Egg Noodles

[crispybacon]

What are egg noodles like as an alternative to rice nutrition wise?

[AdamGH]

here is a gi scale, the lower the better.



from article:

What might seem surprising is that something like a Mars bar doesn’t have a particularly high GI (62) despite all the sugar in it. Even table sugar on its own only has a GI of 61. The reason is that, chemically, table sugar (sucrose, of which there’ll be a lot in the Mars bar too) consists of a molecule of glucose joined to a molecule of fructose. As only half of it’s glucose it doesn’t have the same impact on blood glucose levels as glucose alone.

In addition, some relatively low-GI foods, such as ice cream and chocolate, are loaded with fat and kilojoules. While they may well be delicious, they’re definitely not healthy, definitely not slimming and definitely not good for heart health.

As another example of how hard it is to guess a food’s GI, many breakfast cereals have a high GI value, while pasta, mixed-grain bread, legumes and most fruits have medium to low GI — yet a look at their overall nutritional value tells us most of them are good for us.

On top of this, a food can technically have a high GI, but if it doesn’t contain much carbohydrate in the first place — like some vegetables — it’s not going to have much impact on your blood glucose levels (see Q&A).

The moral of the story is not to look at GI on its own but in the whole context of the food’s nutritional value and what’s a healthy balance of foods. The World Health Organization agrees with this approach.

[AdamGH]

not to hijack but i found his interesting as well. this article was done in 2005 though.



The GI’s an idea that’s been around in the scientific community for more than 20 years. There’s a solid body of research behind its value for people with diabetes. Nevertheless, there’s not yet conclusive evidence for some of the other health benefits that have been claimed to stem from following a low-GI diet. The GI concept is still very much ‘work in progress’ and some health authorities, particularly in the US, are wary of embracing it.

The suggestion that low-GI diets can help us lose weight and keep it off is based on the argument that the faster we digest our food, the sooner we’re hungry again and the more we tend to eat. While this seems plausible, there’s in fact little evidence to support the idea.

Certainly some low-GI foods are very filling and delay the onset of hunger pangs for many hours. But so does potato, and that has a very high GI. Some small studies have found that people eating low-GI diets lose more weight or body fat than those eating high-GI diets with the same kilojoules; but other studies have found no differences.

The evidence is promising but inconclusive in connection with GI and heart disease. It’s been suggested that the high blood glucose and insulin levels that result from eating a high-GI diet may increase the risk of heart disease via insulin resistance, one of a cluster of metabolic abnormalities that make up the so-called metabolic syndrome (or Syndrome X). These abnormalities also include high blood levels of insulin, glucose and triglycerides, low levels of HDL (good) cholesterol and high blood pressure.

Some studies have found a small reduction in heart disease risk in people eating low-GI diets, but others have reported no significant benefits. Until there’s stronger evidence that the GI of foods has an effect on your health, there’s not much point fussing about it in your diet unless you have diabetes.


heres the whole article:
http://www.choice.com.au/viewArticle...lycaemic+Index

[crispybacon]

cool cheers