Wednesday, April 11, 2012

Glycemic Load

Taking Glycemic Load Index Knowledge To The Next Level

Scientists that were studying the GI soon found that the Glycemic load index was even more important than the Glycemic index. You can review the history of the GI here. The GL index is another way of ranking carbohydrate foods, but this time, it’s based on portion size. Let me explain.
You can get the GI of foods by referring back to article 2 and 3.
Why Should Cantaloupe, Popcorn and Watermelon Be Penalized?
Here’s the bottom line on this concept: Some foods are full of water, like watermelon; yet there are very few carbohydrates in this fruit. Some foods like chocolate frosted white cake are full of carbohydrates with very little water.
Watermelon shouldn’t be penalized because it has a lot of water in it. It’s not a bad food, compared to that piece of cake. So the Glycemic Load Index corrects the Glycemic index so that you can still eat the good foods with a lot of water in them and high GI.
Here are a few examples to show you how this works:
See the difference? It’s actually a lot because the Glycemic Load Chart range of values for foods is rated right here:
  • 0 to 10 - Low
  • 11 to 19 - Medium
  • 20 or more - High
Aim for the 0 to 10 category for the individual carbohydrate foods in your diet. Here are a few examples:
Glycemic Load Chart for Various Foods
  • 2 cups popcorn 7
  • 1 tablespoon honey 9
  • 1 cup orange juice 12
  • 1 cup brown rice 23
  • 1 baked potato 28
  • 1 cup white rice 33
  • 1 apple 6
  • ½ grapefruit 3
  • 1 cup corn flakes 21
  • 1 bagel 25
Do you see how this is all coming together now? There’s one more thing to know: You have to total the GL Indexes for all foods eaten for the day. The goal is to be below 80. This number includes all snacks.
So when you create your diet, as shown here, add a new little column for the foods' Glycemic Load.
By adding the Glycemic Load index concept into your plans for your low Glycemic diets, you can now be better assured of good control of your blood sugar levels. 

No comments: