Poor analytical techniques are used in determining Glycemic Index. The basic assumption that a "50-g carbohydrate portion of a food" , i.e. a portion of food containing 50 g of digestible carbohydrate, can be compared with 50g of glucose is erroneous. As both of these food portions have differing chemical units, the calculation of GI by comparing "areas under curves" does not give a dimensionless GI number. The resultant "GI number" has units "g glucose released from a portion of food containing 50 g of digestible carbohydrate per g glucose". Only food containing pure glucose and/or starch can have a true Glycemic Index. Other carbohydrate foods such as the simple sugars fructose and galactose and the di-saccharides lactose and sucrose need considerable processing by the body before they become glycemic. For example, fructose is partially converted to glucose by the liver. However, the amount converted is dependent on both blood glucose and liver glycogen storage levels. As any excess fructose cannot be stored in the liver, it is converted to fatty acids for subsequent storage as body fat. In this case. not all fructose is converted to blood glucose within the prescribed reference time of say 2 hours.This means that the total grams of digestible fructose overestimates the amount of fructose converted to blood glucose over the reference time. This results in giving false low Glycemic Index values for fructose.
The following passage in the article represents original (and massively incorrect) research and needs to be removed -
"In spite of the common belief that table sugar contributes to the development of diabetes, it has medium (55–69) GI that produces lower blood glucose levels than the equal amount of calories obtained from starch and some other carbohydrates."
This passage attempts to make an original claim about diabetes pathology based on a factually-incorrect ignorance of the specific consequences of fructose consumption on liver insulin sensitivity. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 08:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Low-glycemic index diet → Low Glycemic Diet – This entire page should be re-named "Low Glycemic Diet". The glycemic index is only one (and according to some very well-respected experts in the field) not the best metric for consumer use in measuring glycemic impact. Glycemic load is in many respects better, and other metrics are in development. Since the basic idea of this diet option is to minimize "glycemic impact" (NOT glycemic index of foods) "Low Glycemic Diet" is a more generic and appropriate descriptor of this category of dietary options, as reflected in the updated Open Directory Project (DMOZ). Calderon80 (talk) 18:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Support. If you search Google Scholar you can find alternative names like "low-glycemic diet" and "low-glycemic load diet". Let's not erase completely the old name, let's mention that it was originally based only in the glycemic index and that it was its original name. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - not a proper noun.--ukexpat (talk) 18:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Revised Suggestion (response to Ukexpat): Retitle page to "Low-glycemic diet". This addreses the "proper noun issue, and is consistent with the other such existing nomenclature for Wikipedia page names, including "Low-fat diet"; "Low-carbohydrate diet". It also achieves the primary objectives of the original request - to reflect the fact that the core concept of the diet is "low glycemic", regardless of wheter the metric used is glycemic index, glycemic load, or some other measure of the glycemic impact of various foods. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calderon80 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.