Skrevet av Emne: STICKY : Myten om GI.  (Lest 91004 ganger)

Utlogget Beefcake

  • Treningsveileder
  • ******
  • Innlegg: 1 969
  • Honnør: 1175
  • Utlogget Utlogget

  • Kjønn: Mann
  • Innlegg: 1 969

  • Spiser til failure
STICKY : Myten om GI.
« : 17. mai 2007, 16:01 »
GI har ingen innvirkning på kroppssammensetningen (1,2,3,4,5,6,7). Hos friske mennesker er ikke insulinutskillelsen etter matinntak tilstrekkelig i verken varighet eller mengde for å påvirke fettinnlagring/fettforbrenning. For diabetikere kan det dog være et hjelpemiddel (8,9) men ikke avgjørende. Utover at blodsukker/insulinutskillelse ikke har den samme effekten på fettinnlagring osv hos mennesker som man tidligere trodd (i hovedsak basert på studier på dyr, hvor insulin virker annerledes) så har GI som metod mange andre svakheter som:

- GI angir hvor mye glukosehalten i blodet (altså blodsukkeret) stiger etter et inntak av en spesifikk matvare. Når blodsukkeret stiger så kjenner reseptorer i bukspyttkjertelen av dette og utskiller insulin, men med f.eks. melkeprodukter får man et helt annet insulinsvar (insulinindeks, II) enn fra annen mat så melkeprodukter gir altså en stor insulinutskillelse til tross for sitt lave GI.

- GI står heller ikke i samsvar med hvor mettende mat er (mettelseindeks, SI). For å nevne et eksempel her så kan f.eks. potet virke som et dårlig valg da det både har høyt GI og II. Men potet har også et veldig høyt SI. Så med andre ord trenger man ikke spise så mye potet for å bli mett, og med tanke på at potet ikke er spesielt energitett så får man ikke i seg så veldig mange kcal, så den totale effekten på insulinet blir liten (lav glykemisk belastning, GL)... Potet er også veldig næringsrikt. (pommes frites har forresten et lavere GI enn kokt potet, men blir selvsagt ikke et sunnere valg for den saks skyld).

- GI-verdien for en matvare kan skille mye mellom ulike tabeller. F.eks. bakt potet kan ha alt fra 56 til 110, kidneybønner alt fra 13 til 70, osv.

- GI-verdien på en sammensatt måltid stemmer ikke med GI-verdiene på matvarene som måltidet inneholder (10). Protein og fett endrer GI for hele måltiden ganske mye.





----------------------------------------------------------------------------


1. “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."

Glycaemic index effects on fuel partitioning in humans
Obesity Reviews, Volume 7 Issue 2 Page 219 - May 2006

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-789X.2006.00225.x



2. "BACKGROUND: The role of glycemic index (GI) in appetite and body-weight regulation is still not clear. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to investigate the long-term effects of a low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet with either low glycemic index (LGI) or high glycemic index (HGI) on ad libitum energy intake, body weight, and composition, as well as on risk factors for type 2 diabetes and ischemic heart disease in overweight healthy subjects."

"This study does not support the contention that low-fat LGI diets are more beneficial than HGI diets with regard to appetite or body-weight regulation as evaluated over 10 wk. However, it confirms previous findings of a beneficial effect of LGI diets on risk factors for ischemic heart disease."

No difference in body weight decrease between a low-glycemic-index and a high-glycemic-index diet but reduced LDL cholesterol after 10-wk ad libitum intake of the low-glycemic-index diet.
Am J Clin Nutr. 2004 Aug;80(2):337-47.

Fulltext: http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/80/2/337



3. "High glycemic index (GI)/load (GL) diets reportedly enhance appetite and promote positive energy balance. Support for this hypothesis stems largely from acute feeding trials and longer-term studies lacking control over the macronutrient composition and palatability of test foods. This study evaluated the effects of consuming high- and low-GI/GL meals, matched on macronutrient composition and palatability, plasma glucose and insulin, appetite, and food intake."

"RESULTS—There were no significant differences in plasma glucose or insulin responses, appetitive ratings, or food intake between treatments."

Influence of Glycemic Index/Load on Glycemic Response, Appetite, and Food Intake in Healthy Humans
Diabetes Care 28:2123-2129, 2005

Fulltext: http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/content/full/28/9/2123



4. "OBJECTIVE—We studied the association of digestible carbohydrates, fiber intake, glycemic index, and glycemic load with insulin sensitivity (SI), fasting insulin, acute insulin response (AIR), disposition index, BMI, and waist circumference.
RESULTS—No association was observed between glycemic index and SI, fasting insulin, AIR, disposition index, BMI, or waist circumference after adjustment for demographic characteristics or family history of diabetes, energy expenditure, and smoking. Associations observed for digestible carbohydrates and glycemic load, respectively, with SI, insulin secretion, and adiposity (adjusted for demographics and main confounders) were entirely explained by energy intake. In contrast, fiber was associated positively with SI and disposition index and inversely with fasting insulin, BMI, and waist circumference but not with AIR.

CONCLUSION—Carbohydrates as reflected in glycemic index and glycemic load may not be related to measures of insulin sensitivity, insulin secretion, and adiposity. Fiber intake may not only have beneficial effects on insulin sensitivity and adiposity, but also on pancreatic functionality."

Dietary Glycemic Index and Glycemic Load, Carbohydrate and Fiber Intake, and Measures of Insulin Sensitivity, Secretion, and Adiposity in the Insulin Resistance Atherosclerosis Study
Diabetes Care 28:2832-2838, 2005

http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/content/full/28/12/2832



5 “In diabetes research the glycaemic index (GI) of carbohydrates has long been recognized and a low GI is recommended. The same is now often the case in lipid research. Recently, a new debate has arisen around whether a low-GI diet should also be advocated for appetite- and long-term body weight control. A systematic review was performed of published human intervention studies comparing the effects of high- and low-GI foods or diets on appetite, food intake, energy expenditure and body weight. In a total of 31 short-term studies (<1 d), low-GI foods were associated with greater satiety or reduced hunger in 15 studies, whereas reduced satiety or no differences were seen in 16 other studies. Low-GI foods reduced ad libitum food intake in seven studies, but not in eight other studies. In 20 longer-term studies (<6 months), a weight loss on a low-GI diet was seen in four and on a high-GI diet in two, with no difference recorded in 14. The average weight loss was 1.5 kg on a low-GI diet and 1.6 kg on a high-GI diet. To conclude, there is no evidence at present that low-GI foods are superior to high-GI foods in regard to long-term body weight control. However, the ideal long-term study where ad libitum intake and fluctuations in body weight are permitted, and the diets are similar in all aspects except GI, has not yet been performed.

Should obese patients be counselled to follow a low-glycaemic index diet? No
Obesity Reviews. Volume 3 Issue 4 Page 245 - November 2002


http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.1467-789X.2002.00080.x



6. "We do not find that there is convincing evidence in the existing literature to suggest that a low GI diet is superior in achieving improvement in cardiovascular health and in reducing body weight in healthy overweight subjects, when compared to official dietary advice recommending a diet high in vegetables, fruit and fiber, and low in sugar and fat. "

Low glycemic index diets and body weight
International Journal of Obesity (2006) 30, S47–S51.

http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v30/n3s/abs/0803492a.html;jsessionid=8945F60BD37298C9509B3B7D310D2BCB#abs



7. "Reducing the dietary glycemic load and the glycemic index was proposed as a novel approach to weight reduction. A parallel-design, randomized 12-wk controlled feeding trial with a 24-wk follow-up phase was conducted to test the hypothesis that a hypocaloric diet designed to reduce the glycemic load and the glycemic index would result in greater sustained weight loss than other hypocaloric diets. 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). Total body weight was obtained and body composition was assessed by skinfold measurements. Insulin sensitivity was assessed by the homeostasis model (HOMA). At 12 wk, weight changes from baseline were significant in all groups but not different among groups (–9.3 ± 1.3 kg for the HGI diet, –9.9 ± 1.4 kg for the LGI diet, and –8.4 ± 1.5 kg for the HF diet). All groups improved in insulin sensitivity at the end of the feeding phase of the study. During the free-living phase, all groups maintained their initial weight loss and their improved insulin sensitivity. Weight loss and improved insulin sensitivity scores were independent of diet composition. 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."

