Greetings, In Dr. Sears "Mastering the Zone" he has a Glycemic index of foods based on the rate of entry into the bloodstream near the back. On page 355 in the Moderate(40-60) section lists several beans. One of them simply states "Brown beans". Anybody know what a brown bean is? Is it a Pinto Bean? If so, then since black beans are also listed in the moderate section and Dr. sears has them in a good deal of recipes, then Pinto's are zone friendly? thanks,

I am not sure if a brown bean is a pinto or not. But, to answer your question, pintos are favorable. All beans are favorable. You would use the same measurement, 1/4 cup for a block of beans. If you use the Zone points, they count as 3 points per 1/4 cup.

wow, thanks for the reply. I didn't know that all beans were favorable. They sure are welcome break when the fruits and veggies get a little old. :P

Before you start jumping up and down about pinto beans, I must admit that I was incorrect :oops: Many beans are favorable, but I see on the Zone Points list that Pinto beans are NOT favorable. A 1/4 cup serving is counted as 7 points and pinto beans are also considered unfavorable on the block index. Sorry for the confusion. However, many other beans ARE considered favorable carbs.

rats, I like pinto's. Oh well, lots of other beans to choose from. I came up with a really good ham and bean soup that I'm going to post soon. I wonder if the brown beans he's talking about are the little brown beans used for "pork and beans"

The beans frequently used in pork 'n beans are navy beans. Also pea beans (they're white). They look brown because they've been cooked with molasses, brown sugar or both, as well as water. So I wouldn't think these are the brown beans Dr. Sears is referring to! Linda in MA

Hmmmmm......the plot thickens. I hope someone chimes in and reveals what a "brown bean" is. It would be nice to add another bean to the diet.

Did you say that you were wondering about brown beans because of their listing in "Mastering the Zone"? Lots of information has been updated since then, maybe you should just look for the bean that you like and refer to the new/updated block list or Zone Points list.

Are you refering to the block chart on the website? If so, I don't see any brown or white beens that he has listed in the book. If not, does he have a new book out with an updated guide? thanks,

The Zone Points list is printed in "The Anti-Inflammation Zone", and there is a carb block index in there, as well. Also, there is an updated list of Zone Points that was just released in the last newsletter by Barry Sears.

great, thanks.... :o

Hi, I found the new block list on the website. But it didn't have white beans (navy beans) listed in either the favorable or unfavorable. So I guess that's still a mystery.

[quote:e19f5dc025="mthomas"]Hi, I found the new block list on the website. But it didn't have white beans (navy beans) listed in either the favorable or unfavorable. So I guess that's still a mystery.[/quote:e19f5dc025] [color=darkblue:e19f5dc025]If you can find their Glycemic Load value, then that can also tell you where they fall. ([i:e19f5dc025]First number is GL, second is GI[/i:e19f5dc025]) From: http://www.mendosa.com/common%5Ffoods.htm [/color:e19f5dc025] [color=darkred:e19f5dc025]GI: low=1-55 mid=56-69 High=70-100 GL: low=1-10 mid=11-19 High=20 or more[/color:e19f5dc025] [color=darkblue:e19f5dc025] [u:e19f5dc025][b:e19f5dc025]Medium GL, Low GI:[/b:e19f5dc025][/u:e19f5dc025] Apple juice ( 11, 40 ) Bananas ( 12, 52 ) Buckwheat ( 16, 54 ) Fettucine ( 18, 40 ) [b:e19f5dc025]Navy beans ( 12, 38 ) [/b:e19f5dc025] Orange juice ( 12, 50 ) Parboiled rice ( 17, 47 ) Pearled barley ( 11, 25 ) Sourdough wheat bread ( 15, 54 ) [u:e19f5dc025][b:e19f5dc025]Compare to Low GL, Low GI:[/b:e19f5dc025][/u:e19f5dc025] All-bran cereal ( 8, 42 ) Apples ( 6, 38 ) Carrots ( 3, 47 ) Chana dal ( 3, 8 ) Chick peas ( 8, 28 ) Grapes ( 8, 46 ) Green peas ( 3, 48 ) Kidney beans ( 7, 28 ) Nopal ( 0, 7 ) Oranges ( 5, 42 ) Peaches ( 5, 42 ) Peanuts ( 1, 14 ) Pears ( 4, 38 ) Pinto beans ( 10, 39 ) Red lentils ( 5, 26 ) Strawberries ( 1, 40 ) Sweet corn ( 9, 54 ) I haven't had time to look them up; however, here's two other web sites: http://www.nutritiondata.com/ http://health.fortworks.com/ [/color:e19f5dc025]

cool, thanks....

[quote:d15edc1a36="jaydpiii"][quote:d15edc1a36="mthomas"]Hi, I found the new block list on the website. But it didn't have white beans (navy beans) listed in either the favorable or unfavorable. So I guess that's still a mystery.[/quote:d15edc1a36] [color=darkblue:d15edc1a36]If you can find their Glycemic Load value, then that can also tell you where they fall. ([i:d15edc1a36]First number is GL, second is GI[/i:d15edc1a36]) [/color:d15edc1a36][/quote:d15edc1a36] A lot of people seem to get confused about the importance of GL in the Zone diet. GL is meaningless if you are following a zone diet, only the GI is important. GL is the GI times the typical serving size (the total number of carbs will vary greatly). A high GL food with a low GI, just means that the food has a lot of carbs for the volume of food. Dr. Sears points out that these high GL foods are one of the reasons that people get too many carbs --because it is easy to eat a lot of them at one meal. However, if you are following the Zone diet, it does not matter how large or small the volume is, because you always adjust the serving size based on the number of carbs --not based on the suggested serving size on the package. That is to say, we use the point, block, or gram method to keep the total carbs of the meal a constant. The way we keep the GL of the whole meal within a reasonable upper bound is by choosing mostly low GI foods (favorables) and not eating too many blocks in a single meal.

