"Discover Cooking, Discuss Life."

Go Back   Discuss Cooking - Cooking Forums > General Cooking Information > General Cooking
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 06-05-2012, 08:07 PM   #71
Chef Extraordinaire
 
taxlady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: near Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Posts: 18,894
Send a message via Skype™ to taxlady
Quote:
Originally Posted by blissful View Post
I just had to search around........to see if this was true.
Glycemic Index Calculator | Medindia

The glycemic index (GI) for whole grain bread is 72
The GI for sugar is 65

The site say "The food having a higher GI breaks down quickly and shoots up your blood sugar levels rapidly. While the food having a lower GI takes a longer time to get digested and absorbed, resulting in slower and gradual changes in blood sugar levels."

I was surprised by this.
That site contradicts itself. It says shows this chart:

__________________

__________________
May you live as long as you wish and love as long as you live.
Robert A. Heinlein
taxlady is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2012, 08:08 PM   #72
Certified Pretend Chef
 
Andy M.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 41,408
Quote:
Originally Posted by GLC View Post
...But to talk of fat, sugar, fiber, or any other food component as something that is key to effectively mitigating obesity is to ignore, in the most ridiculous way, the single factor without which there would be no problem - eating a lot more food than previously.
Bravo! We're fat because we eat too much. Plain and simple.

Don't worry about carbs or fats or proteins in your diet because they are carbs or fats or proteins. Worry about them all because they bring calories to the party.
__________________

__________________
"If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe." -Carl Sagan
Andy M. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2012, 08:18 PM   #73
Head Chef
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,122
Quote:
Originally Posted by taxlady View Post
That site contradicts itself. It says shows this chart:

The site doesn't appear to be SELLING anything though, just giving information. WHOLE WHEAT products was not a choice for finding the GI level. WHOLE GRAIN products was available at 72. I would expect that whole wheat and whole grain to be in the same category. And GRAINY BREAD is mentioned at a low GI. I wonder if it has more to do with how finely a grain is ground than anything else.
__________________
blissful is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2012, 09:03 PM   #74
Executive Chef
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: here
Posts: 3,612
Quote:
Originally Posted by blissful View Post
I would expect that whole wheat and whole grain to be in the same category. And GRAINY BREAD is mentioned at a low GI. I wonder if it has more to do with how finely a grain is ground than anything else.
Degree of milling has a lot to do with how quickly the product is digested, and whether the bran is left on or milled off.
__________________
Greg Who Cooks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2012, 09:22 PM   #75
The Dude Abides
 
TATTRAT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Bermuda Native in D.C./NoVA
Posts: 5,324
Send a message via AIM to TATTRAT Send a message via Yahoo to TATTRAT Send a message via Skype™ to TATTRAT
Quote:
Originally Posted by buckytom View Post
there used to be some old joke about bad habits and how they affect other people.
it went something about how we all have bad habits.

smokers' bad habit has a side effect whereby other people around them are forced to breathe in their wafting smoke.

my bad habit is drinking beer. it's side effect is having to pee frequently.

to be fair, if i have to breathe in your smoke, i should be allowed to pee on you...
Is that like the old Summer rule: I don't swim in your toilet, so don't pee in my pool?
__________________
flickr
TATTRAT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2012, 09:29 PM   #76
The Dude Abides
 
TATTRAT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Bermuda Native in D.C./NoVA
Posts: 5,324
Send a message via AIM to TATTRAT Send a message via Yahoo to TATTRAT Send a message via Skype™ to TATTRAT
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy M. View Post
Bravo! We're fat because we eat too much. Plain and simple.

Don't worry about carbs or fats or proteins in your diet because they are carbs or fats or proteins. Worry about them all because they bring calories to the party.
A. Frickin. MEN.

People hwo go on these fad diets don't realize that Sugars, Carbs, Fats, alllllllllllofthat stuff, is PART OF A BALANCED MEAL.

I also hate the phrase "I'm on a diet", we are ALL on a diet. . . a diet is what you eat/what sustains you. No matter WHAT you are eating, that is your diet.


As for NYC, while I don't consider it a food destination for the reasons of world class Cuisine, and world famous Chefs, I have always though of it as more of a food destination for all the mom and pop, side street, back alley hole in the wall places that offer some of the more Authentic world cuisines, without having to go to Spain for AMAZING suckling pig, or Luzon for AMAZING lechon, or The Szechuan Provence for a proper hot pot.

While there is certainly plenty of top notch Chefs doing their thin in the Big Apple, I liken that to more of a touristy thing.