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

The American Society for Nutritional Sciences J. Nutr. 135:2387-2391, October 2005

Fulltext: http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/135/10/2387



8. "While the glycemic index concept continues to be debated and there remain inconsistencies in the data, sufficient positive findings have emerged to suggest that the glycemic index is an aspect of diet of potential importance in the treatment and prevention of chronic diseases."

The glycemic index: methodology and use.
Nestle Nutr Workshop Ser Clin Perform Programme. 2006;11:43-53; discussion 53-6.

http://content.karger.com/produktedb/produkte.asp?doi=10.1159/000094407&typ=pdf



9. "There appears to be a small effect from a low-GI diet over a high-GI diet, primarily on postprandial glycemia, although these values are not consistently measured or noted. Not surprisingly, use of a low-GI diet does not affect fasting plasma glucose values. Although the evidence suggests that other nutrition interventions can lead to greater improvements in overall glycemic control than implementation of a low-GI diet, the GI concept can be used as an adjunct to help "fine-tune" glycemic control. For example, some individuals may benefit from choosing low-GI foods, especially at breakfast, and others may not."

"Using the information from testing foods that contain carbohydrate can help individuals decide if they need to choose smaller portions of the foods that raised their blood glucose levels more than other foods or if they can cover these foods with the right amount of diabetes medication."

"Finally, for a primary nutrition therapy intervention, an approach documented to have the greatest impact on metabolic outcomes should be selected. Information on glycemic responses of foods can perhaps best be used for fine-tuning glycemic control."

The glycemic index: not the most effective nutrition therapy intervention.
Diabetes Care. 2003 Aug;26(8 ):2466-8.

http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/content/full/26/8/2466



10. "Our prediction models show that the GI of mixed meals is more strongly correlated either with fat and protein content, or with energy content, than with carbohydrate content alone."

"There was no association between GI and II."

"No association was found between predicted and measured GI."


Could glycaemic index be the basis of simple nutritional recommendations?
Br J Nutr. 2004 Jun;91(6):979-89.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=MEDLINE&list_uids=15182383



D Smiley


Cred: King Grub, Andreas Guiance.



Myten om måltidsfrekvens.

Myten om karbo på kvällen.

Myten om kvällsmat och fettinlagring.

Myten om lågintensiv träning och fettförbränning.

Myten om kardio på tom mage.

Myten om myten om punktförbränning.


Utlogget Beefcake

  • Treningsveileder
  • ******
  • Innlegg: 1 969
  • Honnør: 1175
  • Utlogget Utlogget

  • Kjønn: Mann
  • Innlegg: 1 969

  • Spiser til failure
Sv: Myten om GI.
« #1 : 17. mai 2007, 18:07 »
Så i korta ordalag:

- Glöm allt som har med GI att göra.

- Ät naturlig, näringsrik mat.

- Hur ofta du äter har ingen större betydelse.

- Det är bara mängden mat, och fördelningen av protein/karbo/fett som är av egentlig betydelse.


Utlogget Deff

  • .: Eliteutøver :.
  • ******
  • Innlegg: 1 000
  • Honnør: 100
  • Utlogget Utlogget

  • Kjønn: Mann
  • Innlegg: 1 000

  • Natural fitness
Sv: Myten om GI.
« #2 : 17. mai 2007, 20:35 »
Hvis man ikke har hjertesykdom eller diabetes da.
Interesante studier som viser at naturlig næringsrik mat er det beste.
Men, folk flest trenger et sterkere citament enn akkurat det.
Gykemisk index synes jeg er greit å ha i bakhodet når jeg er ute og handler, men det betyr selvfølgelig ikke all verden. Naturlig næringsrik mat har ofte lav glykemisk index, så det er ikke helt bak mål.

