I have opened a can of blackeye peas and then could not find them on the list. They remind me of black beans.

This is what the label says: Seasoned Southern Style Blackeye Peas
Serving: 1/2 cup.
Calories 100.
Total Fat .5g - 0 sat, 0 trans
Total Carbohydrate 17 g, Dietary fiber 3g, Sugars 2g
Protein 6g.

My guess is the zone serving size should be 1/4 cup.
Would these be in the best, better, good, unfavorable group?

The next time I will look for plain blackeye peas.
Thanks, Sheryl

You are correct 1/4C unfavorable.

This is something that I have never quite understood regarding the science behind the zone food guide and what is favorable/unfavorable.

I have read that carbohydrates were labeled "favorable vs. unfavorable" based on calculations that determine glycemic load.

Having said that, I looked on www.nutrtiondata.com to find the glycemic load for black-eyed peas vs. black beans. Interesting, they both have the same glycemic load! So, why is one favorable while the other is unfavorable?

Maybe techie has some knowledge/research that can be shared to unravel the mystery? I know we have discussed this in the forums before, but information has always been shared privately from email contacts, and it would be nice to have some definitive information posted on the website.

Thanks!

There is a difference between Glycemic Index and Glycemice load. Maybe you saw their Glycemic Index? I didn't think many places calculate Glycemic Load.

I look up glycemic load on www.nutritiondata.com. They get their information from the same GI/GL tables that Mendota uses.

I know I have researched this in the past, have sent various emails but no one can really explain why one bean/legume is favorable when another is not...

Just thought it would be interesting conversation, since the topic was brought up by someone who probably wasn't around the forums when this has been discussed in the past. And, with the expertise from Tech Support (and the opportunity to tap into the knowledge base from Zone Labs), I am hoping that more information can be posted on the subject.

I am away for the weekend, but when I get home, I will take a look at some of the past information that I have received, maybe compile a table to compare some of the nutrition information (total carb, fiber, GL).

You can eat anything in the Zone, some will be more favorable than others. The lower the GL the more you get to eat.

The lower density the better, the more something is processed the higher the GL you will find it explained on our science site, here...

http://www.drsears.com/ArticlePrevi...fault.aspx

<div class='NTForums_Quote'>Posted By Tech Support on 08/30/2010 10:58 AM

You can eat anything in the Zone, just varing amounts depending on the GL. you will find it explained on our science site, here is the link
http://www.drsears.com/ArticlePrevi...t;/div>

OK, but that does not explain why different types of beans/legumes with the same glycemic load differ in terms of favorable/unfavorable status.

Yes, nothing is banned from the Zone, but the Food Guide determines the favorability depending on glycemic load, and in order to achieve best results in the Zone, one should eat primarily favorable carbs and limit/moderate use of unfavorable carbs to no more than 25% of a meal (and less is best).

Cran, you might gain more insight from reading "Top 100 Zone Foods". The book explains additional considerations that play a part in determining which foods are best for the Zone, antioxidant capacity and amount of soluble fiber to name a couple. The book also rates the top 100 foods for the Zone using three categories. You'll find that no legumes are in the top category, some are in the middle category, and others fall into the third category which is the lesser but still very good category of best Zone foods.

Well, that might be a good source, but we are not comparing legumes to other foods. We are comparing one legume to another. I would be curious to know which legumes were discussed in the book.

In addition, this discussion is not just for my benefit, it is for the benefit of all. Perhaps you can be a bit more specific, especially for those who don't have access to the book?

I was looking back at some of the content in some emails that I exchanged with ZoneLabs staff back in 2009 when I had posted a question to the live chat (is that still around, or is it gone?).

Actually, what was said in the emails is that the glycemic load primarily dictates whether a carb is favorable/unfavorable. I think we were talking about black beans vs. pintos at the time, and one point was brought up that pintos break down further with cooking, which makes them more easily digestible and therefore the glycemic load might be higher. Further reading into my emails, Sear primarily used data from 1995 to build the list, most of the data coming from Mendosa and his database. Hmmm, 1995 seems like a lifetime ago!

Here's another point to consider, one which I had pointed out during my email transaction: beans are listed as "low density" favorable. However, as Sue points out (and as I recall in my previous readings), beans are really more of a "moderate density" carb. So, depending on where the bean may fall, they could be sitting close to the line of moderate/high (despite the fact that I don't see this reflected in the GL database). Seems confusing to me that they are listed as low density when they are not... maybe the website needs to be updated? LOL--how many times have we talked about carrots, and yet carrots STILL show up as unfavorable!?1

To Cran, I am indeed comparing legumes to legumes. The legumes discussed in "Top 100 Zone Foods" are black beans, chick peas, kidney beans, lentils, navy beans and peanuts.



