy tool in that context.
1 -
sollyn23l2 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »sollyn23l2 wrote: »From observation and experience, unless you're diabetic or have a high incidence of heart disease in the family, I don't think it's that important to track. There are going to be times you need fast carbs and there are a lot of healthy foods that rate poor on the glycemic index.
It still comes down calories in/out for weight gain/loss/maintenance.
I can't speak for anyone else, but in my experience as a morbidly obese male who was hungry all the time, using the Glycemic Index and Glycemic Loads of different foods was of great help in finding what I could eat without feeling starved, or worse - setting off cravings I had no control over. I never felt the need to track GI or GL, but as a guide it was/is an invaluable source of information that benefits me greatly.
Insulin Resistance is a real thing with 25-33% of the population estimated to be inflicted with it (unknowingly) to some degree. Neither diabetes nor CAD are qualifying ailments, though they might well be comorbidities of someone with I.R., along with a slew of other health issues. My A1c levels have always been reported in the healthy range. The only times I needed "fast carbs" at the beginning of my journey was to flatten out the wild insulin swings that had me feeling shaky and lethargic from eating the standard Western diet. Once I was sticking to low carbs, trying to eat higher glycemic healthy foods (apples, bananas, oatmeal, corn, etc.) demanded immediate consumption of the closest high carb junk I could get. It has only been lately, after 20 months of eating lower glycemic foods, that I have been able to enjoy these other types of healthy foods in limited quantities. Now a days, if I've been doing some hard physical labor, I experience fatigue that getting some healthy "fast" carbs seems to relieve fairly quickly without setting off cravings. It should go without saying that it is best not to get to the point where our bodies need those fast carbs.
Yes, C.I.-C.O. is a real thing too. But there is a lot more to weight and health management that controls the balance of that simple equation for many of us. I'd go as far as to say that calories in - calories out is meaningless until the underlying factors that control each side of the equation are understood and balanced for the long term. Telling a deeply depressed person to eat less and exercise more isn't going to help them anymore than it does to tell someone with anorexia to have a cheeseburger. In reality, it comes down to each of us being able to manage the issues that control C.I.-C.O. for the rest of our days. Having an idea of the glycemic content of different foods is a handy tool in that context.
I can agree that it could be helpful for someone with IR or diabetes.... the main issue with Glycemic Load is that it is really highly unpredictable. If I eat a banana, it's GL will be different than if you eat a banana. Oh, did you eat that banana at 9 am or 7 pm? Different glycemic load. But wait... did you dip that banana in peanut butter? Different glycemic load. Did you fry that banana and make banana chips? Different glycemic load. Did you eat that banana along with dinner? Way Different glycemic load.
GI and GL is just basic information that on a population wide metric gives an idea how a particular carbohydrate might effect blood sugar. Taking the GI of a particular food then multiplying it by the total amount of carbohydrates in that food gives us the GL. When applied on an individual basis many other factors will come into play that will effect how it might effect that individuals blood sugar and understanding how they may effect a person is still important regardless of what other factors may influence them.
Personally I don't look at these metrics but when dietary recommendations are to consume 55-60% of a 2000 calorie diet that will represent around 300g's of carbs on a population like the US with the current well know data of that population and with this data rising years after year for decades it's like there's no conductor on a runaway train except medication, can't forget medication. Fortunately for some people they've decided to take this dietary advice and do their own research and like many, including myself have decided to reduce the amount of carbs they're consuming and it's looked upon like it's a crazy fad diet, which isn't really surprising and actually expected and that's how change always eventually manifests itself, but until then dogma generally rules. cheers
Sure. But reducing carbs is not equivalent to tracking the glycemic load of foods, which, as you point out, is a random number they've affixed to a food to show how it *may* affect you. There's nothing wrong with tracking glycemic load per say, it's just a ish ton of work for really very little payoff, as it doesn't truly represent the real effect the food will actually have on you in a real world context.
If people really wanted to know how carbs really effect their metabolisms then there's much better tests than just looking at A1C. One is a "Fasting Insulin Test" which is a marker that shows over time the production of insulin from the pancreas. Because our cells receptors begin to dysfunction and become insulin resistant over time the pancreas pushes out more insulin to compensate hoping the cells react. If this test is done in conjunction with a "Blood Glucose Test" as part of yearly checkups and the like then that increase in insulin production from that test would tell any health care provider that the eventual conclusion of that increase is always IR or diabetes then an intervention or a recommendation to another health professional that specializes in diabetes and obesity could be made, pretty basic stuff, but it's never done and most of these people will eventually be taking metformin et al or insulin injection.
Another test a person can ask for is called an "Oral Glucose Tolerance Test (OGTT) Basically a person fasts for 12 hours then is administered a dose of glucose then monitored over the next 2-3 hours. Normally you would want to see after fasting for 12 hours blood glucose to be in a range between 70-100 and if the base line was in the 101-125 that would indicate a slight impairment towards Insulin resistance and for a type 2 diabetic it's 126 or above.
