Cereal for Breakfast?

I usually always eat cereal for breakfast. I don't eat the sugary cereals....For example, all this week I have been eating Kix with 1%milk.....Is cereal okay to eat for breakfast when I am on a diet? I always eat protein for lunch such as an egg sandwich, fish sandfish, tuna or chicken....

check the Glycemic index website and look up what serials are under 60 on the GI scale and which ones are higher. You'd be surprised to see tha

(t things you thought would be good are high on the GI scale while others, like frosted mini wheats...are as low as apples on the GI scale...add milk to it and it lowers it even further!!!! (source for that is the GI website FAQ...mixing GI foods)

** rice krispies...VERY HI on the GI charts...search whatever cereals you like and make a list!

eating according to the GI index makes little to no difference in your diet

opinion is good...but you need some facts to make it true. Science and experience say otherwise. not just me either...if youre gonna keep protesting my comments on the GI...back it up with more than your opinion. some research and references would be nice...cause i can produce lots of it...and have been...i looked at your diet...you barley eat any carbs (were talking about eating carbs here)...whats your experience with the GI ? tell me Dr. Carbs? Whats your body fat composition been like your whole life? how much body fat have you had to shed? must be nice to be a skinny kid...good luck in your loosing 5% body fat and gaining 10lbs of muscle life long struggle...you look like you know what your talking about...lol... when you've shed over 20% bf, over 55lbs of fat and gained over 70lbs of muscle...maybe then you can use your vast experience in weight loss and carbs as fact...until then why don't you just post your opinions of the actual topic of cereals and not try and post your critical opinions on other people opinions like they're facts. cause you have no clue what you're talking about. if you think you do...then prove it.

An 18-mo randomized trial of a low-glycemic-index diet and weight change in Brazilian women

http://www.ajcn.org/content/86/3/707.abstract

Conclusions: Long-term weight changes were not significantly different between the HGI and LGI diet groups; therefore, this study does not support a benefit of an LGI diet for weight control. Favorable changes in lipids confirmed previous results.

Reduced glycemic index and glycemic load diets do not increase the effects of energy restriction on weight loss and insulin sensitivity in obese men and women.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16177201

In summary, lowering the glycemic load and glycemic index of weight reduction diets does not provide any added benefit to energy restriction in promoting weight loss in obese subjects.

Long-term effects of 2 energy-restricted diets differing in glycemic load on dietary adherence, body composition, and metabolism in CALERIE: a 1-y randomized controlled trial

http://www.ajcn.org/content/85/4/1023.abstract?ijkey=57903af923cb2fcdc065ffd37b00a32e22f4c5cf&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

Conclusions:These findings provide more detailed evidence to suggest that diets differing substantially in glycemic load induce comparable long-term weight loss.

No effect of a diet with a reduced glycaemic index on satiety, energy intake and body weight in overweight and obese women.

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

CONCLUSION:

This study provides no evidence to support an effect of a reduced GI diet on satiety, energy intake or body weight in overweight/obese women. Claims that the GI of the diet per se may have specific effects on body weight may therefore be misleading.

Diaz EO et. al. Glycaemic index effects on fuel partitioning in humans. Obes Rev. (2006) 7:219-26.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-789X.2006.00225.x/full

Summary
The purpose of this review was to examine the role of glycaemic index in fuel partitioning and body composition with emphasis on fat oxidation/storage in humans. This relationship is based on the hypothesis postulating that a higher serum glucose and insulin response induced by high-glycaemic carbohydrates promotes lower fat oxidation and higher fat storage in comparison with low-glycaemic carbohydrates. Thus, high-glycaemic index meals could contribute to the maintenance of excess weight in obese individuals and/or predispose obesity-prone subjects to weight gain. Several studies comparing the effects of meals with contrasting glycaemic carbohydrates for hours, days or weeks have failed to demonstrate any differential effect on fuel partitioning when either substrate oxidation or body composition measurements were performed. Apparently, the glycaemic index-induced serum insulin differences are not sufficient in magnitude and/or duration to modify fuel oxidation.

you were saying?

