| Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ] | | EvC Forum active members: 197 (7545 total) |
| | Current session began: | | | Page Loaded: | 06-19-2013 9:05 PM |
|
|
96 online now:
|
|
| Chatting now:
| Chat room empty
| | Newest Member: | Porosity
|
| Post Volume:
|
|
Total: 700,614
|
Year: 15,061/40,304
|
Month: 1,178/2,443
|
Week: 168/402
|
Day: 40/52
|
Hour: 0/0
|
|
|
|
|
Author:
| |
molbiogirl
|
|
Message:
| |
420
|
|
|
Forum:
| |
The Book Nook
|
|
Topic:
| |
Good Calories, Bad Calories, by Gary Taubes
|
| Subtitle: | | In vitro v. in vivo |
|
| [qs]It might be worth noting that in contrast to the other paper, this was a study of a narrow food group (cereal products only), and it was done in vitro, not in vivo, in other words, in the laboratory rather than with actual people.[/qs] Um. No. [qs]Englyst et al. (2003) correlated twenty-three cereal-based starchy foods for their GI in vivo and their rate of CHO digestion in vitro (asassessed by the content in rapidly available glucose).[/qs] [size=1]Brouns, F et al. Glycaemic index methodology, Nutrition Research Reviews (2005), 18, 145–17.[/size] Close but no cigar! |
Copyright 2001-2013 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved  ™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2013
|