The person consumes 50g's of a glucose solution and checked 30 minutes later and then 2-3 hour later. 40-50% of the US population have either IR or diabetes so it's relevant and especially with no downward movements, and that means A1C's won't be coming down in the near future either and only going up so these trests might be of interest for quite a few people imo. Sorry not good at lining things up.- test fasting 30 min, 2-3 hrs
- normal 70-100, 170-200, 120-140
- impaired 101-125, 190-230, 140-160
- T2D 126+ 220-300, 200+
0 -
neanderthin wrote: »sollyn23l2 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »sollyn23l2 wrote: »From observation and experience, unless you're diabetic or have a high incidence of heart disease in the family, I don't think it's that important to track. There are going to be times you need fast carbs and there are a lot of healthy foods that rate poor on the glycemic index.
It still comes down calories in/out for weight gain/loss/maintenance.
I can't speak for anyone else, but in my experience as a morbidly obese male who was hungry all the time, using the Glycemic Index and Glycemic Loads of different foods was of great help in finding what I could eat without feeling starved, or worse - setting off cravings I had no control over. I never felt the need to track GI or GL, but as a guide it was/is an invaluable source of information that benefits me greatly.
Insulin Resistance is a real thing with 25-33% of the population estimated to be inflicted with it (unknowingly) to some degree. Neither diabetes nor CAD are qualifying ailments, though they might well be comorbidities of someone with I.R., along with a slew of other health issues. My A1c levels have always been reported in the healthy range. The only times I needed "fast carbs" at the beginning of my journey was to flatten out the wild insulin swings that had me feeling shaky and lethargic from eating the standard Western diet. Once I was sticking to low carbs, trying to eat higher glycemic healthy foods (apples, bananas, oatmeal, corn, etc.) demanded immediate consumption of the closest high carb junk I could get. It has only been lately, after 20 months of eating lower glycemic foods, that I have been able to enjoy these other types of healthy foods in limited quantities. Now a days, if I've been doing some hard physical labor, I experience fatigue that getting some healthy "fast" carbs seems to relieve fairly quickly without setting off cravings. It should go without saying that it is best not to get to the point where our bodies need those fast carbs.
Yes, C.I.-C.O. is a real thing too. But there is a lot more to weight and health management that controls the balance of that simple equation for many of us. I'd go as far as to say that calories in - calories out is meaningless until the underlying factors that control each side of the equation are understood and balanced for the long term. Telling a deeply depressed person to eat less and exercise more isn't going to help them anymore than it does to tell someone with anorexia to have a cheeseburger. In reality, it comes down to each of us being able to manage the issues that control C.I.-C.O. for the rest of our days. Having an idea of the glycemic content of different foods is a handy tool in that context.
I can agree that it could be helpful for someone with IR or diabetes.... the main issue with Glycemic Load is that it is really highly unpredictable. If I eat a banana, it's GL will be different than if you eat a banana. Oh, did you eat that banana at 9 am or 7 pm? Different glycemic load. But wait... did you dip that banana in peanut butter? Different glycemic load. Did you fry that banana and make banana chips? Different glycemic load. Did you eat that banana along with dinner? Way Different glycemic load.
GI and GL is just basic information that on a population wide metric gives an idea how a particular carbohydrate might effect blood sugar. Taking the GI of a particular food then multiplying it by the total amount of carbohydrates in that food gives us the GL. When applied on an individual basis many other factors will come into play that will effect how it might effect that individuals blood sugar and understanding how they may effect a person is still important regardless of what other factors may influence them.
Personally I don't look at these metrics but when dietary recommendations are to consume 55-60% of a 2000 calorie diet that will represent around 300g's of carbs on a population like the US with the current well know data of that population and with this data rising years after year for decades it's like there's no conductor on a runaway train except medication, can't forget medication. Fortunately for some people they've decided to take this dietary advice and do their own research and like many, including myself have decided to reduce the amount of carbs they're consuming and it's looked upon like it's a crazy fad diet, which isn't really surprising and actually expected and that's how change always eventually manifests itself, but until then dogma generally rules. cheers
Sure. But reducing carbs is not equivalent to tracking the glycemic load of foods, which, as you point out, is a random number they've affixed to a food to show how it *may* affect you. There's nothing wrong with tracking glycemic load per say, it's just a ish ton of work for really very little payoff, as it doesn't truly represent the real effect the food will actually have on you in a real world context.