Well, I agree, to a certain extent... If you follow the Zone diet to the fullest extent, and choose low density vegetables, only eat berries, and never use any unfavorable carbs, then you will not have any problems with the GL. However, most zoners don't follow Zone to the nth degree. The Zone guidelines allow for 25-30% of your meal to come from unfavorable carbohydrates. How about a meal like this: 2 cups yellow squash, 1.5 cups green beans, and 1/4 cup mashed potatoes (along with your favorite protein and fat)? We can agree that this adds up to 3 blocks of carbohydrate, but the GL is high--and the zone points count is high--comes out to 20 points for the "3 block meal" (and 20 points is what is recommended for men who normally follow a 4 block meal plan). The GL (and therefore, the Zone Points) can help to make smart decisions regarding the carbs to be chosen for a Zone meal. The green beans in this meal are obviously the real culprit, although one would probably make the assumption that the mashed potatoes would have to be removed. 1.5 cups of green beans carry 9 points on the Points list. Now, replace the green beans with a block of asparagus--4 points, keep the yellow squash and the potatoes, and you have 15 points for the 3 block meal. And, you could replace the potatoes with some spaghetti squash, and then your 3 block meal drops to 12 points. All three of those examples are 3 block meals, but have different GL and Zone Points values.

[quote:afa32cce4a="cranberrycat"] All three of those examples are 3 block meals, but have different GL and Zone Points values.[/quote:afa32cce4a] The point Dennis was making is that what drives the G-Load is the G-index of each carbohydrate because the Zone puts all the carb blocks on an equal footing with respect to serving size (9g each).

I think you are both missing the point here. The Zone block method alone does not put all carb blocks on an equal level with respect to the serving size. If that were true, then the Zone Points system would simply assign a point value of 5 for every block serving of favorable carbohydrate. However, it isn't as simple as that. I will admit that the block method does do a good job of it, I just think that using the GL or Zone Points seems to be a more accurate way of keeping the GI or GL at an acceptable level.

[quote:d001e692a6="cranberrycat"]Zone block method alone does not put all carb blocks on an equal level with respect to the serving size. [/quote:d001e692a6] Here is what we're getting at yet. GL = GI x g (grams per serving size) If all your carbs blocks are 9 grams at each, then g is constant. So what drives the GL if g is constant is the GI. Another way to look at it is the GL being the [u:d001e692a6]quality[/u:d001e692a6] (GI) x the [u:d001e692a6]quantity[/u:d001e692a6] (grams per serving). If using the block system, no matter what carbohydrate you choose, the quantity is always 9 grams. So knowing the GI tells you the GL. To the extent the point system deviates from a system of constant quantity (ie 9g per block) than it appears our differing viewpoints are the result of the type of measurement system we are looking at.

I see what you mean there. That, I can agree with. GI is where it all begins, to determine whether a particular carb can be considered favorable or unfavorable. However, in the "Anti-Inflammation Zone", Dr. Sears goes on to explain that the GI has significant limitations. "It is based on eating 50 grams of carbohydrate of one particular food at a single sitting", as quoted in the book. It doesn't tell you how much a REAL serving of food raises blood sugar levels and also doesn't take into account yoru total carb intake in a given meal or snack. As you both indicate, the block method takes some of this and simplifies it. GL puts it all into more realistic terms, just like the block system does. And, the Zone Points makes the numbers even more realistic, rating some zone favorable foods a bit more "favorable" with a lower point count than other favorable veggies. Going back to Dennis's point in the first place, I don't really believe that you need to pay attention to the GI or the GL. The Zone Diet does all the calculations for you. And, if we have a question about how a particular food rates, we can consult the GI/GL tables for more information. You can either look at the GI and do all the calculations yourself, or you can just look at the GL.

[quote:af9186ecba="cranberrycat"]goes on to explain that the GI has significant limitations. "It is based on eating 50 grams of carbohydrate of one particular food at a single sitting", as quoted in the book. It doesn't tell you how much a REAL serving of food raises blood sugar levels and also doesn't take into account yoru total carb intake in a given meal or snack. [/quote:af9186ecba] No question. Pasta with a low GI does you no good if you are eating a whole plate of it. [quote:af9186ecba]GL puts it all into more realistic terms, just like the block system does. And, the Zone Points makes the numbers even more realistic, rating some zone favorable foods a bit more "favorable" with a lower point count than other favorable veggies. [/quote:af9186ecba] As I mentioned in my edited post above, I think this discussion is dependent on which measurement system being used. If both favorable foods have the same quantity (as they would in the block system), then isn't the GI the only variable left in determining which is a bit "more" favorable? I suppose the point system combines all that for you in ranking the carbohydrates?

That is true, I believe. All the work is done for you. Let me ask you a question, Scott: If all you had to go on was the Zone information, and you had no access to the GI or GL tables, would you assume that you could safely eat 1.5 cups of green beans, seeing them appear in that serving size on the favorable list of the Zone Block Index? However, with a bit more knowledge, given the Zone Points tables (and still leaving the other tables aside), would you not treat green beans a bit differently? I know, in the future, I will definitely limit portions of green beans, knowing that a block of them carries a point value of 9. I will also be looking more cautiously at other higher density carbs. Now, I don't know (didn't take the time to look it up) about the GI/GL of green beans on the tables. How do they rate out there (just curious)?

