Glycemic index

I think it's a starting point.

Multiple people here who are diabetic have mentioned that for them, eating two different foods that have a similar GI can have a very different impact on their measured blood sugar. In other words, anecdotal experiences seem to suggest that GI response can be individual to some extent.

Also, normally GI is reported for individual foods/ingredients. Most of us probably consume most of our foods in mixed meals or multi-ingredient foods. IMU, the effective GI - the blood sugar response - will vary with the mixture of what's eaten at about the same time.

For people who are IR or diabetic (or some other conditions), managing blood sugar response to foods is very important. It seems that GI might be a useful input to that, suggesting foods that an individual might avoid, moderate, mix with low-GI foods in meals, or (maybe more importantly) test individual personal response to.

I suspect that a total eating routine with large amounts of high-GI foods isn't the best idea for anyone, but I don't have evidence for that . . . and I haven't bothered to look into it because that's not how I eat by taste-preference, and blood tests never showed high blood sugar for me anyway, even when obese.

Corina1143 wrote: »

What started me thinking about it was oatmeal. Someone told me I should quit eating protein and eat oatmeal for better satiety. I hate oatmeal, and eaten alone or with just a little milk, I'm ravenous an hour later. I did a little research (not much). Apparently whole oats is about 55-57 on the glycemic index. Borderline low-medium. Does it really affect me that much differently? Why? And oatmeal cookies or oatmeal bars don't affect me that way. But I put nuts, eggs and extra egg whites in mine. So like you said, what you mix it with matters.

Yeah. For me, my morning oatmeal is incredibly filling . . . but I mix in and eat alongside foods that bring it up to around 43g protein (not protein powder, BTW, not that there's anything wrong with that IMO for those who enjoy it). There's also around 21g fats (mostly from nuts/seeds).

I have never had an even slightly elevated blood sugar test. I have had high blood pressure, high cholesterol, high triglycerides, the other things associated with overweight and age. Is that connected to not being even close to a sugar junkie?

We're similar, then. I had borderline to high BP and high blood lipids when I was still obese. Now, in maintenance, I don't have those: I'm solidly and routinely in the normal range, even though I'm still old (69). I don't remember ever having a blood sugar reading outside the normal range, and I remember quite a few of them.

I probably used to eat more sugar than I do now, but I've been a mostly whole foods vegetarian for over 50 years. I went from thin to fat to obese and back to thin eating about the same range of foods, though as you might guess in different portion sizes/frequencies.

Generically, genetics and exercise can also matter for blood sugar and blood lipids. I don't believe there's a strong history of those things among non-overweight people in my genetic line. Also, the last dozen years of being overweight/obese - which is when most of the tests happened - I was already quite active athletically, but staying over-fat.

Does the fact that some of us don't have a weakness for sugar somehow make us less susceptible to blood sugar problems? Or does the fact that we aren't as affected by blood sugar make us less likely to seek a "sugar rush"?

From what little I've read about this question, it seems there may be a two-way effect going on. In other words, consuming a lot of sugar (maybe just out of taste-preference and social environment) can become an unquestioned routine habit, perhaps triggering sugar rushes that lead eventually to blood sugar crashes that trigger more sugar cravings. Just habit is powerful, let alone the possible rush/crash/crave cycle it can cause, I think.

For myself, a few years before losing weight, I do feel that I intentionally reduced my cravings for candy/baked goods by making it a point to eat more fruit. If that had a blood sugar effect, I don't have any evidence of that, but I'm sure it improved my overall nutrition (even though I stayed over-fat). I've never been a huge routine drinker of soda pop, sweet tea, and that sort of thing.

And how in the world could it ever be possible that oatmeal affects me more than cookies?
Lots of questions. No answers. Just curious.

Honestly, I think quite a lot comes down to individuality in things like genetics, lifestyle, social context, perceptions/mindset, and more.

I admit to some curiosity, and sometimes go down rabbit holes of research purely for that reason. Mostly, when it comes to myself, I've focused more on reaching goals through reasonably-happy changes, less on the "why" in most cases.

Two things stand out to me.
1. My mother fed me well. She wasn't a particularly good cook, but she served balanced meals, and there was never any contention, in any way, over food in our house.
2. I've learned a whole lot from MFP, and I keep learning.

Ditto to that last!