If people really wanted to know how carbs really effect their metabolisms then there's much better tests than just looking at A1C. One is a "Fasting Insulin Test" which is a marker that shows over time the production of insulin from the pancreas. Because our cells receptors begin to dysfunction and become insulin resistant over time the pancreas pushes out more insulin to compensate hoping the cells react. If this test is done in conjunction with a "Blood Glucose Test" as part of yearly checkups and the like then that increase in insulin production from that test would tell any health care provider that the eventual conclusion of that increase is always IR or diabetes then an intervention or a recommendation to another health professional that specializes in diabetes and obesity could be made, pretty basic stuff, but it's never done and most of these people will eventually be taking metformin et al or insulin injection.
Another test a person can ask for is called an "Oral Glucose Tolerance Test (OGTT) Basically a person fasts for 12 hours then is administered a dose of glucose then monitored over the next 2-3 hours. Normally you would want to see after fasting for 12 hours blood glucose to be in a range between 70-100 and if the base line was in the 101-125 that would indicate a slight impairment towards Insulin resistance and for a type 2 diabetic it's 126 or above.
The person consumes 50g's of a glucose solution and checked 30 minutes later and then 2-3 hour later. 40-50% of the US population have either IR or diabetes so it's relevant and especially with no downward movements, and that means A1C's won't be coming down in the near future either and only going up so these trests might be of interest for quite a few people imo. Sorry not good at lining things up.- test fasting 30 min, 2-3 hrs
- normal 70-100, 170-200, 120-140
- impaired 101-125, 190-230, 140-160
- T2D 126+ 220-300, 200+
Sure. But once again, completely unrelated to tracking glycemic load, a random, highly inaccurate number. Not sure why you're going off on a completely unrelated tangent. The two have little to nothing to do with each other.2 -
sollyn23l2 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »sollyn23l2 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »sollyn23l2 wrote: »From observation and experience, unless you're diabetic or have a high incidence of heart disease in the family, I don't think it's that important to track. There are going to be times you need fast carbs and there are a lot of healthy foods that rate poor on the glycemic index.
It still comes down calories in/out for weight gain/loss/maintenance.
I can't speak for anyone else, but in my experience as a morbidly obese male who was hungry all the time, using the Glycemic Index and Glycemic Loads of different foods was of great help in finding what I could eat without feeling starved, or worse - setting off cravings I had no control over. I never felt the need to track GI or GL, but as a guide it was/is an invaluable source of information that benefits me greatly.
Insulin Resistance is a real thing with 25-33% of the population estimated to be inflicted with it (unknowingly) to some degree. Neither diabetes nor CAD are qualifying ailments, though they might well be comorbidities of someone with I.R., along with a slew of other health issues. My A1c levels have always been reported in the healthy range. The only times I needed "fast carbs" at the beginning of my journey was to flatten out the wild insulin swings that had me feeling shaky and lethargic from eating the standard Western diet. Once I was sticking to low carbs, trying to eat higher glycemic healthy foods (apples, bananas, oatmeal, corn, etc.) demanded immediate consumption of the closest high carb junk I could get. It has only been lately, after 20 months of eating lower glycemic foods, that I have been able to enjoy these other types of healthy foods in limited quantities. Now a days, if I've been doing some hard physical labor, I experience fatigue that getting some healthy "fast" carbs seems to relieve fairly quickly without setting off cravings. It should go without saying that it is best not to get to the point where our bodies need those fast carbs.
Yes, C.I.-C.O. is a real thing too. But there is a lot more to weight and health management that controls the balance of that simple equation for many of us. I'd go as far as to say that calories in - calories out is meaningless until the underlying factors that control each side of the equation are understood and balanced for the long term. Telling a deeply depressed person to eat less and exercise more isn't going to help them anymore than it does to tell someone with anorexia to have a cheeseburger. In reality, it comes down to each of us being able to manage the issues that control C.I.-C.O. for the rest of our days. Having an idea of the glycemic content of different foods is a handy tool in that context.
I can agree that it could be helpful for someone with IR or diabetes.... the main issue with Glycemic Load is that it is really highly unpredictable. If I eat a banana, it's GL will be different than if you eat a banana. Oh, did you eat that banana at 9 am or 7 pm? Different glycemic load. But wait... did you dip that banana in peanut butter? Different glycemic load. Did you fry that banana and make banana chips? Different glycemic load. Did you eat that banana along with dinner? Way Different glycemic load.
GI and GL is just basic information that on a population wide metric gives an idea how a particular carbohydrate might effect blood sugar. Taking the GI of a particular food then multiplying it by the total amount of carbohydrates in that food gives us the GL. When applied on an individual basis many other factors will come into play that will effect how it might effect that individuals blood sugar and understanding how they may effect a person is still important regardless of what other factors may influence them.
Personally I don't look at these metrics but when dietary recommendations are to consume 55-60% of a 2000 calorie diet that will represent around 300g's of carbs on a population like the US with the current well know data of that population and with this data rising years after year for decades it's like there's no conductor on a runaway train except medication, can't forget medication. Fortunately for some people they've decided to take this dietary advice and do their own research and like many, including myself have decided to reduce the amount of carbs they're consuming and it's looked upon like it's a crazy fad diet, which isn't really surprising and actually expected and that's how change always eventually manifests itself, but until then dogma generally rules. cheers
Sure. But reducing carbs is not equivalent to tracking the glycemic load of foods, which, as you point out, is a random number they've affixed to a food to show how it *may* affect you. There's nothing wrong with tracking glycemic load per say, it's just a ish ton of work for really very little payoff, as it doesn't truly represent the real effect the food will actually have on you in a real world context.
If people really wanted to know how carbs really effect their metabolisms then there's much better tests than just looking at A1C. One is a "Fasting Insulin Test" which is a marker that shows over time the production of insulin from the pancreas. Because our cells receptors begin to dysfunction and become insulin resistant over time the pancreas pushes out more insulin to compensate hoping the cells react. If this test is done in conjunction with a "Blood Glucose Test" as part of yearly checkups and the like then that increase in insulin production from that test would tell any health care provider that the eventual conclusion of that increase is always IR or diabetes then an intervention or a recommendation to another health professional that specializes in diabetes and obesity could be made, pretty basic stuff, but it's never done and most of these people will eventually be taking metformin et al or insulin injection.
Another test a person can ask for is called an "Oral Glucose Tolerance Test (OGTT) Basically a person fasts for 12 hours then is administered a dose of glucose then monitored over the next 2-3 hours. Normally you would want to see after fasting for 12 hours blood glucose to be in a range between 70-100 and if the base line was in the 101-125 that would indicate a slight impairment towards Insulin resistance and for a type 2 diabetic it's 126 or above.
The person consumes 50g's of a glucose solution and checked 30 minutes later and then 2-3 hour later. 40-50% of the US population have either IR or diabetes so it's relevant and especially with no downward movements, and that means A1C's won't be coming down in the near future either and only going up so these trests might be of interest for quite a few people imo. Sorry not good at lining things up.- test fasting 30 min, 2-3 hrs
- normal 70-100, 170-200, 120-140
- impaired 101-125, 190-230, 140-160
- T2D 126+ 220-300, 200+
Sure. But once again, completely unrelated to tracking glycemic load, a random, highly inaccurate number. Not sure why you're going off on a completely unrelated tangent. The two have little to nothing to do with each other.sollyn23l2 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »sollyn23l2 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »sollyn23l2 wrote: »From observation and experience, unless you're diabetic or have a high incidence of heart disease in the family, I don't think it's that important to track. There are going to be times you need fast carbs and there are a lot of healthy foods that rate poor on the glycemic index.
It still comes down calories in/out for weight gain/loss/maintenance.
I can't speak for anyone else, but in my experience as a morbidly obese male who was hungry all the time, using the Glycemic Index and Glycemic Loads of different foods was of great help in finding what I could eat without feeling starved, or worse - setting off cravings I had no control over. I never felt the need to track GI or GL, but as a guide it was/is an invaluable source of information that benefits me greatly.
Insulin Resistance is a real thing with 25-33% of the population estimated to be inflicted with it (unknowingly) to some degree. Neither diabetes nor CAD are qualifying ailments, though they might well be comorbidities of someone with I.R., along with a slew of other health issues. My A1c levels have always been reported in the healthy range. The only times I needed "fast carbs" at the beginning of my journey was to flatten out the wild insulin swings that had me feeling shaky and lethargic from eating the standard Western diet. Once I was sticking to low carbs, trying to eat higher glycemic healthy foods (apples, bananas, oatmeal, corn, etc.) demanded immediate consumption of the closest high carb junk I could get. It has only been lately, after 20 months of eating lower glycemic foods, that I have been able to enjoy these other types of healthy foods in limited quantities. Now a days, if I've been doing some hard physical labor, I experience fatigue that getting some healthy "fast" carbs seems to relieve fairly quickly without setting off cravings. It should go without saying that it is best not to get to the point where our bodies need those fast carbs.
Yes, C.I.-C.O. is a real thing too. But there is a lot more to weight and health management that controls the balance of that simple equation for many of us. I'd go as far as to say that calories in - calories out is meaningless until the underlying factors that control each side of the equation are understood and balanced for the long term. Telling a deeply depressed person to eat less and exercise more isn't going to help them anymore than it does to tell someone with anorexia to have a cheeseburger. In reality, it comes down to each of us being able to manage the issues that control C.I.-C.O. for the rest of our days. Having an idea of the glycemic content of different foods is a handy tool in that context.
I can agree that it could be helpful for someone with IR or diabetes.... the main issue with Glycemic Load is that it is really highly unpredictable. If I eat a banana, it's GL will be different than if you eat a banana. Oh, did you eat that banana at 9 am or 7 pm? Different glycemic load. But wait... did you dip that banana in peanut butter? Different glycemic load. Did you fry that banana and make banana chips? Different glycemic load. Did you eat that banana along with dinner? Way Different glycemic load.
GI and GL is just basic information that on a population wide metric gives an idea how a particular carbohydrate might effect blood sugar. Taking the GI of a particular food then multiplying it by the total amount of carbohydrates in that food gives us the GL. When applied on an individual basis many other factors will come into play that will effect how it might effect that individuals blood sugar and understanding how they may effect a person is still important regardless of what other factors may influence them.
Personally I don't look at these metrics but when dietary recommendations are to consume 55-60% of a 2000 calorie diet that will represent around 300g's of carbs on a population like the US with the current well know data of that population and with this data rising years after year for decades it's like there's no conductor on a runaway train except medication, can't forget medication. Fortunately for some people they've decided to take this dietary advice and do their own research and like many, including myself have decided to reduce the amount of carbs they're consuming and it's looked upon like it's a crazy fad diet, which isn't really surprising and actually expected and that's how change always eventually manifests itself, but until then dogma generally rules. cheers
Sure. But reducing carbs is not equivalent to tracking the glycemic load of foods, which, as you point out, is a random number they've affixed to a food to show how it *may* affect you. There's nothing wrong with tracking glycemic load per say, it's just a ish ton of work for really very little payoff, as it doesn't truly represent the real effect the food will actually have on you in a real world context.
If people really wanted to know how carbs really effect their metabolisms then there's much better tests than just looking at A1C. One is a "Fasting Insulin Test" which is a marker that shows over time the production of insulin from the pancreas. Because our cells receptors begin to dysfunction and become insulin resistant over time the pancreas pushes out more insulin to compensate hoping the cells react. If this test is done in conjunction with a "Blood Glucose Test" as part of yearly checkups and the like then that increase in insulin production from that test would tell any health care provider that the eventual conclusion of that increase is always IR or diabetes then an intervention or a recommendation to another health professional that specializes in diabetes and obesity could be made, pretty basic stuff, but it's never done and most of these people will eventually be taking metformin et al or insulin injection.
Another test a person can ask for is called an "Oral Glucose Tolerance Test (OGTT) Basically a person fasts for 12 hours then is administered a dose of glucose then monitored over the next 2-3 hours. Normally you would want to see after fasting for 12 hours blood glucose to be in a range between 70-100 and if the base line was in the 101-125 that would indicate a slight impairment towards Insulin resistance and for a type 2 diabetic it's 126 or above.
The person consumes 50g's of a glucose solution and checked 30 minutes later and then 2-3 hour later. 40-50% of the US population have either IR or diabetes so it's relevant and especially with no downward movements, and that means A1C's won't be coming down in the near future either and only going up so these trests might be of interest for quite a few people imo. Sorry not good at lining things up.- test fasting 30 min, 2-3 hrs
- normal 70-100, 170-200, 120-140
- impaired 101-125, 190-230, 140-160
- T2D 126+ 220-300, 200+
Sure. But once again, completely unrelated to tracking glycemic load, a random, highly inaccurate number. Not sure why you're going off on a completely unrelated tangent. The two have little to nothing to do with each other.
I just assumed you would get the connection, my mistake, carry on. Cheers1 -
sollyn23l2 wrote: »I can agree that it could be helpful for someone with IR or diabetes.... the main issue with Glycemic Load is that it is really highly unpredictable. If I eat a banana, it's GL will be different than if you eat a banana. Oh, did you eat that banana at 9 am or 7 pm? Different glycemic load. But wait... did you dip that banana in peanut butter? Different glycemic load. Did you fry that banana and make banana chips? Different glycemic load. Did you eat that banana along with dinner? Way Different glycemic load.
I'm still having a bit of trouble after eating a banana. You have me wondering if the high fat content of peanut butter would offset the insulin rush somewhat? I've never tried it. Next time my wife brings some bananas back from the store I'll have to try it.
As for the glycemic lists being inaccurate or unpredictable, I don't know if they are or aren't and don't care because as a guide, they have work good enough to have helped me in the past. Someone else reading this thread might find looking at GL and GI of foods helpful too. Imperfective as they might be, until I find something better to help guide my food choices, I will rely on the stated glycemic content of foods.
1 -
sollyn23l2 wrote: »I can agree that it could be helpful for someone with IR or diabetes.... the main issue with Glycemic Load is that it is really highly unpredictable. If I eat a banana, it's GL will be different than if you eat a banana. Oh, did you eat that banana at 9 am or 7 pm? Different glycemic load. But wait... did you dip that banana in peanut butter? Different glycemic load. Did you fry that banana and make banana chips? Different glycemic load. Did you eat that banana along with dinner? Way Different glycemic load.
