Glycemic study

[TSizemore]

Here is a synopsis of a study that was done on the validity of the Glycemic Index. I personally see two problems with this study, but want to see if you guys see them, or others, as well.
I don't have the source, so I can't site it.... Sorry.

This study is the first to definitively identify the GI as the active factor that improved insulin metabolism to provide better fat loss.

"The results of this tightly controlled study by U.S. scientists showed that mammals fed a low-GI diet demonstrated reduced body fat, and reduction in risk factors for diabetes and cardiovascular disease. In this study, the animals (rodents) were fed the same diet with identical nutrients, except for the type of carbohydrate. Both groups were fed a diet containing 70% carbohydrates, but one group was fed high-GI carbohydrates and the other, low-GI carbs. Food portions were controlled to maintain the same average body weight in the two groups. Results showed that the high-GI group had 71% more body fat and 8% less lean body mass than the low-GI group, despite very similar body weights. The fat in the high-GI group was concentrated in the trunk area, a clear indicator of cardiovascular disease. The high-GI group also showed poor insulin metabolism and higher blood fat levels."

Anybody see at least problems here?
Let me know

 

[R2D2]

If food portions were controlled to keep the same body weight, i would think there would have to be differences in fat and protein intakes as well between the two groups?

 

[TSizemore]

If food portions were controlled to keep the same body weight, i would think there would have to be differences in fat and protein intakes as well between the two groups?

R2D2Okay, now there are three problems.

1) 70% carb diet is extreme and not a representative diet for any existing plan that I can even think of!
2) Rats are way to far removed metabolically and anatomically for there to be any kind of correlation.
3) there is no mention of how fats and proteins where controlled for either category.

I believe the GI is partially flawed, not near as flawed as the BMI charts, but flawed nonetheless

 

[Jinko]

I find this study shallow and pedantic. It insists upon itself.

 

[TSizemore]

I find this study shallow and pedantic. It insists upon itself.

JinkoLmao!!!

 

[R2D2]

i didn't realize it was rats! LOL

 

[misterB]

comes down to insulin release, no fat is burned in the presence of insulin and naturally as a fat storage hormone its quite good at its job. it does not say how long it was ran, but no surprise the animals where already near diabetic from a constant strain on the pancreas, see it everyday in young children too

so the opening statement"GI as the active factor that improved insulin metabolism to provide better fat loss." simply means if you didn't have a constant stream of sugar coming in the body would work more efficiently. so that's not to hard to prove .

i dont see ant obvious flaw, but its one short paragraph

{edit, Yeah maybe rats are not a great test subject to correlate to humans, no ape or chimp studies ? }

 

[TSizemore]

No, which would have been more anatomically compatible. But, no animal rights organization would knowingly allow a lab to force such an unhealthy diet regimen on a primate.

Also, the study's goal was to prove low GI foods as more suitable for fat loss over High GI foods. Which is easier to prove, as you stated, but, the extreme surplus doesn't prove their point, since it's an extreme.
It's like saying anabolic steroids is scientifically proven to cause organ failure, and then using a case study of recipients receiving 3gms of Anadrol a week.