Understanding the Glycemic Index
July 24, 2010
The Glycemic Index (GI) is one of the most helpful and straight-forward tools available when it comes to choosing which foods to consume and which foods to avoid. Utilized primarily by people to help treat their Type 2 diabetes, the Glycemic Index lists many common foods and their impact on blood sugar levels. The Glycemic Index rates foods on a scale of 1 to 100 (sometimes the scale can go up to ~140). A high score indicates that eating that food will cause a large increase in your blood sugar, while a low score indicates that a food will have a minimal effect. Generally speaking, foods that are high in sugar, simple carbohydrates and are highly processed have high GI scores and foods that are low in carbohydrates and are relatively unprocessed have low GI scores. To the left is an example Glycemic Index chart showing the GI values of some common foods.
So why is blood sugar important in the first place and what role does it play in your weight loss efforts? The answer to this question, like so many others, can be better understood through the lens of human history. For the vast majority of human history the problem has been too little available food, rather than too much. Furthermore, the widespread availability of refined sugar is a relatively recent phenomena, beginning in the mid 1800's. For thousands of years of human development, there was no scoop of sugar to sweeten that hot cup of java (for most cultures, there was no coffee, either). There were no sweetened cereals, no high-fructose corn syrup, no cookies, no candy and no soda.
In short, there was very little sugar in the human
diet, with the exception of the fructose that naturally occurs in fruit and the lactose that naturally occurs in milk. This increase in sugar consumption is illustrated by the chart at right. Instead, the human diet was composed of whole grains, meats, fish, eggs, vegetables, fruits, milk, tubers and other basic foods. Against this dietary backdrop, thousands of years of natural selection optimized the human body to utilize this diverse array of basic foods. However, in our recent history, advancements in farming, shipping, food processing and lifestyle have led to dramatic changes in the average diet, changes that are inconsistent with our historical diet. Many of the metabolic functions that humans have evolved to survive cycles of abundance and famine wreak havoc on our bodies when confronted by our modern diet. While occasional peaks in blood sugar levels are completely normal and well tolerated by the body, consistently elevated blood sugar and frequent spiking of blood sugar levels has a wide range of deleterious effects. The most well known effects of excessive blood sugar levels are weight gain and insulin insensitivity, also known as Type 2 Diabetes.
So how can utilizing the Glycemic Index help you control your weight? Because using the glycemic index can help you moderate your blood sugar levels, and high blood sugar levels are directly responsible for weight gain. High blood sugar creates the metabolic conditions which stimulate your body to store energy as fat and glycogen. Specifically, high levels of glucose in your blood stimulate your pancreas to release the natural
hormone, insulin. Insulin causes fat cells (adipocytes) to absorb the glucose in the blood and convert it into fat for storage. At the same time, high levels of blood sugar and insulin repress another natural hormone, glucagon. Glucagon stimulates your body to produce glucose by burning stored energy, such as fat. So basically, when you have high sugar levels in your blood, your body is focusing on storing energy instead of burning it. This makes it extremely difficult to lose weight. The solution is to use the Glycemic Index to help you make better choices about what to eat and what to avoid. Avoiding high GI foods will help make your other efforts, like exercising or watching your total caloric intake, that much more effective. It will also help you avoid getting Type 2 diabetes, which can have a devastating impact on your quality of life.
Like anything else, the Glycemic Index is not perfect and there are a couple of important caveats to be aware of. First, the glycemic index is based on blood glucose levels, so it can underestimate the negative impact of some foods, particularly those with high levels of similar sugars, like fructose. Take for example your average non-diet soda. It is basically carbonated sugar water, and you would logically assume that non-diet soda would have a GI value near 100. However, soda is sweetened with high fructose corn syrup, which must be converted into glucose by the enzymes in your body. As a result soda has a GI value near 65 because it doesn't raise your blood sugar as high as if it were sweetened by glucose. But it's a hollow victory, because while the peak may not be as high, it will elevate your blood sugar for a longer period of time because it takes time to convert all of the fructose into glucose. In general, if you are trying to regulate your blood sugar and lose weight, you should do your best to limit sugar intake across the board. The other caveat is that certain very high fat foods are low in sugars and simple carbohydrates and appear to have very attractive GI values. Eating vast amounts of bacon, for example, is going to have negative consequences, regardless of what the Atkins Diet plan says. The best approach is to use the Glycemic Index with a healthy dose of common sense to help you make intelligent dietary decisions.
In summary, the Glycemic Index can help you avoid foods that can unhealthily raise your blood sugar. Low GI value foods are most often those foods which are less processed and contain lower levels of sugars and refined carbohydrates, like flour. Additionally, foods with low GI values are more likely to be more nutritious, more filling and slower digesting, helping you better regulate your hunger levels. All of these factors can help you make progress towards gaining control over your weight.
