More on the GI diet
I don't want to beat this to death, but I've found another interesting article on the GI diet.
The Canadian Trial of Carbohydrates in Diabetes put people with Type 2 diabetes managed by diet alone on high-carbohydrate, high-glycemic-index (GI); high-carbohydrate, low-GI; or low-carbohydrate, high-monounsaturated-fat diets for a year.
The results: "Body weight and HbA1c did not differ significantly between diets. Fasting glucose was higher (P = 0.041), but 2-h postload glucose was lower (P = 0.010) after 12 mo of the low-GI diet." [My emphasis.]
The researchers concluded long-term HbA1c was not affected by altering the GI or the amount of carbohydrates. However, because of sustained reductions in postprandial glucose and C-reactive protein, a low-GI diet may be preferred for Type 2 diabetes. Does that mean they think it's better to have low blood sugar two hours after eating than fasting blood sugar in the normal range?
This doesn't seem to give much incentive to worry about the GI diet.
The Canadian Trial of Carbohydrates in Diabetes put people with Type 2 diabetes managed by diet alone on high-carbohydrate, high-glycemic-index (GI); high-carbohydrate, low-GI; or low-carbohydrate, high-monounsaturated-fat diets for a year.
The results: "Body weight and HbA1c did not differ significantly between diets. Fasting glucose was higher (P = 0.041), but 2-h postload glucose was lower (P = 0.010) after 12 mo of the low-GI diet." [My emphasis.]
The researchers concluded long-term HbA1c was not affected by altering the GI or the amount of carbohydrates. However, because of sustained reductions in postprandial glucose and C-reactive protein, a low-GI diet may be preferred for Type 2 diabetes. Does that mean they think it's better to have low blood sugar two hours after eating than fasting blood sugar in the normal range?
This doesn't seem to give much incentive to worry about the GI diet.
Comments