Volume 17, August 26, 2008
Welcome
to another addition of the LBC newsletter. If you haven't received
the previous issues of the newsletter and you'd like to, you can find
the archives here
In
this issue we've got an update on the LBC Exercise Database, the
upcoming 2008 IFBB North Americans and a short article on the
relevancy, or rather lack thereof, of the Glycemic Index for physique
enthusiasts.
If
you'd like to see a question or topic addressed in a future
newsletter, feel free to drop me a line aterik@leanbodiesconsulting.com.
What's
New At Lean Bodies Consulting?
Well,
for starters, the expansion to the LBC Exercise Demos database is
finally done. After getting tossed around from web designer to web
designer, we finally found someone to get them up, and promptly at
that. Noel and I would like to thank Dan Richman, one half of a
husband/wife client team of Noel's, for getting the addition of over
100 new exercises (now totalling in the 200s) up for us. Speaking of
which, check out Noel's blog
for some recent
progress pictures of Cara Richman.
This
week I leave for the 2008 IFBB North Americans, which is once again
being held in Cleveland, Ohio. This will be my third national show
this year, and I'm really looking forward to this one. Not only do we
have three girls competing in this show, but it will be the first
time meeting two of them (one who I've known for a good five years).
Meeting clients and online friends is always one of the treats of
going to shows. I'm expecting a fun weekend with the crew.
Lisa
Peper, who has her own blog
on the LBC site has been posting her progress pictures, with the last
set just recently. She's easily eclipsed last year's conditioning,
where she won both her shows. I also recently posted some
two weeks out shots of Jennifer Hamilton in her best ever
condition on my blog, which you can find here.
And finally, rounding out the three is Neely Tartaglia, a top-10
finisher at last year's NPC Junior Nationals. Keep your fingers
crossed for us.
I'd
also like to congratulate LBC client Sunny Daye for her recent win
taking first in Figure Short, Figure Masters Short and Figure Masters
Overall. Check
out her transformation pictures.
And
a reminder to check out Amy Perez's LBC Recipe
Blog which has turned
out to be a big hit - lots of neat things going up there.
The
Hoax of the Glycemic Index
The
Glycemic Index, the GI; whatever you want to call it, most of us have
heard it. We've heard about it from 'experts', from the mainstream
media, from friends who just read an article somewhere, from
established health organizations and who knows where else. Point
being, the concept of the Glycemic Index isn't one most of us haven't
heard about before.
However,
is it relevant? To those of us with physique-conscious pursuits?
Do
people even know what it actually is? Most of us assume that it's a
measure of 'carb quality' for lack of a better term. In actuality,
it's commonly described as the dietary carbohydrate derived rate of
glucose entry into the blood. So by definition, those foods that
fall lower on the Glycemic Index are said to enter the bloodstream
slower and subsequently raise blood sugar slower than those foods
which fall higher on the Glycemic Index. However, more recent
research has suggested that the disappearance
rate of glucose from general circulation is also an important factor
determining the glycemic index of a given carbohydrate. For example,
a very rapid insulin response would result in a quicker system-wide
circulatory disappearance of glucose, resulting in a lower glycemic
index value.
What
most people seem to forget is how the Glycemix Index figures came to
be. People automatically assume that if you eat potatoes (yep, those
'bad-for-you white potatoes) that you might as well just eat
sugar. Or worse, fat loss will stop dead in its tracks. You'll never
get ripped with white potatoes. Again, what people either don't know
or seem to forget is that the parameters used to determine each
food's glycemic index is based on a test of 50g of that given
carbohydrate eaten by itself after an overnight fast.
Take
note of the last part - by itself after an overnight fast. Those
two conditions right there dramatically reduces the relevance and
applicability of the Glycemic Index numbers. Think about it - who
eats that way? I don't know anyone who routinely eats 50g of
carbohydrates at a sitting with nothing else. Not to mention
the overnight fast. Why is this important? Because the addition of
other food stuffs changes the GI value of a given carbohydrate. How?