[quote:6f9ededa95="cranberrycat"]Now, I don't know (didn't take the time to look it up) about the GI/GL of green beans on the tables. How do they rate out there (just curious)?[/quote:6f9ededa95] I looked on several sites, and the answer is not clear. Some sites claim "french beans" are virtually zero GI. While "green peas" are about the same as apples. I could not find "green beans" listed with a GI. If a green bean, is a combination of a green pea in a pod, then I would guess that it would be less than an apple. Of course that does not make any sense if the point system implies that a block of green beans has a higher GI than a block of apple. I have always been suspicious of the block measurements when using volume to measure a food that can be "packed" very differently into a measuring cup. I can have a 2:1 difference in how many green beans I can get into a measuring cup. That is the reason I made up the chart of blocks by grams. The chart says 80g of apple or 200/250g of green beans raw/boiled make a block of carbs. How many grams of fresh/frozen green beans can you fit into 1.5 cups? Of course 9 points could just be a typo...

[quote:1e2a85d6de="cranberrycat"]I see what you mean there. That, I can agree with. GI is where it all begins, to determine whether a particular carb can be considered favorable or unfavorable. However, in the "Anti-Inflammation Zone", Dr. Sears goes on to explain that the GI has significant limitations. "It is based on eating 50 grams of carbohydrate of one particular food at a single sitting", as quoted in the book. It doesn't tell you how much a REAL serving of food raises blood sugar levels and also doesn't take into account yoru total carb intake in a given meal or snack. As you both indicate, the block method takes some of this and simplifies it. GL puts it all into more realistic terms, just like the block system does. And, the Zone Points makes the numbers even more realistic, rating some zone favorable foods a bit more "favorable" with a lower point count than other favorable veggies. Going back to Dennis's point in the first place, I don't really believe that you need to pay attention to the GI or the GL. The Zone Diet does all the calculations for you. And, if we have a question about how a particular food rates, we can consult the GI/GL tables for more information. You can either look at the GI and do all the calculations yourself, or you can just look at the GL.[/quote:1e2a85d6de] The point system tries to take into account the GI as well as the number of carbs to keep the GL of the meal lower. The GL of the meal is complex. Different types of protein have different effects on insulin rise. Different types of carbs have different effects beyond the GI. The GI is the rise in blood sugar, which is related to but not exactly the same as the rise in insulin. Finally, fats can slow the digestion rate which will also have an effect on the whole meal. And somewhere in there is the learned response of the body to release insulin into the blood in response to the anticipated (not real) need --as in artificial sweeteners, or other sweet tastes. Every individual is different. If you can eat 3 blocks of green beans in a meal and stay in the Zone, then it is Ok for you. I know I could. However, 3 blocks of mashed potatoes and I will be out like a light. You can use the GI of your carbs (forget GL as the serving sizes are variable and are not Zone constant) to rank the relative GL of a Zone meal. Add up the number of blocks times each carbs GI for the whole meal. That is the relative GL of that meal. If you have some meals that hold you better than others, give this a try and see how they rank against each other.

[quote:b54111af26="cranberrycat"] ... then the Zone Points system would simply assign a point value of 5 for every block serving of favorable carbohydrate. However, it isn't as simple as that. I will admit that the block method does do a good job of it, I just think that using the GL or Zone Points seems to be a more accurate way of keeping the GI or GL at an acceptable level.[/quote:b54111af26] I have not seen this new "POINTS" system. Which book? Is there any info available on this?

John, the Zone Points is introduced in "The Anti-Inflammation Zone". I am just starting to feel my way through it. I have a tough time with carbs, and I had decided to use the Points system to adjust my carbs. I can get a full 3 blocks of carbs into my meals if I choose the right carbs. In fact, many of my meals use lower density carbs, and my points add up to about 12-13 for a full 3 blocks. Other times, though, I will get to 15 pretty quickly, as I found out one day using green beans in a recipe. I am curious as to why green beans have such a high point value, as does lettuce. A block of lettuce is 10 cups, and is 10 points (a point per cup). We have asked this question as to why a few days ago (was it here or another thread?--too lazy to scroll back!), but have not heard from Dr. Sears Wellness Support. So, I am open to trying it, as a new idea, but I do (admittingly) have a bit of skepticism. Dennis and Scott, I do have a question for you about the GI and GL issue. How does a food get a low-med-high rating from the GI and then have a different rating for the GL? I have seen foods listed one way for GI and another way for GL, all in the same database.

[url]http://news.drsears.com/countslistm...;/url]

Carla, since you posted that link, I would like to ask you if you can explain why green beans and lettuce have such high point values?

[quote:78b1cc896e="cranberrycat"] I do have a question for you about the GI and GL issue. How does a food get a low-med-high rating from the GI and then have a different rating for the GL? I have seen foods listed one way for GI and another way for GL, all in the same database.[/quote:78b1cc896e] That is simple. The GI is measured based on a standard number of carbs --like a Zone block (but usually a lot larger amount). The GL is measured based on a typical "serving size". A serving of Lettuce will be a small GL because, the typical serving size does not have many carbs. A "typical" serving of spaghetti will have a huge number of carbs, so the GL will be a much higher number. That is one of the reasons you can tolerate higher GI carbs if you are eating a snack or small meals, than you can with a large meal --the GL of a large 6 block meal with low GI carbs will still be a high GL meal. A catch 22 is that with a large meal, you can't eat the volume of low GI foods, so you would have to eat higher GI foods just to get it all down --a double whammy! :( I do fine with 1, 2, or 3 block meals. Even a 4 block that is mostly low GI carbs (like raw veggies) will give me a bit of a insulin spike that I can feel later. Dr. Sears recommended meal sizes are just about pushed as far as most people can go. Smaller meals are more ideal when possible.