Well...first things first. You totally missed the point! Um glad to see you contributed some facts to your negative remarks! i applaud you for that at least. I can post 100s of articles and tests and bodybuilders and dietitians around the world supporting and promoting the Glycemic index. Does it make me right? No. I never once said anything about my opinion being right or wrong...I only posted my opinion with some stuff for the original poster to check out and look into himself and see what he thought of it. It was you who decided to come in and say something negative about something you dont agree with...but I didnt start a topic called what do you think about the glycemic index. Someone else started a topic on what you think of breakfast cereals. So what you should have done is all that energy you put in with that nice copy and pasting work you could of put into your ideas to the topic poster on your views of cereals. I like this message board cause its not some negative trash talking bodybuilding forum...its positive information sharing for the most part. I don't think your views are wrong. I didnt say that...I think your attitude and the way you talk is childish. If you have an opinion...share it respectfully...there no right or wrong way to loose weight...there just ways that work for certain people and ways that dont. Your way works for you and that cool My way works for me....and i offered my view to the topic poster so he could maybe research it and try it if he wanted to and it it didnt work for him...then maybe he tries yours (that you didn't post for him...instead you comment that you don't agree with me...ok good for you...i didn't ask. but thanks)

anyways....i really didn't come to argue about the GI...like i said this is someone else thread about cereals lol. But really man...im not trying to change your mind...but i don't think you understand the GI at all. and I dont think you read your lab tests you posted very carefully. The fact is...most of the results coincide with the GI research lol. That was what I said on another thread that you also some into with your trash talk. Heres a quote from the GI site:

"2. Do I need to eat only low GI foods at every meal to see a benefit?

No you don't, because the effect of a low GI food carries over to the next meal, reducing its glycemic impact. This applies to breakfast eaten after a low GI dinner the previous evening or to a lunch eaten after a low GI breakfast. This unexpected beneficial effect is called the "second meal effect". But don't take this too far, however. We recommend that you aim for at least one low GI food per meal.

While you will benefit from eating low GI carbs at each meal, this doesn't have to be at the exclusion of all others. So enjoy baking your own bread or occasional treats. And if you combine high GI bakery products with protein foods and low GI carbs such as fruit or legumes, the overall GI value will be medium."

here's a piece from your lab posts(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17923862) that states, in both the high and low GI test groups...48% of all test subjects carbs came from carbs with medium glycemic (a variance of only 8 --GI 52 vs 64--points between high and low GI foods btw not much in the way of an actual variance...can you even call this a lab test?) ratings lol...guess what GI research says...if half your carbs come from medium GI rated foods...then your going to have an overall rating of medium not mater what GI foods you ingest. (as i posted above) which means of course there where no drastic results...everyone pretty much got the same GI rating at the end of the day. Not to mentions the proteins and fats the ate, which also affect the GI of foods, as stated by GI research.

also in that study "Lower or higher GI versions of key carbohydrate-rich foods (breads, breakfast cereals, rice and pasta/potatoes) were provided to subjects to be incorporated into habitual diets in ad libitum quantities" ---are you kidding me? to be incorporated into habitual diets ad libitium? LAMO! uuuh...do you know what that means. and again here "Subjectively rated appetite and short-term ad libitum energy intake at a snack and lunch meal following fixed lower and higher GI test breakfasts" ....what? really? i don't think you read this. ad libitium? do you know what that means. it mean at onces pleasure...meaning they got to eat what they wanted and they incorporated lab stuff into there own already poor diets? they have one fixed meal a day! wow...not much control in that lab...let just send them home and hope they actually eat all the food we gave them and not take into consideration their own regular diet? lol like really? you posted this to disprove my opinion? didn't help bud.

ok really...do i have to go on...

number 2 :

Background:" There remains no consensus about the optimal dietary composition for sustained weight loss. " even your lab admits it doesn't know it to be true one way of the other...but they;; get paid to do some of what the first lab did anyways lol and here it comes:

