Paul Saladino· MD
glycemic index and glycemic load have repeatedly failed to be associated with significant health outcomes
The evidence is convergent. Multiple independent sources reach the same conclusion, the underlying mechanism is well-characterized, and even the field's most cautious voices treat it as worth doing.
glycemic index and glycemic load have repeatedly failed to be associated with significant health outcomes
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
It's called the relevance of glycemic index and glycemic load for body weight, diabetes and cardiovascular disease. And what's interesting is that they find that they say it is unlikely that the glycemic index of a food or a diet is linked to disease risk or health outcomes.
thus it is unlikely that the glycemic index of a food or diet is linked to disease risk or health outcomes
the strongest intervention studies typically find little relationship among glycemic index and glycemic response which is their synonym for glycemic load and physiologic measures of disease risk
even for observational studies the relationship between GI and gr and disease outcomes is limited
look at glycemic index right so what you're talking about there is glycemic index how quickly does your blood sugar spike it doesn't predict cardiovascular disease outcomes at all