Dennis, So, I was hoping you would say that. Leads me into my point I was trying to make. Your statement was that you don't think knowing the GL was important, as long as we have the GI. I agree, you can always calculate out the GL from the GI based on the actual # grams carb consumed. And, you also said that you rely on the blocks to give you this, because Dr. Sears has already done the work for you--and we all know that you had developed your "bricks" off of the blocks, using weight measurements rather than volume measurements. I think that you basically have told us that you rely on the food block list for your favorable block choices--of course, individualized (I hope I summed this up correctly, please let me know if I didn't). I took some quotes from your earlier post, which sparked me to get going on this conversation in the first place. I put your quotes in green. [color=green:129ad74d23]"A lot of people seem to get confused about the importance of GL in the Zone diet. GL is meaningless if you are following a zone diet, only the GI is important."[/color:129ad74d23] I don't really agree with this statement, because a food can have a high GI but a lower GL based on the actual serving size. So, high GI foods can be found on the food block list. [color=green:129ad74d23]"However, if you are following the Zone diet, it does not matter how large or small the volume is, because you always adjust the serving size based on the number of carbs --not based on the suggested serving size on the package. That is to say, we use the point, block, or gram method to keep the total carbs of the meal a constant."[/color:129ad74d23] The GL of a meal may differ dramatically, from one counting system to another. I pointed this out by giving you the various meal examples earlier in this thread. Getting 27 carbs per meal is not going to guarantee that the meal will keep you in the Zone. Also, choosing 3 blocks of carb won't guarantee this, either, unless you consider more favorable food choices. The block guide is a good start, but there can still be differences in the GI and GL within this list. Not all favorables are low GI (although, I would agree that there will probably not be any unfavorables with low GI ratings, either). The Zone Points takes the block list a little further; takes the favorables and assigns them points as to "how favorable they really are". And, although I do not know what all goes into how they figured the point values, it seems to be based on the GL, not the GI. So, I guess my point is simply this: The GL is not meaningless when following the Zone Diet. The GL is very important to the development of the Zone Block list and further development of the Points list.

[quote:2f44e43a73="cranberrycat"](although, I would agree that there will probably not be any unfavorables with low GI ratings, either). [/quote:2f44e43a73] [color=darkred:2f44e43a73]Just a little GI-FYI (my two cents, lol!) :) Fructose and agave (both used as sweeteners in recipes in the Zone books) happen to be a couple of low GI foods I can think of off the top of my head which are unfavorable carbs. [/color:2f44e43a73]

Sue, your opinion is worth much more than 2 cents, and I truly appreciate that! I guess that might just even help out more, that you can't truly depend solely on the GI alone, as the GL will differ, and a low GI food CAN be unfavorable!

[quote:974382fc14="cranberrycat"]Let me ask you a question, Scott: If all you had to go on was the Zone information, and you had no access to the GI or GL tables, would you assume that you could safely eat 1.5 cups of green beans, seeing them appear in that serving size on the favorable list of the Zone Block Index? However, with a bit more knowledge, given the Zone Points tables (and still leaving the other tables aside), would you not treat green beans a bit differently? I know, in the future, I will definitely limit portions of green beans, knowing that a block of them carries a point value of 9. I will also be looking more cautiously at other higher density carbs. [/quote:974382fc14] I think you aleady know the answer to this :wink: If using blocks (and favorable vs. unfavorable lists), then you need a knowledge of GI in order to choose carb blocks amongst favorables if shooting for a specific GL. Alternatively, you can use points.

[quote:ca2a9dd6eb="cranberrycat"] [color=green:ca2a9dd6eb]"A lot of people seem to get confused about the importance of GL in the Zone diet. GL is meaningless if you are following a zone diet, only the GI is important."[/color:ca2a9dd6eb] I don't really agree with this statement, because a food can have a high GI but a lower GL based on the actual serving size. So, high GI foods can be found on the food block list. [/quote:ca2a9dd6eb] Depends on how we are counting. For blocks, at 9g per carb serving a higher GI food will always have a higher GL (GL = GI x g) [quote:ca2a9dd6eb] The GL of a meal may differ dramatically, from one counting system to another. [/quote:ca2a9dd6eb] From my understanding of the points method, I concur.

[quote:d3e72ed784="Scott"] Depends on how we are counting. For blocks, at 9g per carb serving a higher GI food will always have a higher GL (GL = GI x g)[/quote:d3e72ed784] Note necessarily true. Example would be carrots. Depends on the source that you are using, of course, but carrots have a higher GI than GL, which is the reason why they were changed from unfavorable to favorable.

[quote:972cff74b9="cranberrycat"]Note necessarily true. Example would be carrots. Depends on the source that you are using, of course, but carrots have a higher GI than GL, which is the reason why they were changed from unfavorable to favorable.[/quote:972cff74b9] When I said the higher GI having higher GL, I am speaking relative to other carbohydrates of identical serving size (as is the case using blocks).