Utøver i kroppsbygging og sprint triathlon
_________________________________________________
  http://www.HenningMikal.com

Utlogget lfaro

  • Skravlekopp
  • ******
  • Innlegg: 1 945
  • Honnør: 282
  • Utlogget Utlogget

  • Kjønn: Mann
  • Innlegg: 1 945

  • Liksomstyrkeløfter
Sv: Myten om GI.
« #3 : 18. mai 2007, 02:41 »
Da slapp jeg å lære meg mer om gi, fine greier Smiley
Fint innlegg! Honnør!

Utlogget Beefcake

  • Treningsveileder
  • ******
  • Innlegg: 1 969
  • Honnør: 1175
  • Utlogget Utlogget

  • Kjønn: Mann
  • Innlegg: 1 969

  • Spiser til failure
Sv: Myten om GI.
« #4 : 06. juni 2007, 14:37 »
Ännu en ny studie om (mot) GI:

"According to some authors, the glycemic index (GI) of food may affect body composition and body weight. The purpose of this review was to evaluate the effects of GI on appetite, satiety, and body composition. Based on the scientific evidences reviewed, it was possible to verify that the majority of the studies that observed a positive effect of GI in that matter have a lot of methodological limitations. Well-designed studies have not observed any benefit of GI on these parameters. Therefore, it is concluded that GI has little application in clinical practice, as a useful tool to control satiety, reduce appetite, and consequently, to reduce the prevalence of obesity."

Arq Bras Endocrinol Metab vol.51 no.3  São Paulo Apr. 2007

Fulltext (på brasiliansk portugisiska): http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0004-27302007000300005&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=pt


Utlogget Beefcake

  • Treningsveileder
  • ******
  • Innlegg: 1 969
  • Honnør: 1175
  • Utlogget Utlogget

  • Kjønn: Mann
  • Innlegg: 1 969

  • Spiser til failure
Sv: STICKY : Myten om GI.
« #5 : 10. september 2007, 17:06 »
Ännu en spik i kistan för GI-konceptet. Studien publicerad för någon dag sedan:


An 18-mo randomized trial of a low-glycemic-index diet and weight change in Brazilian women.
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 86, No. 3, 707-713, September 2007


Background: Despite interest in the glycemic index diets as an approach to weight control, few long-term evaluations are available.

Objective: The objective was to investigate the long-term effect of a low-glycemic-index (LGI) diet compared with that of a high-glycemic-index (HGI) diet; all other dietary components were equal.

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. The difference in glycemic index between the diets was 35–40 units (40 compared with 79) during all 18 mo of follow-up, and the carbohydrate intake from energy remained at 60% in both groups. The LGI group had a slightly greater weight loss in the first 2 mo of follow-up (–0.72 compared with –0.31 kg), but after 12 mo of follow-up both groups began to regain weight. After 18 mo, the weight change was not significantly different (P = 0.93) between groups (LGI: –0.41 kg; HGI: –0.26 kg). A greater reduction was observed in the LGI diet group for triacylglycerol (difference = –16.4 mg/dL; P = 0.11) and VLDL cholesterol (difference = –3.7 mg/dL; P = 0.03).

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.



Utlogget lillekristian

  • Aktivt medlem
  • ***
  • Innlegg: 181
  • Honnør: 12
  • Utlogget Utlogget

    Innlegg: 181

Sv: STICKY : Myten om GI.
« #6 : 09. oktober 2007, 08:44 »
Jeg driter også i GI.

Tenker kun på total mengde carbs, sånn at kroppen ikke går ut av ketosis (når jeg deffer).

Utlogget Beefcake

  • Treningsveileder
  • ******
  • Innlegg: 1 969
  • Honnør: 1175
  • Utlogget Utlogget

  • Kjønn: Mann
  • Innlegg: 1 969

  • Spiser til failure
Sv: STICKY : Myten om GI.
« #7 : 10. oktober 2007, 20:32 »
Publicerad igår:


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

International Journal of Obesity advance online publication 9 October 2007


Objective: To investigate whether a diet with a reduced glycaemic index (GI) has effects on appetite, energy intake, body weight and composition in overweight and obese female subjects.