"All food was provided for 6 mo in diets controlled for confounding variables, and subjects self-administered the plans for 6 additional months." SELF ADMINISTERED....yeah i see no flaw there...i hope you guys all did your homework and ate everything we told you to and didn't cheat...we trust you have willpower...you are, after all "34 healthy overweight adults" lol yeah trusting some over weight adults to stick to a diet for 6 months...keeping it strict enough and honest enough to make conclusions for medical purposes...no wonder acutane killed so many people...if this is what we can expect from our labs...? 'joking me right bud? do i really need to go to the next one you copy pasted....google is only usegul if you actually read what you google...not just copy and paste it.

OMG REALLY! AGAIN!

http://www.glycemicindex.com/faqsList.php

lab 3 "Obese subjects (n = 29) were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 diets providing 3138 kJ less than estimated energy needs: high glycemic index (HGI), low glycemic index (LGI), or high fat (HF). For the first 12 wk, all food was provided to subjects (feeding phase). Subjects (n = 22) were instructed to follow the assigned diet for 24 additional weeks (free-living phase)."

obese people sent home to follow a strict lab diet for 24 weeks...NICE!!!!! yeah...ok...moving on...let see what the next lab has for us...

"Design: After a 6-wk run-in, we randomly assigned 203 healthy women [body mass index (in kg/m2): 23–30] aged 25–45 y to an LGI or an HGI diet with a small energy restriction. The primary outcome measure was weight change at 18 mo. Secondary outcomes included hunger and fasting insulin and lipids.

Results: Despite requiring a run-in and the use of multiple incentives, only 60% of the subjects completed the study."

Ok HEALTHY people...eating whatever you want might work for people with higher metabolisms...but it might not work as well for people with slower ones....and these girls are also young...stuff slows down as you get over 30...again...same comment i just made...it might be for some but not good for others...i wasn't forcing anything...i was offering something for him to look into and you acted goofy. And once again...18 months...2-=30 year old healthy girls...following a strict lab diet...yeah they didnt go out and party for that year and a half...they maintained integrity for the good of the lab! awesome bud

bottom line...the way i see it...your not wrong....but don't copy paste some lab test and trow the labs conclusions at me like they where facts you researched all hard...you copy pasted. good job. experience. tells me what labs to believe and what once are just sucking up tax payers money.


and here are some sites that promote the GI:

http://www.glycemicindextesting.com/

http://www.glycemicindex.com/

Bust Fat & Build Muscle: GI & GL Perfect Combination!

By: Mark McManus

This is the power of the glycemic index and the glycemic load. The following bodybuilding diet program will be suited to those who find it too difficult a task to drop carbs to around 30 grams a day. Learn more.
Date Added: Jun 28, 2010

Benefits Of Understanding And Using The Glycemic Index!

By: Jeff Behar

The Glycemic index (also GI) is a ranking system that ranks the effects of carbohydrates on blood glucose levels. Learn more.
Date Added: Jun 25, 2008

Going Against The Grain.

By: Dr. David Ryan

The government has changed the food pyramid again and if you have a child or any interest in your own health, you should read this article and pass it around.
Date Added: Apr 27, 2006

AMP Seminar #8: Glycemic & Satiety Indices.

By: Daniel Gastelu

Welcome to the Awesome Musclesâ„¢ Podcast Series, where you learn about the best training and nutrition scientific breakthroughs, and approaches, directly from your favorite fitness expert, Daniel Gastelu. This Week: Glycemic & Satiety Indices.
Date Added: Feb 2, 2006

Everyone Should Know About The Glycemic Index!

By: Fawnia Dietrich

'Do you know about the Glycemic Index?' Chris asked me. 'No, what is it?' This question is answered in detail right here. Continue reading and learn more.
Date Added: Jul 13, 2005


FAQs About The Glycemic Index (GI)!

By: Mauro Di Pasquale

This articles answers some of the most frequently asked questions about the Glycemic Index.
Date Added: Jul 6, 2004

International Table Of Glycemic Index & Glycemic Load Values!