Quite simply it generally decreases it, which means that it slows
down the rate of digestion and subsequent entrance of glucose into
the blood. Things like fat, protein, and fiber - a normal mixed
meal - all function to reduce gastric emptying and subsequently,
the stated GI of a given carbohydrate. As well, digestion of previous
meals also presents quite a different digestive set of circumstances
than does an overnight fast.
What
else can change the glycemic index of a food? How about how ripe the
food is as well as cooking it. Both of these factors function to
increase a given carbohydrate's glycemic index. Once again - can we
really expect to think that just cooking a food or a change in food
ripeness changes the resultant physique effects of that food? Come
on. So if I eat a riper banana it's worse for my fat-loss goals
because it has a higher GI value? That's a rhetorical question as I'm
hoping the answer is obvious.
Back
to our white potatoe. Ever heard of the Satiety Index? Well, in
short, it's a measure of the satiation-inducing effect of a given
food. And guess what? Potatoes are right at the top. Way at the top.
Yep, those high GI white potatoes. White rice is another food that
ranks high on the Satiety Index ... yet also high on the Glycemic
Index. The puzzlement comes from the fact that the claim has always
been that low GI foods are also high satiety foods. Such doesn't
appear to be always the case. The importance of satiety in the face
of restricted calories is clearly a very important aspect of food
selection and subsequent dieting success. As we all know, hunger
tends to pop up more and more when we're restricting calories and
eating less than we habitually do, so any strategies we can come up
with to help alleviate that annoying hunger are worth their weight in
gold. One such strategy is to choose foods higher on the Satiety
index ... yes even though some might be higher on the Glycemic Index.
Again why? Because dietary compliance/adhering to your plan is one
big key to success and successfully reducing hunger is likely to help
keep you on plan.
How
about the Insulin Index? The Insulin Index is a measure of the actual
insulin response to a given food. Again, GI proponents often
associate low GI foods with 'high quality carbohydrates' and
subsequently, reduced insulin response, which is technically what GI
advocates are trying to control in the first place (insulin
misconceptions - that's another topic for another time). But again,
such is not necessarily the case. The last I looked (which was a
while ago) there were only 38 foods tested on the Insulin Index so
it's far from an exhaustive list at this point, but there are
definitely some interesting realizations even with such a limited
number of tested foods. For example, some foods that fall low on the
Glycemic Index - things like milk for example - ranked very high
for insulin response. Not what you'd expect if you believed that low
GI = 'good carb' = low blood sugar elevation = low insulin response.
Right? Previously I mentioned that the addition of fat to a
carbohydrate meal generally lowers the GI due to a reduction in the
rate of gastric emptying. Well, interestingly enough, the addition of
fat, saturated fat in particular, raises the insulin response
significantly. More GI irrelevance.
To
drive another nail in the GI relevance coffin, the overwhelming
conclusion looking at human weight-loss trials is that there is no
significant difference in weight loss whether one follows a low
glycemic index diet, or a high glycemic index diet. It just doesn't
matter.
In
the end, the key is still overall calories first and foremost and
your macronutrient (protein, carbohydrate, and fat) totals at the end
of the day. There's little need to pay much beyond a passing amount
of attention to the Glycemic Index. It's relevance to physique
enthusiasts is non-existent.
"It's
simple, but it's not easy."
If
you know anyone you think would enjoy or benefit from this
newsletter, please forward it on and pass on the newsletter sign up
link LBCNewsletter. Remember,
that when they sign up to receive the LBC newsletter they also get a
copy of my report on the Top 10 Not-So-Obvious Fat-Loss Mistakes
Until next time, thanks for reading.
Erik Ledin, B.Kin, CSCS, CISSN, NSCA-CPT
http://www.leanbodiesconsulting.com
http://www.leanbodiesfitness.com
http://www.leanbodiesconsulting.com/blog
http://www.leanbodiesconsulting.com/noelc
