Talk:Insulin index

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

What this page badly needs is a list of insulin indices of (at least) the main food categories.

Validity of the method... Repost...

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+%22insulin+index%22&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

--124.78.212.48 (talk) 09:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+insulin+index+validity&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

--124.78.212.48 (talk) 09:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--222.64.218.235 (talk) 09:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that glycemic indices/satiety indices are NOT insulin indices. However, I believe that the direct comparison of the various indices is useful to the reader in understanding the caveats of each (glycemic index doesn't determine insulin index, which in turn is poorly correlated with satiety; though it's common to treat them all the same). This is recognized by the scientific community to the extent that the insulin index and glucose (glycemic) index were recorded and reported in the same paper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.186.12.170 (talk) 07:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the event it is decided to break the table into pieces for different articles, I would ask that it at least be stored elsewhere and linked to such that the conglomerate is still available for use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.186.12.170 (talk) 07:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find it problematic that both eggs and beef, for example, have significant glucose scores. It is doubtful that either contain ANY glucose or even anything which is transformed into glucose. This calls into question, at least for me, the methodology of measurement. I would agree that the insulin response may vary from the expected, but the methodological problem remains.

The article is highly interesting, thanks for submitting it, whoever contributed to it most!

Regarding the validity: This is exactly the reason, why the article is interesting. Assuming that the scientists were not too inapt to handle a simple insulin test the explanation for the results is simple Gluconeogenesis, the generation of sugar from protein and other substances by the liver. But I never had an idea how pronounced this effect is! --192.109.190.88 (talk) 11:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Satiety index vs satiety score

Are these two the same thing or are they different? Mixing those two terms is confusing. --B-D (talk) 09:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a scientific reference where I can find the data in the column "satiety score"? I could not find it in the papers by Holt https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7498104 only on a personal homepage of a "medical advocate" http://www.mendosa.com/satiety.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.159.252.233 (talk) 11:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Authority of reference and possible advertisement

I'm posting to bring to attention the first reference (a book by Gabriel Cousins), which may be there as a means of marketing more than to inform wiki readers. As he is a New-Age religious preacher, and one of many people who have discussed the concept of the insulin index, the reference to him is misleading. It promotes him as an expert in nutrition when he has no nutritional expertise to his name, other than being a raw-food and "conscious eating" advocate. For these reasons, can this reference be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.171.164.211 (talk) 08:29, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]