A Load, a Load, we have an Index to a Load!

I am grateful for the labels that now appear on food products.  There is a lot of helpful information on these food labels.  However, I would like to see two more on all products.  It would be really nice if the labels included glycemic index and glycemic load as two of the listed items.  It would be much easier to make healthy choices in the food we eat, if these labels did appear on all food products.  What can we do to start a campaign to add these items to all food labels?

What are Glycemic Index and Glycemic Load?  Glycemic Index is more commonly used than Glycemic Load.  Glycemic Index is how fast the carbohydrates in each serving of food turn to glucose in the blood (“blood sugar”).  The Glycemic Load is a combination of how much of these carbohydrates are present in the food and how fast they transform into blood sugar (glycemic index).  The example I like to use is that Glycemic Index is equivalent to the height of a waterfall and the Glycemic Load takes into account that height and the amount of water actually coming over the falls.  The more water, the more dangerous, no matter how high or low the drop is.  However, even a high waterfall with very little water going over the edge is not nearly as dangerous as the Mississippi River in flood stage.  So the quantity we eat is just as important as the low or high GI and GL foods that we do eat.

Glycemic Index is not enough to judge a food.  For example, carrots have a GI of 42, but a GL of only 3.  The sugars/carbohydrates they have turn into blood sugar quite quickly.  However, they do not contain that many carbohydrates.  In comparison, Betty Crocker Chocolate Cake has a GI of only 38, but a GL of 20.  Just going on the GI of each item, it would appear that Betty Crocker Chocolate Cake is better for us than carrots.  Our intuition would said “That’s not right!”  However, until we look at the GL it appears that our intuition may be wrong.  If you would like to look up this information, it is from Dr. Ray Strand’s Healthy for Life book.  It is the book we are currently using in our classes.

Looking at the current food labels, they do have a lot of information.  However, they can be misleading.  For example, we can look at oatmeal.  There are four types that are on the grocery shelves:  steel cut, Old Fashion (takes about five minutes to cook),  Quick (takes about 1 minute to cook), and Instant (just add hot water).  The current labels on all four products are identical (minus any sugars that are added to the Instant Oatmeal).  However, the Glycemic Index and Load start off reasonably low with the steel cut, are medium with the Old Fashion, are high with the Quick Oatmeal, and are extremely high with the Instant Oatmeal.  It is impossible to tell the difference with the current label.

I believe that all foods should be labelled with both a Glycemic Index and a Glycemic Load.  I am looking at what options we do have to add such information.  If you agree, do you have suggestions on how to have these two items added?

This entry was posted in Health and Wellness, Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to A Load, a Load, we have an Index to a Load!

  1. smhhrkxl says:

    Hello would you mind letting me know which web host you’re using? I’ve loaded your blog in 3 different internet browsers and I must say this blog loads a lot quicker then most. Can you suggest a good hosting provider at a reasonable price? Thank you, I appreciate it!

    • Wayne Cook says:

      I use WordPress on GoDaddy. Try to keep the pages simple, I know some want more pictures, but that loads a bit slower.

  2. Lorri McCrae says:

    I’m really loving the theme/design of your web site. Do you ever run into any web browser compatibility issues? A couple of my blog readers have complained about my website not working correctly in Explorer but looks great in Chrome. Do you have any recommendations to help fix this issue?

    • Wayne Cook says:

      Hi Lorri,

      I do switch between Edge, Chrome, Firefox, and Safari. This depends on whether I am using a PC or iPad, as well as testing. The only time I have really seen a problem is when I am working with a PlugIn written in PHP. The problem with Explorer is Microsoft is discontinuing it. I have found that if people use Microsoft Edge instead of Explorer, problems tend to go away.

      Wayne

  3. What a information of un-ambiguity and preserveness of valuable familiarity concerning unpredicted feelings.

    • Wayne Cook says:

      Hi Jacelyn,

      I am glad you like this blog, I am working on keeping fresh blogs coming. I hope you come back often. There are some exciting developments in the health industry I think you might find interesting. I am sending you some more information. May you receive all the blessings of great health and a richness of life in all ways possible.

      Wayne

  4. Paola says:

    Way to use the internet to help people solve prlembos!

  5. Fitness tips says:

    What if i created a blog with the same name as other blog accidentally? is that legal

  6. This is such a great resource that you are providing and you give it away for free. I love seeing websites that understand the value of providing a quality resource for free. It?s the old what goes around comes around routine. Did you acquired lots of links and I see lots of trackbacks??

      • Samir says:

        Hello There. I found your blog using msn. This is a really well weittrn article. I’ll make sure to bookmark it and come back to read more of What Is The Glycemic Index . Thanks for the post. I will certainly comeback.

    • Vijaya says:

      So I’m looking for a new blog name that can nbmcioe my running + travel and I tried to see if the domain Running Around The World was available. And it was taken! By you guys! A blog that looks similar to mine (though I admit I haven’t explored yet even our page themes look similar!).I ran MCM last year and loved it! You guys will love it as well! Good luck, and stop by to read on my travels if you feel so inclined! (And now I’m off to look for another blog name to pick Feel free to give me suggestions I’m even offering Filipino goodies for the winning name!)

      • admin says:

        Good luck on finding an appropriate name, try something simple (they sometimes are not ataken) like World Running. It depends on the theme you would like to project, others might be Running for Health, Worlds of Running, Running for Haelth and Profit, …

        Good luck and thanks for visiting.

  7. Doris says:

    Thanks for placing up this article. I’m unquestionably frustrated with struggling to research out pertinent and rational commentary on this matter. everyone now goes in the direction of the amazingly much extremes to possibly generate home their viewpoint that either: everyone else within earth is wrong, or two that everyone but them does not genuinely recognize the situation. pretty numerous many thanks for the concise, pertinent insight….

    • Jas says:

      If you’re about to tell me that insulin steors glucose in fat and muscle, anything about the Glycemic Index, etc then you’re wasting time. I know that already.I want an INTENSELY CHEMISTRY AND BIOLOGY based answer to how specifically lowered blood sugar levels will motivate the body chemically to favor adipose tissue metabolism. Specifically, the question comes from cinnamon I’d always assumed that since it was an insulin substitute’ that it would somehow be recognized by the receptors in the GI tract and tell the pancreas to lay off with insulin production, thus less glucose would be stored on a meal without cinnamon, but thinking of it that’s really just called insulin insensitivity so that was a retarded idea arising from lack of thought on the matter.So if you still have all the insulin the meal would normally give, and you’ve stored more glucose in muscles and liver and fat, um how’s that help you lose weight? Shit I’m outta room, read extra below .Fat weight, of course (not muscle mass!)Only thing I can figure is that it makes you store stuff, which burns more calories than you ate after it’s broken down again. Like, ok, insulin tells -> store! And the cells are like, ok; and active transports use energy to do the storage and atoms are bound and stuff happens so that while you ate and had in you 100 calories here, you really only end up storing a net of 85 in the end. Then your body says crap, low blood sugar has to break down with glycogen taking more energy and tadah, you’ve burned more.But usually since insulin is there it acts antagonistically with burning fat so lean muscle would be cannibalized a lot then. SO that sounds bad for anyone who wants to be muscle large this would only be good for women wanting to be stick thin.Plus, while we’re at it, we get tired when blood sugar’s low yes? Why SPECIFICALLY? Are there receptors say in our pinky toes that say to conserve energy, sugar’s low? DETAILS!?Thanks!

      • admin says:

        Interesting stream of thought. I will have to research you statements and questions a bit more to be able to write a sensible answer. Thank you for taking the time to write this.

I would enjoy hearing from you.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.