I'm still having a bit of trouble after eating a banana. You have me wondering if the high fat content of peanut butter would offset the insulin rush somewhat? I've never tried it. Next time my wife brings some bananas back from the store I'll have to try it.
As for the glycemic lists being inaccurate or unpredictable, I don't know if they are or aren't and don't care because as a guide, they have work good enough to have helped me in the past. Someone else reading this thread might find looking at GL and GI of foods helpful too. Imperfective as they might be, until I find something better to help guide my food choices, I will rely on the stated glycemic content of foods.
That's great if you've found benefit in it. As I said, there's nothing inherently wrong in it.0 -
tomcustombuilder wrote: »you’re getting into the area of non healthy population when everyone has stated that GI doesn’t matter to a HEALTHY population. And CICO is never meaningless.
I would point out the title of the thread is, "Does the glycemic index really matter?" which is what I responded to, not to other posters who talked about specific portions of the population that are healthy. Matter-of-fact, I clearly stated that I could only speak to my own experience when replying to ninerbuff's original post.
CICO is an equation that has gotten out of balance (for whatever reason) for most of the people on MFP, or they wouldn't be here. Saying, "It still comes down [to] calories in/out for weight gain/loss/maintenance," is akin to the medical profession treating the the symptom of a serious condition while ignoring the underlying cause. Treating the unbalanced CICO with diet and increased exercise back into balance fails something like 95% of the time long term. It is meaningless and often results in yo-yo dieting. Wouldn't it be better to identify the underlying cause of how a person's energy equation became unbalanced in the first place so the right changes to lifestyle can be made on a permanent basis?
2 -
From observation and experience, unless you're diabetic or have a high incidence of heart disease in the family, I don't think it's that important to track. There are going to be times you need fast carbs and there are a lot of healthy foods that rate poor on the glycemic index.
It still comes down calories in/out for weight gain/loss/maintenance.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
This was the original question, about the value of GI to healthy people for weight loss.
We've digressed in interesting directions:
Are there quite a few people who are actually unhealthy (like insulin resistant or something), who don't realize it, and would benefit from finding that out? Quite possible. Likely, even.
Are there people who find GI data helpful in appetite management or other individual or even subjective ways? Obviously.
I think we have not explicitly said (IIRC) that "times when you need fast carbs" is especially common for endurance athletes (even recreational ones) . . . or even diabetics in certain scenarios. Everyday non-endurance athletes who are not diabetic? Yeah, maybe them too, sure.(snip)
I'm still having a bit of trouble after eating a banana. You have me wondering if the high fat content of peanut butter would offset the insulin rush somewhat? I've never tried it. Next time my wife brings some bananas back from the store I'll have to try it.
(snip)
I think the point is that when you mix foods together in the same meal/snack, you mix the GI/GLs of those foods. Fats and proteins each tend to have lower GI than bananas. The net GI/GL should be lower if a banana is eaten at the same time as some lower GI/GL food. Probably get some similar effect from downing Metamucil (zero fat or protein) with the banana, though that sounds pretty unpleasant, TBH.
I think it is useful information you shared, that GI data is helpful for you in identifying particular foods that may be appetite or cravings triggers for you. That may help others.
But I don't think it's a counter-thesis to the OP's very generalized point. Maybe I'm biased because I never once consulted GI data during weight loss, despite having been overweight/obese for many years myself. Superficially, I'd have been a good candidate to be one of those "IR but doesn't know it" people, but I suspect I wasn't, for reasons I won't belabor here. (I don't claim to have been healthy back then, though . . . just maybe healthy-ish in respects relevant to this thread.)
I do think some people who don't need to be concerned about GI sometimes give it unnecessarily much attention. Probably worth an experiment for people struggling with appetite/cravings, though. I do think quite a few people concerned about GI don't consider how GI or GL net out in the context of a full meal/snack with other foods. From reading posts here, I think some of the diabetics are more nuanced in thinking about that.1 -
tomcustombuilder wrote: »you’re getting into the area of non healthy population when everyone has stated that GI doesn’t matter to a HEALTHY population. And CICO is never meaningless.
I would point out the title of the thread is, "Does the glycemic index really matter?" which is what I responded to, not to other posters who talked about specific portions of the population that are healthy. Matter-of-fact, I clearly stated that I could only speak to my own experience when replying to ninerbuff's original post.
So you responded to the thread title, not the actual post? I would not have realized that.
CICO is an equation that has gotten out of balance (for whatever reason) for most of the people on MFP, or they wouldn't be here. Saying, "It still comes down [to] calories in/out for weight gain/loss/maintenance," is akin to the medical profession treating the the symptom of a serious condition while ignoring the underlying cause. Treating the unbalanced CICO with diet and increased exercise back into balance fails something like 95% of the time long term. It is meaningless and often results in yo-yo dieting. Wouldn't it be better to identify the underlying cause of how a person's energy equation became unbalanced in the first place so the right changes to lifestyle can be made on a permanent basis?
