i ALWAYS stick to low G.I. foods when i do a fat loss diet. that’s why i eat LOTS of snickers (G.I. = 41) and chocolate milk (G.I. = 35)…and stay FAR AWAY from junk foods like cantaloupe (G.I. = 65) and watermelon (G.I. = 75)
I think the posting times go by the time zones, so the poster must be further east if that’s the case.
[quote]JMoUCF87 wrote:
i ALWAYS stick to low G.I. foods when i do a fat loss diet. that’s why i eat LOTS of snickers (G.I. = 41) and chocolate milk (G.I. = 35)…and stay FAR AWAY from junk foods like cantaloupe (G.I. = 65) and watermelon (G.I. = 75)[/quote]
The Glycemic Load for a Snickers bar is 19 (per 60 gram serving), while watermelon is 4.7. Hope you enjoy those low GI carbs.
Maximus you realize that isocaloric amounts of any food (high/low GI, fat, protein) will not matter in the big picture one bit. You are misinformed my friend. Calories in v. calories out matters for fat loss more than any archaic glycemic index (which was originally created to treat DIABETICS).
I’m fucking Scottish and I can state this with confidence: “They may take our lands but they will never take our PORRIDGE!” Except if your on a low carb diet like me (damn!).
GL > GI
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
I highly disagree with your statement about the Glycemic Load having almost nothing to do with body comp. GL has a direct inpact on insulin levels, and chronically high insulin impedes fat oxidation and is correlated with numerous diseases. Low GL carbs are ideal for stable blood sugar, except post workout where insulin sensitivity is elevated. [/quote]
While it does have something to do with body comp, they have found that the GI of certain foods has little reflection on the insulin it produces. Milk is a good example of this ‘problem’ for diabetics (as indicated why the GI scale was produced in the first place). While milk has a low GI, it’s Insulin Index (II) is fairly substantial. Here is a writeup for more information: Insulin Index
I am not disagreeing with you, I always use the GI of foods to help guide. I am just throwing out the II so that others know about it.
[quote]JMoUCF87 wrote:
i ALWAYS stick to low G.I. foods when i do a fat loss diet. that’s why i eat LOTS of snickers (G.I. = 41) and chocolate milk (G.I. = 35)…and stay FAR AWAY from junk foods like cantaloupe (G.I. = 65) and watermelon (G.I. = 75)[/quote]
I see we’re on the same page here 
[quote]phatkins187 wrote:
Maximus you realize that isocaloric amounts of any food (high/low GI, fat, protein) will not matter in the big picture one bit. You are misinformed my friend. Calories in v. calories out matters for fat loss more than any archaic glycemic index (which was originally created to treat DIABETICS).[/quote]
I disagree.
I have seen this in personal experience. Do you think eating a diet full of crap will yield the same result as one that is healthy with calories being the same? Do you think fat loss will be the same? Hell no. You might find WEIGHT being the same, but body comp is a whole other issue.
Your idea of isocaloric diet regardless of macros and qualities of food, takes no account for hormonal response at all.
Go on an all carb diet of equal calories that you are eating now, watch what happens. Fat city my friend. Even if you try to get all those carbs from fruits and veggies, you would never meet the calorie requirement because the fiber would fill you up too fast.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
phatkins187 wrote:
Maximus you realize that isocaloric amounts of any food (high/low GI, fat, protein) will not matter in the big picture one bit. You are misinformed my friend. Calories in v. calories out matters for fat loss more than any archaic glycemic index (which was originally created to treat DIABETICS).
I disagree.
I have seen this in personal experience. Do you think eating a diet full of crap will yield the same result as one that is healthy with calories being the same? Do you think fat loss will be the same? Hell no. You might find WEIGHT being the same, but body comp is a whole other issue.
Your idea of isocaloric diet regardless of macros and qualities of food, takes no account for hormonal response at all.
