As part of my research on low GI foods good for the Zone, I ran across an excellent website for diabetics (www.mendosa.com). It is chock full of good info that Zonners can appreciate. One post is about how carrots were incorrectly shown to have a very high GI --which has caused them to be listed as unfavorable for many low GI diets, including the Zone. The new testing shows them to be about the same as apple, peach, or orange when cooked, and a lot lower if raw. No reason to avoid eating a moderate amount of these healthy vegetables now. From: http://www.mendosa.com/diabetes_upd...tm#Carrots [quote:2dfab979f0]Eat Your Carrots! For fully 20 years we have had questions about whether to eat carrots or not. The first journal article ever published on the glycemic index indicated that we quickly digest the carbohydrates in carrots. That study that showed the GI of carrots at 92 (where glucose = 100). A later study that got much less attention showed the GI of carrots to be 49... Dr. Jennie Brand-Miller, the lead author of the book, now published in the U.S. as The Glucose Revolution, determined that the first study was fatally flawed... Dr. Brand-Miller wrote Dr. Thomas Wolever, Canada's top GI researcher, with the results of a new study: I have just received the results of 10 foods tested by one of my students. I got her to test carrots and also carrot juice. To ensure we fed exactly a 25 g carbohydrate portion, we had the carbohydrate assayed directly by the University of NSW, Department of Food Science and Technology. [b:2dfab979f0]Anyway, the good news is that the carrots had a GI of 39 ± 7 and the carrot juice 45 ± 4.[/b:2dfab979f0] The carrots were cooked, the juice raw. I think we need to put to rest once and for all the idea that carrots have a high GI...[/quote:2dfab979f0]

Hi Dennis [quote:d5345c73d3="gofish"]As part of my research on low GI foods good for the Zone, I ran across an excellent website for diabetics (www.mendosa.com). It is chock full of good info that Zonners can appreciate. One post is about how carrots were incorrectly shown to have a very high GI --which has caused them to be listed as unfavorable for many low GI diets, including the Zone. The new testing shows them to be about the same as apple, peach, or orange when cooked, and a lot lower if raw. No reason to avoid eating a moderate amount of these healthy vegetables now. From: http://www.mendosa.com/diabetes_upd...tm#Carrots [quote:d5345c73d3]Eat Your Carrots! For fully 20 years we have had questions about whether to eat carrots or not. The first journal article ever published on the glycemic index indicated that we quickly digest the carbohydrates in carrots. That study that showed the GI of carrots at 92 (where glucose = 100). A later study that got much less attention showed the GI of carrots to be 49... Dr. Jennie Brand-Miller, the lead author of the book, now published in the U.S. as The Glucose Revolution, determined that the first study was fatally flawed... Dr. Brand-Miller wrote Dr. Thomas Wolever, Canada's top GI researcher, with the results of a new study: I have just received the results of 10 foods tested by one of my students. I got her to test carrots and also carrot juice. To ensure we fed exactly a 25 g carbohydrate portion, we had the carbohydrate assayed directly by the University of NSW, Department of Food Science and Technology. [b:d5345c73d3]Anyway, the good news is that the carrots had a GI of 39 ± 7 and the carrot juice 45 ± 4.[/b:d5345c73d3] The carrots were cooked, the juice raw. I think we need to put to rest once and for all the idea that carrots have a high GI...[/quote:d5345c73d3][/quote:d5345c73d3] On the matter of CarrotsI would agree with you. They can certainly be included in the zone lifestyle and do not deserve the bad rap they originally got. This does not however validate any other Mendosa claims. Generally Dr. Sears is far more accurate than these people So IMO This site deserves far more respect than the Mendosa one. White Light

Dennis, is this akin to a free cookie??? It's certainly good news for me, cuz I like carrots. It's also a blow for common sense.

