Yeah,I always laugh my ass off when I see the "Glycemic diet" on TV.
I just shake my head and wonder how and why on earth do people get pulled into these fad diets.I think the insulin index is much better for those who are watching what they eat.
Yeah, the Glycemic Index isn't all it's cracked up to be.
The problems with the Glycemic Index are:
-There are so many different charts that have varying values for the same foods. This may be a reflection of the control glucose source (If it was white bread, varying protein contents can affect the GI value), or test subjects.
-The response is different in different people.
-Most foods are eaten in combination with other foods, of which the fat, fiber, and protein content can make the values essentially meaningless.
-All values are based on 50g of carbohydrate. Not all typical servings include 50g, such as carrots, for instance Glycemic Load, which is the product of grams of CHO and GI/100, is thus a better indication.
The Glycemic Index is okay for getting a general idea of where carbohydrate sources rank, but as a tool that can be applied scientifically (i.e. with quantitative values predicting precise glycemic responses), it just doesn't work.
So when you see that Nutrisystem commercial claiming to use the "revolutionary science of the glycemic index," just laugh a little. It doesn't get much more scientific than ranking carbohydrates as "low," "medium," or "high."[/quote]