I hear ya, it is very sad they can't find their own forum....
Originally Posted by KimchiNinja
About the only sensible thing in that article is that the only sensible line in that article was "an expansion of the GI tables and systematic GI value assignment to foods may be needed to improve the validity of GI values derived in such studies, after which GI associations may need reevaluation."
and if that is true then they can't draw the other conclusion that "study shows that digestible carbohydrate intake is not associated with diabetes risk and suggests that diabetes risk with high-GI and -GL diets may be more modest than initial studies suggested. "
Either the GI values or good and can be used or they are not and cant be used.
Plus I love how they say "digestible carbohydrate intake is not associated with diabetes risk" (that is true when we talk about veg) and then they say "diabetes risk with high-GI and -GL diets may be more modest than initial studies suggested. " So what are those high GI foods some new kind of steak imported from mars?
They acknowledged the link with diabetes and high GI and then try and say carbohydrate is not the problem. High GI foods are all high carbohydrate foods.
Eating primal is not a diet, it is a way of life.
Don't forget to play!