Talk:Glycemic index

message: * http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+glycemic+index+validity&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0
--124.78.212.48 (talk) 08:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Validity of the method... Repost.... 

message: I saw an ad on TV for a weight loss program based on the Glycemic Index. If the GI can't be measured accurately, and if it has other problems (as stated in this article), then is this use in guiding a weight loss regimen scientifically valid? No matter what the answer, IMO it needs to be added to this article. David Spector (talk) 21:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misuse? 

message: In reference to:
"In one study,[16] male rats were split into high- and low-GI groups over 18 weeks while mean body weight was maintained. Rats fed the high-GI diet were 71% fatter and had 8% less lean body mass than the low-GI group. Postmeal glycemia and insulin levels were significantly higher, and plasma triglycerides were threefold greater in the high-GI-fed rats. Furthermore, pancreatic islet cells suffered "severely disorganised architecture and extensive fibrosis." "
The category of 'Weight Control' uses this single study.  It looks like a good study, but I think it is important to point out that the quote used is talking about the negative effects of high-GI upon the pancreatic islet cells, not the level of weight gained by the subjects.  It is a great side discovery of this study.  Further expansion of this would be very beneficial to give emphasis and differentiation to the separate points.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scubanate3610 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Weight Control Section 

message: Could a further suggestion for the "Criticisms" section be that glycemic index of certain fruits may be how ripe they are? For example, pears have a high tendency to go from starch to sugar as they ripen; I always thought bananas were high in the glycemic index, but reliable sources have informed that this is only when they are ripe. I am not an expert on this, but any one who does have well-sourced information here could add it. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 15:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Some further suggestions for "Criticisms" section

message: Hi, I've never edited or discussed any wikipedia articles before, but I was just reading about the glycemic index and noticed that the table lists "whole grains" as low GI and "whole wheat products" as medium GI. Wondering exactly what each of these were, I opened up link to both of them, only to find that they link to the same article (entitled Whole Grain, with a message saying it's been redirected from whole wheat if that was the link followed). This seems a little contradictory!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.232.241.108 (talk) 08:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Table of glycemic index

message: Shouldn't this article refer to lucozade and dextrose sweets as things very in glycemic index ratings? They must be as they are used to treat hypoglycemia. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 23:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Need for reference to lucozade

message: I've added requests for references into the table especially for: the source of the
GI ranges given; the source for the GI values of the examples given; and, as an 
example of the issues involved, for the "cranberry juice" entry.  The article's section
regarding Accuracy should be reflected in the article as a whole, and IMO it would be 
a benefit to the article if this section was given much greater prominence and 
expanded.  Overall I think that the article is currently misleading to a "lay" reader as the variability between the values available for individual items is large while the GI range, both overall and within the bands, is relatively small.  The potato entry noted by Eregli bob is another example of the fundamental problems with the utility of the GI LookingGlass (talk) 13:03, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table requires references and Accuracy section needs expanding and given greater prominence 

message: "MGR" is introduced near the end of the article with no reference or adequate explanation. A little searching for "MGR" did not seem to show it as a well known index. It's explained on "The MGR Index Page" https://sites.google.com/site/mgrindex/hot-news-1, and appears be a "novel" measure. If I'm right, I don't think it should be given so much space on this Wikipedia page without any critical discussion. Mikeblyth (talk) 14:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does MGR discussion belong here uncritically? 

message: [10] Reference needs to be updated. I think it should be the following article but I'll let the original contributor insert it. http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/85/6/1545.abstract  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgchemie (talk • contribs) 23:58, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Be bold! and fix it yourself if it needs fixing. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 23:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: I corrected a number of writing problems in the first pararaph; now it needs checking by a subject matter expert. Here are some of the problems I corrected:  
* It's usually better to define the topic first and then describe it.  
* It was unclear why the GI "attempts" to measure the variation.  Wrong verb I think.
* The GI does not measure the variation. Again wrong verb; the measurement was done in a lab.
* GI does not express a variation (A-B), it is more of a ratio (A/B) with respect to glucose. 
The part about carbohydrates needs to be checked by a subject matter expert.  The following questions are still unclear: 1) Does only the carbohydrate component of a food cause a rise in blood sugar level?  2) What does it mean that the GI only takes into account the carbohydrate contained in the food.  When the GIs were determined in a lab, how was this be done and how were the effect of fats etc. accounted for and/or removed from the results?
Hopefully an expert can clear up this confusion. 3dimen (talk) 01:18, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  First paragraph revised, needs expert review 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Glycemic index. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://ziag4.mmb.usyd.edu.au/FMPro?-db=gidb2.fp5&-format=resultsv4a.htm&-lay=tableview&-sortfield=none&-sortorder=descend&FoodName=potato&-max=20&-skip=20&-find=
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.nutrisystem.com/nourishprogram/gichart.cfm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080314012948/http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com:80/White_bread_breakfast_unhealthy/articleshow/2851289.cms to http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/White_bread_breakfast_unhealthy/articleshow/2851289.cms
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I am in the process of making a substantial number of changes to the article. I would be grateful if someone who understands the subject can review them. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 10:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: the article certainly needs a major review; it's grown very "bittily" and doesn't read as a coherent whole. It's also important to source carefully some of the statements. GI values for foods, for example, can vary greatly in different studies. As an example, go here and put in "sweet potato". GI values vary from 44 to 94, depending on the study and the cooking method employed. The average comes out around 60, which justifies the usual description of sweet potatoes as "medium GI", but it is only an average. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:26, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes 

message: This article has a sentence that begins by referring to watermelons, and then has a sentence that tells us that fructose has a low glycemic index. Watermelon and fructose are in different categories  - watermelon is a fruit, fructose is a sugar that is common in fruit. This article would be better if it had a sentence that began by talking about glucose, then a sentence talking about fructose. I suggest this article is amended so that it has an article on glucose, pointing out that glucose is high on the glycemic index, and then a sentence on fructose, telling us that, compared with glucose, fructose is not all that high on the glycemic index. Vorbee (talk) 16:46, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Watermelon and fructose

message: Under the section with the sub-heading "Diabetes" we read that claims have been made that bread and certain forms of potatoes have a higher ranking on the Glycemic Index than glucose, but no citation is given for these claims. Vorbee (talk) 16:41, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations needed

message: I see why you removed the first reference in this edit, but not the second. Can you explain please? Peter coxhead (talk) 12:32, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I didn't scroll far enough. I've restored the second ref. -KH-1 (talk) 02:37, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversion, 8 Nov 2020