[quote:e0b0c1f3eb="Fatboyslim"]Dennis, is this akin to a free cookie???[/quote:e0b0c1f3eb] Actually my "Free Cookie" refers to an advertising campaign by a well known fast food chain. If you order some meal, they will give you a free cookie. It seemed unlikely that the "free cookie" was any more free than the proverbial "Lunch". Something added to the meal that was likely to cause more harm than not having it at all. The more I thought about it, the more I realized it was a Zone type of attitude that can help one stay more healthy. Just because a bad food choice is available at no monetary cost, doesn't make it free of health consequences. Now that I have explained it, I may have to start looking for a new signature quote :lol:

Hi Dennis, [quote:f736aaf8e3="gofish"][quote:f736aaf8e3="Fatboyslim"]Dennis, is this akin to a free cookie???[/quote:f736aaf8e3] Actually my "Free Cookie" refers to an advertising campaign by a well known fast food chain. If you order some meal, they will give you a free cookie. It seemed unlikely that the "free cookie" was any more free than the proverbial "Lunch". Something added to the meal that was likely to cause more harm than not having it at all. The more I thought about it, the more I realized it was a Zone type of attitude that can help one stay more healthy. Just because a bad food choice is available at no monetary cost, doesn't make it free of health consequences. Now that I have explained it, I may have to start looking for a new signature quote :lol:[/quote:f736aaf8e3] mmmmmmmmmmm And all this time, I thought it was about the contaminents in your health grade FO ! White Light

[quote:8c0147d10a="White Light"] mmmmmmmmmmm And all this time, I thought it was about the contaminents in your health grade FO ![/quote:8c0147d10a] WL, Yes, you are right about that. I am picky about using a healthy grade of PGFO (based on Dr. Sears published criteria) that has negligible contamination. I am also picky about good value. There are only a handful of very high quality PGFO brands available. I do not take the highest quality that money can buy, but I do take the best value (95% of the quality at 50% of the cost). BTW, the car I drive is not the most expensive, highest quality I can find. The house I live in is not the highest quality, most expensive I could find. The clothes I wear... The Tomatoes I eat... The computer I am typing on... [b:8c0147d10a]FLAME ON...[/b:8c0147d10a] Start living up to your handle "White Light" and shed light instead of obscuring darkness. Opinion is no substitute for data. When asked to clarify your positions and provide data to back up your claims, you often offer repeated innuendoes, or don't respond at all. Understand that your innuendoes and jabs are not appreciated by most people. Your opinion is suspect and not respected by many posters here. On many sites, you would be branded a "Troll" and sanctioned (that means that the site would be better off without those posts). [b:8c0147d10a]FLAME OFF...[/b:8c0147d10a] However, that could change quickly. You have a lot of good information and your contributions can add a lot of value to this site. Also, there is nothing wrong with stating your opinion, as long as you state it and then move on. Try to remember that if you are responding to a sophisticated topic, the posters are likely engineers or scientists that understand quality of data issues. To gain respect, you need to take a different approach. Take Sue for example. She sometimes takes issue with my positions or the data I and others have. However, she is [b:8c0147d10a]sincere[/b:8c0147d10a] and counters with clear data and her positions. I don't always agree with her, but I respect her. Because of that, and her unselfish time spent here, she is the most valued poster on this site. She has set the standard. Most other posters try to have a similar ethic. So, I implore you again to change your posting style for the better. Ok, now it is your turn to have the last word (as you usually insist on). P.S. If you want to change and call a truce to these personal attacks (which I am happy to do, because they are a silly waste of my time), instead of replying, just delete your last post and email me, and I will delete this post.

Hi Dennis, .[quote:0778fd8c8e] P.S. If you want to change and call a truce to these personal attacks (which I am happy to do, because they are a silly waste of my time), instead of replying, just delete your last post and email me, and I will delete this post.[/quote:0778fd8c8e] I would love a truce as it is in the best interests of this forum. I see no need for you to delete your post. it shows how you feel. That I disagee is obvious. You think I flame things, I think you do. IMO most will see that you instigated yesterdays. Lets BOTH stop and the forum will be a better place for it. White Light Ps, If you follow your oun advice and modify your posting style to that of Sue's. You will find the entire probem will dissappear

[quote:2a0db520e9="White Light"]I would love a truce as it is in the best interests of this forum....If you follow your oun advice and modify your posting style to that of Sue's. You will find the entire probem will dissappear[/quote:2a0db520e9] Thank you for that polite and mature reply. Obivously, my flame stems from other unsatisfactory encounters with you. I just choose this thread to express it, because it was mine and I did not mind mangling it. I accept your criticism, and I will do my best to follow Sue's example also. I don't ever want to deviate from it, unless I feel I must speak out for the good of the forum and more specifically, my topics. I do not enjoy expressing negativity, but I will not shrink from it either. However, I will try to find more positive ways of expressing myself in the future. Peace, Dennis P.S. I hope I never disrupt/mangle a thread topic that you or anyone else initiated. If I do, I hope someone will call me out on it, so I can realize my mistake and fix it.