Talk:Glycemic load

message: Why in the world is there a band of potential glycemic loads with a plus or minus at the end?  Besides being a very unconventional way to write statistics, it's super difficult to read.  A much better alternative would be to write the median or the mean and then report the standard errors.  If nobody corrects this from the original source (which I can't view because it has a paywall), I'm going to just take the simple average of the two bounds and increase the errors to reflect the change. E.g. something like $\mu \pm error$ (mu +- error).
160.39.16.142 (talk) 01:51, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Statistics Reported in the Table?

message: The article states carbohydrate content by weight for boiled white rice to be around 75%. This is utter nonsense. The resulting GL of 50 to 70 is equally out of touch with reality. Checking at http://www.glycemicindex.com for various white rice confirms this. One example: http://www.glycemicindex.com/foodSearch.php?id=268&ak=detail lists one type of white rice, boiled, as GL 16 for 150 grams, i.e 10.5 for 100 grams.
195.18.254.162 (talk) 11:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Numbers for rice in this article just plain wrong?

message: GL corrects GI for the amount of carbohydrate in a food: it assumes that you will eat more of a food that has more carbohydrate.  What is the justification for this?  If I eat 50g of white rice am I likely to eat only 5g of watermelon?  I don't think so.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.232.114 (talk) 06:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Basis for GL

message: The external link GL Diet Information appears to be broken. Not removing the link, just in case the site is simply down. Josh3580 05:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bad links

message: Does anyone know of any links to sites which show the actual curves (blood sugar over time)? It would be helpful to be able to see them.
Geebee2K 19:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Curves? 

message: The watermelon example of how high water content food can influence the GI value seems like it would be useful to look further into.  This is true that one would be getting a lower overall glucose spike from a real portion of watermelon than the GI would lead one to believe (the actual ingestion of carbs per serving is much lower).  However, does this direct mathematical adjustment that is applied by the GL rating, of factoring back in the overall portion size, properly compensate for the actual blood glucose effects?  It is basically factoring back in a gram quanitity that can be vastly different possible non-carb food stuffs, depending on the food.  The non-carb food stuffs contained in various foods can range from being water, fiber, protein, to fat, and all of which may have a different effect on the speed of release of the glucose content. Now, this fact IS already taken into account by the very nature of the GI, but by carrying out the mathematical operation of factoring the portion size back into the equation, are the food's relative effects being properly maintained as a true rule of thumb? In other words, will two identically sized portions of food with the same GL by their nature have the same effect on blood glucose, even if one of these foods is half water, and the other food is half protein or fat?  I already know about the disproportionate insulin response relative to the carbohydrate load of some foods, which the insulin index proposes to deal with, so I am not talking about that, but, instead, strictly the blood glucose. Mmortal03 (talk) 06:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-carb food stuffs?

message: * http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+glycemic+load+validity&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0
--124.78.212.48 (talk) 08:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Validity of the ranking system.... 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Glycemic load. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060623033820/http://www.menialtools.com/GI_calculator.php to http://www.menialtools.com/GI_calculator.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:39, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The GL Table listing for "Apple" is: GI = 38; Carb grams/100 gram serving = "47" ???; GL = 4 (Nominally correct)
The formula for "GL" being:  ( GI x Carb grams ) / 100   would yield a GL of:  ( 38 x 47 ) / 100 = 18  and NOT "4"
The Carb grams in an apple is approximately 14% of the serving size in grams, where 47 grams is nearly *50%* of the 100 gram serving size for the table.  There is a large discrepancy here, and elsewhere in the table as well. 71.50.35.187 (talk) 21:09, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the GL number for apple is in error. The carbohydrate content is 14% and this source confirms 39% as the GI, giving a GL of 5.5. GI sources for apple vary, as this one says 36%, which yields a GL of 5.0. Zefr (talk) 22:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  GL Numbers for "Apples" is Highly Suspect.