[quote:e4b46c432d="Slknorr"][quote:e4b46c432d="cranberrycat"](although, I would agree that there will probably not be any unfavorables with low GI ratings, either). [/quote:e4b46c432d] [color=darkred:e4b46c432d]Just a little GI-FYI (my two cents, lol!) :) Fructose and agave (both used as sweeteners in recipes in the Zone books) happen to be a couple of low GI foods I can think of off the top of my head which are unfavorable carbs. [/color:e4b46c432d][/quote:e4b46c432d] Sue, You are right, not all unfavorable carbs are due to a high GI. It can also be unfavorable for other reasons --like empty calories (no fiber, vitamins, minerals, etc.) Lots of variables to consider.

[quote:6e89f3f7f9="cranberrycat"][quote:6e89f3f7f9="Scott"] Depends on how we are counting. For blocks, at 9g per carb serving a higher GI food will always have a higher GL (GL = GI x g)[/quote:6e89f3f7f9] Note necessarily true. Example would be carrots. Depends on the source that you are using, of course, but carrots have a higher GI than GL, which is the reason why they were changed from unfavorable to favorable.[/quote:6e89f3f7f9] Carrots were given a high GI in error some years ago, and not all web sources have corrected their numbers yet. So that is not a valid example. Also you can not mix the GI from one source with the GL from another source. GI is a relative number and not all sources use the same scale factor. You have to compare each sites numbers with a common food (like apples) to get the conversion scale factor between sites. That is why I do not quote actual numbers, but state the GI as about the same as a food that everyone is familiar with --like apples.

[quote:c066b9bb0e="gofish"] Carrots were given a high GI in error some years ago, and not all web sources have corrected their numbers yet. So that is not a valid example. Also you can not mix the GI from one source with the GL from another source. GI is a relative number and not all sources use the same scale factor. You have to compare each sites numbers with a common food (like apples) to get the conversion scale factor between sites. That is why I do not quote actual numbers, but state the GI as about the same as a food that everyone is familiar with --like apples.[/quote:c066b9bb0e] I wasn't using different sources when I pulled up my information. I only use one source when comparing GI and GL. I certainly do not go to one site for GI and another for GL! I was merely pointing out that my source said that the GI was high, but realizing that other lists may be different, I felt it was important to state it that way. Sorry if I confused you. If you know of a site that lists carrots with a lower GI, I would like to know what your source of information is. I would like to be able to use the most current information. However, I had understood that the reason why carrots were changed was because the GL was lower, despite the higher GI rating. But, maybe I was mistaken. I agree, though, that this is all relative, and the actual number means nothing if the food doesn't work well for you. That is probably why carrots don't work well for me--because apples don't work well, either!

[quote:b56ac4635f="mthomas"]Greetings, In Dr. Sears "Mastering the Zone" he has a Glycemic index of foods based on the rate of entry into the bloodstream near the back. On page 355 in the Moderate(40-60) section lists several beans. One of them simply states "Brown beans". Anybody know what a brown bean is? Is it a Pinto Bean? If so, then since black beans are also listed in the moderate section and Dr. sears has them in a good deal of recipes, then Pinto's are zone friendly? thanks,[/quote:b56ac4635f] Hey, Going back to the original topic of conversation, I found "brown beans" in a Glycemic index database that I refer to from time to time. They are listed as a "brown bean" with "South Africa" in parentheses. So, it does seem to be a different bean than a pinto bean. Interestingly, using the same database, I also saw pinto beans listed. They have a GI listed, but no GL (unlike other beans on the list). The GI values are very similar to other beans, so I don't know why they are considered unfavorable carbs. So, if you are interested in eating Pinto's, I would continue to call them unfavorable as per Dr. Sear's definition. However, that does not mean that you must eliminate them altogether. You can eat them as long as it is no more than one block of your meal, and you surround them with lots of other favorables.

[quote:44df59f7b4="gofish"] Carrots were given a high GI in error some years ago, and not all web sources have corrected their numbers yet. So that is not a valid example. Also you can not mix the GI from one source with the GL from another source. [/quote:44df59f7b4] Dennis, I have done some further reading (although I don't have my Zone Book with me today). If I recall correctly, carrots were changed from unfavorable to favorable because of the overall carb content. I read this on the Glycemic Index web site: [color=red:44df59f7b4]Q: Some vegetables appear to have a high GI. Does this mean a person with diabetes should avoid eating them? A: Definitely not, because, unlike potatoes and cereal products, these vegetables are very low in carbohydrate. So, despite their high GI, their glycemic load is low.[/color:44df59f7b4] Now, this would lead me to believe that there are probably other veggies besides carrots that fall into the same trap, being listed as a high GI, although the GL rating is low (however, I have not actually searched out this database to find another example). What do you use (if any) for your source of GI index?

[quote:9a83c1bf5c="cranberrycat"][quote:9a83c1bf5c="gofish"] Carrots were given a high GI in error some years ago, and not all web sources have corrected their numbers yet. So that is not a valid example. Also you can not mix the GI from one source with the GL from another source. [/quote:9a83c1bf5c] Dennis, I have done some further reading (although I don't have my Zone Book with me today). If I recall correctly, carrots were changed from unfavorable to favorable because of the overall carb content. I read this on the Glycemic Index web site: [/quote:9a83c1bf5c] That is not the reason. It was an early measurement error that got propagated through all the databases. They had carrot GI as about like sucrose. The actual GI of raw carrot is about the same as raw apple. The GL of 9g carb of carrot is the same as 9g carb of apple. However, you will have to eat 3 times as many TOTAL grams of carrot as apple to get the same GL. Search my earlier posts on these forums about "eat your carrots". [quote:9a83c1bf5c] What do you use (if any) for your source of GI index?[/quote:9a83c1bf5c] I use whatever shows up on a google search of: GI GL index. 3 or 4 sites usually show up on the first page. At some point I might have to amend my Bricks guide to have a rating of relative GI of the favorable carbs (perhaps 1-5 on a scale of 10). Problem is that not all the foods have been tested yet.

