Based on something from another forum, I wanted to make sure my understanding of the Glycemic Load (GL) was correct. The way I understand it, it really has no relevance to the Zone diet if you follow the rules. However, it can be useful to understand the concept of Gycemic Index (GI) and why the Zone works. As far as I understand it, GL is simply a multiple of the GI depending on the number of grams of carbs (minus fiber) that you eat. When you follow the rules, the multiple is always the same per block (9 grams). When not following the rules, someone would have a different idea of what a serving size is and tend to over eat. For example (sorry the table comes through funny): ---------------------------------------------------Serving---------Zone-serving--Zone --------------------------------------------GI----Grams-----GL-----Grams-------GL --------Whole-kernel-Rye-bread----41------30--------5--------9------------3.7 --------Rye:------------------------------34------50--------13-------9-----------3.1 --------Porridge:-------------------------58-----250-------13-------9-----------5.2 --------Apple:----------------------------38-----120-------6---------9-----------3.4 --------Apple-Juice:---------------------40-----250------11--------9-----------3.6 --------Spaghetti-(white):--------------38-----180-------13-------9-----------3.4 --------Spaghetti-(whole-meal):------37-----180-------16-------9-----------3.3 --------Watermelon:---------------------72-----120--------4--------9-----------6.5 The Zone GL gives the same result as the GI. In the tables above, Spaghetti looks bad in the GL column, but I’d never eat 180g as a serving. For a full meal I’d eat 4 block or 36 g. Spaghetti has the same impact hormonally as an apple. Of course the Apple has nutrients etc that spaghetti does not, but if I’ve already eaten 10 blocks that day of fruits and vegetables, I’m not really concerned about missing anything. On the other hand, if one just looked at GL, then they would have thought that watermelon was the best thing to eat- however, based on zone rules- it is the worst thing on the list by far. Unless I am completely misunderstanding something, I feel the GL concept should be ignored when choosing foods as it is biased towards improper serving sizes. For the Zone diet- just look at the GI and the GL will automatically take care of itself. Please let me know if I’m missing something on this. Thanks Source of info: http://diabetes.about.com/library/m...dosagi.htm

[quote:f5225523db="stonehousemc"]Based on something from another forum, I wanted to make sure my understanding of the Glycemic Load (GL) was correct. The way I understand it, it really has no relevance to the Zone diet if you follow the rules. Unless I am completely misunderstanding something, I feel the GL concept should be ignored when choosing foods as it is biased towards improper serving sizes. For the Zone diet- just look at the GI and the GL will automatically take care of itself. Please let me know if I’m missing something on this. Thanks[/quote:f5225523db] Yes when comparing one Zone block of spaghetti to one block of apple (1/4 cup vs. 1/2 apple) which are both 9g, the GL is similar. However, where the GL is useful is when comparing foods of similar volume. 1 cup of pasta has a GL in the thousands (depending on the type of pasta), whereas 1 cup of broccoli has a GL of 50. The relevance becomes clear when one can see that it is very easy to eat 1 cup of pasta but very hard to eat the equivalent GL in broccoli (17 cups).

Yes I agree. I may have gone too far to say it is NOT zone useful. It is definitely useful to help understand the concepts and why the zone works. It is not useful in idenitifying which foods you should eat or avoid since it is based more on volume while the zone is based on grams. Essential you need to be careful as many times people say the GL is what is really important. GL values are based on serving sizes that do not apply to the zone. However for the general public- those not following the zone- the GL has more relavence. Thanks for the reply.

Hello, Dr. Sears recently published an article on glycemic load: "Low-Glycemic Load Diets: Impact on Obesity and Chronic Diseases" Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 2003;43(4):357-77 (ISSN: 1040-8398) abstract: Historically, carbohydrates have been thought to play only a minor role in promoting weight gain and in predicting the risk of development of chronic disease. Most of the focus had been on reducing total dietary fat. During the last 20 years, fat intake decreased, while the number of individuals who were overweight or developed a chronic conditions have dramatically increased. Simultaneously, the calories coming from carbohydrate have also increased. Carbohydrates can be classified by their post-prandial glycemic effect, called the glycemic index or glycemic load. Carbohydrates with high glycemic indexes and high glycemic loads produce substantial increases in blood glucose and insulin levels after ingestion. Within a few hours after their consumption, blood sugar levels begin to decline rapidly due to an exaggerated increase in insulin secretion. A profound state of hunger is created. The continued intake of high-glycemic load meals is associated with an increased risk of chronic diseases such as obesity, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes. In this review, the terms glycemic index and glycemic load are defined, coupled with an overview of short- and long-term changes that occur from eating diets of different glycemic indexes and glycemic loads. Finally, practical strategies for how to design low-glycemic-load diets consisting primarily of low-glycemic carbohydrates are provided.