Design: Randomized crossover intervention study including two consecutive 12-week periods. 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. Foods intended as equivalents to each other were balanced in macronutrient composition, fibre content and energy density.

Subjects: Nineteen overweight and obese women, weight-stable, with moderate hyperinsulinaemia (age: 34–65 years, body mass index: 25–47 kg m-2, fasting insulin: 49–156 pmol l-1).

Measurements: Dietary intake, body weight and composition after each 12-week intervention. Subjectively rated appetite and short-term ad libitum energy intake at a snack and lunch meal following fixed lower and higher GI test breakfasts (GI 52 vs 64) in a laboratory setting.

Results: Free-living diets differed in GI by 8.4 units (55.5 vs 63.9), with key foods providing 48% of carbohydrate intake during both periods. There were no differences in energy intake, body weight or body composition between treatments. On laboratory investigation days, there were no differences in subjective ratings of hunger or fullness, or in energy intake at the snack or lunch meal.


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.


Utlogget Børge A. Fagerli

  • Leieboer
  • *****
  • Innlegg: 595
  • Honnør: 156
  • Utlogget Utlogget

  • Kjønn: Mann
  • Innlegg: 595

Sv: STICKY : Myten om GI.
« #8 : 10. oktober 2007, 22:21 »
Jeg er enig i konklusjonen, men en forsøksgruppe på 19 personer, og en forskjell i GI mellom gruppene på 8.4 (55.5 kontra 63.9) gjør jo ikke akkurat dette til noe bra studiedesign.
Personlig Trener
MyRevolution.no - sjekk våre nettsider for gode tilbud

Utlogget Beefcake

  • Treningsveileder
  • ******
  • Innlegg: 1 969
  • Honnør: 1175
  • Utlogget Utlogget

  • Kjønn: Mann
  • Innlegg: 1 969

  • Spiser til failure
Sv: STICKY : Myten om GI.
« #9 : 14. oktober 2007, 17:14 »
Enig i det Børge.


Ingen støtte for hypotesen om at en lav-GI-diett, eller en diet med lav glykemisk belastning, minsker risikoen for å rammes av diabetes ifølge denne studien hvor man har fulgt 7321 personer under 13 år:


Dietary glycemic index and glycemic load are associated with high-density-lipoprotein cholesterol at baseline but not with increased risk of diabetes in the Whitehall II study.

Mosdøl A, Witte DR, Frost G, Marmot MG, Brunner EJ.

Am J Clin Nutr. 2007 Oct;86(4):988-94.

BACKGROUND: Findings of the effect of dietary glycemic index (GI) and glycemic load (GL) on the risk of incident diabetes are inconsistent. OBJECTIVE: We examined the associations of dietary GI and GL with clinical variables at baseline and the incidence of diabetes. DESIGN: The 7321 white Whitehall II participants (71% men) attending screening in 1991-1993, free of diabetes at baseline, and with food-frequency questionnaire data were followed for 13 y. RESULTS: At baseline, dietary GI and GL were associated inversely with HDL cholesterol, and GI was associated directly with triacylglycerols. Dietary GI and GL were related inversely to fasting glucose and directly to 2-h postload glucose, but only the association between GI and 2-h postload glucose was robust to statistical adjustments for employment grade, physical activity, smoking status, and intakes of alcohol, fiber, and carbohydrates. High-dietary GI was not associated with increased risk of incident diabetes. Hazard ratios (HRs) across sex-specific tertiles of dietary GI were 1.00, 0.95 (95% CI: 0.73, 1.24), and 0.94 (95% CI: 0.72, 1.22) (adjusted for sex, age, and energy misreporting; P for trend = 0.64). Corresponding HRs across tertiles of dietary GL were 1.00, 0.92 (95% CI: 0.71, 1.19), and 0.70 (95% CI: 0.54, 0.92) (P for trend = 0.01). The protective effect on diabetes risk remained significant after adjustment for employment grade, smoking, and alcohol intake but not after further adjustment for carbohydrate and fiber intakes. CONCLUSION: The proposed protective effect of low-dietary GI and GL diets on diabetes risk could not be confirmed in this study.