References, Background Reading and Additional Information
Books:
Merl Raffetto
Jennie Miller, Kaye Foster-Powell and David Mendosa
Dana Carpender
Online Resources:
Scientific Research Papers:
Dietary Determinants of Changes in Waist Circumference Adjusted for Body Mass Index – a Proxy Measure of Visceral Adiposity. Romaguera, et al. PLoS One. 2010
Association of glycemic index and glycemic load with risk of incident coronary heart disease among Whites and African Americans with and without type 2 diabetes: the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities study. Hardy, et al. Annals of Epidemiology. 2010
A calorie is a calorie, or is it?
July 12, 2010
We've all heard the old axiom "a calorie is a calorie." This simple fact leads to a simple weight loss solution: Consume fewer calories than you burn. Seems straightforward, right? Unfortunately, in real life, and particularly in biology, things are rarely that simple. The problem with the "a calorie is a calorie" concept is that while a calorie itself has a clear definition, (one calorie is the amount of energy necessary to heat 1 mL of water up 1 degree Celsius), the question of how one measures calories with regards to human metabolism is a tricky business. Understanding the limitations of the calorie system and the difference between "good" and "bad" calories can help you make informed decisions that will better help you reach your goals.
People often talk about "burning" calories as if there is some sort of internal calorie-powered steam turbine in each of us. I think that most people realize, or at least I hope, that nothing is actually burning inside your body. If it was, you would know. It would probably hurt. However, when scientists are assessing the caloric value of a food, they do just that, they burn it. A defined sample of the material is ground up and burned in a device called a bomb calorimeter (shown at right). The calorimeter measures the amount of heat that is generated and calculates the number of calories in that food.
In contrast, in the human body large molecules are broken down into smaller components, which are then absorbed. Absorption of nutrients happens primarily in the intestines. Generally speaking, your body has a very difficult time absorbing large molecules, so if something isn't fully digested, it isn't available for use as energy by your body. The Diabetes center at UCSF made a nice diagram to illustrate this process (below).
Let's say you have a delicious baked potato, with a dash of chives and a dollop of butter, of course. Once you've finished enjoying masticating and ingesting that potato, it travels down to the stomach, where it experiences some preliminary digestion in the acidic environment of the stomach. That breaks the potato down into medium sized molecules, which are represented in our illustration as "complex starch". If you were to take a really close look at these complex starch molecules, they would look somewhat like a snowflake, branching and interconnected chains of starch forming all sorts of complex shapes. These large structures are too big to be absorbed by the nutrient absorbing cells that line the intestines. In the intestines, enzymes called "amylases" break down these large complex starch molecules into their individual components, sugars like glucose. These individual sugar molecules are rapidly and efficiently absorbed by the intestines and pumped into your blood stream, where they travel throughout your body.
But what does all this mean when it comes to counting calories and understanding the difference between "good" and "bad" calories? It is important to understand that in nature, like in life itself, nothing is truly free. It takes energy to maintain all of the components of the digestive system: the digestive organs, the enzymes, the digestive cells, ion balances, sugar transportation, etc. The pieces in this complex machine are constantly breaking down and in need of repair or replacement. As a result, your body places most of its emphasis on processing foods and nutrients that are the easiest to digest and have the most caloric value. It's the age old story of the lowest hanging fruit getting picked first. Often times, things that are difficult to digest just don't get digested at all. Think about the last time you had some corn on the cob or whole grain brown rice, notice anything afterward? Some undigested material perhaps?
What it all boils down to is this: Certain foods have much lower available calories than others, regardless of what the label says. On the other hand, with some foods virtually all of the calories will be digested and absorbed by your body. The difference is based on almost entirely on two things. First, the source of the calories: Protein, fats, complex carbohydrates or simple carbohydrates (sugars). Second, is the structural complexity of the food itself. There is a huge difference between an ounce of whole grain wheat, and an ounce of whole grain wheat flour.
Because the wheat flour has already been processed into a fine powder, it is more efficiently digested by the enzymes in the gut and a greater percentage of the available calories are absorbed by your body. This simple fact is why virtually every single diabetes treatment plan includes substituting whole grain foods for processed grain foods. It is also the basis for their different values in the glycemic index, which measures the impact of different foods on the levels of glucose (sugar) in your blood.
The take home message here is simple: If you want to control your weight, the first step is to replace foods that are highly processed and rich in simple carbohydrates with foods that are less processed like whole grains, meats, eggs, fruit and vegetables. It's a good dietary decision for people in general, but absolutely critical if you want to control your weight and body fat percentage.
References, Background Reading and Additional Information:
Books:
Gary Taubes
Lori Smolin
Devin Alexander, Karen Kaplan and Bob Harper
Online Resources:
Scientific Research Articles:
Whole Grain, Bran, and Germ Intake and Risk of Type 2 Diabetes: A Prospective Cohort Study and Systematic Review. Munter, et al. PLoS Medicine. 2007
No comments:
Post a Comment