hahabogus wrote:
> Janet Wilder > wrote in news:4867c361$0$5007
> :
>
>> George Shirley wrote:
>>> Phred wrote:
>>>> In article >, "Jean B."
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>> Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>>>>> On Jun 26, 2:45 pm, "Dan Goodman" > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Organic products tend to be made with "dessicated cane syrup" or
>>>>>>> "dehydrated cane syrup" rather than HFCS.
>>>>>> Why the hell can't they just call it "sugar". That's what it is.
>>>>> To me, it seems like a blatant attempt to trick folks into thinking
>>>>> it is somehow better than sugar.
>>>> There's a small sugar mill near the Oz tourist ghetto of Cairns that
>>>> is producing (or about to produce) some new product called "Low GI
>>>> sugar". I'm told it's the result of some recent research (presumably
>>>> now patented that was supported by the mill.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers, Phred.
>>>>
>>> From what I've seen this is supposed to be Low Glycemic Index sugar.
>>> Supposedly that makes it better for diabetics.
>> Not necessarily. To many diabetics, the GI is just a fiction. There is
>> no scientific proof that the GI means anything and there is no science
>> behind how the index numbers are allocated to foods. IMHO, it's just
>> another gimmick made up by some diet guru.
>>
>
> The initial research was all done in a Canadian University not by a diet
> Guru....I believe back in the late 60's early 70's. Read up on it don't
> be taken in by the hype.
>

I participate on several diabetic groups and my DH is a diabetic. He's
tried the GI index and it makes no difference to his blood glucose
levels. Many of the other diabetics on the groups I follow have the same
reaction.

If you follow up on the Canadian university's GI index project, you will
see that it did not have much science behind it. That's why no one
hardly heard of it until the diet industry got a hold of it a few years
ago. JMTCW and YMMV

--
Janet Wilder
Bad spelling. Bad punctuation
Good Friends. Good Life