Chicago is more of a food destination for me(sorry, BT).
__________________
flickr
TATTRAT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2012, 09:58 PM   #77
The Dude Abides
 
TATTRAT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Bermuda Native in D.C./NoVA
Posts: 5,324
Send a message via AIM to TATTRAT Send a message via Yahoo to TATTRAT Send a message via Skype™ to TATTRAT
Also, all these laws and stuff trying to pass are just silly.

This isn't the forum to get into big brother govt talk, but that being said, there have been people trying to tell others how they should live their lives since the dawn of time, it's nothing new, and it certainly won't be the last time it's tried.

Food is not a drug, it's not a crime, and it is one "vice" that everyone can partake in. It's not guns, cocaine, prostitution, gambling, booze, it's FOOD. it is one cultural thing that EVERYONE can embrace, and enjoy, and besides maybe being guilty of the calories, with moderation, food isn't going to kill you. That goes for no matter WHAT city you are in.
__________________
flickr
TATTRAT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2012, 12:35 AM   #78
Chef Extraordinaire
 
buckytom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: My mountain
Posts: 18,784
Quote:
Originally Posted by TATTRAT View Post
A. Frickin. MEN.

People hwo go on these fad diets don't realize that Sugars, Carbs, Fats, alllllllllllofthat stuff, is PART OF A BALANCED MEAL.

I also hate the phrase "I'm on a diet", we are ALL on a diet. . . a diet is what you eat/what sustains you. No matter WHAT you are eating, that is your diet.mi


As for NYC, while I don't consider it a food destination for the reasons of world class Cuisine, and world famous Chefs, I have always though of it as more of a food destination for all the mom and pop, side street, back alley hole in the wall places that offer some of the more Authentic world cuisines, without having to go to Spain for AMAZING suckling pig, or Luzon for AMAZING lechon, or The Szechuan Provence for a proper hot pot.

While there is certainly plenty of top notch Chefs doing their thin in the Big Apple, I liken that to more of a touristy thing.

Chicago is more of a food destination for me(sorry, BT).
i completely agree. what makes nyc special is the diversity. tourists are actually part of that diversity, in a way.

but it's the little holes in the wall that are the true, sustaining gems here; not the celebrity flash in the pan joints.

the big time restaurants here are like broadway shows. they're great for a short time, but when you're on their 5th change of cast members, it ain't the same. but they're still there, packing the house.
__________________
Kicking around on a piece of ground in your hometown,
waiting for someone or something to show you the way.
Um diddle diddle diddle um diddle ay
Um diddle diddle diddle um diddle ay
buckytom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2012, 09:07 AM   #79
Sous Chef
 
Skittle68's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Duluth, MN
Posts: 985
Quote:
Originally Posted by GLC

I still think it's misdirection. Even if you take the theory as fact. There are obviously differences in how various sugars are metabolized. But to pretend that one form of sugar is a prime mover in obesity is another one of those notions that is popular because it seems to relieve people of direct responsibility. In other words, it is silly to imagine that, had HFCS not come to exist, there would be no problem.

There are only two sugar issues in general obesity. One is the amount consumed of foods containing significant portions of sugars. The second is not really outside that, but it is useful to note the existence of more food choices that have significant sugar portions. The first is essentially eating too much of the wrong things. The second is being presented with too much of the wrong thing.

Rounding, an 8-ounce Coke is about 100 calories. A 32-ounce Coke is then about 400. Any difference between the Coke in them being sweetened with HFCS or with cane sugar is then trivial. The Cokes represent the problem of being presented with too much, 32-ounce fountain drinks being unheard off pre-obesity epidemic. But processed foods frequently use sugar to enhance flavor, to give them zowie taste. Sugar was always used that way, of course. But the number of processed foods being offered and being consumed has grown enormously.

Sugar is not the only problem, certainly, but it aggravates the "big portion" general problem.

But to talk of fat, sugar, fiber, or any other food component as something that is key to effectively mitigating obesity is to ignore, in the most ridiculous way, the single factor without which there would be no problem - eating a lot more food than previously.
I agree with that- after all, I have been exposed to HFCS my whole life, and I'm not overweight because I consume unhealthy foods in moderation. My point was just that I used to believe that sugar and HFCS metabolized the same in your body, and now that I know they don't, I make a point to avoid it more than I would have otherwise. For example, using honey in a recipe that calls for corn syrup. Not saying that just because it causes more weight gain than sugar, consumed in equal amounts, that it is completely to blame :)
__________________
Skittle68 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2012, 09:39 AM   #80
Executive Chef
 
Bolas De Fraile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,193
__________________

__________________
I was married by a judge, I should have asked for a jury.
Bolas De Fraile is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
food, nyc

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



» Discuss Cooking on Facebook

Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:09 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.