Well, I found the information on the high GI/lower GL of carrots on www.glycemicindex.com. I did review your thread on "eat your carrots" and I see you got your information from Mendosa. I have seen some of his work, as well. Actually, I was about to read something that he had written on the subject of carrots, but I ran out of time at work and had to get home. So, it is interesting that we actually are frequenting similar sites to get our information! Great minds think alike, you know. But, as I was searching out your post, I ran into one of Sue's posts on carrots: Orange Alert: Clearing Up Carrot Confusion Diets that solely rely on the Glycemic Index (GI) often caution against carrots, because of the seemingly high rate at which their carb content enters the bloodstream. But where do carrots fall in the Zone? According to Dr. Sears, while carrots have a relatively high glycemic index, the actual amount of carbs they contain is low — so they are now considered a favorable carb. And carrots have always been a nutritional powerhouse, with rich stores of beta-carotene and other essential nutrients. So you don't have to exclude carrots from your Zone diet.. So, who does one believe? Sears or Mendosa? Dennis, the reason why I am making such a point on this is because of your statement that you made earlier. I agree with your statement to a point, because we both agree that all of this is based on the glycemic index. The glycemic index is how we get to the glycemic load, and Sears uses the [b:d96d18b7d8]glycemic load[/b:d96d18b7d8] to help determine if a food is favorable or not (however, I am led to believe that there is more to this than just the GL, but I do not know what it might be). Your statement led me to believe that you only cared about using GI, and that the GL was not important, as you could just calculate that out based on the grams of carb consumed. Also, your statement led me to believe that you didn't care about the GL because Sears has already done this work for you by developing the food block guide. Which led me to say that not all favorables are created equally, either, based on the Zone Counts guide (which I believe is also based on the GL). To make this a little easier to "digest", maybe we can agree on this: if we don't have a food listed on a food block guide (or zone points), then we can use the GI and/or GL lists to help us determine for ourselves if a food is favorable or not. If using the GI, one must multiply the GI by the actual grams of carb consumed to get the GL, OR one may use the GL tables to find this information easily. The actual value of the the GI or GL is not important; it is about putting foods in a particular category or range. Another point that needs to be considered is that the foods were tested while consumed alone. The GL may be lowered if the food is consumed with protein and fat. I am not suggesting that protein and fat make unfavorable foods more favorable, just that these additions will moderate the digestion a bit more.

Dennis, I felt the need to go back and review this entire thread to see where we got off track. John actually was the one who posted about using GL to help determine where a particular food falls, because mthomas was trying to find a suitable bean. If you review his post, you can see my point right there. Not all low GI foods will be considered favorable. And, this information does come from Mendosa, as well. I see he has carrots on his list, and they are listed as you said. However, interesting to see that pinto beans are listed as low GI, but yet they are considered unfavorable by Sears. I wonder what database he uses? I had originally thought that pintos were favorable, until I re-checked my zone block list. However, if they are low GI, I wonder why they are unfavorable? Your argument was about the GI being more important to consider than the GL. But, as you can see, that statement can't be completely true if some low GI foods are considered unfavorable carbs by Sears (that is, unless he uses other criteria besides GL to determine the favorable status). However, something we can probably both agree on: none of these numbers actually matter anyway, only one thing really matters: it is how well these foods work for the individual. If a favorable food does not keep one in the zone, then for that individual, it is unfavorable!

One of the reasons a low GI food will be unfavorable is its carbohydrate density (amount of grams per serving). Let's take two hypothetical foods with a GI of 50, the favorable where it takes 3 cups to make a block (9g), the unfavorable, 1/4 cup. As Dennis points out 3 [i:3aafebbd66]blocks[/i:3aafebbd66] of both would have a GL of 450; however, although 3 cups of the favorable would have a GL of 450, the same[i:3aafebbd66] volume [/i:3aafebbd66] (ie 3 cups) of the unfavorable has a GL of 3,600. (36g per cup)

Scott: On your first food, you can eat 3 cups of it for a block, or 9 cups for 3 blocks. On your second food, you can eat 1/4 cup for a block, and 3/4 cup for 3 blocks. Obviously, in order to rate these foods fairly, you need to measure it the same. However, I suppose that you are just trying to illustrate the point that if you ate the same volume of food, the GL of the second food would be out of the roof. And, that I can agree on. Now, I think your were responding to my reflection on the pinto beans. As I pointed out, pintos are unfavorable carbohydrate (although I made the mistake of calling them favorable in my earlier post). However, the table that was shared showed pintos to be low glycemic. Yes, I understand that they are a higher density. But, aren't other beans ALSO higher density? A block of pintos is 9 grams of carb, just like a block of black beans and a block of garbanzo beans. However, pintos got the unfavorable label, but other beans did not. We measure them all out the same, 1/4 cup per block.

[quote:1723b0c69e="cranberrycat"] However, I suppose that you are just trying to illustrate the point that if you ate the same volume of food, the GL of the second food would be out of the roof. [/quote:1723b0c69e] Precisely. If one doesn't understand the amount of carbohydrate grams in a given serving, then people don't think twice about having a cup or two of pasta vs. a cup or two of broccoli. This may also explain some of the inconsistencies researchers are seeing with using the G-index alone as a predictor of CVD/obesity risk. [quote:1723b0c69e] Yes, I understand that they are a higher density. But, aren't other beans ALSO higher density? A block of pintos is 9 grams of carb, just like a block of black beans and a block of garbanzo beans. However, pintos got the unfavorable label, but other beans did not. [/quote:1723b0c69e] Unless there is a difference in GI, that is certainly interesting.

[quote:6be5676246="Scott"][quote:6be5676246="cranberrycat"] However, I suppose that you are just trying to illustrate the point that if you ate the same volume of food, the GL of the second food would be out of the roof. [/quote:6be5676246] Precisely. If one doesn't understand the amount of carbohydrate grams in a given serving, then people don't think twice about having a cup or two of pasta vs. a cup or two of broccoli. This may also explain some of the inconsistencies researchers are seeing with using the G-index alone as a predictor of CVD/obesity risk. [quote:6be5676246] Yes, I understand that they are a higher density. But, aren't other beans ALSO higher density? A block of pintos is 9 grams of carb, just like a block of black beans and a block of garbanzo beans. However, pintos got the unfavorable label, but other beans did not. [/quote:6be5676246] That is certainly interesting.[/quote:6be5676246] [color=darkred:6be5676246]I don't think the favorable /unfavorable status is always solely based on GI/GL. Take oats for instance. Although they are on the dense side, Dr. Sears has chosen to designate oate in their least processed forms (groats andsteel cut) as being favorable for the Zone because they provide a dietary source of small amounts of GLA. Sesame oil is another example of a slight exception. While not predominantly a monounsaturated fat, it is considered to be a very good source of fat for the Zone for other properties it possesses. In the book "Top 100 Zone Foods" Dr. Sears goes into more detail about some of the factors considered in determining which foods are best for the Zone. For the purposes of that specific book, he rates foods using smilie faces. Interestingly, kidney beans, black beans, lentils and canellini beans receive differing amounts of smilie faces in the book, but are all, being on the list of top 100 foods for the Zone, are considered some of the best carbs to use for the Zone.[/color:6be5676246]

According to Mendosa's web site, pinto beans have a GI rating of 39, but if you multiply by 9 grams of carb, it is still in a low GL range. Kidney beans and Garbanzo beans have a GI of 28. So, I again must state that there must be more to it than just the GI of a food, which was the point I have been trying to make. And, Sue has also just stated that very well.

[quote:cac298e1ac="cranberrycat"]So, I again must state that there must be more to it than just the GI of a food,[/quote:cac298e1ac] There's no question that the favorable/unfavorable breakdown is more than GI--I believe Dennis mentioned earlier the presence of certain nutrients or the absence thereof. [quote:cac298e1ac="dennis"] Sue, You are right, not all unfavorable carbs are due to a high GI. It can also be unfavorable for other reasons --like empty calories (no fiber, vitamins, minerals, etc.) Lots of variables to consider.[/quote:cac298e1ac] _________________ [quote:cac298e1ac] Sue has also just stated that very well.[/quote:cac298e1ac] As usual. :wink:

[color=darkred:fbfa03d353]Thanks guys. :) [/color:fbfa03d353]

[quote:2a19518626="cranberrycat"]According to Mendosa's web site, pinto beans have a GI rating of 39, but if you multiply by 9 grams of carb, it is still in a low GL range. Kidney beans and Garbanzo beans have a GI of 28. So, I again must state that there must be more to it than just the GI of a food, which was the point I have been trying to make. And, Sue has also just stated that very well.[/quote:2a19518626] Well, 39 is a LOT higher GI rating than 28. If I were going to pick a "favorable" bean, I would choose kidney beans over pinto beans any day. That should not stop one from using pinto beans though, if it combines into a whole meal in a favorable way. I eat black eyed peas with a lot of broccoli and tomato sauce --add soy crumbles and call it sloppy broccoli :D Don't have a problem with it. Find what works for you and enjoy! Regarding the confusing message about carrots: The carrots were obviously working even though the were labeled with a (wrong) high GI. All those confusing messages were just everyone reaching for possible reasons why they worked with that high GI number. They did not realize at the time that the answer was as simple as the GI wasn't really that high!

[quote:7108451075="gofish"] Well, 39 is a LOT higher GI rating than 28. If I were going to pick a "favorable" bean, I would choose kidney beans over pinto beans any day. That should not stop one from using pinto beans though, if it combines into a whole meal in a favorable way. Regarding the confusing message about carrots: The carrots were obviously working even though the were labeled with a (wrong) high GI. All those confusing messages were just everyone reaching for possible reasons why they worked with that high GI number. They did not realize at the time that the answer was as simple as the GI wasn't really that high![/quote:7108451075] Dennis, I don't consider 39 to be "a LOT higher" than 28, when everything is all on a scale between 0-100. And, it is all relative, anyway. The GI rating is still in the low range, and when you take the time to multiply the GI by the amt of grams consumed, you still come out with a low GL rating. Overall, the important thing is how do they work for the individual. The GI, as you know, is expressed as an average based on testing of a number of people. So, as an individual, one may tolerate them better or worse than the "average", anyway. So, the actual number is really not that important, it is the range that they are in, and how well they keep an individual in the Zone with steady insulin levels. :wink: The entire purpose of this thread was to get back to the pinto bean, though. So, I hope that we have helped mthomas make a rational decision on pintos, since he is the one who likes them so much. Me, I enjoy black beans just as well, and since we know for sure that they are favorable and low GI/GL, I will just stick with them! Finally, on the carrots: I didn't realize that they would cause so much debate, but I suppose I will accept that as a fact. However, are you stating this fact based on Mendosa's report, or have others said the same thing about carrots? Because, I had never heard this reported as a "mistake" until you brought it up. Sears obviously didn't realize that it was a "mistake", and still believes that carrots are high GI and low GL, as per his newsletter tip. Oh, and by the way, I had also brought up green beans and lettuce in this discussion. Can anyone comment on why they have such high zone point values? Perhaps I will pick up the phone and call someone next week, if the Zone Wellness moderators don't get back to us on that! Actually, maybe I shoud start a new thread on that so this topic won't be buried under the bean topic.