By: Other Writer

International Table of Glycemic Index & Glycemic Load Values!
Date Added: Jun 23, 2004

Training Perspective: Science Starved? The Satiety Index Really Satisfies!

By: ISSA

Several research projects directed at unearthing these mechanisms have been undertaken over the years, and some valuable insights have emerged from the sludge. Find out what the Satiety index is and how it can help you!
Date Added: Dec 29, 2003

Training Perspective: In The Warzone... GI Bears The Loads!

By: ISSA

No, GI fans, it is not necessary to call the fight just yet. The cagey veteran may have given up a couple of rounds, and he may at this time have his back against the ropes... but hands are high as he continues to bear the brunt of the load! But for NOW at least, the GI has been saved by the bell!
Date Added: Dec 29, 2003

Mastering The Glycemic Index.

By: Other Writer

The glycemic index is a method of assessing and classifying the blood response to carbohydrate containing foods. A rating between 0-100 is given by comparing each food's response to glucose (100). Foods below 50-60 are considered to be low or moderate GI and those above are high GI. Learn why you should know it.
Date Added: Jul 18, 2003

All Carbohydrate Articles

By: Bodybuilding.com

Click here to view all our articles about carbs.
Date Added: Apr 29, 2003

The Glycemic Conundrum

By: Planet Muscle

This revolutionary new food and supplement paradigm is helping bodybuilders, athletes and even couch ptatoes learn how to get lean and healthy.
Date Added: Apr 29, 2003

Intricacies of the Glycemic Index

By: Eric Satterwhite

The bodybuilder looking to gain the most from his/her training, the glycemic index is pretty familiar territory. Most of us understand the differences between low and high, which foods are high or low...
Date Added: Jul 31, 2002

Glycemic Index Food Search



Use this page to find the GI of certain foods or to find foods with certain GIs. You can use the criteria alone or in combination.
Date Added: Apr 22, 2002

BAM!!!

I eat white bread, pop tarts, and all sorts of high GI food.
<

---

total fatty

no body said anything about fat...what i actually said was...he was skinny...and it must be nice to be able to eat poorly and lose weight. I like to also think about long term health...like one of his "expert labs" pointed out in their conclusions:

eating low GI carbs have "Favorable changes in lipids confirmed previous results. " http://www.ajcn.org/content/86/3/707.abstract

its not always about what just works..its also about whats good for your body...inside and out.

lol sorry man...I really didnt want to high jack this thread...but really there's a way to disagree and there being a goof.

All he could do was post results from some labs with loose monitoring and a lot of variables...while the GI research lab tests one food item, on site, in a lab, under watch and control of a scientist in that day...the only variable in their tests, are the people...lol what about harvard or MIT...what did their labs have to say?


http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/carbohydrates-full-story/


http://web.mit.edu/athletics/sportsmedicine/wcrglycemicindex.html


and my major point being this..what Harvard and MIT say...is what i was saying...cause Ive actually not only read some stuff...but Ive given many things a good try before i bought into them...i don't follow any thing blindly like some....but some people don't like things that contradict their poor eating habits...just because it works...doesn't make it good for you. anyways here the conclusions from Harvard and MIT about the GI variables/bad points:

Harvard's Joslin Diabetes Center says many factors come in to play in determining how your blood sugar will respond after you eat carbs. Your age, activity level, how much fiber and fat were in the food, whether it was a processed or whole food, how it was cooked and how quickly you generally digest food are important factors. Level of acidity and any substance you take to speed digestion are additional factors, says a Florida State University dietitian. MIT adds that the time you eat and how close it was to your last workout is yet another. And these factors vary from person to person, so a one-size-fits-all score could be misleading.


again...I said this what works for one person like a skinny lean young guy, maybe doesn't work for an over weight older person...but...speaking in terms of eating a meal comprised of cereal and some milk...I told hi to eat the cereal, it would be fine...i don't know why i got such criticism from this guy?

I like my cereal for breakfast.

I have a cup of special k or special k advantage with a cup of skim milk and half a cup of fresh or canned fruit.