[quote:39a41e1c16="altagal"]Hello, Dr. Sears recently published an article on glycemic load: "Low-Glycemic Load Diets: Impact on Obesity and Chronic Diseases" Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 2003;43(4):357-77 (ISSN: 1040-8398)[/quote:39a41e1c16] Thanks for posting. I am familiar with the study. I think there may have been some misinterpretation re the word "Zoneful" or useful. For advancing nutritional principles to the general population, dietary glyemic load is of great importance due to its implications in a number of dieases and the USDAs reliance on a grain-based pyramid. The point stonehouse was making was that for people who follow Zone princples, the glycemic load takes care of itself. As an example, a four block meal consisting of all unfavorables would have a similar GL to a four block meal of favorables given the same glycemic index since the grams are the same. However, its important to note that very few unfavorables have low GIs, not to mention not nearly enough nutrients, thus the need to concentrate on favorable carbohydrate choices that keep the glyemic load of the meal low.

[quote:f872e224b4][color=red:f872e224b4][b:f872e224b4]Zone meals without measuring[/b:f872e224b4][/color:f872e224b4] For those who think the Zone is too confusing, this chart [color=blue:f872e224b4](**sorry couldn't copy the chart, go to [/color:f872e224b4][color=blue:f872e224b4]zone resources in left column, then to "get started"[/color:f872e224b4]) shows it really is as simple as 1-2-3! With a little practice and desire on your part, the Zone concepts of balance and moderation quickly become automatic and the benefits immediate. In no time, what you put on your plate will be as automatic as looking both ways to cross the street. 1. A typical protein serving fits in the palm of your hand and is no thicker. For most females, this equals 3 oz. of protein, and for most males 4 oz. (Zone snacks usually contain 1 oz. pf protein for both women and men). At first a kitchen scale may be useful to measure the protein which you can soon eyeball at home, restaurants, or on the go. 2. Fill the remainder of your plate with vegetables and some fruits. 3. Don't forget to add a small amount of monounsaturated fat (i.e. olive oil).[/quote:f872e224b4] It really can be quite easy! The "technical jargon" that you read is more for the experienced zoners who enjoy a more in-depth discussion of zone chemistry. The zone can be very basic for beginners, or much more precise for those trying to be. You could say it is the best of both worlds! crumbelina :P

Nice way to put it, Crumbelina! Yes the Zone can be technical, if you want, or easy. It's all what you're interested in trying. But no matter what, it works. I have lost 6 pants sizes in 8 months, am now in a healthy BMI, feel great, have energy and love living in the Zone. It is not hard to learn, if you just try. Muriel, it sounds like you have a pretty negative attitude about this. I would challenge you to try it for a week or two, and then see what you think. And don't try to figure anything out, just follow the meal plan in A Week in the Zone. You can simplify it and say it's all calorie based, but that's not true. If I ate 1100 calories of grapefruit for a month, I'd probably die of malnutrition. The Zone is about healthy food, in healthy portions, in a healthy balance, and at the right time. It's about keeping your body's system running optimally. Would you put 1/2 gas and 1/2 coca cola in your car and expect it to run? And only fill up once a month? No, because it wouldn't work. Then why do we fill our body with unhealthy fuel at random times, and expect it to work? It doesn't. That's why I had an unhealthy BMI in April, felt tired all the time, and was constantly hungry. Now, I have energy, am in a healthy weight range, am still losing weight, and can control my hunger. Please, give it a chance. We're not suggesting you eat all bacon and cabbage or anything. The foods are reasonable, and I've never met a doctor who would say fish, chicken, vegetables and nuts are unhealthy. Remember, there are countless ways to explain the Zone because there are countless different learning styles out there. Find the one that makes sense for you. The Zone works. It is based on solid scientific research on the best way for the human animal to live. There are thousands out there that are showing proof of that every day. We're all here to help and support you, if you are ready to change your life. You can do it! :) Ronica