[quote="cranberrycat"][quote:bd2f319aa7="gofish"] Well, 39 is a LOT higher GI rating than 28. If I were going to pick a "favorable" bean, I would choose kidney beans over pinto beans any day. That should not stop one from using pinto beans though, if it combines into a whole meal in a favorable way. Regarding the confusing message about carrots: The carrots were obviously working even though the were labeled with a (wrong) high GI. All those confusing messages were just everyone reaching for possible reasons why they worked with that high GI number. They did not realize at the time that the answer was as simple as the GI wasn't really that high![/quote:bd2f319aa7] The useful range of GIs for favorable carbs is 10-50, so 10 points is significant. Raw carrot GI is 16 (erroronious result is 91 done in 1981) Boiled carrot GI is 41 SmartZone bars range from 14-23 depending on flavor Peach 28-35 Beans 20-55

[quote="gofish"][quote:b017030e50="cranberrycat"][quote:b017030e50="gofish"] Well, 39 is a LOT higher GI rating than 28. If I were going to pick a "favorable" bean, I would choose kidney beans over pinto beans any day. That should not stop one from using pinto beans though, if it combines into a whole meal in a favorable way. Regarding the confusing message about carrots: The carrots were obviously working even though the were labeled with a (wrong) high GI. All those confusing messages were just everyone reaching for possible reasons why they worked with that high GI number. They did not realize at the time that the answer was as simple as the GI wasn't really that high![/quote:b017030e50] The useful range of GIs for favorable carbs is 10-50, so 10 points is significant. Raw carrot GI is 16 (erroronious result is 91 done in 1981) Boiled carrot GI is 41 SmartZone bars range from 14-23 depending on flavor Peach 28-35 Beans 20-55[/quote:b017030e50] Well, I don't entirely agree with your train of thought here. The range is based on percentage, and the scale is 0-100. Within the 0-55 range, yes--there is a significant difference. However, this is still a low GI range, and the value of 39 is no even close to the upper range, if you want to use your statistics. 39 is 11 more than 28 (the GI value of the "favorable bean"). But, 55 (the upper edge of the low GI category) is 11 more than the pinto beans. So, pintos are still well within the low GI category. Personally, though, if kidney beans work better for you than pintos, then that is a result of how your body handles the carb. Incidently, using Mendosa's data, strawberries have a higher GI than the pinto beans, but we view strawberries as a favorable food with a GI of 40. Also, Mendosa rates apples as 38, compared with strawberries at 40. And, I also see sweet corn is listed with a GI of 54. And, all of these foods will come out with a low GL when you look at the table or do the math yourself.

[quote:7b0f9e8ec6="cranberrycat"]Well, I don't entirely agree with your train of thought here. The range is based on percentage, and the scale is 0-100. Within the 0-55 range, yes--there is a significant difference. However, this is still a low GI range, and the value of 39 is no even close to the upper range, if you want to use your statistics. 39 is 11 more than 28 (the GI value of the "favorable bean"). But, 55 (the upper edge of the low GI category) is 11 more than the pinto beans. So, pintos are still well within the low GI category. Personally, though, if kidney beans work better for you than pintos, then that is a result of how your body handles the carb. Incidently, using Mendosa's data, strawberries have a higher GI than the pinto beans, but we view strawberries as a favorable food with a GI of 40. Also, Mendosa rates apples as 38, compared with strawberries at 40. And, I also see sweet corn is listed with a GI of 54. And, all of these foods will come out with a low GL when you look at the table or do the math yourself.[/quote:7b0f9e8ec6] Sorry if my train of thought was not clear. I stayed up late to write a very long reply with lots of research, only to get bumped off the forum when I hit Submit. I lost everything, and it was way past bedtime. So I just put a few notes in so that you could beat me up. :lol: The point I was going to make was that I can not find any reasonable consistency from site to site or even within some single sites as to the GI of common foods. The same food can vary from very low to high. I think the state of GI testing is not yet good enough to base food choices other than on a very crude relative basis. Your reply makes that point as well. Common sense has to prevail. One thing was clear as a pattern though. Cooking any vegetable until it is VERY well done, increases its GI substantially --on the order of double. Also, since fruits and many beans are at the high end of the favorable carbs, they should be moderated with other low GI foods for large meals. Now I am finished with this thread. We have cooked the beans to death and their GI is rising. :lol:

Dennis, Sorry that your post didn't work out. But, I think that you got the point that I was trying to convey. And, my goal was not to "beat you up", merely to have a reasonable discussion. :) You are a very intelligent member of this board, and I imagine you probably had something very interesting to say in your post that was wiped out! That is exactly the problem with using the GI, there is no "standard" measure, there seems to be so many differences from one site to another, and within the data of one site. Using the GI is really only useful to make some intelligent decisions on choosing foods that have not been tagged with favorable/unfavorable. And, it sounds like we can finally agree on that one! And, today, for lunch, in honor of our discussion, I am having a concoction that I cooked up last night: chicken, green peppers, salsa, and BLACK BEANS. Since the jury is still out on the pintos, I will just avoid them and use the black beans. 8)