Utlogget Beefcake

  • Treningsveileder
  • ******
  • Innlegg: 1 969
  • Honnør: 1175
  • Utlogget Utlogget

  • Kjønn: Mann
  • Innlegg: 1 969

  • Spiser til failure
Sv: STICKY : Myten om GI.
« #10 : 11. november 2007, 13:29 »
BACKGROUND: Few studies have examined the relation between dietary carbohydrate quality, adiposity, and insulin dynamics in children. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to determine which aspects of dietary carbohydrate, specifically dietary sugar, fiber, glycemic index, or glycemic load, are associated with adiposity and insulin dynamics in overweight Latino children. DESIGN: We examined 120 overweight Latino children (10-17 y old) with a family history of type 2 diabetes. Dietary intake was determined by repeated 24-h diet recalls. Adiposity was assessed by using total-body dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Insulin dynamics [insulin sensitivity (SI), acute insulin response, and disposition index (an index of beta-cell function)] were measured by using a frequently sampled intravenous-glucose-tolerance test. RESULTS: After adjustment for covariates, total sugar (g/d) was positively correlated with body mass index (BMI; in kg/m(2)), BMI z scores, and total fat mass (r = 0.20, r = 0.22, and r = 21, respectively; P < 0.05) and negatively correlated with SI and disposition index (r = -0.29 and r = -0.24, respectively; P < 0.05). Dietary fiber, glycemic index, and glycemic load were not significantly correlated with adiposity or insulin dynamics before or after control for covariates. Regression analyses showed that total sugar intake explained an additional 3.4%, 4.6%, and 2.4% of the variance in BMI, BMI z scores, and total fat mass, respectively, and an additional 5.6% and 4.8% of the variance in SI and disposition index (P < 0.05), respectively, after control for covariates. CONCLUSION: In this cohort, total sugar intake, rather than glycemic index or glycemic load, was associated with higher adiposity measures, lower SI, and lower measures of insulin secretion.

Associations of dietary sugar and glycemic index with adiposity and insulin dynamics in overweight Latino youth.
Am J Clin Nutr. 2007 Nov;86(5):1331-8.


Utlogget MrArnold

  • Erfaren bruker
  • ****
  • Innlegg: 278
  • Honnør: 27
  • Utlogget Utlogget

    Innlegg: 278

Sv: STICKY : Myten om GI.
« #11 : 14. januar 2008, 21:03 »
Må bare spørre: hvordan er hurtig ris  vs, fullkorns og langkornet ris. Er det sånn at  hurtlig risen er like bra å spise da eller ?  (jeg spiser langkornet jasminris)
ville er ikke å si at man vil, det er å handle.

Utlogget Disiplin

  • Aktivt medlem
  • ***
  • Innlegg: 147
  • Honnør: 21
  • Utlogget Utlogget

    Innlegg: 147

Sv: STICKY : Myten om GI.
« #12 : 14. oktober 2009, 16:54 »
Hei folkens.
Denne artikkelen http://www.iform.no/pub/art.php?id=1043, påstår at kanel er bra for fettforbrenningen. Kanel skal visst øke insulinfølsomheten, som igjen gjør at kroppen skiller ut mindre insulin.

Spørsmål: Er det da bare piss at kanel, i relevant grad, hemmer fettlagring? (Eller går jeg nå inn på noe annet enn det denne studien viser?)