I agree with your concept here. I do think calorie balance is the foundation of weight management, but that (as a practical thing, not a theory), there are a lot of behavioral or individual physiological issues that make the practice more complicated than "eat less, move more".
In a sense, calorie balance is the "what", but everything else is the "how". Just telling people to move more and eat less isn't going to turn on a light bulb so that they can "just do it" - in the short run, let alone permanently.
Appetite management seems to have been one of your personal challenges, so sharing your insights about what helped you: That's helpful. Appetite management wasn't a big deal for me, even though I'd been overweight/obese for decades. (For me, it was hedonism, FOMO, and that sort of thing, mostly. Also, not valuing my future self's well-being as I should.) For some people, self-soothing or other emotional dimensions of eating are part of the situation. And so forth.
As far as failure rate . . . most approaches, on whatever basis, fail long term. That calorie counting (done alone) is one of them isn't surprising. I'd be surprised if it were an exception.
Since @ninerbuff is a personal trainer of long experience who's helped many people on the road to weight management success, I'm betting he know that it doesn't work to just tell them "move more, eat less" and send them home - that the underlying issues, which can be as diverse and unique as individual people, do need to be addressed. Some of those issues aren't in his scope of practice, of course. That doesn't imply he doesn't believe they exist, does it?1 -
So you responded to the thread title, not the actual post? I would not have realized that.
A question is asked as the thread's title, then the original poster gives his/hers opinion with reasons for that opinion. If the subject interest me, or if I have a strong opinion (who am I kidding, all my opinions are strong), I give my take on the question and try to back up my opinion with facts or, as in this case, personal experience. Sorry for any confusion - I will try to be clearer in the future.I agree with your concept here. I do think calorie balance is the foundation of weight management, but that (as a practical thing, not a theory), there are a lot of behavioral or individual physiological issues that make the practice more complicated than "eat less, move more".
In a sense, calorie balance is the "what", but everything else is the "how". Just telling people to move more and eat less isn't going to turn on a light bulb so that they can "just do it" - in the short run, let alone permanently.
Appetite management seems to have been one of your personal challenges, so sharing your insights about what helped you: That's helpful. Appetite management wasn't a big deal for me, even though I'd been overweight/obese for decades. (For me, it was hedonism, FOMO, and that sort of thing, mostly. Also, not valuing my future self's well-being as I should.) For some people, self-soothing or other emotional dimensions of eating are part of the situation. And so forth.
As far as failure rate . . . most approaches, on whatever basis, fail long term. That calorie counting (done alone) is one of them isn't surprising. I'd be surprised if it were an exception.
It is the order of priorities that I think is mixed up. Dieting and exercise to correct an over weight condition are for the most part temporary fixes to an established lifestyle problem. Lifestyle problems come in many forms: eating too much processed foods, over reliance on fast food due to time constraints or convenience, unhealthy food temptations (pizza, donuts, abundance of hyperpalatable foods, etc.), depression, emotional issues, medical issues and so on. Diet restriction and increased exercise (what I equate someone saying it all comes down to CICO to be) might very well help as long as one can be keep it up, but is a waste of time and effort unless the underlying problem is identified and corrected. Repeated failure to maintain the restrictive diet and exercise regime often leads to depression and giving in to what make us feel better. For awhile it is easier to feel satisfied and ignore the guilt until/if the next urge to improve health comes along. As I think @AnnPT77 is saying, the how and the what go hand and hand. It does little good to emphasize one to the exclusion of the other. The room stays dark without them both. If being aware of the glycemic content of different foods makes it easier to get that light on for some people, then it matters (at least for them).Since @ninerbuff is a personal trainer of long experience who's helped many people on the road to weight management success, I'm betting he know that it doesn't work to just tell them "move more, eat less" and send them home - that the underlying issues, which can be as diverse and unique as individual people, do need to be addressed. Some of those issues aren't in his scope of practice, of course. That doesn't imply he doesn't believe they exist, does it?
I suspect Ann is totally correct in this even though I don't know exactly what the purview of each personal trainer might be. @AnnPT77 asked, "That doesn't imply he doesn't believe they exist, does it?" I would hate to assume what another person believes. For all I know, it could very well be that a PT shouldn't attempt to analyze a client's issues as to why they are unhealthy. So no, none of this implies anything about what @ninerbuff believes. I have to add though, that it must be very frustrating at times to work with a client to improve their health without knowing if the improvements will last long term.
2 -
3 -
So you responded to the thread title, not the actual post? I would not have realized that.
A question is asked as the thread's title, then the original poster gives his/hers opinion with reasons for that opinion. If the subject interest me, or if I have a strong opinion (who am I kidding, all my opinions are strong), I give my take on the question and try to back up my opinion with facts or, as in this case, personal experience. Sorry for any confusion - I will try to be clearer in the future.