My mom was a good cook, in the US mainstream, and we ate a lot of whole foods, so that was my context, though mom by the time I knew her was overweight, maybe lower-end obese. (She was in her 40s when I was born.) I feel like a lot of my internalized sense of what's "normal eating" comes from that upbringing, and maybe that's true for others - not sure.

Beyond the glycemic index (GI) is glycemic load (GL) that is worth the lookup - it takes into account serving size.

For ex, carrots and watermelon are higher on the GI, but when glycemic load is considered, may be back on the table as good choices.

I did a GL diet some years ago (not to lose weight but to attempt to control my blood sugar issues - due to a medical condition, not diabetes). What I learnt is that everyone is different. A load of the foods they said would spike my blood sugar were fine. Foods which were “safe” absolutely weren’t. And actually I learnt after that food combining, ie eating fat or protein with my easily digestible carbs, would massively help me. So butter on toast, nuts with raising or other dried fruits, nuts with chocolate (yes I like nuts 🤣), cheese or tuna with a jacket potato etc.

It’s all individual, linked partly - I suspect rather than based on any scientific insight - to one’s gut biome.

Oh and look out for anything which can spike adrenaline, like caffeine, as that can also affect blood sugar.

Search 'ai response' has a good recap from what I remember about it.... for glycemic index high to glycemic load which is low for a serving and also food combining too...

The search also returned some nice articles that explain this better than i can articulate it.

From 'ai' response:
A 120-gram serving of watermelon has a glycemic load (GL) of 5, which is considered low. The GL is a measure of how quickly glucose enters the bloodstream and how much glucose is in a serving.

Watermelon has a high glycemic index (GI) of around 72, but its GL is low because it's mostly water and fiber, so it doesn't contain much sugar:

Glycemic index (GI): A rating of how quickly a food's sugar enters the bloodstream, with values ranging from 1 to 100.

Glycemic load (GL): A combination of a food's GI and the amount of carbohydrates in a serving.


Here are some other things to know about watermelon and glycemic load:

Eating watermelon with foods that contain protein or fat can help balance out the carbohydrates in the fruit.

A standard serving of diced watermelon is generally safe for people with diabetes, but you should consider portion sizes and your individual carbohydrate tolerance.

/end the 'ai' info

Found the glycemic load info helpful to understand serving size and food choices.

I have not used the new type continuous glucose monitors and imagine they would shed light on personal response for various carbs.

Corina1143 wrote: »

Wow! So sugar goes way beyond sugar!
I'm pretty sensitive to caffeine. I didn't realize that was connected to sugar.
But I get much more pleasure from desserts when they're served with coffee, so that makes sense to me. I don't think I enjoy fruit more with coffee. Maybe because of the fiber and water? More thought and reading for me.
And that brings me back to grapefruit. The only fruit I can't moderate. I can't eat it because I can't stop. If I have one, I just keep eating them. I'm getting better, but I still fight it. I do love and tend to overeat acid foods. I'll quick pickle any vegetable at least once.

I can’t quote the chemical pathways, but basically caffeine can raise adrenaline levels. For those that respond to caffeine - not everyone does. Adrenaline causes your liver to dump glucose hence the blood sugar spike. Have a sugary treat at the same time and - if you’re a caffeine responder - your blood sugar can go higher. Yes, it took me a long time to figure out why I was having sugar crashes after coffee and cake!

SafariGalNYC wrote: »

Interesting fact my dermatologist told me- sugar promotes the break down of collagen in skin- to preserve more elasticity in skin, he said mind your sugars and a low glycemic diet is best.

So not just for diabetics!

I've talked about this ad nauseum in past threads but I'll mention it again.

There's a metaphor in science that says we're actually cooking from the inside from the moment we're born to the moment we die through a process called glycation. The term "cooking" is similar to the browning that occurs when cooking food known as the Maillard reaction, but in cooking it makes for flavor and browning or caramelization but in our body through this glycation process which involves sugar molecules binding to proteins and fats without the involvement of enzymes, leading to the formation of Advanced Glycation End products (AGEs) which accumulate in our tissues as we age and can damage various structures in our bodies, including collagen and elastin that your dermatologist talked about. Yeah if we can control the excessive expression for glycation we can slow this process down, and sugar is the elephant in the room.