Men er det ikke sånn at dersom kroppen skiller ut mye insulin, så vil det gi proteinet "bedre" tilgang til musklene? Er ikke det en av grunnene til at vi spiser raske karbohydrater etter trening? Vil det da (blir jo bare spekulasjoner) kanskje lønne seg å holde seg til hurtige karbs? (Det er klart at vi i dette tilfellet må se bort ifra at det er mange sunne matvarer som har såkalt lav GI. Så når jeg tenker meg om ble kanskje dette siste spørmålet litt dumt;))

Disiplin
Egenprodusert artikkel: "http://fitnessbloggen.no/blogg/2010/8/9/ny-forskning-gir-oss-svaret-pa-hvordan-vi-br-trene/"

"Water is wine when you drink upside down"

Utlogget OMD

  • .: Eliteutøver :.
  • ******
  • Innlegg: 423
  • Honnør: 36
  • Utlogget Utlogget

  • Kjønn: Mann
  • Innlegg: 423

Sv: STICKY : Myten om GI.
« #13 : 14. oktober 2009, 17:27 »
Litt av poenget er jo hva du putter i deg sammen med karben du spiser også...
Veldig forenklet sagtCool
Insulin er "innkasteren i cellene" for næringstoffer som du inntar.. både fett og protein.
Høy GI = mye insulin => høyt innkast, dvs det lønner seg med en kombo Protein og høy GI. 
Lav GI = lav mende insulig = lavt innkast, dvs her kan man spise mer fett uten at det blir lagret.
Dvs at GI henger litt sammen med fettforbrenningen.
Hvis du spiser en "høy-GI mat" bremser du litt på kroppens forbrenning ved at du stadig setter den i et "lagringsmodus" i steden for et "forbruksmodus"..  Angry

Mitt råd på diett: lav GI untatt ved rett etter trening for å fylle på med mest mulig glykose og protein, men s resten av døgnet holder deg til lavere GI for å holde forbrenning/forbuk av lager av fett oppe.  Cool
Ole M D

..Et liv uten trening, er et liv uten mening...



http://olemortend.blogspot.com/
http://omdfitness.com/index.html



Utlogget Junkfood-mannen

  • Treningsnarkoman
  • *******
  • Innlegg: 2 959
  • Honnør: 175
  • Utlogget Utlogget

  • Kjønn: Mann
  • Innlegg: 2 959

Sv: STICKY : Myten om GI.
« #14 : 15. januar 2010, 21:23 »
Litt av poenget er jo hva du putter i deg sammen med karben du spiser også...
Veldig forenklet sagtCool
Insulin er "innkasteren i cellene" for næringstoffer som du inntar.. både fett og protein.
Høy GI = mye insulin => høyt innkast, dvs det lønner seg med en kombo Protein og høy GI. 
Lav GI = lav mende insulig = lavt innkast, dvs her kan man spise mer fett uten at det blir lagret.
Dvs at GI henger litt sammen med fettforbrenningen.
Hvis du spiser en "høy-GI mat" bremser du litt på kroppens forbrenning ved at du stadig setter den i et "lagringsmodus" i steden for et "forbruksmodus"..  Angry

Mitt råd på diett: lav GI untatt ved rett etter trening for å fylle på med mest mulig glykose og protein, men s resten av døgnet holder deg til lavere GI for å holde forbrenning/forbuk av lager av fett oppe.  Cool

Med unntak av det med proteiner motbeviste jo mange av de studiene som har blitt postet i tråden nettopp dette...

Og det med proteiner har forresten også blitt motbevist i andre tråder/studier.
Treningslogg: http://www.treningsforum.no/forum/index.php?topic=94020.msg1393598;topicseen

"Weigh gain will impair insulin sensitivity, the source of the calories will matter very little." - Lyle Mcdonald.

Lyle McDonald wrote: "You need two main exercises:
1. table push aways: When you start to get full, just push away from the table
2. Head shakes: when someone offeres you food not on your diet, twist your head right and then left and repeat going 'No thank you'. Getting a 6 pack is mostly about losing fat."

Gå til:  

Disse kosttilskuddene er glemt for mange, men som alle bør ta.

5 digge middager med cottage cheese

Kosthold09.08.2021270

Cottage cheese er blitt en svært populær matvare!
Det er en risiko forbundet med treningen og løftene man utfører
Det finnes så mange gode varianter av middagskaker enn bare karbonadekaker.

5 fordeler med stående leggpress

Trening28.06.202153

Det er mange fordeler med å trene leggene dine. Se her!