Direct evidence is thin. The claim is plausible and aligns with adjacent findings, but there isn't yet a body of high-quality work that would let us call it well-supported on its own terms.
whether the glycemic index itself or the glycemic load, which is the total amount of those carbohydrates that are consumed that raise blood sugar levels, whether those are really harmful or not, I've tried to stay out of that argument because I don't think there's really been a compelling amount of evidence either way.
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.
However, it's been difficult to show that glycemic index itself is an important influence on lipoprotein metabolism or, for that matter, heart disease risk. We sort of vilify processed foods, which I think there's a good reason to do, and that spills over into vilifying processed starches, and I don't have any reason to recommend to... I know, I see patients, I certainly tell them to stay away from that stuff because it just adds calories and doesn't have all the nutrients that are contained in a fiber-rich whole grain form. But whether the glycemic index itself or the glycemic load, which is the total amount of those carbohydrates that are consumed that raise blood sugar levels, whether those are really harmful or not, I've tried to stay out of that argument because I don't think there's really been a compelling amount of evidence either way.