To Everyone, my rule of thumb for carbohydrates, especially when it comes to fruit, root veggies and legumes, is to consider a food to be unfavorable carbohydrate if it doesn't appear on the list of favorable carbohydrates. It's much better to err on the side of calling a favorable carbohydrate an unfavorable, than the other way around.

____________________________


sue

Lost 100 lbs 15 yrs ago, off BP meds, thanks to the Zone diet and Zone fish oil. ZoneFast 1-2-3 is the best!

Consultant of Zone Labs

Certified Zone Affiliate

View my Zone Fast 1-2-3 meal photos here: http://s531.photobucket.com/albums/...3%20Meals/

View my classic Zone meal photos here: http://s531.photobucket.com/albums/...4/?start=0

Well, Sue, I would agree with you on that, if the information that is posted were accurate (which it isn't). The favorable legumes are listed as "low density" while the unfavorable legumes are high density, and yet their glycemic loads are very similar. Seems like a huge rift between them, while in reality there is probably not a lot of difference.

My source states black beans have a GL of 5 while blackeyed peas are 16, I hope that helps you Cranberry. There are many different sources where you could find conflicting information we utilize mendosa.com. Yes the live chat is no longer available.

Thanks, tech. I don't know if that helps me, but perhaps it will help Sheryl, who posted the question.

As I stated before, I used www.nutritiondata.com. The information from their website comes from the data generated in Sydney, Australia, and much of the information is also posted on www.glycemicindex.com.

So, as I was looking at black beans and black-eyed peas (cowpeas) on their website, I came up with different data...

I compared both and came up with a GL of 3.5 for black beans and a GL of 3.25 for cowpeas. There are some differences in the nutrition make-up, though. Black beans have more fiber, although they also have more carb, but their net carbs come out exactly the same. These values are based on a 1/4 cup serving (which is what Sears says is a 1-block serving).

Interesting, though, both Mendosa and Nutritiondata get their information from the same database (the table from Sydney).

I also find it interesting that canned beans have a higher GL than boiled beans, but that this difference does not show up on the Food Block Guide. Interesting because I have experienced the difference myself; when I cook my own beans, I usually have better results in the Zone than when I used canned beans.

Barry states in his books that the more something is processed the more insulin it would stimulate insulin. ie canned vs. boiling

I wonder why it isn't more clear on the food block list? I would be willing to bet that most zoners opt for canned beans over preparing their own, not aware that there could be a difference.

Another point that I was thinking about last evening is that the GI/GL numbers are really just relative. What is more important is whether or not a given carb will keep us in the Zone. The GL is a tool, but it is not a guarantee that a given food will keep one in the Zone, regardless of whether the food is labeled favorable or not.

The food block guide is a tool, one of many. The Zone is all about choices. We want to help people in their anti-inflammatory, weight loss pursuit. We don't want to tell people they HAVE to, or there would be little to no compliance. Do what works for you.

Some people are purists and will utilize all orgainc and make everything from scratch, others will open a can, both can be successful.

Dr. Barry Sears is all about education, that's why he writes so many books, more tools. Every body is different and to be successful you do what works for you.

I think we can definitely agree on that!

There is a point where things can get a little dicey, if someone who moderately complies does not have adequate results, then those are the people who need more definitive guidelines. Again, as you said, not "all or none", but just a bit better guidance.

To add my two cents, if a person practices a moderate level of compliance to the Zone diet, or to anything else for that matter, they probably wouldn't be likely to make use of additional guidelines. I've always found the food block lists to be a big help.

Sue, I don't know if my use the of the word "moderate" is an accurate representation of what Techie was describing in that post, but assuming that it is, I believe that no one should be put down or discouraged from trying all or just a part of the Zone. The Zone needs to work in one's life. Like Techie said, some people are purists and will do everthing to the enth degree. Others are going to do whatever they can to make it as convenient as possible. I think most of us (including myself) sit somewhere in between.

<div class='NTForums_Quote'>Posted By Sue K on 09/02/2010 4:57 PM

To add my two cents, if a person practices a moderate level of compliance to the Zone diet, or to anything else for that matter, then they're not taking full advantage of existing information and probably wouldn't be likely to make use of additional guidelines. </div>

I wasn't referring to techie's description as being judgemental or discouraging.

To expand on my point (was trying to get back here and edit my post but my connection is slow today), I wanted to be clear and say that those who "moderately" comply and find that they are running into trouble are generally the ones that come here looking for answers, for clarification. I know that is why I came to the forums years ago...

Yes, there are those who will try "parts" of a diet (not just zone, but any diet), not have results, and then move onto the next fad. But, those who are serious enough to read a book and review material on a website are likely to give the diet a fair shot, and to reach out for guidance when guidelines are not clear.