Go on an all carb diet of equal calories that you are eating now, watch what happens. Fat city my friend. Even if you try to get all those carbs from fruits and veggies, you would never meet the calorie requirement because the fiber would fill you up too fast. [/quote]
x2
The calorie is just a calorie philosophy must be one of the most out-dated beliefs persisting in bodybuilding. This is strange given all the recent research regarding hormone manipulation.
Back to a question of Oatmeal
I have decided to add Oatmeal to my breakfast menu despite no taste for it - I followed the packet instructions and it came out like Wallpaper paste and tbh in a far greater quantity than I expected.
Any tips on getting the right consistency/portion size!!!
Plus, if I wanted to add flax seed into the mix is it ok to do this into the dry mix?
No one is saying 2,000kcals = 2,000kcals and I’m not sure why people must take someone else’s arguement to the extreme to make it look bad.
A 2,000kcal diet with lets say, 200grams of Protein, 200grams of carbs and 50grams of fat (2,050, close enough) is given to two people. They both get their protein from complete sources like poultry, whey, eggs, fish, beef ect. One eats 200grams of carbs worth of fat free ice cream, cereal, pancakes, candy and other junk. The other will eat 200grams of carbs worth of oats, veggies and fruits. There will NOT be a difference in body comp between the two people due to their diet. If you think there will be a difference, then you don’t understand metabolism, at all.
Of course there are other benefits to whole grains, fruits and veggies related to health, but I’m strictly speaking from a body comp stand point.
And yes, I’ve experimented with having only junk as my carb sources.
[quote]mt006 wrote:
Back to a question of Oatmeal
I have decided to add Oatmeal to my breakfast menu despite no taste for it - I followed the packet instructions and it came out like Wallpaper paste and tbh in a far greater quantity than I expected.
Any tips on getting the right consistency/portion size!!!
Plus, if I wanted to add flax seed into the mix is it ok to do this into the dry mix?[/quote]
Man, get your hands on proper oats - none of this packet shite. When I’ve weighed mine out in the bowl, I add skimmed milk until the oats are almost submerged, then microwave for 4 minutes. Add Splenda and blueberries and you have reached the promised land!
Lesson number 1 for me: Cooking oats.
“Don’t let the oats cool down.”
I agree with elusive, why do people always push it past what people are saying? It makes no sense to argue a point that hasn’t been - and likely won’t be - raised.
[quote]danchubb wrote:
I agree with elusive, why do people always push it past what people are saying? It makes no sense to argue a point that hasn’t been - and likely won’t be - raised. [/quote]
Because winning an e-argument is serious business. The only good that comes out of them is that even though everyone is usually in agreement for the most part, details get bounced around and some new ideas are sometimes brought to light. Not to mention, beginners reading the posts will without question learn a thing or two…
On GL vs. GI:
If you are controlling portions - who the shit cares about GL values?
[quote]benmoore wrote:
On GL vs. GI:
If you are controlling portions - who the shit cares about GL values?[/quote]
That’s true, however, my understanding of GL was that it couples GI with portion size…so in that sense by controlling portions you’re indirectly considering glycemic load automatically.
Whenever a thread on oatmeal comes up I always plug Coach’s Oats (www.coachsoats.com) as they make steel-cut oats that cook as fast as instant…or something like that…whatever…check the link.
I got mine at Costco and I’m in Taiwan…so I think it should be available near you.
Here’s a pic of what they look like before they’re cooked…you can see how they look a lot like steel-cut.
[quote]benmoore wrote:
On GL vs. GI:
If you are controlling portions - who the shit cares about GL values?[/quote]
Because eating 50 grams of carrots is much harder than eating 50g of rice or white bread. Portion size is not so black and white because things like fiber get in the way. Carrots have a high GI but low GL, but some people won’t eat them because they only see the GI value. It’s the same guy who will eat a candy bar because it’s GI value is on the moderate side, but GL value is through the roof and think he isn’t doing himself any harm. Or at the very least, not making a better food choice.