That's interesting. I tend to think of the title as a sort of headline, expect that the person posting may explain/clarify their question in the post, beyond what fits in the title. In this case, OP's "unless you're diabetic or have a high incidence of heart disease in the family" seemed to add nuance to the question.I agree with your concept here. I do think calorie balance is the foundation of weight management, but that (as a practical thing, not a theory), there are a lot of behavioral or individual physiological issues that make the practice more complicated than "eat less, move more".
In a sense, calorie balance is the "what", but everything else is the "how". Just telling people to move more and eat less isn't going to turn on a light bulb so that they can "just do it" - in the short run, let alone permanently.
Appetite management seems to have been one of your personal challenges, so sharing your insights about what helped you: That's helpful. Appetite management wasn't a big deal for me, even though I'd been overweight/obese for decades. (For me, it was hedonism, FOMO, and that sort of thing, mostly. Also, not valuing my future self's well-being as I should.) For some people, self-soothing or other emotional dimensions of eating are part of the situation. And so forth.
As far as failure rate . . . most approaches, on whatever basis, fail long term. That calorie counting (done alone) is one of them isn't surprising. I'd be surprised if it were an exception.
It is the order of priorities that I think is mixed up. Dieting and exercise to correct an over weight condition are for the most part temporary fixes to an established lifestyle problem. Lifestyle problems come in many forms: eating too much processed foods, over reliance on fast food due to time constraints or convenience, unhealthy food temptations (pizza, donuts, abundance of hyperpalatable foods, etc.), depression, emotional issues, medical issues and so on. Diet restriction and increased exercise (what I equate someone saying it all comes down to CICO to be) might very well help as long as one can be keep it up, but is a waste of time and effort unless the underlying problem is identified and corrected. Repeated failure to maintain the restrictive diet and exercise regime often leads to depression and giving in to what make us feel better. For awhile it is easier to feel satisfied and ignore the guilt until/if the next urge to improve health comes along. As I think @AnnPT77 is saying, the how and the what go hand and hand. It does little good to emphasize one to the exclusion of the other. The room stays dark without them both. If being aware of the glycemic content of different foods makes it easier to get that light on for some people, then it matters (at least for them).Since @ninerbuff is a personal trainer of long experience who's helped many people on the road to weight management success, I'm betting he know that it doesn't work to just tell them "move more, eat less" and send them home - that the underlying issues, which can be as diverse and unique as individual people, do need to be addressed. Some of those issues aren't in his scope of practice, of course. That doesn't imply he doesn't believe they exist, does it?
I suspect Ann is totally correct in this even though I don't know exactly what the purview of each personal trainer might be. @AnnPT77 asked, "That doesn't imply he doesn't believe they exist, does it?" I would hate to assume what another person believes. For all I know, it could very well be that a PT shouldn't attempt to analyze a client's issues as to why they are unhealthy. So no, none of this implies anything about what @ninerbuff believes. I have to add though, that it must be very frustrating at times to work with a client to improve their health without knowing if the improvements will last long term.
Again, I generally agree with the overall thrust of what you're saying. With respect to the two things I bolded above, I would've thought the first was an example of assuming what another person believes, or at least assuming what they mean by a particular choice of phrasing.
I don't particularly assume that only eating restriction and movement increase are what a person means when they say something like "it all comes down to CICO". I assume that they mean that without the right calorie balance at the foundation, weight management isn't going to happen.
I can solve every psychological problem I may have, exercise my way to pretty darned good fitness, eat healthier foods, solve any medical issues, manage my appetite/cravings more effectively, etc., etc., but if I don't get calorie balance right, I'm not going to lose an ounce. In that sense, "it all comes down to CICO". (I'm not saying a person needs to calorie count.)
Like I said, I may be biased by experience: I got fat eating mostly less-processed "healthy" food, very little of highly processed/junk/so-called "hyperpalatable"/fast food, don't perceive myself to have major emotional issues around food, etc. I even started training pretty hard and competing as an athlete, but stayed overweight/obese. Until I got the calorie balance right, none of that mattered. Calorie balance is foundational, gotta have it to manage weight, but practical success requires finding the sustainable habits/attitudes that get a person there and keeps them there, whatever that means to an individual. (I'm pretty sure the best tactics differ between individuals.)
Again, and this may just be an individual particularity, when I say "CICO" I mean the concept of calorie balance, not the practice of calorie counting. Calorie counting is one way of managing calorie balance, but not the only way. It's probably the most explicit way, but not necessarily universally the best way, IMO.
I'm old enough that calorie counting wasn't practical as a weight loss method until I was already a pretty old adult. (MFP was started in 2005, for example. I was 50 years old that year.) I've known quite a few people who lost weight without calorie counting, and kept it off. My own father was one, when he was 60+.
2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 416 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions