Well, I'm glad you've finally chosen to include the error bars!
Look at popcorn, tho. 54 +/- 9 is not 53. It is 45-63. Grapes are 82 +/- 6. That's 76-88.
(I made a mistake in my initial post, too. I said the error bars for popcorn were +/- 14. That's for the next food on the list, potato chips.)
Percy, take a look at your message #390. Popcorn was on your low IS list and grapes were on your high IS list. Popcorn is no where near the bottom and grapes are no where near the top.
When error bars overlap (or are very close), the difference between the two means is not statistically significant. (Google that if you don’t believe me.) Please note that there is significant overlap in much of the list. And grapes and popcorn are very close together.
Oranges, apples, popcorn and bread have an IS of 62-3. Are you arguing that a fructose laden orange/apple, a complex carb like popcorn, and a simple carb like bread are somehow different when they elicit an identical insulin response?
Look at what Holt calls similar.
(W)hole-meal bread and white bread had similar scores. White and brown rice had similar GSs and ISs, as did white and brown pasta.
Whole meal bread = 96 12 (108)
White bread = 100 0 (100)
White rice = 79 12 (91)
Brown rice = 62 11 (73)
White pasta = 40 5 (45)
Brown pasta = 40 5 (45)
The difference between breads is 108 - 100 = 8.
The difference between rices is 91 - 73 = 22.
Please note that these comparisons are between white and brown (refined and unrefined), too.
Grapes and popcorn are a lot closer than you seem to think.
And don't start in with the fiber thing.
According to Holt:
The ... fiber contents of the foods were not significantly related to the mean ISs.
Mean GSs were not significantly related to the foods' ... fiber contents.
Neither the glucose nor the insulin scores were related to fiber.
According to Jenkins:
There was, however, no relationship between glycemic index and dietary fiber or sugar content.
Surprisingly, no significant relationship was seen between glycemic index and dietary fiber.
Indeed, there was little difference between the high fiber wholemeal bread, spaghetti and brown rice and their low fiber white counterparts.
Jenkins, D et al. Glycemic index of foods: a physiological basis for carbohydrate exchange, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol 34, 362-366.
Or these papers.
Ullrich IH, Albrink MJ. Lack of effect of dietary fiber on serum lipids, glucose, and insulin in healthy young men fed high starch diets. Am J Clin Nutr l982;36: 1-9.
Manhire A, et al. Unrefined carbohydrate and dietary fibre in treatment of diabetes mellitus. J Hum Nutr 198 l;35:99-lOl.
Lindsay ANA et al. High carbohydrate, high-fiber diet in children with type 1 diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care 1984;7:63-7.
Look. You can go on and on about how fructose is different from glucose is different from protein is different from carbs, but the insulin score is the insulin score.
It doesn’t matter if the insulin is in response to protein or carb, fructose or glucose. Blood samples were taken 8 times over a 2 hour period. If the IS is similar then it's similar. Period. And unrefined or complex carbs have similar/identical ISes as refined or simple carbs.
Furthermore, carbs have similar/identical ISes as proteins. That's a big problem for Taubes.
On to GI & II.
Englyst abstract as quoted by Percy writes:
In conclusion, the GI and II values of the cereal products investigated can be explained by the RAG and SAG contents. A high SAG content identifies low-GI foods that are rich in slowly released carbohydrates for which health benefits have been proposed.
Percy writes:
GI is Glycemic Index and II is Insulinemic Index. The conclusion is stating that SAG (Slowly Available Glucose) is associated with lower a glycemic index, and RAG (Rapidly Available Glucose) is associated with a higher glycemic index.
You really ought to read something other than the abstract, Percy.
Yes. GI correlates to II. And it's a very weak correlation.
The present study confirms the relationship between GI and II values for starchy foods, although the correlation is not
as strong as reported previously (Bjorck et al. 2000).
It is possible that this rather weak association, and the observation that II values were higher than GI values, could be explained by the combined insulinotropic effects of protein, fat and possibly of other undetermined properties of the foods.
Note the wording! And this wording:
Holt et al. (1997) could only explain 23 % of the variance in the insulinscore by the glycaemic score of the foods.
RAG demonstrated the strongest correlation with II, but still only explained 32 % of the variance.
Let's take another look at the Holt paper:
There were large differences in mean glycemic and insulin responses to the foods, both within and between food groups.
A difference between the GI & the IS. A
large difference.
Our study was undertaken to test the hypothesis that the postprandial insulin response was not necessarily proportional to the blood glucose response and that nutrients other than carbohydrate influence the overall level of insulinemia.
Their
hypothesis was that the GI & the IS are not proportional.
As hypothesized, several foods with similar GSs had disparate ISs (eg, ice cream and yogurt, brown rice and baked beans, cake and apples, and doughnuts and brown pasta).
And that's what Holt found. The GS & the IS were different.
Therefore, the glycemic response was a significant predictor of the insulin response, but it accounted for only 23% of the variability in insulinemia.
The GI is a predictor of IS, and maybe a pretty good one, but it's a 1 out of 5 shot.
Thus, we can explain only 33% of the variation of the insulin responses to the 38 foods under examination.
And carbs are not a good predictor of IS.
Furthermore, equal-carbohydrate servings of foods do not necessarily stimulate insulin secretion to the same extent. For example, isoenergetic servings of pasta and potatoes both contained (about) 50g carbohydrate, yet the IS for potatoes was three times greater than that for pasta. Similarly, porridge and yogurt, and whole-grain bread and baked beans, produced disparate ISs despite their similar carbohydrate contents.
These findings, like others, challenge the (assumption) that portions of different foods containing 10-15g carbohydrate will have equal physiologic effects andwill require equal amounts of exogenous insulin to be metabolized.
Carbs can't predict insulin response.
Let's look at another paper. The Bao paper.
Surprisingly, in the current context, carbohydrate, fiber, and protein content were found to be relatively poor predictors of the overall insulin response.
Observed insulin responses varied over a 3-fold range (from 35 5 to 116 26). The carbohydrate content of the meals did not predict insulin demand.
Bao, J et al. Food insulin index: physiologic basis for predicting insulin demand evoked by composite meals, Am J Clin Nutr vol. 90, no. 4 986-992
We're talking about the insulin response. RAG & SAG
taken together have only a 1in 5 shot of predicting the insulin response.
Carb content, whether simple or complex, refined or unrefined, does not predict the insulin score.
French fries and bananas are the same.
Brown rice and Honeysmacks are the same.
Pasta and muesli are nearly the same.
Brown rice and potato chips are nearly the same.
Other studies have confirmed these findings.
Calrose white 67 15
Calrose brown 51 7
Pelde white 67 11
Pelde brown 55 10
Pelde (parboiled) 57 6
Doongara white 40 10
Doongara brown 39 6
Sunbrown Quick 54 6
Waxy rice 89 19
Rice cakes 73 12
Rice bran 23 4
Brown rice pasta 7218
Wheat pasta 52 9
Rolled oats 54 12
Rolled barley 64 11
Brand-Miller, J et al. Rice: a high or low glycemic index food?, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol 56, 1034-1036.
White rice and brown rice are nearly the same.
Look.
According to Taubes, one can eat cheese (58) but not bread (62).
One can eat beef (67) but not Special K (71).
One can eat fish (77) but not potato chips (75).
One can eat yogurt (128) but not potatoes (132).
One can eat eggs (37) but not All Bran (36).
I call bullshit.
™ Version 4.2