Or 2 vita Brits with skim milk and fruit

Or porridge made with traditional oats and skim milk and some fruit added ( mixed berries or banana or peaches)

I usually eat about 6.30 am and don't need to eat again until morning tea time at work at about 10.30am.

Limiting your intake of high glycemic index (GI) ranked foods with low and moderate GI foods is the first step to starting a low glycemic diet and hypoglycemic safe nutrition plan. Low GI foods only cause a gradual rise in glucose and limit the spikes in insulin.low glycemic diet

First you said the above, yet this shows no significant differences in the rate of appearance of glucose and the low GI cereal caused a higher spike in insulin

Schenk S et. al. Different glycemic indexes of breakfast cereals are not due to glucose entry into blood but to glucose removal by tissue. Am J Clin Nutr. (2003) 78(4):742-8.

http://www.ajcn.org/content/78/4/742.full.pdf

Objective: We compared the plasma glucose kinetics of low- and high-GI breakfast cereals.

Results: The GI of CF was more than twice that of BC (131.5 ± 33.0 compared with 54.5 ± 7.2; P < 0.05), despite no significant differences in the rate of appearance of glucose into the plasma during the 180-min period. Postprandial hyperinsulinemia occurred earlier with BC than with CF, resulting in a 76% higher plasma insulin concentration at 20 min (20.4 ± 4.5 compared with 11.6 ± 2.1 µU/mL; P < 0.05). This was associated with a 31% higher rate of disappearance of glucose with BC than with CF during the 30–60-min period (28.7 ± 3.1 compared with 21.9 ± 3.1 µmol · kg-1 · min-1; P < 0.05).

Then to refute what i said you posted a bunch of titles of articles, including a bunch from the bro tastic BB.com supersite?

All he could do was post results from some labs with loose monitoring and a lot of variables...while the GI research lab tests one food item, on site, in a lab, under watch and control of a scientist in that day...the only variable in their tests, are the people

Yes they are testing foods isocalorically on subjects that are in a fasted state, however that tells you nothing on the impact on body composition. Also once again you said that low GI foods limit spikes in insulin, yet

Look at table 4 and pay attention to the protein rich foods and their insulin AUC. Compare beef and fish to lets say pasta

An insulin index of foods: the insulin demand generated by 1000-kJ portions of common foods. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol 66, 1264-1276
http://www.ajcn.org/content/66/5/1264.full.pdf

So which one of us doesn't understand GI?

From this link you posted

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/carbohydrates-full-story/

The studies they reference have the same design as the ones i posted and you took issue, they also go on to say

Other studies, though, have found that the glycemic index has little effect on weight or health. This sort of flip-flop is part of the normal process of science, and it means that the true value of the glycemic index remains to be determined

lol ok...really? there's only one thing in all that Im gonna comment on and then im done with this cause this is the best thing you've said so far: " Compare beef and fish to lets say pasta"..."what one of us doesn't understand the GI" ....LOL! I don't think you even understand carbohydrates, let alone the GI...fish and beef don't have carbs in them. The GI testing doesn't include those foods at all. You're a write off.

Good luck with your heart kidneys and pancreas. (dispute the GI research all you want, but even your posted research confirmed the Gi finding on hearth/lipid health) This isn't a diet site, this is a lifestyle site...people on here aren't looking for short term, aesthetic results, they want long term results that are manageable and maintainable and are going to improve not only their physics, but their quality of life and health. keep your negativity on the bodybuilding forums where people like to hate on each other and live unhealthy lives. You need to learn some social skills bud.

I eat Special K every other morning and also measure out the amount of that and the milk. However, I've noticed I'm always a lot hungrier around 10-11am then I am if eat eggs for breakfast. So I snack a lot more.

i just have 1/2 cup of low fat yogurt and 1/2 of low fat granola with raisins n almonds

I don't eat breakfast. You know what, though? If the cereal fits into your calorie/macro goals, it's fine to eat it.

Enjoy your cereal!

Sheesh. Get a room, you guys.