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: